Why the Washington Football Team should not tank in 2020: Part 2

Okay, I’m going to take one more shot at this. And then, as happened with Kaiser Soze, you’ll never hear from me again. At least about tanking.

I have already spelled out my arguments on why the Washington Football Team should not tank the remainder of the 2020 season in effort to outduel the Jets et. al. for Clemson QB Trevor Lawrence. The consensus response I got was “of course, you don’t say you’re tanking. But yeah, you kind of do.” Any other move is a sucker play, dooming you to years of mediocrity or worse.

My primary argument for not tanking is that it doesn’t work. I won’t rehash it. You can read it here. I’m going to try a different tactic today. Today’s argument is that you don’t tank because you don’t have to in order to get good.

You want my evidence? The 1985 Cleveland Browns. The 2008 San Diego Chargers. The 2010 Seattle Seahawks. The 2011 Denver Broncos. The 2013 Green Bay Packers. The 2014 Carolina Panthers.

Those six teams are generally considered the weakest division winners in the modern NFL history. They captured a division crown with a record at or below .500. It is likely that the 2020 NFC East winner will join that cringeworthy club.

But just how cringeworthy is it? Five of these six teams improved on their record in the following season. The one that didn’t, Seattle, achieved the same record in 2011, before improving in both 2012 and 2013.

In the short term at least, all of these teams had notable successes – consistently making the playoffs. Within a few years of their embarrassing division championships, the Browns and Packers would make it to the Conference championship. The Panthers would make it to the Super Bowl. And both the Seahawks and Broncos would take home the Lombardi Trophy.

Not a single one of them tanked.

Okay – I hear your objections already. Half of these teams saw success on the heels of these down seasons because they already had franchise QBs in place. Both the Packers and Panthers underperformed in these down years because injuries slowed Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton.

There is no rationale for tanking for a QB if you merely have to wait for your QB to get healthy. And the Chargers already had Philip Rivers in place. They weren’t mediocre in 2008 due to injury. They were mediocre because – well, they are the Chargers, and being the Chargers means losing lots of games you really should win.

More from Riggo's Rag

I’ll grant you these three examples aren’t the strongest, so I will leave them out of the rest of the discussion. I’ll leave them out after just noting this one thing. 100% of the teams on this list, including these three, improved a great deal after NOT TANKING in a season which looked pretty dismal. That’s 100%.

Maybe you think the Browns also had their franchise QB in place in 1985, and they just needed time to let Bernie Kosar develop a bit. Yeah, maybe. This requires you to believe that Bernie Kosar was an elite QB. He was not.

He was good – don’t get me wrong. He was better than anybody currently on the Washington Football Team roster. But he was not elite. Kosar had one truly exceptional season – 1987 – in an otherwise okay career. In other words, Bernie Kosar was not a QB who you need to tank for. There are Bernie Kosars floating around out there. Jameis Winston might be a Bernie Kosar. Ryan Fitzpatrick already is.

The Browns, after sputtering to a division title in 1985, went 12-4 in 1986, making it to the Conference championship game where they were one John Elway drive (“The Drive”) away from the Super Bowl. In 1987, they were one fumble (“The Fumble”) away from the big game.

Neither the Seahawks nor the Broncos would come up short. They both won Super Bowls within a few years of not tanking.

You cannot say they had franchise QBs in place. During their seasons of not tanking, their QBs were Matt Hasselbeck and – wait for it – Tim Tebow. It is true that both teams would see the need to move on from these signal callers in order to continue to improve. I am not saying that Washington doesn’t need to significantly increase the level of play at the position. I’m saying that both the Seahawks and Broncos were able to do exactly that. And they did it without tanking.

Sure, you say, if we could get Russell Wilson, of course we’d be a lot better. That’s the point. The Seahawks did get Russell Wilson. They got him in the third round after five other QBs had already been taken. And you know what else they did? They built a first-rate defense. They put quality coaches in place. They found a good running back. And they built a winning culture. A culture that did not allow for quitting. Love him or hate him, Pete Carroll does not coach teams that tank.

Okay, you say. Stop already with the Russell Wilson example. Eventually, somebody hits the Power Ball. Maybe Wilson was simply a fluke. Let’s look at how Denver did it.

They moved on from Tebow when they had the chance to sign Peyton Manning as a free agent. Manning instantly elevated the QB play and the team right along with it. How many times does a Peyton Manning become available as a free agent?

Not often, but here’s the point. When he did become available, Denver was ready to snap him up. Do you really believe Peyton Manning would have signed with Denver had they tanked in 2011? How would he have responded to John Elway, had the pitch been “I know we were just 2-14 this year, but you see, we were positioning ourselves for a better draft pick. Now come on, big guy, sign this deal.”

Obviously I don’t know the answer to this, but what I do know about elite, highly competitive athletes is that they do not choose to play for a team that uses losing as an institutional strategy.

Money may matter a great deal to free agents, but if they have their choice, they do not go to a losing franchise. They understand that losing is a little bit like a virus, and though you may think you have it under control, it does not take much for it to spread. I have already made this point, so I won’t belabor it. Suffice to say, you don’t attract quality by being bad. You don’t attract quality by tanking.

Just to finish up the Denver example: Though Manning led them to great playoff success, they did not win a Super Bowl until his fourth and final season, when injuries forced him to the bench. Brock Osweiler played better than Manning in 2015. They won the Super Bowl that year because they had been developing the best defense in the league over the preceding several years. The QB play merely complemented that defense.

If you think that these precedents don’t have any relevance for the current Washington Football Team situation – either because franchise QBs were already in place, or because they lucked into guys like Wilson or Manning – that doesn’t matter. Maybe you think I’m dissing Bernie Kosar, who was actually the Pat Mahomes of his day. Also doesn’t matter (And is verifiably insane).

You can also say that the Washington Football Team has plenty of holes, and that it is not as good as any of the above-mentioned teams were in their poor division-winning seasons. I won’t argue that. I don’t have to. I’m not promising the Washington Football Team will win the Super Bowl in three years if only they try their hardest this year. I’m saying there is overwhelming evidence that trying to win is a more reliable way of improving than trying to lose.

Next. Studs and duds from Week 7 domination against Dallas. dark

These were teams that easily could have tanked, but did not. And they all got better after refusing to tank. Every – Single – One. I don’t really care how it happened. In addition to raw talent, winning requires attitude, effort, and good habits. It is an acquired skill. And you do not acquire it by losing.

Home/Commanders News