After the Tank - what really happens

[TheElectricCompany]

Did all those teams truly tank a season?

 

What I consider tanking is what Cleveland did, and what the Jets are doing this season. They were clearly not trying to compete before the season even started (IMO anyway).

 

Cleveland and the Jets got rid of fading veterans and big contracts, and are investing in youth they think they can develop. I think they'd rather get these guys reps and let them learn on the fly. It's as close as you're going to get to tanking, but the reality of their situation is that they're terrible teams who couldn't buy a win.

 

The only time I really suspected a team to tank was the year the Colts went without Manning, but I think that team was poorly coached and was completely deflated without Manning leading them out there.

Edited August 25, 2017 by TheElectricCompany

[87168]

same mediocrity.

 

"build through the draft" should mean holding onto talent, and filling in the missing pieces. that's not what they're doing.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Nice followup by HBF to the Flip Johnson thread. Well done.

 

Thanks!

good job Hap...

 

Thanks

 

So...as long as we don't draft Alex Smith or Jamarcus Russel we have a 50% chance of becoming a very good football team? Sign me up.

 

Right, now all you have to do is figure out which of the draft class is the equivalent of Alex Smith or Jamarcus Russell.

[nedboy7]

After 25 years of not missing a game I think we have a front office I truly despise.

Edited August 26, 2017 by nedboy7

[Buffalo Barbarian]

I would like to address the persistent theme on this board that the Bills should tank.

 

As an example of this viewpoint, see: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/195620-this-team-is-being-built-like-water/?p=4489558

Let's look for a minute at the fate of teams which draft #1 overall (eg after being the NFL's "biggest losers") and choose a QB, as a franchise QB is generally regarded as the most important factor for a team's long term success. I'm going to look at the decade from 2005-2014 on the theory it's too soon to judge 2015 and 2016.

 

During that decade, a QB was drafted with the first overall pick 60% of the time (6/10). I'm going to look at the W/L record during the 'tank', and 5 years after the 'tank' since I think most fans would feel 5 years is enough time for a #1 draft pick to develop and a good coach/GM to build a team

Let's see what happened

Year Team Player W/L 'tank W/L Next 5 years Playoffs? Result

2005 SF Smith 2-14 4-12, 7-9, 5-11, 7-9, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2007 Oak Russell 2-14 4-12, 5-11,5-11, 8-8, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2009 Det Stafford 0-16 2-14, 6-10,10-6, 4-12,7-9 1x, WC 1 good year then Mediocrity

2010 StL Bradford 1-15 7-9, 2-14, 7-8, 7-9, 6-10 N Mediocrity

2011 Car Newton 2-14 6-10, 7-9, 12-4, 7-8, 15-1 2x ,Div, SB Success

2012 Ind Luck 2-14 11-5, 11-5, 11-5, 8-8, 8-8 3x WC, Div, Conf Success

Clearly, in 4 of 6 cases, drafting a QB #1 overall after a "tank" did NOT lead a team to long term winning success.

Was it just picking the wrong QB? In the case of Smith, like him or don't his teams have gone to playoffs 5 of the last 6 years, so arguably the team around the QB or the development of the QB has something to do with it. Matt Stafford overall has the stats of a good QB. He's durable, he passes for 7.1 ypa and >4000 yds per season, doesn't throw too many picks, took them to playoffs again in his 6th year. Bradford had durability issues, but played well in his 3rd season (a losing one for the team) and has played well his last 2 years, especially last year. The only clear-cut terrible, very bad, no good QB was Russell.

I just throw that out there for the guys who are clamoring for "tank, tank". Reflect a bit, because clearly tanking and drafting #1 Qb has not proven the path to success more often than it has.

 

They didn't tank, they just sucked, like we did in 84,85 , here's to sucking, go Bills !!

[Marty McFly]

I would like to address the persistent theme on this board that the Bills should tank.

 

 

 

 

Nice work hap. The tank mentality is a fallacy for us, having a good team around your new QB will help him develop the best. We can still draft a qb high with the draft pick ammo we have and keep the good players on roster, i dont know why so many want to make this team worse so bad but its not a good idea we are not in cap hell.

After 25 years of not missing a game I think we have a front office I truly despise.

 

Beane definitely turned heel on us. More tank moves and im gonna troll heavy.

[cage]

All of this tank talk is beyond tiresome. I've posted this in other threads, but nobody's responded, so I'll try it here. Beyond the OP's correct viewpoint, there would be several problems with any tanking related effort.

 

I get the two trades thus far.... unclear how healthy Sammy really is and whether he could be re-signed at the end of the year. By the articles I've read, Darby wasn't a fit nor buying into the new system. If those are the reasons to move them then that's fine. To run a fire sale during training camp just before the season starts is simply not possible.

 

Any further trades of star players would be a more blatant communication of an intention to tank than even anything the Sabres did. Tyrod is under long-term contract and was just in the pro-bowl, dumping him to play a 5th round rookie would be the ultimate disrespect to fans and the players that remain. And trading Shady completely neutralizes the offense. How do you explain that to guys like Kyle Williams or Lorenzo or Ritchie? The coach and front office would lose the locker room. Particularly after Shady's interview this week telling reporters that FO was honest.

 

The team would be playing in front of low crowds and have no team unity, getting destroyed on talk radio every day. I'm not sure if there's a punishment the league could put on a team for practically deliberately trying to lose? The NFL could try to do that for conduct detrimental to the league, just as they took draft picks away from the Patriots. At least they did what they did trying win!

 

And how do you justify these actions to any player that got hurt with either a season or career ending injury, while you're tanking?? Players are being diagnosed w/ CTE and having life threatening repercussions from putting it all on the line playing football... to tank?? What player would ever want to play for a FO that did that? The careers of football players are shorter and more fragile than any other sport.

 

I don't think the Front Office would recover from doing a move like that.

 

Furthermore, people from Buffalo endlessly talk about how the city is disrespected far and wide. What would be the reaction to BOTH sports teams in the city, having worked to deliberately lose in the eyes of sports fans across the country? The Pegulas would be branded as owners for allowing it to happen to both of their teams.

 

Can we STOP the tank talk??

Edited August 26, 2017 by cage

[CSBill]

And all this is why I HATE trading away two of your best young players. You win by building a team of better players. When you have them, keep them. Every draft pick--even number one quarterbacks--is a crap shoot. If you have proven stars, keep them!

 

The idea of Tanking and then drafting your way to instant success is ludicrous TBD.

Edited August 26, 2017 by CSBill

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

So tanking is clearly a hapless pursuit!

[oldmanfan]

And all this is why I HATE trading away two of your best young players. You win by building a team of better players. When you have them, keep them. Every draft pick--even number one quarterbacks--is a crap shoot. If you have proven stars, keep them!

 

The idea of Tanking and then drafting your way to instant success is ludicrous TBD.

I didn't like the Sammy trade. But let's not go overboard and call Darby a star. Good rookie year but spotty last year.

 

I also think the whole conversation about the T word is ridiculous. Should be banned from the board. And the other thing that keeps getting talked about that is way off base is how we only traded these guys for draft picks. Not true. We got a pretty good WR in Matthews and a pretty good CB in Gaines. To me we lose some at WR if Sammy is healthy, a wash swapping out Gaines for Darby, and they get a couple higher round picks and gave up a 6th round pick. When discussing the trades people need to be accurate about what the deals actually were.

[SoTier]

Yes, this is what gets me about the whole "tanking" argument.

What if the guy you wanted stays in school, or shreds his knee in the bowl game like Jaylon Smith?

There are too many factors at the NCAA level to be able to tank effectively.

 

Better yet, what if you tank for a QB and pick the wrong one??? Tim Couch in '99 over Donovan McNabb? Alex Smith in 2005 over Aaron Rodgers?

 

Of course, there's always the possibility that there's no QB worth the #1 pick ... Russell in 2007 and Bradford in 2010 both come to mind.

 

In 2008, the #3 pick got the Falcons Matt Ryan. In 2014, the #3 pick got the Jags Blake Bortles.

 

Whether the Bills are deliberately tanking for a high draft spot or they're cynically cutting salary so that they can make more $$$ or they're simply incompetent, my guess is that they'll easily break 20 years of no playoffs even if the unnamed QB they'll undoubtedly draft in the first round in 2018 is the Messiah.

[Big Turk]

I would like to address the persistent theme on this board that the Bills should tank.

As an example of this viewpoint, see: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/195620-this-team-is-being-built-like-water/?p=4489558

 

Let's look for a minute at the fate of teams which draft #1 overall (eg after being the NFL's "biggest losers") and choose a QB, as a franchise QB is generally regarded as the most important factor for a team's long term success. I'm going to look at the decade from 2005-2014 on the theory it's too soon to judge 2015 and 2016.

 

During that decade, a QB was drafted with the first overall pick 60% of the time (6/10). I'm going to look at the W/L record during the 'tank', and 5 years after the 'tank' since I think most fans would feel 5 years is enough time for a #1 draft pick to develop and a good coach/GM to build a team

Let's see what happened

Year Team Player W/L 'tank W/L Next 5 years Playoffs? Result

2005 SF Smith 2-14 4-12, 7-9, 5-11, 7-9, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2007 Oak Russell 2-14 4-12, 5-11,5-11, 8-8, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2009 Det Stafford 0-16 2-14, 6-10,10-6, 4-12,7-9 1x, WC 1 good year then Mediocrity

2010 StL Bradford 1-15 7-9, 2-14, 7-8, 7-9, 6-10 N Mediocrity

2011 Car Newton 2-14 6-10, 7-9, 12-4, 7-8, 15-1 2x ,Div, SB Success

2012 Ind Luck 2-14 11-5, 11-5, 11-5, 8-8, 8-8 3x WC, Div, Conf Success

 

Clearly, in 4 of 6 cases, drafting a QB #1 overall after a "tank" did NOT lead a team to long term winning success.

 

Was it just picking the wrong QB? In the case of Smith, like him or don't his teams have gone to playoffs 5 of the last 6 years, so arguably the team around the QB or the development of the QB has something to do with it. Matt Stafford overall has the stats of a good QB. He's durable, he passes for 7.1 ypa and >4000 yds per season, doesn't throw too many picks, took them to playoffs again in his 6th year. Bradford had durability issues, but played well in his 3rd season (a losing one for the team) and has played well his last 2 years, especially last year. The only clear-cut terrible, very bad, no good QB was Russell.

 

I just throw that out there for the guys who are clamoring for "tank, tank". Reflect a bit, because clearly tanking and drafting #1 Qb has not proven the path to success more often than it has.

 

 

 

 

We aren't tanking...might want to post this on a Jets message board.

[cage]

 

We aren't tanking...might want to post this on a Jets message board.

 

Uh,.... its a fair topic, there's been endless discussion on this board with several posters advocating for it, some sportswriter have brought it up, national media has as well... and most don't think Anquan Boldin would have retired to pursue social good if he had just signed a 1 yr w/ a top contender.

[4_kidd_4]

After 25 years of not missing a game I think we have a front office I truly despise.

Tom Donahoe did nothing for you in that regard?

 

Russ Brandon as GM? Marv as GM?

 

At least give the new guys a year or two. I'm as salty as they come, and I'm even willing to let this play out for a few season.

 

Weather I pay for season tix again after this year is a different story.

[cage]

 

Clearly, in 4 of 6 cases, drafting a QB #1 overall after a "tank" did NOT lead a team to long term winning success.

 

 

 

I'm too lazy to do the analysis, but would love to see a same analysis for teams that traded up to get a "top QB". Doesn't have to be just #1, maybe top 3? This is Rams going to get Goff, Redskins trade-up to get Griffin and I know there's others. So these are teams that gave up huge draft collateral to get that one supposed savior.

 

That's my biggest fear with this accumulation of draft picks. Having a bad season, picking #6-10 and they give up all the draft picks they accumulated to get up to #1 or #2.... #NeverDoThat

 

UPDATE,... here's the analysis on Buffalo Rumblings

 

Here are the guys teams traded a boatload to go up and get over the last 20 years: Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Robert Griffin, Blaine Gabbert, Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick and Ryan Leaf

 

So Goff and Wentz are undecided yet, but the rest is a 20% hit rate, plus a hugh loss of draft picks... and none of these teams improved. Unclear how good Vick could have made Falcons if he didn't derail his career.

Edited August 26, 2017 by cage

[Hapless Bills Fan]

So tanking is clearly a hapless pursuit!

 

I see what you did there heh heh

 

 

We aren't tanking...might want to post this on a Jets message board.

 

Would not be an effective strategy to address folks on this board who claim we should...besides, Jets message board? Ewwwwwww

Edited August 26, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan

[4_kidd_4]

....pretty much the same?

[KellyToughII]

I would like to address the persistent theme on this board that the Bills should tank.

As an example of this viewpoint, see: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/195620-this-team-is-being-built-like-water/?p=4489558

 

Let's look for a minute at the fate of teams which draft #1 overall (eg after being the NFL's "biggest losers") and choose a QB, as a franchise QB is generally regarded as the most important factor for a team's long term success. I'm going to look at the decade from 2005-2014 on the theory it's too soon to judge 2015 and 2016.

 

During that decade, a QB was drafted with the first overall pick 60% of the time (6/10). I'm going to look at the W/L record during the 'tank', and 5 years after the 'tank' since I think most fans would feel 5 years is enough time for a #1 draft pick to develop and a good coach/GM to build a team

Let's see what happened

Year Team Player W/L 'tank W/L Next 5 years Playoffs? Result

2005 SF Smith 2-14 4-12, 7-9, 5-11, 7-9, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2007 Oak Russell 2-14 4-12, 5-11,5-11, 8-8, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2009 Det Stafford 0-16 2-14, 6-10,10-6, 4-12,7-9 1x, WC 1 good year then Mediocrity

2010 StL Bradford 1-15 7-9, 2-14, 7-8, 7-9, 6-10 N Mediocrity

2011 Car Newton 2-14 6-10, 7-9, 12-4, 7-8, 15-1 2x ,Div, SB Success

2012 Ind Luck 2-14 11-5, 11-5, 11-5, 8-8, 8-8 3x WC, Div, Conf Success

 

Clearly, in 4 of 6 cases, drafting a QB #1 overall after a "tank" did NOT lead a team to long term winning success.

 

Was it just picking the wrong QB? In the case of Smith, like him or don't his teams have gone to playoffs 5 of the last 6 years, so arguably the team around the QB or the development of the QB has something to do with it. Matt Stafford overall has the stats of a good QB. He's durable, he passes for 7.1 ypa and >4000 yds per season, doesn't throw too many picks, took them to playoffs again in his 6th year. Bradford had durability issues, but played well in his 3rd season (a losing one for the team) and has played well his last 2 years, especially last year. The only clear-cut terrible, very bad, no good QB was Russell.

 

I just throw that out there for the guys who are clamoring for "tank, tank". Reflect a bit, because clearly tanking and drafting #1 Qb has not proven the path to success more often than it has.

 

 

 

What part of the crap we have done with the position for 21 years now, doesn't work is still being missed. We ARE Taking a QB high next year you can count on it. And you MUST keep swinging until you find the QB with out one you don't have a shot

[Big Turk]

 

Uh,.... its a fair topic, there's been endless discussion on this board with several posters advocating for it, some sportswriter have brought it up, national media has as well... and most don't think Anquan Boldin would have retired to pursue social good if he had just signed a 1 yr w/ a top contender.

 

He would have been cut from a top contender because he looked old and slow in the Eagles game...as in like, he should have stayed retired.

 

Why do we automatically assume it was because the Bills weren't good when Boldin just as likely saw how younger players were running circles around him in that game, realized he just didn't have it anymore, and didn't want to embarrass himeslf or ride the bench the entire season? The man definitely has pride and from what I know is an upstanding person and could have felt like he was stelaing money from the team and just didn't want to risk tarnishing his reputation.

Edited August 26, 2017 by matter2003

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

I would like to address the persistent theme on this board that the Bills should tank.

As an example of this viewpoint, see: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/195620-this-team-is-being-built-like-water/?p=4489558

 

Let's look for a minute at the fate of teams which draft #1 overall (eg after being the NFL's "biggest losers") and choose a QB, as a franchise QB is generally regarded as the most important factor for a team's long term success. I'm going to look at the decade from 2005-2014 on the theory it's too soon to judge 2015 and 2016.

 

During that decade, a QB was drafted with the first overall pick 60% of the time (6/10). I'm going to look at the W/L record during the 'tank', and 5 years after the 'tank' since I think most fans would feel 5 years is enough time for a #1 draft pick to develop and a good coach/GM to build a team

Let's see what happened

Year Team Player W/L 'tank W/L Next 5 years Playoffs? Result

2005 SF Smith 2-14 4-12, 7-9, 5-11, 7-9, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2007 Oak Russell 2-14 4-12, 5-11,5-11, 8-8, 8-8 N climb to Mediocrity

2009 Det Stafford 0-16 2-14, 6-10,10-6, 4-12,7-9 1x, WC 1 good year then Mediocrity

2010 StL Bradford 1-15 7-9, 2-14, 7-8, 7-9, 6-10 N Mediocrity

2011 Car Newton 2-14 6-10, 7-9, 12-4, 7-8, 15-1 2x ,Div, SB Success

2012 Ind Luck 2-14 11-5, 11-5, 11-5, 8-8, 8-8 3x WC, Div, Conf Success

 

Clearly, in 4 of 6 cases, drafting a QB #1 overall after a "tank" did NOT lead a team to long term winning success.

 

Was it just picking the wrong QB? In the case of Smith, like him or don't his teams have gone to playoffs 5 of the last 6 years, so arguably the team around the QB or the development of the QB has something to do with it. Matt Stafford overall has the stats of a good QB. He's durable, he passes for 7.1 ypa and >4000 yds per season, doesn't throw too many picks, took them to playoffs again in his 6th year. Bradford had durability issues, but played well in his 3rd season (a losing one for the team) and has played well his last 2 years, especially last year. The only clear-cut terrible, very bad, no good QB was Russell.

 

I just throw that out there for the guys who are clamoring for "tank, tank". Reflect a bit, because clearly tanking and drafting #1 Qb has not proven the path to success more often than it has.

 

 

 

 

It would mean purging all the older vets 1st. like Tyrod, McCoy, Incognito, Wood and Hughes, none of which has happened and is probably not going to happen so until those players are gone this "tank" word people are saying must be coming from the playstation kids that don't really know football. How can you scream "tank" when a WR of pretty decent caliber was traded for in Watkins spot? Same for CB also, Gaines for Darby isn't a "tank", people need to understand the game better, Watkins hasn't been a big piece of this team since being drafted (injuries), Darby was being benched last season for his poor play, it's not like the management said these are Whaley's guys, F them, lets trade them. We got very good compensation for players who haven't really made huge impacts for us, just my opinion.