Pats draft

[Tony Sullivan]

Vikes had two wins before week 16. Cards week 5 and Panthers week 8. But like I said, that does not explain the first 13 weeks when the Colts did not even bother to show up for games which gave then the inside track on Luck at the end of the season.

 

The first 13 weeks are easily explained, the Colts without Manning under that regime were garbage. Analysts were saying the Colts were probably only going to have 2 wins again this past season because of how much they stunk. 

 

But really... None of that matters because the Colts won in week 15 and 16 and almost gave up the first pick until the Vikings beat the Redskins later in week 16.  

[Dustin]

If anyone actually thinks that we tanked a season, then you're clueless. It's such a laughable concept.

[amfootball]

The first 13 weeks are easily explained, the Colts without Manning under that regime were garbage. Analysts were saying the Colts were probably only going to have 2 wins again this past season because of how much they stunk. 

 

But really... None of that matters because the Colts won in week 15 and 16 and almost gave up the first pick until the Vikings beat the Redskins later in week 16.  

The team was 10-6 the year before and won the division. I agree that without Manning, they were not going to be good. No one thought they would not win a game until week 15. There was some serious tanking going on. And neither the Rams or Vikings were going to take a QB in the '12 draft as they had Ponder and Bradford. And don't forget that RG was there too at number two. So really the Colts knew that they could win a couple of games at the end and still be in prime position to take Luck or RG because they had lost their first 13.

[House]

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.

Naw that's completely off base. I watch every single Colts game and that team didn't quit once.

We almost beat the Steelers, were in it with a shot against the Pats, the Tampa game was close, and we almost came from behind to best the Jags last game of the year. We were also demolishing Kansas City until Bowe went crazy on us in the second half.

Anyone who thinks that team quit is rewriting history. And I not once saw Suck for Luck signs at anytime before it was blatantly obvious we were likely going to have the first pick. But even then that's just fans, and fans find that stuff funny. I know I did at the time. But that isn't indicative of some higher up conspiracy though.

[amfootball]

Naw that's completely off base. I watch every single Colts game and that team didn't quit once.

We almost beat the Steelers, were in it with a shot against the Pats, the Tampa game was close, and we almost came from behind to best the Jags last game of the year. We were also demolishing Kansas City until Bowe went crazy on us in the second half.

Anyone who thinks that team quit is rewriting history. And I not once saw Suck for Luck signs at anytime before it was blatantly obvious we were likely going to have the first pick. But even then that's just fans, and fans find that stuff funny. I know I did at the time. But that isn't indicative of some higher up conspiracy though.

0-13. The Pats were up 31-3 going into the fourth and then relaxed....

[Tony Sullivan]

No one thought they would not win a game until week 15. There was some serious tanking going on. 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82426ae8/article/pursuit-of-perfection-packers-chase-160-colts-016

 

There's a bunch of professional analysts that disagree.

 

Wyche -"The Colts going winless looks like a real possibility...The Colts have given teams their best shot and lost. Teams have played marginally against Indianapolis and won."

 

 

LaConfora -"Best chance to win has already passed for Indy

A week ago, I wrote in a prediction column the Colts would go 0-16. See no reason to change that thought now!"

[amfootball]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82426ae8/article/pursuit-of-perfection-packers-chase-160-colts-016

 

There's a bunch of professional analysts that disagree.

62-7 to the Saints. I think a league record for most points allowed.

34-7 to Houston.

27-10 to Tennesee

17-3 to the mighty Jags

 

I could go on but really the Colts tried in some games early but tanked the rest of the season. I don't blame them. With Luck and RG waiting, it is good strategy but don't pretend that they wanted to win. They clearly didn't.

[Tony Sullivan]

62-7 to the Saints. I think a league record for most points allowed.

34-7 to Houston.

27-10 to Tennesee

17-3 to the mighty Jags

 

I could go on but really the Colts tried in some games early but tanked the rest of the season. I don't blame them. With Luck and RG waiting, it is good strategy but don't pretend that they wanted to win. They clearly didn't.

 

I'm going to report this because you're obviously trying to incite something. I've already explained to you clearly how the season happened, but you're obviously ignoring it to incite an argument. Your response proves this.

 

You say "the Colts tried in some games early but tanked the rest of the season"

 

When in fact it's been explained to you Colts won 2 of their last 3. It's been explained to you the Colts were pushing a 4th Q comeback in their last game. It's been discussed their games against Carolina and Patriots also came late in the season. If you read the comments and thought about what you were saying you would have realized that 5 of the 7 tough games we've discussed came after week 11.

 

I can only assume that your ignorance of all these facts relative to the discussion forum you're speaking on means that your intentions are not to argue for different perspectives, but to incite the Colts audience on this Colts forum. Sorry. 

[House]

0-13. The Pats were up 31-3 going into the fourth and then relaxed....

Relaxed or not, a TD would have tied that game. But if we were really tanking why even put forth that much effort?

To trick people? Come on Am your smarter than buying into those little conspiracy theories. We were a team built completely around a QB and the backups could cut it. As soon as Dan the man brought some stability we won a few games that we would have lost earlier in the year. Close games that we just didn't finish.

[House]

62-7 to the Saints. I think a league record for most points allowed.

34-7 to Houston.

27-10 to Tennesee

17-3 to the mighty Jags

I could go on but really the Colts tried in some games early but tanked the rest of the season. I don't blame them. With Luck and RG waiting, it is good strategy but don't pretend that they wanted to win. They clearly didn't.

If these notions hold water to you, I never want to see you complain about Spygate again lol. Because at least with Spygate there was fire where some saw smoke.

This is just all smoke.

[amfootball]

If these notions hold water to you, I never want to see you complain about Spygate again lol. Because at least with Spygate there was fire where some saw smoke.

This is just all smoke.

I already agreed about spygate.

[Fx Stryker]

62-7 to the Saints. I think a league record for most points allowed.

34-7 to Houston.

27-10 to Tennesee

17-3 to the mighty Jags

 

I could go on but really the Colts tried in some games early but tanked the rest of the season. I don't blame them. With Luck and RG waiting, it is good strategy but don't pretend that they wanted to win. They clearly didn't.

 

Nah that is still owned by the '40 Redskins. Which I'm not ashamed to admit I wanted to see the Saints break that record.

[amfootball]

I'm going to report this because you're obviously trying to incite something. I've already explained to you clearly how the season happened, but you're obviously ignoring it to incite an argument. Your response proves this.

 

You say "the Colts tried in some games early but tanked the rest of the season"

 

When in fact it's been explained to you Colts won 2 of their last 3. It's been explained to you the Colts were pushing a 4th Q comeback in their last game. It's been discussed their games against Carolina and Patriots also came late in the season. If you read the comments and thought about what you were saying you would have realized that 5 of the 7 tough games we've discussed came after week 11.

 

I can only assume that your ignorance of all these facts relative to the discussion forum you're speaking on means that your intentions are not to argue for different perspectives, but to incite the Colts audience on this Colts forum. Sorry. 

Relax man. It just an opinion. The other poster brought up spygate and I didn't get all crazy about it. People have differing opinions all the time.

[Tony Sullivan]

Relax man. It just an opinion. The other poster brought up spygate and I didn't get all crazy about it. People have differing opinions all the time.

 

It's not a matter of opinion though. Opinions have reasons that back them up. What you're bringing is statements with no sustenance, purposefully ignoring factual events and responses, designed to incite an audience. 

[-JJ-]

I don't believe any team tanks a season.  I don't believe the colts did.

However it's possible I suppose therefore an opinion.

 

People say things about the Pats that are not proven.

 

Civil opinions are ok. Grow thicker skins folks:)

[House]

People say things about the Pats that are not proven.

And Pats fans spaz on cue everytime lol.

[Tony Sullivan]

I don't believe any team tanks a season.  I don't believe the colts did.

However it's possible I suppose therefore an opinion.

 

People say things about the Pats that are not proven.

 

Civil opinions are ok. Grow thicker skins folks:)

 

If you think he's having a civil opinion and not trying to incite something you don't know what you're talking about,

 

IN MY OPINION

[GoPats]

If anyone actually thinks that we tanked a season, then you're clueless. It's such a laughable concept.

 

Indeed. Almost as laughable as saying, "The Patriots haven't won anything since Spygate."  ;) 

 

This was a typical Patriots draft IMO. I don't know what is going on with Belichick's love for Rutgers, or why - in two seasons - they've used a high pick on a guy who they could have gotten much, much later in the draft. For a team that talks a lot about value and getting players on the cheap, they sure don't mind reaching for certain players.

 

I suppose you have to let things play out to see how this will all work in the end.

[chad72]

Indeed. Almost as laughable as saying, "The Patriots haven't won anything since Spygate."  ;)

 

This was a typical Patriots draft IMO. I don't know what is going on with Belichick's love for Rutgers, or why - in two seasons - they've used a high pick on a guy who they could have gotten much, much later in the draft. For a team that talks a lot about value and getting players on the cheap, they sure don't mind reaching for certain players.

 

I suppose you have to let things play out to see how this will all work in the end.

 

Its the agreement with Greg Schiano. As long as you keep giving me players like Talib and LeGarette Blount for cheap draft picks, I promise I will draft a player from Rutgers.

[Dustin]

Indeed. Almost as laughable as saying, "The Patriots haven't won anything since Spygate."  ;)

 

 

 

If by winning you mean "win a superbowl" then that's a fact. No matter how blown out of proportion spygate was.

[GoPats]

Its the agreement with Greg Schiano. As long as you keep giving me players like Talib and LeGarette Blount for cheap draft picks, I promise I will draft a player from Rutgers.

 

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

 

If by winning you mean "win a superbowl" then that's a fact. No matter how blown out of proportion spygate was.

 

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.

[amfootball]

Relaxed or not, a TD would have tied that game. But if we were really tanking why even put forth that much effort?

To trick people? Come on Am your smarter than buying into those little conspiracy theories. We were a team built completely around a QB and the backups could cut it. As soon as Dan the man brought some stability we won a few games that we would have lost earlier in the year. Close games that we just didn't finish.

To think that Colts mgmt was not salivating at getting either Luck or RG when Manning was out with four neck surgeries is naive. Maybe not initially tanking but at 0-7, 0-8, 0-10?

[House]

To think that Colts mgmt was not salivating at getting either Luck or RG when Manning was out with four neck surgeries is naive. Maybe not initially tanking but at 0-7, 0-8, 0-10?

Joyful at the prospect of getting a quality player, and tanking purposefully are wayyyyyyy two different subjects your bringing up. The biggest flaw in your argument is that after going 0-and whatever, why then would they go "You know what? Lets tank and get Luck." AND THEN win a couple games. Tin foil hattery at its finest.

And you keep mentioning RG3 but his stock didn't really start rising till long after we were having a dismal season.

[ViriLudant]

If Bill didn't think it was helping them win games , then why did he do it ? Judging by the fine and loss of draft picks , someone thought this was a little more than you infer. Do I think it really "altered " the history of the league ? No but IMO , you can't dismiss it in the manner that you have .

 

Oh... and if the Pats had Curtis Painter leading a washed up , highly injured lineup in 2011 , they would have had the number one pick without doing anymore tanking than the Colts did. Really a ridiculous remark. Please tell me how you convey to 53 guys every week that they need to lose the game ? Don't you think at some point in time that would leak out ? The only way to really tank a season would be to sit your better players . You could do that for a game or two , but eventually it would become pretty obvious what was going on.

If Bill didn't think it was helping them win games , then why did he do it ? Judging by the fine and loss of draft picks , someone thought this was a little more than you infer. Do I think it really "altered " the history of the league ? No but IMO , you can't dismiss it in the manner that you have .

 

Oh... and if the Pats had Curtis Painter leading a washed up , highly injured lineup in 2011 , they would have had the number one pick without doing anymore tanking than the Colts did. Really a ridiculous remark. Please tell me how you convey to 53 guys every week that they need to lose the game ? Don't you think at some point in time that would leak out ? The only way to really tank a season would be to sit your better players . You could do that for a game or two , but eventually it would become pretty obvious what was going on.

Two things:

1. BB learned to break down film from the age of 4 on. He would sit down with his father and break down film (his father coached at Navy).

BB was a film junkie. My understanding is that he thought that Goodell's memo was a minor thing.

2. I certainly don't think that the Colts' players ever wanted to lose. But I also don't think that the Colts' FO did much at all to help the team out. No great signings, nothing special offensively or defensively. Curtis Painter? I mean, what FO thinks that Painter was worthy of ever being in an NFL game?

Plus, Luck was being lauded already as a future great QB. I honestly do think that the Colts' FO had no interest in trying to win as many games as possible if it meant that they'd get a potential HOF QB to take over after Peyton.

[House]

Two things:

1. BB learned to break down film from the age of 4 on. He would sit down with his father and break down film (his father coached at Navy).

BB was a film junkie. My understanding is that he thought that Goodell's memo was a minor thing.

2. I certainly don't think that the Colts' players ever wanted to lose. But I also don't think that the Colts' FO did much at all to help the team out. No great signings, nothing special offensively or defensively. Curtis Painter? I mean, what FO thinks that Painter was worthy of ever being in an NFL game?

Plus, Luck was being lauded already as a future great QB. I honestly do think that the Colts' FO had no interest in trying to win as many games as possible if it meant that they'd get a potential HOF QB to take over after Peyton.

1. Here's an excuse for my team.

2. Here's an accusation for yours.

[dw49]

The team was 10-6 the year before and won the division. I agree that without Manning, they were not going to be good. No one thought they would not win a game until week 15. There was some serious tanking going on. And neither the Rams or Vikings were going to take a QB in the '12 draft as they had Ponder and Bradford. And don't forget that RG was there too at number two. So really the Colts knew that they could win a couple of games at the end and still be in prime position to take Luck or RG because they had lost their first 13.

 

 

 

This tanking thing is just so absurd. The only way a franchise can realistically tank a season is to sit the veterans and play the rookies. They can probably also do a little bad game planning also. The NBA did do a little of this in the past and they used my first option to get it done. Hence we saw the lottery system introduced o the NBA draft. This probably happened a bit in the NBA as only your first 6-7 players really matter. So a Lebron James can have a huge effect on your franchise going forward. In football you have far more players needed to win , so the effect of a franchise QB , while great < is not of the same magnitude of an NBA star. Anyway ... I've never seen a whole lot of tanking take place in the NFL. 

 

Think a bit about what would need to happen if you played your best players and wanted to tank. You would have to somehow tell those players they needed to lose the game. How in the world would you convey that message ? An NFL player is going to put forth his best effort as he has pride and his career and pocket book would be affected by bad play. So , if you didn't see the Colts benching better players , how do they go about tanking the season. As far as bad game planning , I think the players would notice that and probably one or more of players that left the team would mention it to the press.

 

So I guess I'm asking to to go into a little detail on how the Colts actually tanked the season. Because a few *s had suck for Luck signs is really not enough proof for me.

[ViriLudant]

1. Here's an excuse for my team.

2. Here's an accusation for yours.

In other words, you have no logical responses. Fine enough.

My #1 was, based on what was reported, how BB viewed the original memo.

My #2 is also based on facts. The Colts' FO did nothing to improve the team that season. No trades, no decent free agents, etc.

[Superman]

My #2 is also based on facts. The Colts' FO did nothing to improve the team that season. No trades, no decent free agents, etc.

 

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.

[House]

In other words, you have no logical responses. Fine enough.

My #1 was, based on what was reported, how BB viewed the original memo.

My #2 is also based on facts. The Colts' FO did nothing to improve the team that season. No trades, no decent free agents, etc.

Lol I've logical responsed the crap out of this thread. Look for mine and Am's debate on the matter if your curious.

Though I must say I find it hilarious that everytime I call you out on you "But Polian and Dungy!" rhetoric you don't respond, yet call me out here for not breaking down your post word for word.

Good effort though.

[House]

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.

The heck do these posters think they were going to do?

"OMG NO PEYTON!! Quick sign everyone else's starters. Because its so easy to fill the hole Peyton manning left. Just sign a few guys and it'll all be better!"

What did the Pats do that was so major when Tom went down? Nothing. They just were lucky their backup was competent.

[Superman]

The heck do these posters think they were going to do?

"OMG NO PEYTON!! Quick sign everyone else's starters. Because its so easy to fill the hole Peyton manning left. Just sign a few guys and it'll all be better!"

What did the Pats do that was so major when Tom went down? Nothing. They just were lucky their backup was competent.

 

I'm not defending what our coaching and management did. It was awful, so awful that people jump to the conclusion that we tanked the season.

 

We could have done better than Collins, Painter and Orlovsky at quarterback. We could have done better than embarrassment of poverty we trotted out at corner and strong safety. We could have adjusted the defense at some point before Week 12. We could have tweaked the offense to minimize the weaknesses of our terrible quarterback triumvirate. Instead, we asked bums with no driver's license to operate our glitchy, used luxury car. We won ten games in 2010 using smoke and mirrors, it's no surprise we crashed and burned without Manning. But I don't think management and the coaching staff did a good job doing their jobs. Like I said, they did so poorly that people think we wanted to lose all those games.

[House]

I'm not defending what our coaching and management did. It was awful, so awful that people jump to the conclusion that we tanked the season.

We could have done better than Collins, Painter and Orlovsky at quarterback. We could have done better than embarrassment of poverty we trotted out at corner and strong safety. We could have adjusted the defense at some point before Week 12. We could have tweaked the offense to minimize the weaknesses of our terrible quarterback triumvirate. Instead, we asked bums with no driver's license to operate our glitchy, used luxury car. We won ten games in 2010 using smoke and mirrors, it's no surprise we crashed and burned without Manning. But I don't think management and the coaching staff did a good job doing their jobs. Like I said, they did so poorly that people think we wanted to lose all those games.

Absolutely. Not cutting them any slack, because they had no plan B that was viable. They hoped Collins would be a stop gap and Peyton could make it back at some point. Then when it was obvious he wasn't, they completely lost their way.

No excuses for that, but to jump from mismanagement to tanking is a leap without substance.

[Superman]

Absolutely. Not cutting them any slack, because they had no plan B that was viable. They hoped Collins would be a stop gap and Peyton could make it back at some point. Then when it was obvious he wasn't, they completely lost their way.

No excuses for that, but to jump from mismanagement to tanking is a leap without substance.

 

Yup.

[dw49]

I'm not defending what our coaching and management did. It was awful, so awful that people jump to the conclusion that we tanked the season.

 

We could have done better than Collins, Painter and Orlovsky at quarterback. We could have done better than embarrassment of poverty we trotted out at corner and strong safety. We could have adjusted the defense at some point before Week 12. We could have tweaked the offense to minimize the weaknesses of our terrible quarterback triumvirate. Instead, we asked bums with no driver's license to operate our glitchy, used luxury car. We won ten games in 2010 using smoke and mirrors, it's no surprise we crashed and burned without Manning. But I don't think management and the coaching staff did a good job doing their jobs. Like I said, they did so poorly that people think we wanted to lose all those games.

 

 

 

All true but bottom line was this team also had bottom of the barrel talent in 2011. Probably the only strength of the team was WR with Wayne and Garcon and that was nullified by the QB's. Yes , the coaching staff did a horrible job , Polian was responsible for the "bare cubbard" and what happened at year's end ? They were all shown the door. Were we lucky that we had that group working the team in 2011 ? Yep with another 2 wins we slip to 3rd or 4th and miss out on two QB prospects that come along every decade or two. But did what you present have even a sliver to do with "dumping" a season ? No. You just can't dump a season in the NFL . It would be too obvious and it would also "leak out' and those responsible would be out of the league.

[Superman]

All true but bottom line was this team also had bottom of the barrel talent in 2011. Probably the only strength of the team was WR with Wayne and Garcon and that was nullified by the QB's. Yes , the coaching staff did a horrible job , Polian was responsible for the "bare cubbard" and what happened at year's end ? They were all shown the door. Were we lucky that we had that group working the team in 2011 ? Yep with another 2 wins we slip to 3rd or 4th and miss out on two QB prospects that come along every decade or two. But did what you present have even a sliver to do with "dumping" a season ? No. You just can't dump a season in the NFL . It would be too obvious and it would also "leak out' and those responsible would be out of the league.

 

Agreed. The talent level on that team, sans Peyton, wasn't good enough to win more than five or six games, if we were lucky. The coaching staff proved not to be good enough to make up for the talent deficiencies. And like you said, that cost Polian and most of his administration their jobs. It wouldn't make sense that they orchestrated this situation that wound up putting them out of work.

 

Just to clarify, though, I'm saying that the front office and coaching staff were guilty of gross mismanagement in 2011 (and really, prior to that year, when you look back). I don't excuse their performance just because Manning was hurt. I'm NOT saying that they were trying to secure the #1 pick in the draft.

[dw49]

Agreed. The talent level on that team, sans Peyton, wasn't good enough to win more than five or six games, if we were lucky. The coaching staff proved not to be good enough to make up for the talent deficiencies. And like you said, that cost Polian and most of his administration their jobs. It wouldn't make sense that they orchestrated this situation that wound up putting them out of work.

 

Just to clarify, though, I'm saying that the front office and coaching staff were guilty of gross mismanagement in 2011 (and really, prior to that year, when you look back). I don't excuse their performance just because Manning was hurt. I'm NOT saying that they were trying to secure the #1 pick in the draft.

 

 

I knew you weren't implying that. I was just taking what you said a step further.  

 

Let's face it , comparing the Colts having a nepotistic , napoleonic general manager , a puppet for a head coach and a depleted roster to Spygate is a bit lame.  I think maybe am football might even be willing to retract that analogy.

[fvantagio]

Cry much?

As for "cheating", the only thing that the Patriots did was videotape what was clearly visible from any point on the field. Even the Colts' coach and GM at the time said that what they did contributed nothing to their wins.

But keep on with these grand delusions that what the Patriots did actually affected the outcomes of games. It's pretty laughable.

Oh, and at least the Patriots' FO didn't tank a season to get the #1 rated college QB.

 

 

"As for "cheating", the only thing that the Patriots did was videotape what was clearly visible from any point on the field. Even the Colts' coach and GM at the time said that what they did contributed nothing to their wins."

 

If it didnt give them an advantage...then why did they do it?... and then continue to do it?  ...Ahhhh cause it DID give them an advantage. right, that was an easy one.

 

"But keep on with these grand delusions that what the Patriots did actually affected the outcomes of games. It's pretty laughable."

 

Not nearly as laughable as getting caught cheating, pleading ignorance, then saying ok well we cheated.. but only for 1 game...just to get caught having tapes dating back to 03. Then (after realizing that they are clearly busted) saying that it didnt give them an advantage.

 

 

Oh, and at least the Patriots' FO didn't tank a season to get the #1 rated college QB.

 

Nope, didnt tank. Just sucked.I find this funny though. Peytons ST and D has failed him more times then I can remember. We allowed Mark Sanchez AND Billy Volk get game winning drives against us. Yet Peyton is to blame and not the significant lack of talent on the defense, ST and even the coaching staff. But when Peyton goes down and the lack of talent smacked us all in the face like a ton of bricks it was clear to see just how much Peyton covered up. And its best to dish out some credit when its due, else one might think you a fool. Its not hard I promise! Here ill start it...Brady is excellent at standing in the pocket for 9 seconds and throwing a dump off pass to Welker. just jokes.

 

Face it, the roster on the Colts roster was dismal the last few years of Peytons career here. But instead of giving credit to Peyton for carrying one of the worst teams in NFL history to the playoffs every year you choose to conspire that the Colts "chose" to suck for Luck...Good luck telling that to the 52 players, FO, and coaching staff whose jobs are on the line 24/7.

 

Well im done with the Patriot bashing for today...In my defense I didnt start this conversation

 

 

P.S. To AMfootball....Yes those suck for luck posters where decorative, thats why the fans had them and not the players or any member of the team.

[amfootball]

"As for "cheating", the only thing that the Patriots did was videotape what was clearly visible from any point on the field. Even the Colts' coach and GM at the time said that what they did contributed nothing to their wins."

 

If it didnt give them an advantage...then why did they do it?... and then continue to do it?  ...Ahhhh cause it DID give them an advantage. right, that was an easy one.

 

"But keep on with these grand delusions that what the Patriots did actually affected the outcomes of games. It's pretty laughable."

 

Not nearly as laughable as getting caught cheating, pleading ignorance, then saying ok well we cheated.. but only for 1 game...just to get caught having tapes dating back to 03. Then (after realizing that they are clearly busted) saying that it didnt give them an advantage.

 

 

Oh, and at least the Patriots' FO didn't tank a season to get the #1 rated college QB.

 

Nope, didnt tank. Just sucked.I find this funny though. Peytons ST and D has failed him more times then I can remember. We allowed Mark Sanchez AND Billy Volk get game winning drives against us. Yet Peyton is to blame and not the significant lack of talent on the defense, ST and even the coaching staff. But when Peyton goes down and the lack of talent smacked us all in the face like a ton of bricks it was clear to see just how much Peyton covered up. And its best to dish out some credit when its due, else one might think you a fool. Its not hard I promise! Here ill start it...Brady is excellent at standing in the pocket for 9 seconds and throwing a dump off pass to Welker. just jokes.

 

Face it, the roster on the Colts roster was dismal the last few years of Peytons career here. But instead of giving credit to Peyton for carrying one of the worst teams in NFL history to the playoffs every year you choose to conspire that the Colts "chose" to suck for Luck...Good luck telling that to the 52 players, FO, and coaching staff whose jobs are on the line 24/7.

 

Well im done with the Patriot bashing for today...In my defense I didnt start this conversation

 

 

P.S. To AMfootball....Yes those suck for luck posters where decorative, thats why the fans had them and not the players or any member of the team.

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.

[Superman]

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.

 

Prove it.

[The Old Crow]

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2013/04/26/patriots-draft-linebacker-jamie-collins/DwRDIKKOaPgm9NrEAPBREO/story.html

 

I like the players the Pats selected. They addressed every need thus far - pass rusher, WR, and DB.

 

DE Collins has a cool back story. His college team went 0-12 and he still had 20 tackles for a loss and 10 sacks and got invited to the Senior Bowl. What a great story.

 

Like the fact that the DBs are from Rutgers and will have familiarity with McCourtney in the secondary. If they work anything like McCourtney than the Pats will have a much better secondary especially with Talib and Adrian Wilson back there.

 

Not sure about the WR. He is from Marshall, big, good hands but most seem to think he will need some work. I am hoping he is Moss 2.0. lol. Hopefully Brady can bring him up fast. They need a threat on the outside badly. 

 

Here is a great little story about Harmon, the DB the Pats selected that apparently no one knew would get drafted on day two. Not even the networks.

 

The 6-1 Delaware native was the Patriots’ annual pick that surprised the pundits. He was not invited to the combine, and both ESPN and the NFL Network, who have hundreds of highlight packages ready for players who are drafted, did not have one for him.

 

Asked if he laughed about the situation, Harmon started to chuckle.

 

“Yeah, I did laugh. My mother, she was very excited and she was like, ‘Hold on baby, where’s your clips?’ ” he said. “I was like, ‘Mommy, I don’t think they knew I was going today, so I don’t think they had any clips ready for me.’ She was little upset about me not having clips, but me getting drafted overtook her sadness."

 

 

 

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.