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!

     

Would this be considered tanking?


jayboogieman
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Toomers said:

I’m talking about ITT. First they failed because they didn’t get 1st pick. Then it was they didn’t get Burrow. Then when informed they didn’t even know who Burrow was, it didn’t matter. Hard to keep up. 
 

   And I never said organizations don’t do it. I gave examples. But it stops at the roster and talent provided. If the HC is trying to win, and the players are as usual, who is trying to”tank” on a weekly basis? And there was no talk of investigating anyone. Did the league investigate the Browns in 2017 when they proudly did it and put a QB out there who would take care of it. 
 

   If Flores wasn’t involved, what happened between week 1 and 5. Did Flores try to lose the first 4 games. Or did a very young team get better? Trying to lose and still winning 5 with a depleted roster is impressive
 

   

I agree with your last sentence.  By that time Ross and his handlers had to remain invisible.

We have no idea what obstacles "the management" put in Flores way weeks 1-4.  They can do a lot of damage, as we have seen by some just out of incompetence (49ers in 2014, for example).  The Dolphins went beyond mere incompetence and into self-sabotage.

I don't think a young team getting better accounts for the magnitude of the first four losses, and then going to some one-score games.  Not that quickly.  That may be where we diverge.  The Dolphins looked worse than the 76 Bucs for those first four games.  The only thing we know for sure happened around that time was scrutiny and an evil eye from the league.

So it's clear to everyone, my contention is and always has been that they wanted the best QB available.  That morphed over the course of the year from Tua to Burrow, largely due to injuries.  Regardless of who they thought they wanted in August or even October (right before Tua's first injury), Burrow would have been their pick if he was on the board. That year, securing that would have required them securing the #1 pick (or at least ahead of Cincinnati, depending on the draft board and trade intentions of teams 2-4).  If you are going to try to lose, the #1 pick probably has to be your goal for safety, but isn't always necessary to get who you want and declare victory.  That year it was. 

Last year, if you "had to have" Pickett, even the bottom half was not necessary.  In fact, changing anything about your roster or offering your coach money to lose was probably not necessary unless you were already a playoff team.

Honestly, the Dolphins that year are the only time I feel confident was actually trying to lose, and I've been watching the NFL since 1969.  Even the 76 Bucs tried to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

I agree with your last sentence.  By that time Ross and his handlers had to remain invisible.

We have no idea what obstacles "the management" put in Flores way weeks 1-4.  They can do a lot of damage, as we have seen by some just out of incompetence (49ers in 2014, for example).  The Dolphins went beyond mere incompetence and into self-sabotage.

I don't think a young team getting better accounts for the magnitude of the first four losses, and then going to some one-score games.  Not that quickly.  That may be where we diverge.  The Dolphins looked worse than the 76 Bucs for those first four games.  The only thing we know for sure happened around that time was scrutiny and an evil eye from the league.

So it's clear to everyone, my contention is and always has been that they wanted the best QB available.  That morphed over the course of the year from Tua to Burrow, largely due to injuries.  Regardless of who they thought they wanted in August or even October (right before Tua's first injury), Burrow would have been their pick if he was on the board. That year, securing that would have required them securing the #1 pick (or at least ahead of Cincinnati, depending on the draft board and trade intentions of teams 2-4).  If you are going to try to lose, the #1 pick probably has to be your goal for safety, but isn't always necessary to get who you want and declare victory.  That year it was. 

Last year, if you "had to have" Pickett, even the bottom half was not necessary.  In fact, changing anything about your roster or offering your coach money to lose was probably not necessary unless you were already a playoff team.

Honestly, the Dolphins that year are the only time I feel confident was actually trying to lose, and I've been watching the NFL since 1969.  Even the 76 Bucs tried to win.

Why would we have no idea what obstacles? Every move is public. They traded Minkah after week one but that was as much to do with way he was being used. He was there for 59-10. Tunsil and Tannehill were before season. Kenyon Drake got traded at deadline. What other moves did they put in his way? 
 

 

  
 

   So a team that went winless tried to win MORE than a team that won 5 games while trying to lose them all. Just because you “feel” that way. And I saw that TB team as well. There was a reason John McKay wanted them “executed”. And how is a team that won 5 games your one and only example of this “trying to lose every week” theory. 
 

    

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

    • Give me Mitchell Evans over T Sanders in this run heavy offense any day of the week. 
    • What's up gents, the OGs remember me, the guy who single-handedly gave the Panthers the greatest uniform in history moniker. Not too long after that I got involved with Pro Football Focus (pre-Collinsworth acquisition) and ended up taking backseat here to preserve some objectivity. But from a distance I noticed a lot. After the end of the Cam era this place devolved into the most un-fun, petty, negative cesspool of whining and bitching that has ever graced the internet. The worst part of it all is that the level of discussion turned into the most ill-informed, hot-take, unnuanced crap, rife with people talking out of their posteriors as if they have any clue about what they are watching. Once you get into the professional side of the sport and actual film rooms, you start to understand there's an absurd number of moving parts to pretty much every snap and the details you are privy to are truly only half the picture. The absolute most important thing I learned from being part of professional level football analysis is that quarterbacking is literally the most intricate and difficult position in all of professional sports, and that the NFL itself is struggling to develop any workable model that allows them to understand what makes one succeed vs what makes one fail. Because of this paradox it has also made the quarterback position itself grossly overvalued from a fan and media standpoint, creating an absurd fixation on the results delivered by a single player who has to rely on the contributions of everyone around them. This also drives the dreaded inflation of QB salaries that inevitably cause even elite teams to lose key talent all to pour cash into the one player supposed to be able to single-handedly elevate the entire team (and defense and special teams and coaching and ownership by some mysterious proxy), yet without those same players even talented teams can wander the wilderness searching for the right guy to take advantage of their talent window. The discussions the last few years around Bryce has personified this insanity, as this board has devolved into some sort of electronic civil war between the hyperbolic Young supporters and the vitriolic Bryce haters. The reality, like practically everything in this world, is somewhere in the middle. He has traits that can absolutely elevate a team with creativity, play recognition, off-arm angle throws, mental toughness, etc. He's also physically limited, with mostly "good-enough" qualities for most situations that a professional quarterback is asked to do, and will never be an overpowering physical force like pre-injury Cam. But "good-enough" physicality represents a large majority of championship-winning quarterbacks, even in the modern era. There's a reason the corpse of Peyton Manning took the chip from elite physical specimen Cam, because the team surrounding him was talented enough to get him there, while we all know Cam was the driving force of that 2015 team. That's no knock on him, that's just how the game of football tends to work: the more complete team usually wins. The summary is this: if this team lives or dies solely on the performance of its quarterback, then it is absolutely a paper tiger even if he plays brilliantly week in and out. There are no superheroes in this sport, there are only conduits that proxy the collective efforts of much of the team around them. And no one alive can tell you how the position is played perfectly, it's all a confluence of circumstance and what unique collection of traits each player brings to the position, which can never be truly recreated season after season, even for the same player on the same team. If this place remains a raging hellscape of idiotic hot takes I will happily remove myself again and do something more productive for yet another decade, but maybe's there hope that we can all get back to the old adage, and keep pounding.
    • Really impressed how the bottom six have looked the past couple games
×
×
  • Create New...