Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

I don’t buy the notion that players don’t want to tank..


UpstatePantherfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Think about it this way. You are at your job and you're being filmed at all times from multiple angles. You are earning 6 or 7 figures a year. There are several people watching every second of the footage of you, and they are hyper critical of any mistake you make, or any sign of laziness. Are you going to sit back and take it easy? Only a very small percentage of people would loaf off. Same with players.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the players tank but I do think they take on a me first attitude.  What can be achieved when you're on a terrible team?  Avoid injury, stay employed, try to improve value?  It's hard to expect players to risk their career for a team that's going nowhere.  So yeah, players take plays off, play soft, give less than 100%, in general protect themselves and their future to the extent acceptable.  This might give the appearance of players tanking but it's just human nature.

Countless examples yesterday but the most obvious was Jaycee.  That dude made half a dozen business decisions against Mixon.  

Edited by Newtcase
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wundrbread33 said:

I could see cornerstone players potentially thinking this way, but most guys can’t afford to put shitty tape out there, and NFL rosters are so competitive you have to keep grinding to stay in the league. 
 

So maybe not all, but by and large most players are trying to ball out every Sunday regardless of winning, because their career hangs in the balance. 

Star players are messing up their money too. We're talking possibly millions in their cases. Tape tells a lot, and I don't think that front offices are going to want to pay players that are half-assing out there simply because they're in a less than optimal situation. NFL types except players to be professional at all times, and even if they give you a pass and try to acquire you, they won't be paying you what you're worth.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday wasn't a tank job. That's just a team that's had it's heart ripped out.

Last week was make or break for us. And it broke us. I contend yesterday would have been a lot different if we had won in Atlanta. The swagger and energy of sitting at #1 in the division, reason to fight, reason to play hard, reason to win. Instead we had the ignominy of our heart-breaking loss being followed up by taking sole residence in the basement of the NFC South.

I have a hard time believing the team I watched "play" yesterday was the same team that was on the field the last 2 weeks. No fight. No urgency. Feet for hands. Yesterday I watched a team that looked like they'd lost all reason to hope.

 

DJ, man. I just wish you'd kept your f***ing helmet on.

Anyway. The tank is on. Hooray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

A player who willingly participated in a tank would be cutting his own throat.

The tape is their resume. I know wouldn't risk an extra a few million in my next contract just because I'm on a bad team. Foreman could get a pretty decent next contract from somebody if he can get back to having 100+ yards a game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...