Buffalo's strange obsession with tanking

[Wally The Barber]

By now, Buffalo Bills fans have heard on the radio and on the television the word “tanking” more times than they can recount.
So what exactly is a “tank” and what does “tanking” mean?
A tank, by loose definition, is a team’s attempt to deliberately put the franchise in a position to lose as many games as possible in order to solidify a top overall pick in the coming year’s draft.
The tank apparently originated in the NBA recently when poor-performing teams decided that they would rather have a better overall pick than try to salvage an unsalvageable season. Essentially, why try if you aren’t going to win and losing can bring you a potential super star.
In the 2014-2015 NHL season, the city of Buffalo’s beloved hockey team, the Sabres, executed the aforementioned tank for the 2015 NHL entry draft. The team ended up with a rising star in Jack Eichel and a potentially brighter future
<aside class="related shortcode shortcode--related">
</aside> The idea of tanking has slowly crept its way into the minds of the hockey world and has now begun its transcendence into the NFL.
This NFL offseason, as pieces shifted and players joined new teams, momentum for a tank grew as fans of the New York Jets saw their franchise ship out major components of their team. The Jets let go of two starting receivers (Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker), a starting quarterback (Ryan Fitzpatrick) and even key players on the defense but left themselves with a sparse group of mediocre talent. The team was undergoing an overall rebuild and was banking on the next years draft to get them up to speed.
It’s yet to be seen but the moves made by the Jets management was either a calculated chance taken by the organization to increase the odds of a top pick or sheer incompetence by men who have worked in football the majority of their lives. I’ll let you decide.
When Buffalo fans saw this occurring and their teams outlook appearing bleak, they thought their team could be doing the same.
Sure, trading Sammy Watkins and Ronald Darby seem like moves for the future but they’re taken out of context.
Watkins is a player who has been hampered by injuries and has an expiring contract in the offseason. Darby isn’t suited for zone coverage and the Bills management saw him as a weak spot in their secondary.
Although rational thought processes tend to lack in a watching your favorite team, many expected fans to understand the moves just a bit quicker than they did. Instead, a growing minority of fans have taken it upon themselves to continuously believe the team is tanking. They call every move a move for tanking and think the only thoughts going through Sean McDermott’s and Brandon Beane’s heads are about tanking.
Herein lies the problem and the disconnect.
Fans have begun to think that a sports organization is run like a fantasy football or Madden team. The problem is, the franchise doesn’t even think that way nor should they.
Eric Wood was interviewed on Good Morning Football on Tuesday and was asked to comment on whether or not the team was tanking.

What fans fail to realize is that football is involved in every person’s day-to-day job at One Bills Drive. They get paid for football related activities, whether it’s playing, coaching, or advising. These people have built their lives in football. Why on Earth would they want to fail at what they do?
Wood again touched on the direction of the team.

Inside the Buffalo Bills organization is incredibly different than the perceived appearance on the outside.
Buffalo general manager Brandon Beane and head coach Sean McDermott have had to adamantly deny these claims of tanking since they were hired. The two haven’t orchestrated and been a part of a regular season Bills game together and people think they are tanking.
What Buffalo needs to do now is support the team more than ever and be patient, as hard as that seems. They need to trust the process that’s taking place and believe that good will come. Pretty soon, the playoff drought will be a dista

[Albany,n.y.]

As a fan, when the season goes bad, I root for a higher draft pick because meaningless wins are ... meaningless, while draft position can make or break a team's future. One need look no further than the 2004 draft when the Bills missed Ben Roethlisberger (who GM Tom Donahoe tried to trade up to get & failed) by 2 picks and then made the ill-fated JP Losman trade which may have cost them Aaron Rodgers. 1 or 2 more losses in 2003 would have changed the franchise for the next 15 years.

Now I don't expect the employees of the team to feel the same way I do, because their jobs are always on the line. They can't afford to lose those extra games. A player whose mistake cost the team a game may find himself out of the league quickly. Look at the Colts year when Manning sat out and they were the worst team in the league-management all got fired and the new guys got to draft Andrew Luck.

There's a difference between being a fan & being a team employee. Team employees have to do their jobs-try to win every game. Fans have the luxury of looking at the bigger picture. Here's the difference between me as a fan and a team employee. I as a fan was here before the person got employed by the Bills & as long as I'm alive, I'll end up being here after they're long gone. It's true of players, coaches, general managers etc. I don't have to root for them to win every game, I want to see a Super Bowl Champion in my lifetime.

Fans who feel they cannot root for a loss when the team is 2-12 are blurring the lines between fan & team employee. You're job isn't on the line with loss 13. Loss 13 might get you the QB who turns the team around. The logical thing for a fan to do in a horrible season is root for losses at the end to get better players. The logical thing for a team employee to do in a horrible season is try to win because the employee may not be employed with that next loss. There's a big difference. Tanking is what fans root for, not what the team does and I'll always be on the fan side rooting for the loss in a meaningless season, because the only way to avoid more meaningless seasons is to get better, and the best way to get better is with better players.

[EDS]

Beane and McDermott are making making moves with an eye towards job preservation:

Year One: Have to clean up mess from old regime so no results expected
Year Two: Look at all the shiny new toys, but rookies need time so no results expected
Year Three: We see some progress but these kids still need time so no results expected
Year Four: Might as well keep us through the end of our contracts . . .

[Bill Cody]

I don't like tanking conversations. But if we lose to the Jets at home which I think is very unlikely I reserve the right to change my mind. The Jets might not beat Alabama if they played, that's a 1-3 win team we're talking about. If we can't beat them at home a GPS recalculation is in order.

[OpIv37]

By now, Buffalo Bills fans have heard on the radio and on the television the word “tanking” more times than they can recount.
So what exactly is a “tank” and what does “tanking” mean?
A tank, by loose definition, is a team’s attempt to deliberately put the franchise in a position to lose as many games as possible in order to solidify a top overall pick in the coming year’s draft.
The tank apparently originated in the NBA recently when poor-performing teams decided that they would rather have a better overall pick than try to salvage an unsalvageable season. Essentially, why try if you aren’t going to win and losing can bring you a potential super star.
In the 2014-2015 NHL season, the city of Buffalo’s beloved hockey team, the Sabres, executed the aforementioned tank for the 2015 NHL entry draft. The team ended up with a rising star in Jack Eichel and a potentially brighter future
<aside class="related shortcode shortcode--related">
</aside> The idea of tanking has slowly crept its way into the minds of the hockey world and has now begun its transcendence into the NFL.
This NFL offseason, as pieces shifted and players joined new teams, momentum for a tank grew as fans of the New York Jets saw their franchise ship out major components of their team. The Jets let go of two starting receivers (Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker), a starting quarterback (Ryan Fitzpatrick) and even key players on the defense but left themselves with a sparse group of mediocre talent. The team was undergoing an overall rebuild and was banking on the next years draft to get them up to speed.
It’s yet to be seen but the moves made by the Jets management was either a calculated chance taken by the organization to increase the odds of a top pick or sheer incompetence by men who have worked in football the majority of their lives. I’ll let you decide.
When Buffalo fans saw this occurring and their teams outlook appearing bleak, they thought their team could be doing the same.
Sure, trading Sammy Watkins and Ronald Darby seem like moves for the future but they’re taken out of context.
Watkins is a player who has been hampered by injuries and has an expiring contract in the offseason. Darby isn’t suited for zone coverage and the Bills management saw him as a weak spot in their secondary.
Although rational thought processes tend to lack in a watching your favorite team, many expected fans to understand the moves just a bit quicker than they did. Instead, a growing minority of fans have taken it upon themselves to continuously believe the team is tanking. They call every move a move for tanking and think the only thoughts going through Sean McDermott’s and Brandon Beane’s heads are about tanking.
Herein lies the problem and the disconnect.
Fans have begun to think that a sports organization is run like a fantasy football or Madden team. The problem is, the franchise doesn’t even think that way nor should they.
Eric Wood was interviewed on Good Morning Football on Tuesday and was asked to comment on whether or not the team was tanking.

What fans fail to realize is that football is involved in every person’s day-to-day job at One Bills Drive. They get paid for football related activities, whether it’s playing, coaching, or advising. These people have built their lives in football. Why on Earth would they want to fail at what they do?
Wood again touched on the direction of the team.

Inside the Buffalo Bills organization is incredibly different than the perceived appearance on the outside.
Buffalo general manager Brandon Beane and head coach Sean McDermott have had to adamantly deny these claims of tanking since they were hired. The two haven’t orchestrated and been a part of a regular season Bills game together and people think they are tanking.
What Buffalo needs to do now is support the team more than ever and be patient, as hard as that seems. They need to trust the process that’s taking place and believe that good will come. Pretty soon, the playoff drought will be a dista
This is an epic load of crap.

First, if they're such smart football people, it's entirely possible that they realized they had zero chance at succeeding this year with the crappy hand they've been dealt. So if that's the case, the only chance at success is to break it down and start over and there's no reason to wait until the off-season when they could start now and give themselves more opportunity for success next year and beyond.

Second, beying lifelong football people doesn't mean they're actually good at their jobs. The last 17 years of Bills football is all the proof of that you need. whether they did it intentionally to tank or just cuz they're incompetent, recent moves have left the team less talented at the moment in exchange for future considerations.

[Luisito23]

This is an epic load of crap.

:bf1:

[Thurmal]

I pull for them to win, no matter what, even if they're out of the playoff race.

If this team had any history over the past 20 years of competent drafting on a somewhat-consistent basis, I would be all-in for a bad year. Odds are, though, that they'll blow the pick anyway, so I might as well enjoy myself during the actual season.

[Joe Fo Sho]

http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/09/05/buffalos-strange-obsession-with-tanking-and-the-disconnect-it-has-created/

Here's a link to the article that Wally pretty much copied word for word and seemed to try to post as his own.

[Wally The Barber]

http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/09/05/buffalos-strange-obsession-with-tanking-and-the-disconnect-it-has-created/

Here's a link to the article that Wally pretty much copied word for word and seemed to try to post as his own.

Blow me, I just didn't post a link..

[YardRat]

Blow me, I just didn't post a link..

Please be more diligent in providing one in the future. Thanks in advance...and blow yourself.

[Mace]

Everyone always looks for a magic button to push in desperation, not realizing that the "tank" one is just as likely to simply prolong the misery. It's not where you pick, it's who you pick, and how they fit, into what you use, then how good you are using it.

To me, embracing tanking is grinning while you think to resolve your headache by hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

[BLUTO]

http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/09/05/buffalos-strange-obsession-with-tanking-and-the-disconnect-it-has-created/

Here's a link to the article that Wally pretty much copied word for word and seemed to try to post as his own.
That's lousy! Everyone posting should give their own thoughts. Not providing links or quotes is weak!

[LarryBoy]

It'll be ok...tanking worked for the Indians in Major League :console:

[Wally The Barber]

Please be more diligent in providing one in the future. Thanks in advance...and blow yourself.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Topas]

Everyone always looks for a magic button to push in desperation, not realizing that the "tank" one is just as likely to simply prolong the misery. It's not where you pick, it's who you pick, and how they fit, into what you use, then how good you are using it.
To me, embracing tanking is grinning while you think to resolve your headache by hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

Well, I agree and disagree. On one hand I dont like tanking. First because I dont like loosing. Second, because as you said, it is about who you pick, not when you pick. And third, and this is most important, it might mess up with long term chemistry.

On the other hand. This is a QB league. And you dont have many chances to get a good one. Of course everybody can point to Dak and Russel Wilson and say that these were available. But there are 20 that were also available that are bums. And I am still not sold on Dak. My grandma could play Qb behind this O Line with a competent running game.

So if you want to get a QB (and this is the one and almost only goal) then it is better to draft early. Because there are a few gems later, but these are few and far between. So actually I am sold on the tank.

[coastal]

Shut up old man before someone beats your ass.

[Arm of Harm]

The Bills' playoff drought has lasted 17 years. (Going on 18.) During that time, we've had two organic picks in the top-5. Those picks were used on Mike Williams and Marcell Dareus.

An average NFL team receives a top-5 pick once every 6.4 years. During our playoff drought, we've actually received fewer top-5 picks than an average NFL team received. This, even though we missed the playoffs every single season over the past 17 years, unlike literally every other team in the NFL. In a typical Bills season, we'll achieve a minimum of 6 wins, a maximum of 9. During the playoff drought, we've been inside that range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buffalo_Bills_seasons) 14 times, and outside that range only 3 times. Staying inside that range has kept us out of the playoffs, and also (for the most part) has kept us out of the top-5 of the draft.

As Albany and Topas pointed out, the most important piece of the puzzle is having the right quarterback. The Bills haven't had that at any point during the drought. For that matter, we haven't had that since Kelly. To solve one's problems at QB, it really helps to have a top-5 pick. It also helps to have a good front office. During the playoff drought the Bills used two first round picks on QBs: Losman and Manuel. Both QBs were selected on the basis of their physical gifts, not because they'd demonstrated good throwing accuracy or information processing ability at the college level. Hopefully Beane will be significantly better at QB evaluation than were the front offices who made the Losman and Manuel selections.

If the goal is a franchise QB, tanking can win you half the battle by getting you the early draft pick you need. But to win the other half, you need to have a front office which makes the right call. Which chooses a Peyton Manning over a Ryan Leaf.

[Albany,n.y.]

Everyone always looks for a magic button to push in desperation, not realizing that the "tank" one is just as likely to simply prolong the misery. It's not where you pick, it's who you pick, and how they fit, into what you use, then how good you are using it.

To me, embracing tanking is grinning while you think to resolve your headache by hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.
Here are some stats that prove tanking can work a lot better than what the Bills have been doing:

Not including the 2017 draft: Total QBs drafted between 1967 & 2016: 565

#1 QB picks in the draft since the Super Bowl 22, number of other QB drafted during the past 51 years who were not the 1st pick-543 (565-22). Super Bowl winning #1 QB pick 6 (all of them multiple winners) 6/22 =27.27%, # of Super Bowls 51 Number won by #1 overall QB pick 14. 14/51 =27.45%.

Number of QBs drafted since 1967 : 565. Number of Super Bowls won by one of these or an undrafted QB 37. 37/543= 6.81%

The math shows the #1 pick who was a QB who has gone on to win the Super Bowl 27% (rounded down), The percentage of QBs not drafted #1 who have gone on to win a Super Bowl 7% (rounded up).

Percentage of Bills Super Bowl wins 0/51= 0%. Time to try something different.

If you want to see all the QBs drafted here they are: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

[Albany,n.y.]

PS (too late for edit)
Natural odds of being a SB winning QB regardless of draft position 51/565 (doesn't include guys like Warner who has won one & Romo who started for years in Dallas) 9.03%

Having the number 1 pick QB on your team gives you better than 3 times a chance of winning the Super Bowl.

[YardRat]

If 27.45% of all Super Bowls were won by a QB drafted #1 overall, than 73.55% of all Super Bowls were won by a QB not drafted #1 overall.

[cookie G]

PS (too late for edit)
Natural odds of being a SB winning QB regardless of draft position 51/565 (doesn't include guys like Warner who has won one & Romo who started for years in Dallas) 9.03%

Having the number 1 pick QB on your team gives you better than 3 times a chance of winning the Super Bowl.

Peyton and Eli are the only QB's drafted in the top 5 since 1989 who have won a SB.

In modern times, i.e. the past 28 years, the odds are 1 in 8 of finding a SB winning QB with the no. 1 pick.

The odds are 2 in 31 of finding a SB winning QB with a top 5 pick.

[SpikedLemonade]

Shut up old man before someone beats your ass.
I found this video of Wally...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQjKGJZu4mg

[Bill Cody]

Peyton and Eli are the only QB's drafted in the top 5 since 1989 who have won a SB.

In modern times, i.e. the past 28 years, the odds are 1 in 8 of finding a SB winning QB with the no. 1 pick.

The odds are 2 in 31 of finding a SB winning QB with a top 5 pick.

considering Brady has been in like 1/3 of those games that's not much of a stat. Let's lower the bar shall we? This f'n team hasn't been to the playoffs since GW Bush entered the White House. Can we get someone to take us that far? Or is that statistically impossible also?

[cookie G]

considering Brady has been in like 1/3 of those games that's not much of a stat.

mmhmm...2 QB's taken in the top 5 in the past 28 years...of which there were more than 30 drafted...

But it should be dismissed by the tanking crowd.

because all we have to do is tank and and draft a QB at no. 1!!!



Let's lower the bar shall we? This f'n team hasn't been to the playoffs since GW Bush entered the White House. Can we get someone to take us that far? Or is that statistically impossible also?

Ok...we can.

When its been brought up that the Bills' O scored more Td's than 2/3 of last year's playoff teams..its either ignored or someone comes back with the lame ass "We're not looking for the playoffs, we're looking to go all the way!!!"

w/e

[Albany,n.y.]

Peyton and Eli are the only QB's drafted in the top 5 since 1989 who have won a SB.

In modern times, i.e. the past 28 years, the odds are 1 in 8 of finding a SB winning QB with the no. 1 pick.

The odds are 2 in 31 of finding a SB winning QB with a top 5 pick.

Funny how you cut off 3x Super Bowl winner Troy Aikman by 1 year and failed in the math since 4 (or 5 if you count Bledsoe being on the team that Brady won his 1st on & may have not made it if Bledsoe hadn't come in & won the AFC championship game after Brady got injured) wins over 28 isn't 1 in 8. Put Aikman's 3 wins in there & you're now at 7/29, 24.14% or 8/29, 27.59% adding in Bledsoe. Also the #1 pick (only QBs remember) has produced 4 or 5 wins out of the 16 QBs taken #1 in your time frame-Aikman makes it 7 or 8 out of 17 (41.17% or 47.05%). Also, the #1 pick has been the Super Bowl loser multiple times since 1989-Newton, Bledsoe & P. Manning. Additionally there are 9 currently active #1 pick QBs in the NFL who can add to the stats.

I don't know where you came up with the 2 in 31 top 5 picks since all I'm talking about is QBs drafted with the top pick and their odds are much better than 2 in 31.

One thing is certain: While many years the #1 pick is not a QB (since there have been only 22 in 51 years), this year the #1 pick will be a QB and throughout Super bowl history, 14 of the 51 Super Bowls were won by a QB taken #1.

[Arm of Harm]

When its been brought up that the Bills' O scored more Td's than 2/3 of last year's playoff teams..its either ignored or someone comes back with the lame ass "We're not looking for the playoffs, we're looking to go all the way!!!"
We should absolutely be looking to go all the way. And should be building a team around that objective.

Typically, when you look at the ten most recent Super Bowl winners, 8/10 or 9/10 will have had franchise quarterbacks. Doesn't mean you can't win a Super Bowl without a franchise QB, and I'm sure there will be those who point to the Ravens of 2000, the Bucs of 2002, or (more recently) the Broncos with an aging and ineffective Peyton Manning as examples of teams which managed to win Super Bowls without franchise QBs. It can be done, but the odds are heavily against you.

The reasonably good offensive results we achieved this past season were because our league-best running game largely offset our 30th ranked passing attack. This season our running game is likely to take a step down, because Roman's offensive scheme is no longer here, because McCoy is a year older, because we lost Gillislee, and because the OL seems to have taken a step backward. So we're going to have to be more reliant on our passing attack. And for that you need a quarterback. Preferably a franchise quarterback.

I'm not saying you have to have a top-5 pick to get a franchise QB. But it sure does help.

[YardRat]

One thing is certain: While many years the #1 pick is not a QB (since there have been only 22 in 51 years), this year the #1 pick will be a QB and throughout Super bowl history, 14 of the 51 Super Bowls were won by a QB taken #1.

And 37 were won by a QB that wasn't.

[Albany,n.y.]

And 37 were won by a QB that wasn't.

14/22 vs 37/(543 + all undrafted QBs). Anyone with a knowledge of statistics and probabilities knows which number is better (hint it's not the 37)

[YardRat]

Anybody with a knowledge of statistics and probabilities wouldn't try to compare 14 of 22 to 37 of 543 to begin with.

[Night Train]

Well, we failed the first tank test. :up: