OT: Do Teams Purposely Lay Down?

[NJCardFan]

2 seasons ago with Peyton Manning out for the season at the outset, the Colts go 2-14, get the top pick in the draft, and land the probably most talented QB to come out since, well, Peyton Manning and all of a sudden they go 10-6, make the playoffs, and this current season are 5-2 and are arguably one of the best teams in the AFC if not the entire league especially after beating, well, Peyton Manning and the previously unbeaten Broncos.

Then last season, the Chiefs go 2-14 even though they had several players make the pro bowl, end up with the #1 pick, draft a horse of an offensive lineman, and now, at a point last season when they were 1-5(they had their bye week at week 7 last season) they are the only undefeated team in the league at 7-0 right now and looking at their schedule they could conceivably be 9-0 come their bye week.

I mean, this just seems so strange. Teams just don't bounce back like this and certainly not 2 seasons in a row. So, do teams lay down in order to get a high draft pick which in the 2 cases mentioned above ended up being the #1 pick? Or am I off my cookie?

 

[Phrazbit]

Off your cookie, because of one major snag in the theory. The coaches would HAVE to be in on the fix... and both coaches, Caldwell in Indy and Crennel in KC, got fired after the season (and their GMs I believe).

You'd have to give some serious job status guarantees to your current staff to pull of that kind of conspiracy and that clearly was not the situation for either team.

 

[Broseph]

In my personal opinion, I believe that the Colts laid down to get Andrew Luck.

 

[AZ Native]

In my personal opinion, I believe that the Colts laid down to get Andrew Luck.

I have to agree.

 

[Phrazbit]

In my personal opinion, I believe that the Colts laid down to get Andrew Luck.

I have to agree.

They WON two of their last 3 games, finishing in a tie with the Rams and only getting the pick based on SOS rankings, they were only a game worse than the Vikings (who also won in week 16). IMO there is absolutely ZERO chance that Indy tanked. They nearly jeopardized the entire operation by winning at the end of the year, then despite their "successful" tank job they fire the guys who had to have been on masterminding the entire thing?!

Seriously, there is not a chance they tanked. Zero. They (and their coach) were simply freaking horrible.

 

[MWOOD92]

The Broncos and Chiefs have the easiest schedules in the entire NFL. It shouldn't be a surprise that they're 6-1 and 7-0.

Plus, I highly doubt a team would just tank an entire season for a LT out of Central Michigan.

 

[D-Dogg]

We had the opportunity to tank for Luck, then we reeled off 7 stupid useless wins to close the season.

8-8...wooo!

I'd rather have Andrew Luck.

 

[AZ Native]

They WON two of their last 3 games, finishing in a tie with the Rams and only getting the pick based on SOS rankings, they were only a game worse than the Vikings (who also won in week 16). IMO there is absolutely ZERO chance that Indy tanked. They nearly jeopardized the entire operation by winning at the end of the year, then despite their "successful" tank job they fire the guys who had to have been on masterminding the entire thing?!

Seriously, there is not a chance they tanked. Zero. They (and their coach) were simply freaking horrible.

They sucked for Luck, bottom line.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The only people that can tank are at the highest level. I wouldn't be surprised to see an owner arrange it to some extent but it could never go down the chain, you'd give that person far too much leverage to use against you in future dealings. Irsay may have tanked but no one else in that organization did.

Steve

 

[Phrazbit]

But how can the owner tank without involving his GM or coaching staff? You could sell me on something like... hire a crappy GM, or run the team like the crazy chick in the movie Major League... but that stuff wasnt happening.

It was just a crappy team, with crappy coaches and just about everyone responsible for the "suck" got fired... and you'd think if they were TOLD to suck and got fired anyway they would have had a serious beef with the situation. And as I pointed out before, the Colts nearly lost out on Luck because they were WINNING late in the year. The evidence does not support a tank job by the Colts, rather it strongly contradicts one.

As for the Chiefs tanking; as MWOOD mentioned, the thought of a team throwing a season into the toilet for a LT from Central Michigan is hilarious.

And I am not even against the possibility of a tank job, (you're about to see several teams do it in the NBA) but it would be absolutely impossible to pull off without involving the coaching staff and/or the GM.

 

[cardpa]

To me the more important question is how did they go from also rans to contenders in such a short period of time. Yes the Chiefs now have a new HC. Was that all it took to more them from the bottom to the top?

Was Luck the only reason the Colts climbed from the basement to the top tier?

Harbaugh did the same thing for the most part in SF once he took over. They went from being a doormat to contenders in a short period. Same for Carroll in Seattle.

It would seem that it would take more than one person to achieve that kind of movement. Is it luck or strength of schedule? Is it the moons aligning for them? I can see where this should merit some discussion. The even bigger question is why other teams (hint. hint) can't do the same thing. Even in the Whiz divisional title years the Cardinals were not world beaters.

What is the missing ingredient that propels teams from wallowing in the basement to competing for titles and playoffs?

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Hard to imagine a team purposely losing a game.

I can see running out some 2nd string players, but to lose on purpose?

The Cards have shot themselves in the foot winning meaningless games if that's how you think. How do you explain that?

 

[AzStevenCal]

But how can the owner tank without involving his GM or coaching staff? You could sell me on something like... hire a crappy GM, or run the team like the crazy chick in the movie Major League... but that stuff wasnt happening.

It was just a crappy team, with crappy coaches and just about everyone responsible for the "suck" got fired... and you'd think if they were TOLD to suck and got fired anyway they would have had a serious beef with the situation. And as I pointed out before, the Colts nearly lost out on Luck because they were WINNING late in the year. The evidence does not support a tank job by the Colts, rather it strongly contradicts one.

As for the Chiefs tanking; as MWOOD mentioned, the thought of a team throwing a season into the toilet for a LT from Central Michigan is hilarious.

And I am not even against the possibility of a tank job, (you're about to see several teams do it in the NBA) but it would be absolutely impossible to pull off without involving the coaching staff and/or the GM.

Notice I said "to some extent". He can influence decisions and he can tighten the money screws and he can overrule personnel decisions. I don't see how he'd have all that much trouble impacting the performance of a team.

Steve

 

[BigRedRage]

good luck getting a player to purposely suck and put tarnish marks on his own career for the betterment of a franchise that has little to no loyalty to him.

 

[AzStevenCal]

good luck getting a player to purposely suck and put tarnish marks on his own career for the betterment of a franchise that has little to no loyalty to him.

Yeah, it's not going to happen. Their careers are too short and each year is a risk so giving one away just isn't in the cards. The same goes for a Coach, a GM, a Team President etc. They are in a business that is judged on the short term (some positions shorter than others) and none of them have a long enough leash to throw away a season in search of a possible future.

Even owners aren't likely to throw away a season. They can't afford to alienate their season ticket holders and few of them have deep enough pockets to be willing to give away a season of stadium (and other) revenues. They still get their TV share so it's not out of the realm of possibility but I think you're more likely to see them set the stage for a few extra losses rather than a season of futility.

Steve

 

[Mulli]

Hmmm, seems starting this guy might qualify as lying down:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/12479/year/2011/curtis-painter

 

[BurqueCardFan]

I think Indy tanked to a certain extent. I think they were a very bad team and the front office knew it. They did not actively do anything to improve the team before, during or after the Peyton Manning situation. I doubt the players or coaches did anything specific to lose but without the support of the FO, it's pretty much the same thing. They knew Luck was there and hoped they would be bad enough to get him as long as they did nothing to improve themselves.

 

[unseenaz]

Good luck convincing the players to purposely lose when their spot on the team next year isnt even garunteed. Do you think the current starting QB will go along with "hey, go out there and suck so we can get this college QB with the first pick" these players aren't colts, they are football players. Players don't hold allegiances to thir teams like the used to, in any sport.

 

[earthsci]

A few examples that I can think of tell me no.

When we beat Atlanta in 1997 in the last game we lost the opportunity to draft Peyton Manning. Tank it, he's ours. I don't think that Indy tanked because it cost Infante his job.

When we beat the Vikings in 2003 we lost the opportunity to draft Eli.

I don't believe the Chargers tanked because, as was stated earlier, they almost won too many games at the end, and it cost the coach and GM their jobs.

 

[BurqueCardFan]

Yeah, it's not going to happen. Their careers are too short and each year is a risk so giving one away just isn't in the cards. The same goes for a Coach, a GM, a Team President etc. They are in a business that is judged on the short term (some positions shorter than others) and none of them have a long enough leash to throw away a season in search of a possible future.

Even owners aren't likely to throw away a season. They can't afford to alienate their season ticket holders and few of them have deep enough pockets to be willing to give away a season of stadium (and other) revenues. They still get their TV share so it's not out of the realm of possibility but I think you're more likely to see them set the stage for a few extra losses rather than a season of futility.

Steve

The Cardinals alienate their season ticket holders just about every year. Half the time, I never feel good about renewing (but I still do).

 

[BigRedRage]

You could always bring in guys like max hall, john skelton and derek anderson to tank


wait, that didnt work

 

[BigRedRage]

A few examples that I can think of tell me no.

When we beat Atlanta in 1997 in the last game we lost the opportunity to draft Peyton Manning. Tank it, he's ours. I don't think that Indy tanked because it cost Infante his job.

When we beat the Vikings in 2003 we lost the opportunity to draft Eli.

I don't believe the Chargers tanked because, as was stated earlier, they almost won too many games at the end, and it cost the coach and GM their jobs.

Or we lost the opportunity to hate the manning family for refusing to become cardinals

 

[Mulli]

You could always bring in guys like max hall, john skelton and derek anderson to tank


wait, that didnt work

You really need to start a guy like Carson Palmer, I mean Curtis Painter. I mean wait, which is worse? Acck. Just forget it.

 

[Denny Green Fan]

I wonder if an NBA team lays down for Wiggins?

 

[AzStevenCal]

The Cardinals alienate their season ticket holders just about every year. Half the time, I never feel good about renewing (but I still do).

Fair point but I suspect we'd still be looking at a lot of 5 - 11 seasons if they officially decided at the Bidwill level to tank.

Steve