HawkShack.com

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2257 ... clinic-nba

Works the same way in the NFL.

Rewards loosing and penalizes success. They need to go back to the wire basket with numbered balls where every team has the same odds of getting high draft picks. There are other league policies in effect that encourage "parity" (hate that term as used in this context). I would rather say it this way, "there are other league policies that in place that level the playing field". Like sharing revenues.

Note: I posted about this topic earlier but pasted the wrong link. I deleted the post and started over.

Well no, it doesn't work the same in the NFL; there is no lottery, so instead of having a half dozen or more teams tank to get into the lottery you've only got one or two in the NFL trying (and usually limited to the last game or two of the season) to get the #1 pick.

I like the NFL draft's current structure and I like the parity that has resulted. It's a lot more interesting league than when you had one or two teams dominating every year.

The league would be more interesting without half of the "new rules" put in over the last 10 years or so. It's a penalty fest now and it's made it almost unbearable to watch.

I watch VER FEW games outside of the Seahawks now. I just feel it's a gigantic waste of precious time to sit through 3 or more hours of yellow flags and commercials.

c_hawkbob wrote:Well no, it doesn't work the same in the NFL; there is no lottery, so instead of having a half dozen or more teams tank to get into the lottery you've only got one or two in the NFL trying (and usually limited to the last game or two of the season) to get the #1 pick.

I like the NFL draft's current structure and I like the parity that has resulted. It's a lot more interesting league than when you had one or two teams dominating every year.

Good post, and I agree 100%.

Plus I'll add to your comments this thought: As short as coaching lifespans in the NFL are, not many coaches are going to sacrifice a decent looking W/L record for a higher draft slotting as doing so could be detrimental to their career. Our Mora year in 2009 is a great example. We lost the last 4 games of the season, 3 of them coming at the hands of teams that did not make the playoffs to finish 5-11. Due to this lackluster effort, or "tanking", management got the distinct impression that Mora had lost the team, that they wouldn't play for him anymore, so he was done after just one season, unusual even for the NFL. Had he won just two of those last 4 games, say home games against 3-13 Tampa Bay and 8-8 Tennessee, he would have finished 7-9 and it might have been good enough to earn him another season.

Additionally, the players have a similar motivation. When Pete came in following the 2009 season, he took one look at that sordid film, much of it containing the tanking in December, and decided that there weren't many players he wanted on his team, so he blew it up and started over. Not many players off the 2009 roster survived the purge, or in that case, more accurately termed an enema.

But you agree that tanking is occurring in the NFL. Shameful. Take all incentive away to do it.

I don't think the players ever tank. There's just too much competitiveness in each man to roll over and too few jobs available. It's what got them to the elite group that play in the NFL and is part of their character.
However, I did wonder about the Colts in the Andrew Luck draft year. They seemed to make some odd moves that got them the #1 pick, but I doubt it was any player that did less than his best. I can't think of another year where that might have occurred.

The lottery isn't fool proof, either, and tanking would still happen if you believe it does because the lottery systems usually have weighted odds for teams vying for the 1st overall pick. If you look at the NHL, which uses a lottery style draft order system, the Oilers got the #1 pick a couple of times and even when they weren't the worst team statistically and it can also penalize some teams that are legitimately rebuilding by pushing them down the draft order and out of the "elite" player pool at the top of that particular draft. And that's not fair for those teams who are rebuilding.

I think it's fine the way it is and Bob is pretty much correct, there are too few jobs for Coaches and FO personnel for them to risk it by tanking.

NorthHawk wrote:I don't think the players ever tank. There's just too much competitiveness in each man to roll over and too few jobs available. It's what got them to the elite group that play in the NFL and is part of their character.

RiverDog wrote:As short as coaching lifespans in the NFL are, not many coaches are going to sacrifice a decent looking W/L record for a higher draft slotting as doing so could be detrimental to their career.

I'm inclined to agree with these. But I think the bigger reason that you don't see tanking is because one player can't turn a franchise around in the NFL like it can in the NBA, where you have only 5 starters. One great player remakes 20% of your starting team in the NBA, but about 5% in the NFL. Even if it's a QB, the bust rate is so high--and the financial consequences of a bust so big--that the gamble just isn't worth it for most teams. Like NorthHawk, I wondered about the Colts in the Luck year, but I think the players were doing their best.

The players may be doing their best but it is the coaches who make decisions about whose on the field (substitutions, etc.) and playcalling. And then there is management and ownership who can pressure coaches to make different decisions than they might normally make.

Conspiracy theory is what this is about in a way. I'm not buying in

Tanking may help your draft position. Draft position doesn't do much for you if you're a bad coach and bad GM. Patriots haven't tanked at all to the tune of 5 Super Bowl wins and 8 appearances. I'd much rather have a quality coach and GM that didn't need to tank than some owner or GM that thought tanking was a good draft strategy. High draft picks do not ensure a great team. Great coaching and drafting at all levels does that.

If Indy DID tank in order to e in place to draft Luck I have to ask, how's that working out??? Instant Karma!!!

Seahawks4Ever wrote:If Indy DID tank in order to e in place to draft Luck I have to ask, how's that working out??? Instant Karma!!!

Exactly. Building a winning tradition is far better than even sniffing the possibility of encouraging tanking for a draft pick for a year. Never tank.

And beneath tanking is Browning.

Zorn76 wrote:And beneath tanking is Browning.

Yah, I feel sorry for their fans, but at some point they just HAVE to break out and start winning some games.
With all of those high picks over the last few years they just have to get it together at some point.
It may not be a championship team, but they should get 8 or 9 wins one of these years.

trents wrote:The players may be doing their best but it is the coaches who make decisions about whose on the field (substitutions, etc.) and playcalling. And then there is management and ownership who can pressure coaches to make different decisions than they might normally make.

There's a difference between tanking and shutting down injured players or experimenting with different combinations and schemes. If a team is out of the playoff hunt, they could shut down a player nursing an injury, say like what Bennett was suffering through this season, or they could decide that they want to experiment with different personnel groupings, a different scheme, etc, something they normally wouldn't do during the regular season. I don't consider that tanking.

There's a difference between tanking and shutting down injured players or experimenting with different combinations and schemes. If a team is out of the playoff hunt, they could shut down a player nursing an injury, say like what Bennett was suffering through this season, or they could decide that they want to experiment with different personnel groupings, a different scheme, etc, something they normally wouldn't do during the regular season. I don't consider that tanking.

I agree with this. Teams when eliminated from playoff contention have to find out who on their roster they want to keep next year so it becomes the perfect time to see what the backups can do and if they really have what it takes to play at the NFL level. Those that show some promise might be candidates to replace starters if Cap issues arise. It just gives teams options and a better idea of what they really have and where they have to improve.

Did anyone watch that Colts teams moves? I'm really not sure how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion the front office ( and coaches) were doing anything but tanking...

Was like watching the weird major leagues stripper owner who wanted to move the team operate in real life.... Google their choice for starting QB/s ( Kerry Fricken Collins was brought in out of retirement, and STARTED that week for the love of God) Curtis Painter, Dan Orvloski... it was a who's who of who's that, who was cut, or traded and reevaluate.