All This Tanking Talk Is Sickening!!!

[fansinceGWilson]

And tanking, no matter how you disguise it, requires preparing losing gameplans on Sundays which is not going to happen.

You think Flores would rather be coaching for Tua than coaching for coach of the year? These guys have been bread to win since they were in diapers.

I don't know about that. I would compare it more to a 16 game PS. The goal is more of watching the roster and calling plays/schemes designed to let players show their talents under diverse situations. That is, the goal isn't to lose, but to evaluate talent.

That said, the sickening part is continuous threads on tanking when the 1st real hint won't come til first day of draft.

 

[meatpardle]

You are correct in that many here want to "tank" and don't mince words. For the tankers out there, my position is that I totally disagree with the "tank" concept.

My complaint is with the "word mincers" who say they are not in for tanking when their terminology i.e. "reset" means to tank. This really gets my goat.

For the "it's just a one or two year reset" poster, your trying to sneak through a line of crup and I'm calling you on it because you can't win points in a discussion when you misrepresent your position. Resetting means tanking no matter how you try to disguise it.

No way Jose. There are two distinctly different approaches to this alleged 'tanking'; one that just wants to lose as many games as possible this year and this year only, sees getting the #1 pick and Tua as the only goal and gets angry when we sign a QB that will 'win too many games', the other that buys into the longer-term plan, more interested in the health of the overall team and with no specific 'saviour' in mind and can accept more than one season of losing. This is why different terms are used, there has to be to differentiate between the two attitudes. To suggest that they are the same and that those who believe in the latter are mincing their words and not adopting the term 'tanking' just because they don't want to admit the reality is wrong.

 

[meatpardle]

Suck for Luck 2.. Tank for Tua.

Ask colts fans if they're still upset about their coach intentionally playing his worst qb to lose some games. Find me one fan.

Didn't happen. That's a myth.

The depth chart was Manning/Collins/Painter. Manning was out for the year so Kerry Collins started the first three games. He got injured and put on IR so Curtis Painter was named starter and Dan Orlovsky was signed to back him up. Painter started the next eight games but was benched in three of them for Orlovsky due to poor performance, and was benched for good with five games left and Orlovsky started, getting them their two wins that season in his five games as starter.

That doesn't sound like a team who deliberately and knowingly played their worst QB just lose games, I agree that's a shitty collection of QBs and at some point it was probably seen as a bonus to struggle forward with them, but the way a lot of the 'Tank for Tua' crowd tell it you'd think they had Curtis Painter top of the depth chart all season despite having better options.

 

[Michael Scott]

Well, the Dolphins have done nothing but make me "sick" during the Marino-less portion of my life. I think I can endure one of the "sickest" seasons in franchise history if it means that "sickness" is cured with Tua stepping onto the field in a Dolphins uniform for the next 15 years.

Now I'm not going to be screaming defense when we're on offense or anything, but I preference picking #1 overall in the 2020 draft over the joy of 5-8 meaningless wins.

 

[DPhinz_DPhinz]

Didn't happen. That's a myth.

The depth chart was Manning/Collins/Painter. Manning was out for the year so Kerry Collins started the first three games. He got injured and put on IR so Curtis Painter was named starter and Dan Orlovsky was signed to back him up. Painter started the next eight games but was benched in three of them for Orlovsky due to poor performance, and was benched for good with five games left and Orlovsky started, getting them their two wins that season in his five games as starter.

That doesn't sound like a team who deliberately and knowingly played their worst QB just lose games, the way a lot of the 'Tank for Tua' crowd tell it you'd think they had Curtis Painter top of the depth chart all season despite having better options.

You failed to mention that Collins had:

1. Lost his starting job in '10-'11 to Vince Young (another story altogether) after starting the season 0-6.
2. Retired at the end of that season.
3. Came out of retirement after that terrible season to play for the Colts.

The Colts didn't get the NY Giants Kerry Collins. It was more like the Orlando Magic Patrick Ewing.

 

[meatpardle]

You failed to mention that Collins had:

1. Lost his starting job in '10-'11 to Vince Young (another story altogether) after starting the season 0-6.
2. Retired at the end of that season.
3. Came out of retirement after that terrible season to play for the Colts.

The Colts didn't get the NY Giants Kerry Collins. It was more like the Orlando Magic Patrick Ewing.

Why would I mention that? I said they had a shitty collection of QBs, but the narrative that people like to spin is that it was obvious that they were tanking because they had Curtis Painter at QB, but Painter didn't open the season as starter, only played because Collins got injured and was then repeatedly benched before losing the starting job to Dan Orlovsky. Sure going into the season with Collins as #1 may have been an indication that they weren't taking it too seriously, but if it was just a case of losing as many games on purpose why bother benching Painter? I guess my point is that while some fans see tanking as something easy to do there is always professional pride and a will to win that doesn't fit with the 'just lose all the games to get the best player" narrative.

 

[DPhinz_DPhinz]

Why would I mention that? I said they had a ****ty collection of QBs, but the narrative that people like to spin is that it was obvious that they were tanking because they had Curtis Painter at QB, but Painter didn't open the season as starter, only played because Collins got injured and was then repeatedly benched before losing the starting job to Dan Orlovsky. Sure going into the season with Collins as #1 may have been an indication that they weren't taking it too seriously, but if it was just a case of losing as many games on purpose why bother benching Painter? I guess my point is that while some fans see tanking as something easy to do there is always professional pride and a will to win that doesn't fit with the 'just lose all the games to get the best player" narrative.

Collins record for the last 6 games of his career with the Titans was 0-6...

He lost his job to one of the biggest draft busts in Titans history...

Actually hung up his cleats for good...ala Jay Cutler.

The very fact that they went to Collins who was riding a 6 game losing streak, tells me that they weren't necessarily looking for a winner to replace Manning.

 

[meatpardle]

Collins record for the last 6 games of his career with the Titans was 0-6...

He lost his job to one of the biggest draft busts in Titans history...

Actually hung up his cleats for good...ala Jay Cutler.

The very fact that they went to Collins who was riding a 6 game losing streak, tells me that they weren't necessarily looking for a winner to replace Manning.

Yeah I acknowledge that, even though they only signed Collins in late August when other options would have been limited, but the fact they benched their third-stringer for a guy who went on to get their only victories that year tells me that they weren't necessarily happy with losing every game either.

 

[kangphin]

It was quite obvious that Orlovsky was the better option, yet they wouldnt give him the job. It was clear they wanted to lose. They didnt relent and play him til the top pick was almost definitely going to them

 

[Ray R]

No way Jose. There are two distinctly different approaches to this alleged 'tanking'; one that just wants to lose as many games as possible this year and this year only, sees getting the #1 pick and Tua as the only goal and gets angry when we sign a QB that will 'win too many games', the other that buys into the longer-term plan, more interested in the health of the overall team and with no specific 'saviour' in mind and can accept more than one season of losing. This is why different terms are used, there has to be to differentiate between the two attitudes. To suggest that they are the same and that those who believe in the latter are mincing their words and not adopting the term 'tanking' just because they don't want to admit the reality is wrong.

While I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply, I feel that both approaches have the same general goal of "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

There is a seasonal cycle of replenishment in the NFL. It is composed of the draft, which brings in new players at a lower cost and a Free Agency that allows players to capitalize on their past performance in the NFL and earn more money. This occurs each and every year.

The teams that can use this cycle to keep their teams competitive do the best. Those teams that are sloppy, or careless, or over-reach for players in the draft usually do worse, much worse. When people say they want to tank, or to reset a team, this always means they want a quick major overhaul of players, coaches and usually upper management.

The normal seasonal cycle lets them address the players. This is available weather their team is winning or losing, so the concept of a major reset can only mean changing a lot of players in free agency by hiring new players or trading off old players for more draft picks. No matter what those teams do, they are still functioning within the scope of the seasonal cycle.

When those teams loose some of their more competent players they get worse. When those teams bring in a lot of draftees they are playing "blind mans bluff" in the hope they get enough good players to get better performance on the field. This is what teams do that are consistently bad. It's like selling your blood to promote the support of a drug habit; it is the ineffective methods that teams use in selecting and paying players that get them in their predicament and tanking or resetting is simply a way to throw fuel on the fire. It is almost always self destructive.

The problem that needs to be addressed and is typically ignored, is how to optimize drafting and Free Agency success while keeping the teams payroll situation under reasonable control.

Tanking, or resetting or any other term selected that focuses on wholesale player replacement is always "a dollar short and a day late", while changing the methodology for identifying and keeping talent is seldom addressed.

 

[VBCheeseGrater]

Like so many others said in the thread, on sundays they will be out there trying to win games.

If the rebuilding effort - which does not mean "try to earn low picks by losing" - starts to bear fruit a little earlier than expected then that's a good thing.

 

[Kamelion4291]

There will be no tanking, get over it.

You're speaking of a fan who watched 95 percent of every game Dan Marino played . You know that Grade A+ quarterback we use to have ???

I've watched year after year grade B+ Qb's get to the superbowl through out Dan's career.

If Tua is the A+ grade QB in 2019 draft and we dont get him, I'll be happy with grade A or A- or even B+ . If Quarterback A is Fromm and we build the team up. That team sport thing could work miracles. I'll be just as happy as if we had A+ Tua and a weaker squad.

Having an A+ QB doesn't mean your squad is weaker. They're not mutually exclusive. How many B+ QBs got to the Super Bowl consistently? That's the thing. It isn't just a, "Hey, look! Trent Dilfer is in the Super Bowl!" one-off example. Of course that can happen no matter who the QB is. Flacco got hot for a whole 4 games and won a Super Bowl. Eli Manning has won 2, but can't even consistently make the playoffs. The difference between the A+ QB and the B+ QB is that they're a lot more consistent and the consistency gets you more chances.

Personally, if you're giving me the exact same team either way I'd prefer to have the A+ QB on it rather than the B+ QB, wouldn't you?

And for the "tanking doesn't exist" crowd, stop listening to what the coaches say as they're going to try to win every game. Tanking is purely driven by the GM. If he gives you no ammunition to work with, you aren't going to win no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

 

[tay0365]

They won't be throwing games, they're just not gonna mortgage the future on this coming season, like they've been doing for the last umpteen years. It'll be 1 bad season to get rid of the stench of the 8-8 circlejerk that's been haunting the fins for a quarter century. So freaking worth it.

It's just a temporary reset to get things back in order, that's all. They'll be trying to win ... just not with expensive/older players. And if it lands us a franchise QB ... brilliant.

This I agree with, Miami is re-tooling, cleaning themselves of bad contracts, and/or old players that may not be in their future plans, but to me, that is a totally different scenario, then a team that wants to tank an entire season.

Miami is doing their house cleaning, getting rid of players and bad contracts, then getting cheap but worthwhile FA, but then in the draft, they will go for the best players this year, with the plan of coming out with a potential starting QB this year, then letting chips fall where they may...Whether that means playoffs, #1 pick next year, or yet again a mediocre record.

 

[Phindog]

Having an A+ QB doesn't mean your squad is weaker. They're not mutually exclusive. How many B+ QBs got to the Super Bowl consistently? That's the thing. It isn't just a, "Hey, look! Trent Dilfer is in the Super Bowl!" one-off example. Of course that can happen no matter who the QB is. Flacco got hot for a whole 4 games and won a Super Bowl. Eli Manning has won 2, but can't even consistently make the playoffs. The difference between the A+ QB and the B+ QB is that they're a lot more consistent and the consistency gets you more chances.

Personally, if you're giving me the exact same team either way I'd prefer to have the A+ QB on it rather than the B+ QB, wouldn't you?

And for the "tanking doesn't exist" crowd, stop listening to what the coaches say as they're going to try to win every game. Tanking is purely driven by the GM. If he gives you no ammunition to work with, you aren't going to win no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

You're response is odd, it hurts my brain reading it. I never said they were hand in hand.

Do I really need to break down what I said???

Say Tua is the A+, Herbert is the A and Fromm is the A-. I'll take a A- if I have to complete the rebuild quicker rather than think the A+ is absolutely necessary and make it take longer.

I'll give you the super extreme wack comparison which I really shouldn't have to.

Say Grier pulled a Mike Ditka in 2020 and traded 1st through 7th draft pick to move up to number 1 just to get Tua. The team would have the top prospect QB with a weaker team due to everything they gave up.

Vs drafting Herbert or Fromm and giving little to nothing and fill the other holes we'll surely have next season.

Get it now?

(Cue the next fan chiming in thinking I was serious about that trade)

 

[kangphin]

C'mon, let's be stormchasers yhis year! Bring on the pain.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/16fa0371-17be-4ca8-bfe8-0d44c715715c