Fail for Cardale.

Maulbert · Sep 9, 2015

Suck for Luck has ruined football.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-fans-embrace-fail-for-cardale-jones-campaign

Threedee · Sep 9, 2015

Win with Johnny, Dammit! He's you golden tequila boy!!

TwistedHusky · Sep 9, 2015

Makes perfect sense.

This is actually the issue that will destroy the NFL if left unchecked in a few decades, because it will just feed fan apathy over time. There will no longer be loyal fans left to root for a team in an 'unlucky' market.

The NFL decided (way back in the 80s, 90s) that since the team wears helmets - few fans can really identify with the people as the brand. So they started over emphasizing the QB as the face of the team (even more than normally) in all the branding/marketing. The problem was that QBs were targets for the defense - they got hit a lot and hitting a QB (remember when teams had 3 backup QBs on the roster routinely?) could cause a team to lose its primary bridge to the fans.

Right about the time that Brady/Peyton were duking it out the league decided that the investment in QBs was too important and they added new protections to the QB as well as hamstrung defenses by putting in rules that made the game more slanted toward the offensive passing game. This devalued RBs and it also devalued LBs (but it did put a premium on pass rushers).

The game has shifted to favor the team with the great QB. YOU MUST HAVE A GREAT QB TO BE A COMPETITIVE WINNING TEAM OVER TIME NOW. Decades before, you could be effective in the playoffs with a great RB or a great defense, but now you needed to pick a QB or you have to blow the whole team up and startup over.

Which means that .500 teams are doomed. To hope to succeed in the future they HAVE to turn into a .200 team so they can get the coveted first picks to get the shot at the few great QB prospects (of which only 1 in 5 or so will turn out to be great). You have to lose to spin the wheel and if you miss on the spin, you have to lose again.

Because only a few teams will get a great QB, that leaves most of the other teams left to try to tread water, hope their earlier QB pick will pan out or realize they have to go into losing mode to have a shot at the new "IT" QB that may or may not be the guy they hope he will be.

But no team can expect to be good over time without a great QB, and you normally to not get those without getting an early pick - which requires you to lose often to get. The Seahawks avoided this by getting a 3rd rd pick but the data is clear that getting QBs over time that produce requires getting to the well early.

If only a few teams have hope and the rest have to tear it all down, pretty clear that over time people will just walk away. (See Seattle Mariner fans) The Texans are a good example of a team that would be good in another era but are never going to be bad enough to get a good QB.

Fade · Sep 9, 2015

TwistedHusky":1otd9fsg said:
Makes perfect sense.

This is actually the issue that will destroy the NFL if left unchecked in a few decades, because it will just feed fan apathy over time. There will no longer be loyal fans left to root for a team in an 'unlucky' market.

The NFL decided (way back in the 80s, 90s) that since the team wears helmets - few fans can really identify with the people as the brand. So they started over emphasizing the QB as the face of the team (even more than normally) in all the branding/marketing. The problem was that QBs were targets for the defense - they got hit a lot and hitting a QB (remember when teams had 3 backup QBs on the roster routinely?) could cause a team to lose its primary bridge to the fans.

Right about the time that Brady/Peyton were duking it out the league decided that the investment in QBs was too important and they added new protections to the QB as well as hamstrung defenses by putting in rules that made the game more slanted toward the offensive passing game. This devalued RBs and it also devalued LBs (but it did put a premium on pass rushers).

The game has shifted to favor the team with the great QB. YOU MUST HAVE A GREAT QB TO BE A COMPETITIVE WINNING TEAM OVER TIME NOW. Decades before, you could be effective in the playoffs with a great RB or a great defense, but now you needed to pick a QB or you have to blow the whole team up and startup over.

Which means that .500 teams are doomed. To hope to succeed in the future they HAVE to turn into a .200 team so they can get the coveted first picks to get the shot at the few great QB prospects (of which only 1 in 5 or so will turn out to be great). You have to lose to spin the wheel and if you miss on the spin, you have to lose again.

Because only a few teams will get a great QB, that leaves most of the other teams left to try to tread water, hope their earlier QB pick will pan out or realize they have to go into losing mode to have a shot at the new "IT" QB that may or may not be the guy they hope he will be.

But no team can expect to be good over time without a great QB, and you normally to not get those without getting an early pick - which requires you to lose often to get. The Seahawks avoided this by getting a 3rd rd pick but the data is clear that getting QBs over time that produce requires getting to the well early.

If only a few teams have hope and the rest have to tear it all down, pretty clear that over time people will just walk away. (See Seattle Mariner fans) The Texans are a good example of a team that would be good in another era but are never going to be bad enough to get a good QB.

Yes. I have been pondering this for a few years now. Parity League it is no more, QB league it is. The teams with the QBs win the divisions, and eventually win the Super Bowls. The days of Dilfer are done, and the league has gotten really boring because of it.

The NFL is devolving into the NBA where teams tank for the next LeBron, Duncan, etc. a Lottery doesn't fix it either, because as you see in the NBA teams will tank to get more lottery balls.

Tampa Bay beat Pittsburgh last year who won 11 games. They did not have the talent of a 2 win team, but they tanked for the #1 pick. And it's going to continue sadly.

Threedee · Sep 9, 2015

It is almost certainly a parody league; just not a parity league.

253hawk · Sep 9, 2015

Remember when QB's were drafted and rode the bench for a couple of seasons behind the veteran while they got up to speed? Now it's just draft, start, sink or swim. With plenty of advertising and endorsing before they even finish their first season.

Erebus · Sep 9, 2015

Fans may root for draft position (I think they are wrong for that), but I really don't buy into the whole concept of teams tanking, especially with top drafted QBs not being a great bet to succeed. No coach or player would tank, because usually they wouldn't be around the next year to reap the rewards of having a great new QB. The best case scenario recently was for Andrew Luck, and look how that turned out for Jim Caldwell. If Caldwell had them tank, it didn't do him any good, because he was fired after the season. And half their roster was overhauled the next year, so it didn't do most of the players any good to tank either.

The following coaches had the worst record in the league and were not around to enjoy the fruits of the draft the next year:
2013 - Gary Kubiak
2012 - Romeo Crennel
2011 - Jim Caldwell
2010 - John Fox
2008 - Rod Marinelli
2007 - Cam Cameron
2006 - Art Shell
2005 - Dom Capers
2004 - Dennis Erickson

I could go on, but you can clearly see a trend here. The only two head coaches recently that survived earning the #1 pick were on their first year with their team and given more leeway and probably hired with low expectations for the first year (Spagnuolo in 2008 and Lovie Smith in 2014).

mrt144 · Sep 9, 2015

Part of the issue is there is a desire for instant results from certain markets and there is no leadership. On the other hand consider a team like Cincinnati that seemingly is only Andy Dalton getting in the way of going to the AFC championship at the least.

I think one of the issues is that the passing game has expanded the ceiling for the best QBs and its apparent that only about a 6-8 are really talented enough to play up to the level demanded by current offensive philosophy that most teams employ.

I really wish more teams were like KC where they play decidedly different than a lot of other teams on offense.

More than anything else I think a cogent long term strategy with a dash of luck in terms of getting players who grow is what is driving this kind of market - there are only so many participants in the market and a lot of them are hoping to hit the jackpot and cover for deficiencies and it's clearly not as efficient as it could be if almost all participants were not trying to hit jackpot.

kearly · Sep 10, 2015

At least right now, Cardale feels like a good college QB who doesn't really have much in the way of NFL skills. He's seems to be more skilled than EJ Manuel but inferior to Cam Newton. And Cam is very close to being an average NFL QB.

He's like Big Ben in a couple of ways, but not yet the complete player that Roethlisberger is.

Browns fans want him because he went to High School in Cleveland. I don't get the sense that any other fanbase is really pining for him.

Maulbert · Sep 10, 2015

kearly":1av9bu9u said:
At least right now, Cardale feels like a good college QB who doesn't really have much in the way of NFL skills. He's seems to be more skilled than EJ Manuel but inferior to Cam Newton. And Cam is very close to being an average NFL QB.

He's like Big Ben in a couple of ways, but not yet the complete player that Roethlisberger is.

Browns fans want him because he went to High School in Cleveland. I don't get the sense that any other fanbase is really pining for him.

I agree, my point in posting this is the sudden desire amongst NFL fanbases to tank for the next Johnny-Come-Lately QB in the draft (see Suck for the Duck, ie Mariota). At least Luck was a genuine phenom, these other ding-a-lings could easily turn into the next JaMarcus Russell.

Fade · Sep 10, 2015

Threedee":qsa8ounr said:
It is almost certainly a parody league; just not a parity league.

Good catch. LOL

Lords of Scythia · Sep 10, 2015

Erebus":21sxw9dh said:
Fans may root for draft position (I think they are wrong for that), but I really don't buy into the whole concept of teams tanking, especially with top drafted QBs not being a great bet to succeed. No coach or player would tank, because usually they wouldn't be around the next year to reap the rewards of having a great new QB. The best case scenario recently was for Andrew Luck, and look how that turned out for Jim Caldwell. If Caldwell had them tank, it didn't do him any good, because he was fired after the season. And half their roster was overhauled the next year, so it didn't do most of the players any good to tank either.

The following coaches had the worst record in the league and were not around to enjoy the fruits of the draft the next year:
2013 - Gary Kubiak
2012 - Romeo Crennel
2011 - Jim Caldwell
2010 - John Fox
2008 - Rod Marinelli
2007 - Cam Cameron
2006 - Art Shell
2005 - Dom Capers
2004 - Dennis Erickson

I could go on, but you can clearly see a trend here. The only two head coaches recently that survived earning the #1 pick were on their first year with their team and given more leeway and probably hired with low expectations for the first year (Spagnuolo in 2008 and Lovie Smith in 2014).

It's the owner that hands down the tank decree.

rideaducati · Sep 10, 2015

I like the fact that the Seahawks have never earned the first overall pick in the draft.

253hawk · Sep 10, 2015

rideaducati":1z74dqec said:
I like the fact that the Seahawks have never earned the first overall pick in the draft.

We almost did...and we'd likely have taken Bledsoe instead of Mirer. Then the whole Cheatriots legacy* never even happens.

Lords of Scythia · Sep 10, 2015

I remember that well. At the time people thought that Mirer was almost as good as Bledsoe and that either one was a franchise qb. Sounds familiar, eh? --RG3 + Luck.

Maulbert · Sep 10, 2015

Lords of Scythia":x3hvjrf2 said:
I remember that well. At the time people thought that Mirer was almost as good as Bledsoe and that either one was a franchise qb. Sounds familiar, eh? --RG3 + Luck.

Or even Manning/Leaf.

Erebus · Sep 10, 2015

Lords of Scythia":j7rdwt0t said:
Erebus":j7rdwt0t said:

Fans may root for draft position (I think they are wrong for that), but I really don't buy into the whole concept of teams tanking, especially with top drafted QBs not being a great bet to succeed. No coach or player would tank, because usually they wouldn't be around the next year to reap the rewards of having a great new QB. The best case scenario recently was for Andrew Luck, and look how that turned out for Jim Caldwell. If Caldwell had them tank, it didn't do him any good, because he was fired after the season. And half their roster was overhauled the next year, so it didn't do most of the players any good to tank either.

The following coaches had the worst record in the league and were not around to enjoy the fruits of the draft the next year:
2013 - Gary Kubiak
2012 - Romeo Crennel
2011 - Jim Caldwell
2010 - John Fox
2008 - Rod Marinelli
2007 - Cam Cameron
2006 - Art Shell
2005 - Dom Capers
2004 - Dennis Erickson

I could go on, but you can clearly see a trend here. The only two head coaches recently that survived earning the #1 pick were on their first year with their team and given more leeway and probably hired with low expectations for the first year (Spagnuolo in 2008 and Lovie Smith in 2014).

Click to expand...

It's the owner that hands down the tank decree.

Even if true, there is absolutely no incentive for the coaches or players to tank. The owner can't dictate how they play on the field. If they aren't going to be around the next year, why obey an owner that tells them to tank? There is too much pride at stake to tank. It would also likely ruin careers. Who wants a coach that led their team to a 2-14 record? Who wants a player that doesn't appear to give it his all?

Smellyman · Sep 10, 2015

After only a few games and about 100 passes, do we even know if he is good?

mrt144 · Sep 10, 2015

Smellyman":102ephac said:
After only a few games and about 100 passes, do we even know if he is good?

Some people think they do but this is bayesian

Fail for Cardale.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads