Would you want a 2008 Patriots or a 2011 Colts if Brady went down with an injury?

Sicilian · Apr 21, 2014

Andrew Luck was such a rare case. It was pretty much known for two years that he was going to go #1 when he declared, and was going to be a good, NFL ready QB. 19 times out of 20, there isn't anything that sure coming out of college. If you have a team that can go 11-5, I'll take my chances that they can make some noise in the playoffs over the chance the #1 pick is worth it.

102 Pat · Apr 21, 2014

I still play the "what if" game with the 2008 Patriots, they were really playing well by seasons end and I think they could of make some noise in the playoffs. Still makes me mad watching the Jets/Dolphins game and Favre gifting INT's...

strngplyr · Apr 21, 2014

2008 Patriots. I'd really consider not following a team that looks like they played for the first overall pick until that coaching staff is gone.

That said, I'm not sure they did tank, it benefits nobody but the GM/HC coming in next season because the current ones are on their way out along with half a roster. So it's really hard to tell what happened that season.

2008 was a fun season to watch apart from missing the playoffs, BB built an incredibly competitive team capable of winning 11 games with a mid-low tier/backup quarterback running the show, when the backup QB's favorite position, the running back, also had its depth tested.

2011 Colts were just ....yeah.

strngplyr · Apr 21, 2014

Danger Zone said:
Let's reward those teams on the cusp of success and not reward the teams that suck the most!

This system should ensure that all teams fight their hardest at all times and win as many games as possible.

Anyway, Bill Belichick for his 2008 season doesn't get the respect he deserves.

The system is built to create parity. I support it. The NFL doesnt WANT the best teams to be the best EVERY year. That's how it was in the 70's and 80's and partially the 90's. If you want the best to remain on top every season then you remove the salary cap.

Just because it doesn't work all the time isn't the NFL's fault, owners higher incapable GM's and GM's higher poor scouting teams and coaches.

The draft id laid out the correct way. The reason we've succeeded as long as we have is because of the 199th pick in the 2000 draft and one of the best coaches/GM's in NFL history. Same for the Colts from til 2010 in having Peyton, the Saints since 2006, the Packers since 2008.

The draft is perfectly fine, bad teams just make the wrong pick year in and year out, they shouldn't be penalized by the league for having poor ownership, they suffer enough. You don't want bad teams to stay bad forever, that's stupid.

Unless they're the Jests.

Kontradiction · Apr 21, 2014

102 Pat said:
I still play the "what if" game with the 2008 Patriots, they were really playing well by seasons end and I think they could of make some noise in the playoffs. Still makes me mad watching the Jets/Dolphins game and Favre gifting INT's...

I don't think they would have. That team thrived off of playing the NFC and AFC West that season. When they played the top tier teams like the Steelers, they got beaten pretty thoroughly. They were playing better by season's end but I think they would have been knocked out in the divisional round at the very latest.

TruthSeeker · Apr 21, 2014

Just because the QB goes down doesn't mean the entire team is going to stink. The Colts were definitely an aberration - they built their team around the QB, the team was getting old and they lost a few critical players that year.

I like the point brought up about tanking the 2001 season once Bledsoe went down. Too bad we didn't do that.

MrNathanDrake · Apr 21, 2014

BB's rep and record were still on the line in 08, so he always has some motivation to coach well and make his players play hard

Wilfork#75 · Apr 21, 2014

2008 Patriots and it wasn't even close. The 2011 Colts situation was such a perfect storm that it likely won't happen again for a very long time. It wasn't just a case of Manning going down, the Colts sucking and drafting a new QB, everything had to come together for that scenario to play out. It had to be a career threatening injury for Manning. Luck had to be a once in a generation type prospect to make the Colts move on. And one of the most overlooked aspects, it had to be the right time in Manning's contract to enable to Colts to part ways. If Brady wen't down with a career threatening injury and either he retired or the team cut him it would absolutely cripple our cap. He has so much dead money on our cap (which is great while he is healthy because he plays for a discount) that if something does happen and he is no longer on the team, the acceleration of all his dead cap money would be huge. Tanking makes no sense for this team because in the AFC East we will be competitive even without Tom Brady (we just dominate it with him

)

Danger Zone · Apr 21, 2014

strngplyr said:
The system is built to create parity. I support it. The NFL doesnt WANT the best teams to be the best EVERY year. That's how it was in the 70's and 80's and partially the 90's. If you want the best to remain on top every season then you remove the salary cap.

Just because it doesn't work all the time isn't the NFL's fault, owners higher incapable GM's and GM's higher poor scouting teams and coaches.

The draft id laid out the correct way. The reason we've succeeded as long as we have is because of the 199th pick in the 2000 draft and one of the best coaches/GM's in NFL history. Same for the Colts from til 2010 in having Peyton, the Saints since 2006, the Packers since 2008.

The draft is perfectly fine, bad teams just make the wrong pick year in and year out, they shouldn't be penalized by the league for having poor ownership, they suffer enough. You don't want bad teams to stay bad forever, that's stupid.

Unless they're the Jests.

You state the the NFL doesn't WANT the best teams to be the best EVERY year but my system (for all of the -99% chance it has of being implemented) does not reward the BEST teams.. it rewards the middle of the pack, on the cusp of being good teams. I think it creates more parity than the current system because it bolsters the teams that just need that little extra to be competitive.

Imagine if the teams like the Dolphins and the Jets were picking first in the Draft (a little scary right?). That would create much more competition at the Playoff level than letting the best picks fall to the very worst of teams. The worst teams will still be picking in the low middle part of the of the round.

But anyway, I dont want to derail the thread with Draft hypotheticals. My only real point was that I'm not a fan of rewarding teams for sucking. And this system was an example of one that makes "sucking for Luck" all but impossible.

Tom meets Kaepernick · Apr 22, 2014

Danger Zone said:
You state the the NFL doesn't WANT the best teams to be the best EVERY year but my system (for all of the -99% chance it has of being implemented) does not reward the BEST teams.. it rewards the middle of the pack, on the cusp of being good teams. I think it creates more parity than the current system because it bolsters the teams that just need that little extra to be competitive.

Imagine if the teams like the Dolphins and the Jets were picking first in the Draft (a little scary right?). That would create much more competition at the Playoff level than letting the best picks fall to the very worst of teams. The worst teams will still be picking in the low middle part of the of the round.

But anyway, I dont want to derail the thread with Draft hypotheticals. My only real point was that I'm not a fan of rewarding teams for sucking. And this system was an example of one that makes "sucking for Luck" all but impossible.

So instead of rewarding teams that suck for completely legitimate reasons like the Jaguars or Falcons, let's reward mediocre teams like the Jets and Dolphins? That's some good logic you're using there.

Danger Zone · Apr 22, 2014

Tom meets Kaepernick said:
So instead of rewarding teams that suck for completely legitimate reasons like the Jaguars or Falcons, let's reward mediocre teams like the Jets and Dolphins? That's some good logic you're using there.

I'm not sure what "legitimizes" the Jaguars sucking as an example, but they've straddled the line between sucking and mediocrity for 13 years now without ever making any headway.

The Jaguars would probably do just as well.. excuse me, just as badly under either system to be honest. In those years they eeked out 9 or 10 games, they would have picked very low in the draft order and have been that much better the following year when they could have had a chance of punching through into the Playoffs. In other years, like last year, they would be drafting at roughly the 14th spot instead of the 5th spot. They would need to figure out a way to win a few more games if they really covet that #1 pick.

There is plenty of logic to the idea and even if you choose to ignore that both systems attempt to create parity but do so at different points in their team's relative strength, you can't deny that the above system at the very least prevents teams for "sucking for luck". The non Playoff teams would have to fight it out and "win for Luck".

Just as an example, it would have been the Titans who had the 2011 #1 overall pick. And it would be the Arizona Cardinals with this years #1 instead of the Houston Texans.

I'm at fault for presenting and then defending this idea when it was really just meant to showcase an example of one way to prevent teams from "sucking for luck" -and also to express my distaste for the dynamic that allows teams to potentially do just that.. lose games to get better draft picks.

PatsDeb · Apr 22, 2014

No jinx, no jinx, no jinx! 2008 for me. I hate losing and would find it very frustrating to see the Pats put a debacle on the field. I might even stop watching, and that says a lot for me...

tasmlab · Apr 22, 2014

One little part of 2008 I liked was that in previous years BB had taglines for the team like "do your job", or "in to win", etc., that were somewhat serious and motivational.

I remember after Brady went down it was "Go out and have fun"

(I'm pulling this from memory)

I was never convinced that that the Colts purposefully sucked for luck. I'm not sure how you'd convince a team to do that or expect it to stay a secret. They likely just sucked because of bad luck, bad coaching and never taking backup QB seriously. Maybe some poor morale. IMO.

I don't personally want any purposefully bad seasons. I'll only get to walk this planet for another 40 years or so, if I'm lucky, so I don't have any to waste. Especially since some bad ones may happen anyways.

TriplecHamp · Apr 22, 2014

if you take emotions out of it. I'd take a shot at getting Winston or another top prospect over missing the playoffs for pride. I hate losing but at the end of the day if you aren't making the playoffs I'd rather forgo the **** tease and just take my top 3 draft pick.

BradyFTW! · Apr 22, 2014

I'd only support tanking if the reward was a once-a-generation prospect like Luck. In pretty much any other season, give me the '08 Pats.

supafly · Apr 22, 2014

tasmlab said:
One little part of 2008 I liked was that in previous years BB had taglines for the team like "do your job", or "in to win", etc., that were somewhat serious and motivational.

I remember after Brady went down it was "Go out and have fun"

(I'm pulling this from memory)

I'm not as sure that was the general feeling around the locker room--at least in the context that you're suggesting (or maybe more appropriately, what I'm understanding it to be).

Richard Seymour, for example, was on the record for continuously saying that "there's more than one way to skin a cat," and that they would have to step up and learn how to win from other avenues.

I think that Bill Belichick was extremely proud of how that team stepped up to the plate in 2008 when their star went down. You could be right, but I don't remember it being this sort of laid back approach that you are insinuating from that comment.

mmasterkillah · Apr 22, 2014

I'd certainly be very upset for my buddy TB12.

That said, I'd say proceed to dominate with Ryan "Smash him with a" Mallett. Ry's the next coming of Dan Marino, with potential to win SB's.

TB>Mallett>Rest of league>Geno Smith

JoeSixPat · Apr 22, 2014

I went with "2008" - based on the assumption that whatever injury suffered were not career threatening.

In the case of the 2011 Colts I think given Manning's age and injury, the Colts made the right call to go after Luck, who I felt was as close to a sure thing as possible

If the circumstances were the same here I might go that route - but I think 2008 proves that you win as much as you can, all the time and who knows what could happen?

tasmlab · Apr 23, 2014

Hi Supafly,

I did a quick google search to clarify. It was October 2008, coming up against the Rams. He felt the team wasn't celebrating good plays or getting emotional about doing well. I thought the 'have fun" was out of character for BB.

Here's one of the quotes from BB:

"Several of the players mentioned after the game that you told them to just go out there and have fun. Did you feel like the team was a little tight or not enjoying themselves as much as they should of prior to the Denver game? I don’t know. I think that is something that we usually talk about every year at some point in the year. There are examples this year… Look when you have fun playing football is when you are winning. Those things go hand in hand – making plays, winning games and having fun – that all goes together. It is hard to have a lot of fun when you are not making plays and you are not winning. Maybe you still enjoy the competition of the game and all of that but it’s not as much fun and sometimes it’s harder to generate that energy. I think the combination of making plays, supporting each other and having positive reinforcement coming from a lot more people, not just one or two, is a positive thing for the team and I think they really did it last night. Play making was part of it, probably Monday Night Football and the energy that comes with that is part of it and I think there was a little bit of a conscience effort for everyone to be a little more emotional and enthusiastic. That carried over and that was of course supported by a number of positive plays and big plays that give you something to be enthusiastic about which in the end is what it really comes down to. If you can execute your plays and make positive plays then it is sincere and legitimate emotion and enthusiasm. It is hard to get all emotional about a one yard run when you hand the ball off. But when you break tackles, run over people, gain extra yards, make first downs, get the ball in the end zone, make tackles on the kickoff team inside the 20, turn the ball over on defense and make a couple of hits and hard tackles – all of that stuff goes hand in hand. In the end I think it came down to the players and their execution and their toughness last night. That carried us a long way and they had fun doing it so that’s great."

jmt57 · Apr 23, 2014

Back to the original question, whether or not it is better to tank if your team is hit with major injuries.

Off the top of my head, two of the greatest NFL stories of our generation happened when a club was hit with a seemingly insurmountable injury early on: the 2001 Patriots (Drew Bledsoe) is Exhibit A. beyond that there are the 1999 Rams when Rodney Harrison's season-ending hit on Trent Green in a preseason game put **** Vermeil in tears - and St. Louis rebounded, going on to beat Tennessee to win the Super Bowl with Kurt Warner as their QB.

On the other hand, it seems like every year for the last three seasons the Bears have a very good team that falls apart due to injuries. In retrospect would they have been better off with a season like the Colts had in 2011, rather than going 8-8, 10-6, and 8-8, with no playoff appearances and never picking higher than 19th overall in the draft?

Going beyond a .500 club like the Bears, what about teams with losing records? The Jaguars were 0-8 last year, with Football Outsiders tracking their DVOA weekly, apparently destined to become arguably the worst team in NFL history. Then the Jags won half of their remaining games, and now pick third rather than first. Meanwhile thanks to defeating division rival Houston twice, the Texans - just a year away from being a playoff team - can quickly rebuild with the first overall pick. Would Houston have been better off by being like Chicago, going 8-8, and owning the 14th pick? Would the Bucs have been better off losing one more game, and having the third overall pick rather than the seventh? Would any Tampa Bay fans have cared if they finished 3-13 rather than 4-12?

Without the benefit of hindsight it's tough to say. Many here say a team needs to balance short range and long term plans and goals - Bob Kraft's philosophy when it comes to the Patriots - would tanking on a lost season be part of that logic? Or (insert Herm Edwards voice) do you always play to win the game, regardless of the situation?

Would you want a 2008 Patriots or a 2011 Colts if Brady went down with an injury?

Would you want a 2008 Patriots or a 2011 Colts if Brady went down with an injury?

2008 Patriots (would want them to win)

2011 Colts (would want them to suck for Luck)

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

On my retirement tour.

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Starting QB, won 20 SBs, number is retired

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Goodell sucks

Eff you, Shula

On the Game Day Roster

Pro Bowl Player

Starting QB, won 20 SBs, number is retired

Moderator

Similar threads