Pats draft

[amfootball]

 

This is just a message board. Nothing here really matters.

I wish others felt as you do. ;)

[dw49]

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.

 

 

 

Fill in the blank. You can't win an argument with a ___________

[amfootball]

 

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

 

 

 

Thanks. I thought it was because of the medical.

[Tony Sullivan]

Thanks. I thought it was because of the medical.

*facepalm*

yet you implied it was the FO

...I need to go play some video games.

[amfootball]

*facepalm*

yet you implied it was the FO

...I need to go play some video games.

Yes you do. You take this far too seriously man. Go play some Pac Man. He will cheer you up...

[-JJ-]

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?

I believe Collins just had a good year the season before with the Titans. He had the long arm (Painter didn't). It was really the best prospect at the time they brought him in. I actually thought they'd win with him. Alas he needs an oline.

 

Wayne just complained about an outsider coming in.

[Mameluc]

how does the secondary look? I thought Mccourtney was moving to S?

is like McCourtney and wilson at S

talib and arrington at cb? plus the rookies?

[amfootball]

how does the secondary look? I thought Mccourtney was moving to S?

is like McCourtney and wilson at S

talib and arrington at cb? plus the rookies?

This may be the best secondary the Pats have fielded in a few seasons. I believe it will be Talib and Dennard at CB and McCourtney at safety along with Tavon Wilson. They also signed Adrian Wilson who will most likely come in on third downs. They have Arrington as the nickel DB. Then you have the rookies that are there for depth and to push the competition.

[GoPats]

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

 

It's been discussed ad nauseum but I'm talking about the most recent SB against the Giants. The Patriots were moving the ball, holding onto a lead, and Welker failed to hang on to what would basically have been a game-sealing reception.

 

 

It certainly could have been a better throw (given the position of the safety, Brady threw it to Welker's outside shoulder, which was the right spot for it), but Welker himself said he catches that ball more often than not. Had that worked out for them, they would have had a first down at about the NY 20 with under 4:00 to go. At the very least they kick a FG there and do not just give the ball back to the Giants for what would be the game-winning drive.

 

Point being...

 

People sometimes say that the Patriots have not won a SB post Spygate. But that has nothing to do with anything. The Patriots won three SBs by a combined nine points, and lost two by a combined seven.

 

You guys know, from watching Manning and the Colts fall short, that winning Super Bowls is not easy. You need to be good, but you also need to get some bounces. The Patriots were very lucky in that department through Brady's early years. In their last two trips to the championship game, they've been very unlucky, with Tyree's once-in-10-lifetimes catch and Welker's drop.

 

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.

 

When people actually open up their minds and don't just assume that all fans of other teams are jerks, then good conversations can happen. I post on a Patriots board too but prefer to get the "outsiders view." I've been on this board (or the incarnations before it) going all the way back to 2005. Lots of people here know me and remember me from those days. I'm sure not all of them LIKE me, but they will attest that I've always been fair and respectful of others' opinions.

 

It keeps things fresh, and it keeps you honest.

 

To each his own, right?

[Narcosys]

It's been discussed ad nauseum but I'm talking about the most recent SB against the Giants. The Patriots were moving the ball, holding onto a lead, and Welker failed to hang on to what would basically have been a game-sealing reception.

It certainly could have been a better throw (given the position of the safety, Brady threw it to Welker's outside shoulder, which was the right spot for it), but Welker himself said he catches that ball more often than not. Had that worked out for them, they would have had a first down at about the NY 20 with under 4:00 to go. At the very least they kick a FG there and do not just give the ball back to the Giants for what would be the game-winning drive.

Point being...

People sometimes say that the Patriots have not won a SB post Spygate. But that has nothing to do with anything. The Patriots won three SBs by a combined nine points, and lost two by a combined seven.

You guys know, from watching Manning and the Colts fall short, that winning Super Bowls is not easy. You need to be good, but you also need to get some bounces. The Patriots were very lucky in that department through Brady's early years. In their last two trips to the championship game, they've been very unlucky, with Tyree's once-in-10-lifetimes catch and Welker's drop.

When people actually open up their minds and don't just assume that all fans of other teams are jerks, then good conversations can happen. I post on a Patriots board too but prefer to get the "outsiders view." I've been on this board (or the incarnations before it) going all the way back to 2005. Lots of people here know me and remember me from those days. I'm sure not all of them LIKE me, but they will attest that I've always been fair and respectful of others' opinions.

It keeps things fresh, and it keeps you honest.

To each his own, right?

I stand corrected, gues I remember wrong. But most if my run ins with other team fans in a board has not been pleasant for the most part. So I avoid joining other boards and not become a hypocrite if I were to come off as a jerk. I have fun conversations with face to face talks. But not boards. Crete have been respectable people on here but most conversations seem to come down to people denigrating ine another in some manner. I just don't want to be that guy that comes out on another board, disagree and then get into a fluid movement contest because I quickly defend myself if I feel attacked. Which on boards it's hard to convey tone and inflection.

[GoPats]

I stand corrected, gues I remember wrong. But most if my run ins with other team fans in a board has not been pleasant for the most part. So I avoid joining other boards and not become a hypocrite if I were to come off as a jerk. I have fun conversations with face to face talks. But not boards. Crete have been respectable people on here but most conversations seem to come down to people denigrating ine another in some manner. I just don't want to be that guy that comes out on another board, disagree and then get into a fluid movement contest because I quickly defend myself if I feel attacked. Which on boards it's hard to convey tone and inflection.

 

All true, and your opinion is fully respected!

 

I try to post in the same manner in which I would communicate face-to-face. Generally, what you see with me is what you get. I would not be obtusely rude to a virtual stranger except under certain circumstances, so I try not to do that here.

 

I also try to remember something someone once told me... "the keyboard is the weapon of the passive-aggressive." It's a trap I strive not to fall into.

 

Cheers!

[ViriLudant]

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.

So, despite the fact that the Colts' FO did nothing to help the defensive backfield, did not sign one decent available QB, did not sign any impactful D-linemen, etc...

The fact that the FO did NOTHING to improve the Colts doesn't demonstrate that they had no interest in improving their team?

Huh. Odd.

[Tony Sullivan]

So, despite the fact that the Colts' FO did nothing to help the defensive backfield, did not sign one decent available QB, did not sign any impactful D-linemen, etc...

The fact that the FO did NOTHING to improve the Colts doesn't demonstrate that they had no interest in improving their team?

Huh. Odd.

 

Kerry Collins was a 2 time pro bowler, almost 200 starts, and finished off 2010 on a high note. What other QBs were available who were better? Would you like to try again?

 

Also, where do we get all this cap money to go sign starters? We had something like $7 mill going into the season, then we spent I believe 4 on Collins. That leaves 3 left. We're paying Erik Walden more than that. Would you like to try again?

 

The VERY FO you're saying tanked is the VERY FO that got fired,, HUH. ODD.

 

Such ignorance of reality from Pats fans. 

[GoPats]

 

Such ignorance of reality from Pats fans. 

 

 

The notion that Indy didn't try all that hard in 2011 is absolutely not a theory exclusive to Pats fans.

 

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/bryant-111207/the-indianapolis-colts-deserve-free-pass-criticism-their-winless-season

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20111124/SPORTS15/111240342/Colts-been-abandoned-again?nclick_check=1

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-11/sports/nonsense-sp-preston-ravens-1212-20111211_1_ravens-ryan-diem-terrell-suggs

 

 

That was less than five minutes on google. I recall lots of talk-show discussion over it too.

 

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that it's not an accusation or theory exclusive to New England Patriots fans.

[Dustin]

If we were purposely losing, then why even bother to win 2 out of the last 3 games?

For appearances?

C'mon now...

[House]

The notion that Indy didn't try all that hard in 2011 is absolutely not a theory exclusive to Pats fans.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/bryant-111207/the-indianapolis-colts-deserve-free-pass-criticism-their-winless-season

http://www.indystar.com/article/20111124/SPORTS15/111240342/Colts-been-abandoned-again?nclick_check=1

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-11/sports/nonsense-sp-preston-ravens-1212-20111211_1_ravens-ryan-diem-terrell-suggs

That was less than five minutes on google. I recall lots of talk-show discussion over it too.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that it's not an accusation or theory exclusive to New England Patriots fans.

It's not exclusive to Pats fans, but it is exclusive to conspiracy theorists, and guys trying to catch headlines IMO lol.

[GoPats]

It's not exclusive to Pats fans, but it is exclusive to conspiracy theorists, and guys trying to catch headlines IMO lol.

 

LOL, well that's another story... ;)

 

I don't think Indy went into the season hoping to get the #1 pick. But I do think Irsay and Polian didn't really mind it too much.

 

The whole situation from a few years back (sitting starters and eschewing the chance to go undefeated) probably didn't help perceptions around the NFL when it comes to the Colts' 2011 season.

[House]

LOL, well that's another story... ;)

I don't think Indy went into the season hoping to get the #1 pick. But I do think Irsay and Polian didn't really mind it too much.

The whole situation from a few years back (sitting starters and eschewing the chance to go undefeated) probably didn't help perceptions around the NFL when it comes to the Colts' 2011 season.

Yeah I also suppose your definition of tanking comes into play as well.

Do I think they asked the players to purposefully lose games? No.

Do I think they were upset at the prospect of having a really high draft pick? Not at all lol.

[GoPats]

Yeah I also suppose your definition of tanking comes into play as well.

Do I think they asked the players to purposefully lose games? No.

Do I think they were upset at the prospect of having a really high draft pick? Not at all lol.

 

Exactly. Intent is one thing, letting things transpire is another...

 

And either way, even if it really was deliberate, it worked out pretty dang well!

[House]

Exactly. Intent is one thing, letting things transpire is another...

And either way, even if it really was deliberate, it worked out pretty dang well!

You won't hear me complaining .

[Mameluc]

This may be the best secondary the Pats have fielded in a few seasons. I believe it will be Talib and Dennard at CB and McCourtney at safety along with Tavon Wilson. They also signed Adrian Wilson who will most likely come in on third downs. They have Arrington as the nickel DB. Then you have the rookies that are there for depth and to push the competition.

so the team is actually happy with Tavon wilson? I thought the Adrian signing was indicative that they either didnt believe in Tavon or Mccourntey

So they plan to use Mccourtney as the nickel if Adrian goes on the field on 3rd down? or the three of them at S

[GoPats]

so the team is actually happy with Tavon wilson? I thought the Adrian signing was indicative that they either didnt believe in Tavon or Mccourntey

So they plan to use Mccourtney as the nickel if Adrian goes on the field on 3rd down? or the three of them at S

 

Mameluc! Good to see ya.

 

Supposedly they're pretty high on (Tavon) Wilson. Not sure what the deal is, he didn't seem to make much of an impact last year. Safety seems like a better, more natural position for McCourty, so they'll probably keep him there. Talib is a good #1 corner and Dennard played really well last year and looks solid. Kyle Arrington was resigned as their slot corner, so it's really just that safety position that seems up in the air.

 

Supposedly T. Wilson is being penciled in as the starter, but A. Wilson's cover skills are, from what I read anyway, in decline. So if anything, I'd expect Adrian in on first and second down, and Tavon coming in with the sub-packages, at least to start with. Maybe at some point - even as early as camp - Tavon passes Adrian on the depth chart.

 

They also drafted a CB and S out of Rutgers, which I'm now referring to as the Patriots' triple-A affiliate. ;)

[Superman]

Kerry Collins was a 2 time pro bowler, almost 200 starts, and finished off 2010 on a high note. What other QBs were available who were better? Would you like to try again?

Very good point.

 

Collins had nine touchdowns, three interceptions in his last four games, 60% completion rate, 250 yards a game. Very strong finish. He just wasn't a good fit for our offense. If we had made some adjustments to our game plan, we might have put him in better position to succeed. But Collins wasn't some terrible quarterback that had no chance to help our offense.

 

Also, where do we get all this cap money to go sign starters? We had something like $7 mill going into the season, then we spent I believe 4 on Collins. That leaves 3 left. We're paying Erik Walden more than that. Would you like to try again?

 

Despite the aforementioned cap difficulties, the 2011 offseason was one of our busiest offseasons in terms of signing veteran free agents. No big names, no big money guys; we didn't have the cap space. But we did more than we normally would have, that's for sure. Al Afalava, Tyler Brayton, Jamal Anderson, Tommie Harris, etc. These are the kind of additions that Polian normally didn't make, and Colts fans around the web agreed. The Colts actually made a run at Donte Whitner, believe it or not.

 

If they were intending to tank the season, and if that plan went all the way back to the offseason (which the post you're quoting suggests), then why didn't they just keep Manning on the tag and avoid the $10.4m dead cap hit in 2012? Why did they resign Vinatieri and Addai and Antonio Johnson and Melvin Bullitt, and so on? Why sign Collins to a two year deal, resulting in a $1.25m dead cap hit in 2012? Why sign Collins at all? Why not just stick with what you have, sign some guys to one year deals, and start the new era with a clean slate? Why stick yourself with $40m in dead cap space?

 

The idea that they didn't do anything in the offseason to improve the roster is drastically mistaken.

 

And when you consider the way the season started, we had a reasonable chance to win three of our first five games. The wheels didn't actually come off until Week 7 against the Saints.

 

The VERY FO you're saying tanked is the VERY FO that got fired,, HUH. ODD.

 

And that's really what blows this entire theory out of the water. The disaster that was the 2011 Colts cost many of the decision makers and responsible individuals their jobs. Not only is the thought that the front office didn't do anything to help wrong, it's entirely counter-intuitive.

[amfootball]

Very good point.

 

Collins had nine touchdowns, three interceptions in his last four games, 60% completion rate, 250 yards a game. Very strong finish. He just wasn't a good fit for our offense. If we had made some adjustments to our game plan, we might have put him in better position to succeed. But Collins wasn't some terrible quarterback that had no chance to help our offense.

 

 

Despite the aforementioned cap difficulties, the 2011 offseason was one of our busiest offseasons in terms of signing veteran free agents. No big names, no big money guys; we didn't have the cap space. But we did more than we normally would have, that's for sure. Al Afalava, Tyler Brayton, Jamal Anderson, Tommie Harris, etc. These are the kind of additions that Polian normally didn't make, and Colts fans around the web agreed. The Colts actually made a run at Donte Whitner, believe it or not.

 

If they were intending to tank the season, and if that plan went all the way back to the offseason (which the post you're quoting suggests), then why didn't they just keep Manning on the tag and avoid the $10.4m dead cap hit in 2012? Why did they resign Vinatieri and Addai and Antonio Johnson and Melvin Bullitt, and so on? Why sign Collins to a two year deal, resulting in a $1.25m dead cap hit in 2012? Why sign Collins at all? Why not just stick with what you have, sign some guys to one year deals, and start the new era with a clean slate? Why stick yourself with $40m in dead cap space?

 

The idea that they didn't do anything in the offseason to improve the roster is drastically mistaken.

 

And when you consider the way the season started, we had a reasonable chance to win three of our first five games. The wheels didn't actually come off until Week 7 against the Saints.

 

 

And that's really what blows this entire theory out of the water. The disaster that was the 2011 Colts cost many of the decision makers and responsible individuals their jobs. Not only is the thought that the front office didn't do anything to help wrong, it's entirely counter-intuitive.

I think this debate has run its course. My summation? The Colts were in fact short-sighted, inept, choose your adjective of choice here and really did try to salvage a season in which they knew their entire offense was predicated on Manning who was out for the season. They tried like heck to NOT get Andrew Luck who they ended up getting because there was a lot of effort behind those 14 losses and lookie who, he is the stud everyone thought he was. I guess I was wrong for thinking the Colts mgmt was more savvy than they really are.

[Superman]

I think this debate has run its course. My summation? The Colts were in fact short-sighted, inept, choose your adjective of choice here and really did try to salvage a season in which they knew their entire offense was predicated on Manning who was out for the season. They tried like heck to NOT get Andrew Luck who they ended up getting because there was a lot of effort behind those 14 losses and lookie who, he is the stud everyone thought he was. I guess I was wrong for thinking the Colts mgmt was more savvy than they really are.

 

That management team is gone. All of them. The lone front office holdover was Tom Telesco, and now he's gone, too.

 

If I may nitpick, by the way, the Colts didn't know Manning would be out for the season. All told, he never went on IR.

 

And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up.

 

We agree, though, this entire debate was old a long time ago.

[amfootball]

That management team is gone. All of them. The lone front office holdover was Tom Telesco, and now he's gone, too.

 

If I may nitpick, by the way, the Colts didn't know Manning would be out for the season. All told, he never went on IR.

 

And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up.

 

We agree, though, this entire debate was old a long time ago.

How can you admit that the Colts did try to get Andrew Luck but did not try to lose games? The two go hand and hand as he was the first pick. There is no other way to get the first pick unless you are the worst team in football.

[Superman]

How can you admit that the Colts did try to get Andrew Luck but did not try to lose games? The two go hand and hand as he was the first pick. There is no other way to get the first pick unless you are the worst team in football.

 

I didn't admit they tried to get Luck.

 

You, being facetious and sarcastic, said that they tried NOT to get Luck. I said that's not the issue.

[chad72]

That management team is gone. All of them. The lone front office holdover was Tom Telesco, and now he's gone, too.

 

If I may nitpick, by the way, the Colts didn't know Manning would be out for the season. All told, he never went on IR.

 

And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up.

 

We agree, though, this entire debate was old a long time ago.

 

You walked yourself right into a catch 22, Superman ;) (but I see you clarified that). I don't believe the Colts even tried to get Andrew Luck. It was ungodly ineptitude at the QB position plus the perfect storm of never tailoring the offense with the possibility of Peyton not coming back. A lot of players, including Wayne and Mathis, when asked that question said what does a QB who is not in the NFL have anything to do with what is going on? That was their attitude and rightfully so. They were flat out offended when someone suggested that. Plus, some of the most winnable easier games vs Browns and Chiefs came when they were still figuring things out at the QB position early and once they lost those, the voices of naysayers became louder, IMO, and the wins became sparse.

 

 

 

Here is the article, straight from the player's mouths, when they were asked about it, as early as 0-5:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d822ff96c/article/veteran-colts-still-not-feeling-the-luck-as-they-drop-to-05-

 

So, when someone talks about "suck for Luck" as early as 0-5, you know it was the headline makers that gave birth to it first.

[Superman]

You walked yourself right into a catch 22, Superman. I don't believe the Colts even tried to get Andrew Luck. A lot of players, including Wayne and Mathis, when asked that question said what does a QB who is not in the NFL have anything to do with what is going on? That was their attitude and rightfully so. They were flat out offended when someone suggested that.

 

Here is the article, straight from the player's mouths, when they were asked about it, as early as 0-5:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d822ff96c/article/veteran-colts-still-not-feeling-the-luck-as-they-drop-to-05-

 

See my previous post. I'm not saying they tried to get Luck.

[amfootball]

That management team is gone. All of them. The lone front office holdover was Tom Telesco, and now he's gone, too.

 

If I may nitpick, by the way, the Colts didn't know Manning would be out for the season. All told, he never went on IR.

 

And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up.

 

We agree, though, this entire debate was old a long time ago.

 

 

I didn't admit they tried to get Luck.

 

You, being facetious and sarcastic, said that they tried NOT to get Luck. I said that's not the issue.

Can't have it both ways man.

[chad72]

Looks like this thread has run its course, from the Pats draft to Spygate/Suck for Luck.

 

Go ahead and throw in some Uggs boots/Victoria Secret/Buick Verano/Papa John's pizza references and we would have covered everything

[Superman]

Can't have it both ways man.

 

Evidently I wasn't clear. I apologize. Let me clarify.

 

Your comment:

They tried like heck to NOT get Andrew Luck

 

My comment:

And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue.

 

To rephrase, Andrew Luck wasn't part of the team's plan or motivation. The team wasn't trying to win games because they didn't want Andrew Luck. Jim Caldwell didn't fire Larry Coyer late in the season because he didn't want Andrew Luck. He didn't bench Painter because he didn't want Andrew Luck. They didn't sign Kerry Collins because they didn't want Andrew Luck.

 

It wasn't about wanting or not wanting Andrew Luck. It was about trying to win games, despite starting 0-13, despite getting beat 62-7 on national TV, despite losing their elite quarterback for the season.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the 2011 Colts were marred with ineptitude and shortsightedness. That's why Bill Polian and Jim Caldwell are no longer here. Their mistakes made what was going to be a bad season much worse, and they were held accountable for it. That, in itself, debunks the entire accusation.

 

So, like I said: What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up.

[Dustin]

I think the Pats should have taken Keenan Allen in the 2nd round. He would have been a better option IMO.

[Tony Sullivan]

The notion that Indy didn't try all that hard in 2011 is absolutely not a theory exclusive to Pats fans.

 

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/bryant-111207/the-indianapolis-colts-deserve-free-pass-criticism-their-winless-season

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20111124/SPORTS15/111240342/Colts-been-abandoned-again?nclick_check=1

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-11/sports/nonsense-sp-preston-ravens-1212-20111211_1_ravens-ryan-diem-terrell-suggs

 

 

That was less than five minutes on google. I recall lots of talk-show discussion over it too.

 

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that it's not an accusation or theory exclusive to New England Patriots fans.

 

 

 

Some thing about those articles;

- One of them actually criticizes the Colts for going with Collins instead of Vince Young, so I have to question that guys football mind anyways. It also never addressed how we only had $3M in Cap to work with. It also is criticizing Colts more on their inability to make the right decision when Manning went down, not their desire not to make any decisions at all. 

-One was written before we won 2 of our last 3 games

- One is written by Bob Kravitz ;) But really, he says we're tanking because we started Painter against Carolina, but that was the last game he started.  (And I cant read the full thing because it required subscription)

 

 

But I think Super put it best;

 

"And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up."

 

 

And I apologize if I implied all Pats fans are ignorant of reality, it just happened the ones there were making the conspiracy theories were Pats fans. 

[Superman]

 

"And no one is arguing that they tried NOT to get Andrew Luck. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up."

 

Glad someone understood me...

[Mameluc]

Looks like this thread has run its course, from the Pats draft to Spygate/Suck for Luck.

 

Go ahead and throw in some Uggs boots/Victoria Secret/Buick Verano/Papa John's pizza references and we would have covered everything

i've seen oh so many commercials of pappa johns on NFLN that im dying to eat one

[amfootball]

Evidently I wasn't clear. I apologize. Let me clarify.

 

Your comment:

 

My comment:

 

To rephrase, Andrew Luck wasn't part of the team's plan or motivation. The team wasn't trying to win games because they didn't want Andrew Luck. Jim Caldwell didn't fire Larry Coyer late in the season because he didn't want Andrew Luck. He didn't bench Painter because he didn't want Andrew Luck. They didn't sign Kerry Collins because they didn't want Andrew Luck.

 

It wasn't about wanting or not wanting Andrew Luck. It was about trying to win games, despite starting 0-13, despite getting beat 62-7 on national TV, despite losing their elite quarterback for the season.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that the 2011 Colts were marred with ineptitude and shortsightedness. That's why Bill Polian and Jim Caldwell are no longer here. Their mistakes made what was going to be a bad season much worse, and they were held accountable for it. That, in itself, debunks the entire accusation.

 

So, like I said: What's at issue is this accusation that the Colts tried to lose games in order to secure the #1 pick in the draft, and that just doesn't hold up.

No one is suggesting, at least I am not, that the Colts set out to be 2-14. Once Manning had his fourth surgery in Sept and they knew they were going to be without him for the season with a slight hope that he may return in Dec which is why they didn't put him on IR, they acquired Kerry Collins. When Collins did not win a game and Painter went winless that is when Luck became the focal point. The team was 0-13 before it won its first game. If you believe for one second with a season lost and Manning suffering a severe neck injury that required four surgeries, that the Colts were NOT thinking about Andrew Luck when the team was 0-8, 0-9, 0-10 than you must believe the Colts are dumbest org on the face of the earth. They inserted Orloskvy and won two games which at that point were meaningless as neither the Vikes or Rams were going to take a Qb so the Colts were already in position to get Luck with the first pick or acquire him from either the Vikes or the Rams on draft day. 

 

Polian and company were fired not because of the 2-14 season but precisely because the Colts were going to draft Luck and not build the team around him the way Polian did with Manning which only resulted in one ring. To think a FO that was named the second best team of the decade behind the Pats in 00's was fired for one bad season with Manning on the bench is absurd.

[Mameluc]

Mameluc! Good to see ya.

 

Supposedly they're pretty high on (Tavon) Wilson. Not sure what the deal is, he didn't seem to make much of an impact last year. Safety seems like a better, more natural position for McCourty, so they'll probably keep him there. Talib is a good #1 corner and Dennard played really well last year and looks solid. Kyle Arrington was resigned as their slot corner, so it's really just that safety position that seems up in the air.

 

Supposedly T. Wilson is being penciled in as the starter, but A. Wilson's cover skills are, from what I read anyway, in decline. So if anything, I'd expect Adrian in on first and second down, and Tavon coming in with the sub-packages, at least to start with. Maybe at some point - even as early as camp - Tavon passes Adrian on the depth chart.

 

They also drafted a CB and S out of Rutgers, which I'm now referring to as the Patriots' triple-A affiliate. ;)

nce to see you too...yea i mean i havent seen that much of wilson but i wasnt that impressed which is why i asked..

btw, whats the plan with the personnel you have on D? 3-4 or 4-3? i mean collins looks to me more of a OLB than a DE but then, the huge dude of last years draft looks like 4 3 DE...i envy your front 7:

Spikes - Mayo - Hightower and on DL that huge dude who i always forget his name + vince wilkfork (my favorite NT) ...and now Jamie collins.

im guessing you are going 4 3 right?

[In Luck We Trust]

No one is suggesting, at least I am not, that the Colts set out to be 2-14. Once Manning had his fourth surgery in Sept and they knew they were going to be without him for the season with a slight hope that he may return in Dec which is why they didn't put him on IR, they acquired Kerry Collins. When Collins did not win a game and Painter went winless that is when Luck became the focal point. The team was 0-13 before it won its first game. If you believe for one second with a season lost and Manning suffering a severe neck injury that required four surgeries, that the Colts were NOT thinking about Andrew Luck when the team was 0-8, 0-9, 0-10 than you must believe the Colts are dumbest org on the face of the earth. They inserted Orloskvy and won two games which at that point were meaningless as neither the Vikes or Rams were going to take a Qb so the Colts were already in position to get Luck with the first pick or acquire him from either the Vikes or the Rams on draft day. 

 

Polian and company were fired not because of the 2-14 season but precisely because the Colts were going to draft Luck and not build the team around him the way Polian did with Manning which only resulted in one ring. To think a FO that was named the second best team of the decade behind the Pats in 00's was fired for one bad season with Manning on the bench is absurd.

The colts were atleast trying to win ONE game to avoid being 0-16 at the end of the season. but i agree the colts were thinking Andrew Luck or RG3 by the time they were 0-10. that is if they were not already thinking it when it was stated in august of 2011 Manning may not be back until december the earliest. 

[In Luck We Trust]

How can you admit that the Colts did try to get Andrew Luck but did not try to lose games? The two go hand and hand as he was the first pick. There is no other way to get the first pick unless you are the worst team in football.

so trades don't happen?? could have sworn the redskins traded up in order to get Griffin.