Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2019, 04:53:19 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Dolphins Discussion (Moderators: CF DolFan, MaineDolFan)
| | |-+  Per ESPN: Tank for Tua In Effect
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: Per ESPN: Tank for Tua In Effect  (Read 998 times)
masterfins
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3892



« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2019, 01:00:40 pm »

^^^  I think what the Raiders did this year was specifically tanking.  It somewhat backfired because the two teams they traded players to did exceptionally better, and therefore the picks they received in return will not be as valuable as expected.  With this type of plan you have to be very confident that your GM & staff are very good at evaluating draft picks and making the right picks, not just a QB.  For Miami to trade away Howard and or Fitzpatrick they would have to receive 1st round picks plus additional pick(s) in later rounds for each player.  Then to complete the process they would have to draft players as good or better than Howard/Fitzpatrick in a later year, plus hit on the picks they normally have.  The result would be a younger, better, team with lower salaries going forward.  It's a very risky strategy.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 13361


cf_dolfan
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2019, 02:06:22 pm »

^^^  I think what the Raiders did this year was specifically tanking.  It somewhat backfired because the two teams they traded players to did exceptionally better, and therefore the picks they received in return will not be as valuable as expected.  With this type of plan you have to be very confident that your GM & staff are very good at evaluating draft picks and making the right picks, not just a QB.  For Miami to trade away Howard and or Fitzpatrick they would have to receive 1st round picks plus additional pick(s) in later rounds for each player.  Then to complete the process they would have to draft players as good or better than Howard/Fitzpatrick in a later year, plus hit on the picks they normally have.  The result would be a younger, better, team with lower salaries going forward.  It's a very risky strategy.
I don't see what the Raiders did nor what we are doing as tanking. Gruden is building his team the way he wants it and is doing it for future results. He now has 5 first round picks in the next two years.

I think Miami is in a similar boat as far as their philosophy.  If they trade anyone it will be because they think it helps the team down the road and not because it makes them a worse team. Tanking also insinuates the team is telling players to lose so they can pick a player that may replace them .... and that will never happen.
Logged

Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Bill Murray
pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1824



« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2019, 02:21:52 pm »

There's a huge difference between trying to tank and trying to get picks for a player that's not in your long term plans.
No there's not. What if you do it knowing full well that you'll probably tank since you've traded away all your talent. You still intentionally made decisions that led to your team tanking. We're talking semantics here.
Logged

Is someone happy now?  Grin
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11567


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2019, 08:02:34 pm »

The goal of "tanking" is to get a better pick, which means that if management gets rid of their best players and the team has the same record as before, they would be disappointed in the outcome (as getting worse was the goal).

To my knowledge, tanking has never successfully worked (edit: in the sense of the tank-achieved pick leading to long-term success) in NFL history.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 08:42:25 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Dolphster
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1601


« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2019, 08:14:38 pm »

The problem with the concept of "tanking" is that it is conceivable that ownership and upper management would want the team to tank.  However, players know that their careers are based on their performance.  Even if you stock the team with subpar players, those players want to play in the NFL for as long as possible to make as much money as possible.  Therefore, they are going to play to the best of their abilities.  If they aren't good enough to win games, that is one thing.  But the idea of tanking means losing on purpose.  Why would NFL players lose on purpose to accomplish an ownership goal, knowing that they are limiting their own potential to make money?   Ownership may fill the roster with subpar players in order to tank, but players aren't going to "tank".   
Logged
EDGECRUSHER
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 5536



« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2019, 08:50:30 am »

The problem with the concept of "tanking" is that it is conceivable that ownership and upper management would want the team to tank.  However, players know that their careers are based on their performance.  Even if you stock the team with subpar players, those players want to play in the NFL for as long as possible to make as much money as possible.  Therefore, they are going to play to the best of their abilities.  If they aren't good enough to win games, that is one thing.  But the idea of tanking means losing on purpose.  Why would NFL players lose on purpose to accomplish an ownership goal, knowing that they are limiting their own potential to make money?   Ownership may fill the roster with subpar players in order to tank, but players aren't going to "tank".   

Agreed, which is why it is hard to tank with a new head coach. Players are motivated to do their best for the new guy and think it is a fresh start. Tnaking would be best for a lame duck coach.

Unless we trade away anyone who has talent, I "fear" we are looking at a 5 win season and that just won't cut it for a Top 3 pick.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 13361


cf_dolfan
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2019, 01:43:19 pm »


Unless we trade away anyone who has talent, I "fear" we are looking at a 5 win season and that just won't cut it for a Top 3 pick.
We have few stars and since RT is on his way out .... no decent QB.  I don't think it would take too much to see us at the bottom of the list.
 
Logged

Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person - Bill Murray
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11387



« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2019, 01:58:03 pm »

The problem with the concept of "tanking" is that it is conceivable that ownership and upper management would want the team to tank.  However, players know that their careers are based on their performance.  Even if you stock the team with subpar players, those players want to play in the NFL for as long as possible to make as much money as possible.  Therefore, they are going to play to the best of their abilities.  If they aren't good enough to win games, that is one thing.  But the idea of tanking means losing on purpose.  Why would NFL players lose on purpose to accomplish an ownership goal, knowing that they are limiting their own potential to make money?   Ownership may fill the roster with subpar players in order to tank, but players aren't going to "tank".   

But a coach could tank.  Put the wrong personal on the field, call plays with almost no chance of sucess. 

If an owner was to tell a coach I want the first pick in next years draft or your fired anybody could pull that trick off even if you had a playoff caliber team.  The Colts may have tanked for Andrew Luck rather than fight and claw for a 6 to 9 win season.
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
masterfins
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3892



« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2019, 02:16:13 pm »

No there's not. What if you do it knowing full well that you'll probably tank since you've traded away all your talent. You still intentionally made decisions that led to your team tanking. We're talking semantics here.

Agreed.  I think members on this site just have a different definition of tanking.  For me what the Raiders did was tanking, by trading away two of their best players for future draft picks, which greatly reduced their chances of winning games.  By these actions the Raiders players knew that the management didn't care much about winning now, and thereby give less than a 100% effort whether intentionally or not.  The players take their cues from the coaches and management.

 For others on here it doesn't qualify as tanking unless the coach makes an announcement in the locker room before the game and says "Let's go out and lose one for owner!!"
Logged
Dolphster
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1601


« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2019, 10:01:15 pm »

But a coach could tank.  Put the wrong personal on the field, call plays with almost no chance of sucess. 

If an owner was to tell a coach I want the first pick in next years draft or your fired anybody could pull that trick off even if you had a playoff caliber team.  The Colts may have tanked for Andrew Luck rather than fight and claw for a 6 to 9 win season.

I guess a coach could possibly tank.  For one year.  Because after that first year, nobody is going to put their body on the line to play for him and the fans/media will run that coach out of town for losing on purpose and no other team is ever going to hire a coach who lost on purpose.  And any coach who would lose on purpose would be such a incredible scumbag that he would make Saban look like a saint (not a New Orleans one). 
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11567


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2019, 12:20:49 am »

Tell that to 76ers fans, who have a loving memory of their GM whose explicitly stated intention was to have a terrible record and get top picks.  It's just that in the NFL, no one has any confidence that The Process would work (because it never has).

No coach would "lose on purpose."  They would "play younger draftees so the team can evaluate whether they are going to give them a new contract," etc.
Logged

BuccaneerBrad
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 931



Email
« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2019, 09:59:24 am »

Tell that to 76ers fans, who have a loving memory of their GM whose explicitly stated intention was to have a terrible record and get top picks.  It's just that in the NFL, no one has any confidence that The Process would work (because it never has).

No coach would "lose on purpose."  They would "play younger draftees so the team can evaluate whether they are going to give them a new contract," etc.

The difference is, in the NBA, a team who tanks is not guaranteed the first pick.   The team with the worst record can pick no worse than 4th, but that lottery is in effect so they could very well end up getting the 4th pick.   Maybe the NFL should do the same thing. 
Logged

Dolphster
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1601


« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2019, 11:16:39 am »

Tell that to 76ers fans, who have a loving memory of their GM whose explicitly stated intention was to have a terrible record and get top picks.  It's just that in the NFL, no one has any confidence that The Process would work (because it never has).

No coach would "lose on purpose."  They would "play younger draftees so the team can evaluate whether they are going to give them a new contract," etc.

I think it is hard to compare basketball to football though because in basketball, you have 5 starters.  In football, you have 22.  "Tanking" makes a lot more sense in basketball because a top 5 draft pick can improve your team exponentially more than a top 5 draft pick can in football.   In fact, even though I hate the concept of tanking because I believe in integrity, but a good argument can be made for doing it in basketball.

Your comment about a coach phrasing it as playing younger draftees so the team can evaluate them is reasonable. But he would have to not make it terribly obvious.  I guess that is just a tough one for me because having spent two years playing professional sports (a million years ago), the whole concept of tanking just doesn't sit well with me at all.  But I get what you are saying.
Logged
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 11387



« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2019, 12:14:29 pm »

I guess a coach could possibly tank.  For one year.  Because after that first year, nobody is going to put their body on the line to play for him and the fans/media will run that coach out of town for losing on purpose and no other team is ever going to hire a coach who lost on purpose.  And any coach who would lose on purpose would be such a incredible scumbag that he would make Saban look like a saint (not a New Orleans one). 

It actually wouldnít be that hard.  If you are in a situation where you would even consider tanking odds are you are gonna lose most of your games anyway.  The difference between going 5-11 vs going 2-14 can be done in literally 3 badly designed plays.  Going 0-16 would be harder, but I am assuming any team weak enough to consider tanking is going to be up by two scores late in the fourth at most in two games.  Really wouldnít be hard to tank in the NFL and just have it attributed to bad decision making.
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
Seafort
Newbie
*
Posts: 34


Email
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2019, 02:10:09 pm »

Right. It would actually be really, really simple. Much of the narrow delta between winning and losing comes down to the quarterback. Even a very good rookie quarterback can have challenges winning...Peyton Manning had 3 wins his first season. Troy Aikman has 1.

All Miami needs to do is roll with a less highly rated rookie quarterback next year. Basically Luke Falk. Or spend a 7th round draft choice on Malik Rozier, and flipflop between Falk and Rozier in 2019.

Bottom line, 2019 should be about fortifying the offensive line, so that when Miami is in a position to draft their quarterback of the future he is reasonably protected.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines