This wasn't one of Steinberg's better pieces, but no chance in hell Dan calls him out. It's not like beating up on Phil Rogers or the nebulous "Tribune editorial page." To go after a big-name columnist would be to punch well above his weight class, something Dan is loath to do.

_________________

bernstein wouldn't stand a chance against Cornelia Grumman either. I'm pretty sure she went to Duke too.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Well said

Even if they believe its not worth watching, they are still great fans if they attend a few games over the course of the season.

_________________

Steinberg has more practice beating people up.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Steinberg is great. This article is pretty decent, although I think JORR may be projecting more onto it than is there.

Steinberg isn't a sports guy at all, but even with that being the case, he understands that "tanking" should have no part in competitve sports.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

That's what Im saying.

This is a lot more complex an issue with you and I and people who are big fans. It feels like Steinberg just fell on one side of the fence. Honeslty, if his son was a draft weirdo, he might be watching college games and lauding hope.



Anyway, tanking games is an ugly part of sports that really cant be elimintated with the drafting system the way it is.

The Blackhawks had to bottom out for a few years to become the well-oiled machine they are now, but

1) it took a number of sea changes beyond their mere hockey operations to do that ($Bill dying, hiring McDonough and Scotty Bowman)

2) it bears mentioning that of the years they sucked for top draft picks, they whiffed on as many picks as they nailed. To wit:

2003: Brent Seabrook
2004: Cam Barker
2005: Jack Skille
2006: Jonathan Toews
2007: Patrick Kane
2008: Kyle Beach

So two putative Hall of Famers, a #2 defenseman, two big busts, and one guy who won't even make the NHL. And if they don't win the lottery in 2007, they end up with James van Riemsdyk, Kyle Turris, Sam Gagner, or one of any number of players who are good but not transcendent. And then what.

_________________

I think it's an ugly part of the NBA that isn't likely to change. I don't really think teams actively tank in other sports. I could be wrong. Im pretty much 100% sure it doesn't happen in the NFL. Non-guaranteed contracts have a way of forcing players to always try their hardest.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

The other thing is it gets into a gray area when you're 5-9 and go with the young QB. Does he give you your best chance to win that week? Probably not, but the development pays dividends later.


The NBA is awful with this. What if they reversed it so the team that just missed the playoffs got the top pick and went in reverse order from there?

Baseball teams actively tank all the time. The so White Flag trade on the south side & the last 2-3 years of Cubbie futility are local proof of that. Hell there's a commercial running right talking up the 100th anniversary season of Wrigley....not the young talent.

I think the way all football teams practice is pretty close to setting up for tanking when starters are injured. It's either tanking when/if the starting QB/RB/all pros go down (as starters take "all the snaps in practice") and the team goes down the tubes, or in the event of moderate success just dumb luck and taking advantage of a watered down product, like the Bears current season.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I don't think that's a gray area. It's not tanking. It's seeing if you have a QB who is possibly better than your current QB who only got you to 5-9. But that scenario doesn't happen to great QBs, only average to below average. Nobody tanks in the NFL. Look at how hard the Vikings played yesterday and how excited everybody on their sidelines was the last 5 minutes and overtime. And they were still in contention for the #1 pick if they ended up losing that game. Look at what the Buccs and Jags have done in recent weeks. Has there ever been an indisputable case of tanking in the NFL? I cant remember one.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I think the buy/sell stuff in baseball every year has more to do with the economics of baseball than playing for a higher draft pick. But I don't know a lot about baseball so Ill take your word for it.

Football teams don't tank. There's just too many players and coaches involved for there to be tanking and job security is always at a premium,

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Well, Id like to hear JORR's thoughts because Im sure he thinks its a gray area.


Teams certainly tank in the NFL. Its why the Colts were happy to go 2-14 with Andrew Luck on the board.

Its not as bad as the NBA, but it exists. Especially in meaningless games at the end of a season where losing can take you from a #16 pick to the #9 or whatever.

Its not the players, its the coaches tanking

Yeah, it's fine that there will come a time in a baseball season where it makes more sense to drop contracts and load up on prospects. Baseball's draft is such a chucklefuck that there's no sense in planning for it. This worked to Theo's advantage with Boston, of course: he'd just snatch up all the guys who were drafted by sorry-ass teams but chose not to sign with them. Imagine if that happened to a similar extent in the NFL and NBA. It'd be chaos.

_________________

Being bad isn't the same as tanking. I just showed you multiple example from this year alone of why football teams don't tank. Unless you believe the Jags, Buccs, and Vikings are so grossly incompetent that they don't even know how to lose when they should. The Colts when 2-14 because Curtis Painter is a terrible quarterback. I don't believe they were upset that they got the #1 pick, but I guarantee the players on those teams were trying to win the games. Did you watch the Bears game yesterday? AP acted like they just won a playoff game when Gould missed that FG.

And JORR already clarified that at the end of a lost season he has no problem with seeing young talent on the field and seeing what they can do. It's the actively trying to waste an entire season before you know for sure your team has no chance that he finds disgraceful.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Right, and like I said, the players dont tank. Performance bonuses alone prevent that.

Im saying a team like the Colts may have tried to get a serviceable Quarterback for that season. Clearly they had better than 2-14 talent as evidenced by the year before and after.

I'd argue the Bears are so incompetent that they don't know how to lose.

_________________

Or... a QB, especially one in GOAT conversations, has that much of an impact. The Packers have tried to win these past 5 games. They are winless in that stretch because Rodgers is an MVP. Same with Peyton. Also, didn't Caldwell get fired after that 2-14 season? Pretty sure he didn't want to secure a pick for the next guy to use. If players and coaches are trying their hardest to win every game, its not tanking.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Its an organizational decision to tank.

Caldwell had no say.

Do you think Kerry Collins and Curtis Painter were the best available QB's? I dont.

I don't think going 2-14 with Luck is tanking. Going 2-14 so you can get Luck is.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

That's what they did.

I meant, they were happy to go 2-14 knowing Luck would be available to draft

The Cleveland Browns tried really to tank earlier this year by trading their shiniest offensive piece. Then they got lucky and backed into three wins. But they've certainly regressed to what we all thought they were just post trade. And they've been focused on the draft since week four.

The Jaguars have undoubtedly tanked the entire season. And the fans knew/know it. Hence the $1 beer game.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Probably. Who do you think was available that was a significant upgrade? Even a guy like McCown who is having an unexplainable career resurgence wasn't picked up because he was thought of as a quality backup. His career numbers were awful before this season. Jason Campbell was supposed to be a great backup QB, and he was painful to watch. There just isn't that many good QBs around. If there were, Green Bay would still be bringing guys in. It's obvious they've tried/are trying to find that guy.

If that's the best evidence there is that the Colts tanked then Ill confidently stand by statement that NFL teams don't tank. That "evidence"(not finding a decent stop-gap QB) pales in comparison to the countless examples of teams winning games when losing those games would net them a higher draft pick. It just doesn't happen in the NFL. It's never a problem.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You're confusing being bad with tanking. The Jags knew they would be bad. If they were tanking they would find a worse QB than Chad Henne. He's decent.


So I guess you guys think NFL teams tank and are just very incompetent. OK. But really all the example from the past decade plus pretty much show that NFL teams either don't tank, or still haven't figured out how to do it.

Also, its possible the Browns just realized Trent sucked before everyone else did and ripped the Colts off.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Was every 2-14 team in history tanking? It's not possible to be that shitty organically? C'mon man.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Exactly. Tebow was basically begging to go to Jacksonville and be terrible for them.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Its not a big problem but it does and did happen With the Colts.

They were an average QB away from being average. They just did not have 2-14 talent even without Manning. And its not a coincidence that they rolled with Matt Painter with the "best prospect since Peyton Manning" available in the draft and them at the crossroads with Manning.

Chad Henne was decent to above average...in college. He's merely serviceable in the NFL. Take a look at the current thread on the Cubs offseason moves. Compare it to what the Jags and Browns did last offseason. Each team is over-leveraged, low on talent, has a marginal/unproven field boss and has, from an organizational standpoint, tanked this (upcoming in the Cubs case) season.

Again.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.