Would tanking in 2020 been a better option for QB draft position?

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
I don't think I've literally ever advocated for the Patriots to trade up before. Teams get ripped off trading up. But it works out sometimes, especially when it's for an extremely talented QB.

The Patriots have spent a ton of draft capital on bad DBs:

2019 2nd round Joejuan Williams
2018 2nd round Duke Dawson
2016 2nd round Cyrus Jones
2015 2nd round Jordan Richards

& picked up some really good ones for free like JC Jackson, Malcolm Butler & Jonathan Jones.

Yes, we picked up Brady almost for free, but that's really not how franchise QBs normally happen. If we don't strike this year, what's the plan for next year? Good QBs just don't come randomly available.

A little thought experiment...how many 1st rounders is Patrick Mahomes worth?

2019 #32 N'Keal Harry
2018 #23 Isaiah Wynn
2018 #31 Sony Michel
2015 #32 Malcom Brown
2014 #29 Dominique Easley
2012 #21 Chandler Jones
2012 #25 Dont'a Hightower
2011 #17 Nate Solder
2010 #27 Devin McCourty
2008 #10 Jerod Mayo
2007 #24 Brandon Meriweather
2006 #21 Laurence Maroney

The 1st 5 are easy - I think everyone would agree that we would trade our last 5 1st rounders for almost any good young QB...Josh Allen, Dak, Herbert, Kyler, etc.

The only question is do we throw Chandler/High/Solder into the mix. & the answer for Mahomes in terms of win expectancy I think is "yes to all".

Obviously one can't draft a QB, let alone the 4th or 5th QB taken in the draft, to be Mahomeslike, but QB is the least fungible position in the league & if the Patriots can solve the next 15 years at QB this draft, there's almost no price too high. So if they evaluate Lance or Fields in that way, I think they'll go for it.

Building a solid team is great, but you aren't a dynasty without an elite QB & this may be their best chance for many years.
Great post. And the fact is the wins over Baltimore and Arizona plus that come from behind win over the Jets loom so large right now. They would literally be in position to get a QB had they not won those games. It literally sucks that they won those games IMO and I don’t want to hear the oh the culture excuse. They would be better positioned right now to strike for a QB.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Great post. And the fact is the wins over Baltimore and Arizona plus that come from behind win over the Jets loom so large right now. They would literally be in position to get a QB had they not won those games. It literally sucks that they won those games IMO and I don’t want to hear the oh the culture excuse. They would be better positioned right now to strike for a QB.
Tanking just doesn't occur in the NFL in the same way. You could apply the above to pretty much any of the teams at the top of the draft. For example, I am sure the Jets are somewhat disappointed that they won two meaningless late-season games against decent teams and threw away their chance at Lawrence. Denver fans, I am sure, look at their handful of close wins (including over the Pats) and wish they had lost a few of those. Etc.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,913
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
While I get this and deep down feel similarly, and we have no way of knowing this one way or the other, but does the same free agent bonanza occur if they were 4-12 instead? Maybe the answer is yes, I dunno. But I do think there is something to be said for culture.
There was definitely a ton of value in proving that they could still win without Brady. You go 4-12 with Cam throwing into the ground or an unproven QB and it looks more like a shitshow and the only reason they won is because of Brady.

Winning 7 games and being 'close' definitely helped them in FA.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
I mean, answering only the question posed in thread title, then yes, losing more would have them in a better position.

But I agree that it may have had repercussions elsewhere.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
2,371
How do you unnoticeably "tank" in the NFL? I can't believe any of these things did or could happen

Secretly urge a bunch of players to opt out of the season?
Start an ineffective Cam Newton when Stidham had been lighting it up in practice?
Convince your 53 players to not perform and jeopardize their careers so the Pats can draft a QB then get cut in 2021?
Release your players and start guys from the practice squad?
Just give all of the snaps to players low on the depth chart pissing off your starters?
Make crazy play calls (thus pissing off all of your players / fans / other teams) etc.

Someone help me here
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Tanking is only really an option for teams that are really terrible late in the season and they may not even take that option (ie, Jets last year).

The Patriots were a potential playoff team for most of last year. Even at 2-5 they could look at the schedule and say they were last minute plays against the Bills and Seahawks away from 4-3 and could chalk two more of the losses up to Covid. Heck, they were within 3 points against the best team in the league in the 4th quarter without their starting QB. Then they beat the Jets and beat what seemed like one of the best teams in the league in the Ravens. At that point you're 4-5 and have competed well with the best teams in your conference. You're going to do everything possible to make the playoffs and that's basically what they did before just coming up short in that LAR/MIA/BUF stretch.

The only thing they really could have done is possibly intentionally lose the second NYJ game. But at that point you're not really tanking you're just intentionally losing with the hope of improving a middle-of-the-road draft position by a couple slots.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Yes and it'd have very little repercussions in terms of culture, teams go from perennial losers to Super Bowl contenders in a blink time and time again in the NFL, I think the whole "you have to win a certain number of games to maintain a winning environment" argument is severely overrated (just look at the Bucs who went 5-11, 5-11, 7-9 and then won the Lombardi).

Of course, I'm not saying they should be purposefully losing games, but I think Bill missed an opportunity to give more snaps to Stidham and some other young guys who may not have been fully ready for that workload yet just to see what he had in them and maybe in the process set the team in a better position for the future, especially at the QB position.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,826
Needham, MA
What does tanking mean in this context? Bill is admittedly a tough coach to play for, practices are tough and he is demanding of his players. If the reward for that is purposely losing games or not doing everything to try to win, and not allowing guys to show their abilities on the field to earn a pay day from the Pats or another team, that’s an objectively shitty thing to do and I could definitely see it harming the totality of the culture Bill has built.

Even playing Stidham more, I’m ok with that in a vacuum but if Stidham was dogshit in practice and the players all knew it that’s another story.

I don’t think coaches get players to buy into their system if they don’t do everything they can to put them into position to win on Sundays.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Yes. We should have played Stidham the 2nd half of the season: we would know what he is, and at worst, would be drafting in the top 10. I said this then and stand by it
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
As has been pointed out, tanking isn’t a thing. The Jets were 0-13 and headed on the road to play the playoff Rams. And they won. Then they won again. Now they’re not drafting Lawrence.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Yes. We should have played Stidham the 2nd half of the season: we would know what he is, and at worst, would be drafting in the top 10. I said this then and stand by it
yep. Can't see any meaningful reason to have started Cam after the string of games against Denver San Fran and Buffalo where he had a 50 passer rating and 0 touchdowns. But he especially shouldn't have started week 17. What's the point, the team is 6-9 at that point
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,283
As has been pointed out, tanking isn’t a thing. The Jets were 0-13 and headed on the road to play the playoff Rams. And they won. Then they won again. Now they’re not drafting Lawrence.
Counterpoint: they allowed Adam Gase to coach the team + the blitz against the Raiders.

But yeah, players & coaches like to win football games. That's kinda why they got into the business, especially the best ones.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
As I mentioned in the other thread, any criticism of Belichick for refusing to tank is absurd.

Deliberately tanking by playing Stidham could have easily made it less likely that David Andrews, James White, Kyle Van Noy, Ted Karras, or Nick Folk return. Maybe Devin McCourty or Hightower decide to hang up their cleats during the offseason if they think the team is going through a tanking period.

One of the things that makes Belichick great is that he compartmentalizes his coaching duties from his GM duties. When he's coaching, he's not at all thinking about next season's draft position, and I don't think you can ask a coach to behave any differently in the NFL. The NFL is not the NBA.
 

GrandSlamPozo

New Member
May 16, 2017
105
What are the odds that the QBs at the top of the draft aside from Lawrence even pan out? It seems like every year there's a bunch of QBs picked in the first round and most of them either turn out mediocre or flame out completely.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
What are the odds that the QBs at the top of the draft aside from Lawrence even pan out? It seems like every year there's a bunch of QBs picked in the first round and most of them either turn out mediocre or flame out completely.
As we've been discussing in the Pats QB Options thread, so much of this will be due to circumstances / situations / which team drafts them. Of the 4 non-Lawrence top QBs, I'd rate their chances at being a good QB based far, far more on which team drafts them than their actual ability.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'd bet on the Niners QB having a better career than the Jets QB. And if the Pats pick a QB, he'll have a better career than if Carolina or Denver picks a QB. Etc.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
As I mentioned in the other thread, any criticism of Belichick for refusing to tank is absurd.

Deliberately tanking by playing Stidham could have easily made it less likely that David Andrews, James White, Kyle Van Noy, Ted Karras, or Nick Folk return. Maybe Devin McCourty or Hightower decide to hang up their cleats during the offseason if they think the team is going through a tanking period.

One of the things that makes Belichick great is that he compartmentalizes his coaching duties from his GM duties. When he's coaching, he's not at all thinking about next season's draft position, and I don't think you can ask a coach to behave any differently in the NFL. The NFL is not the NBA.
I'd trade all of those guys for Justin Fields in a blink, though. Not to mention it wouldn't have been a "tanking period". They still would have signed all of the big name FAs they did (the guys they paid top of the market money for) and you could easily sell those players you listed on the notion that the team would be ready to win with a young QB and the FA additions. Don't think it changes a whole lot, you think those guys coming back are excited to play for Cam?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The 2020 New York Jets stand as evidence that tanking in the NFL is, if not impossible, at least much more difficult than message-board peeps think it is. Nearly all knowledgeable observers would agree that unacknowledged tanking happens in MLB, the NHL, and the NBA. The NFL is qualitatively different. I’m not sure exactly why that’s so, but I think it’s basically the same reason youth football teams don’t let every kid who wants to play quarterback have a turn — you can’t expect the guys in the trenches to put their bodies on the line if the coach isn’t doing everything he can to win the game.

At a minimum, suggesting the Pats would be better off if they had tanked in 2020 is to suggest they’d be better off with a different head coach, as there’s zero chance BB would have presided over such a thing.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
The 2020 New York Jets stand as evidence that tanking in the NFL is, if not impossible, at least much more difficult than message-board peeps think it is. Nearly all knowledgeable observers would agree that unacknowledged tanking happens in MLB, the NHL, and the NBA. The NFL is qualitatively different. I’m not sure exactly why that’s so, but I think it’s basically the same reason youth football teams don’t let every kid who wants to play quarterback have a turn — you can’t expect the guys in the trenches to put their bodies on the line if the coach isn’t doing everything he can to win the game.

At a minimum, suggesting the Pats would be better off if they had tanked in 2020 is to suggest they’d be better off with a different head coach, as there’s zero chance BB would have presided over such a thing.
The one thing with those other leagues is that outside of the NBA, coaches literally never tank. The closest one comes in MLB is when a team shuts down some key players in September, but that is almost always done to preserve the health of those players. But the manager still tries to win each and every ballgame. Same in the NHL.

Even in the NBA, coach tanking is a bit more nuanced, and tends to consist of giving a lot of minutes to bench players down the stretch.

NFL coaches are hard wired to win each and every time (preseason being an obvious exception). Getting Belichick to pull the starters from a meaningless 16th game almost requires multiple religious incantations. And he's hardly unique in that regard.

GM tanking is a different issue, but multiple high draft picks are by no means a guaranteed ticket to success in the NFL.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
The mechanics of ‘tanking’ an NFL game or series of games is seldom addressed by advocates of the strategy, which I think is pretty telling. That certainly hasn’t been addressed in this thread despite a series of probing observations and questions. These players and coaches aren’t EA Sports video game characters with AI brains.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
The mechanics of ‘tanking’ an NFL game or series of games is seldom addressed by advocates of the strategy, which I think is pretty telling. That certainly hasn’t been addressed in this thread despite a series of probing observations and questions. These players and coaches aren’t EA Sports video game characters with AI brains.
I don't think tanking should be a thing, but just as a thought exercise:
Trading away better players for draft picks. (has downside risk of weakening your team overall, so even if you get that coveted pick, you have other holes to fill because of the trades)
Calling more higher-risk plays. Like, lots of blitzing, when you're not really that good at it. Lots of "unleash the dragon" long plays that will likely not work out.
Calling lots of gimmicky plays...fake punts, unnecessary onsides, wildcat, Edleman throwing to Cam..
Flip side: calling more vanilla plays. a very basic offense or defense. "We can't get creative until we have the fundamentals down".
Minor misuse of players...asking a short route guy to go long a lot. Or, an RB with bad hands to try to catch the ball. "We're trying to coach them up into new roles to improve their skillset and the team".

Problem is, down-low tanking depends on a small group of people (coaches and coordinators) knowing what's up. If the players don't catch on, then they think their coach has lost a step. "Maybe it was all TB12", and even if you have 20 years of coaching dominance, it could be hard to get the clubhouse back (a lot of those players would only really have one or a few years with the current coach).

Also, I could even see Goodell taking stock, launching an "investigation", and actually accusing BB of tanking and docking draft picks (and fines) for "conduct detrimental" or something.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
I don't think tanking should be a thing, but just as a thought exercise:
Trading away better players for draft picks. (has downside risk of weakening your team overall, so even if you get that coveted pick, you have other holes to fill because of the trades)
The NFL trade deadline is so early in the season--the Pats had only played 7 games (granted they were 2-5)--not to mention, big in-season trades aren't as much of a thing in the NFL. They happen, but not sure it's quite the same as we see in baseball.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
The NFL trade deadline is so early in the season--the Pats had only played 7 games (granted they were 2-5)--not to mention, big in-season trades aren't as much of a thing in the NFL. They happen, but not sure it's quite the same as we see in baseball.
One of the reasons often stated about why there aren't many big in-season trades is that it simply takes longer to work a player into an offensive or defensive scheme in football than it does in other sports.

Suggestion that they'd never do: Have all teams play the first 8 or 9 weeks, then have a week where every team gets a bye and synch that up to the trade deadline. Not only could any acquired player have time to adjust, but it would equalize the bye schedule, as opposed to having teams randomly assigned early or late breaks

Then again, they still haven't adopted my laser-pointer first-down marker system, so I'm not expecting this either
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
The mechanics of ‘tanking’ an NFL game or series of games is seldom addressed by advocates of the strategy, which I think is pretty telling. That certainly hasn’t been addressed in this thread despite a series of probing observations and questions. These players and coaches aren’t EA Sports video game characters with AI brains.
The mechanics of "tanking" in the NFL are remarkably simple for HCs with as much clout and job security as Bill Belichick. Recognize your team doesn't have enough talent to contend for a title -> don't expend resources in an attempt to maximize your chances of winning in the short term -> play younger, cheaper players to prepare them/have a better feel for their ability to contribute to the next contender you put together, even if they're not 100% ready for that workload -> try to flip current valuable pieces for younger players/draft picks that can help you in the future. If you win a reasonable amount of games even while doing that, so be it. No one is saying they should put together bad gameplans or be lazy with preparation/play calling in an attempt to intentionaly lose.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
The NFL has the least job security of all the professional leagues. On top of everything else, asking the players to tank, either by poor effort or forcing them not to play when they are able, is asking them to compromise their careers. That goes beyond the cost of missed or subpar performance and to the fact that some of these guys are being asked to lose so that the team can draft their replacements.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Every team that didn't make the playoffs would have been better off by tanking the season or a game here and there (except maybe the Texans).
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Every team that didn't make the playoffs would have been better off by tanking the season or a game here and there (except maybe the Texans).
Sure and by extension every team that didn’t win the super bowl would have been better off tanking.
That’s kindof a logical extreme that becomes self defeating (literally and figuratively).
Given the downside of tanking, it really only makes sense to tank if you can get high enough in the draft to get ‘the player’ you want. Otherwise it’s a shitshow.