If a linebacker misses a tackle, that loyalty from the GM/coaches will last until the Colts find a linebacker who, under normal circumstances, sheds more blocks and makes more tackles than the current LB (who, as evidenced by the Colts’ play this year, isn’t good enough). If it’s a wide receiver who drops a pass, that loyalty will last until another receiver comes along who runs better routes and catches more passes under normal circumstances. If there’s any player in the NFL you would think a franchise would be loyal to, it would be Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, right? Well, it sure doesn’t seem like the Colts are going to be very loyal to Manning if they end up with the #1. I also can’t imagine this theoretical player who tanks a game will get much of an additional look from the Seahawks, for example, because he was being loyal to the Colts cause.
Plus, I’m pretty sure most former pros will say if you’re not playing your hardest, that’s when injuries are more likely. A WR going across the middle, with more focus on being sure he goes against all instinct by trying to drop a pass instead of catch it, would seemingly be more likely to get rocked on a hit. A LB going just a tad slower so he can’t make a tackle is just a tad easier to get blocked by a pulling guard. I just can’t see the players who are actually on the field not trying to win.
No way. If a player is willing to tank for that kind of a reason, maybe they tank for other reasons - points shaving, gambling debt, contract re-negotiation.
Besides, if you need to deliberately tank, there’s no reason to be faithful to the bottom 10-15 players on your roster. Just dump them (and they won’t end up on another team) and sign a bunch of street free agents (who likely suck, anyway). Then dump those guys. There’s no shortage of mediocre or bad players. There’s no reason for GMs or teams to be faithful to any of them for deliberately tanking. There’s no shortage of street free agents. For a rational GM, it’s better to go with a player that thinks less and player harder than a player that tries to convince you with some kind of conspiracy theory about deliberately tanking.
The good players? They won’t get dumped, anyway, but bad stats (if they deliberately tank) can affect their contract re-negotiations. That’s money out of their pockets.
And even then you’d need to be loyal not just to these players but to the coaches, when everybody (from the owner to the fans) is calling for the coach to be fired. And the coach would have to be willing to tank, because they’re not going to use players who deliberately underperform. And that coach would be hard put to find another job later. Teams aren’t loyal to coaches, either.
Basically, it’s a conspiracy theory. To deliberately tank to this level, you’d need a bunch of people to keep quiet and act against their own financial best-interests for a small chance at an untested rookie who may end up being a bust.
Hamlet is correct. If Irsay were ever discovered ordering players to tank, he would have to get out of this state at near-light speed to avoid the lynch mob. We Colts fans didn’t expect them to go to the Super Bowl this year, but neither did we expect them to have a worse record than freaking St. Louis for much of the season.
I haven’t heard one fan over the past couple of weeks lamenting that the wins over Tennessee and Houston may cost the Colts a chance to draft Luck. Everyone is happy that they’ve finally won a couple of games, especially since one victory probably cost the Titans a shot at the playoffs and the other may cost Houston the No. 2 seed.
I hope they smoke the Jags on 1/1 and if that costs them Luck, we’ll still have Peyton for three or so years.
You’d really value a pointless win to end the season either over Luck or getting several first round draft picks to draft back a few slots in the draft?
It’s not a matter of what I, what you, or what some other idiot fan would “value”, it’s what the coaches/players/owners value. And they put much more value on their own personal success, the reputation of their team, the concerns of the NFL, and the money making possibilities of not tanking so much more than they do the value of tanking and getting a slightly higher draft pick, which, by and large, isn’t anywhere near a sure thing. And those coaches/players/owners are right, while the fans are completely wrong.
The way you make it sound, it’s as if teams should start tanking as soon as they are likely out of the playoffs. It’s week 8, and you’re 2-6, you’d have the team tank so that they can draft top 4, instead of at 13-20. That’s inane. There are no guarantees in the NFL, least of all in draft picks. Thankfully, the owners, coaches, and players make the decisions, and not fans.
The only person that stands to benefit from tanking are the owner and the 3 or 4 players who were drafted in the past year who in some way might benefit 4 years down the road when Luck is ready for primetime. On this Colts team, there may not even be a single player who fits that criteria.
The players who would have to tank all will either be cut, traded, retired or free agents before any benefit from said tanking manifests. The coaching staff and management doubly so. Do you really think any of the coaches on this staff will be retained regardless of what their final record is?
I take it you haven’t turned on the radio in the last week then. It’s all anyone can talk about in Indy. I was downtown last night, and people were pretty upset.
Yes, I would rather see them win, Senor Beef. There is no guarantee that Luck, or anyone else for that matter, will be a great player. Playing for the pros isn’t like playing in college, and I’m sure you and anyone else can think of several highly-touted prospects who washed up when they got to the pros. Luck will probably make it, but it isn’t guaranteed.
Munch: I don’t live in Indianapolis. All the fans I know are happier about winning than they are about what it does to Indy’s draft picks. No one wanted to go 0-16.