Do you really believe in Tanking mode on?

[varjao]

I'm having a stressful discussion in other forum about tanking, specifically the Colts 2011 season.

I'd like to know your opinion on this subject.

I understand players rely on their individual stats to not get cut, get better contracts, get a name on the market. So it's difficult to imagine a scenario where players do not give their best, intentionally.

I also think that sometimes coaches / front office don't put too much effort on changing things like it seems to be the case on the mentioned Colts 2011 season. So I don't think players tank, maybe the franchise tank and at a certain point of the season players get contaminated by that behavior.

 

[hwc]

We've seen a Pats QB throw a winning TD pass 20 rows up into the stands, when a win would have meant a less favorable playoff matchup. I have no doubt that NFL teams intentionally tank games under some circumstances. In a league where a few plays determine the outcome of games, it's not hard to do.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think it would be hard for paid professionals to intentionally tank a season. Those guys are as competitive as it gets, even with a season out of hand and nope hope for a postseason berth. That said, as a fan, if my team sucked and there was an Andrew Luck or a prodigy at a position available with the first pick in the draft, I would fully support tanking the season. It's hard to believe that you can get an entire roster to buy into that while making it look like they're actually trying in the process, though.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

We've seen a Pats QB throw a winning TD pass 20 rows up into the stands, when a win would have meant a less favorable playoff matchup. I have no doubt that NFL teams intentionally tank games under some circumstances. In a league where a few plays determine the outcome of games, it's not hard to do.

We've seen or we've assumed?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I don't think that the Colts players didn't try to play well, but the evidence would suggest that, at least after they started out 0-7 or so, their team management stopped making a full effort to put the best team out there on the field.

some evidence, and yes all of it is circumstantial

They had cap room but didn't claim otherwise useful players who were waived, despite their #1 spot on the waiver claim list.

They also didn't try hard to sign many unclaimed players, even in positions of need.

The worse that their awful QB Painter played, the more eager they seemed to run him out there, until their #1 draft spot was a lock.

Decent players with small injuries were benched perhaps earlier than they normally would have been and they were also seemingly allowed to come back more slowly or not at all.

Their fans were excited and enthusiastic about this obvious effort, even as it was going on, with Suck for Luck T-shirts, banners, and chants, even in their stadium during games!!

They had a history of not trying all out, as evidenced by giving up on an undefeated season despite the fact that it affected the playoff chances of other teams (and in fact put the Jets into the playoffs)

 

[letekro]

We've seen or we've assumed?

seen. 10 char

 

[primetime]

The problem with tanking a season is that it is not often in a player's best interest. Since a player is paid on the open market based on performance, the individual players have very little incentive to help any given franchise in the long-run. Of course, you can tank an entire season just by running Curtis Painter out there even if the rest of the team is competent.

And yeah, that loss against the Dolphins that year (can't remember which it was, 2006?) was intentional. Cassel - who played the whole game - drove them to a would-be tying touchdown in the last minute, and rather than go for the tying PAT, they went for a 2-point conversion and he winged it into the stands.

 

[RIpats88]

For the NFL, no as probiwl talent is available in the middle of the draft.

For the NBA yes as you need superstars to win and there are only 1-3 available in most drafts if that

 

[primetime]

The fact that so many NBA teams are just awful every year (I know, I'm a lifelong Nets fan) and the lottery system makes tanking much more risky. That said, it's not usually a good idea in the NFL either (because there are only 16 games, so you really would need to tank from the get-go), and was an especially bad idea before there wwas rookie salary slotting.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

seen. 10 char

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Claremonster]

The Colts didn't tank it. Either did the Spurs.

 

[letekro]

I have no idea what this means.

It means--it was obvious the Patriots wanted to lose that game. The 2 point conversion was thrown to Bam Childress. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know, then the fact that the pass was thrown 10 yards over his head should do the trick, or the fact that Bill called for a DROP KICK FG. I mean, really? they were seriously trying to win that game?

 

[Observer]

Tanking is easy, just start a crap QB. Don't need to do anything else.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

We've seen a Pats QB throw a winning TD pass 20 rows up into the stands, when a win would have meant a less favorable playoff matchup. I have no doubt that NFL teams intentionally tank games under some circumstances. In a league where a few plays determine the outcome of games, it's not hard to do.

Only, of course, because the Bengals rolled over and basically told Belichick, "You want the Steelers? They're yours if you want them."

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It means--it was obvious the Patriots wanted to lose that game. The 2 point conversion was thrown to Bam Childress. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know, then the fact that the pass was thrown 10 yards over his head should do the trick, or the fact that Bill called for a DROP KICK FG. I mean, really? they were seriously trying to win that game?

Drop kick XP. And note that he didn't do it until after Vinatieri earned his 100th point of the season.

And yeah, that loss against the Dolphins that year (can't remember which it was, 2006?) was intentional. Cassel - who played the whole game - drove them to a would-be tying touchdown in the last minute, and rather than go for the tying PAT, they went for a 2-point conversion and he winged it into the stands.

2005, and they were down 28–26. If BB had let Vinatieri go for one, bad things would have happened.

 

[TyronePoole]

it's so easy to tank a game/season from the top in the NFL I don't think it matters what the players do. And on top of what's already been said about players being competitive no ownership/GM is going to want intentionally tanking to be a conversation that extends beyond a few select people if it's even openly discussed at all.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

I don't think teams intentionally tank. After watching the Saints destroy the Colts in 2011 and seeing the looks of disappointment on the faces of the players, I truly do not think teams tank purposely.

 

[CelticPatriot]

Yes. Player might want to be competitive and try their best, but if you tell a player that they'll get a franchise QB and a Superbowl shot if they play crap for one year you can bet they'll say yes.

 

[ausbacker]

I do believe in the theory of tanking in professional sport. In the mid 2000's, there was furore over the actions of AFL (Australian Football) teams who were supposedly tanking to improve their draft position. Huge enquiries were put forward to establish these actions were outside the spirit of the game. Naturally, it was never able to be proven but one anonymous coach did come out in the proceeding years with the message that it was incredibly easy to create unfavorable positional match-ups making it easier for your opponents to score.

 

[Ring 6]

We've seen a Pats QB throw a winning TD pass 20 rows up into the stands, when a win would have meant a less favorable playoff matchup. I have no doubt that NFL teams intentionally tank games under some circumstances. In a league where a few plays determine the outcome of games, it's not hard to do.

That is not what happened.