Pats draft

[House]

I am not sure why it is so hard to admit that the Colts wanted Andrew Luck and did everything they could to ensure the #1 pick. Good for them. Now they are set up for the next decade with a stud QB.

You Pats fans are savy. Already prepping for life without Brady you already have excuses prepared for when you guys are terrible and we are still good.

"At least we didn't have to tank to stay successful."

Tricky tricky.

[Yehoodi]

And then the people who were responsible for building and coaching that team were summarily dismissed. Some of them are still out of the NFL.

 

This argument is just too flimsy. It has to be propped up by supposition, speculation, and good ol' fashioned ignoring critical facts. We've done this ad nauseum around here. The idea that the Colts purposely lost all those games in 2011 just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

As with many things one can not prove something unless you have an admission or video tape of the individual caught in the act . . . it is more common to prove a point by facts and conclusions based on direct and circumstantial evidence  . . . and at times, as in this case, both parties are required to prove their case, and spefically did the colts tank or did the colts try  . . . its not like a criminal case where one side needs to prove its point and the other can sit back and win if the former does not reach an evidentiary std.  . . .

 

With that said, whose knows what the answer is, maybe as some have said here on this forum in the past that the FO just couldn't get things fixed in time before it got out of control . .  or maybe the colts tanked the season to secure another franshise QB . . . i will say to discount the boo birds as having no evidence or are filmsy is a stretch, as more than one thing happened that was a head scratcher that season . . .  

 

Hey is not like the Pats arent against tanking, but not a whole season tho, but one game that effects seeding which may not be much different, but it only a one year and not a long time like a franchise QB . . . now like above, no one will ever know the right answer, but i for one thing we did . . . we need to look no farther than 2005 and Mr. "60 Mins" Bill Belichick . . . it was the last game of the season against Miami and we were fighting for the 3/4 seed with Cinn and the "winner" of the 3/4 would host the dangerous #6 seeded Steelers (who where 15-1 the year prior and won the SB that year) . . . . so what do you think Mr. "60 mins" BB did late in the game against Mia, the game was close and if we won we be the #3 (i think the Bengals had already "lost") . . .  

 

So Mr, BB pulls Brady in the 4th qtr of a close game which had playoff seeing potential . . . hmm . . .lets see in Brady 11 year career that has happened um well never and in fact in his entire career that have never happened at any point in a game that was competitive, ever . . . never ever ever ever . . . but coindentially it coincided with putting in Cassel who then nearly won (by throwing the two point conversion into stands just over the recievers head) the game, but we lost , , , and boo who we ended as the #4 seed,, avoided Pitt, who btw played thier hated rivals and on the first season took out C. Palmer who career has not been the same and instituted a new low hit rule, we got to play the ever dangerous Jags, then onto Denver, had we beaten them we still would of played Pitt, but it would of been thier third game allowing them time to lose but they didn't . . . so we had an event that never happened before and we got a benefit . . .  

 

now maybe i am wrong, but I do know that altho BB is a 60 min man and play to the whistle, what trumps this in his mind is the ultimate goal is that "we do what is necessary for the best interest of our team" . . . so if we put 2 +2 we get, imo, the pats tanked it against Miami . . . it was only one game, but seeing that it match up pitt and cinn, who lost their QB, it had impact, and altho it was one game, if it help up get better seeding and thus a chance at a SB, it kind of effected the entire season as all play the entire year with the goal to win the SB . . .

 

Given the above 2+2 one an apply the same logic to some of the facts in 2011 to raise an eyebrow at the colts season, to discount this as frivilous is being overly broad . . . maybe i am wrong about 2005 and i might be but there is stuff that makes me pause about 2005. . .

[fvantagio]

I am not sure why it is so hard to admit that the Colts wanted Andrew Luck and did everything they could to ensure the #1 pick. Good for them. Now they are set up for the next decade with a stud QB.

 

And who made this call? Wasnt Irsay, anyone who knows anything about Indianapolis Colts football knows that PM and Irsay had a strong bond. Plus the loss of revenue wouldnt help either. Ok so we know its not the owner...So who then, Polian? What good would that do? It would just get him fired and he would not "be set up for the next decade" as you put it. Same goes for the entire coaching staff. The players are not going to roll over and quit for a college QB either. So I fail to see how this theory holds any water.

 

NOBODY who was apart of the Colts benefited from the miserable season. Not Manning, not Irsay, not the entire Colts organization. The entire organization has been changed since that year with only a handful of players left.

 

Now let me ask you this...Why is it so hard for you to admit that the Colts just genuinely sucked that year?

[House]

And who made this call? Wasnt Irsay, anyone who knows anything about Indianapolis Colts football knows that PM and Irsay had a strong bond. Plus the loss of revenue wouldnt help either. Ok so we know its not the owner...So who then, Polian? What good would that do? It would just get him fired and he would not "be set up for the next decade" as you put it. Same goes for the entire coaching staff. The players are not going to roll over and quit for a college QB either. So I fail to see how this theory holds any water.

NOBODY who was apart of the Colts benefited from the miserable season. Not Manning, not Irsay, not the entire Colts organization. The entire organization has been changed since that year with only a handful of players left.

Now let me ask you this...Why is it so hard for you to admit that the Colts just genuinely sucked that year?

With as many guys who lost their jobs because if that season, it's insane to me to think not one would come forward to say "We were asked to lose games." If that were the case.

[Superman]

As with many things one can not prove something unless you have an admission or video tape of the individual caught in the act . . . it is more common to prove a point by facts and conclusions based on direct and circumstantial evidence  . . . and at times, as in this case, both parties are required to prove their case, and spefically did the colts tank or did the colts try  . . . its not like a criminal case where one side needs to prove its point and the other can sit back and win if the former does not reach an evidentiary std.  . . .

 

 

With that said, whose knows what the answer is, maybe as some have said here on this forum in the past that the FO just couldn't get things fixed in time before it got out of control . .  or maybe the colts tanked the season to secure another franshise QB . . . i will say to discount the boo birds as having no evidence or are filmsy is a stretch, as more than one thing happened that was a head scratcher that season . . .

 

...

 

Given the above 2+2 one an apply the same logic to some of the facts in 2011 to raise an eyebrow at the colts season, to discount this as frivilous is being overly broad . . . maybe i am wrong about 2005 and i might be but there is stuff that makes me pause about 2005. . .

 

 

 

So even though you can't prove it happened, you'll continue to state that it happened as if it's irrefutable, self-evident truth. That seems reasonable.

 

Like I said, we've done this before. The idea just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Narcosys]

But I suppose in your world the fact that the Colts routinely turned the dome up to 80 degrees when they played the Pats is all fair and square...and didn't your beloved Peyton once call your place kicker a "liquored up *." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2003/02/02/manning_vanderjagt_ap/

In other words, hi pot, meet kettle.

So where did you get this info? Can you post a link? Cause I never noticed. And what wrong with calling someone an *? And they were separate statements. Said he was drunk during interview. Vanderjagt doing what he did is a prime example of being exactly what he was called. He also followed up with saying he is a great kicker.

Mcafee was the same thing when he got a DUI. Soooo I'm not seeing your point? But what do you have for cheating lil tea cup?

[Narcosys]

Correction, you are an Indy Fan on the NFL General section of an Indy website . . . given somebody who enjoys telling us how our team does not understand the rules, one would think you of all people would know the rules and what can be posted and what is talked about in the general section of this site . . . just saying . . .

What I don't get. Is why sign up for another teams website anyways? Other than to troll. I mean, is never sign up for the patriots, cause they are a rival team, not would I the broncos just cause they have manning. I just have never understood that.

[Narcosys]

I agree about spygate but you also can't dismiss a 2-14 season where the Colts routinely gave up on games. I agree they were not very good with Collins, Painter or Orlosvky at the helm but I saw them quit in many games. And they most certainly threw the last game of the season to get the number one overall pick.

Obvious how? Threw the last game? I'm bringing that up in rewind to see the last qtr. but the jags beat us at home, how were we to expect to beat them at their home? C'mon man, provide examples here with statements like that.

[Narcosys]

So all those "suck for Luck" signs that were waving in the air duing every single Colts game were just decorative? Come on now. The Colts knew what was at stake. I don't think they set out to have a 2-14 season but when things went south early with Collins and they knew they were not a good team, they began tanking. It is interesting that you detail the Pats game where they basically did not show up for the second or third quarters letting Brady rack up obscene yardage and points only to mount a "comeback" in the fourth that amazingly fell just short.

So fans decide what a team does now?

And the colts have always been a 1st half team with manning. Without him they were adjusting the entire year. You can believe what you want. But with your argument, your saying that the colts that year shoukd have easily beaten the patriots. Nice!

[Narcosys]

Right? I mean, apparently those photos Schiano has of Belichick have a long shelf life!

That is correct, but you're a smart guy and you know your football. So I know that you know that it's an asinine statement to make. David Tyree catching a football with his helmet and Wes Welker dropping a ball that he'd catch 99/100 times has nothing to do with Spygate.

Only nooBs throw Spygate comments around these days. People who understand football generally do not.

I don't credit welker with a drop. I remember him never even touching it.

[amfootball]

Don;t know if you saw it, but Nate Davis of USA Today gave the Patriots a D grade for the draft. Not a criticism, but it surprised me. I know the Pats had alot of picks. He had only Dallas below the Patriots draft.

I am not surprised. National media guys don't get football and pretty much loathe Belichick. I really don't think you can grade a draft until about 2-3 years after to see how the talent selected panned out.

 

But now that the draft is compete my thoughts have changed. I like what the Pats did in terms of addressing needs at DE, WR, and DB but I am unsure of the Harmon pick. Why the Pats traded out of #29 to select him as high as they did is a head scratcher. I like the WRs a lot. Both have some size and height and both are predicted to get playing time this year. If just one of them proves to be a legit outside guy than the Pats have done their job in this area.

 

I think the highlight of the draft has to be getting Blount for basically a bag of potatoes. He was a 1,000 yard rusher in his rookie year before having issues with Schiano. He does not have much wear or tear on him either and should compliment Ridley well. 

 

Like I said, too early to grade but like the fact that they addressed primary needs on an already champ caliber team.

[amfootball]

 

So even though you can't prove it happened, you'll continue to state that it happened as if it's irrefutable, self-evident truth. That seems reasonable.

 

Like I said, we've done this before. The idea just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I don't think this is any different than people saying spygate irrefutably helped the Pats win their championships. They were taping signals that were in full view of everyone and yet somehow this practice that has gone on since videotape has existed is one of the main reasons for their success despite the fact that all the evidence post-spygate says just the opposite - higher winning percentage, average more points scored on offense, and Brady who was supposed to be helped the most by the defensive signal taping became an elite, two time league MVP after spygate.

 

At the end of the day, it is all an opinion. To say their is no evidence to suggest the Colts were trying to get the top pick is plain naive. There were many games that were over in the first half, i.e. Saints, Titans, etc. The fact that the FO thought a washed Kerry Collins could actually do something pretty much tells you they were tossing the season. It's not like they didn't know the best draft pick since Elway was coming out at the perfect time when they were ready to move on from an injured and aging Manning.

[Tony Sullivan]

 

 

At the end of the day, it is all an opinion. To say their is no evidence to suggest the Colts were trying to get the top pick is plain naive. 

 

Except for the massive amount of evidence that has repeatedly been put forth to you but you are too

IGNORANT AND BLIND AND UNKNOWING OF ANYTHING UNLESS IT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR LOVE FOR TOM BRADY'S JOCKSTRAP

to read it

[House]

To say their is no evidence to suggest the Colts were trying to get the top pick is plain naive.

Literally produce any evidence that isn't just speculation, and subjective lol.

I double dog dare you.

[Yehoodi]

What I don't get. Is why sign up for another teams website anyways? Other than to troll. I mean, is never sign up for the patriots, cause they are a rival team, not would I the broncos just cause they have manning. I just have never understood that.

 

You might be surprised but many people like to discuss stuff with people from other fan bases . . . given that I am in NE most of personal contacts in person are with pats fans . . . and so that can be fun and it fun to talk about stuff with regards to the pats and what not . .. but at times it can get boring when, for the most part, everyone agrees with you . . . at times it nice to get another's opinion on a given matter outside of NE, and at times, the other's opinion can be correct or shed light on a given matter . .. also too it fun to discuss other stuff that might not be on a pats forum but it on this forum . . . like stuff regarding the AFC south or something . . . 

 

I do travel to the jets, balt, pitt and now Den boards but not as much as this board, of coarse I spend time on a pats forum . . .

 

but not all out of towners are trolls . ..true we make get into subject that are not in line with the natives, but that is not trolling necessarily . . .

[Tony Sullivan]

yip yap yip yap

 

Evidence Patriots Are Cheaters: 

- Belichick was officially fined $500,000 — the largest fine ever imposed on a coach

- The Patriots were also fined $250,000, and stripped of their first-round selection in the 2008 NFL Draft;

- Goodell ordered the Patriots to hand over all notes, tapes, and other materials related to the incident, threatening further discipline if the Patriots did not comply. Tthe NFL  received and destroyed the requested materials

 

Evidence Colts Tanked Their Season:

-Won 2 of their last 3 games...huh?

-Gave Minnesota an opportunity to have the first pick in week 16...that doesn't make sense?!?

-People upset about the Pats cheating said so ...THAT explains it

[bluebambi]

I am not sure why it is so hard to admit that the Colts wanted Andrew Luck and did everything they could to ensure the #1 pick. Good for them. Now they are set up for the next decade with a stud QB.

Im not sure why you don't hang out on a patriots fourm or somthing. Every thread I see you in your bashing either manning or the colts .. Go somewhere where people want to hear those kinds of things

[Yehoodi]

 

So even though you can't prove it happened, you'll continue to state that it happened as if it's irrefutable, self-evident truth. That seems reasonable.

 

Like I said, we've done this before. The idea just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

No I can't and neither can the other side say it did not happen . . . my point was not to get into facts of the issue as it would boil down to a Brady v. Manning debate with both sides thinking there are correct and it falling along party lines  . . . I was just addressing your point and others points as discounting the other side as being frivolous or part of some kind of conspiracy, which you can not do . . . there is too many things that happen to not make claims frivolous, they may not be correct but they are not frivolous or flimsy either . . .  

 

getting back to my point about BB and Pats . . . had in week 7 of any given year BB does not dress a starting LB due to a lower leg injury and we lose the game . .. and if some one came out Monday claiming that he tank the game, I would support those who would say this guys claim is frivolous as there is no perceived gain in losing this game and BB does not dress players all the time . . . contrast the Mia game in which there was a perceived gain and BB does something he never done before and we loose and attained that perceived game . . .in this case I would not discount this as frivolous a claim that he tanked the game, he may very well not have, but I can not in good faith discount one claim that he did was frivolous . . . I may think they are wrong, but not frivolous . . .  

 

its like Brady v. Manning . . . I do not think those who think Manning is better are correct, but at the same time I am not going to discount the Manning fans as having a frivolous and flimsy claim either . . .

[Narcosys]

You might be surprised but many people like to discuss stuff with people from other fan bases . . . given that I am in NE most of personal contacts in person are with pats fans . . . and so that can be fun and it fun to talk about stuff with regards to the pats and what not . .. but at times it can get boring when, for the most part, everyone agrees with you . . . at times it nice to get another's opinion on a given matter outside of NE, and at times, the other's opinion can be correct or shed light on a given matter . .. also too it fun to discuss other stuff that might not be on a pats forum but it on this forum . . . like stuff regarding the AFC south or something . . .

I do travel to the jets, balt, pitt and now Den boards but not as much as this board, of coarse I spend time on a pats forum . . .

but not all out of towners are trolls . ..true we make get into subject that are not in line with the natives, but that is not trolling necessarily . . .

Ah. I like talking to other people to but only really my friends, cause I have to lol, and maybe some random dude on the street that may make a comment about a hat I'm wearing. But not enough to sign up in another board.

[Tony Sullivan]

No I can't and neither can the other side say it did not happen . . . my point was not to get into facts of the issue as it would boil down to a Brady v. Manning debate with both sides thinking there are correct and it falling along party lines  . . . I was just addressing your point and others points as discounting the other side as being frivolous or part of some kind of conspiracy, which you can not do . . . there is too many things that happen to not make claims frivolous, they may not be correct but they are not frivolous or flimsy either . . .  

 

getting back to my point about BB and Pats . . . had in week 7 of any given year BB does not dress a starting LB due to a lower leg injury and we lose the game . .. and if some one came out Monday claiming that he tank the game, I would support those who would say this guys claim is frivolous as there is no perceived gain in losing this game and BB does not dress players all the time . . . contrast the Mia game in which there was a perceived gain and BB does something he never done before and we loose and attained that perceived game . . .in this case I would not discount this as frivolous a claim that he tanked the game, he may very well not have, but I can not in good faith discount one claim that he did was frivolous . . . I may think they are wrong, but not frivolous . . .  

 

its like Brady v. Manning . . . I do not think those who think Manning is better are correct, but at the same time I am not going to discount the Manning fans as having a frivolous and flimsy claim either . . .

 

Now you're sounding just as ignorant as some of the other posters.

 

No body has presented any reasonable evidence that the Colts tanked, yet there has been a plethora of evidence that they did not tank that you guys keep ignoring. 

 

Brady vs. Manning is a valid debate because both players have reasonable claims and records.

 

Saying the Colts tanked AND PROVIDING NO REASONABLE justification for the claim is just trolling and trying to incite Colts fans. 

[amfootball]

Literally produce any evidence that isn't just speculation, and subjective lol.

I double dog dare you.

I already have. There isn't evidence, just opinion based on fact. We can debate 'til the moon comes home and you won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

 

BTW, your last post was really funny about Pats fans saying they got their franchise QB without tanking the season.

[Superman]

No I can't and neither can the other side say it did not happen . . . my point was not to get into facts of the issue as it would boil down to a Brady v. Manning debate with both sides thinking there are correct and it falling along party lines  . . . I was just addressing your point and others points as discounting the other side as being frivolous or part of some kind of conspiracy, which you can not do . . . there is too many things that happen to not make claims frivolous, they may not be correct but they are not frivolous or flimsy either . . .  

 

getting back to my point about BB and Pats . . . had in week 7 of any given year BB does not dress a starting LB due to a lower leg injury and we lose the game . .. and if some one came out Monday claiming that he tank the game, I would support those who would say this guys claim is frivolous as there is no perceived gain in losing this game and BB does not dress players all the time . . . contrast the Mia game in which there was a perceived gain and BB does something he never done before and we loose and attained that perceived game . . .in this case I would not discount this as frivolous a claim that he tanked the game, he may very well not have, but I can not in good faith discount one claim that he did was frivolous . . . I may think they are wrong, but not frivolous . . .  

 

its like Brady v. Manning . . . I do not think those who think Manning is better are correct, but at the same time I am not going to discount the Manning fans as having a frivolous and flimsy claim either . . .

 

I'm not worried about the Pats and Belichick; don't really care. I'm not worried about Manning vs. Brady; that's a matter of opinion.

 

But whether the Colts tanked in 2011 or not is a matter of fact. Either they did or they didn't.

 

And I always enjoy the "you can't prove they didn't" comeback. When you make an accusation or a inference, it falls to you to support said accusation. You don't get to say "I think you did this, now prove you didn't." That is absolutely flimsy, frivolous, and not to be taken seriously.

 

In this case, some have presented arguments regarding why they believe the Colts may have tanked in 2011. Those arguments don't hold up to scrutiny, not unless the person making them is determined to only acknowledge certain facts while dismissing others. And when that happens, the person making those arguments is found to be lacking credibility. And often times, that person emerges from said debate still claiming that whatever it was they failed to prove is unassailable fact, further damaging their credibility.

 

Again, we've done the whole "Colts tanked in 2011" thing before. Recently, I believe. And I see the same tired arguments being trotted out here, right down to the "you can't say it didn't happen unless you can prove it didn't happen" angle. None of this is new material.

[amfootball]

 

But whether the Colts tanked in 2011 or not is a matter of fact. Either they did or they didn't.

 

Short of Colts mgmt telling us they tanked, which they never would even if they did, it is not a matter fact but opinion/conjecture based on the season. Some posters have their conclusions, others have opposite conclusions. Neither is unequivocally right or wrong.

[Tony Sullivan]

Short of Colts mgmt telling us they tanked, which they never would even if they did, it is not a matter fact but opinion/conjecture based on the season. Some posters have their conclusions, others have opposite conclusions. Neither is unequivocally right or wrong.

 

AKA it doesn't matter how much evidence I see, and it doesn't matter how bad my argument is, I'm still going to say Irsay tanked. 

 

At least when people say Pats cheated, they have the biggest fine on a coach ever among other punishments to back it up. 

[-JJ-]

Short of Colts mgmt telling us they tanked, which they never would even if they did, it is not a matter fact but opinion/conjecture based on the season. Some posters have their conclusions, others have opposite conclusions. Neither is unequivocally right or wrong.

You can't tank a season. If players play less than game speed there is a much more likely of serious injuries.

 

You can't field a backup team because the league requires a "competitive game" and there would be heavy fines.

 

You might get away with one game but more than likely someone will spot it being fishy.

 

Kerry Collins was a good pickup in an attempt to be competitive. He just didn't do it. There was no one else around.

[amfootball]

You can't tank a season. If players play less than game speed there is a much more likely of serious injuries.

 

You can't field a backup team because the league requires a "competitive game" and there would be heavy fines.

 

You might get away with one game but more than likely someone will spot it being fishy.

 

Kerry Collins was a good pickup in an attempt to be competitive. He just didn't do it. There was no one else around.

I don't think the players were doing anything but playing. I think it was more the FO. Putting in Kerry Collins and thinking he would be even decent is a joke. Even Reggie Wayne was upset about it and said they should have went with Painter who at least knew the system from having been Manning's back up. Why wait to go with Orlosky until the end? Clearly he was the most capable QB but wait to you have no chance to put him in?

[Tony Sullivan]

I don't think the players were doing anything but playing. I think it was more the FO. Putting in Kerry Collins and thinking he would be even decent is a joke. Even Reggie Wayne was upset about it and said they should have went with Painter who at least knew the system from having been Manning's back up. Why wait to go with Orlosky until the end? Clearly he was the most capable QB but wait to you have no chance to put him in?

 

 

Orlovsky didn't even make our 53 thru offseason, only reason he was on our team was Collins got injured. You didn't see any other teams rushing to sign him before we picked him up by week 4 did you? 

 

Ever stop to think that maybe at the beginning of the 2011 season Collins had the best resume to be the starting QB? I mean 2 pro bowls, almost 200 starts, and a strong finish to 2010 compared to Painter who was absolutely terrible in every showing for the Colts, and Orlovsky who couldn't even find a job. 

 

 

Now that you've been made aware of the situation and ignorance is no longer an excuse, do you still feel the same way? 

[dw49]

I don't think the players were doing anything but playing. I think it was more the FO. Putting in Kerry Collins and thinking he would be even decent is a joke. Even Reggie Wayne was upset about it and said they should have went with Painter who at least knew the system from having been Manning's back up. Why wait to go with Orlosky until the end? Clearly he was the most capable QB but wait to you have no chance to put him in?

 How absurd. So Irsay and Polian huddle up and decide to tank the season and then Polian is rewarded for the bad GM job by being fired. Polian really was a dummy in all this. Makes himself look bad with a 2-12 record , gets fired and to our knowledge screws himself out of the league. Fact is all three of those QB's were really bad and I'm not sure that the 3 of them have combined to play a down since that season. 

[dw49]

I'm not worried about the Pats and Belichick; don't really care. I'm not worried about Manning vs. Brady; that's a matter of opinion.

 

But whether the Colts tanked in 2011 or not is a matter of fact. Either they did or they didn't.

 

And I always enjoy the "you can't prove they didn't" comeback. When you make an accusation or a inference, it falls to you to support said accusation. You don't get to say "I think you did this, now prove you didn't." That is absolutely flimsy, frivolous, and not to be taken seriously.

 

In this case, some have presented arguments regarding why they believe the Colts may have tanked in 2011. Those arguments don't hold up to scrutiny, not unless the person making them is determined to only acknowledge certain facts while dismissing others. And when that happens, the person making those arguments is found to be lacking credibility. And often times, that person emerges from said debate still claiming that whatever it was they failed to prove is unassailable fact, further damaging their credibility.

 

Again, we've done the whole "Colts tanked in 2011" thing before. Recently, I believe. And I see the same tired arguments being trotted out here, right down to the "you can't say it didn't happen unless you can prove it didn't happen" angle. None of this is new material.

 

 

 

I really think the one poster is just trying to be annoying. There is no way that anyone could stick to this argument and compare  the Colts 2012 season to Spygate. He has more intelligence than the ridiculous argument he's sticking to and is pretty much just trolling now.

[amfootball]

Orlovsky didn't even make our 53 thru offseason, only reason he was on our team was Collins got injured. You didn't see any other teams rushing to sign him before we picked him up by week 4 did you? 

 

Ever stop to think that maybe at the beginning of the 2011 season Collins had the best resume to be the starting QB? I mean 2 pro bowls, almost 200 starts, and a strong finish to 2010 compared to Painter who was absolutely terrible in every showing for the Colts, and Orlovsky who couldn't even find a job. 

 

 

Now that you've been made aware of the situation and ignorance is no longer an excuse, do you still feel the same way? 

Collins was retired and he was your best option? This was Reggie Wayne's exact quote, "We don't even know him, we ain't vanilla, man, we ain't no simple offense," Wayne told the Associated Press. "So for him to come in here and be the starter, I don't see it. I think that's a step back." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/08/reggie-wayne-kerry-collins/1

 

 

If Reggie Wayne said Collins was a step back, what on earth was Colts FO thinking? He did not win a game as the starter so Reggie was 100 percent right. Then you go with Painter who looked plain awful in any game he played in. So yeah, go with Orlosky. Why wait to week 13 when you are 0-12?

[Superman]

Short of Colts mgmt telling us they tanked, which they never would even if they did, it is not a matter fact but opinion/conjecture based on the season. Some posters have their conclusions, others have opposite conclusions. Neither is unequivocally right or wrong.

 

No.

 

Someone doesn't have to tell you they did something in order for them to have in fact done it. You can still prove someone did something without an implicit admission.

 

You don't just get to accuse someone of something, and then say "until they confess, it's just a matter of opinion, neither side is right or wrong."

[amfootball]

No.

 

Someone doesn't have to tell you they did something in order for them to have in fact done it. You can still prove someone did something without an implicit admission.

 

You don't just get to accuse someone of something, and then say "until they confess, it's just a matter of opinion, neither side is right or wrong."

That is my whole point, you can't prove it either way.

[Tony Sullivan]

Collins was retired and he was your best option? This was Reggie Wayne's exact quote, "We don't even know him, we ain't vanilla, man, we ain't no simple offense," Wayne told the Associated Press. "So for him to come in here and be the starter, I don't see it. I think that's a step back." 

 

 

If Reggie Wayne said Collins was a step back, what on earth was Colts FO thinking? He did not win a game as the starter so Reggie was 100 percent right. Then you go with Painter who looked plain awful in any game he played in. So yeah, go with Orlosky. Why wait to week 13 when you are 0-12?

 

Reggie Wayne does not make the football decisions for the Indianapolis Colts. 

 

 

Orlovsky didn't even make our 53 thru offseason, only reason he was on our team was Collins got injured. You didn't see any other teams rushing to sign him before we picked him up by week 4 did you? 

 

So it was Orlovsky who we just picked up off the street and couldn't crack a squad anywhere else, or Painter who atleast had 2 years in our system. Once Painter got injured/proved he was completely inept we went with Orlovsky who IN HINDSIGHT turned out to okay but in his 6 and a half season before that was absolutely the worst. 

[amfootball]

Reggie Wayne does not make the football decisions for the Indianapolis Colts. 

 

Orlovsky didn't even make our 53 thru offseason, only reason he was on our team was Collins got injured. You didn't see any other teams rushing to sign him before we picked him up by week 4 did you? 

 

So it was Orlovsky who we just picked up off the street and couldn't crack a squad anywhere else, or Painter who atleast had 2 years in our system. Once Painter got injured/proved he was completely inept we went with Orlovsky who IN HINDSIGHT turned out to okay but in his 6 and a half season before that was absolutely the worst. 

Didn't Manning come out in December and said he could have played when the Colts were in the red zone and the FO told him no?

[dw49]

That is my whole point, you can't prove it either way.

 

 

 

 

 

That is my whole point, you can't prove it either way.

 

 

 

There are tons of things in life that "you can't prove either way." I cou Your argument is really silly and you can't really be serious. Just skipping over issues like it had to be Polian and Irsay that tanked the season and Irsay fires Poian for the bad record is just so lame. As I said , you are just trolling.

[Superman]

That is my whole point, you can't prove it either way.

 

That's not your point. Your point is that if you can't prove something, you still want to be able to walk around claiming that it's fact, calling anyone who doesn't agree with you naive.

 

My point -- which you are having trouble grasping -- is that when you make a claim, you have to prove that claim. If you can't prove said claim, then everyone else gets to ignore your claim as baseless.

 

You: The Colts tanked in 2011.

 

Us: Prove it.

 

You: Anyone who can't see what happened is naive.

 

Us: So you can't prove it?

 

You: It's just a matter of opinion, no one can prove it did or didn't happen.

 

This is just a message board. Nothing here really matters. You can continue thinking whatever you want to think, claiming whatever you want to claim. But, for several reasons, these kind of claims aren't going to be taken seriously. I won't go into all of those reasons, I'll just say that the most important one is that the case you are trying to build against the Colts doesn't stand up to further scrutiny. It's as simple as that. You can walk away from the debunking of your myth still convinced that your myth is reality, but that's a personal problem.

[Tony Sullivan]

Didn't Manning come out in December and said he could have played when the Colts were in the red zone and the FO told him no?

 

Is that exactly how it happened and had nothing to do with not being cleared by medical staff?

[amfootball]

Is that exactly how it happened and had nothing to do with not being cleared by medical staff?

I was asking you. I don't remember all the details.

[dw49]

Didn't Manning come out in December and said he could have played when the Colts were in the red zone and the FO told him no?

 

 

I take back the trolling part. I now understand what we are dealing with. WOW....

[Tony Sullivan]

I was asking you. I don't remember all the details.

 

I know because you're ignorant and like to make claims without researching. 

 

 

 

Manning wanted to play in the red zone in the season’s final weeks, but the Colts medical staff ruled it out once they took a look at him.

Manning was unable to throw past 20-22 yards at the time.

“He wanted to go on the field and try to dump red-zone passes against Houston,” a league source told Banks. “Even though his neck muscles hadn’t even been strengthened yet. Can you imagine anyone putting him on the field in that situation? Just to throw a string of red-zone passes? But that’s where things were going at that time, and it kind of speaks to the insanity of the situation.”