Do you believe in Tanking in order to get a higher draft pick?

[SissyBoyFloyd]

If so, at what point in the season would you start tanking?

I understand a team doing it, but I could never lose on purpose. I just don't think I have it in me to do. I like winning too much.

 

[cardsfanmd]

I’ve never been in that position so who am I to judge?

 

[gmabel830]

It depends on your definition of tanking. I don't think any team tells their players to go out and lose on purpose, and don't agree with any team doing so. But, if a team is not in position to reach the postseason and wants to play younger players to assess their viability for the long-term future instead of older players not part of that long-term future, even if the older player would give them a greater likelihood of winning, then I don't have issues with that.

If this is a follow-up to what the Colts just did with Matt Ryan, I don't have an issue with that. They don't feel they are going to compete, and want to see what they have in their second year QB over two veterans who clearly aren't the long-term answer.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I am okay with tanking, but not from game 1 and only for a once in a generation player.

 

[pemory09]

Yes, yes I do. I believe you shouldn't even bother to coach your team, err, I mean gameplan and never, ever tell your QB his business.

Yours truly,

Kliff Kingsbury

 

[Zalixar]

I remember when we won a final meaningless game to secure the #2 pick.

Colts got #1 and selected Peyton Manning. Traded out as soon as that happened.

Oh what could have been.

 

[mjb21aztd]

Heck no these players make millions of dollars they should easily be motivated to perform big no matter the opponent

Play to w the gm!

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I remember when we won a final meaningless game to secure the #2 pick.

Colts got #1 and selected Peyton Manning. Traded out as soon as that happened.

Oh what could have been.

Do you think Peyton would have agreed to play in AZ? I don't.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

I remember when we won a final meaningless game to secure the #2 pick.

Colts got #1 and selected Peyton Manning. Traded out as soon as that happened.

Oh what could have been.

Do you dream at night of Manning on the field in a Cardinal uniform yelling Omaha?

 

[TRW]

No.

 

[Metcalf Rules]

Do you think Peyton would have agreed to play in AZ? I don't.

I don’t think it would have been up to Peyton. It would have been up to Archie.

 

[Mainstreet]

I don't believe in tanking but if a team starts out playing poorly and they don't have enough talent to turn the things around, I have no problem trying to develop players for the following season.

Play the depth whenever possible and find out who you want to keep.

 

[Zalixar]

Do you think Peyton would have agreed to play in AZ? I don't.

I doubt he would pull an Eli, if that's what you're saying.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I doubt he would pull an Eli, if that's what you're saying.

It is. Why wouldn't he? It was supposedly Archie was pivotal in the decision to have Eli traded. Why wouldn't he have done that for the better QB of the two?

 

[Zalixar]

It is. Why wouldn't he? It was supposedly Archie was pivotal in the decision to have Eli traded. Why wouldn't he have done that for the better QB of the two?

Sure, but we don't know the disdain they had towards the Chargers specifically, or if Peyton would have done that over Eli. Archie probably has influence, but it still comes down to the individual. Of course we'll never know.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

The Colts weren't a good team when they drafted him and their owner didn't have many fans if my mammary is correct. So maybe it was somewhat the Chargers and a bit being on the West coast?

 

[Totally_Red]

Tanking is for losers like the Miami owner.

 

[football karma]

i think the 2018 Cardinals were a case study.

going in, the FO sure thought that they could contend or at least be competitive with a journeyman vet QB.

but 5 or 6 games in, it was clear a complete rebuild would be necessary. At that point, finding out if your young players can play at the expense of winning games is acceptable to me. I guess you could call that tanking

 

[Totally_Red]

i think the 2018 Cardinals were a case study.

going in, the FO sure thought that they could contend or at least be competitive with a journeyman vet QB.

but 5 or 6 games in, it was clear a complete rebuild would be necessary. At that point, finding out if your young players can play at the expense of winning games is acceptable to me. I guess you could call that tanking

Tanking is what Philly did a couple years back. Playing a third string QB for the sole purpose of losing.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

I remember maybe 20 years ago the last or next to last game of the season we were playing the Lions at home. We both had a shot at the first pick by losing. The game was atrocious and I was praying we would just lose it. Both teams were so bad that you would have sworn that they both were trying to lose. But being the Cards, we had to go win a meaningless game, and to prove what? I guess the players were happy and felt they weren't the worst team in the league. I don't remember who or what happened in that draft or even what year it was.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

With the current lottery system I would generally say no, but if a generational talent is available and your season is already going quite badly than why not.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

With the current lottery system I would generally say no, but if a generational talent is available and your season is already going quite badly than why not.

Nfl doesn’t have a lottery

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

Nfl doesn’t have a lottery

He may have known that and was saying that with the current one (which is none) then ........

but if there was a lottery he would say "yes". No? It is like entangled particles separated by the vastness of space. If you observe one with a right spin, then it only makes sense that the other has a left spin unless there is a lottery involved in a field of infinite waves. Even though it is said that God doesn't play dice, that only applies in string theory, as in the theory of everything. Now if this makes sense to you, you don't understand physics.

 

[SECTION 11]

The damage done by intentionally tanking is not worth only improving the odds on a crap shoot. It’s the odds of one draft pick succeeding vs the ire of a LOT of players, including especially free agents. It’s so no-brainer that I can’t believe it’s even considered. Not in the NFL at least.

 

[oaken1]

It is. Why wouldn't he? It was supposedly Archie was pivotal in the decision to have Eli traded. Why wouldn't he have done that for the better QB of the two?

nah,...Peyton makes his own decisions