Every poor sports franchise gets tempted with this idea, but only a few have the guts to give it a shot. We saw many poor teams in the NBA try this approach in the season before LEBRON was to be drafted. As you know, Cleveland won the sweepstakes.
When there is gold in the upcoming draft, some teams decide to "tank" the current season and I believe the SEATTLE SEACHICKENS are tanking this season (IF WE EVER HAVE ONE) with hopes of getting "lucky": drafting ANDREW LUCK.
Here's why I believe this:
1). The 2011 DRAFT: Every analyst (Scouts Inc, ESPN, NFLNETWORK, ETC,) noted that the SEAHAWKS draft selections made NO sense. They drafted James Carpenter when there were still FIVE offensive tackles rated HIGHER than him! In second round, they drafted John Moffit when there were, just like before, FIVE offensive guards ranked higher. The 1st round pick of OT JAMES Carpenter of Alabama was so shocking that even his college coach (NICK SABAN) was disgusted by the pick....just watch the video!
How does a experienced NFL coach like pete carroll put up such a dud on draft day, especially when he was already VERY FAMILIAR with alot of these college players, being only one year removed from coaching college football?!?! Because, he's tanking it!!
2) The Quaterback Issue : The SEACHICKENS had nine draft picks and did not select a single quaterback!! (ANDY DALTON and Ryan MAllett were available) In fact, Pete Carroll said, after the draft, that Charlie "pick-six" whitehurst is definitely "starting material". Why would he say such a thing?! Because, they're tanking this season!
3) The RIVALRY: What better way for pete carroll to stick it to a rival coach, than to draft his star pupil
I hope I'm wrong guys and that they win just enough games ( no more than 4...lol) to lose the LUCK sweepstakes
[ Edited by 49ERFANb4Uwas on May 3, 2011 at 16:14:25 ]
There are 270 users in the forums
Seattle Seahawks are tanking it. period
May 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM
- 49ERFANb4Uwas
- Veteran
- Posts: 982
May 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM
- mod
- Veteran
- Posts: 41,088
Pete Carroll will be out of a job if he tanks it
May 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM
- susweel
- Hall of Nepal
- Posts: 120,276
Originally posted by modninerfan:
Pete Carroll will be out of a job if he tanks it
Not if the owner is down with it
May 3, 2011 at 4:23 PM
- ads_2006
- Veteran
- Posts: 56,464
Originally posted by 49ERFANb4Uwas:
3) The RIVALRY: What better way for pete carroll to stick it to a rival coach, than to draft his star pupil
I hope I'm wrong guys and that they win just enough games ( no more than 4...lol) to lose the LUCK sweepstakes
We have Harbaugh, if Harbaugh groomed luck, Im sure he can pick lucks flaws as well.
There will be a learning curve for luck, its not like Peyton Manning and Brady came in winning SB's.
May 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM
- Shifty
- Veteran
- Posts: 23,424
I wonder if other teams thought we were tanking when we took Balmer and Rachal
May 3, 2011 at 4:34 PM
- NoOffseason
- Veteran
- Posts: 307
That is a flawed assumption and in my mind, to be frank, stupid.
Even if they were not taking a QB on purpose because they think they can get Luck next year (which would be risky as hell, one Bradford-type injury next year or even a subpar senior year from Luck and everything looks different. Remember the Locker evaluations from last year?), they still have to shell out a first-round contract to a player this year, why waste money and a pick on a bad player?
Also, if they wanted to tank in order to get Luck, why would they then take a (supposedly) reach at offensive tackle on purpose instead of a (presumably) better one? If they want to get Luck next years, they need good guys to protect him, what sense would it make to take bad O-Linemen this year if those same guys are needed to protect the supposed franchise QB?
Even if they were not taking a QB on purpose because they think they can get Luck next year (which would be risky as hell, one Bradford-type injury next year or even a subpar senior year from Luck and everything looks different. Remember the Locker evaluations from last year?), they still have to shell out a first-round contract to a player this year, why waste money and a pick on a bad player?
Also, if they wanted to tank in order to get Luck, why would they then take a (supposedly) reach at offensive tackle on purpose instead of a (presumably) better one? If they want to get Luck next years, they need good guys to protect him, what sense would it make to take bad O-Linemen this year if those same guys are needed to protect the supposed franchise QB?
May 3, 2011 at 4:50 PM
- NoOffseason
- Veteran
- Posts: 307
Originally posted by ads_2006:Originally posted by 49ERFANb4Uwas:
3) The RIVALRY: What better way for pete carroll to stick it to a rival coach, than to draft his star pupil
I hope I'm wrong guys and that they win just enough games ( no more than 4...lol) to lose the LUCK sweepstakes
We have Harbaugh, if Harbaugh groomed luck, Im sure he can pick lucks flaws as well.
There will be a learning curve for luck, its not like Peyton Manning and Brady came in winning SB's.
Good points there. Also, although Carrolls USC QBs were very successful in college, he was not exactly grooming NFL royalty there. The best USC QBs under Carroll in the NFL were Carson Palmer (whom he did not recruit, but rather inherited) and funnily enough, Matt Cassell, who was a backup his entire college career at USC. The jury is still out on Mark Sanchez (a mixed bag so far), but Leinart did not pan out and John David Booty is not on an NFL roster right now, I think.
During his first NFL tenure, he was a defensive guy most of the time, thus he was not involved in selecting and grooming a QB. During his time as Patriots head coach, he inherited Drew Bledsoe and that Tom Brady dude was drafted after Carroll left, so he also did not find or develop an NFL QB during his first NFL stint as well.
This together with the curious trade for Charlie Whitehurst makes me think that Carroll has not yet shown very much in regards to finding and developing an NFL Quarterback, so even if they could successfully tank and land him, I am not sure poor Andrew Luck would then not have to endure a similar fate to Alex Smith in going to a poor team with a defensive head coach who does not know how to properly develop a QB. A fate I wish on no NFL QB
May 3, 2011 at 4:51 PM
- 49ERFANb4Uwas
- Veteran
- Posts: 982
Originally posted by NoOffseason:
That is a flawed assumption and in my mind, to be frank, stupid.
Even if they were not taking a QB on purpose because they think they can get Luck next year (which would be risky as hell, one Bradford-type injury next year or even a subpar senior year from Luck and everything looks different. Remember the Locker evaluations from last year?), they still have to shell out a first-round contract to a player this year, why waste money and a pick on a bad player?
Also, if they wanted to tank in order to get Luck, why would they then take a (supposedly) reach at offensive tackle on purpose instead of a (presumably) better one? If they want to get Luck next years, they need good guys to protect him, what sense would it make to take bad O-Linemen this year if those same guys are needed to protect the supposed franchise QB?
DID YOU JUST COMPARE the potential of LOCKER TO LUCK? not even close. locker was always seen as more of an athlete than a cerebral QB.... so don't even mention those locker evaluations bro. We're talking "Peyton Manning-esque"...right here
By the way, you mentioned that it wouldn't make sense to draft a bad lineman THIS YEAR in order to prepare for luck in next year's draft because luck would have a poor line NEXT year...and i respond with this....How else could you get the number 1 pick?? OF COURSE you would have to suffer SOME LOSS in order to get the big prize!!!!
The gain of drafting LUCK, next year, would FAR outweigh the setbacks from a poor draft this year. And Pete Carrol knows this...Besides, taking a weak OG wouldn't be hard to replace with a quality player next year because interior, offensive linemen (guards) aren't hard to find. they're always in abundance.
[ Edited by 49ERFANb4Uwas on May 3, 2011 at 16:59:41 ]
May 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM
- okdkid
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,883
Wrong.
Carroll won't be there next year if they have the top pick. The owner will never be in on it since he will want to sell seats, merch and get TV time.
"Tanking it" would be retarded and almost every aspect of it is out of their control. Players won't "tank it". They're good enough, even without a QB, to get 5 wins. Even if they did try to tank it, they'd still have to hope that another team will not do worse. Another team will certainly do worse.
Tanking a full season does not happen in the NFL. Too many jobs on the line. Players need to look good for their next contract and GMs need to show reasonable effort to either keep their job or find a future position.
Won't happen, doesn't happen, can't happen. Not ever.
Carroll won't be there next year if they have the top pick. The owner will never be in on it since he will want to sell seats, merch and get TV time.
"Tanking it" would be retarded and almost every aspect of it is out of their control. Players won't "tank it". They're good enough, even without a QB, to get 5 wins. Even if they did try to tank it, they'd still have to hope that another team will not do worse. Another team will certainly do worse.
Tanking a full season does not happen in the NFL. Too many jobs on the line. Players need to look good for their next contract and GMs need to show reasonable effort to either keep their job or find a future position.
Won't happen, doesn't happen, can't happen. Not ever.
May 3, 2011 at 5:07 PM
- GEEK
- Veteran
- Posts: 19,191
Teams have players ranked at different spots on their boards.
The Jaguars "reached" on Tyson Alualu last year, but he came out to be a very solid player in his first season.
My hunch is that they will go after Carson Palmer hard once the lockout ends.
The Jaguars "reached" on Tyson Alualu last year, but he came out to be a very solid player in his first season.
My hunch is that they will go after Carson Palmer hard once the lockout ends.
May 3, 2011 at 5:21 PM
- 49oz2superbowl
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,594
While I agree that teams may try and tank the season (and wisely so) once the playoffs are out of reach, to suggest that the Seahawks are tanking it in the draft is laughable.
Why in the world would you draft bad players on your team just to "tank it"? Rookies will be of little impact regardless, and if that was really an issue you could just sit the rookie and play scrubs for a year until you did bad enough to secure your player (Luck) and give him a supporting cast by starting those players the next year.
If they were really "tanking the draft" to grab Luck they would have traded their 2011 draft choices for 2012 draft choices to use them as ammunition to ensure that they could make it to the top spot or at the very least add weapons around him the next year.
That is one minute of my life that I will never get back. Thank you sir
[ Edited by 49oz2superbowl on May 3, 2011 at 17:23:23 ]
Why in the world would you draft bad players on your team just to "tank it"? Rookies will be of little impact regardless, and if that was really an issue you could just sit the rookie and play scrubs for a year until you did bad enough to secure your player (Luck) and give him a supporting cast by starting those players the next year.
If they were really "tanking the draft" to grab Luck they would have traded their 2011 draft choices for 2012 draft choices to use them as ammunition to ensure that they could make it to the top spot or at the very least add weapons around him the next year.
That is one minute of my life that I will never get back. Thank you sir
[ Edited by 49oz2superbowl on May 3, 2011 at 17:23:23 ]
May 3, 2011 at 5:22 PM
- NoOffseason
- Veteran
- Posts: 307
Originally posted by okdkid:
Wrong.
Carroll won't be there next year if they have the top pick. The owner will never be in on it since he will want to sell seats, merch and get TV time.
"Tanking it" would be retarded and almost every aspect of it is out of their control. Players won't "tank it". They're good enough, even without a QB, to get 5 wins. Even if they did try to tank it, they'd still have to hope that another team will not do worse. Another team will certainly do worse.
Tanking a full season does not happen in the NFL. Too many jobs on the line. Players need to look good for their next contract and GMs need to show reasonable effort to either keep their job or find a future position.
Won't happen, doesn't happen, can't happen. Not ever.
Thanks, good arguments. I would like to add that tanking from the coaches by giving the players bad coaching or bad gameplanning can quickly let them lose the locker room, where the players will no longer listen to them, so that is out as well.
Also to the original poster: Relax, we are not attacking you personally, we just do not see merit in your point. Besides, bringing Peyton Manning into the argument is odd, because if you might remember, there was not a consensus before the draft that Manning was worthy of the top overall pick, Leaf was in the discussion as well and we now know only in hindsight how that one panned out.
Besides, personally I think Luck will be the top prospect in next years draft if everything goes as planned, but that is the problem with the future: It is hard to predict
As I already said, Luck could get hurt. We all hope not, but it is a violent sport and you never know. Hurting his throwing arm, especially late in the season so he cannot go to the combine or do his pro day workout, could seriously affect his draft stock next year. He could also struggle with having a new head coach and Stanford having the scrutiny of the media and much bigger expectations, we will see. Finally, Harbaugh took a lot of coaches with him, maybe that was too much of a loss at once, especially on defense. That could factor in as well, if the Stanford defense falters and Luck is forced to carry the team alone.
I just want to illustrate how much change and risk there is in such draft evaluations, so tanking for a specific players just does not work. Besides, adding to okdkid, the NFL is not the NBA, the dynamics for tanking just do not work there, which I am very thankful for.
May 3, 2011 at 5:25 PM
- niner4life21
- Veteran
- Posts: 8,426
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
I wonder if other teams thought we were tanking when we took Balmer and Rachal
lol
May 3, 2011 at 5:27 PM
- 49ERFANb4Uwas
- Veteran
- Posts: 982
Originally posted by okdkid:
Wrong.
Carroll won't be there next year if they have the top pick. The owner will never be in on it since he will want to sell seats, merch and get TV time.
"Tanking it" would be retarded and almost every aspect of it is out of their control. Players won't "tank it". They're good enough, even without a QB, to get 5 wins. Even if they did try to tank it, they'd still have to hope that another team will not do worse. Another team will certainly do worse.
Tanking a full season does not happen in the NFL. Too many jobs on the line. Players need to look good for their next contract and GMs need to show reasonable effort to either keep their job or find a future position.
Won't happen, doesn't happen, can't happen. Not ever.
Look at their schedule and tell me where they can get 5 wins bro
1.on the road at cleveland? no
2. at home against ATlanta? hell no!
3. on road against pittsburgh? nooo!
4. on road against giants no!
5. at home vs Mike vick and eagles No!!!
6. on road against Bears? NOPE
7. on road against Cowboys? NO
8,9. Any game against the 49ers? HELL NO!!
10. Against the ravens? No
11, 12. Any game against BRADFORD and the rams? NO
Do i have to go on?!?
look at their schedule and remember they have:
1) NO QUATERBACKS
2) NO DEFENSIVE TACKLES
[ Edited by 49ERFANb4Uwas on May 3, 2011 at 17:46:00 ]
May 3, 2011 at 5:31 PM
- okdkid
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,883
Originally posted by 49ERFANb4Uwas:Originally posted by okdkid:
Wrong.
Carroll won't be there next year if they have the top pick. The owner will never be in on it since he will want to sell seats, merch and get TV time.
"Tanking it" would be retarded and almost every aspect of it is out of their control. Players won't "tank it". They're good enough, even without a QB, to get 5 wins. Even if they did try to tank it, they'd still have to hope that another team will not do worse. Another team will certainly do worse.
Tanking a full season does not happen in the NFL. Too many jobs on the line. Players need to look good for their next contract and GMs need to show reasonable effort to either keep their job or find a future position.
Won't happen, doesn't happen, can't happen. Not ever.
Look at their schedule and tell me where they can get 5 wins bro
1.on the road at cleveland? no
2. at home against ATlanta? hell no!
3. on road against pittsburgh? nooo!
4. on road against giants no!
5. at home vs Mike vick and eagles No!!!
6. on road against Bears? NOPE
7. on road against Cowboys? NO
8,9. Any game against the 49ers? HELL NO!!
10. Against the ravens? No
11, 12. Any game against BRADFORD and the rams? NO
Do i have to go on?!?
look at their schedule!!!! and remember they have:
1) NO QUATERBACKS
2) NO DEFENSIVE TACKLES
______
Well, I'd say since they play the Cardinals, 49ers and Rams six times a year...that'd be a good start.