BREAKING THE PATTERN

[jgb]

31 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

In our dumbsh*t organizational structure, a tank would have to Ownership-driven, since the GM can't mandate that to the coach.  

Any tanking we do, thus, would be accidental rather than intentional.  

Remember the most famous tank in history? Suck for Luck?

The GM and HC were canned in January after that miserable season. “Hey thanks for sucking to get the best QB prospect in history. Pack your sheet.”

NFL teams don’t tank until like week 16-17, if ever.

[jgb]

59 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

The 2019 Dolphins say hello.  

I agree that the 2011 Colts weren't tanking.  They were just that bad without Peyton.  The Colts are the most overrated NFL organization.  

But the dolphins are winning games.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

But the dolphins are winning games.

Because players and coaches don't try to lose games.  Front offices do.  They traded off as many assets as they could, including their starting LT and best DB.  

They should have never signed Fitzpatrick.  I think they did that prior to the true tanking efforts.

[jgb]

29 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Because players and coaches don't try to lose games.  Front offices do.  They traded off as many assets as they could, including their starting LT and best DB.  

They should have never signed Fitzpatrick.  I think they did that prior to the true tanking efforts.

Let’s see if their GM keeps his job.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, jgb said:

Remember the most famous tank in history? Suck for Luck?

The GM and HC were canned in January after that miserable season. “Hey thanks for sucking to get the best QB prospect in history. Pack your sheet.”

NFL teams don’t tank until like week 16-17, if ever.

They weren't tanking, despite the saying. They just sucked.

FFS they didn't even put Manning on IR until the season was almost over, and almost blew the top pick after that at the very end by winning 2 of their last 3 (and almost winning the last 3 outright). If they were tanking with a mandate from up above, they wouldn't have spent millions signing Collins last minute to hopefully tie them over until Manning returned - specifically to salvage the season - and then after they were 0-11 they'd certainly have left Painter in at QB for the rest of the season. 

In the end they still only got the top pick due to a tie breaker, as the Rams were also 2-14. Doubtful they were calculating and counting on that when they were winning games in late December. 

Admittedly the rhyme makes it a good story, though.

[#27TheDominator]

5 hours ago, Lith said:

Agreed.  If Darnold plays well over  the last 7 games, and we finish 5-11 and have good reason to believe Darnold can be a franchise QB that is a good thing.  Even if it means we lose out on Andrew Thomas.  I would rather pick 8th and think we have the QB that can lead the franchise for the next decade than pick 3rd and know that we don't.

I agree, but I would rather know than think.  If Darnold actually blows Sanchez style, I would rather know now than wait another couple of years.

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I'd rather be able to trade our top 3 pick to a QB-needy team for three first rounders.  But that's just me.  

People always forget that that's an option, because we've never been in position to do it, thanks to meaningless wins.  

We have to been in ******* position.  We were in position in to trade down last year and we traded up.  Two teams traded up for QBs in 2018 to slots below our pick.  In 2017 we picked 6th and teams trade up to 10th and 12th for QBs. 

It wasn't a huge haul, but that sh*t Maccagnan couldn't even get his buddies with the Texans to trade up to 20 in 2016.  They traded from 22 to 21 for a 6th.  Not much, but I liked Robert Davis so I kept track. sh*t, the Broncos traded up for Paxton Lynch. 

In 2014 2 of the 4 picks after Pryor were traded.  Stop acting like the Robert Griffin deal is the only way to get extra picks. 

[jgb]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They weren't tanking, despite the saying. They just sucked.

FFS they didn't even put Manning on IR until the season was almost over, and almost blew the top pick after that at the very end by winning 2 of their last 3 (and almost winning the last 3 outright). If they were tanking with a mandate from up above, they wouldn't have spent millions signing Collins last minute to hopefully tie them over until Manning returned - specifically to salvage the season - and then after they were 0-11 they'd certainly have left Painter in at QB for the rest of the season. 

In the end they still only got the top pick due to a tie breaker, as the Rams were also 2-14. Doubtful they were calculating and counting on that when they were winning games in late December. 

Admittedly the rhyme makes it a good story, though.

If dolphins were tanking why did they not leave Rosen in? They are not tanking, they just blow.

[Vudu]

We should do everything to lose the rest of the games— what’s the point of moral victories now?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[BurnleyJet]

Washington are playing Haskins. He sucks something awful. I can’t see even the SOJ losing this one.

[carlito1171]

Sam actually looking like a Franchise QB > Losing out to get the 2nd pick 

[RoadFan]

Redskins are a very similar team to the Jets.

Redskins win 20-19.

 

 

[jgb]

9 hours ago, DLJ said:

We should do everything to lose the rest of the games— what’s the point of moral victories now?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Hypothetically you are right but it just isn’t how it plays in real world. Even assuming tanking exists, only HCs secure in their roles would engage in it. For example if Brady retires and Pats start 1-6 next year, Belichick would probably tank for Lawrence. He knows he will never be fired. This is an extremely rare set of circumstances for a terrible team to have an untouchable coach.