The Anti-tankers…. Never forget!!!!

[Mother Grabber]

1 hour ago, Move the Panthers to Raleigh said:

It’s the same old responses as before. People think “pro-tankers” expect players and coaches to fail on purpose.  We know tanking is done at the FO level. 
 

JR got us Cam by tanking and Tepper tried to tank for Bryce. I guess you can’t understand.

because the players are just plastic pieces, don’t know what’s going on, and can’t tell when an organization has given up on them.

[Gerry Green]

6 hours ago, Ricky Prickles said:

Im an anti tanker but I feel like management possibly tried to sneaky tank last season and it didnt work out. I believe they fired Rhule who they knew was garbage after the first couple games (took long enough) and replaced him with Wilks who they thought would stink it up worse and send us into the depths of the NFL. Turns out Wilks is a thousand times the coach that Rhule ever was or will be in the NFL and it backfired on them. Had they kept our bumbling idiot as head coach we probably would have finished much worse. To top that off with our QB carousel of crap I felt like they knew we struck turd and were ready to be led there by bad coaching and turd QB'ing. The shockers were Darnold looked better with Wilks and Wilks being a good guy got the players motivated. 

I think plans became to tank but management made moves that accidentally made us gel a little better like showing Rhule the door and Wilks making Darnold look much better.

 

You caught me on Wii golf night, so I'm not really set to explain your mistakes. But rest assured, there will be a sharply worded rebuttal headed your way. 

[Ricky Prickles]

3 hours ago, Gerry Green said:

 

You caught me on Wii golf night, so I'm not really set to explain your mistakes. But rest assured, there will be a sharply worded rebuttal headed your way. 

It's just message board talk/theories/banter so take your time and relax, I don't want you suffering any sort of season ending injury on that Wii golf thing. I don't necessarily even believe what I typed fully but just throwing it out for conversation so don't sacrifice your game performance on account of little ole insignificant me.

[MechaZain]

Tanking is not trying to lose it's not trying to win. No one is going to tell players to throw games like it's the 1919 World Series.

The "win at every opportunity" move would have been to keep the best player on the team for the playoff push that year instead of trading him away for picks that Wilks would never see. It's not some organization wide conspiracy but it should be clear that everyone above the head coach had thrown in the towel at that point.  

 

[Ricky Prickles]

1 hour ago, MechaZain said:

Tanking is not trying to lose it's not trying to win. No one is going to tell players to throw games like it's the 1919 World Series.

The "win at every opportunity" move would have been to keep the best player on the team for the playoff push that year instead of trading him away for picks that Wilks would never see. It's not some organization wide conspiracy but it should be clear that everyone above the head coach had thrown in the towel at that point.  

 

This is what my theory is and I agree fully

[Silent Majority]

Yeah, because everything always plays out exactly the same. 

[MechaZain]

Anti-tankers what about resting players? You've clinched home field advantage you still going 100% for the moral victory?

[hepcat]

On 5/6/2023 at 6:32 PM, Mother Grabber said:

tanking is, and always will be stupid 

Yea I'm still buzzing about that late season 2020 win against Washington

[MasterAwesome]

14 hours ago, Varking said:

It worked out for the Eagles and the Jags. Eagles tanked, the Jags have their coach now and went to the playoffs with him. Eagles new coach lead the team to a Super Bowl run. Indy is TBD but they are becoming a poorly run organization that elite QB play can’t cover up anymore. 

I guess I'm just confused about your argument.  Why do we keep roping the Jags into an argument about tanking again?  Because they hired the coach that the tankers fired?  Seems irrelevant to the discussion.  Or if it is relevant, it'd almost be an argument against tanking because you tanking just inadvertently helped improve another competitor.  Now if you want to argue that they tanked for Trevor Lawrence, that'd be different, but I don't recall an egregious tank job that year rather than the Jags just being a genuinely awful team.

Also the way you keep framing it as "it worked out" - is your argument that tanking just didn't ultimately harm the Eagles?  Or that it actually meaningfully contributed to their success today?  I think losing that last game of the season improved their draft position by a few slots, which of course objectively is better.  But I think most everyone would agree that their success is primarily attributed to Jalen Hurts (who they already had drafted before the tank), the coaching staff that developed him (they could have replaced the coaching staff without tanking, teams do that every year), and all the key 2022 offseason acquisitions.

It's also worth noting that the league doesn't agree with your characterization that the Eagles tanked.  They investigated it and they could have penalized the Eagles (including taking draft picks), but they decided against it.  So even the most egregious example of "tanking" you can think of in recent years, is by no means an accepted position.  It was too close of a call where I don't think it's worth it to improve your draft position by 3 slots for even a 10-20% chance that the league is going to dock you one or more draft picks.  I'm sure Goodell and the league are very motivated to crack down on tanking and make an example out of a team.  Just because it ultimately "worked out" for the Eagles, doesn't mean it's a success story that should inspire other teams to do the same.

Speaking of which - yeah I agree that Indy is a poorly run organization.  That being said, I'd generally advocate not emulating the strategies of a poorly run organization.

[top dawg]

12 hours ago, Move the Panthers to Raleigh said:

It’s the same old responses as before. People think “pro-tankers” expect players and coaches to fail on purpose.  We know tanking is done at the FO level. 
 

JR got us Cam by tanking and Tepper tried to tank for Bryce. I guess you can’t understand.

That's B.S. Our FO has never tried to tank. JR was making a statement in regards to the CBA that began before the season even started. He was clearing house for a rebuild. Tepper already told you that he doesn't believe in so-called "tanking." It doesn't even matter because players aren't going to tank, period. They are professionals. The term "any given Sunday" exists for a reason. Moreover, players and coaches will always provide a firewall against the whims of an unscrupulous owner. 

[Varking]

37 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I guess I'm just confused about your argument.  Why do we keep roping the Jags into an argument about tanking again?  Because they hired the coach that the tankers fired?  Seems irrelevant to the discussion.  Or if it is relevant, it'd almost be an argument against tanking because you tanking just inadvertently helped improve another competitor.  Now if you want to argue that they tanked for Trevor Lawrence, that'd be different, but I don't recall an egregious tank job that year rather than the Jags just being a genuinely awful team.

Also the way you keep framing it as "it worked out" - is your argument that tanking just didn't ultimately harm the Eagles?  Or that it actually meaningfully contributed to their success today?  I think losing that last game of the season improved their draft position by a few slots, which of course objectively is better.  But I think most everyone would agree that their success is primarily attributed to Jalen Hurts (who they already had drafted before the tank), the coaching staff that developed him (they could have replaced the coaching staff without tanking, teams do that every year), and all the key 2022 offseason acquisitions.

It's also worth noting that the league doesn't agree with your characterization that the Eagles tanked.  They investigated it and they could have penalized the Eagles (including taking draft picks), but they decided against it.  So even the most egregious example of "tanking" you can think of in recent years, is by no means an accepted position.  It was too close of a call where I don't think it's worth it to improve your draft position by 3 slots for even a 10-20% chance that the league is going to dock you one or more draft picks.  I'm sure Goodell and the league are very motivated to crack down on tanking and make an example out of a team.  Just because it ultimately "worked out" for the Eagles, doesn't mean it's a success story that should inspire other teams to do the same.

Speaking of which - yeah I agree that Indy is a poorly run organization.  That being said, I'd generally advocate not emulating the strategies of a poorly run organization.

The league isn’t going to want to admit that the eagles tanked to end their season. It doesn’t want to admit ANY team ever tanks. I’m not making a stance advocating for tanking. I’m pointing out tanking happens and while it might not have helped the eagles, it doesn’t really hurt them either. They’ve been able to still sign free agents to come in, even Kelce who was furious with the team for tanking that game, stayed with the team. 
 

I don’t want to argue for or against tanking. I just want folks to stop holding their hands over their eyes trying to pretend there hasn’t been forms of tanking in the NFL before, even recently. 

[Varking]

21 minutes ago, top dawg said:

That's B.S. Our FO has never tried to tank. JR was making a statement in regards to the CBA that began before the season even started. He was clearing house for a rebuild. Tepper already told you that he doesn't believe in so-called "tanking." It doesn't even matter because players aren't going to tank, period. They are professionals. The term "any given Sunday" exists for a reason. Moreover, players and coaches will always provide a firewall against the whims of an unscrupulous owner. 

Players won’t tank. Coaches and GMs? Owners? Hard to say. 

[Castavar]

5 minutes ago, Varking said:

Players won’t tank. Coaches and GMs? Owners? Hard to say. 

Doug Pederson and Jim Irsay say hello.

[Cullenator]

The sooner you realize the goal for any owner is not a Lombardi the better off you'll be.

Its Asses In Seats (AIS).

Yeah a Lombardi is nice and all and it can in the short term boost those AIS numbers but its a short term thing unless you can figure out how to build the next Patriots Dynasty.

 

Loosing on purpose.  That's antithetical to those AIS numbers and a damned fine way to scuttle AIS numbers for seasons to come.