Broncos writer discusses how to get a franchise QB, he says losing purposely to draft a guy like Luck is wise strategy

[bayone]

Tanking for the #1 draft pick:

 

 

I know it's popular to say that no team will ever purposefully lose a game in order to improve their draft slot, and that may be true, but while that may be true, that team might not put together the best of game plans to guarantee success week in and week out.

 

 Like it or not, there is a certain brilliance in knowing that your franchise guy is out the door and then conveniently securing the #1 draft pick in order to take an amazingly talented QB.

 

 

Of course, that only works if you know there is as close to a "sure thing" as there has ever been waiting for the taking.

 

Would the Colts have sucked as bad if this current crop of QBs were entering the draft instead of Andrew Luck and RG3? I have my doubts.

 

By being an absolute mess on the field, you'll get a high pick, but that strategy only pays off if you have a "once in a generation" QB entering that upcoming draft. Is it worth tanking a season for Andrew Luck? I say "ABSOLUTELY YES!!!"

 

I'll go on the record right now in saying that in 2-3 years from now when Manning retires, if that draft doesn't have a "can't miss" QB but the next draft does, I'd be all for tanking that season in order to get a John Elway or Dan Marino type QB.

 

I'm all in coach, now do what you gotta do in order to make this team a champion; Even if it means sacrificing a single season in order to get 15 great seasons!

 

http://www.milehighreport.com/2013/5/8/4308540/wanted-franchise-quarterback

 

[chad72]

Oh no, he didn't suggest that, did he? Every fan other than a Colts fan, informed or not, is going to pounce on any chance to use any article necessary to further the ignorant claim that the Colts tanked for the #1 pick.

 

Waste of my time if you ask me.

[ED29_1659yards]

How do can someone agree to tanking considering what happened to St.Louis's Sam Bradford. He not only scored high on the QB aptitude test, but had previously thrown 48 TD's at Oklahoma. He gets drafted, and is struggling to offensively get them to the playoffs...

[Black-Vell]

Oh no, he didn't suggest that, did he? Every fan other than a Colts fan, informed or not, is going to pounce on any chance to use any article necessary to further the ignorant claim that the Colts tanked for the #1 pick.

 

Waste of my time if you ask me.

 

Whats it matter? His job depends on his ability to get more ppl than usual to read his article. And look - it worked. I would have never read it if it wasnt on here.

 

If Andew is the best QB prospect in 20+ years - I doubt there will be another as good at least for another 5 years.  

[Nadine]

wow, he's jealous

[GoPats]

How do can someone agree to tanking considering what happened to St.Louis's Sam Bradford. He not only scored high on the QB aptitude test, but had previously thrown 48 TD's at Oklahoma. He gets drafted, and is struggling to offensively get them to the playoffs...

 

Don't forget Bradford was seriously injured his last season at Oklahoma. He wasn't the blue-chip, can't-miss prospect that Luck was.

 

I personally don't see why this would be so shameful even if it was 100% true. The Colts weren't going anywhere in 2011. I don't think the perception is that they tanked going into it as much as that, as an organization, they didn't really react to it very well. Sort of like waiting until your boat is half full of water before you start bailing it out. And knowing that Andrew Luck was the personified Coast Guard who was going to save your bacon. ;)

 

If that bothers people that's all well and good. Opinions will vary. But from my perspective, it would have been a wise move to ensure at least the #2 pick and a shot at either Luck or RG3. I didn't lose an ounce of respect for the Colts because of it.

[House]

This argument is like watching people argue about God.

"You can't prove he exists!"

"You can't prove he doesn't exist!"

Round and around we go.....

[Dustin]

Don't forget Bradford was seriously injured his last season at Oklahoma. He wasn't the blue-chip, can't-miss prospect that Luck was.

 

I personally don't see why this would be so shameful even if it was 100% true. The Colts weren't going anywhere in 2011. I don't think the perception is that they tanked going into it as much as that, as an organization, they didn't really react to it very well. Sort of like waiting until your boat is half full of water before you start bailing it out. And knowing that Andrew Luck was the personified Coast Guard who was going to save your bacon. ;)

 

If that bothers people that's all well and good. Opinions will vary. But from my perspective, it would have been a wise move to ensure at least the #2 pick and a shot at either Luck or RG3. I didn't lose an ounce of respect for the Colts because of it.

 

Who's bacon? The Gm? His son? The dozens of player that were cut?

[GoPats]

Who's bacon? The Gm? His son? The dozens of player that were cut?

 

The team's overall future. Did Polian know in September that he was going to be fired? Or the other coaches who were dismissed, or the players who were cut?

 

I don't know why some of you guys are hyper-sensitive about it. Maybe it's all about defending the honor and integrity of the organization. I don't believe anything was premeditated.

[Dustin]

The team's overall future. Did Polian know in September that he was going to be fired? Or the other coaches who were dismissed, or the players who were cut?

I don't know why some of you guys are hyper-sensitive about it. Maybe it's all about defending the honor and integrity of the organization. I don't believe anything was premeditated.

So we decided to win those last 2 games because.....

[House]

I don't know why some of you guys are hyper-sensitive about it. Maybe it's all about defending the honor and integrity of the organization. I don't believe anything was premeditated.

Probably the same reason there are so many over zealous posters insisting something happened, that there is literally no evidence to prove actually happened lol.

[amfootball]

Gosh, what timing? This is hiliarious. We were just debating this thing on the Pats draft thread that was recently closed.

 

I have said all along that I think it was smart and savvy for the Colts to tank the season to get Luck. Afterall, it was one season that was going nowhere anyways and with Manning at age 35 with a fused neck, you have to go for the best pick since Elway. You really have nothing to lose especially with the rookie salary cap structure.

[BOTT]

This argument is like watching people argue about God.

"You can't prove he exists!"

"You can't prove he doesn't exist!"

Round and around we go.....

To be fair, #2 is not an argument

[CR91]

yea because its really hard to lose games when your qbs are a grandpa, a painter, and a journeyman

[GoPats]

So we decided to win those last 2 games because.....

 

I didn't suggest (nor have I ever suggested) that the Colts set out in week one to be the NFL's worst team. I'm not AM and I'm not going to go back and forth with you all afternoon and bang my head against a wall with this one. Neither of us have privileged information on this, it's a matter of seeing what you see and forming an opinion.

 

My opinion is basically that once it became clear that Manning wasn't coming back, the entire team seemed like it played in a fog for weeks and weeks, and did little or nothing to snap out of it. It was a lost season by the quarter-pole. This was a team that averaged 12 wins/year for the previous nine years, dropped to 2-14 in 2011, then rebounded to 11-5 in 2012.

 

You guys can believe what you want. I don't care.

 

 

Probably the same reason there are so many over zealous posters insisting something happened, that there is literally no evidence to prove actually happened lol.

 

There's also no evidence that proves that "Spygate" did anything to really help the Patriots that much, but how many New England haters hang their hat on that entire situation?

 

Point is, perception is what it is. It may not always be accurate, or the truth.

[House]

I didn't suggest (nor have I ever suggested) that the Colts set out in week one to be the NFL's worst team. I'm not AM and I'm not going to go back and forth with you all afternoon and bang my head against a wall with this one. Neither of us have privileged information on this, it's a matter of seeing what you see and forming an opinion.

My opinion is basically that once it became clear that Manning wasn't coming back, the entire team seemed like it played in a fog for weeks and weeks, and did little or nothing to snap out of it. It was a lost season by the quarter-pole. This was a team that averaged 12 wins/year for the previous nine years, dropped to 2-14 in 2011, then rebounded to 11-5 in 2012.

You guys can believe what you want. I don't care.

There's also no evidence that proves that "Spygate" did anything to really help the Patriots that much, but how many New England haters hang their hat on that entire situation?

Point is, perception is what it is. It may not always be accurate, or the truth.

There's no proof that it helped, but there is proof that it happened.

Gulf of difference between these two situations.

[GoPats]

There's no proof that it helped, but there is proof that it happened.

Gulf of difference between these two situations.

 

Fair point, but I think you got the gist of what I was trying to convey.

[Yehoodi]

Who's bacon? The Gm? His son? The dozens of player that were cut?

 

The franchise . . . and the team owned by Mr. Isray . . . sports are big business and are becoming more of a big business than ever before . . . teams make big money and build  big stadiums which can host events and so on . . . after all sometimes these stadiums are "built" by franchise QBs . . . ;)  . . .  football unlike any team sport is dependent on one player, save for maybe hockey and the goalie, and an all worldly basketball player - but here we have seen like James in Cleveland, it can only get you so far, and MJ did not win till he got Pippen and Bird retired and Magic was in his last year  . . .

 

. . .  but in football if you have a QB like Manning he can take you places (in his Buick of coarse), and as it has done for you guys since 1998 . . .helped transform a state from a basketball state to a football state and return the glory to a proud franchise . . . and also help support the building of LOS . . .

 

We have all seen how many of the greatest teams since the Merger have fallen off the top of the hill once their franchise QB retires . . . we all know their names . . . yes there are rare cases like the 80-90 49ers, and to a degree the Pats - Bledsoe to Brady and GB - Farve to Rogers . . .but with the pats it was needle in the haystack and with GB a 1st rounder turned good . . .

 

But the majority of the time the team will fall from the top and may not come back for a while . . . I know, don't you think I think about this with Brady few years left in his career . . . ya we will get a solid replacement, make the playoffs here and there, as we are in a weak division, but competing against the 8 division winners is going to be tough without a franchise QB . . . I am trying to squeeze out all of the fun I can get out of Brady's last few years . . . even if he gets a little too excited at a horse race and dances in place with a euro soccer hair cut . . .

[Yehoodi]

So we decided to win those last 2 games because.....

 

You decided to win those last two games as you already had secured the #1 overall pick (with just needed only a loss against Jax) for one, and more importantly, for two, both wins had direct impact on the playoff implications on two of your heated rivals, Houston's win knocked Houston out of a bye, and the Tenn win help knocked Tenn out of the playoffs . . . had ten and Hou won, like the first 13 of our opponents ;) , Tenn is in the playoffs and hou has a bye . . . then some how you lost your way again and followed up the two wins with a loss to a 5-11 Jax team, who loss did not effect them . . .

 

Dustin  you don't find the following fact pattern interesting ? . . .

 

Games 1-13 colts can't win a game if you paid them, losing games and running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to win a game, always giving it the college try but coming up short . . . but we try none the less . . .  gees wize if we could just find the formula to win . . .

 

Then games 14 and 15 roll around and somehow the colts find this formula, find religion, just in time to secure two wins against heated rivals having direct playoff implications on both . . .

 

Then after finding their much desired formula to win and religion, game 16 rolls around and they loose this recently found way to win and proceed to lose to a 5-11 team and secure the #1 overall pick in the process . . .

 

You don't find the above fact pattern at least a little bit interesting?

[Dustin]

You decided to win those last two games as you already had secured the #1 overall pick (with just needed only a loss against Jax) for one, and more importantly, for two, both wins had direct impact on the playoff implications on two of your heated rivals, Houston's win knocked Houston out of a bye, and the Tenn win help knocked Tenn out of the playoffs . . . had ten and Hou won, like the first 13 of our opponents ;) , Tenn is in the playoffs and hou has a bye . . . then some how you lost your way again and followed up the two wins with a loss to a 5-11 Jax team, who loss did not effect them . . .

 

Dustin  you don't find the following fact pattern interesting ? . . .

 

Games 1-13 colts can't win a game if you paid them, losing games and running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to win a game, always giving it the college try but coming up short . . . but we try none the less . . .  gees wize if we could just find the formula to win . . .

 

Then games 14 and 15 roll around and somehow the colts find this formula, find religion, just in time to secure two wins against heated rivals having direct playoff implications on both . . .

 

Then after finding their much desired formula to win and religion, game 16 rolls around and they loose this recently found way to win and proceed to lose to a 5-11 team and secure the #1 overall pick in the process . . .

 

You don't find the above fact pattern at least a little bit interesting?

 

No offense, but this is completely ridiculous logic. If we were indeed trying to lose games on purpose, why would we care about the playoff implication of teams that don't affect us over the future of our franchise?

[Dustin]

delete

[coltsfanatic24]

I think their will be teams like the Raiders,Jags tanking to get Clowney.

[shakedownstreet]

it was awesome that we won those last two games at home and gave the season ticket holders something for their money, especially the texans game. we went out on a high note and knew luck's flight to indy was already booked

 

then the superbowl came to town, which was monumental (pun intended) to this city. after such an awful season, ironically, it was really a GREAT time to be a colts fan

[oldunclemark]

This was all discussed at the time....

 

The Colts went out of their way to win 2 of their last three includindg a near miraculouis effort vs. Houston.. 

 

They did everything they coudl to avoid owning the No.1 pick because it menat the worst record.. 

never developed as 'Plan B' incase he got hurt...

 

Its very 'Skip Bayless' to rewrtie history to support the opinion-of-the-day but we all saw it and wrote it at the time..much of it on this site.

The Bronco writer just need something to write in the off-season.

[BOTT]

People find polian's lack of moves to help the situation as evidence? I would have been surprised if he had made any major moves...and anybody who actually paid attention to the franchise would realize that. Colts' fans aren't sensitive to the subject...it's just the arguments are eye rolling.

[amfootball]

This was all discussed at the time....

 

The Colts went out of their way to win 2 of their last three includindg a near miraculouis effort vs. Houston.. 

 

They did everything they coudl to avoid owning the No.1 pick because it menat the worst record.. 

never developed as 'Plan B' incase he got hurt...

 

Its very 'Skip Bayless' to rewrtie history to support the opinion-of-the-day but we all saw it and wrote it at the time..much of it on this site.

The Bronco writer just need something to write in the off-season.

The writer was just being honest as afterall, the broncs got Manning and have a 2-3 year window maybe if his health holds up. All he is saying is if another Luck type draftee comes along he would be all for the Broncs tanking to get him assuming Manning is no longer performing like Manning...

[oldunclemark]

This was all discussed at the time....

 

The Colts went out of their way to win 2 of their last three includindg a near miraculouis effort vs. Houston.. 

 

They did everything they coudl to avoid owning the No.1 pick because it menat the worst record.. 

never developed as 'Plan B' incase he got hurt...

 

Its very 'Skip Bayless' to rewrtie history to support the opinion-of-the-day but we all saw it and wrote it at the time..much of it on this site.

The Bronco writer just need something to write in the off-season.

This was discussed at the time

The Colts went out of their way to win 2 of their last 3 including a near miraculous effort vs. Houston

 

They did everything they could to avoid the No.1 pick because it meant the worst record.

The Colts went from 10-7 to 2-14 because they had no proven 'Plan B' if Peyton Manning got hurt.

 

Its very 'Skip Bayless' to rewrite history to support the opinion-of-the-day but we all saw it and wrote it at the time..much of it on this site.

The Bronco writer just needed something to write in the off-season so he made up a theory...

 

Hashtag: Fiction

[shakedownstreet]

i'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but it is fun to me to wonder about it and look for clues. a lot of people get emotional about it, but i don't care one way or the other

 

actually if it's true we tanked i would have mad respect for irsay that he was able to pull it off

[oldunclemark]

The writer was just being honest as afterall, the broncs got Manning and have a 2-3 year window maybe if his health holds up. All he is saying is if another Luck type draftee comes along he would be all for the Broncs tanking to get him assuming Manning is no longer performing like Manning...

 

He needed something to write so he made something up.

His suggestion that Indy tanked to get Luck isnt supported by the way things actually occurred...

 

The Broncos drafted Brock Osweiser to play behind Manning and be ready when he takes over.

Lets see how they handle it.

 

Is your saying is that writers can make up past facts to support a legitimate premise...?

[FightLikeSin]

This argument is like watching people argue about God.

"You can't prove he exists!"

"You can't prove he doesn't exist!"

Round and around we go.....

 

That's a little different, but similar enough.

 

In both cases, the burden of proof needs to be assigned to the claimant. That would be the writer saying that we tanked. So now he has to prove that. If he can provide empirical evidence to support his claim...that's fine. I'm going to wait on his explanation of how close the offenses were with Painter instead of Manning and how a defense that allowed 341 yards per game "tanked" by allowing 371 yards per game after dropping from #21 to #32 in Time of Possession.

 

It's a logical fallacy. 

[Dustin]

I just basically wrote out a huge wall of text on reasons why thinking we tanked is ridiculous, but then I realized I don't really care and erased it. Think what you want.

[shakedownstreet]

I just basically wrote out a huge wall of text on reasons why thinking we tanked is ridiculous, but then I realized I don't really care and erased it. Think what you want.

 

that's a good choice. you can argue all day and no one will win. like house said, it's like religious debate which has been known to start actual wars

[Hans Moleman]

In Madden, it's not a terrible concept.

 

In real life, it's another story. With as much roster turnover as there is year in, year out in the NFL, try convincing your players to lose on purpose when 1/3 of them may not be in football next year if they don't play well. Any sabotage would have to come from the very top and would require a lot of pieces to fall in to place to actually work. 

 

Still, will I say that it's a coincidence that we stuck with Painter for as long as we did instead of playing Orlovsky earlier? Not by a longshot.

[oldunclemark]

.
.]Again...you're looking at a stroke oif Luck (excuse the expession)  that happened in hindsight and saying you thoght that what was a fortunate break was in fact semi-planned and a good idea....
.
.But the logic falls apart when you run the tape of Indy'sd last 3 games wherre they tried very hard to pl;ay them selves OUT of the No,1 pick.
.]Its okay to say that Denver should intentionaly go 0-16 if there is a senior superman QB in college and Manning gets hurt early..
.Its not okay to say that Indy did that in 2011. Its on tape. They didnt. .
 
.
 

.

.Gosh, what timing? This is hiliarious. We were just debating this thing on the Pats draft thread that was recently closed..
 
.I have said all along that I think it was smart and savvy for the Colts to tank the season to get Luck. Afterall, it was one season that was going nowhere anyways and with Manning at age 35 with a fused neck, you have to go for the best pick since Elway. You really have nothing to lose especially with the rookie salary cap structure..

Edited May 9, 2013 by Nadine
removed large font

[Superman]

Don't forget Bradford was seriously injured his last season at Oklahoma. He wasn't the blue-chip, can't-miss prospect that Luck was.

 

I personally don't see why this would be so shameful even if it was 100% true. The Colts weren't going anywhere in 2011. I don't think the perception is that they tanked going into it as much as that, as an organization, they didn't really react to it very well. Sort of like waiting until your boat is half full of water before you start bailing it out. And knowing that Andrew Luck was the personified Coast Guard who was going to save your bacon. ;)

 

If that bothers people that's all well and good. Opinions will vary. But from my perspective, it would have been a wise move to ensure at least the #2 pick and a shot at either Luck or RG3. I didn't lose an ounce of respect for the Colts because of it.

 

Let me flip this a little bit, and for the benefit of those who don't know my stance on this as well as I think you do, I'll add a disclaimer: I'm not a Spygate enthusiast, I don't think the Pats won championships just because of Spygate, and I don't think Spygate sullies their championships.

 

That said...

 

Let's say a fan comes in and says "I don't see why Pats fans are so sensitive about Spygate, if it helped them win, then it was just savvy on Belichick's part to gain the upper hand on other teams. I think other teams did it too, but Belichick is the one that was able to use it to his benefit, so good for him. I didn't lose any respect for the Patriots over it."

 

Are you telling me you're not going to point out some of the misconceptions in that line of reasoning? You're not going to defend your team against that at all?

 

Whether or not you believe the Colts purposely tanked or the Patriots purposely cheated, both actions go against the competitive nature of the league and against the spirit of the rules (if not in direct violation of the rules). It's heresy for a Patriots fans to say "I'm glad Belichick cheated, we won three Super Bowls because of it, and maybe we'd win now if he'd start doing it again." Same for a Colts fans to say "I'm glad we tanked in 2011, it got us Andrew Luck." Because both actions are frowned upon, and again, contrary to the foundation of competitive sports.

 

That's the primary reason many Colts fans are offended by the accusation. Add to that the fact that the accusation doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and it's even worse. Some -- not you -- continue to trot it out there like it's unimpeachable fact, when in reality, it just doesn't make sense.

 

Your claim is a little different, and I acknowledge that. Your claim is more along the lines of "the Colts saw things weren't going well, and didn't react quite as strongly as they probably should have, and they were probably okay with losing all of those games because it got them the top pick in the draft, so who cares?" I don't think that adds up either, but it's not quite as objectionable as "the Colts set out to get the #1 pick once Manning had his operation."

[Hans Moleman]

I'll also add that, when Manning went down, the writing was on the wall that we were going to be bad because he covered up a ton of flaws on our team. It's easier to tweak a couple of personnel moves here or there when you're already bad (like sticking with Painter) to make sure you finish dead last instead of top 5 as opposed to trying to convince a playoff-caliber roster to suck, which as I spelled out before, just isn't going to happen.

[Fx Stryker]

We should have been 3-2 or possibly 4-1 in the first five games. We had the games won, and we lost. I don't know how.

[Archer]

My problem with the whole theory is this: why would coach Caldwell, GM Polian, the OC, the DC, and a whole host of other assistant coaches tank to the tune of 2-14, when they had to know it would likely mean them losing their jobs?  And which players were so secure that they could find the act of playing poorly to be a good career move?  And where are the whistle blowers saying, "yeah, we tanked on purpose."?  If Polian and Caldwell, for example, had planned the tanking in order to get Luck, then it sure backfired on them, didn't it!?!? (Interrobang) 

[dbarcawwe]

I didn't suggest (nor have I ever suggested) that the Colts set out in week one to be the NFL's worst team. I'm not AM and I'm not going to go back and forth with you all afternoon and bang my head against a wall with this one. Neither of us have privileged information on this, it's a matter of seeing what you see and forming an opinion.

 

My opinion is basically that once it became clear that Manning wasn't coming back, the entire team seemed like it played in a fog for weeks and weeks, and did little or nothing to snap out of it. It was a lost season by the quarter-pole. This was a team that averaged 12 wins/year for the previous nine years, dropped to 2-14 in 2011, then rebounded to 11-5 in 2012.

 

You guys can believe what you want. I don't care.

 

 

 

There's also no evidence that proves that "Spygate" did anything to really help the Patriots that much, but how many New England haters hang their hat on that entire situation?

 

Point is, perception is what it is. It may not always be accurate, or the truth.

There's no evidence? I mean its only a fact that since Spygate they havent wont any SB...

[oldunclemark]

Technically dw..

 

That's hindsight, not evidence..