You could never prove any wrongdoing. If the comissioner didn't fine people or take draft picks away from all the teams who have sat starters after clinching playoff berths he can't do anything now. That is worse by the way. People paid good money to watch Peyton Manning or Tom brady and instead they get Curtis Painter or Brian Hoyer when the starter is perfectly healthy
You're the only one who's calling it cheating. All the league cares about is putting out a good product. To ensure that there are minimum salary cap rules. They have to use that b/c it's practically impossible to prove that a team is playing a player they think is worse just to lose.
Knowing our "luck" (pun intended), we would have all the chips fall into place, worst team in the league, Andrew Luck falls into our lap........then BOOM....the NFL changes it to a draft lottery and we end up with the 4th pick or some ****. then Id jump off a very tall building.
There's talk this draft could cause that to happen due to all the suck for luck going on, but I don't believe they'd implement for this draft like that, it would be fore future years.
Last night the Colts had guys like Anthony Castonzo, Delone Carter, Ben Ijalana, Jeff Linkenbach, Joe Reitz, Mike Tepper, Drake Nevis, Delone Carter, Terrance Johnson, Joe Lefeged, Chris Rucker, A.J. Edds, Adrian Moten, David Caldwell and Nate Triplett all play in the game. Give me a break. When the season is over you work on your young players. Every team does it. Every team, every year. You call it cheating, the rest of us call it football.
Could you imagine the NFL taking our 1st round pick away because Matt Moore and Chad Henne got hurt and we neglected to explore an option such as David Garrard? I just can't figure out how this is "cheating" in any way possible.
Except in this case, people aren't calling on Pat Devlin because they want to develop him. They are calling on Pat Devlin because they want to lose.
If its done with the intent of trying to secure a draft slot, I don't see how it doesn't constitute cheating.
Yes, Roger Goodell is having his office troll the message boards to see if the fans want Pat Devlin to be pulled up to the roster in order to Suck for Luck. We had better watch what we say or they'll take draft picks away from us.
Although it was awfully convenient to keep Moore in that game when Henne got fitted for a brace. Weren't we playing for our season? At least we know that Moore sucks. (Yes, I realize his numbers were not terrible)
Again, based on what rule exactly? By definition, cheating is the act of circumventing a rule. However, there simply is no rule that says you can't suck on purpose in order to get a better draft spot.
You guys are all correct. It would be very hard to prove. But somehow, if the Jets decided to tank the season and secure the #1 overall pick, most here would consider it cheating. If the ~20 teams in this league that would be better off with Andrew Luck all decided they would tank the season in hopes of getting the #1 pick, the NFL's product would be pretty damn bad.
Listen, 1. The NFL can't force teams to spend their money. That was even legislated into the most recent CBA. 2. The NFL can't force teams to spend their money wisely. 3. There would have to be something blatant to trigger an investigation into whether a team is intentionally losing, and that investigation would focus on internal communications (emails, memos, etc). So this discussion about it being "cheating" to NOT sign David Garrard to be Matt Moore's #2 rather than bringing up the practice squad player you've been grooming for months...is BEYOND pointless.
How bout we don't start a quarterback at all and just play with 10? Just have Pouncey snap it backwards for the entire game... Would they accuse us of cheating? I would call it innovation. Anyway, Henne missing the season is our only real chance at Andrew Luck.
If surreptitiously losing is not against the rules, then the entire concept of the league would be in question.
The doctors wouldn't let Chad Henne go back in. He tried. Just like he tried to go into the Chicago game when his knee was hurt last year. Remember when they had to literally hide his helmet from him? And yeah, it's kind of nice (if your aim is to improve your team by drafting Andrew Luck) that we know now that Matt Moore isn't some miracle pill. Although, if he was enough of a miracle pill, you never know if they do the unthinkable. But, that was never really in the cards and it's kind of nice to know Moore doesn't look like a guy that's going to screw up the whole Andrew Luck thing.
If Henne and Moore were healthy, then I'd agree. But hypothetically, they wouldn't be healthy. And even that's a stretch. Neither guy may be a Dolphin next year and we're already eliminated from the playoffs. Many teams after being eliminated bring in developmental QBs. Heck, we did it with Beck in 2007. He had no business being on the field. As bad as we were with Cleo Lemon, we were much much worse with Beck. The Jags are doing it with Gabbert. Minnesota will do it with Ponder very soon. Scmoilioot mentioned Skelton with Arizona last year. It's simple: If Henne and Moore are 0-8 or 1-7, putting in Devlin would probably only enforce the fact that we aren't tanking for draft position and that we're trying to get better.
Again, it all comes down to intent. I was a fan of Devlin coming out. I have no problem with him playing. But if the team does anything with the intent to lose, then that is disgraceful. And I'm not even going to get into the legal issues that could arise from an professional sports organization intentionally losing games that have hundreds of thousands of dollars being wagered on them.
I didn't see anyone argue along these lines when Carolina continued to play Jimmy Clausen, who didn't just not produce but basically looked as lost out there as any QB in recent memory. And when they didn't sign a vet (pretty much everyone would have given them a better chance to win than poor Jimmy) and ended up with the #1 pick and Cameron Newton, the league didn't implode either.
The reality with this Suck for Luck thing is that coaches make decisions all the time, every year, every team, that they KNOW sacrifice short term benefit for long term benefit. There's nothing new there. All the time they're starting a young guy that they know might not be as good as a veteran at the moment, but down the road they will be a better team for having started that young guy and gotten him experience. Hell, this team and this regime have flat out CONFIRMED it. They've said, if it's close, we're going with the younger player, it's better for our team. They didn't say "if it's even". When they've cut veterans before Tony Sparano has explained it as "Not enough separation between he and the young guy." Implication being, the old guy WAS better, but they'd rather play the worse player so that they can collect longer term benefits. You think it was a SMART idea in 2009 to go with Vontae Davie and Sean Smith as rookies at the starting corner spots, especially in our system which doesn't really protect corners that much? Hell. No. But are we about to see league punishment handed down because they didn't sign a couple of veterans like Drayton Florence that would have played better in the short term while letting the young guys come along slowly? No, that's absurd. So even the Suck For Luck thing is just the very same concept extended to a little bit longer timeline than people are used to. Or maybe even not that, since I don't think the 'benefits' of starting Sean Smith and Vontae Davis as rookies were ever fated to be reaped in the 2009 season, whether we made the playoffs or not. Those benefits were set to be reaped in future years. Same sh-t here.
Well, I feel bad if Henne is out for the season. I was hoping he either WOULD or WOULDN'T prove that he was starting QB material. Now we'll never know definitively. The doubters will say he was still throwing picks and not winning games. The backers will say he was vastly improved and do all kinds of crazy extrapolations to show him throwing for over 4,000 yards and 30 TD had he not been injured. It's going to be terrible from a fan perspective on these boards. But at 0-4, I don't think you bring in a vet to play. Just go with the bums we got and reap the LUCK.
The entire premise of the NFL draft order is based upon the fact that teams are trying to win. I'm not suggesting anyone is intentionally losing. All I'm suggesting is that if a team is intentionally losing with the goal of getting the #1 overall pick, then there should be severe repercussions. It would be no different a situation than the 1919 Black Sox.
Admittedly, I didn't follow Carolina much last year. Jimmy Clausen was a pretty high draft pick though, and Cam Newton was far from a sure thing. If they did intentionally lose to gain the #1 pick, then that is deplorable.
*Believe me, they wanted Luck. But he went back to school after Carolina secured the #1 pick. *I live in Charlotte
Matt Moore propelled the Panthers to the #1 pick in the draft and a franchise QB. Maybe he can do the same for us.
Colts look better than us actually. If they keep enough players together they'll get a few wins, maybe three (Jacksonville, Cleveland, and maybe a road upset as Painter progresses). Don't forget the Rams, but in that division they can find a couple wins. They may hold Luck for trade bait at the top of the draft.
Minnesota is team that is in there as well. They arguably have the toughest schedule going forward and they have looked like crap too.
Again, you keep bringing up intent. Nobody is intending to lose. Tony sparano or Steve Ross is not instructing guys to miss tackles, or take penalties or turn the ball over. If Pat Devlin had to pay he would be trying to play well and the coaching staff would be trying to win. We just probably wouldn't, that's all. And I know you're a b-ball fan Stringer. You don;t need to be reminded of the blatant tanking that went on prior to the "LeBron Lottery". Or did Pat riley really think Kasib Powell was his best option at SF?
So it would be just like a small group of players illegally throwing games for individual financial gain? Come on now, it's not even close. Once a team is borderline eliminated from playoff contention it would be impossible and entirely in the bounds of the rules to play developmental players that would lose whether trying or not.
Herm Edwards cliche coming in five, four, three, two, one... Feel bad for Henne though, good dude. I wonder where he ends up next year.
I could actually see the Colts tank it intentionally at some point. They aren't there yet, but they have the ideal structure in place. The GM is going nowhere, the HC is going nowhere, and with a lost season and a great consolidation prize within sight, it probably doesn't take much more than to put Peyton on IR.
Henne will make a very nice living as a back-up/spot starter. Tough break for him but he had his role to play in this drama.
It all depends on the motivation behind playing those developmental players. And a team intentionally losing absolutely affects the financial gain of many people.
Not even close. That was a collection of players intentionally tanking a series. I guarantee you no player on the Dolphins is going to intentionally tank for this team, there's simply no incentive for them to do so.
Big difference between the Colts and us: It sure looked like Freeney, Mathis, Reggie Wayne and Garcon were trying out there. Same thing with Peyton. Indy might not make any moves to bolster its roster, but their guys looked like they wanted to win and lay it all out there than we did on sunday.
