Packers Huddle

"Tanking" means teaching the players how to lose, how to give up, how to accept that the others are better. I'm out. There is no point spending a year teaching the players those things and then expecting them to do well next year.

I don't know, but I believe the football gods will give have you choose Ryan Leaf over Manning if you try and game the system by playing to lose LOL

anyway, I can't believe this is a conversation every year in sports circles. Pretty much every person i've played with from grade school to college who ever amounted to anything always thought they could win. Always. Losing wasn't part of it, it just happened sometimes and we worked hard to not have it happen that often.

Some of the teams I played on barely managed .500 year after year, yet every year we thought we could go all the way. Now add that to the fact that your livelihood depends on your performance and could mean millions over the next couple years or per year if really good?

You'll lose a locker room the instant they don't think you're there to win. You lose a locker room, a draft pick isn't going to bring it back. you start making it ok to lose you better buckle up, because things are going to suck for a long time. How many times did Detroit pick in the top 10 in the past 3 decades? sheesh. sign me up for that LOL

dsr wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:22

"Tanking" means teaching the players how to lose, how to give up, how to accept that the others are better.

No it's not; read the thread.

it is though. I know it's the 2020's and we can call anything whatever we want and think it's legit, but for much of history communication depended upon agreed upon definitions. Tanking has historically meant, trying to lose. Lose on purpose, not try to win, play less than your best, etc.

When you do that, you invite a losers mentality into the locker room. I'd hope we don't have the guys that would adopt that. I want guys that will fight like hell no matter what even when every chip or card seems stacked against them and the walls seem insurmountable. Take the quitters wherever you find them, and get them gone. I don't care if its FO, training staff, coaching staff or roster. Later.

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:26

dsr wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:22

"Tanking" means teaching the players how to lose, how to give up, how to accept that the others are better.

No it's not; read the thread.

I have read the thread. But enlighten me - if tanking is not playing to lose, then what is it? If tanking does not involve playing to lose, then how does it get you a higher draft pick?

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:30

it is though. I know it's the 2020's and we can call anything whatever we want and think it's legit, but for much of history communication depended upon agreed upon definitions. Tanking has historically meant, trying to lose. Lose on purpose, not try to win, play less than your best, etc.

When you do that, you invite a losers mentality into the locker room. I'd hope we don't have the guys that would adopt that. I want guys that will fight like hell no matter what even when every chip or card seems stacked against them and the walls seem insurmountable. Take the quitters wherever you find them, and get them gone. I don't care if its FO, training staff, coaching staff or roster. Later.

Agreed.

One thing I remember about Brett Favre was in a game where the Packers were 10 points down with seconds to go. He completed a pass, rushed to the line of scrimmage to get another play in, threw an interception, and galloped over to tackle the ball carrier. That's the sort of never-give-in attitude (taken to extremes in his case) that teaches players, if not to win, then at least to but a gut in trying to win.

If the players know that someone high in the organisation isn't trying (be it coach, GM, or fellow player) it will encourage the player not to try. On the other hand, could any player at GB when Favre was playing, ever dare to give less than 100% on the field?

dsr wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 18:56

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:26

dsr wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:22

"Tanking" means teaching the players how to lose, how to give up, how to accept that the others are better.

No it's not; read the thread.

I have read the thread. But enlighten me - if tanking is not playing to lose, then what is it? If tanking does not involve playing to lose, then how does it get you a higher draft pick?

You would know if you read these posts from Page 1:

APB wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 18:19

“Tanking” doesn’t necessarily need to consist of players “mailing it in” per se. An organization can “tank” by simply trading away all their good players for future draft picks and/or IRing players who could reasonably make a return during the season.

The remaining players still play hard. The coaching staff still prepares hard. There is no lack of effort, only talent.

Or my more long-winded post saying the same thing:

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 17:19

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

11 Oct 2023 16:48

I've never understood the concept of tanking. How can it actually be a thing? We're talking about players, many of whom are trying to prove themselves on the field so that they can secure a lucrative contract and have a future in the league. The idea that they will just agree to mail it in so that the organization can target some top college prospect doesn't make any sense.

It would be a secret operation by the GM, in which the coach may or may not also be involved.

The GM would do this mainly by releasing or trading away lots of players who are still useful and can help the team win but do not fit into the long-term plan (often not driving a hard bargain when negotiating trades) and refraining from adding guys like that to the roster.

If the coach is involved, he would go through the motions on gameday but not make the sorts of bold calls/risks needed to go out and win the game, just play a very predictable game.

It would not involve players at all. They can have their suspicions, but it would be just that, suspicion, cannot know for sure until and unless anyone who was in on it reveals the truth (like Brian Flores if memory serves, if you believe him).

Just like last year, the 7 seed is gonna be obtainable until deep in the season…this works to keep a lot of teams from just tanking/quitting. Most are in play for 7 at least through the trade deadline.

Now, if we continue to suck so bad that we are like 2-6 at the deadline, it would not be because of any intentional plan to “tank”, it would just be because we suck. Like really suck.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 09:15

how? we are so cap strapped and dollar short it's debatable whether we can even extend Love prior to the new league year in March.

The Packers currently have $9 million of cap space available, definitely enough to extend Love before the start of the new league year. Especially as they would backload the deal anyway. With him being under contract for next season I don't see any reason to do that at this point though.

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 19:09

dsr wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 18:56

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 11:26

No it's not; read the thread.

I have read the thread. But enlighten me - if tanking is not playing to lose, then what is it? If tanking does not involve playing to lose, then how does it get you a higher draft pick?

...

I did read the posts from page 1, and pages 2 and 3 incidentally. The point is that I didn't take them as gospel, end of thread, nothing left to discuss; I disagree with them at least in part.

Tanking is deliberately losing. It may be true that players will not notice what's going on when the GM trades away the better players and the head coach plays only the inexperienced ones, but I doubt it. In any case, my point still stands and I believe that if you play with the intention of losing, you are teaching players how to lose.

What I would do is to trade one of the OLB's for a really good young but inexperienced guard. It is very possible that every one of our OLB's would be starting on another team. The only ones who should NOT be traded and Gary and Van Ness. Even Smith might be very attractive to a team making a playoff run.

I just don't think it is worth the risk to have Newman out there. Either someone else in the Oline has to help Newman or there is going to be a risk to either Love or Jones in taking a big hit before they can protect themselves. No idea whether Rhyan can be an upgrade but even if he is, there clearly is a problem somehow with Rhyan.

Another option is to start Nijman, Jones or Tenuta and move Tom to guard if JRJ or Jenkins should get hurt. Tanking or not, you don't want your future franchise QB or Jones to be taking any unnecessary hits.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 06:04

What I would do is to trade one of the OLB's for a really good young but inexperienced guard. It is very possible that every one of our OLB's would be starting on another team. The only ones who should NOT be traded and Gary and Van Ness. Even Smith might be very attractive to a team making a playoff run.

I just don't think it is worth the risk to have Newman out there. Either someone else in the Oline has to help Newman or there is going to be a risk to either Love or Jones in taking a big hit before they can protect themselves. No idea whether Rhyan can be an upgrade but even if he is, there clearly is a problem somehow with Rhyan.

Another option is to start Nijman, Jones or Tenuta and move Tom to guard if JRJ or Jenkins should get hurt. Tanking or not, you don't want your future franchise QB or Jones to be taking any unnecessary hits.

I wouldn't call that tanking at all. We are in desperate need of a quality LT with Bahktiari unable to play. We need to protect our young QB and get a good read on how this offense can function. You can't do that behind an OL performing like our's has recently.

Trading away an OLB for future picks and making the team weaker in hopes of losing more would be tanking. Using it to improve the team in areas that need it is just plain old roster/team building. It's not done with the intention of losing, it's done to get better.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 04:18

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2023 09:15

how? we are so cap strapped and dollar short it's debatable whether we can even extend Love prior to the new league year in March.

The Packers currently have $9 million of cap space available, definitely enough to extend Love before the start of the new league year. Especially as they would backload the deal anyway. With him being under contract for next season I don't see any reason to do that at this point though.

Ya, thats what we would do if Love had been playing great. But he has not earned that next lucrative deal yet.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2023 06:04

What I would do is to trade one of the OLB's for a really good young but inexperienced guard. It is very possible that every one of our OLB's would be starting on another team. The only ones who should NOT be traded and Gary and Van Ness. Even Smith might be very attractive to a team making a playoff run.

I don't believe the Packers would receive a good young guard in return for an outside linebacker other than Gary or Van Ness. The compensation would much rather include a day three pick.

With the Douglas trade the Packers basically agreed with me. Now it is not about if we tank anymore but only how we tank.

Front office doesn't hit the field. Everybody will play hard cause most are still trying to earn a contract, or a slot next year. I expect the coaching to pick up because they can't do much worse. Victory or ..... not.

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 19:50

With the Douglas trade the Packers basically agreed with me. Now it is not about if we tank anymore but only how we tank.

There are trades literally every year.

Are you saying that every trade that involves a player the selling team is "tanking"?

I will not allow this forum to believe that selling one guy means the FO is all in on a rebuild or “tank”. We had a lot more to sell including the underused star RB if we really wanted to tank.

I continue to believe rasul using his free speech put him on the trade block, but if not that..I do think bills called and offered and gutey just accepted the 3 because a 3 is cool

Rasul is a starting quality CB. That is worth a lot more than a 3rd round pick. Yes, he is older than ideal but he does not have a lot of wear on the tires. A player that sits on the PS or bench for several years has very little accumulated injuries and that is more significant than calendar years. Rasul is good for a minimum of 4 years as a starter if he does not have significant injuries in those 4 years.

So, yes, trading him for only a third is very definitely tanking. His level of play and his position means his value was a high 2nd round pick.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2023 06:54

Rasul is a starting quality CB. That is worth a lot more than a 3rd round pick. Yes, he is older than ideal but he does not have a lot of wear on the tires. A player that sits on the PS or bench for several years has very little accumulated injuries and that is more significant than calendar years. Rasul is good for a minimum of 4 years as a starter if he does not have significant injuries in those 4 years.

So, yes, trading him for only a third is very definitely tanking. His level of play and his position means his value was a high 2nd round pick.

If he’s worth more than a three, trading him does not indicate tanking (because we would have traded others), it indicates gute didn’t like him calling out the offense.