lynx
Club Member
The Jets tanked 2 years ago, why not us?
That’s not true, during the mid 90’s through 2001 we made the wildcard 3 times and the second round 4 times.Even those JT/ZT teams got killed if they made the playoffs. Sure they had a little regular season success but the end result was always the same.
5 wins could garner a top 4/5 pick. That should, somehow, get us the QB we target, even if we need to move up a few spots to #2, or so.Suppose we sign someone like Mike Glennon to QB and we win two of our first three games, do they bench him? Suppose Flores is a really good coach (like we hope) and he squeezes 5-6 wins out of a lousy squad?
Just as in the past we have pinned our hopes on too many things going right, this time we may be counting on too many things going wrong...
True, grinding Ricky Williams into a nub never kept him fresh for the playoffs. That defense was built to play in short bursts and stop the pass late, so being behind, keeping the defense on the field most of the game … we just couldn't hold up on either side of the ball. Those teams just didn't have enough quality throughout the roster and Wannstedt just never understood that we shouldn't be playing for the regular season, we needed to build and pace our team for the playoffs.Even those JT/ZT teams got killed if they made the playoffs. Sure they had a little regular season success but the end result was always the same.
I recall the last time we were looking for a QB, it was the 2011 season. We went 0-7 and looked squarely in the lead of the "Suck for Luck" sweepstakes. But we had Matt Moore as QB, and while he's not great, he certainly was better than we needed that season, winning 6 of the last 9 to go 6-10 and drop us to the 8th overall pick. We selected Ryan Tannehill, the 3rd QB drafted that year, with Andrew Luck going to the team that sucked best, RGIII was the consolation prize to the almost-tankers, and we had third choice. Later in that draft the Seahawks drafted an undersized kid who was replaced his senior season and had to transfer to another conference, who as also a big time baseball prospect. Yeah, that guy was Russell Wilson.5 wins could garner a top 4/5 pick. That should, somehow, get us the QB we target, even if we need to move up a few spots to #2, or so.
That brings up an interesting question. How many wins do people want to see, realistically?
The QB position will likely dictate the record. Our D could be quite a bit better next year. Our points/yds allowed can't be worse IMO.
Tanking is rare in the NFL, 'true' tanking is more prevalent in other sports, it's just lazily and sloppily used in the NFL as either an excuse for sucking or for a team who are perceived not to have tried as hard or spent as much as they could to put the best team out (usually when there's a decent QB option/class coming up and the media want a narrative to lean on). "Why are they going into the season with Josh McCown starting? Oh, they must be tanking for X".
The Colts didn't really tank, and the Browns haven't been tanking for three decades - over the last three years they've been working to a plan to make short-term decisions that eschewed instant success in order to stockpile as many draft picks as possible, the other 27 years they were just badly managed, badly coached and drafted badly. And where has the last three years got them? In a position where they have a good core of young skill players on cheap rookie contracts and a lot of cap space. I assume this is what Stephen Ross is aiming towards.
Is it a risk? Yes, because it still relies on the front office drafting and keeping the right players on the right contracts. Will it give us or the Browns a base to succeed as a solid playoff-bound team for the next decade? Who knows, but what we've been doing for the last 15 years hasn't achieved that either.
I agree there is some "luck" involved when going all in on an individual QB. The rest of the team is more about effective scouting. You need to draft well overall, but perhaps more importantly, you can't have huge rds 1-2 disappointments. Almost every top 15 pick should be a day one starter.And a portion of that is luck. The risk is tanking to get the next Bortles The goal is the process. No elite FAs. No expensive contracts. No bottom decile players on the roster
Tom Brady is nearing the end. ...
Instead of actually trying to lose on purpose which tanking implies, it makes a lot more sense to try and use this year's draft to acquire the asset's necessary to get into position in 2020 to get the guy they want.
It's a lot more likely we would trade up to No.1 then actually land the No.1 pick outright next year.
I've said it a few times already, you have 3 potential All-Pro's on your roster in X, LT and Minkah. You'd have to trade Albert Wilson, Jakeem Grant and Kenyan Drake, release Kenny Stills as well because those guys like to score TD's. What if Mike Gesicki bulks up and becomes a threat in year 2, do you keep him off the field?
If you think "tanking" is going to go smoothly, I hate to burst your bubble. The roster isn't as depleted as is needed to execute a tank.
Again, use your 2019 draft capital to put yourself in the position to do whatever you need to in 2020.
We can easily trade down to 28-34 range and acquire an interior OL and a 2020 first.
If Foles goes to Denver, Murray/Haskins go to Jax/NYG......your competing with the Redskins for the top QB in 2020.
I am not convinced the Giants aren't eyeing 2020 as well to get their QB.