PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetically: Would you tank the season for Luck?


descendency
09-15-2011, 09:30 AM
Hypothetically...

Let's say you are a 27ish year old star who is in the last year of your rookie contract and your team is probably going to win 4-5 games this year if you try. If you win 5, you will probably be outside of the top 3-4 and miss out on Luck and maybe even Barkley. Your team needs a franchise QB - no doubt about it. (imagine your QB is Jimmy Clausen or Donovan McNabb ... or worse, Brett Favre) The team has personally reassured you that you will be taken care of and they have a history of keeping their promises.

If someone in the coaching staff or management (like GMs) approached you about it, what would your reaction be? What if they told you that they'd "see your side" with your contract situation right now if you "saw their side", would that change things for you?

Am I the only person that thinks of fellatio when I hear "Suck for Luck"?

cmarq83
09-15-2011, 09:42 AM
No,

I couldn't picture myself going to work everyday with absolutely no purpose if I was a professional football player. You have a limited amount of time to play football, and you can never be sure which day is going to be your last. I would hate to look back on my career and know that I jeopardized the integrity of the game so my team could get an unproven QB. I also think that playing poorly on purpose wouldn't help you in any contract situation. It lowers your value across the league, and gives your own GM the opportunity to lowball you. If I was already making the Vet minimum there probably isn't a sum somebody could offer me that would make me lose my integrity like that.

diabsoule
09-15-2011, 10:03 AM
If I'm the Colts I do.

Jvig43
09-15-2011, 10:22 AM
I said I would but a friend of mine brought up the fact of how difficult would it be to break to all the players on the team that you want them to lose. I don't think that they'd be too thrilled hearing that so Id say no.

Splat
09-15-2011, 10:46 AM
http://www.sportressofblogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/herm.jpg

JHL6719
09-15-2011, 10:52 AM
"Hello"!!! "You PLAY to suck for BRAY"!

BeerBaron
09-15-2011, 11:07 AM
There's just no way an individual athlete is going to to not try as hard as they can.

BUT, I think that if team really wanted to, they could find other ways to tank. Call terrible plays, make challenges that even Lovie Smith would shake his head at, put players with minor injuries on IR, fail to prepare your players as hard as you could, etc...

A decision like that would truly have to come from the top though. The owner would need to ensure the GM that he wouldn't be fired for a bad season, the GM would have to make the same promise to the coach, and so on down the chain of command.

And if the fanbase caught wind of that plan, there would be hell to pay. So you'd have to be really hush hush about it.

stephenson86
09-15-2011, 11:46 AM
No, because Luck could tank it in the NFL.

vidae
09-15-2011, 11:48 AM
Luck isn't a surefire prospect. He's a very good one, but nothing is certain.

Now, if I'm slated to have the number one pick at week 14, maybe I take my foot off the gas a little, but no way would I tank an entire season.

MetSox17
09-15-2011, 11:52 AM
You can't. Not as a player and you're really risking it as a coach or GM. If you're a player and you start playing like **** because you want to better the team in the long run, you're an idiot. Teams switch players like dirty underwear and they couldn't give less of a **** about marginal starters. They'll can a coach one or two years into his contract, even that's a risk. It sucks, but the way contracts are structured in the NFL (massively weighted in favor of the owners), you have to look out for yourself first, yourself second and yourself third. **** everyone else.

BeerBaron
09-15-2011, 11:52 AM
No, because Luck could tank it in the NFL.

He easily could, but so can literally any prospect. Now if you break it down by the ones that seem most likely to succeed, Luck has to be high on your list.

stephenson86
09-15-2011, 11:58 AM
He easily could, but so can literally any prospect. Now if you break it down by the ones that seem most likely to succeed, Luck has to be high on your list.

He is very high on my list of players who will more than likely be a perennial winner/future pro bowler, however he could quite easily come into a BAD situation and have a sub standard career. Palmer is a good example of a VERY solid prospect who's career has been derailed by an unfortunate injury but also a terrible team situation. I just could never justify tanking a season to pick up a player, I would just hope Jones or Barkley fell to me if I needed a QB badly.

Ness
09-15-2011, 12:15 PM
http://www.sportressofblogitude.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/herm.jpg

This. This. This.

Ness
09-15-2011, 12:16 PM
There's just no way an individual athlete is going to to not try as hard as they can.

BUT, I think that if team really wanted to, they could find other ways to tank. Call terrible plays, make challenges that even Lovie Smith would shake his head at, put players with minor injuries on IR, fail to prepare your players as hard as you could, etc...

A decision like that would truly have to come from the top though. The owner would need to ensure the GM that he wouldn't be fired for a bad season, the GM would have to make the same promise to the coach, and so on down the chain of command.

And if the fanbase caught wind of that plan, there would be hell to pay. So you'd have to be really hush hush about it.

That's the thing. Someone would find out because someone wouldn't be okay with doing it. And then the public would find out. Even if you wanted to do it as an owner, it wouldn't be worth the potential backlash you'd receive from the media and fanbase.

BeerBaron
09-15-2011, 12:22 PM
Since it seems like everyone is in agreement that tanking for a full season wouldn't or couldn't happen, what about just a few games?

Let's say you've had an awful year and are 2-12 come week 15. There's one other team that is also 2-12 and if you both finish with the same record, you get the #1 pick. Both teams are in need of a QB and your scouts have told you that Andrew Luck is significantly better than any other QB available.

Would you then be willing to, if not all out tank, at least not try as hard as you otherwise may?

Think about it. This decision could affect your franchise for the next DECADE plus. Are two games at the end of a garbage season worth it?

And remember, your scouts have assured you that Luck, after this season, is head and shoulders better than any other QB prospect you could get with the #2 overall pick.

vidae
09-15-2011, 12:28 PM
Now, if I'm slated to have the number one pick at week 14, maybe I take my foot off the gas a little, but no way would I tank an entire season.

I said that earlier.. and I think I could do that. You're not tanking the entire season and it would ensure the best possible future for your franchise.

In that case I'd do it.

Ness
09-15-2011, 12:31 PM
Since it seems like everyone is in agreement that tanking for a full season wouldn't or couldn't happen, what about just a few games?

Let's say you've had an awful year and are 2-12 come week 15. There's one other team that is also 2-12 and if you both finish with the same record, you get the #1 pick. Both teams are in need of a QB and your scouts have told you that Andrew Luck is significantly better than any other QB available.

Would you then be willing to, if not all out tank, at least not try as hard as you otherwise may?

Think about it. This decision could affect your franchise for the next DECADE plus. Are two games at the end of a garbage season worth it?

And remember, your scouts have assured you that Luck, after this season, is head and shoulders better than any other QB prospect you could get with the #2 overall pick.

And who the one making this decision? The owner? Good luck telling the coaches, who will have to tell the players...whom a lot really couldn't care less...especially those fighting for jobs.

vidae
09-15-2011, 12:31 PM
Lets be honest for a minute.. if you're 2-14, a lot of those fringe guys probably aren't coming back.

BeerBaron
09-15-2011, 12:34 PM
I said that earlier.. and I think I could do that. You're not tanking the entire season and it would ensure the best possible future for your franchise.

In that case I'd do it.

As would I. And even though it's early in the scouting process by the end of the actual NFL season, you will have seen the prospects college career play out and, even if he doesn't hold up as well through pre-draft workouts and interviews, you'll still have the first pick to spend on whoever else you might want in that case.

Winning one of those meaningless games could mean you miss out on that elite prospect which could in turn tank you franchise for a long time after that.

BeerBaron
09-15-2011, 12:36 PM
And who the one making this decision? The owner? Good luck telling the coaches, who will have to tell the players...whom a lot really couldn't care less...especially those fighting for jobs.

Let's say you're the decision making GM and it's still early in your tenure. Let's say you inherited a train wrecked team like Denver was after McD had his way with it. You and your coach are still in your grace period with the owner...

Like I said earlier, it doesn't take much to undercut your own team. Call bad plays, make asinine challenges, sit players with minor injuries...

It's not like you'd have to go to each and every player and say "hey, we're gonna suck this week."

Raiderz4Life
09-15-2011, 01:07 PM
Lets be honest for a minute.. if you're 2-14, a lot of those fringe guys probably aren't coming back.

Gonna agree with BB and Vid as well. If you're in a position to pick no. 1 towards the end of the season. I would try and get the no. 1 pick. If my team is in that position a lot of those guys won't be coming back. Blow the team up and rebuild and what better piece than Luck to start laying down the new foundation.

nepg
09-15-2011, 01:20 PM
Having the first pick is a lot more valuable now with the new CBA. But I still wouldn't tank. Try to win all your games - always.

BeerBaron
09-15-2011, 01:23 PM
Having the first pick is a lot more valuable now with the new CBA. But I still wouldn't tank. Try to win all your games - always.

So even in the 2-12 example, where you've determined there is a huge dropoff between the top prospect and others at at the same position, you'd risk your franchise's next decade on two meaningless games?

Rosebud
09-15-2011, 01:47 PM
I voted no, but that's based on them not blowing me away with the bonus offer on my contract re-negotiation. If they offer me stupid money on a contract extension to suck for one season I'd do it, but I am a greedy SOB who's always wanted to be able to just found my own city out in International waters.

nepg
09-15-2011, 01:57 PM
So even in the 2-12 example, where you've determined there is a huge dropoff between the top prospect and others at at the same position, you'd risk your franchise's next decade on two meaningless games?
Yep, I'm trying to win those games. I don't care about some hypothetical prospect. You worry about who's on your team now and worry about making them better and - most importantly - winning the next game.

bucfan12
09-15-2011, 02:00 PM
No. You don't tank the season to draft a guy who hasn't played a down in the NFL. Sure, Andrew Luck is one hell of a prospect and probably will be a top notch QB in the NFL, but you don't take that gamble by tanking the season.

I don't think Indy is deliberately doing that. They're just not very good without Manning. The team is built around him and his strengths. Without him they're nothing. That's why I see a 1-15 season without him.

Raiderz4Life
09-15-2011, 02:01 PM
Yep, I'm trying to win those games. I don't care about some hypothetical prospect. You worry about who's on your team now and worry about making them better and - most importantly - winning the next game.

If you're 2-12 with 2 games to go....whoever is on your team now....1. sucks and 2. will most likely not be there next season

Babylon
09-15-2011, 02:22 PM
Since it seems like everyone is in agreement that tanking for a full season wouldn't or couldn't happen, what about just a few games?

Let's say you've had an awful year and are 2-12 come week 15. There's one other team that is also 2-12 and if you both finish with the same record, you get the #1 pick. Both teams are in need of a QB and your scouts have told you that Andrew Luck is significantly better than any other QB available.

Would you then be willing to, if not all out tank, at least not try as hard as you otherwise may?

Think about it. This decision could affect your franchise for the next DECADE plus. Are two games at the end of a garbage season worth it?

And remember, your scouts have assured you that Luck, after this season, is head and shoulders better than any other QB prospect you could get with the #2 overall pick.

I think you hit the nail on the head there in implying that the tanking starts much later in the season. If i'm going into week 15 or 16 with a chance at that top pick i'm starting the waterboy at QB or in Seattle's case just going with Tavarus Jackson.

killxswitch
09-15-2011, 02:35 PM
Some of Jim Caldwell's decisions make me wonder if he started tanking for Luck last year.

Raiderz4Life
09-15-2011, 02:44 PM
Some of Jim Caldwell's decisions make me wonder if he started tanking for Luck last year.

lol that's what comes with losing Manning...Jim Caldwell is like "the hell?? I have to....do something??...that wasn't in the job description"

tjsunstein
09-15-2011, 02:52 PM
No. Never. Not even a thought. Tank a season for... a prospect? It isn't the NBA. This isn't LeBron.

Brown Leader
09-15-2011, 11:44 PM
Seattle's already started this.

gpngc
09-16-2011, 07:28 PM
Seattle's already started this.

Tarvaris Jackson is our quarterback.

And I'm all for it. Whitehurst is so much better. I don't care. I want Luck.