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

[Fx Stryker]

Anyone remember Garcon's "fumble" against Cincy?

 

Or giving up a 24-7 lead to Matt Cassel!

[Le Neon]

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."

 

I think it's more the fundamental lack of logical reasoning it requires to come to the conclusion in the case of the Colts.  I think I feel roughly how you feel about Spygate, the Patriots probably didn't receive much of an advantage from what they did.  They likely would still have 3 super bowl wins without doing it, and the year after they almost managed the undefeated season, when they almost certainly weren't cheating.  

 

But the Patriots were caught cheating and punished pretty severely.  There are multiple converging lines of evidence indicating the truth of the Patriots cheating.

 

The Colts tanking hypotheses is supported by juvenile fiction, unsupported by the facts.  Bill Polian was willing to tarnish his legacy and damage the career of his young (and overpromoted) son?  Jim Caldwell put his reputation in the dumpster so we could draft some unproven rookie?  This is tinfoil hat territory.  

 

It is false equivalency to compare Spygate to myopic conjecture about the Colts losing season.  

[BOTT]

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

True, if only BB had taped a practice David Tyree might have dropped that ball.....

[MAC]

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.

I don't recall any "should have won" games. I remember Collins being utterly ineffective to the point that the Colts offense looked like it was  a preseason game with an UFA QB. Then Painter provided a spark of life but lacked the composure to close games out. Then the NO game shattered his confidence, and the coaches stuck with him too long waiting for him to find it again. They "could" have won a few more games, but it's hardly surprising that they didn't.

 

Superman's statement was eloquent and accurate. I'm sensitive this topic because the allegation of "intentionally trying to lose games" is simply offensive. That is NOT what happened, and you need to look no further than all the members of the coaching staff and management who lost their jobs as a result of the season to believe it. Players and coaches are human beings concerned with their OWN lively-hood. They weren't all involved in a master plan to destroy their own careers because it MIGHT in theory help the Colts five years in the future. The entire concept is absurd.

 

Let me say this, however. In football, you are either in contention for the playoffs NOW, or you are rebuilding in the hopes of contending for the playoffs in the future. In baseball for example you can linger for years as you develop talent and wait to acquire additional pieces, but in football the cycle is so short that there is no such thing as a middle ground. Once Peyton went down, that season became about "treading water until he could come back". Once it became obvious that he wasn't coming back, that season was lost. The results of the games didn't matter one wit as far as he clubs future was concerned. In that circumstance you don't (for example) sacrifice future draft picks in an attempt to bring in vets that will win you three more games, you sit the vets down and take advantage of the opportunity to develop your kids. That HAD to see if Painter could play. If not then, when? That's not "tanking". You ALWAYS play as hard as you can and try to win. I find any suggestion that the Colts threw games personally insulting. But when you aren't making the playoffs than your focus shifts to the following year - always - for any team. That's just life in the NFL, whether Andrew Luck is the top QB available or not.

[GoPats]

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."

 

As always you present a solid argument in eloquent fashion. Got mad respect for ya Supes.

 

Not all "cheating" or rule bending is created equally, though.

 

In the case of Spygate, the accusation was that their illegal actions directly resulted in a competitive advantage. They didn't have to lose a dozen games in the process, so there's no short-term disadvantage translating into a long-term advantage.

 

If a team tanks for the sake of draft position, they're losing in the short-term to gain in the long term. Sacrificing one season for the benefit of the future.

 

Maybe I'm just a dirt bag (probably), but I don't see the negative side of cutting your losses in a situation like the Colts were in back in 2011. I don't consider it a dishonor or a disrespectful thing to do within the game. They were not well-prepared for life without Manning, and like I said earlier the entire team looked shell-shocked for most of the season.

 

A better comparison than Spygate would be the 2005 Patriots. They obviously did little to try to win the season finale, which turned out to be a loss at home to Miami. They did it for playoff position so that they could draw the Jaguars in the first round. They went on to win that game, 28-3.

 

Not all transgressions are created equal. It's just my opinion, but the accusations carried with Spygate are far worse than anyone saying the Colts "didn't really mind" dropping to 2-14 in order to get Luck.

 

 

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

 

If that's what you count as "evidence," fine. But I'll be brutally honest, that's probably the weakest argument in the history of sports talk. The Patriots fell short of two post-Spygate championships by the narrowest of margins. And in both cases, it was their defense that had the fatal flaws, not their offense.

 

It's something that someone would say if they watched five NFL games over the past 10 years. Sorry, but that's the plain truth.

[amfootball]

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."

Spygate and tanking are not at all comparable. One is a clear violaton of league rules and the other is playing within the rules to your advantage. Do you also consider it cheating when the Colts pulled their starters in 2009 the last two games? I don't. They didn't need to win those games and chose to rest players and keep them safe. Same thing here. Colts were sacrificing the short term for the long term within the rules.

 

Colts fans can get bent out of shape all you want but there are many smart football people who believe the team tanked including your own beat reporter. And now this guy from Denver. Players from the Saints and Ravens said the team gave up in their respective games. But perhaps the most damaging evidence is the fact that the year before you went 10-6 and playoffs and the year after you went 11-5 and playoffs. Believe what you will but it is a prevalent belief among many that the Colts tanked the season.

[amfootball]

 

^{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.} 

 

 

    

The writer seems to be stating it as if it is a logical conclusion based on the season. He sees no need to support his claim as it is obviously a widely held belief outside of Indy. At least that is my take on his article.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Nadine
removed large font

[Flash7]

From what I've heard, the Patriots are thinking about trading Ryan Mallett. So, is it possible that they trade him, then Brady gets hurt and the team goes 2-14 behind a bad QB  and ends up drafting Clowney? It could be possible. Would it be a conspiracy? Probably not because Clowney doesn't play QB. That's the only difference.

[bayone]

The writer seems to be stating it as if it is a logical conclusion based on the season. He sees no need to support his claim as it is obviously a widely held belief outside of Indy. At least that is my take on his article.

 

 

when u read the entire article he gives 4 ways to get a franchise QB & in his opinion if a once in a generation QB is available such as Luck its best to tank a season than trade a # of picks or players or combo for a # 1 draft spot or for established Franchise QB, he particular doesn't like am established one due to the quick cap hit 

 

He has no proof simply suggests players dont need to even be involved, the staff simply doesnt implement a good game plan to win as an easy strategy, thus no proof

 

he does not that the washington trade so far worked out but RG3 lets face it was also considered a cant miss, and Morris the RB was an unexpected Gem of a pick

 

here is # 4

 

 

Stockpiling QBs in the hope that eventually one of them turns out to be a franchise guy:

This seems to be the move that the Broncos are taking. This is the least risky way to seek out a replacement quarterback. Hey, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick, so nobody can say for sure that this is a losing proposition.

 

When you think about it, what does a team have to lose by adopting this philosophy? Is a franchise QB worth a 2nd round pick as Osweiller was? Absolutely!!! Is a franchise QB worth a 6th round pick as Brady was? How about a 7th round pick like Dysert is? The point is that it is virtually free to draft QBs every year in hopes that at some point before your franchise guy retires, one of them wows you enough to proclaim him your heir apparent.  ((( Broncos this year also signed an undrafted QB FA ))

 

What's the downside to this philosophy? Well, you'll be wasting an awful lot of draft picks that could otherwise be used to help your current team win games. Just as QBs can be found anywhere in the draft, so too can every other position. How tragic would it have been if we took an absolute nobody QB in the 6th round instead of Terrell Davis.

 

(( MY opinion   Like last year could of had Douug Martin & Wolfe instead of taking Brock and trading extra pick got by trading down awayu to trade  up for hillman , then wouldnt of needed Ball this year  and could of taken another posution instead of Hillman at RB

and Martin may have been enough to make a winning difference )))

 

He concludes with a paragraghg saying tanking is best

[shakedownstreet]

.i can use larger font than oldunclemark.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Nadine
removed large font

[The Old Crow]

Here is a Denver writer from 1983 on how to get a franchise quarterback:

 

Go around the GM, and ply the owner with a bunch of screwdrivers. Then offer Chris Hinton, Mark Hermann, and two pre-season games in Denver, for the top quarterback in the draft. Those Denver writers are tricky !

[Superman]

As always you present a solid argument in eloquent fashion. Got mad respect for ya Supes.

 

I appreciate the kind words. You represent your fan base well, and we like having you around.

 

 

Not all "cheating" or rule bending is created equally, though.

 

In the case of Spygate, the accusation was that their illegal actions directly resulted in a competitive advantage. They didn't have to lose a dozen games in the process, so there's no short-term disadvantage translating into a long-term advantage.

 

If a team tanks for the sake of draft position, they're losing in the short-term to gain in the long term. Sacrificing one season for the benefit of the future.

 

I can follow that. I know there are differences between the two scenarios, and I'm not trying to compare them. I'm not saying "you say the Colts tanked, well I say the Patriots cheated their way to Super Bowls."

 

I'm just saying that just because you don't happen to think it's such a negative thing doesn't mean that Colts fans are just going to embrace it as truth. Don't expect Colts fans to drop their objections to this accusation just because you say it was a savvy move.

 

Maybe I'm just a dirt bag (probably), but I don't see the negative side of cutting your losses in a situation like the Colts were in back in 2011. I don't consider it a dishonor or a disrespectful thing to do within the game. They were not well-prepared for life without Manning, and like I said earlier the entire team looked shell-shocked for most of the season.

 

We agree that the Colts cut their losses. That was done in dramatic fashion on March 7, 2012. What's in question is just what happened from September to December of 2011. The team was shell-shocked most of the season; they weren't well prepared for life without Manning. None of that is evidence that that intentionally lost games or intentionally neglected to improve the team in order to secure better draft position.

 

I do think that intentionally losing games or neglecting your team to improve draft position is dishonorable. Like I said, it goes against the competitive nature of the league, and even if it's not directly against the rules, it's certainly against the spirit of the rules. If I honestly thought a responsible party with the Colts ordered that they lose games, I'd be very disappointed. As it stands, I don't believe that happened (and again, I know you're not saying it did, but a lot of people are).

 

A better comparison than Spygate would be the 2005 Patriots. They obviously did little to try to win the season finale, which turned out to be a loss at home to Miami. They did it for playoff position so that they could draw the Jaguars in the first round. They went on to win that game, 28-3.

 

Maybe. I'm not really drawing the comparison between the situations. I'm comparing the fan reaction from the respective fan bases. Just because someone claims it's okay doesn't mean Colts fans are suddenly going to agree that it happened. Just like if fans say "It's okay the Patriots cheated to win Super Bowls, winning is the only thing that matters," that doesn't mean Pats fans are going to embrace the idea that they only won Super Bowls because of Spygate.

 

Not all transgressions are created equal. It's just my opinion, but the accusations carried with Spygate are far worse than anyone saying the Colts "didn't really mind" dropping to 2-14 in order to get Luck.

 

I think Jim Irsay minded; he got rid of the main architects of that team when he fired Bill and Chris Polian. I think the Polians minded; they lost their jobs on account of it. I think Jim Caldwell minded; he lost his job on account of it. And all the other staff members as well. I think Larry Coyer minded; he's still out of work, and was kind of scapegoated for a terrible defense when it wasn't all his fault (partly his fault, for sure). Curtis Painter minded; he was benched and hasn't sniffed the field since. The players minded the inference that the team was going to "suck for Luck," and said as much during the season.

 

And while you look back at 2-14 and say "at least they got Luck out of it, so it turned out okay," you don't look back at 0-16 the same way. The 2011 Colts would have gone down in history as one of the two worst teams in NFL history, and no matter how much you want the top pick, you don't want that in your team bio. So when you're staring down the barrel of the gun, 0-4, 0-7, 0-10, 0-13, you're probably not saying "at least we're going to get the #1 pick." You're saying "we better win a freaking game or two..." and that's just what Bill Polian said when we were 0-13. He basically confirmed that 0-16 was going to cost Caldwell his job.

 

Overall, I was pretty frustrated during the 2011 season, as you can imagine. I thought we should have made changes to the offensive and defensive schemes. I thought Bill Polian was meddling with the coaching, and what made it worse is that I didn't trust Caldwell to do any better if he were making the decisions himself. If it were me, Coyer would have been gone after 62-7 on national TV. Clyde Christensen would have been relieved of play calling duties after the second half of the Bucs game. Painter would have been benched after the Falcons game (I think Orlovsky finished that game, by the way).

 

I'm not here to co-sign everything management did that season, or to suggest that they couldn't have done more. But the changes they did make, and the timetable of those changes, suggests that they did mind what was going on, and wanted it to get better. Coyer was eventually fired; Painter was eventually benched. Those changes helped the team win games, and those changes were made well before the Colts had clinched the first pick in the draft, which suggests that they were more interested in getting some Ws than they were with getting Luck.

[Superman]

Spygate and tanking are not at all comparable. One is a clear violaton of league rules and the other is playing within the rules to your advantage. Do you also consider it cheating when the Colts pulled their starters in 2009 the last two games? I don't. They didn't need to win those games and chose to rest players and keep them safe. Same thing here. Colts were sacrificing the short term for the long term within the rules.

 

Colts fans can get bent out of shape all you want but there are many smart football people who believe the team tanked including your own beat reporter. And now this guy from Denver. Players from the Saints and Ravens said the team gave up in their respective games. But perhaps the most damaging evidence is the fact that the year before you went 10-6 and playoffs and the year after you went 11-5 and playoffs. Believe what you will but it is a prevalent belief among many that the Colts tanked the season.

 

Read my response to GoPats. I'm not comparing the two situations. I'm talking about the fan reaction to those situations.

 

Not sure how pulling starters when you have playoff seeding clinched relates to blatantly losing games to get the first pick in the draft.

 

To the bolded, I don't think smart people are above thinking stupid things. Especially when they haven't really considered all the facts of the situation. Football people make mistakes all the time. Ryan Grigson and Chuck Pagano have my respect to a very great degree, but they mistakenly paid paying Dwight Freeney $14m in 2012 (assuming it was entirely a football decision). Just because it's a prevalent belief -- even among smart people -- doesn't mean it's accurate. It's a prevalent belief that Joe Flacco is an elite quarterback. I beg to differ, even if I'm among the minority.

 

And like I said in the other thread, I'm not all that fond of Bob Kravitz or his opinions. He had major beef with Bill Polian, and I believe he purposely incited the Colts fan base several times over the past couple years with accusations regarding season ticket holders, how Peyton Manning was treated, etc. His opinion is not beyond reproach, not to me.

 

You can submit the 10-6 / 11-5 sandwich as evidence that the Colts tanked, and I'd even say that's the most weighty argument you've made in this regard. But evidence isn't proof, it's just part of the case. And all evidence has to be weight against the undeniable facts of the situation in question.

 

For instance, the Colts won 10 games in 2010 with Peyton Manning, and then won 11 games in 2012 with Andrew Luck, two pretty good quarterbacks. The year they went 2-14, they had some of the worst quarterbacking in the league. All three years, they had a below average defensive performance. Isn't it reasonable to suggest that good quarterbacking + poor defense is better than bad quarterbacking + poor defense? Look at the 2012 Cardinals: it was a tale of two seasons almost, and most of it was about the quality of the quarterbacking. Then consider the coaching changes the Colts made, and the roster turnover, and there's almost no correlation between 2011 and 2012. If they didn't get better, it was because they were making bad moves.

 

So the 10-6 / 11-5 sandwich is not proof in and of itself. It's a decent argument, but it also doesn't stand up to further scrutiny.

[Superman]

I don't recall any "should have won" games. I remember Collins being utterly ineffective to the point that the Colts offense looked like it was  a preseason game with an UFA QB. Then Painter provided a spark of life but lacked the composure to close games out. Then the NO game shattered his confidence, and the coaches stuck with him too long waiting for him to find it again. They "could" have won a few more games, but it's hardly surprising that they didn't.

 

Superman's statement was eloquent and accurate. I'm sensitive this topic because the allegation of "intentionally trying to lose games" is simply offensive. That is NOT what happened, and you need to look no further than all the members of the coaching staff and management who lost their jobs as a result of the season to believe it. Players and coaches are human beings concerned with their OWN lively-hood. They weren't all involved in a master plan to destroy their own careers because it MIGHT in theory help the Colts five years in the future. The entire concept is absurd.

 

Let me say this, however. In football, you are either in contention for the playoffs NOW, or you are rebuilding in the hopes of contending for the playoffs in the future. In baseball for example you can linger for years as you develop talent and wait to acquire additional pieces, but in football the cycle is so short that there is no such thing as a middle ground. Once Peyton went down, that season became about "treading water until he could come back". Once it became obvious that he wasn't coming back, that season was lost. The results of the games didn't matter one wit as far as he clubs future was concerned. In that circumstance you don't (for example) sacrifice future draft picks in an attempt to bring in vets that will win you three more games, you sit the vets down and take advantage of the opportunity to develop your kids. That HAD to see if Painter could play. If not then, when? That's not "tanking". You ALWAYS play as hard as you can and try to win. I find any suggestion that the Colts threw games personally insulting. But when you aren't making the playoffs than your focus shifts to the following year - always - for any team. That's just life in the NFL, whether Andrew Luck is the top QB available or not.

 

Good points all the way around.

[NewColtsFan]

I'm not sure what Polian was supposed to do to help the 2011 season once Manning went down...??

 

Didn't he at some point go sign Kerry Collins for 2 years and $8 MIllion?    So much of the problem was the play of the QB's.  Beyond signing Collins,  what was Polian supposed to do?

 

And how else was he supposed to improve the roster?     Trading draft picks for players?    So,  the Colts might go 4-12 instead of 2-14?    Come on now......

 

I think everyone else here has laid out a pretty compelling case for why the Colts did NOT tank in 2011.   I find the logic in their posts pretty persuasive.   I think those arguing against it have agenda's and are not likely to change their view no matter how many times Colts fans say, 'look,  grass is green and the sky is blue'....

 

If it's not obvious by now to the non-believers,  it's never going to be.....

[Qwiz]

[Fx Stryker]

I don't recall any "should have won" games. I remember Collins being utterly ineffective to the point that the Colts offense looked like it was  a preseason game with an UFA QB. Then Painter provided a spark of life but lacked the composure to close games out. Then the NO game shattered his confidence, and the coaches stuck with him too long waiting for him to find it again. They "could" have won a few more games, but it's hardly surprising that they didn't.

 

Superman's statement was eloquent and accurate. I'm sensitive this topic because the allegation of "intentionally trying to lose games" is simply offensive. That is NOT what happened, and you need to look no further than all the members of the coaching staff and management who lost their jobs as a result of the season to believe it. Players and coaches are human beings concerned with their OWN lively-hood. They weren't all involved in a master plan to destroy their own careers because it MIGHT in theory help the Colts five years in the future. The entire concept is absurd.

 

Let me say this, however. In football, you are either in contention for the playoffs NOW, or you are rebuilding in the hopes of contending for the playoffs in the future. In baseball for example you can linger for years as you develop talent and wait to acquire additional pieces, but in football the cycle is so short that there is no such thing as a middle ground. Once Peyton went down, that season became about "treading water until he could come back". Once it became obvious that he wasn't coming back, that season was lost. The results of the games didn't matter one wit as far as he clubs future was concerned. In that circumstance you don't (for example) sacrifice future draft picks in an attempt to bring in vets that will win you three more games, you sit the vets down and take advantage of the opportunity to develop your kids. That HAD to see if Painter could play. If not then, when? That's not "tanking". You ALWAYS play as hard as you can and try to win. I find any suggestion that the Colts threw games personally insulting. But when you aren't making the playoffs than your focus shifts to the following year - always - for any team. That's just life in the NFL, whether Andrew Luck is the top QB available or not.

 

I'm not say we tanked, and I'm not saying we didn't. Early on there were mistakes that happened you completely question. Like Garcon's "fumble", Collins INT, the Buccs game had a few, and The Chiefs game. And a lot came on the go ahead drives during the 4th quarter.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what Polian was supposed to do to help the 2011 season once Manning went down...??

 

The QB market was actually pretty big in 2011 free agent wise. A lot of ex-starters. David Garrad was one I can remember. I don't know why they went and pulled Collins out of retirement.

[Superman]

I'm not say we tanked, and I'm not saying we didn't. Early on there were mistakes that happened you completely question. Like Garcon's "fumble", Collins INT, the Buccs game had a few, and The Chiefs game. And a lot came on the go ahead drives during the 4th quarter.

 

 

 

 

The QB market was actually pretty big in 2011 free agent wise. A lot of ex-starters. David Garrad was one I can remember. I don't know why they went and pulled Collins out of retirement.

 

Garrard was only released a week before the season started, and then he didn't play at all for the next two years. He had some serious back issues and decided to have surgery rather than try to keep playing. He's only now resurfacing with the Jets.

 

And even if he was able to play in 2011, what's to say that he would have been any better than Collins? I'm not that fond of Garrard myself, and I think we'd have had the same scheme issues with Garrard (not a timing quarterback, likes to throw to open receivers rather than open spots, holds the ball too long, etc.) that we had with Collins.

 

You're going to have to show me what quarterbacks were available in late August that would have been better options than Kerry Collins. I was never a big fan of adding him, so we can criticize the decision, but I don't know if I agree that there were a lot of better options at the time.

[John Dee]

I thought Indy had "quit" after the NO game.    

 

BUT ..  the last third of the season this team played HARD.    And had they got decent QB play Andrew Luck would not be here .   They played good enough to win several more games.      BUT..    

 

I am happy it worked out... 

 

There was and STILL is a lot of PRIDE on this Indy team.        

[John Dee]

Browns, Steelers Bucs, Chiefs, Bengals, Panthers, and ...  yes the PATRIOTS...    all L's and all by a TD or less.    A couple by 8 but who cares. 

 

All of these game were competitive...     all the while Indy starting perhaps the WORST starting QB in NFL history.      QB KILLED the 2011 Colts.   Plain and simple.

 

The stretch from NO to JAX I honestly felt this team has QUIT.       BUT, they DID NOT.

 

2011 Indy was a 11 or 12 win team with Manning..     without, and Matt Painter starting..     ughhh

 

Heck when O was FINALLY put in the game Indy's O started moving.

 

 

 

I don't recall any "should have won" games. I remember Collins being utterly ineffective to the point that the Colts offense looked like it was  a preseason game with an UFA QB. Then Painter provided a spark of life but lacked the composure to close games out. Then the NO game shattered his confidence, and the coaches stuck with him too long waiting for him to find it again. They "could" have won a few more games, but it's hardly surprising that they didn't.

 

Superman's statement was eloquent and accurate. I'm sensitive this topic because the allegation of "intentionally trying to lose games" is simply offensive. That is NOT what happened, and you need to look no further than all the members of the coaching staff and management who lost their jobs as a result of the season to believe it. Players and coaches are human beings concerned with their OWN lively-hood. They weren't all involved in a master plan to destroy their own careers because it MIGHT in theory help the Colts five years in the future. The entire concept is absurd.

 

Let me say this, however. In football, you are either in contention for the playoffs NOW, or you are rebuilding in the hopes of contending for the playoffs in the future. In baseball for example you can linger for years as you develop talent and wait to acquire additional pieces, but in football the cycle is so short that there is no such thing as a middle ground. Once Peyton went down, that season became about "treading water until he could come back". Once it became obvious that he wasn't coming back, that season was lost. The results of the games didn't matter one wit as far as he clubs future was concerned. In that circumstance you don't (for example) sacrifice future draft picks in an attempt to bring in vets that will win you three more games, you sit the vets down and take advantage of the opportunity to develop your kids. That HAD to see if Painter could play. If not then, when? That's not "tanking". You ALWAYS play as hard as you can and try to win. I find any suggestion that the Colts threw games personally insulting. But when you aren't making the playoffs than your focus shifts to the following year - always - for any team. That's just life in the NFL, whether Andrew Luck is the top QB available or not.

[southwest1]

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."

Interesting position there Superman. I have never even contemplated a hypothetical situation where a Patriots fan would be fine with "alleged cheating" practices as long as their franchise won several Championships. "The ends justifies the means" mentality. A nice alternative universe scenario there. 

 

I think it's more the fundamental lack of logical reasoning it requires to come to the conclusion in the case of the Colts.  I think I feel roughly how you feel about Spygate, the Patriots probably didn't receive much of an advantage from what they did.  They likely would still have 3 super bowl wins without doing it, and the year after they almost managed the undefeated season, when they almost certainly weren't cheating.  

 

But the Patriots were caught cheating and punished pretty severely.  There are multiple converging lines of evidence indicating the truth of the Patriots cheating.

 

The Colts tanking hypotheses is supported by juvenile fiction, unsupported by the facts.  Bill Polian was willing to tarnish his legacy and damage the career of his young (and overpromoted) son?  Jim Caldwell put his reputation in the dumpster so we could draft some unproven rookie?  This is tinfoil hat territory.  

 

It is false equivalency to compare Spygate to myopic conjecture about the Colts losing season.  

Roger Goodell destroyed all the evidence. Possession means everything in law, court, & legal matters. No evidence=no proof. Heresy nothing more. But, I do agree 100% that the Colts did not intentionally tank our last season to secure Luck's all star talents. INDY does not throw in the towel ever...Yehoodi is a great guy! I think he was just presenting an unique argument for debate personally. 

[amfootball]

Garrard was only released a week before the season started, and then he didn't play at all for the next two years. He had some serious back issues and decided to have surgery rather than try to keep playing. He's only now resurfacing with the Jets.

 

And even if he was able to play in 2011, what's to say that he would have been any better than Collins? I'm not that fond of Garrard myself, and I think we'd have had the same scheme issues with Garrard (not a timing quarterback, likes to throw to open receivers rather than open spots, holds the ball too long, etc.) that we had with Collins.

 

You're going to have to show me what quarterbacks were available in late August that would have been better options than Kerry Collins. I was never a big fan of adding him, so we can criticize the decision, but I don't know if I agree that there were a lot of better options at the time.

I believe I have the right list here, http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2011QB.php

 

Colts could have had Matt Hasselbeck, Vince Young, Marc Bulger, Alex Smith, Bruce Gradkowski, Matt Moore.

[dbarcawwe]

As always you present a solid argument in eloquent fashion. Got mad respect for ya Supes.

 

Not all "cheating" or rule bending is created equally, though.

 

In the case of Spygate, the accusation was that their illegal actions directly resulted in a competitive advantage. They didn't have to lose a dozen games in the process, so there's no short-term disadvantage translating into a long-term advantage.

 

If a team tanks for the sake of draft position, they're losing in the short-term to gain in the long term. Sacrificing one season for the benefit of the future.

 

Maybe I'm just a dirt bag (probably), but I don't see the negative side of cutting your losses in a situation like the Colts were in back in 2011. I don't consider it a dishonor or a disrespectful thing to do within the game. They were not well-prepared for life without Manning, and like I said earlier the entire team looked shell-shocked for most of the season.

 

A better comparison than Spygate would be the 2005 Patriots. They obviously did little to try to win the season finale, which turned out to be a loss at home to Miami. They did it for playoff position so that they could draw the Jaguars in the first round. They went on to win that game, 28-3.

 

Not all transgressions are created equal. It's just my opinion, but the accusations carried with Spygate are far worse than anyone saying the Colts "didn't really mind" dropping to 2-14 in order to get Luck.

 

 

 

If that's what you count as "evidence," fine. But I'll be brutally honest, that's probably the weakest argument in the history of sports talk. The Patriots fell short of two post-Spygate championships by the narrowest of margins. And in both cases, it was their defense that had the fatal flaws, not their offense.

 

It's something that someone would say if they watched five NFL games over the past 10 years. Sorry, but that's the plain truth.

Yea i understand what you're saying, I just said it cause I don't like the patriots and karma is real so that's what I think proves its real. Not real evidence but ehh a coincidence right?...

[amfootball]

Read my response to GoPats. I'm not comparing the two situations. I'm talking about the fan reaction to those situations.

 

Not sure how pulling starters when you have playoff seeding clinched relates to blatantly losing games to get the first pick in the draft.

 

To the bolded, I don't think smart people are above thinking stupid things. Especially when they haven't really considered all the facts of the situation. Football people make mistakes all the time. Ryan Grigson and Chuck Pagano have my respect to a very great degree, but they mistakenly paid paying Dwight Freeney $14m in 2012 (assuming it was entirely a football decision). Just because it's a prevalent belief -- even among smart people -- doesn't mean it's accurate. It's a prevalent belief that Joe Flacco is an elite quarterback. I beg to differ, even if I'm among the minority.

 

And like I said in the other thread, I'm not all that fond of Bob Kravitz or his opinions. He had major beef with Bill Polian, and I believe he purposely incited the Colts fan base several times over the past couple years with accusations regarding season ticket holders, how Peyton Manning was treated, etc. His opinion is not beyond reproach, not to me.

 

You can submit the 10-6 / 11-5 sandwich as evidence that the Colts tanked, and I'd even say that's the most weighty argument you've made in this regard. But evidence isn't proof, it's just part of the case. And all evidence has to be weight against the undeniable facts of the situation in question.

 

For instance, the Colts won 10 games in 2010 with Peyton Manning, and then won 11 games in 2012 with Andrew Luck, two pretty good quarterbacks. The year they went 2-14, they had some of the worst quarterbacking in the league. All three years, they had a below average defensive performance. Isn't it reasonable to suggest that good quarterbacking + poor defense is better than bad quarterbacking + poor defense? Look at the 2012 Cardinals: it was a tale of two seasons almost, and most of it was about the quality of the quarterbacking. Then consider the coaching changes the Colts made, and the roster turnover, and there's almost no correlation between 2011 and 2012. If they didn't get better, it was because they were making bad moves.

 

So the 10-6 / 11-5 sandwich is not proof in and of itself. It's a decent argument, but it also doesn't stand up to further scrutiny.

I get where you are coming from. But I tell you that your own beat reporter said the Colts were tanking and you say you don't respect his opinion. Ok, but that does not discount it from the evidence that would suggest the Colts tanked. I think we can agree on that.

 

Second, you seem to want to look at the personnel of the Colts and say A=B. Bad QB play means 14 losses. When I watched the Colts play, I saw no heart, no drive. I saw a team give up and go 0-13. That is what the play on the field showed. Plenty of teams win with terrible QBs, take Denver and Tim Tebow. Every single one of the Colts QBs in 2011 can throw a lot better than Tebow yet that Denver team went 7-4 with Tebow, won the division, and a playoff game with a defense ranked 20th in points allowed.

 

The Pats in 2008 with Cassell, a guy that never even played a down in college and an aging defense stepped on the field every game and gave 100 percent. No quit at all. I just didn't see this from the Colts until the Houston game in week 15...

[Le Neon]

Interesting position there Superman. I have never even contemplated a hypothetical situation where a Patriots fan would be fine with "alleged cheating" practices as long as their franchise won several Championships. "The ends justifies the means" mentality. A nice alternative universe scenario there. 

 

Roger Goodell destroyed all the evidence. Possession means everything in law, court, & legal matters. No evidence=no proof. Heresy nothing more. But, I do agree 100% that the Colts did not intentionally tank our last season to secure Luck's all star talents. INDY does not throw in the towel ever...Yehoodi is a great guy! I think he was just presenting an unique argument for debate personally. 

 

 

Fair enough, that never sat well with me either.  But I did hear that Robert Kraft said he apologized for the taping of signals.  ;)

 

So did Belichick, he admitted misinterpreting the rule.  Which I thought was a relatively honorable thing to do.  The best organizations probably all play the rulebook about as close to the line as they can for competitive advantage.  The Pats crossed it a little bit and got penalized severely.  I don't think what they did is as serious as the Saints with bountygate or the Broncos in the late nineties with the salary cap.  

 

FWIW.

[Tony Sullivan]

[southwest1]

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?

I love conspiracy theories. I don't believe 'em, but I like 'em. They appeal to my espionage persona I guess. I don't know why some many Colts fans are getting so upset. We have Luck, Manning is doing well in Denver & both franchises are now flourishing. Now, if Andrew was plummeting & Manning had just won the SB, then Colts fans would have a right to be bothered by what Yehoodi inferred. I view this reply as an a refreshing devils advocate distraction in the off season. I'm not saying that Yehoodi believes it or not. All I care is that Yehoodi is always a great read & a very sharp, & fair minded thinker. He is a valuable contributor to this site, as are all my NE friends, & I can't wait to read what he writes next the trademark of any good writer IMO. 

 

Once Peyton was out, the entire league saw how bad our roster was old, slow, & weak our team really was. Facts are facts. Did we tank on purpose? No of course not. But, Peyton going down was a blessing in disguise & anyone who denies that reality is lying to themselves.

[southwest1]

Fair enough, that never sat well with me either.  But I did hear that Robert Kraft said he apologized for the taping of signals.   ;)

 

So did Belichick, he admitted misinterpreting the rule.  Which I thought was a relatively honorable thing to do.  The best organizations probably all play the rulebook about as close to the line as they can for competitive advantage.  The Pats crossed it a little bit and got penalized severely.  I don't think what they did is as serious as the Saints with bountygate or the Broncos in the late nineties with the salary cap.  

 

FWIW.

I get where you are coming from LeNeon & I would love to see those tapes myself. When someone tells me that I am forbidden from doing something, darn it that royally ticks me off & now I wanna know what the person is so afraid of. Opening Pandora's box is so much fun! I might burn in Hades for it, but eventually I will get answer to my question & taste the forbidden fruit even if I end up in Milton's "Paradise Lost."  ;)

 

I just want fans directing that anger at the right person: Roger Goodell not Bill Belichick. Misplaced venom is a very dangerous thing & a colossal waste of energy IMO.  

[Vance]

Always wondered why it took them sooooo long to put Orlovsky in...

[Colts_Fan12]

The whole we tanked the season crap is getting old we were close to screwing it up and getting the 2nd pick

[Dustin]

I think that the Texans threw the game so that we might lose the 1st pick. I back this statement up with no credible evidence or subjective reasoning. 

 

Am I doing this right?

[Tark The Shark]

I am feeling a Oliver Stone JFK kind of film right here if they did plan on tanking. It would be one huge conspiracy!

[Vance]

I think that the Texans threw the game so that we might lose the 1st pick. I back this statement up with no credible evidence or subjective reasoning. 

 

Am I doing this right?

 

That was the game after TJ played awful and we were clawing for the #1 or #2 seed. Kubes decided to run the most vanilla offense ever and rely on the defense. And then the refs showed up...

[Dustin]

That was the game after TJ played awful and we were clawing for the #1 or #2 seed. Kubes decided to run the most vanilla offense ever and rely on the defense. And then the refs showed up...

 

Well of course he called a vanilla offense. How else were they going to let us win the game? I actually applaud them for it. There are very few FO's who would trade present success (getting a higher playoff seed) for future success (trying to make sure we didn't take Luck). It was smart on their part for trying to keep the 1st pick in the draft from us so we couldn't take Luck. Didn't work out in the end, but a tremendous effort nonetheless.

 

^^^This is how people who say we tanked sound like.

[Colts_Fan12]

Not sure I get the refrence to spygate first off recording other teams signals is illegal so who cares if it helped or didn't but to the colts thing the reason we think its stupid to say we tanked is cause if we did then wouldn't you think our GM our coaches and players would have been safe no they were all fired if it was planned then there would be no reason for us to fire Polian or Caldwell we would just draft luck and move on like normal

[Fx Stryker]

I believe I have the right list here, http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2011QB.php

 

Colts could have had Matt Hasselbeck, Vince Young, Marc Bulger, Alex Smith, Bruce Gradkowski, Matt Moore.

 

That's the list. But Excluding Bulger all of them were signed before we knew Peyton wouldn't play

 

http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?y=2011

 

That's a better list. The ones listed as Free Agents are the ones we could have had. I personally wanted Pennington.

[amfootball]

That's the list. But Excluding Bulger all of them were signed before we knew Peyton wouldn't play

 

http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?y=2011

 

That's a better list. The ones listed as Free Agents are the ones we could have had. I personally wanted Pennington.

Thank you for that complete list. I think there are a few names on that list that make more sense than Collins. Pennington for sure and David Gerrard and Marc Bulger. It made little less to pull Collins out of retirement and then when he got hurt to put in Painter and keep him in for so long...

[Le Neon]

Bulger retired and never played again.  Garrard sat out a couple years with a back injury.  Pennington tore his ACL in a pickup basketball game that offseason, I'm pretty sure he retired as well.

 

I'm pretty sure Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe were available tho...

[Superman]

I believe I have the right list here, http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2011QB.php

 

Colts could have had Matt Hasselbeck, Vince Young, Marc Bulger, Alex Smith, Bruce Gradkowski, Matt Moore.

 

Couldn't afford Hasselbeck, who got starter's money from Tennessee, and who signed well before Manning had his operation. Same for Alex Smith, who signed back in July as soon as the lockout ended. It's hilarious to me that Young, Bulger, Gradkowski and Moore are being suggested as better alternatives than Kerry Collins. Maybe they would have been, but none of them are anything special. The only guy on that list that would definitely have been better is Hasselbeck.

 

Shaun Hill and Patrick Ramsey were also available. We could have gone back to Jim Sorgi. We can throw names out there all day long, but there weren't a whole lot of great options at quarterback in late August.

[Superman]

Bulger retired and never played again.  Garrard sat out a couple years with a back injury.  Pennington tore his ACL in a pickup basketball game that offseason, I'm pretty sure he retired as well.

 

I'm pretty sure Jeff George and Drew Bledsoe were available tho...

 

Warren Moon has kept in pretty good shape.