Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Tanking the season? Here's the solution


Hitman21ST

Recommended Posts

It's only week four, and fans (for once, not the Skins anymore) are talking about tanking the season to win the Luck Sweepstakes.

I've had this idea for a while, just never really came around to putting it down on paper. For the life of me I still can't find any holes in it. Not saying there aren't, I just can't find any.

Re-seed the draft.

Not completely, though. Playoff teams are still seeded the same (Super Bowl winner picks last, then the loser, then the Conference losers, and so on). However, once you get past the playoff teams, the next best team picks first. The team with the worst record picks right before the playoff teams.

Just for argument's sake, we'll go with last year's draft. The Bucs, having the best record but not making the playoffs, gets the first pick. They're not picking Cam Newton. They'd go with one of the DL or LBs. This still leaves the opportunity open for trades, but it eliminates any possibility of tanking the season.

It would also mean that Luck isn't the hands-down #1 pick this year. Let's just say, hypothetically, the Giants or Bears get the #1 pick. With Eli, it's doubtful they would pick Luck. Eli and Cutler are both still in their prime, and both still have plenty left in the tank. Teams could still trade up to grab Luck. But the teams that have come the closest to the playoffs get the pick of the litter to help them get over the hump.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the current system for 2 reasons.

1) If it aint broke...the competetive balance in the league is better than any other major sport.

2) For teams that are truly horrible (the Panthers from last year), at least their fan base has a big name coming out of college to pin their hopes on. Look what Newton has done for them in one off season.

I do like your idea in the fact it could provide some late season drama and interest for teams not going to the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that makes the NFL the top league in the nation is that it has such ridiculous parity. The 1997 Colts were absolutely disgusting. One draft turns them around and makes them a force to be reckoned with. If they didn't get Manning and instead picked 21st overall, then they're stuck at the bottom forever.

Your seeding would ensure that the 15+ best records get the best players and we'd have a rotation of half of the league competing with the other half doing nothing. There'd be no possibility of the Lions and Bills doing what they're doing right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The agents would never sign off on this. If Andrew Luck wasn't the number one pick (assuming he's healthy) he'd be missing out on his pay day. This would encourage trades and such, which would further hinder a team in the basement from getting out.

This is another reason I hated the idea of only getting 4 years with a top draft pick. If he sits on the bench for two, you have to re-up him based on 2 years of performance. This will also allow a guy like Orakpo to leave next season, if he wasn't happy with his situation here in Washington.

It won't allow bottom-dweller teams the opportunity to get out and correctly build a franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like that Idea Hitman! And I actually think, that the colts are purposefully holding out Manning so they can get Luck to groom behind Manning (Not saying the Coach is in on it, Just the Front Office). So for a team like that, I would totally agree that this would make sense to prevent that.

I think that's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but even if true, the bulk of the bad teams, who would all benefit from getting better players, are just bad. Taking them out of the sweepstakes and giving them worse players, while giving Megatron to Tampa, screws them over permanently. We'd be without a left tackle, Sean Taylor, and LaRon Landry and stuck with Stephon Heyer, Reed Doughty, and Arch Deluxe. Think about that for a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that makes the NFL the top league in the nation is that it has such ridiculous parity. The 1997 Colts were absolutely disgusting. One draft turns them around and makes them a force to be reckoned with. If they didn't get Manning and instead picked 21st overall, then they're stuck at the bottom forever.

Your seeding would ensure that the 15+ best records get the best players and we'd have a rotation of half of the league competing with the other half doing nothing. There'd be no possibility of the Lions and Bills doing what they're doing right now.

Granted, there are those drafts occasionally, but in most drafts, the talent level across the board for the first round is about equal, and you have the random good players who fall inexplicably (Orakpo). It also puts more emphasis on the later rounds, too. Look at the Bills. They're competing with a bunch of lower round guys and UDFAs. The talent level eventually evens itself out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think a team trying to re-build, like Carolina, should have to trade a majority of there draft picks for sucking, in order to get the QB they want?

How will they ever rebuild? I think this idea makes no sense, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not needed. Bad teams should get first crack at the top picks. A lottery system was put in place for basketball because the impact of one top flight guy is HUGE and the predictability of top prospects is also fairly high, particularly among the real "can't miss" guys. Cleveland tanked for LeBron James, and James turned them into the best team in the conference despite a lack of other good players.

The same cannot be said for football. While having a good quarterback goes a long way towards having a good franchise, finding said quarterback is not easy. Many top picks have failed, including #1 overalls like JaMarcus Rusell, Alex Smith, and David Carr. And many franchise QBs, while highly drafted, did not go in the top 10 picks. I don't think there's any real tanking for Luck. Remember, he could have come out last year. Were teams actively talking about tanking last year? It was only when Luck decided to stay another year that the "tanking" got a lot of play. Also note that Luck could return to college yet again for 2012 as he'll have another year of eligibility. And also note that Luck is an extreme anamoly.

The worst teams should have a crack at the best prospects, and changing that would hurt the league, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like that Idea Hitman! And I actually think, that the colts are purposefully holding out Manning so they can get Luck to groom behind Manning (Not saying the Coach is in on it, Just the Front Office). So for a team like that, I would totally agree that this would make sense to prevent that.

You gotta be kidding me. The front office is losing the team a lot of money by doing this, under your theory. No one will be showing up for games in about 2 more weeks.

There is no wayyy they are holding Manning out to get luck. Ridiculous in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think a team trying to re-build, like Carolina, should have to trade a majority of there draft picks for sucking, in order to get the QB they want?

How will they ever rebuild? I think this idea makes no sense, personally.

It's taken some time, but the Bills did it, with low-round guys and UDFAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont really like it. The bad teams will almost never get better. And if the Bucs did get the first pick then what? The worst team in the league will have to trade their entire draft to get a QB they need? I like the way it is now. I dont think teams tank it at the end of the season. Its the fans talking. Do u think the guys on the field would be willing to play like crap and look like crap just to get a QB or whoever the 1s pick is looking to be? I dont think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's taken some time, but the Bills did it, with low-round guys and UDFAs.

One team, who by the way had a lot of top picks in the last few drafts and missed on most, got lucky at a few key positions. That is one example, but you cannot name many other teams like them.

Edit: They also would have those low round draft picks, because they would have to trade them to move up and get top players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all no one tanks the season! Football takes so much planning, preparation, & dedication for teams to just go out and lay down. Second, the turnaround in the NFL is crazy. (Example the Bills)

I think it's a bad idea. Teams would build a strategy around this system. If I was a GM and didn't need a QB I would draft Luck or Cam anyway and use them for trade bait. Forcing teams to give up two or three picks. In that system weaker teams would not be able to build. In this system team like the Lions would never formed. Its so many different angles. The system now is perfect, why do you think the NFL Draft is so popular. It give sorry teams & their fans hope for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, there are those drafts occasionally, but in most drafts, the talent level across the board for the first round is about equal, and you have the random good players who fall inexplicably (Orakpo). It also puts more emphasis on the later rounds, too.

I don't think that it's ever equal across the board, especially if a team needs a quarterback.

Mainly for us, but other teams, too, expecting that they take the same position:

2000 - Chris McIntosh = Chris Samuels?

2001 - Bad WR year, but for Atlanta, there's not even another quarterback in that draft worth mentioning, and none in the first round. And Tomilinson versus Bennett?

2002 - Bad QB year, but Peppers versus Charles Grant?

2003 - No first round for us (Jesus, Spurrier, what a cluster ****!), but Andre Johnson versus Bryant Johnson?

2004 - Sean Taylor versus no other safety. Larry Fitzgerald versus Michael Jenkins. One of "those years" that you spoke of for QB, though, so you got that one.

2005 - What a ****ty first round. But this gives Rodgers to the Packers, and they're nothing without him.

2006 - No first for us, thanks Jason. Mario Williams versus Wimbley. This year works for you, mostly.

2007 - Landry versus Reggie Nelson. Megatron versus Meachem. Adrian Peterson versus nobody.

2008 - Traded down for us. Matt Ryan versus Flacco, you win there. Jake Long versus Jeff Otah. Darren McFadden versus Jonathon Stewart/Felix Jones.

2009 - Stafford versus Freeman, I'll give to Stafford. Raji versus no other NT, and this is when 3-4 starts taking over. Orakpo probably isn't there for us.

2010 - Suh versus Alualu/Dan Williams/Jared Oldrick. Eric Berry versus nobody. Trent Williams versus Bulaga.

2011 - Newton versus Gabbert/Ponder. Green/Jones versus Baldwin. You win on Kerrigan.

All of those teams are effed and never back in contention if they don't get those players, and that's just first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding me. The front office is losing the team a lot of money by doing this, under your theory. No one will be showing up for games in about 2 more weeks.

There is no wayyy they are holding Manning out to get luck. Ridiculous in my mind.

No, just my opinion. And how are they losing money? Did the Redskins lose money by being so bad for over a decade? Not really all that much since they manage to sell out games. Is it a conspiracy theory? Sure, but just an opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, just my opinion. And how are they losing money? Did the Redskins lose money by being so bad for over a decade? Not really all that much since they manage to sell out games. Is it a conspiracy theory? Sure, but just an opinion.

They are losing money because in 2 weeks the stadium will be empty.

Us Skins fans have issues. Skins to us are a drug that we cannot shake.

I hope you are not comparing Skins fans to Colts fan. There is a bigggggggg difference.

We sold out games with Tony Banks as our starting QB. We are addicted to this drug.

Edit: I respect your opinion and you are a good poster who I enjoy reading. But, this may be the first time I reallly disagree with you. But see, the drug has taken over you. We think we may be that team who finishes 9-7 and misses the playoffs. We want that #1 pick, which is why today this idea sounds great. But if you remove yourself a day from the drug, you probably realize this idea makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that it's ever equal across the board, especially if a team needs a quarterback.

Mainly for us, but other teams, too, expecting that they take the same position:

2000 - Chris McIntosh = Chris Samuels?

2001 - Bad WR year, but for Atlanta, there's not even another quarterback in that draft worth mentioning, and none in the first round. And Tomilinson versus Bennett?

2002 - Bad QB year, but Peppers versus Charles Grant?

2003 - No first round for us (Jesus, Spurrier, what a cluster ****!), but Andre Johnson versus Bryant Johnson?

2004 - Sean Taylor versus no other safety. Larry Fitzgerald versus Michael Jenkins. One of "those years" that you spoke of for QB, though, so you got that one.

2005 - What a ****ty first round. But this gives Rodgers to the Packers, and they're nothing without him.

2006 - No first for us, thanks Jason. Mario Williams versus Wimbley. This year works for you, mostly.

2007 - Landry versus Reggie Nelson. Megatron versus Meachem. Adrian Peterson versus nobody.

2008 - Traded down for us. Matt Ryan versus Flacco, you win there. Jake Long versus Jeff Otah. Darren McFadden versus Jonathon Stewart/Felix Jones.

2009 - Stafford versus Freeman, I'll give to Stafford. Raji versus no other NT, and this is when 3-4 starts taking over. Orakpo probably isn't there for us.

2010 - Suh versus Alualu/Dan Williams/Jared Oldrick. Eric Berry versus nobody. Trent Williams versus Bulaga.

2011 - Newton versus Gabbert/Ponder. Green/Jones versus Baldwin. You win on Kerrigan.

All of those teams are effed and never back in contention if they don't get those players, and that's just first round.

You have a point, but not every team has the same big board, there was a lot of talk about Okung vs. Williams, etc, etc. Obviously, it's impossible to know how the draft would have went using my model, but there's a decent chance that teams get the players they wanted anyway. Using Sean as an example, we would have picked 16th in that draft. Would he have been picked already? Possibly, but he was the only safety taken in round one, so there's a chance we were the only team looking for one that early. Bob Sanders was the next safety taken. Would it have played out exactly the same? Probably not, but I have a feeling it would have been similar to the way it actually did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point, but not every team has the same big board, there was a lot of talk about Okung vs. Williams, etc, etc. Obviously, it's impossible to know how the draft would have went using my model, but there's a decent chance that teams get the players they wanted anyway. Using Sean as an example, we would have picked 16th in that draft. Would he have been picked already? Possibly, but he was the only safety taken in round one, so there's a chance we were the only team looking for one that early. Bob Sanders was the next safety taken. Would it have played out exactly the same? Probably not, but I have a feeling it would have been similar to the way it actually did.

You have a point about the board, but anyone going by BPA (my argument was flawed by going by drafting for need, which isn't how it's been done save for the first overall that is usually a quarterback) would take Sean if he's there. Okung and Williams are both gone by the time we got to our pick (18th or so I think if I'm reading your formula correctly). I doubt that we went into 2009 expecting Orakpo to be there, but we snapped him up as soon as Denver WTF'd their pick. Samuels stays on and we don't take Williams, but I don't think that Berry is out of the question since Bradford's price was too high.

I don't think that top-ten players (in terms of how they're ranked at the time of the draft, not necessarily how they turn out to be) usually make it out of the top ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are losing money because in 2 weeks the stadium will be empty.

Us Skins fans have issues. Skins to us are a drug that we cannot shake.

I hope you are not comparing Skins fans to Colts fan. There is a bigggggggg difference.

We sold out games with Tony Banks as our starting QB. We are addicted to this drug.

Edit: I respect your opinion and you are a good poster who I enjoy reading. But, this may be the first time I reallly disagree with you. But see, the drug has taken over you. We think we may be that team who finishes 9-7 and misses the playoffs. We want that #1 pick, which is why today this idea sounds great. But if you remove yourself a day from the drug, you probably realize this idea makes no sense.

I can definitely see your point, and I do disagree that they will stop selling tickets. I just have this feeling that is what they are doing. I can definitely be wrong, which I usually am, but it's just a feeling. And thanks AKM, definitely respect your opinion as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...