If you think there’s any such thing as “tanking,” then you’ve probably seen Major League one too many times. (And hey, even the Cleveland Indians in that movie weren’t trying to lose. They were just bad.) And don’t give me the 2011 Indianapolis Colts and the whole “Suck for Luck” thing, either. The 2011 Colts lost Peyton Manning, the guy that might be the greatest quarterback in the history of the game (and, for my money, is just that). The guy was the de facto offensive coordinator on that team for years, practically called plays and audibles in his sleep, and basically transcended the whole Colts’ scheme.
It turns out that when you lose a guy like that and replace him with guys like Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky, there’s a slight drop-off. Weird, huh?
But they still weren’t “tanking.” The 2011 Colts were competitive in plenty of games. . .they were just a bad football team. Much like the 2011 Vikings and 2011 St. Louis Rams were bad football teams. Much like the 2013 Jaguars, Buccaneers, and Vikings are bad football teams. There’s a difference between a team that’s “tanking” and a team that simply isn’t very good.
And speaking of not being very good, that brings us to the second part of the equation that explains why “tanking” is non-sensical. Who on earth would this team be “tanking” for?
Rumors started to fly like a Georgia sorority girls skirt before the Steelers took the field on Sunday that Big Ben was requesting a trade. And who can blame him. All Bens done in Pittsburgh is win two Superbowls under two different head coaches which really says something about his abliity to understand completely diffrent dialects of American English no offense.