Not that they even need to make a concerted effort to lose at this point, but were you the owner/GM/shot-caller, would you order your coach to lay down?
Mrs sphere says no, you never intentionally lose a game. I say yes. They would effectively be kneeling down to run out the clock on their abysmal season–a tactic used routinely by a team in pursuit of their larger strategy; cease to advance the ball or attempt to score in order to preserve what you stand to gain. Snagging Luck in the first round (or trading away the right) is the only victory that is within their grasp, and most certainly suits their long-term interest.
It depends. If they purposely tank to get Luck then their personnel decision makers are dumber than a bag of hammers. Andrew Luck is not the savior of the Colts, they do not need a top flight QB. The loss of Manning has shown the rest of the team sucks ass and Manning made up for a good deal of their sucktitude.
Now if they tank and trade the top pick for some current talent, then I’d be all for it.
My opinion is that the Coaches’ and players’ (I’ll call them the “team,” to distinguish from management) jobs are to do the best thing for the team over a season and week to week. It’s management’s job to do the best thing for the franchise over the long term. The two areas should not intermingle. The team should be doing their best with what management gives them. Management should do their best at draft time given the placing the team deserves at the end of the season. If management needs the team to intentionally neglect their job in order to get a good long term result for the franchise, then management needs to be fired.
By lay down, I don’t mean try to lose at the individual level. I think it would be in the organization’s best interest to bench their A-list guys to eliminate the chance of injury, and give the up and coming guys the reins for a day. You reduce your chances of victory (as winning teams do in late season throwaway games when benching a franchise player) but the team’s best interest is served.
Sorry about the game today, by the way. Are they out of contention now?
“Management put the team in this place by not surrounding Manning with better talent.”
I don’t disagree. It’s still the team’s job to do the best they can with what management gives them. Management needs to figure out how to do better, without trying to make the team do their job for them.
If management needs the team to intentionally neglect their job in order to get a good long term result for the franchise, then management needs to be fired.
Putting aside the distinction between management and coaches for a minute, would you make the same criticism of the Packers, given that they benched their A-listers yesterday? Seems to me the same consideration is in play: sacrifice one game (or risk sacrificing one game) for a better chance to secure future success.
Do you think Rodgers would’ve been on the bench had their perfect season remained intact? Not a chance. A team’s calculus always includes factors beyond the day’s game, late in the season. I don’t see why that should apply only to the winners.
“Putting aside the distinction between management and coaches for a minute, would you make the same criticism of the Packers, given that they benched their A-listers yesterday? Seems to me the same consideration is in play: sacrifice one game (or risk sacrificing one game) for a better chance to secure future success.”
I think what the Packers did yesterday is still in line with doing the best thing for the team over the course of that particular season, which is what i said the team should concentrate on.
“Do you think Rodgers would’ve been on the bench had their perfect season remained intact? Not a chance. A team’s calculus always includes factors beyond the day’s game, late in the season.”
Sure, there are extreme cases where the calculus involves stuff beyond the best chances at the Superbowl. However, working for a perfect season is still working on the best thing for a season, and not a long term issue.
I don’t think you can compare the two. Did you watch the Packer game? There was no laying down. There was no playing safe. McCarthy gave Flynn the entire play book and Flynn set a franchise record for yards and TDs in one game. Also keep in mind that Flynn is arguably the best backup in the NFL and better than about half the starters in the league.
So, protecting a star and resting guys who are nicked up is not the same as laying down. The Packers still played to win the game.
I think what the Packers did yesterday is still in line with doing the best thing for the team over the course of that particular season, which is what i said the team should concentrate on.
Understood. My question is, why should the organization be focused only on the current season, particularly when there is absolutely nothing more to gain from it, and potentially much to be lost? If the Packers should be allowed to secure future benefit by starting a squad that gives them a lesser chance of winning, why should that not apply to the Colts, should they have chosen to start their backups?
“My question is, why should the organization be focused only on the current season, particularly when there is absolutely nothing more to gain from it, and potentially much to be lost?”
I didn’t say the “organization” should only be focused on the current season. I broke the organization into two components; the team (coaches and players) and management. Management thinks long term. The team thinks short term. Mixing can bring up a conflict of interest, such as the one we’re discussing now. Also, if you think there’s “absolutely nothing to gain” from winning a game, even if you lost all the other ones, then I’d have to ask if you ever played any sport or participated in any athletic contest in your life (I know you have). Playoff spots, future draft picks, and trophies aren’t the only things to gain from winning games.
"If the Packers should be allowed to secure future benefit by starting a squad that gives them a lesser chance of winning, why should that not apply to the Colts, should they have chosen to start their backups? "
Again, the Packers are securing future benefit for this season. You’re suggesting that the Colts should sacrifice a win for long term potential gain in the form of draft picks, which, as I said, I think should be the responsibility of management. If you make a clear divide between front office and the team in this regard, then you can avoid sticky situations like this.
More importantly, I can’t imagine any coaching staff or professional athlete who would intentionally lose a game. The stink of that would stick with you long past any gain you might get from picking up the next potential star.
More importantly, I can’t imagine any coaching staff or professional athlete who would intentionally lose a game. The stink of that would stick with you long past any gain you might get from picking up the next potential star.
I suppose it depends on one’s perspective. Had the Packers found themselves in a 10-point hole at the half, with Rodgers and co. sitting on the bench, you could easily argue that keeping your uninjured pro bowl players on the bench for the second half would be equally negligent in that regard. But of course they would have stayed on the sidelines regardless of the score. Their focus was not primarily on winning Sunday’s game, and they were willing to take a loss in exchange for future gain, if need be. I agree that purposefully losing a game in progress would pass well into poor sportsmanship, but making roster changes, a la Green Bay, that reduce the likelihood of victory and protect your core personnel from potential long-term injury, while giving your bench a chance to play in an insignificant game is, in my opinion, not only defensible, but the responsible thing to do in their position, as it was with Green Bay. Send out the second- and third-string guys, give them plays that suit their abilities, and let them fight it out on the field.
“Management put the team in this place by not surrounding Manning with better talent.”
Looks like ownership agreed with this, since the Polians got fired today.
Saw that as well while watching the Rose Bowl. I’m interested to see what direction the Colts go now. My guess is Irsay isn’t finished blowing up the management and team. A total rebuild is on the horizon I believe.
Not really- it depends on what the motives and intentions are. The Packers weren’t trying to lose the game by sitting their top guys, they were trying to make sure those top guys didn’t get injured before the playoffs. I’m sure the would have been thrilled to win anyway, despite the fact that winning that one game was not a high priority. Losing was not their goal.
In contrast, in your scenario we have the Colts essentially throwing a game in order to secure an advantageous draft position.** **Their deliberate intent would be to lose the game in order to benefit down the road. That’s a significant difference. (I suspect the rest of the league wouldn’t be thrilled about it, either.)
I appreciate the difference. I’m not suggesting they* try* to lose (“lay down” may not have been the best descriptor), only that they could have looked out for their long-term interests by making personnel moves that protected the players they plan to build around while giving the upstarts some field time. The added bonus, taking the long view, is that it also would have decreased their chance of winning and increasing their chance of securing the first overall pick. Call it serendipity or plausible deniability, or both.
All a moot point, really, since their first-string squad couldn’t knock off the Chimeras’ junior varsity squad coming off a bye week.
“I’m not suggesting they* try* to lose (“lay down” may not have been the best descriptor), only that they could have looked out for their long-term interests by making personnel moves that protected the players they plan to build around while giving the upstarts some field time.”
If you’re not suggesting they try to lose, then I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. The only thing people have talked about is the Colts trying to lose to get Luck, and your title included the words “lay down,” which to me means taking a dive, or losing on purpose, or at the very best, not making any particular effort to win.
As for the idea that they might pull regular starters for the purpose of giving new guys time to play and evaluate, I think that would be a stretch, and they would have had to do so earlier than the final game to give that concept any plausibility.
they could have looked out for their long-term interests by making personnel moves that protected the players they plan to build around while giving the upstarts some field time.
