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

[Superman]

I cant belive what i started when posted this topic, things just take on a life of their own 

 

Some of us just can't help ourselves...

 

;)

[bayone]

Yeah their top three picks still haven't signed, and those will have an impact on the cap space. Four million sounds about right. Still, that's after adding a handful of pieces in free agency, including two of the top guys at their respective positions (Vasquez and Welker). My point was that it's not like they're handcuffed because of Manning's contract.

 

oh I totaly agree with your point, just noting the salary cap, it a shame, I really feel the Colts failed Peyton in that never game him a real all around balanced team, nop run game forever, at least Denver is trying as just 1 example

 

Real bad draft picks, to many # 1 & 2's were busts for them

 

Hughes, Brown, Ugh etc  Re what was  expected of them & thats basically in straight years & traded a # 1 for rihght to pick Ugoh

 

have a good day,  4 pm is my busy time 

[amfootball]

See, but the Seahawks and Niners aren't paying a bunch of money to their defensive players. They've drafted really well and have some pretty good coaching, and now they have defensive juggernauts. The Niners highest paid player is probably Vernon Davis, a tight end. It's not always about where the money is going.

 

And the Packers have just started paying elite money for Rodgers. He had a sizable contract before, but nothing worth complaining about. I think he was making the same money as Matt Cassel, as a matter of fact. Same with the Ravens; Joe Flacco just started making elite money, and the Ravens were still able to add pieces, specifically on defense.

 

To the bolded, again, the Polian front office relied almost exclusively on the draft, very rarely trading or spending money on free agents from other teams. (There are a few exceptions, but they are rare.) And I don't have a problem with that philosophy, except when your drafting falters. Grigson said earlier this year that the draft is the lifeblood of your organization, and I agree with that. But when you have holes in your roster because your drafts haven't panned out -- again, not railing against Polian, but his drafting, especially on both lines, wasn't adequate -- you should use free agency to supplement. Polian really didn't do much of this. The biggest acquisitions he made on the defensive line were Corey Simon (which didn't work out and probably scared Polian even further off of free agency) and Booger McFarland (which helped us win a Super Bowl). It's not a sure thing, but it is a necessary component to building a balanced team.

Eventually if you draft well you have to pay those players so you are in the same boat in terms of spreading the money around. Different teams do it differently but when one player makes $20 mil or more it gets harder to keep quality players all around.

 

Rodgers I believe was making $11 mil when he won the Sb in 2010 but I am sure Dustin has the exact number. Flacco like you said just got elite money and the Ravens had a fire sale as a result. Like I said, it can be done but it is really hard to have a balanced team with so much tied to one player. Of course, much of this is a recent thing as QB salaries have sky rocketed the last few years.

 

I know Polian drafted poorly and did not spend in FA. His philiopshy was pretty successful so he stuck with it and had some misses. Like anything, a relationship gets stale and it was probably time for him to go. Same with Reid in Philly.

[Superman]

Eventually if you draft well you have to pay those players so you are in the same boat in terms of spreading the money around. Different teams do it differently but when one player makes $20 mil or more it gets harder to keep quality players all around.

 

But when you let a nice linebacker walk, or a even a top ten receiver, it's not as impactful as losing your starting quarterback. That's one of the sacrifices that comes along with the salary cap, and it's probably something you're going to deal with whether you have a highly paid quarterback or not.

 

It's definitely harder when you have one player taking up 16% of the cap, but it's not impossible. It's very possible.

 

Rodgers I believe was making $11 mil when he won the Sb in 2010 but I am sure Dustin has the exact number. Flacco like you said just got elite money and the Ravens had a fire sale as a result. Like I said, it can be done but it is really hard to have a balanced team with so much tied to one player. Of course, much of this is a recent thing as QB salaries have sky rocketed the last few years.

 

Rodgers won during an uncapped year, so the ramifications of his contract are almost meaningless. The average annual value was just under $11m, but I'm not sure what it was in 2010. Either way, that's below what guys like Brady and Eli Manning had just signed for, about $18m/year. And it's about what Matt Cassel got from the Chiefs.

 

The Ravens didn't have a fire sale, they let players walk in free agency. And it wasn't really about Flacco's contract; he has a minimal cap hit in 2013, and a marginal cap hit (for a highly paid quarterback, that is) in 2014 and 2015. They let guys walk because they didn't think they were worth the money, and in most cases, I think they were right. They've drafted well, and they still don't totally eschew free agency, signing guys like Dumervil, Spears, Huff, Canty, etc. The only meaningful contracts they actually terminated were Ray Lewis, Pollard and Boldin (and Boldin was a decent trade, so...) The Ravens are fine, cap wise, and I'm not sure they don't have a better roster now than they did last year. We'll see. But they're not even feeling the impact of Flacco's contract yet. His cap hit in 2013 is actually lower than it was in 2012.

 

I know Polian drafted poorly and did not spend in FA. His philiopshy was pretty successful so he stuck with it and had some misses. Like anything, a relationship gets stale and it was probably time for him to go. Same with Reid in Philly.

 

Again, my problem isn't with Polian's philosophy. I've defended it many times on this very board. My problem is with how rigidly he stuck to his philosophy after it started yielding lesser results. Like I said, you have to use free agency to make up for your draft mistakes. Polian's team building and maintenance were lacking.

 

I also think the relationship between Polian and Irsay started to get stale. There were reports of internal strife related to Chris Polian, and Bill was never the coziest of guys anyways. I don't think they necessarily had issues, but Polian's personality started to overwhelm the facility, and I think Irsay mostly just wanted his team back. It's similar to what happened with Mike Shanahan and Pat Bowlen in Denver. No ill will, no hard feelings, much love and respect between the two, but it was time to move on. And I believe the state of the roster made that very clear at the time.

[Le Neon]

I cant belive what i started when posted this topic, things just take on a life of their own 

 

Don't be modest.  Many of this forums most interesting threads have your fingerprints all over them.

[Le Neon]

And FWIW

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/22247858/jets-veteran-quarterback-garrard-plans-to-retire

 

Literally never played another down.  

[amfootball]

But when you let a nice linebacker walk, or a even a top ten receiver, it's not as impactful as losing your starting quarterback. That's one of the sacrifices that comes along with the salary cap, and it's probably something you're going to deal with whether you have a highly paid quarterback or not.

 

It's definitely harder when you have one player taking up 16% of the cap, but it's not impossible. It's very possible.

 

 

Rodgers won during an uncapped year, so the ramifications of his contract are almost meaningless. The average annual value was just under $11m, but I'm not sure what it was in 2010. Either way, that's below what guys like Brady and Eli Manning had just signed for, about $18m/year. And it's about what Matt Cassel got from the Chiefs.

 

The Ravens didn't have a fire sale, they let players walk in free agency. And it wasn't really about Flacco's contract; he has a minimal cap hit in 2013, and a marginal cap hit (for a highly paid quarterback, that is) in 2014 and 2015. They let guys walk because they didn't think they were worth the money, and in most cases, I think they were right. They've drafted well, and they still don't totally eschew free agency, signing guys like Dumervil, Spears, Huff, Canty, etc. The only meaningful contracts they actually terminated were Ray Lewis, Pollard and Boldin (and Boldin was a decent trade, so...) The Ravens are fine, cap wise, and I'm not sure they don't have a better roster now than they did last year. We'll see. But they're not even feeling the impact of Flacco's contract yet. His cap hit in 2013 is actually lower than it was in 2012.

 

 

Again, my problem isn't with Polian's philosophy. I've defended it many times on this very board. My problem is with how rigidly he stuck to his philosophy after it started yielding lesser results. Like I said, you have to use free agency to make up for your draft mistakes. Polian's team building and maintenance were lacking.

 

I also think the relationship between Polian and Irsay started to get stale. There were reports of internal strife related to Chris Polian, and Bill was never the coziest of guys anyways. I don't think they necessarily had issues, but Polian's personality started to overwhelm the facility, and I think Irsay mostly just wanted his team back. It's similar to what happened with Mike Shanahan and Pat Bowlen in Denver. No ill will, no hard feelings, much love and respect between the two, but it was time to move on. And I believe the state of the roster made that very clear at the time.

I don't disagree at all about paying the elite QBs. I just think the money has gotten so out of whack that teams with an elte guy will struggle to beat other teams that will be more complete. The goal is to win the SBs and the teams with the elite QBs getting paid top dollar are not winning. We will see if that changes in the coming seasons when the salaries will only go up.

 

Yes, Rodgers won making significantly less than Brady, Manning, etc. Right now his team is being rebuilt WITH his salary on the books not to mention Clay Matthews. We shall see what type of team they can realistically field but their FO has not drafted well lately so he is already under the bus IMO.

 

Not sure about the Ravens. I don't think they wanted to get rid of Boldin for a sixth round pick. They did not want to pay. One could argue that he was the MVP of the playoffs. Same with Ellerby. Reed they probably wanted to move on from because of his age, injuries and salary demands. It will be tough for them I think without Lewis and Reed who were the cornerstones but I suppose all hinges all if you think Flacco is one of the very elite. His numbers say he is not. He is middle of the pack at best. But his post-seasons say otherwise. For sure it will be his team along with Rice. I don't think they make the playoffs. Their division is just too tough.

[bayone]

Don't be modest.  Many of this forums most interesting threads have your fingerprints all over them.

 

 

appreciate that

[ColtsBlueFL]

Clam down man. This isn't life or death just a discussion. At least on my end anyways., No, I hadn't seen that on either player as I have not read through all the previous posts. Gerrard is currently with the Jets trying to get the starting job from Sanchez/Smith.

 

How is that scenario working out?  His knees wouldn't let him go last or this year.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/05/2984305/miami-dolphins-release-quarterback.html

 

 

His lower back the year before those two, as stated.  

 

If you want to define tanking as Bill Polian not finding or signing any QB out there late in TC that could be any inkling (a win or two) better than Painter/Orlovsky (ludicrous in any event, you sign QB's that significantly better, not marginally) or that the HC and OC did not fully draw up a new O playbook designed to the strengths of the QB's on the team not named Peyton Manning, then that is the small island of dry ground you get to make your stand on. Be aware, everywhere else, you are surrounded by shark and alligator infested waters.

 

No player will accept being on tape as giving up or not putting out full effort. He knows his chance of making a squad with any team nearly vanishes if it shown that the player(s) is (are) a quitter(s).

[-JJ-]

How is that scenario working out?  His knees wouldn't let him go last or this year.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/05/2984305/miami-dolphins-release-quarterback.html

 

 

His lower back the year before those two, as stated.  

 

If you want to define tanking as Bill Polian not finding or signing any QB out there late in TC that could be any inkling (a win or two) better than Painter/Orlovsky (ludicrous in any event, you sign QB's that significantly better, not marginally) or that the HC and OC did not fully draw up a new O playbook designed to the strengths of the QB's on the team not named Peyton Manning, then that is the small island of dry ground you get to make your stand on. Be aware, everywhere else, you are surrounded by shark and alligator infested waters.

 

No player will accept being on tape as giving up or not putting out full effort. He knows his chance of making a squad with any team nearly vanishes if it shown that the player(s) is (are) a quitter(s).

 

However that small dry sand is enough to keep her/him going.  Unless a tidal wave comes:)

[BleedingBlue]

"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."

 

c'mon superman. We let Jim Caldwell Coach. Isn't that proof enough??? 

 

;)

[Nadine]

aiyiyi, this topic continues to live. So, I searched the web and found that this question has been answered
 
 

If the NFL found that teams were intentionally losing games as a means for earning the #1 pick, would they, being the NFL, reprimand the team? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111019135651AAP9Z4t

 

 

and the correct answer is below, which I agree with

 

 

I think the FBI would be involved as well this is fixing a game.Remember betting ongames is legal in Vegas.

I think the NFL might take away a whole draft year from that team.Maybe even force the sale of the franchise.Who ever was involved I am sure would never be part of the NFL again.This would not be a Goodell power trip.The league as a whole would demand a high penalty

 

 

[Superman]

I don't disagree at all about paying the elite QBs. I just think the money has gotten so out of whack that teams with an elte guy will struggle to beat other teams that will be more complete. The goal is to win the SBs and the teams with the elite QBs getting paid top dollar are not winning. We will see if that changes in the coming seasons when the salaries will only go up.

 

Meh; you don't win every year. I don't necessarily think that's a function of how much the quarterback is being paid. Also, the Giants won two years ago with Eli Manning making a lot (his cap hit that year was only $13.6m, but that's just accounting). It's not impossible, and it's just the cost of doing business. You wan't a top level quarterback, you're going to have to pay for him.

 

Yes, Rodgers won making significantly less than Brady, Manning, etc. Right now his team is being rebuilt WITH his salary on the books not to mention Clay Matthews. We shall see what type of team they can realistically field but their FO has not drafted well lately so he is already under the bus IMO.

 

 

The Packers will be fine. They have a lot of cap flexibility even with the Mathews and Rodgers contracts. They have about $15m in cap space right now, pending some draft pick signings. I agree that their drafting has been questionable for the past three years or so, but that's the challenge. They are sticking very rigidly to their draft-centric approach, but if the drafting starts leaving holes in the roster, the team will suffer. Still, that's not a function of Rodgers' contract. They've always been a build through the draft front office.

Not sure about the Ravens. I don't think they wanted to get rid of Boldin for a sixth round pick. They did not want to pay. One could argue that he was the MVP of the playoffs. Same with Ellerby. Reed they probably wanted to move on from because of his age, injuries and salary demands. It will be tough for them I think without Lewis and Reed who were the cornerstones but I suppose all hinges all if you think Flacco is one of the very elite. His numbers say he is not. He is middle of the pack at best. But his post-seasons say otherwise. For sure it will be his team along with Rice. I don't think they make the playoffs. Their division is just too tough.

 

 

 

I included Boldin as one they got rid of because of money, but that happens every year. And as well as he played in the playoffs, they determined that they didn't think he was worth the money he wanted going forward. They let other guys walk because their contract demands were exorbitant, like Ellerbe, who is NOT worth $35m. And that's also just the cost of doing business; sometimes you lose good players to free agency. That's a function of the salary cap, and you have to make those decisions whether or not you have a highly paid quarterback. Even with Brady restructuring, the Patriots still made business decisions with Welker and Lloyd. The Colts let their #2 receiver walk. It happens.

 

I don't think Flacco is elite, and it's ridiculous that they made him the highest paid player in the league. He just doesn't have the resume. But they'll be okay without Reed and Lewis, players that are getting older and have been more emotional leaders the past couple years. Their defensive front is better, that's for sure. And if Flacco and Caldwell can keep the offense going like it was in the playoffs, that will be a big step forward.

[-JJ-]

aiyiyi, this topic continues to live. So, I searched the web and found that this question has been answered

 

 

If the NFL found that teams were intentionally losing games as a means for earning the #1 pick, would they, being the NFL, reprimand the team? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111019135651AAP9Z4t

 

 

and the correct answer is below, which I agree with

 

And therein lies the tidal wave that washes AM off his/her small sand.     (just teasin' ya AM)

 

But yeah..it's serious business to tank and much more than losing one draft pick.

[SilentHill]

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.

 

[amfootball]

aiyiyi, this topic continues to live. So, I searched the web and found that this question has been answered

 

 

If the NFL found that teams were intentionally losing games as a means for earning the #1 pick, would they, being the NFL, reprimand the team? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111019135651AAP9Z4t

 

 

and the correct answer is below, which I agree with

No doubt the penalty would be severe but as I said very tough to prove. Short of a FO admitting to tanking or a player saying he was told to throw the game, it would be impossible. Yet, it happens every season. Goodell has divisional games at the end of the season now to try to prevent what happened when the Colts rested their starters in 2009 allowing the Jets to get into the playoffs. It is what it is.

[MAC]

aiyiyi, this topic continues to live. So, I searched the web and found that this question has been answered

 

 

If the NFL found that teams were intentionally losing games as a means for earning the #1 pick, would they, being the NFL, reprimand the team? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111019135651AAP9Z4t

 

 

and the correct answer is below, which I agree with

Exactly Nadine. And the seriousness you suggest is largely why I get my back up when people so casually insist that the Colts did so.

 

It's like violating "The Prime Directive" in Star Trek. It's not OK, there is nothing casual about it, the Colts DIDN'T do it, and accusing them of such is simply slanderous.

 

I was going to include an absurdest comparison to a Brady assumption here, but I don't want to set people off. Suffice it to say that No, the Colts did NOT violate the key tenet (not to mention federal law) that forms the foundation of all professional sports down through recorded history. Every player and coach did the best they could all season long. Some of those games - in particular the last few - were as exiting and inspiring as any great effort in a playoff season. They were all fighting for their jobs, they weren't good enough, and most of them lost their jobs as a result. There is a world of difference between fans hoping that the team loses (as I frankly did in 97) and a team "trying to lose". That's just a conspiracy theory that makes no sense. Were dozens of people all bribed by Irsay the master criminal? I just don't get it.

[amfootball]

Exactly Nadine. And the seriousness you suggest is largely why I get my back up when people so casually insist that the Colts did so.

 

It's like violating "The Prime Directive" in Star Trek. It's not OK, there is nothing casual about it, the Colts DIDN'T do it, and accusing them of such is simply slanderous.

 

I was going to include an absurdest comparison to a Brady assumption here, but I don't want to set people off. Suffice it to say that No, the Colts did NOT violate the key tenet (not to mention federal law) that forms the foundation of all professional sports down through recorded history. Every player and coach did the best they could all season long. Some of those games - in particular the last few - were as exiting and inspiring as any great effort in a playoff season. They were all fighting for their jobs, they weren't good enough, and most of them lost their jobs as a result. There is a world of difference between fans hoping that the team loses (as I frankly did in 97) and a team "trying to lose". That's just a conspiracy theory that makes no sense. Were dozens of people all bribed by Irsay the master criminal? I just don't get it.

Honest question for you, how did you feel about what the Colts did in 2009? Resting all their starters the last two games letting the Jets get into the playoffs as a result?

[Dustin]

Criminal Mastermind:

 

[MAC]

No doubt the penalty would be severe but as I said very tough to prove. Short of a FO admitting to tanking or a player saying he was told to throw the game, it would be impossible. Yet, it happens every season. Goodell has divisional games at the end of the season now to try to prevent what happened when the Colts rested their starters in 2009 allowing the Jets to get into the playoffs. It is what it is.

Are you saying that you think that front offices "tank" and players "throw games" every year? That's nonsense, and slanderous. Once again you are reading the words but completely ignoring the message. 

 

The Colts didn't rest their starters to "try to lose". What exactly would the benefit be for doing so? They rested their starters to prepare for the playoffs. The backups in those circumstances all view it as the chance of a lifetime to prove their worth, and they do everything possible to win. The intentions are announced ahead of time and the gamblers build the expectation into their points spread. The league may not like it because of television ratings (and the side effect of other playoff challenging teams stumbling into an easy game) but there's nothing morally wrong with it. It's a perfectly logical step to take. I'm all in favor of the league changing the schedules because as a fan I'd prefer to have 16 games to watch rather than 14, but I've always fully supported the Colts decision to rest people - even in 2009.

 

Did you know that in soccer they have simultaneous competitions going on - league games and knockout tournaments? The tournaments superficially appear to be among the most prestigious events in the world, but it's common for top teams to put reserves in for some of those games because they don't want to deplete the team and risk losing standings in the league - which is the more important prize. It's not unethical, nor is it cheating, it's focusing on trying to win the championship, just like the Colts resting starters was an effort to try and win the Super Bowl. HUGE difference which you insist on ignoring.

[MAC]

Honest question for you, how did you feel about what the Colts did in 2009? Resting all their starters the last two games letting the Jets get into the playoffs as a result?

You asked this while I was typing and I partially answered it. The full answer........

 

I was somewhat disappointed because I liked the fantasy of going undefeated, but I never had a problem the team resting starters - that or any other year. My disappointment from that season is the second half of the Super Bowl. The Jets game is an utterly trivial aside ONLY brought up repeatedly by those who felt betrayed (absurd) or morally offended (even more absurd).

 

My take on the resting starters business has always been this: football is unique in only having 16 games. Every minute of every game is a brutal battle requiring the participants to sacrifice physically in an effort to win. That's a big part of why it's so much fun to watch. I don't watch 162 baseball games, I just catch them when it's convenient. I barely watched basketball or hockey until the playoffs. The regular season is a boring mess. But football, literally every second is precious. What goes hand in hand with that however is that either you "need to win the game" in which case you get Ray Lewis like pep talks, players jumping up and down slapping each other, and then brutal mayhem for 60 minutes, or you "don't need to win the game", in which case it is essentially a pointless exhibition. It is simply impossible to replicate "what you bring" in a game that matters to a game that doesn't matter at all. I'm about as interested in watching games like that as I am in watching the preseason (which I barely watch at all).

 

So I was always on board with the idea of resting starters for the playoffs. Now if my team took a different tact - so be it. I'd be on board with that as well. I'm just a fan. But the idea of feeling offended or betrayed by 2009 is simply moronic. The Colts had been doing the same thing for years. Why? Because in 1999 the Colts had an excellent team that had a chance at the Super Bowl. Cornelius Bennett was injured in one of those meaningless games, and the Colts then lost a close game in the playoffs to the Titans. The deciding play was something like a 65 yard run by Eddie George - right through where Bennett would have been playing. The Titans then literally came within inches of winning the Super Bowl. So Polian became a fan of resting starters. Makes sense to me.

 

In 2009 the Colts were so far ahead so early that Polian was responding to interviewers by talking about resting starters before Thanksgiving. There were no surprises. We also knew about the pending blizzard in Buffalo, meaning that winning that game would have only put more pressure on the team to gamble their key players health in brutal weather the following week. That is the LAST thing I would have wanted. (They stayed on the field way too long that day as it was. I perish the thought of them keeping Peyton in for the whole thing.) On the day of the Jets game a chunk of the defense in particular didn't even dress. Others didn't start. I can only assume that the people who over-react to this were oblivious to the details. I've heard people talk about spending a fortune for tickets, or getting tickets as gifts. They had expectations, and they apparently had no idea that this was "just another game 15, with the offense playing about 1/2 a game" until the moment Peyton was pulled. Personally I'm only astonished that they stayed in for part of the third quarter. It was pretty obvious that there was some serious lobbying going on on the sidelines, and the offense was allowed to stay in until they got the lead back. The point being that the Colts "wanted" to win, and bent their own rules a bit in the process. They knew that the reserve offense would be useless against the Jets, so they got the lead back and tried to see if they could hang on. Only a Painter disaster (a sad portent of things to come) made the plan fail.

 

But to be morally offended or betrayed, you'd have to be oblivious to the reality that I've detailed above. No-one can betray you when they did exactly what they said they would do - for sound reasons that are in your own best interest. And there is nothing remotely immoral about focusing all of your efforts on winning the championship. That's your reason for playing in first place. THAT'S what they "owed" the fans - doing everything humanly possible to win the Super Bowl - not risking blowing the season in an effort to get a record. Are fans egos that fragile? Let Miami pound their chests, who the heck cares. The only thing that eats at me about Miami is that they stole Don Shula from the Colts in the first place. I could NOT care LESS that they went undefeated one year, and don't consider mimicking that accomplishment to be the be all and end all. Would going undefeated mean that that Colts teams would be the greatest football team ever? It wasn't even the greatest COLTS team of the SECOND half of the DECADE - regardless of the record. I don't consider the Dolphins the best team ever, it's just an anomaly of circumstance, luck, schedule, etc. An excellent team where everything happened to come together for them. Big whoop. Much ado about absolutely nothing.

[JoKeR]

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.....

Not really, because if he had to actually write all steps it would take to get it done, it would be laughable to believe that could pull a cover up of that scope.

[JoKeR]

No doubt the penalty would be severe but as I said very tough to prove. Short of a FO admitting to tanking or a player saying he was told to throw the game, it would be impossible. Yet, it happens every season. Goodell has divisional games at the end of the season now to try to prevent what happened when the Colts rested their starters in 2009 allowing the Jets to get into the playoffs. It is what it is.

That's not tanking, that's called resting starters to, you know, rest players because they tend to get injured when they're wore out. They don't do this to intentionally lose, that would be nonsensical.

[House]

Not really, because if he had to actually write all steps it would take to get it done, it would be laughable to believe that could pull a cover up of that scope.

The reality of the situation is how you describe it, but the course the discussion keeps following the "prove it, no you prove it" method lol.

[buccolts]

I didn't read this entire thread, so excuse me if this has already been brought up, but........

You'd think a Denver writer's only idea of how to get a franchise QB is to wait for the Colts to draft him, then wait 'til he's available.

?

[ColtsBlueFL]

I didn't read this entire thread, so excuse me if this has already been brought up, but........

You'd think a Denver writer's only idea of how to get a franchise QB is to wait for the Colts to draft him, then wait 'til he's available.

?

 

Sooner... or later...

[amfootball]

You asked this while I was typing and I partially answered it. The full answer........

 

I was somewhat disappointed because I liked the fantasy of going undefeated, but I never had a problem the team resting starters - that or any other year. My disappointment from that season is the second half of the Super Bowl. The Jets game is an utterly trivial aside ONLY brought up repeatedly by those who felt betrayed (absurd) or morally offended (even more absurd).

 

My take on the resting starters business has always been this: football is unique in only having 16 games. Every minute of every game is a brutal battle requiring the participants to sacrifice physically in an effort to win. That's a big part of why it's so much fun to watch. I don't watch 162 baseball games, I just catch them when it's convenient. I barely watched basketball or hockey until the playoffs. The regular season is a boring mess. But football, literally every second is precious. What goes hand in hand with that however is that either you "need to win the game" in which case you get Ray Lewis like pep talks, players jumping up and down slapping each other, and then brutal mayhem for 60 minutes, or you "don't need to win the game", in which case it is essentially a pointless exhibition. It is simply impossible to replicate "what you bring" in a game that matters to a game that doesn't matter at all. I'm about as interested in watching games like that as I am in watching the preseason (which I barely watch at all).

 

So I was always on board with the idea of resting starters for the playoffs. Now if my team took a different tact - so be it. I'd be on board with that as well. I'm just a fan. But the idea of feeling offended or betrayed by 2009 is simply moronic. The Colts had been doing the same thing for years. Why? Because in 1999 the Colts had an excellent team that had a chance at the Super Bowl. Cornelius Bennett was injured in one of those meaningless games, and the Colts then lost a close game in the playoffs to the Titans. The deciding play was something like a 65 yard run by Eddie George - right through where Bennett would have been playing. The Titans then literally came within inches of winning the Super Bowl. So Polian became a fan of resting starters. Makes sense to me.

 

In 2009 the Colts were so far ahead so early that Polian was responding to interviewers by talking about resting starters before Thanksgiving. There were no surprises. We also knew about the pending blizzard in Buffalo, meaning that winning that game would have only put more pressure on the team to gamble their key players health in brutal weather the following week. That is the LAST thing I would have wanted. (They stayed on the field way too long that day as it was. I perish the thought of them keeping Peyton in for the whole thing.) On the day of the Jets game a chunk of the defense in particular didn't even dress. Others didn't start. I can only assume that the people who over-react to this were oblivious to the details. I've heard people talk about spending a fortune for tickets, or getting tickets as gifts. They had expectations, and they apparently had no idea that this was "just another game 15, with the offense playing about 1/2 a game" until the moment Peyton was pulled. Personally I'm only astonished that they stayed in for part of the third quarter. It was pretty obvious that there was some serious lobbying going on on the sidelines, and the offense was allowed to stay in until they got the lead back. The point being that the Colts "wanted" to win, and bent their own rules a bit in the process. They knew that the reserve offense would be useless against the Jets, so they got the lead back and tried to see if they could hang on. Only a Painter disaster (a sad portent of things to come) made the plan fail.

 

But to be morally offended or betrayed, you'd have to be oblivious to the reality that I've detailed above. No-one can betray you when they did exactly what they said they would do - for sound reasons that are in your own best interest. And there is nothing remotely immoral about focusing all of your efforts on winning the championship. That's your reason for playing in first place. THAT'S what they "owed" the fans - doing everything humanly possible to win the Super Bowl - not risking blowing the season in an effort to get a record. Are fans egos that fragile? Let Miami pound their chests, who the heck cares. The only thing that eats at me about Miami is that they stole Don Shula from the Colts in the first place. I could NOT care LESS that they went undefeated one year, and don't consider mimicking that accomplishment to be the be all and end all. Would going undefeated mean that that Colts teams would be the greatest football team ever? It wasn't even the greatest COLTS team of the SECOND half of the DECADE - regardless of the record. I don't consider the Dolphins the best team ever, it's just an anomaly of circumstance, luck, schedule, etc. An excellent team where everything happened to come together for them. Big whoop. Much ado about absolutely nothing.

Thank you for your elaborate response. I get that the tanking issue is a sore spot but if you read my posts, I am not saying it to disparage the Colts, on the contrary, I think they were smart and savvy to tank. I have no issue with the tanking for the same reasons you have no issue with the resting of starters. You see the resting of starters as a sacrifice for a bigger cause - winning the SB that season. As you say, football is 16 games and every minute counts and injuries can happen on any play.

 

In looking at 2011, I see the Colts FO sacrificing a season that was lost anyways when Manning had his neck fused so they could gain a franchise QB for the next 10-15 years. Once Collins proved to be the bust that most thought he would be outside of Indy anyways, I think the writing was on the wall once Painter was inserted. I don't see this as an integrity violation as the rules of football state that the worst place team gets the number one draft pick. Why not go for it? I am sure the teams that beat the Colts had no issue with them tanking. It actually helped them. The same way the Colts resting their starters at the end of 2009 helped the Jets get in the playoffs.

[amfootball]

That's not tanking, that's called resting starters to, you know, rest players because they tend to get injured when they're wore out. They don't do this to intentionally lose, that would be nonsensical.

So by not putting your best players on the field, you are trying to win?

[southwest1]

yes, not ever OC or DC makes a good HC . . . it is just a different dynamic at the HC, not to say that it more complicated, just different . . . glad to see that Coach Caldwell won a SB with Baltimore . . . good for him . . .

 

I will point out though that we as fans, or even "experts" and ex-coaches on the tube sometimes will question the coaches decision and we are not always correct . . . one mans non adjustment is another mans poison (who made an adjustment), similarly one mans adjustment is another man poison (who did not adjust) . . .  unless there is clear error I don't always question a coach . . . more often than not it comes down to the execution of the players and if they execute, the coach looks like a genius if they do not, then he looks stupid . . . and more often than not I can't come up with a decision contrary to my coach or other coaches . . .

 

Even with Caldwell's Timeout decision there was a plus side . . . surely one can sit back and do nothing and watch your opponent's FG kicker make a FG attempt and if he makes it your season is over, so the fate of your season rest in the opponent's kicker, as kicks are tough to block . . . calling the Timeout gave your team a chance to make another play, had Freeney got Sanchez as he almost did, or the WR got a OPI call which almost happen, the Jets are back 10 yards and it is a whole new ball and almost over in Indy's favor . . . surely those things do not happened ever play, but given that the Jets were content to sit and make a FG attempt, forcing them to make another play is not out of the question given that they displayed a lack of confidence to make the play on their on volition . . . sometimes the opponent make a play and it looks worst . . . but I would venture had the Jets thought they could make a play they would have ran another play as opposed to setting for a FG attempt

 

The same can be said about BB, he praised for taking a safety instead of a punt against Denver in 03 or 04, to make a long story trailing by 1 he game them the 2 point safety for a free kick at the 20 which he thought was the better option, Denver did not execute and made a few bonehead plays and we end up scoring a TD winning by 4 . . . it could have also ended with us getting the ball back only manage a FG, thereby tying it down by 3 as opposed to winning it down by 1, had we then lost in OT, those 2 free points in exchange for a free kick have a different flavor to them  . . .   without getting into the story again, but 4 and 2 had an upside, and although unorthodox it had the percentages (IMO) in its favor  . . . 

 

I just point out these three plays our as many feel are solidly bad or good calls, but even these calls when looked at from a distance away from the plus or minus shock have an upside . . .and likewise I would venture that the day to day decisions which are less obvious are closer on the good bad gap . . .  

 

Coach Caldwell is not going to the HOF anytime soon and is a better OC than HC I would think, and yes he inherited a Cadillac from Coach Dungy . . . but at the same time he did not get in the teams way to a great degree . . . its not like they went 10-6 in 09 and then 7-9 in 2010 . . . my two cents . . .

 

 

I can't figure you guys out. Here I am, a fan of your biggest rival and I think your FO and team are better than you want to give them credit for. It is crazy to call a 10 win team bad given the injuries as you noted. There was enough there to win the division. That is a credit first and foremost to the FO and the coaching then to Manning and the team. Most teams that suffer that many injuries only win a handful of games.

 

The Pats have swung and missed a lot the last several years as well and the team has suffered probably causing them a couple of rings but at some point you have to be realistic and understand that it is hard to put together a competitive team year after year. It just is. The winning the Colts have done surpasses everyone other than the Pats and that is in the post-season only.

 

And by the way, this exact point that I am making is why I put the Pats and Brady as the greatest franchise of all time. It is just so hard to win in the cap/FA era for as long as they have. Credit to the Colts for knowing when to change a winning hand and move forward with Luck/Pagano/Grigson. 2011 is hardly a season to cry about when you are back in contention for years to come...

 

 

I try not to be too critical of play calling decisions and spur of the moment decisions, because the coaches making those decisions have infinitely more information than I do. But there are some things that I just think are cardinal sins of coaching, and misuse of timeouts, frivolous challenges, empty backfield on third or fourth down, and overly conservative decision making on fourth down are among them. 

 

When it comes to an overall gameplan or use of a scheme, I think it's easier to be critical. There are good offensive gameplans, and there are bad offensive gameplans. I'm not going to spend a lot of time criticizing a particular pass play on third and 5, but I will criticize the trends that develop over the course of a game or a season. I will criticize a stretch of ineffective play calling. At a certain point, the proof is in the pudding. And coaches get judged on results.

 

Specific to Caldwell, I'm not all that worried about the timeouts (there was one in the Jags game, and the one in the Jets playoff game). Those decisions didn't really make or break the game, in my opinion. I didn't like them, but the bigger problem was the play leading up to those timeouts (the coverage against the Jags, the kickoff coverage against the Jets, etc.) But those decisions don't exist in a vacuum. It's easy to manage the clock well when Peyton Manning is leading a two minute drive. It's a little more difficult when your defense is on skates and you're trying to keep the other team from scoring. 

 

My criticisms of Caldwell exist both on a micro level and a macro level, and all in all, they form a picture of a head coach who wasn't qualified to lead this team, nor was he capable of adjusting course when things were going bad. 

I agree with Yehoodi's, amfootball's, & Superman's bold points. Jim Caldwell is a qualified OC who just won a SB in Baltimore. He is an awful HC though with no ability to make swift changes on the field. Actually, I would criticize the Colts for not firing Jim Caldwell sooner. Yes, he did help the Colts go to the SB in 2009, but even though Superman & I have had our rounds on this one Peyton Manning did say at the start of the 2009 season "There's not a lot of coaching going on right now. I can assure you of that." HC Jim Caldwell was part of the coaching staff was he not? And being the head coaching hancho in INDY the buck stopped with him, Jim Polian aside. Yes, their was plenty of blame to go around for our pathetic 2011 season, except I don't give Jim a pass just because Tony Dungy picked him or offered him his blessing as his successor or simply because Jim is a nice person. The NFL is a results business. Win or get released. Coaches are no exception. 

 

Stay in Baltimore Jim. You'll never make it as a HC. You can't or won't make sideline changes ever & by the time you pull the trigger & make a change the season is effectively over. 

[southwest1]

Criminal Mastermind:

 

More like Mr. Magoo IMO...Right place; right time in both INDY & Baltimore. Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than good IMO. 

[Superman]

I agree with Yehoodi's, amfootball's, & Superman's bold points. Jim Caldwell is a qualified OC who just won a SB in Baltimore. He is an awful HC though with no ability to make swift changes on the field. Actually, I would criticize the Colts for not firing Jim Caldwell sooner. Yes, he did help the Colts go to the SB in 2009, but even though Superman & I have had our rounds on this one Peyton Manning did say at the start of the 2009 season "There's not a lot of coaching going on right now. I can assure you of that." HC Jim Caldwell was part of the coaching staff was he not? And being the head coaching hancho in INDY the buck stopped with him, Jim Polian aside. Yes, their was plenty of blame to go around for our pathetic 2011 season, except I don't give Jim a pass just because Tony Dungy picked him or offered him his blessing as his successor or simply because Jim is a nice person. The NFL is a results business. Win or get released. Coaches are no exception. 

 

Stay in Baltimore Jim. You'll never make it as a HC. You can't or won't make sideline changes ever & by the time you pull the trigger & make a change the season is effectively over. 

 

When Peyton made that comment, it was specifically in reference to Tom Moore and Howard Mudd. They were around as consultants, but had been forced into retirement because of the NFL's pension rules. The league was in the process of fixing whatever rule it was that required them to retire or lose their pension, and as such, they couldn't be on the actual staff at the time. This is when Pete Metzelaars and Clyde Christensen were promoted to take their places. Manning was being asked how he felt about the forced transition, and he was basically saying that while Moore and Mudd were around, they weren't allowed to be very involved. That's when he said "there's not a lot of coaching going on." In other words, 'these guys can't do their jobs effectively because of this stupid rule.' 

 

I agree that the Caldwell situation could have been handled better. The Colts and the Seahawks proved definitively that appointing a successor coach isn't a good way to choose the leader of your team. (The Seahawks appointed Jim Mora Jr. to succeed Mike Holmgren that same year. He only lasted one season.) There's a lot to be said for continuity and all that, but you want to do your level best to find the best candidate whenever you have to make such a big decision.

 

I'm optimistic when it comes to Caldwell's future prospects. I mentioned earlier in this thread that his biggest deficiency is his inability to adjust during games, to manage the game, etc. No better way to get experience at that than being a coordinator. He's going to have to make adjustments on a regular basis, during the game, while developing game plans, etc. He did a really good job making adjustments in the second half of the AFCCG against the Patriots this year. That's a big step for him. Game management will be another. He'll never be a top notch motivator, will never make people want to run through a wall for him (something you either have or you don't, and Jim just ain't got it). But he knows football, and he's getting some valuable reps as a coordinator right now. Maybe this is his niche, and he should just ride it out. But if he ever wants to be a head coach again, I think he was going to have to land in a coordinator position first. Here you go. Make the most of it.

[southwest1]

When Peyton made that comment, it was specifically in reference to Tom Moore and Howard Mudd. They were around as consultants, but had been forced into retirement because of the NFL's pension rules. The league was in the process of fixing whatever rule it was that required them to retire or lose their pension, and as such, they couldn't be on the actual staff at the time. This is when Pete Metzelaars and Clyde Christensen were promoted to take their places. Manning was being asked how he felt about the forced transition, and he was basically saying that while Moore and Mudd were around, they weren't allowed to be very involved. That's when he said "there's not a lot of coaching going on." In other words, 'these guys can't do their jobs effectively because of this stupid rule.' 

 

I agree that the Caldwell situation could have been handled better. The Colts and the Seahawks proved definitively that appointing a successor coach isn't a good way to choose the leader of your team. (The Seahawks appointed Jim Mora Jr. to succeed Mike Holmgren that same year. He only lasted one season.) There's a lot to be said for continuity and all that, but you want to do your level best to find the best candidate whenever you have to make such a big decision.

 

I'm optimistic when it comes to Caldwell's future prospects. I mentioned earlier in this thread that his biggest deficiency is his inability to adjust during games, to manage the game, etc. No better way to get experience at that than being a coordinator. He's going to have to make adjustments on a regular basis, during the game, while developing game plans, etc. He did a really good job making adjustments in the second half of the AFCCG against the Patriots this year. That's a big step for him. Game management will be another. He'll never be a top notch motivator, will never make people want to run through a wall for him (something you either have or you don't, and Jim just ain't got it). But he knows football, and he's getting some valuable reps as a coordinator right now. Maybe this is his niche, and he should just ride it out. But if he ever wants to be a head coach again, I think he was going to have to land in a coordinator position first. Here you go. Make the most of it.

Okay, it wouldn't be the 1st time I misinterpreted an athlete's statement & I'm sure it won't be the last either. My initial reaction to Manning's statement was that the Caldwell coaching regime was unorganized & still getting their feet wet in their new positions. Peyton expects precision & he won't tolerate inefficiency or substandard instruction, work ethic, or playing. Also, when NFL Network host Rich Einsen spoke at length about the nature of his comments Moore or Mudd's names were never even mentioned & I remember that interaction between Rich & Peyton well. 

 

I agree 100% the next in line doesn't always mean the best in line. Funny that you mention Jim Mora Jr. who I thought wasn't given much of a chance to redeem his regular season record after Mike Holmgren retired. Jim won all his preseason Seattle games that year & Jim did have Playoff success in Atlanta under QB Michael Vick. I would have given Mora a longer head coaching leash in the Pacific NW actually, but that's just me.

 

I will acknowledge that Jim Caldwell exceeded my expectations as OC in Baltimore & that I was wrong about his ability to generate offense in Baltimore when Cam Cameron couldn't with the exact same pieces/players. I was glad to see him win a SB after getting the boot in INDY. I had nothing against Jim personally. Can people evolve, adapt, & improve? Sure. Heck, Pete Carol did in Seattle after a brief tenure as HC in New England that got him fired in Foxboro initially so why not Jim Caldwell could be a changed, new & improved coach too right? I need to see that first before I believe it though. Don't worry. I will be fair & objective to Jim or I will make a deliberate effort to give Jim a fair shake if a team hires him to run their franchise on the field anyway. I like what you said about the OC position possibly being his niche though. Not every coordinator is cut out to run an NFL franchise though & there's no shame in that either. A person can still make a good living as a coordinator on a playoff winning team.

 

Nice chatting with you as always Superman.   

[southwest1]

You know Superman. Our recent interaction about head coaching capabilities always makes me wonder what really convinces a popular candidate to pull the trigger & take an NFL coaching job in this league?

 

There's obvious factors to consider: quality of team ownership, how cheap or cash rich the owner & GM are, what the player roster looks like, the gap/gulf between how many holes a team has & the ability to fill those holes via free agency & the draft, your salary cap wiggle room to land worthy players that can change franchise fortunes quickly, the attitude about the move for your wife & kids & where they want to be, the quality & caliber of locker room leadership, the amount of your starting salary & how soon you are expected to win, the tone, mood, & ambiance of your new fanbase, & the scope & magnitude of coordinators & coaches available on the market for hire right now. 

 

When Bruce Arians took the HC job in AZ I was worried. New coaches seem to struggle there. Yes, Ken Wisenhunt took the Cardinals too the SB under HOF QB Kurt Warner vs the Steelers, but Carson Palmer isn't Kurt Warner either. I want Bruce to do well, but I have my reservations especially when AZ's OL was almost nonexistent under Russ Grimm. 

[Nadine]

. I get that the tanking issue is a sore spot

 

, I think they were smart and savvy to tank. I have no issue with the tanking.

 

In looking at 2011, I see the Colts FO sacrificing a season that was lost anyways .

 

Not a sore spot because it didn't happen.  

 

You keep restating your admiration for tanking as though it is evidence of some sort.  Just because you admire it, does not make it so

 

I get that you 'see' that the FO sacrificed a season.  

 

Honestly it is looking more and more like a 'sore spot' for you.

 

By your own admission the NFL penalties would be severe and yet..........the NFL has not raised any red flags

 

It is impossible to prove because it did not happen

 

you should just accept our good fortune

[amfootball]

Not a sore spot because it didn't happen.  

 

You keep restating your admiration for tanking as though it is evidence of some sort.  Just because you admire it, does not make it so

 

I get that you 'see' that the FO sacrificed a season.  

 

Honestly it is looking more and more like a 'sore spot' for you.

 

By your own admission the NFL penalties would be severe and yet..........the NFL has not raised any red flags

 

It is impossible to prove because it did not happen

 

you should just accept our good fortune

Lol. Not a sore spot. Why would it be? I have already said numerous times that I am a huge Andrew Luck fan. I do think the Colts FO was smart to tank and that is not some kind of evidence just my opinion. Some have accused me of saying it to disparage the Colts when the opposite is true. Football is about winning and when you have a chance at a guy like Luck, the best QB to come out in decades, it would be foolish to let him slip through your fingers on a season already lost with your current franchise QB on the sidelines with a fused neck at age 35.

 

It is amusing to me that you say there is no evidence yet I hold the majority opinion. As I have said, very difficult to prove tanking in terms of the league penalizing for it but it happens all the time. Look at the Chiefs last year. Laid down like a dog (38-3) in their final game against the Broncos to secure the number one pick from the Jags.

[Dustin]

TIL Any team that has ever gotten the #1 pick has tanked.

[Nadine]

Lol. Not a sore spot. Why would it be? I have already said numerous times that I am a huge Andrew Luck fan. I do think the Colts FO was smart to tank and that is not some kind of evidence just my opinion. Some have accused me of saying it to disparage the Colts when the opposite is true. Football is about winning and when you have a chance at a guy like Luck, the best QB to come out in decades, it would be foolish to let him slip through your fingers on a season already lost with your current franchise QB on the sidelines with a fused neck at age 35.

 

It is amusing to me that you say there is no evidence yet I hold the majority opinion. As I have said, very difficult to prove tanking in terms of the league penalizing for it but it happens all the time. Look at the Chiefs last year. Laid down like a dog (38-3) in their final game against the Broncos to secure the number one pick from the Jags.

 

I don't know that you have a 'majority' opinion.  I think it is amusing that you think that

I think it is a sore spot with you and honestly I think you are more than a little bit obsessed with it

Just my opinion based on your persistence is posting circular arguments in support of your opinion

[chad72]

This thread is still alive?

[amfootball]

I don't know that you have a 'majority' opinion.  I think it is amusing that you think that

I think it is a sore spot with you and honestly I think you are more than a little bit obsessed with it

Just my opinion based on your persistence is posting circular arguments in support of your opinion

Do a google search on Colts tanking 2011 season...

[Nadine]

Do a google search on Colts tanking 2011 season...

 

Ahh, writers posting provocatively is not proof. They do that all the time about all sorts of things and they are wrong all the time.

 

Forum posters speculating is also not proof, that's what forums are for.

 

A google search proves that people were talking about it, and as I've said before, the whole situation and our incredibly good fortune will invite sniping

 

verb (used without object)

 

6.

to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snidecriticism, especially anonymously or from a safe distance.

 

 

And it has

 

Sorry but no cigar