To Win or To Tank

Tanking is the buzz cuss word. Before you can rebuild something, you have to tear it down. The Dolphins have done just that. You can agree or disagree with the decision, but what's done is done. Let's just hope that we can all look back on this time with a laugh while we're celebrating being a franchise that is not a laughing stock and actually matters. I think any middle aged to old timer around these parts would love to go back to those days of the 70s/80s/early 90s. For you youngins' that have stuck this out and have known nothing else but still keep being a gluttonous soul, bless you.

"Galant wrote:

Part of the problem here, as happens with a lot of language, is that words come to mean different things to different people over time.
My understanding is that the term 'tanking' originated in boxing and related to pre-determined outcomes for various reasons, which inevitably included matches being thrown. But boxing is an individual sport. There's only one person involved and his or her effort and will are the only things that matter. And usually there would be some sort of outside interest influencing the fighter to fix the match - the promise of money etc.

Football is a team sport, perhaps the most complex team sport in existence. You have multiple players and coaches involved in the actual game play, and then you have a manager involved in swapping out different players in different roles. In order to use the term 'tanking' in the NFL in the same way as it was used originally, or as people think about it in boxing, you have to somehow carry the actions and motives across to multiple people. It would be fair to suggest that a GM or HC or owner have the influence necessary to affect the whole team of players and staff and effectively 'tank'. Those individuals can, by their own will, make choices to ensure the team loses. Other individuals, by themselves, cannot. A QB can throw a game, sure, but that would come down on just them, and their own interests, and not the team.

I might be missing something, but I suspect only the owner(s), GM and HC can pull off a team tank, and I think it would take a combination. So an owner has the most influence, but would need a GM and/or HC to pull it off. A HC could do it with the owner, in spite of a GM's best efforts, and so to a GM could in spite of a HC's best efforts. However, in the case of the Dolphins, I think the idea here is that all three are on the same page here - that is, the Dolphins in 2019 are losing due to actions of management. The losing is and was predictable and, at least to some extent, intentional. So from that, you can argue that you have the ingredients to compare tanking in boxing with what the Dolphins are doing. However, maybe not. One ingredient is missing which might change the perspective. Outside interest.

When a boxer loses intentionally it's not done so that they can become a better boxer. The Dolphins, however, can argue that what they're doing is exactly that - to become a better team and win more. Football, being better at football, as a team, is their sole motivation here. There is no outside interest (we assume) - that is, we don't think someone is paying off Ross etc. so that the benefit for Ross and co. is money, land, politics or some other gain. The only interest here is football itself - winning. And that, I think, is a key consideration.

The Dolphins, I think it's clear, are losing in order to win. They've gotten worse in order to get better. This is essentially different from 'tanking' or match fixing, in individual competitions, and is, I think, a result of the complexities of team sports and capped leagues. The losing is strategic, taking a long term perspective (if 1-3 years can be considered to be 'long term'), and has as its aim, victory. Being good, for longer. And that's the aim of sports.

So this boils down to a difference of opinion on strategy.

PS - Punting. Can that be argued to be tanking a drive? You're calling quits on a drive and giving the ball to the opposition early. Shouldn't a competitor go for it on 4th down every time. Make that 10 yards, move the chains, keep going. Otherwise you're just giving in to the defense, you're saying that they've won. Well yes... but no. You realize that it's a better strategy to give the opposition the ball further back in the field than to risk turning it over nearer your goal.

So maybe the Dolphins are punting this season, in order to gain better overall field/talent position, to start over on a new drive towards a Super Bowl....?

Great post, Galant. You expressed the strategy and goals of tanking really well. I would hope that at this point it doesn't need to be laid out any further.

Whether or not tanking actually increases the odds of future success and whether it's useful when so few good teams have done it and when so few of the great organizations have built themselves up that way remains to be seen.

But I think the goals are just as you've laid them out.

Some words from Ross on this might help since this is the owner speaking about the 'tank' (whatever you take that to mean):

https://thephins.com/threads/flores-grier-on-the-hot-seat.94597/#post-3198918

"Fin D wrote:

This isn't semantics. I have also answered that question numerous times and I am not avoiding anything.

I also said they weren't exclusive earlier.

I do not think it was anyone's intention to lose games. Full stop. I'm not hiding that or anything.

They are rebuilding by tearing it down to the rafters. If they were intentionally trying to lose, why bring in Fitz and Rosen? Why weren't they actively shopping all their assets, like Tunsil and Minkah?

Again, not one single move can point to tanking that doesn't actually point to rebuilding. Where as numerous things point to just rebuilding and not tanking.

Every last one of you saying this is tanking, want us to do what we've always done, which is cling to borderline players while trying to add more and if we don't, you'll label that as tanking.

This is a classic rebuild, just like numerous teams have done in the past. Only now Armando called it tanking before a single move was taken, so everyone else jumps in.

I can answer your entire question by pointing out I said the front office was tanking, not the coaching staff or players.

I am not implying Grier has ever told Flores to lose. What I am implying is that there was 0 effort made to add any talent to the team, which you would do in a rebuild, yet a lot of effort put into depleting it of talent.

Most rebuilding teams DO NOT get rid of all their talent in one offseason, young an

d old, and not replace anyone as the process unfolds. Even rebuilding under Sparano or Philbin, yes those were rebuilds, the entire roster was churned over but new pieces were added and old pieces were kept along the way where they fit in.

Every addition to this team was a failure they could kick the tires on. If it worked...great, if not all the better for losing this year.

Also I dont read Armando so I have no idea what he says, nor do I care, but if he called it a tank he was right. Blind squirrels do find nuts.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I can answer your entire question by pointing out I said the front office was tanking, not the coaching staff or players.

I am not implying Grier has ever told Flores to lose. What I am implying is that there was 0 effort made to add any talent to the team, which you would do in a rebuild, yet a lot of effort put into depleting it of talent.

Most rebuilding teams DO NOT get rid of all their talent in one offseason, young an

d old, and not replace anyone as the process unfolds. Even rebuilding under Sparano or Philbin, yes those were rebuilds, the entire roster was churned over but new pieces were added and old pieces were kept along the way where they fit in.

Every addition to this team was a failure they could kick the tires on. If it worked...great, if not all the better for losing this year.

Also I dont read Armando so I have no idea what he says, nor do I care, but if he called it a tank he was right. Blind squirrels do find nuts.

That doesn't answer my question, because I specifically brought up FO moves.

I mean you are literally saying rebuilding is what Sparano or Philbin did (it isn't) and we should still be following that model (we shouldn't).

The goal this year was to acquire draft capital and open up salary cap. We did that. We did that so well, people don't even know what to say about it....except....we've never seen this before so it must be TANKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Armando called this tanking BEFORE a single move was made. Then everyone else jumped in and called it tanking BEFORE we got rid of Tunsil and Minkah. What's more likely, Armando saw into the future or he pushed a narrative that everyone else glammed on to due to typical fan overreaction?

We also didn't get rid of all our talent. The only real talent we lost was Minkah, Tunsil and an effing long snapper.

"cbrad wrote:

1 in 7 is world's better than any other alternative. You do what you can to increase the odds. And let's remember that the "other ways" of getting that QB all require tons more luck than with the #1 pick. Point is.. there's no reason to argue we shouldn't try to get the #1 pick.

I think overall that the HC is the most influential person on a football team, but QB is right behind it. You'll find as many examples where you can say it's the coach not the QB as vice versa. The QB matters a TON and the best way to get a consistently above average QB is to pick at the #1 spot which we're trying to do. It's the right strategy.

Another factor is that in the last 35 years we have had three #1 overall picks (John Elway, Bo Jackson, Eli Manning) who have refused to play with the team that drafted them. With the rationale that the team sucked and they didn’t want to waste their careers in sad sack organizations. That’s roughly 1 in 12 chance in recent NFL history, which is not a risk any team should ignore.
Also you have had situations like Bernie Kosar manipulating the 1985 draft (going from what would have been #2 overall to #1 in the supplemental draft) or Peyton Manning not declaring for the 1997 draft which he would have been the #1 overall that was rumored to be because of his lack of confidence in the Rams’ organization. History shows us that even if “The Man!” is present that it is possible for him to avoid playing for an organization that he considers to be chronically inferior. So it is possible that the roughly 1/12 chance I mentioned above might in fact be higher in reality as a consensus #1 overall pick has other ways to manipulate who they get drafted by, not just refusing to sign for a team.

On an expected return basis, with a 1 in 7 chance of your #1 overall QB being “The Man!”, (which can be expressed a 6/7 chance of your pick not being “worth it”) a team would have to tank for 4 seasons to have a better than 50% of finding their HoF QB. That’s before factoring in the risk that he will not sign to play with your team.

As a counterpoint to the 49ers dynasty coinciding with the QBing duo of Montana/Young I would place Steve Young’s record with the Buccaneers as an example of HoF talent not being able to overcome poor coaching and a bad organization. Another example is Jim Plunkett who went from being around a 60 passer rating QB who won 40% of his games with The Patsies and 49ers to a 75 passer rating SB winning QB who won 67% of his games with the Raiders (I know that his change to the raiders came after the 1978 rules changes so it isn’t a strictly apples to apples comparison as far as passer rating is concerned).

Again I totally agree that the #1 overall spot is the best place to be hunting for your HoF QB. What I disagree with is wether it is worth deliberately tanking to earn that spot.

"Pauly wrote:

Again I totally agree that the #1 overall spot is the best place to be hunting for your HoF QB. What I disagree with is wether it is worth deliberately tanking to earn that spot.

My view on this is that tanking is worth it if: 1) you need a franchise QB, and 2) you have an average (or below average) GM. There’s no need to tank if you already have that QB and you just want to rebuild, or if you have a great GM. So I think we’re doing the right thing.

"Fin D wrote:

That doesn't answer my question, because I specifically brought up FO moves.
We also didn't get rid of all our talent. The only real talent we lost was Minkah, Tunsil and an effing long snapper.

Excuse me.

The correct terminology is:
BEST FLIPPING LONG FLIPPING SNAPPER FLIPPING
E.V.E.R.

Thank You

"Fin D wrote:

That doesn't answer my question, because I specifically brought up FO moves.

I mean you are literally saying rebuilding is what Sparano or Philbin did (it isn't) and we should still be following that model (we shouldn't).

The goal this year was to acquire draft capital and open up salary cap. We did that. We did that so well, people don't even know what to say about it....except....we've never seen this before so it must be TANKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Armando called this tanking BEFORE a single move was made. Then everyone else jumped in and called it tanking BEFORE we got rid of Tunsil and Minkah. What's more likely, Armando saw into the future or he pushed a narrative that everyone else glammed on to due to typical fan overreaction?

We also didn't get rid of all our talent. The only real talent we lost was Minkah, Tunsil and an effing long snapper.

"Fin D wrote:

That doesn't answer my question, because I specifically brought up FO moves.

I mean you are literally saying rebuilding is what Sparano or Philbin did (it isn't) and we should still be following that model (we shouldn't).

The goal this year was to acquire draft capital and open up salary cap. We did that. We did that so well, people don't even know what to say about it....except....we've never seen this before so it must be TANKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Armando called this tanking BEFORE a single move was made. Then everyone else jumped in and called it tanking BEFORE we got rid of Tunsil and Minkah. What's more likely, Armando saw into the future or he pushed a narrative that everyone else glammed on to due to typical fan overreaction?

We also didn't get rid of all our talent. The only real talent we lost was Minkah, Tunsil and an effing long snapper.

I still think you are using semantics. When you trade away your only pieces for draft capital and let everyone else walk, you know you are going to lose and accepting it. That is tanking.

I also never said we should follow that exact model to rebuild. Just that they technically were rebuilds

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I still think you are using semantics. When you trade away your only pieces for draft capital and let everyone else walk, you know you are going to lose and accepting it. That is tanking.

- I’m not using semantics
- We didn’t trade away our only pieces for draft capital
- being ok with losing is not the same as trying to purposely lose, which is what tanking is.

Again, if I played 1 on 1 against Lebron, I’d lose and lose miserably. I wouldn’t have tried to lose but I’d also be ok with losing. Following your logic I tanked.

"Puka-head wrote:

Excuse me.

The correct terminology is:
BEST FLIPPING LONG FLIPPING SNAPPER FLIPPING
E.V.E.R.

Thank You

Please don't get me wrong. I loved Denney and was proud to have him with the Dolphins for as long as we did but let's be a bit real here. With the changes in the rules, defenders could no longer line up on the long snapper, which means the overall talent that made Denney what he was became irrelevant. If the rules of yesterday were still in place today, where a defender could line up on the long snapper, then releasing Denney would be a stupid move...the ability to snap the ball and instantly engage a defender.

That's no longer the case and now all that's needed at that position is someone who can accurately snap the ball to the punter or place kicking holder.

"Fin D wrote:

- I’m not using semantics
- We didn’t trade away our only pieces for draft capital
- being ok with losing is not the same as trying to purposely lose, which is what tanking is.

Again, if I played 1 on 1 against Lebron, I’d lose and lose miserably. I wouldn’t have tried to lose but I’d also be ok with losing. Following your logic I tanked.

No, your example of 1 v 1 is nothing like what I said.

It's more like you are playing 5 v5 and you cut all the good players on your team who gave you any shot or trade them, or refused to resign them.

Also I'm not saying any move was bad or not good to rebuild, I'm simply saying the FO is okay with losing and it makes 0 sense to try and scrape together any wins in that scenario.

There is no such thing as neither trying to win or lose. If we had signed a few reasonable pieces to replace what we lost I'd agree with you 100%, but we didnt so I only agree 50%

Again though, do either of our opinions matter? At the end of the day we arent winning more than a game or two regardless what you want to call it.

I mean...let's be real. If you KEEP all the players we got rid of (not talking Tunsil/Minkah), then you can't rebuild or get the QB you need, because you win too many games. So, to rebuild, you've got to cut high priced vets. You've got to let done guys go to other teams just to be fair to those guys. If you have some young guys who are talented and leaders, and want to lead the team through a tough season into a hopefully better future, you keep them.

But you have to get rid of high priced contracts and accrue draft picks. It's the only way to really rebuild when you've been right about average for the last 20 years.

"resnor wrote:

I mean...let's be real. If you KEEP all the players we got rid of (not talking Tunsil/Minkah), then you can't rebuild or get the QB you need, because you win too many games. So, to rebuild, you've got to cut high priced vets. You've got to let done guys go to other teams just to be fair to those guys. If you have some young guys who are talented and leaders, and want to lead the team through a tough season into a hopefully better future, you keep them.

But you have to get rid of high priced contracts and accrue draft picks. It's the only way to really rebuild when you've been right about average for the last 20 years.

I agree 100% with that.

I know he wont agree but we are just arguing semantics of a word at this point.

The reality is we are losing because of the moves we made. Whether it's a rebuild, tank, or both the result is the exact same.

As far as I’m concerned.. if we get the #1 pick it’s tanking because getting a #1 is extremely unlikely with just a “rebuild”. If however we end up with a #3 or so then even I’ll call it rebuilding.

That for me is going to be the empirical “evidence” given that we can’t expect Ross to just come out and tell the truth regarding his intentions. Where others draw the threshold is up to them but for me that will do it. Not sure what to think if we just miss out and get the #2 pick though because it’s possible the FO is fine with picking one of 2 QB’s.

"cbrad wrote:

As far as I’m concerned.. if we get the #1 pick it’s tanking because getting a #1 is extremely unlikely with just a “rebuild”. If however we end up with a #3 or so then even I’ll call it rebuilding.

That for me is going to be the empirical “evidence” given that we can’t expect Ross to just come out and tell the truth regarding his intentions. Where others draw the threshold is up to them but for me that will do it. Not sure what to think if we just miss out and get the #2 pick though because it’s possible the FO is fine with picking one of 2 QB’s.

Like I said a tank is just one way to go about rebuilding but also like I said it doesnt matter. At the end of the day we all just want a team we can be proud of and has a chance to win every week and go deep into the playoffs.

I want the #1 pick whether we call it rebuilding, tanking or another word entirely.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

No, your example of 1 v 1 is nothing like what I said.

It's more like you are playing 5 v5 and you cut all the good players on your team who gave you any shot or trade them, or refused to resign them.

Also I'm not saying any move was bad or not good to rebuild, I'm simply saying the FO is okay with losing and it makes 0 sense to try and scrape together any wins in that scenario.

There is no such thing as neither trying to win or lose. If we had signed a few reasonable pieces to replace what we lost I'd agree with you 100%, but we didnt so I only agree 50%

Again though, do either of our opinions matter? At the end of the day we arent winning more than a game or two regardless what you want to call it.

Ok, I've lost you.

1 v1 or 11 vs 11 doesn't change the concept I'm talking about.

You say there is no such thing as neither trying to win or lose, yet my 1 on 1 vs Lebron hypothetical actually illustrates that there is such a thing. It is absolutely possible, to enter into a competitive endeavor, and not try to win and not try to lose. If the team was allowed to take the season off, they would have. All they actually cared about for this season was to acquire the draft capital and salary cap space to build what they believe will be a winner. That means, they didn't care if they won this year or lost.

They didn't play the FA game this year, because that would make as much sense as installing new carpet on a house you're about to take down to the rafters. It would be a waste.

This team, as with many years past, was a hodgepodge of disconnected parts built for numerous other systems and philosophies. It needed to be gutted and started over. What you want them to do, is that they've always done, which is keep maintaining stagnant mediocrity at the cost of building a team into a singular vision, because the mediocrity is somehow important to you for some reason. If your team isn't in the playoffs regularly, start the fuck over. Fix it.

That's what this team is finally doing, but because its different, you label it as tanking.

"cbrad wrote:

As far as I’m concerned.. if we get the #1 pick it’s tanking because getting a #1 is extremely unlikely with just a “rebuild”. If however we end up with a #3 or so then even I’ll call it rebuilding.

That for me is going to be the empirical “evidence” given that we can’t expect Ross to just come out and tell the truth regarding his intentions. Where others draw the threshold is up to them but for me that will do it. Not sure what to think if we just miss out and get the #2 pick though because it’s possible the FO is fine with picking one of 2 QB’s.

Tanking is defined by intent. You are changing the definition, which is your right.

"Fin D wrote:

Ok, I've lost you.

1 v1 or 11 vs 11 doesn't change the concept I'm talking about.

You say there is no such thing as neither trying to win or lose, yet my 1 on 1 vs Lebron hypothetical actually illustrates that there is such a thing. It is absolutely possible, to enter into a competitive endeavor, and not try to win and not try to lose. If the team was allowed to take the season off, they would have. All they actually cared about for this season was to acquire the draft capital and salary cap space to build what they believe will be a winner. That means, they didn't care if they won this year or lost.

They didn't play the FA game this year, because that would make as much sense as installing new carpet on a house you're about to take down to the rafters. It would be a waste.

This team, as with many years past, was a hodgepodge of disconnected parts built for numerous other systems and philosophies. It needed to be gutted and started over. What you want them to do, is that they've always done, which is keep maintaining stagnant mediocrity at the cost of building a team into a singular vision, because the mediocrity is somehow important to you for some reason. If your team isn't in the playoffs regularly, start the **** over. Fix it.

That's what this team is finally doing, but because its different, you label it as tanking.

I think you can enter into an endeavor TRYING your best to win, while KNOWING your best won't even get you close to winning. You can try as hard as you want against LeBron, it's not going to be enough. You know that going in. But you still are gonna try to juke him with your best crossover, and try to hit a fadeaway jumper. Lol

That's how I view the Dolphins this season. They have begun the process of rebuilding, and while they KNOW they probably might not win a game, they're still TRYING to win.

"Fin D wrote:

Ok, I've lost you.

1 v1 or 11 vs 11 doesn't change the concept I'm talking about.

You say there is no such thing as neither trying to win or lose, yet my 1 on 1 vs Lebron hypothetical actually illustrates that there is such a thing. It is absolutely possible, to enter into a competitive endeavor, and not try to win and not try to lose. If the team was allowed to take the season off, they would have. All they actually cared about for this season was to acquire the draft capital and salary cap space to build what they believe will be a winner. That means, they didn't care if they won this year or lost.

They didn't play the FA game this year, because that would make as much sense as installing new carpet on a house you're about to take down to the rafters. It would be a waste.

This team, as with many years past, was a hodgepodge of disconnected parts built for numerous other systems and philosophies. It needed to be gutted and started over. What you want them to do, is that they've always done, which is keep maintaining stagnant mediocrity at the cost of building a team into a singular vision, because the mediocrity is somehow important to you for some reason. If your team isn't in the playoffs regularly, start the **** over. Fix it.

That's what this team is finally doing, but because its different, you label it as tanking.

Why do you keep implying I dont want them to do this when I've said otherwise? Or that for some reason I want to follow our previous ways which I havent once said.

"resnor wrote:

I think you can enter into an endeavor TRYING your best to win, while KNOWING your best won't even get you close to winning. You can try as hard as you want against LeBron, it's not going to be enough. You know that going in. But you still are gonna try to juke him with your best crossover, and try to hit a fadeaway jumper. Lol

That's how I view the Dolphins this season. They have begun the process of rebuilding, and while they KNOW they probably might not win a game, they're still TRYING to win.

You absolutely can. You can also go in, just hoping to learn something.

The point is, there's numerous reasons and they all don't always have to be about winning or losing.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Why do you keep implying I dont want them to do this when I've said otherwise? Or that for some reason I want to follow our previous ways which I havent once said.

It seems like you want us to rebuild and not tank. You think what we're doing is tanking and we did in the past was rebuild.

If you are ok with our current path, then I apologize as I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument and a part you didn't mean.

However, if your argument is just what we are doing now is tanking and what we've done in the past is rebuilding, then regardless if I misunderstood you on what you want, you're still wrong on those two parts.

The closest this team came to being rebuilt was when JJ took over for Shula. Since then, we've done nothing but patch the team's talent from one coach to another to another. The definition of rebuild is in the word itself.....build again. Those coaches never built, they added on and renovated.

"Fin D wrote:

It seems like you want us to rebuild and not tank. You think what we're doing is tanking and we did in the past was rebuild.

If you are ok with our current path, then I apologize as I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument and a part you didn't mean.

However, if your argument is just what we are doing now is tanking and what we've done in the past is rebuilding, then regardless if I misunderstood you on what you want, you're still wrong on those two parts.

The closest this team came to being rebuilt was when JJ took over for Shula. Since then, we've done nothing but patch the team's talent from one coach to another to another. The definition of rebuild is in the word itself.....build again. Those coaches never built, they added on and renovated.

As I sort of said, I'm over which one of us is right because it doesnt matter and the end result is the same.

I'm fine tanking, I'm fine rebuilding, I'm fine with both, I only care about the end result and there isnt only one way to build a team.

The Tunsil trade is the only one I've been vocal about disliking but I'm even getting over that in time.

"Fin D wrote:

Tanking is defined by intent. You are changing the definition, which is your right.

Not changing the definition. Just pointing out that if the intent is to lose, then the probability you'll get the #1 pick is higher than if the intent isn't to win or lose. So logically speaking (Bayesian inference) if we end up with the #1 pick the likelihood is higher that the true intent (which we can't directly observe or know) was to tank rather than to rebuild without the intention of losing.

"cbrad wrote:

Not changing the definition. Just pointing out that if the intent is to lose, then the probability you'll get the #1 pick is higher than if the intent isn't to win or lose. So logically speaking (Bayesian inference) if we end up with the #1 pick the likelihood is higher that the true intent (which we can't directly observe or know) was to tank rather than to rebuild without the intention of losing.

So the team that gets first pick every year, tanked?