Teambuilding and Tanking: Colts Edition

[tikyle]

I wanted to make this thread because it seems some people don't understand the concept of tanking and what the philosophy is.  Also I wanted to make this thread to go over the team building strategy that the Colts have employed over the last 20 or so years.

 

Teambuilding

There are many approaches you can take to teambuilding and how you construct your roster, but the one thing that is a constant no matter the approach is luck.  You need some luck.  You can be a good teambuilder or a poor teambuilder, but in there luck is needed to truly have success.  And the most important luck in football is injury luck.

 

Tanking

Tanking is a strategic approach to teambuilding.  The philosophy behind tanking is to give your team the best chance to acquire top talent by insuring it higher draft picks in the season after you tanked.  Tanking is a method that is normally employed by teams that need rebuilding or teams that lose a superstar to injury and their season goes in a tailspin.

 

Colts

Since the late 90's the Colts have been built around their QB.  In the two seasons since 1997 when the Colts have had the worst record in the NFL they drafted QB's that turned out to be hits in Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck.  In those two picks the approach to build teams around them have been drastically different.  In the 90's Bill Polian started by alternating top picks year to year with offense and defense.  He drafted skill position offensive guys around Manning with top picks (Wayne, Edge, Dallas Clark, Addai, etc) as well as speed oriented defenders (Freeney, Bob Sanders, Marlin Jackson, Mike Doss, etc).  He already had a top caliber WR and LT on the roster but he used his mid round picks to draft various OL who were hit or miss (Diem being the biggest hit).  When our "luck" ran out and Manning had a catastrophic injury the team bottomed out ushering in the 2nd season the Colts had the worst record in the league.

 

In that draft they got Luck, TY Hilton and a pair of TEs.  This was the Ryan Grigson era.  Grigson tried to do his best Bill Polian impression with drafting skills guys around Luck, alternating top offensive and defensive picks and drafting speed guys.  It didn't work out so well.  Grigson's "Dwight Freeney" was Bjorn Werner.  His "Reggie Wayne" was Phillip Dorsett.  Grigson also used those mid round picks on OL but they were all misses.  And the best OL that he did draft early in his tenure (Jack Mewhort) was an unlucky pick because injuries derailed his career.  The one last thing Grigson left us was Ryan Kelly.  It was too late but it was a great pick either way.

 

Usher in the Ballard era and his first draft on the job was all defense.  He snuck in a 5th round RB (Marlon Mack) that is paying dividends but defense was his focus.  This draft as we all know was about the offensive line and defense again.  So far, so good.

 

Conclusion

There is no right or wrong way to do it.  And no matter how you do it, you need a little luck that the picks you make stay healthy at the least and then develop into what you project them to be.  Where tanking works into this is that people get frustrated when they see/hear tanking and assume its a negative thing because the team needs to lose to achieve it.  Well, you don't start tanking until you are well into losing already.  And also tanking is just a strategy into giving you an opportunity to pick higher and have your choice of player.  You actually have to make good choices and then actually have to have luck in those choices staying healthy.  Tanking shouldn't be a thing a team does for an extended period (a la Cleveland Browns).  If employed properly and if the right guys are in the upcoming draft after a tank season you can be the Colts.  It's sports people, none of this is scientific.................

[Crunked]

Injury is the greatest equalizer in this modern NFL. when teams played outdoor most all of the time weather could be an equalizer too.....I remember some epic games as a kid between power house teams and mediocre teams because of weather....but I digress...

 

No matter the approach the best GM's are the ones who have awareness of situation. What is the make up of team I have inherited, and where does it need to improve to achieve "my version" of building?

 

I think talent evaluation and (process of how that talent is quantified) is the biggest undersold element to the sport. We see every year someone win the off season, someone else win the draft, and 99.9% of the time neither of those teams come in to play on the actual season.

 

The other element that is undervalued in this league is coaching, Venturi is Hyperbolic, but he is right when he says, "Coaching matters" Every team has talent, the staff that maximizes it has the advantage.

 

So Luck in injury, Comprehensive awareness in GM'ing. Schematic superiority in coaching, and finally performance on field all culminate in a successful team.

[Trueman]

I'd only tank if my team needed a QB. 

Otherwise, there's really no need to in football.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

It's a non-starter for me until the team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

 

And even then it's not really a good idea unless you're in a Peyton Manning/Andrew Luck situation.  And that's even debatable.  Did the Colts tank to get Manning?  Did the tanking itself lead to a SB, or was it a number of other factors?  I don't know of any examples where a team tanked and it led to a SB...

 

As we've seen this year with the Colts, culture is important.  Finishing games and building a winning culture is more important than moving up a few draft spots.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

43 minutes ago, tikyle said:

Conclusion

There is no right or wrong way to do it.  And no matter how you do it, you need a little luck that the picks you make stay healthy at the least and then develop into what you project them to be.

 

Then there's no point in tanking...

 

You need the higher draft pick to work out to justify tanking, and there's no guarantee the higher draft pick works out.

 

You might as well just continue to try and build a winning culture and hope you get as lucky with a lower draft pick as you would with the higher draft pick...

[SC-Coltsfan]

I don't know if teams tank on purpose or not but I have  never been so mad after a Colts victory than I was after we beat Houston on that Thursday night to temporarily lose our #1 pick. Thank God Minnesota screwed up and beat someone that very next Sunday to give it back to us. If we would have beaten Jax that final Sunday I may have broken something. I"m sure Minnesota would have loved to have Luck

[tikyle]

1 hour ago, Trueman said:

I'd only tank if my team needed a QB. 

Otherwise, there's really no need to in football.

 

There is.  Look at the Colts last season.  Imagine if they tanked by not bothering to trade for Brissett.  They would have had the #1 pick.  They could've traded that pick and gotten even more than what they got for the #3 pick and still taken Nelson in the 1st.  If your team has many holes to fill but you have the QB, a higher pick can be turned into more picks to fill those holes.

 

Oh and no one saw us trading for a QB going into the season but if the Colts hadn't made a move then yes that would have been tanking.  They knew going into the season that what they had at QB was not NFL caliber and if they would have stuck with that and said whatever the outcome we accept, that is tanking.  Tanking is not just "point shaving."

[braveheartcolt]

How do you actually 'tank'? Do you tell players to miss tackles or drop easy catches? Tell the kicker to miss his FG's? Ask the coaches to pull the starters or game plan badly? Do you ask your franchise QB to have a stinker? 

 

What's the strategy behind a good 'tank'?

[RollerColt]

Ah. This thread again. I never heard of the term ‘tanking’ until 2011. 

 

That dead horse isn’t going to beat itself I guess?

[Fluke_33]

Never tank .  

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

53 minutes ago, tikyle said:

If your team has many holes to fill but you have the QB, a higher pick can be turned into more picks to fill those holes.

 

Then why aren't there numerous teams sitting multiple starters at the end of every season to try and secure the #1 pick?

 

I have never seen a team be obvious in using the strategy you're suggesting.

 

I think you live in a draft-centric fantasyland.

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Then why aren't there numerous teams sitting multiple starters at the end of every season to try and secure the #1 pick?

 

I have never seen a team be obvious in using the strategy you're suggesting.

 

I think you live in a draft-centric fantasyland.

 

Because it is frowned upon.  Because most people on message boards and most gas bags on TV villify it.  Because fans actually thinks it admirable that their scrappy 2-7 team fights to the bitter end and wins a few more games of the season even though we all know at 2-7 the chances of playoffs are quite slim.  And those same fans and gas bags would praise you for drafting *insert player here* but guess what, he was taken two picks earlier a pick you could've had but you went 5-11 instead of 3-13.

 

I live in reality.  There is no reason you can give me that would go towards giving, say the Giants, the best chance at getting better than to actively work against them winning games this season.  They actually did tank this season in trading away talent for picks mid season.  They also tanked by sitting Beckham those last few games with a "nagging" injury.  Now did the Giants come out and say "We are takning!" no.  Did the players and coaches quit, no.  Did the Giants put the best product out on the field all 16 games to give them the best chance of winning..........NO.  That's tanking.  But the Giants didn't fully tank.  That would have involved benching Eli.  The Giants couldn't do that to Eli and their fans (half of whom still love him) so they did it half *.  And now they have the #6 pick instead of the #1 or #2 pick.  Which pick gives them the best chance at the best talent?

 

I'm sorry people don't enjoy the process, but you cannot say that it is not a sound strategy.  No strategy is guaranteed to bring success but that is the only strategy that is guaranteed to give you better lottery tickets for the draft.  And we can all agree, you win and build your team in the NFL through the draft.  Free agency is for a piece here or there, but you can't build a team off of it and UDFAs.  That much is a given.

[Creekside]

25 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

I think you live in a draft-centric fantasyland.

 

He actually suggests that the Colts should have begun losing on purpose last year at the beginning of the season...........

 

But the Colts played hard to win every game, and I enjoyed watching them.

[braveheartcolt]

5 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

Because it is frowned upon.  Because most people on message boards and most gas bags on TV villify it.  Because fans actually thinks it admirable that their scrappy 2-7 team fights to the bitter end and wins a few more games of the season even though we all know at 2-7 the chances of playoffs are quite slim.  And those same fans and gas bags would praise you for drafting *insert player here* but guess what, he was taken two picks earlier a pick you could've had but you went 5-11 instead of 3-13.

 

I live in reality.  There is no reason you can give me that would go towards giving, say the Giants, the best chance at getting better than to actively work against them winning games this season.  They actually did tank this season in trading away talent for picks mid season.  They also tanked by sitting Beckham those last few games with a "nagging" injury.  Now did the Giants come out and say "We are takning!" no.  Did the players and coaches quit, no.  Did the Giants put the best product out on the field all 16 games to give them the best chance of winning..........NO.  That's tanking.  But the Giants didn't fully tank.  That would have involved benching Eli.  The Giants couldn't do that to Eli and their fans (half of whom still love him) so they did it half *.  And now they have the #6 pick instead of the #1 or #2 pick.  Which pick gives them the best chance at the best talent?

 

I'm sorry people don't enjoy the process, but you cannot say that it is not a sound strategy.  No strategy is guaranteed to bring success but that is the only strategy that is guaranteed to give you better lottery tickets for the draft.  And we can all agree, you win and build your team in the NFL through the draft.  Free agency is for a piece here or there, but you can't build a team off of it and UDFAs.  That much is a given.

No disrespect, but your 'philosophy' would be better served with you supporting the Patriots. Win at all costs. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, tikyle said:

Because it is frowned upon.  Because most people on message boards and most gas bags on TV villify it.  Because fans actually thinks it admirable that their scrappy 2-7 team fights to the bitter end and wins a few more games of the season even though we all know at 2-7 the chances of playoffs are quite slim.  And those same fans and gas bags would praise you for drafting *insert player here* but guess what, he was taken two picks earlier a pick you could've had but you went 5-11 instead of 3-13.

 

I live in reality.  There is no reason you can give me that would go towards giving, say the Giants, the best chance at getting better than to actively work against them winning games this season.  They actually did tank this season in trading away talent for picks mid season.  They also tanked by sitting Beckham those last few games with a "nagging" injury.  Now did the Giants come out and say "We are takning!" no.  Did the players and coaches quit, no.  Did the Giants put the best product out on the field all 16 games to give them the best chance of winning..........NO.  That's tanking.  But the Giants didn't fully tank.  That would have involved benching Eli.  The Giants couldn't do that to Eli and their fans (half of whom still love him) so they did it half *.  And now they have the #6 pick instead of the #1 or #2 pick.  Which pick gives them the best chance at the best talent?

 

I'm sorry people don't enjoy the process, but you cannot say that it is not a sound strategy.  No strategy is guaranteed to bring success but that is the only strategy that is guaranteed to give you better lottery tickets for the draft.  And we can all agree, you win and build your team in the NFL through the draft.  Free agency is for a piece here or there, but you can't build a team off of it and UDFAs.  That much is a given.

 

I think you're chasing your own tail with these arguments.  You claim tanking is real, yet a team can't make it too obvious, and no team would admit it, therefore nobody can prove you wrong.

 

It's basically a conspiracy theory that nobody can prove either way, like the guy that says the NFL tries to rig games through the refs.

 

You look at everything through the prism of the draft, which is self-defeating.  It's about winning football games.  Period.  Nobody involved in high school or college football would ever think about the benefit of losing a football game.  Only in the NFL can losing a football game be seen as beneficial.  It's insane. 

[tikyle]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

 

He actually suggests that the Colts should have begun losing on purpose last year at the beginning of the season...........

 

But the Colts played hard to win every game, and I enjoyed watching them.

 

Yes.  I am glad you enjoyed watching them but did the Colts gain any advantage by taking that approach last season vs tanking?  Did Chuck still not get fired?  Could they not have gotten more from trading the #1 pick if they had it?

 

I get losing sucks but when there is a method to it and it's not just a never ending cycle then I don't see how it's so bad?

 

2 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

No disrespect, but your 'philosophy' would be better served with you supporting the Patriots. Win at all costs. 

 

None taken, but how so?  Do you equate tanking to cheating?  Because I see no correlation to what I'm suggesting and the Patriots vs being a fan of any team in the NFL or any other sport.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, tikyle said:

I get losing sucks but when there is a method to it and it's not just a never ending cycle then I don't see how it's so bad?

 

Ok, so let's go with your logic.  It would be smart to get the #1 pick if you're not going to win the Super Bowl.  So now we have the #1 pick, and we already have Luck, so we can trade back and get more picks to improve the team even more.

 

Then the following year we expect to win the Super Bowl with our newly loaded team.  But we don't.  We lose in the divisional round to the Pats or Steelers or Ravens, who picked at the end of every round like they do every year.

 

Your plan failed.  Tanking did us no more good than if we had just tried to win every game the last two years because we have to start all over the next season anyway.  Except now we're picking in the late 20s with the other contenders.  So do we tank AGAIN to try and get the #1 pick and do it all over again and hopefully get over the hump this time, or are we now on the same level as the contenders and can just do what they've been doing the whole time anyway?

 

You see how your strategy just leads to a yo-yo effect of losing?  Why not just follow the Pats/Steelers/Ravens example in the first place?  It's what real contenders have been doing all along.

 

[tikyle]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I think you're chasing your own tail with these arguments.  You claim tanking is real, yet a team can't make it too obvious, and no team would admit it, therefore nobody can prove you wrong.

 

It's basically a conspiracy theory that nobody can prove either way, like the guy that says the NFL tries to rig games through the refs.

 

You look at everything through the prism of the draft, which is self-defeating.  It's about winning football games.  Period.  Nobody involved in high school or college football would ever think about the benefit of losing a football game.  Only in the NFL can losing a football game be seen as beneficial.  It's insane. 

 

Well one the Philadelphia 76ers are the only US professional sports team that came out and said they were tanking.  Their GM said to trust the process.  That team lost for like 5 years straight and sports writers and pundits killed the GM until he was eventually fired.  The guys he drafted and the picks he stock piled have them looking like one of the best young teams in the league.  We see where it got them.  Other teams tank but no other team has come out and said it blatantly.  Tanking isn't new.  It's just a new term to describe what's been going on forever in sports leagues with drafts.

 

You don't have drafts in college and HS.  You acquire talent in those leagues by paying kids and by winning and kids wanting to go there.  So no, they would not benefit from it.  But if they did have a draft you best believe they would do it.  They cheat now in those leagues to acquire talent, you think they'd be above losing without cheating to get it?

 

I look at everything in the prism of the draft in professional sports because that is where your team is built.  There's a reason why only one (Kurt Warner) of the last 20 Superbowl MVPs were draft picks by the team that actually won.  And only one of the 19 (Nick Foles) that was on his 2nd stint with that team.  The draft is the life blood of the NFL.  If there was no draft and all players out of college were FAs then tanking wouldn't be a thing.  There would be no reason for it.  But the draft is real, and so is tanking.  Fans dislike it but if you get down to how teams are built and you acknowledge that the draft is the most important aspect of that, then you cannot deny that guaranteeing yourself a better draft pick is not a strategy worth exploring.

[Four2itus]

40 minutes ago, tikyle said:

I live in reality. 

No offense, but I find this statement....incongruous with your premise. 

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, SC-Coltsfan said:

I don't know if teams tank on purpose or not but I have  never been so mad after a Colts victory than I was after we beat Houston on that Thursday night to temporarily lose our #1 pick. Thank God Minnesota screwed up and beat someone that very next Sunday to give it back to us. If we would have beaten Jax that final Sunday I may have broken something. I"m sure Minnesota would have loved to have Luck

 

That's not how it went down. MIN already had two wins before winning their Week 16 game. That TNF game was only IND's 2nd win. And as long as they lost to JAC in Week 17...they were guaranteed that #1 pick due to the SOS tiebreaker over everyone. 

 

MIN didn't have the SOS tiebreaker over STL...so it didn't really matter if they kept losing if STL kept losing...which is what happened. And they did have the SOS tiebreaker over TB (who had 4 wins), so they were basically locked into the #3 pick, regardless of winning or losing their final two games. Talk about meaningless football. 

 

Edit: Just looked at it again...and it appears that CLE could have gotten the #3 pick if MIN won out. Losing that Week 17 game ultimately got them a 4th, 5th and a 7th round pick...because CLE traded up to swap spots with them.

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Your plan failed.  Tanking did us no more good than if we had just tried to win every game the last two years because we have to start all over the next season anyway.  Except now we're picking in the late 20s with the other contenders.  So do we tank AGAIN to try and get the #1 pick and do it all over again and hopefully get over the hump this time, or are we now on the same level as the contenders and can just do what they've been doing the whole time anyway?

 

You see how your strategy just leads to a yo-yo effect of losing?  Why not just follow the Pats/Steelers/Ravens example in the first place?  It's what real contenders have been doing all along.

 

 

Tanking isn't a magic elixir.

 

If we had the #6 pick last draft instead of the #3 and got Nelson but had no trade and either lost Leonard or Braden Smith, you think we would've been as good this season?

 

Did the Texans "fail" by getting Watt and Clowney and Watson?  You keep saying the Pats/Steelers/Ravens but the NFL has 32 teams.  What about doing it the Jets/Lions/Redskins way.  They don't give up either.  They win meaningless end of season games too but they don't have success.  Tanking isn't a yo-yo effect of losing.  It's a planned strategy.  What you do with those picks will determine your success.  Just like I pointed out the Texans I can point out the Jags who got Bortles and Ramsey and Fournette.

 

The Pats/Ravens/Steelers aren't those teams because they try to win every game.  They are those teams because of organizational stability and some luck sprinkled in.  Imagine if the Steelers best defensive player could actually walk normally, do you think they would have been better this season with him?  Imagine if the Colts best offensive player played last season, do you think we would've been better last season with him? 

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

No offense, but I find this statement....incongruous with your premise. 

 

In a world where facts and statistics don't matter................you're probably right.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, tikyle said:

They are those teams because of organizational stability and some luck sprinkled in.

 

So you're saying there's no point for them to tank?  While an organization like the Lions or Jets should tank because their organization isn't as stable?

 

Wouldn't you rather be an organization that doesn't need to tank than an organization that does?

 

Because I think that's where the Colts are now, so this whole argument is moot.  We're going to be picking in the late 20s from now on and still contending every year, so why are we even talking about tanking?

[Four2itus]

7 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

In a world where facts and statistics don't matter................you're probably right.

Facts? Many people on this board use that word. Rarely are they correct. 

 

Here is a fact. If the NFL started to exhibit patterns of tanking, I will never.....ever....watch another game. That, is a true fact. 

[tikyle]

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So you're saying there's no point for them to tank?  While an organization like the Lions or Jets should tank because their organization isn't as stable?

 

Wouldn't you rather be an organization that doesn't need to tank than an organization that does?

 

Because I think that's where the Colts are now, so this whole argument is moot.  We're going to be picking in the late 20s from now on and still contending every year, so why are we even talking about tanking?

 

You don't tank when you're good.  Who ever suggested that?

 

We would all rather be good, but as I said before tanking is for team building.

 

This all started because someone rehashed and old thread and we (myself included) were advocating for the Colts to tank when they were 1-5.  I ate my crow but reiterated that more than like at 1-5 you are not going to make the playoffs.

 

I agree that we will be picking in the 20s (or 30s hopefully) for years to come as long as Luck stays healthy.  It's amazing how the premise of the strategy gets people so infuriated yet when the outcome is favorable they love their new found roster.

 

It's just a strategy people, but you don't go from Jets/Lions/Redskins to Pats/Steelers/Ravens without draft success (and some better front office people making those picks).  Because all six of those teams try to win.  Some just consistently do it better than others.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Then why aren't there numerous teams sitting multiple starters at the end of every season to try and secure the #1 pick?

 

I have never seen a team be obvious in using the strategy you're suggesting.

 

I think you live in a draft-centric fantasyland.

 

To be fair...the Colts were somewhat blatant later into that 2011 season. They permitted Curtis Painter to start 8 games and didn't put in Orlovsky until they were 0-11. No team that wants to win games is starting Curtis Painter for half a season. 

 

Not to change sports, but I do think MLB teams tend to get a bit obvious in their tanking. They will trade established MLB players at the TDL for MiLB prospects...and then bring up other MiLB  prospects to get some ABs in meaningless September games when the rosters are allowed to expand. It's just how the MLB is now.

[stitches]

At the beginning of the year I thought we were tanking  I thought Ballard was setting up the team to heavily favor playing and developing the youth with the added benefit of losing a ton of games and getting nice picks. Oh well... the first part was correct as our rookie class was the one that got the most snaps by considerable margin ahead of any other team. What it turned out I was dead wrong about is - the rookie class was much better than anything we could have gotten from the middling vets we cut. 

 

Overall I do not have much of any philosophical objections to tanking. I think it's a legit strategy that gets unfairly bashed most of the time by people who either don't understand it or purposefully misrepresent it. But I also think, like others have said here, that it has limited usefulness in a sport like football(too many players and too heavy importance of the QB, thus tanking for QB being the only one that probably has clear and undoubted benefits). 

[tikyle]

4 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Facts? Many people on this board use that word. Rarely are they correct. 

 

Here is a fact. If the NFL started to exhibit patterns of tanking, I will never.....ever....watch another game. That, is a true fact. 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000710408/article/hue-jackson-browns-arent-tanking-or-after-no-1-pick

 

I mean, I can say I'm an honest man but if I do so while sneaking into your home and robbing you, will you really believe me?

 

Tanking in the NFL (and sports in general) is like people cheating on their spouse, no one actively comes out and admits it but we all know people do it and there are clear and obvious signs of it even if we don't see them "in the act."

[Four2itus]

4 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000710408/article/hue-jackson-browns-arent-tanking-or-after-no-1-pick

 

I mean, I can say I'm an honest man but if I do so while sneaking into your home and robbing you, will you really believe me?

Thanks for the article.

 

Honestly, it reaffirmed my belief. 

[stitches]

Just now, tikyle said:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000710408/article/hue-jackson-browns-arent-tanking-or-after-no-1-pick

 

I mean, I can say I'm an honest man but if I do so while sneaking into your home and robbing you, will you really believe me?

I agree, the Browns exhibited every possible hallmark of tanking prior to this year - trades for future picks, selling their capspace for picks, stacking the team with youth and not pursuing high end FAs, trading vets for youth/picks, keeping horrible coaches that can't win games, etc.,

 

For all intents and purposes the Browns were tanking. Sashi was doing essentially what Hinkie did. And just like Hinkie he didn't live to reap the rewards of his labor. The Browns are now set up for success with tons of high end talent prospects and even more picks going forward. 

[jvan1973]

If teams tanked,   the coaches and gms on those teams wouldn't be fired.     

[tikyle]

Just now, stitches said:

I agree, the Browns exhibited every possible hallmark of tanking prior to this year - trades for future picks, selling their capspace for picks, stacking the team with youth and not pursuing high end FAs, trading vets for youth/picks, keeping horrible coaches that can't win games, etc.,

 

For all intents and purposes the Browns were tanking. Sashi was doing essentially what Hinkie did. And just like Hinkie he didn't live to reap the rewards of his labor. The Browns are now set up for success with tons of high end talent prospects and even more picks going forward. 

 

Exactly.  And it wasn't pretty.  And I know all those years of futility sucks but guess what, I bet it feels real good to have Baker Mayfield and Garrett and Ward right about now vs not having them and winning 4-7 games those seasons and having inferior talent now for it.  That's what the Jets/Lions/Redskins did.

[throwing BBZ]

58 minutes ago, egg said:

 

He actually suggests that the Colts should have begun losing on purpose last year at the beginning of the season...........

 

But the Colts played hard to win every game, and I enjoyed watching them.

 

 Yet Ballard went into last season with a QB few people thought would lead us to very many wins. And a FA class that was vilified.
 And an owner that publicly warned the next couple years may be tough.
 NE calling to see if we wanted to trade a guy we might of cut for a guy they had no place for came out of the blue and raised our likelyhood of winning very little.

 Ballard and Irsay had a plan to draft high last year. Thank Goodness.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

13 minutes ago, tikyle said:

It's just a strategy people

 

1 minute ago, stitches said:

For all intents and purposes the Browns were tanking. Sashi was doing essentially what Hinkie did. And just like Hinkie he didn't live to reap the rewards of his labor. The Browns are now set up for success with tons of high end talent prospects and even more picks going forward.

 

1 minute ago, tikyle said:

And I know all those years of futility sucks but guess what, I bet it feels real good to have Baker Mayfield and Garrett and Ward right about now vs not having them and winning 4-7 games those seasons and having inferior talent now for it.

 

But it hasn't proven to be effective.  Or if it was effective, the people that enacted the tank weren't around for the benefits, so what was the point?  The only "tanks" I can see as being effective were the Colts getting the #1 picks for Manning and Luck.  But the regimes that "tanked" and picked Manning and Luck weren't around a few years afterward.  And there's only one SB to show for the two tanks, so did they really work?

 

There's no justification for GMs and coaches to tank because they won't be around to reap the rewards.  In the case of the Browns, the owner even changed.  Irsay is literally the only person that you could say benefited from purposefully tanking, and you would have to argue that Irsay was deciding the depth chart and injury reports to make his master plan work.

 

I made a thread about Talent vs Coaching a while back, and my point still stands that coaching is more important.  Tanking only works if you have the coaches to properly utilize the talent, in which case you don't need to tank in the first place if you have the right coaches already.

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If teams tanked,   the coaches and gms on those teams wouldn't be fired.     

That's not true. Things change between the time you hire a GM(supposedly with his plan explained to you) and the time you fire him. Owners get impatient, they underestimate the pressure the team will be put under after two 1-15 and 0-16 seasons for example by both the fans and the media. They become laughing stock for their VIP rich friends... etc. 

 

About coaches - you can tank and have the coach not meet some criteria(for example for developing the youth you are drafting - Hue Jackson was fired because he had no idea what to do with the talent he was given, while Brett Brown not only survived the tanking that the 76ers did because his teams played with good effort and he developed players while the front office was tanking, but he also fortified his position after the tank was done). 

[throwing BBZ]

20 minutes ago, stitches said:

At the beginning of the year I thought we were tanking  I thought Ballard was setting up the team to heavily favor playing and developing the youth with the added benefit of losing a ton of games and getting nice picks. Oh well... the first part was correct as our rookie class was the one that got the most snaps by considerable margin ahead of any other team. What it turned out I was dead wrong about is - the rookie class was much better than anything we could have gotten from the middling vets we cut. 

 

Overall I do not have much of any philosophical objections to tanking. I think it's a legit strategy that gets unfairly bashed most of the time by people who either don't understand it or purposefully misrepresent it. But I also think, like others have said here, that it has limited usefulness in a sport like football(too many players and too heavy importance of the QB, thus tanking for QB being the only one that probably has clear and undoubted benefits). 

 

 Good post. We tanked last year and look what it got us. Thank you Jets.
And another juicy pick coming up that is so valuable. Here we come.

[Creekside]

5 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Yet Ballard went into last season with a QB few people thought would lead us to very many wins. And a FA class that was vilified.
 And an owner that publicly warned the next couple years may be tough.
 NE calling to see if we wanted to trade a guy we might of cut for a guy they had no place for came out of the blue and raised our likelyhood of winning very little.

 Ballard and Irsay had a plan to draft high last year. Thank Goodness.

 

 Ballard and Irsay planned last year to win as many games as they possibly could.

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

28 minutes ago, stitches said:

At the beginning of the year I thought we were tanking  I thought Ballard was setting up the team to heavily favor playing and developing the youth with the added benefit of losing a ton of games and getting nice picks. Oh well... the first part was correct as our rookie class was the one that got the most snaps by considerable margin ahead of any other team. What it turned out I was dead wrong about is - the rookie class was much better than anything we could have gotten from the middling vets we cut. 

 

Overall I do not have much of any philosophical objections to tanking. I think it's a legit strategy that gets unfairly bashed most of the time by people who either don't understand it or purposefully misrepresent it. But I also think, like others have said here, that it has limited usefulness in a sport like football(too many players and too heavy importance of the QB, thus tanking for QB being the only one that probably has clear and undoubted benefits). 

 

 What did Oakland just do? Anytime you see a big roster rebuild that involves a Huge buildup of cap space, that is Tanking. Wake Up Knuckleheads.

[shasta519]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

At the beginning of the year I thought we were tanking  I thought Ballard was setting up the team to heavily favor playing and developing the youth with the added benefit of losing a ton of games and getting nice picks. Oh well... the first part was correct as our rookie class was the one that got the most snaps by considerable margin ahead of any other team. What it turned out I was dead wrong about is - the rookie class was much better than anything we could have gotten from the middling vets we cut. 

 

Overall I do not have much of any philosophical objections to tanking. I think it's a legit strategy that gets unfairly bashed most of the time by people who either don't understand it or purposefully misrepresent it. But I also think, like others have said here, that it has limited usefulness in a sport like football(too many players and too heavy importance of the QB, thus tanking for QB being the only one that probably has clear and undoubted benefits). 

 

Agree. And as Colts fans, none of us should really have any issue with it. It's a strategy ploy that is often circumstantial. And when the situation calls for it...I would hope my team has the savvy to take advantage of that type of situation...like they did in 2011.

 

One example...no way TEN was beating IND in their final game of the 2015 season when they could secure the #1 pick and the bounty of picks that would come with trading it. I can't imagine any competent GM winning that game...and surrendering the bargaining power of the top pick (in a draft with two #1 pick QBs).

 

Last season, I was actually a bit disappointed that IND won their Week 17 game when it looked like the Colts could get the #2 pick. But it was Pagano's last game...and it worked out because this draft class has three top QBs being picked early.

[jvan1973]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's not true. Things change between the time you hire a GM(supposedly with his plan explained to you) and the time you fire him. Owners get impatient, they underestimate the pressure the team will be put under after two 1-15 and 0-16 seasons for example by both the fans and the media. They become laughing stock for their VIP rich friends... etc. 

 

About coaches - you can tank and have the coach not meet some criteria(for example for developing the youth you are drafting - Hue Jackson was fired because he had no idea what to do with the talent he was given, while Brett Brown not only survived the tanking that the 76ers did because his teams played with good effort and he developed players while the front office was tanking, but he also fortified his position after the tank was done). 

You think a GM or coach is going to tank a season when they know they are getting fired at seasons end?  Also,  one of these coaches or GMs would have blown the whistle long ago