Predator said, among other things...
Quote:
But hey, let's not let a few things like facts get in the way of a good tin foil hat story.
Since now you profess an interest in fact, let's go over a few you missed in this screed of yours.
1. "One half hearted article by a writer trying to create a story and you think you've got "knowledge..."
Fact: In this thread, I have cited at least three (3) different articles raising the question, all from credible, independent sources: Yahoo.com and NFL.com-neither of which are exactly starving for clicks, and Hall of Fame writer Vito Stellino.
2. "So Houston supposedly tanked for a guy with a bum knee..."
Fact: First, I never mentioned Houston in this thread. Please address the arguments made, not the ones you wish were made. Second, what evidence was there that Clowney had a "bum knee" in college? He had a minor knee injury that kept him out of a couple of practices...and he missed all of two games in his three years at So. Carolina. There was no indicia that the combine medical examination revealed any "bum knee" for Clowney, and he ran a freaking 4.53 at the combine. And even stipulating Houston did not tank for him for the moment, why would they invest the first overall pick in a guy they KNEW to have a "bum knee?" The fact is, Clowney didn't have anything close to a "bum knee" until he played on that Houston turf. You aren't making any sense on this point.
3. "The point that is amazingly lost on you is the fact that every person in your article to the man, says that no one was tanking the game."
Fact: That is patently false.
Lovie Smith did not mention "tanking" or "throwing the game" at all. I have already provided the relevant quotes that you obviously did not carefully read, but here is the most interesting nugget from Lovie Smith
Quote:
The second half we wanted to look at some more football players. I think that's not out of the realm of possibilities.
Sounds as if he's trying to convince others and himself, the explanation is plausible.
Dotson did not steadfastly deny the team tanked. He wasn't sure.
Quote:
I don't think we were trying to hand the game away. I hope not.
That is not a definitive denial. That SCREAMS uncertainty and doubt.
This from QB Josh McCown..."
I don't think anybody tanked it...." NOT a definitive denial.
This from LB Lavonte David..."
I guess I understand why. We wanted to get everybody else some playing time
or whatever." Gee, THAT's convincing.
The odd thing is you assert that
I have lost touch with reality.
Reality shows that players and teams violate on field rules all the time.
Reality shows players violate rules of off field conduct (PEDs, substance abuse, behavior).
Reality shows teams have violated various off field rules (tampering, 49ers salary cap fudging, offseason workout rules, Atlanta crowd noise, Spygate, deflate gate).
Reality shows NBA teams tanked to the point they have a draft lottery to discourage that behavior.
Yet somehow, it is totally inconceivable to you that an NFL team could want to ensure superior draft position when the coach expressed ambivalence at best towards winning the game, when at least two of the players expressed uncertainty as to whether that happened or not, and the team had ample incentive to do so. As if something exclusive to the DNA of all involved with football serves as absolute deterrence to violating this particular norm of competition.
Why did the Bucs get a 20-7 lead? Maybe they didn't anticipate the game unfolding like that. They WERE 2-13 heading into the game, after all. Their season's performance to date did not lend itself to lofty expectations in the 16th game. Clearly, while daunting, a 13 point lead is certainly not impossible to blow, especially for the Bucs. Tampa gave up a 21-7 lead to Seattle just the year before
without pulling their starters in the second half, to a QB typically not viewed as the passer Brees is considered to be.
Now that I explained the 20-7 lead, I want you to tell me why Tampa had the sudden desperate urge to see the bottom half of the roster of a 2-13 team when the coaching staff already saw what these guys could do in preseason, watched them all season long in practice, knowing they likely would not be on the team next year, much less be a huge help in the hoped for turnaround.
If YOU were coaching a team in a game you were trying your
absolute best to win, would YOU take out your starters to start the second half when the game was still in reach, and put in players you determined
all year long to be
inferior to the ones you are taking out? Why or why not?
Let's see you "peal away" this analysis.
Regarding the Saints not "counter tanking" there are three plausible reasons. As I indicated earlier, not every team tanks because whatever draft choice advantage they receive is not worth the effort. If, at the end of the day, your tanking efforts still just lead to a mid first round pick that happens after the elite talent is off the board, there is little draft choice incentive to do so, as opposed to Tampa possibly winning and picking as low as 4th or 5th, putting themselves out of range for either of the potential franchise QBs without paying an arm and a leg to trade up. Furthermore, we are talking about Payton...who was suspended for a year for the whole bounty gate scandal. If any coach is going to be above reproach in his behavior from this point forth, it would be Payton. Finally, there's the old fashioned pride/competitive aspect.