I have always had arguments with people(And not just in regards to the NFL) is if teams intentionally tank just to get a star player in the draft?
Tough one for me to agree with and probably just because I have always been a competitor and want to win regardless of what the situation may be. I mean yeah coaches may have not started certain players as a season was essentially over with, did odd things, etc. Have teams intentionally just folded it in just to eventually get certain players? Unfortunately, I think yes it has happened, but not to the extent some feel that it has.
Some teams are just shit regardless of who starts, plays, etc etc.
What say ya'll?
If they do, it won't work.
First off, how many "star players" are really like franchise-altering talents? Like I don't even think somebody like JaMarr Chase is the kind of player you tank for, because he's not somebody who's really going to guarantee you win a lot of games.
It's QBs. You tank for QBs, and the bust rate on those guys is still pretty damn high.
Lets say the Colts "tanked" for Luck. Did that pay off? I don't know. Depends on how you define it. They basically had good but unspectacular teams his entire tenure, didn't come close to winning any Lombardi's, etc.
Lets say the Jags "tanked" for Lawrence. Only been one year, but how's that looking? Anybody have high level of confidence that they're 1-2 years away from being a legit AFC SB contender? I don't.
Not saying these guys are bad, but I think the whole "tanking" argument is from MLB or NBA fans. In the NBA, one star player can catapult the entire franchise. It's a 1000% star-driven league. In MLB, teams that tank do it for several years to max out on # of high draft picks they get, and it'll take 4-5 years, minimum, in most cases, for that to even materialize. In some cases, it never does.
You can make an argument there's certain teams who are not doing "everything possible" to win the SB that year. There are very clearly rosters in the NFL right now who are complete dead money in terms of Lombardi trophy hunting this year. And everybody can name probably at least 5-6 of them, maybe more. But that doesn't mean they're intentionally losing to get a better draft pick. It's basically just one pick. It's not that big of a deal in the NFL.
Ultimately, I go to the "human element" of these things. What motivation does a GM have to "tank"? Lets say he lands a stud QB. He's got like a 2-3 year window, at most, to win and win a lot with that QB, or that GM is almost certainly getting fired. Then all the plans he had for roster development and long term strategy belong to somebody else. Most NFL employees, whether its coaches, players, GMs, etc. really, really, really value job security. Players are all about guaranteed money. Why? Job security. Coaches want long contracts. GMs want talent development. Why? Job security.
