The Integrity Of The Game Is Extremely Important

[mouthofsouth]

I have heard a lot lately from many fronts that the Colts, now hopelessly out of the postseason anyway, should just fold up and lose the rest of their games on purpose so that they can draft first and get a high-ranking college quarterback. Is the organization and are the fans really so desperate to win Super Bowls in the future that they would destroy the integrity of the game in the present?

I remember in 2009 when Caldwell pulled the starting team (going for a perfect season) in the third quarter so that the players could be rested for the playoffs, a move which I and many others considered foul play, and few seemed to approved.

Other teams have done this also. But we applaud the ones that do not. When the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years ago, they did not do it by resting their players in the last regular season game against the Pats, even though they had a playoff spot sewed up. They went out, gave it their all, and almost beat them in that game.A few weeks later, after playing three grueling playoff games, they triumphed over that 18 and 0 team.

I, for one, hope I do not ever see a favorite team of mine play dead again. It is disgusting to watch, from this fan's point of view.

The Colts will get a high draft choice anyway, no doubt. But to purposely lose in order to do so I believe is unsportsmanlike and repugnant.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Edited October 28, 2011 by mouthofsouth

[Jason_]

I would have still voted NO even if the phrase "a shot at Andrew Luck" had been replaced with "the number 1 pick".

Edited October 28, 2011 by Jason

[oldunclemark]

I've said this before..so excuse me .......

..

But throwing games for draft position is EXACTLY the same thing as throwing games for money.

I would hope my team would do neither..

I was surprised there was not an investigation when we threw the 15th game of the 2009 season..

[GoDeep]

Unfortunately, we will have a shot at "the Number 1 pick" whether or not we fold.

I hated "the desicion" but I was fully expecting it, so I didn't freak out as bad as some other members of the forum.

But we won't lay down now. Some guys are playing for contracts (here or otherwise). Some even for HoF consideration. We will not lay down, but we will pick top 3 for sure!

[oldunclemark]

and Jim Caldwell is working for his job..

He's probably gone at 0-16..

Not so likely at 4-12

[Jason_]

I'll try to contain the overwhelming shock I feel after seeing who has the only "yes" vote so far. *sarcasm alert*

[MAC]

"Throwing" games and other similar phrases are offensive, and the entire concept undermines the foundation of competitive sports. . In a word, "No", I don't want the Colts to intentionally lose - EVER. That being said, there is another way of looking at this.

With each loss, preparing for next season becomes more of a priority. It is reasonable for a team to be more interested in "seeing what they have" in younger players than in beating down the vets. There is a reason that Painter is starting and Collins is gone, and I doubt that a concussion has much to do with it. I want to see a ton of Kevin Thomas, Jerry Hughes, Anthony Gonzalez and others. Some players need the reps so they develop, some players the team needs to see more of before making difficult off-season decisions. If in the process they get a higher draft pick than they would otherwise, that's just a side-effect. But whom EVER is on the field should always be doing EVERYTHING they possibly can to win, and I will be rooting for them to win every game regardless.

It's just that preparing to win in the future is the priority when you have no chance of making the playoffs this year. I don't consider that to be unethical, under-performing baseball teams routinely dump high-priced talent in July to start preparing for the following year. I've never heard anyone suggest that they were trying to lose.

[doogansquest]

We didnt throw the game in 2009. We rested our starters. Our back ups went in and tried to play to win. The front office didn't tell them to go in and lay down. The goal wasn't to lose the game: the goal was to preserve the health of the team. To throw the game would be to intentionally avoid tackles, drop passes, fumble exchanges, initiate personal fouls, etc. We did none of those things intentionally.

Edited October 28, 2011 by doogansquest

[GoDeep]

I'll try to contain the overwhelming shock I feel after seeing who has the only "yes" vote so far. *sarcasm alert*

SHOCKING!

:duh:

[Thewholefnshow28]

I voted yes for giggles so the one person would not be alone.

Really I do not want them to tank the season because with the way they have been playing they will not have to try to lose.

Now I will not be upset if we lose each week. Ultimately losing is better for this team in the long term then winning a few games this season so we do not go 0-16.

[oldunclemark]

I voted yes for giggles so the one person would not be alone.

Really I do not want them to tank the season because with the way they have been playing they will not have to try to lose.

Now I will not be upset if we lose each week. Ultimately losing is better for this team in the long term then winning a few games this season so we do not go 0-16.

WE only have to win ONE to not be 0-16..

I dont want to be 0-16...

Losing is NOT NECCESARILY better for the team in the long run...

We are not going to draft a QB No.1 when we have 5 holes to fill on defense...

..There's no real world difference between drafting 2nd and 3rd..

[GoDeep]

We are not going to draft a QB No.1 when we have 5 holes to fill on defense...

We draft for future need A LOT. If we are #1, we take a QB.

[Blue Horseshoe]

WE only have to win ONE to not be 0-16..

I dont want to be 0-16...

Losing is NOT NECCESARILY better for the team in the long run...

We are not going to draft a QB No.1 when we have 5 holes to fill on defense...

..There's no real world difference between drafting 2nd and 3rd..

I do. Nothing would put a better big blue bow on this season Polian has given us than an 0-16, especially after the cowardly disgrace of 14-1

Sometimes it takes a little pain to come to realization that fundamental changes need to be made. 0-16 could not be explained away.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Blue Horseshoe

[Thewholefnshow28]

We draft for future need A LOT. If we are #1, we take a QB.

Are you sure about that? Lets say we get the number one pick and the Dolphins offer us 1st, 2nd, and 4th this year and a 1st, 2nd, and 5th next year. You take the 2nd overall, our 33rd and the 34th and you can turn that defense around real quick. Then we know we will have a nice top 10 pick next year to look at a QB or other position to get more help at defense.

Now if there is any sign of Manning not progressing like we want come draft day then we take Luck no questions asked.

[WSO]

I voted yes but the question was worded differently than I liked

I don't want them to lose purposely but I would be happy to get the top pick. Disregard my avatar

I also want to add I was pro-Luck but the more I watch the game I think addressing our defense would be the main priority. I would rather us trade the pick for a stock pile of picks to help out the defense.

Edited October 28, 2011 by ssarow

[since 1960]

and Jim Caldwell is working for his job..

He's probably gone at 0-16..

Not so likely at 4-12

Who are the 4 teams the Colts are going to beat? I see them winning at the most 2 and I really believe the will go win less.

[rockywoj]

A team should never purposely lose, to do so is utter b . s .

Once a team is out of the playoff race, though, I have no qualms about a team auditioning whatever players they want so that they can evaluate that player's long term viability as a roster answer.

As an example, let's take the Colts secondary. Kevin Thomas was a high round pick and assuming he is healthy, he ought to be thrown in there now as a starter to see if he can emerge as a viable CB alternative. Perhaps the same might be said about tossing in Joe Lafeged at SS. I would say that Jerry Hughes should get a LOT more reps as well, to see what he can bring to the table.

In "auditioning" such prospects, the team might not be fielding the absolute best team that they could right now at this moment, if you are taking a win now perspective, but for the long term good of the team, when the team is realistically eliminated from playoff contention, such in-season evaluations are an acceptable means toward the end of trying to get back to the show next year. Doing this, however, is not purposefully losing. The players in have their jobs on the line and they had better be giving it their all. Same goes for the in game coaching decisions.

Edited October 28, 2011 by rockywoj

[oldunclemark]

Who are the 4 teams the Colts are going to beat? I see them winning at the most 2 and I really believe the will go win less.

But it doesnt matter what you or I think about the final record.

The games have not yet been played..

The point was...that an 0-16 coach is almost certainly gone

..a 4-12 coach without his all-pro QB will be back.,..

[GoDeep]

Are you sure about that? Lets say we get the number one pick and the Dolphins offer us 1st, 2nd, and 4th this year and a 1st, 2nd, and 5th next year. You take the 2nd overall, our 33rd and the 34th and you can turn that defense around real quick. Then we know we will have a nice top 10 pick next year to look at a QB or other position to get more help at defense.

Now if there is any sign of Manning not progressing like we want come draft day then we take Luck no questions asked.

If they give up THAT much, then perhaps we trade down. But I think we are thinking of replacing Manning if the opportunity arrises. What makes you think that the organization shifts gears and ACTUALLY focuses on D.

Watch them trade down and get a WR, TE and OL with those picks!

:hush:

[dn4192]

WE only have to win ONE to not be 0-16..

I dont want to be 0-16...

Losing is NOT NECCESARILY better for the team in the long run...

We are not going to draft a QB No.1 when we have 5 holes to fill on defense...

..There's no real world difference between drafting 2nd and 3rd..

So you pass on your replacment of an agiing QB with questionable health issues to pick Defensive players and then you have NO QB to carry your offense? And you are passing on the highest rated QB to come out in a very long time who after some time learning behind Peyton can step in and be a force?

[dn4192]

I do. Nothing would put a better big blue bow on this season Polian has given us than an 0-16, especially after the cowardly disgrace of 14-1

Sometimes it takes a little pain to come to realization that fundamental changes need to be made. 0-16 could not be explained away.

So they go 0-16...I still fail to see what the big deal is? It's one season, it's not like this team has had repeated poor seasons. A sesason at 0-16 is not a big deal.

[dn4192]

Are you sure about that? Lets say we get the number one pick and the Dolphins offer us 1st, 2nd, and 4th this year and a 1st, 2nd, and 5th next year. You take the 2nd overall, our 33rd and the 34th and you can turn that defense around real quick. Then we know we will have a nice top 10 pick next year to look at a QB or other position to get more help at defense.

Now if there is any sign of Manning not progressing like we want come draft day then we take Luck no questions asked.

I will pass and still take Luck.

[dn4192]

You have to wonder...how upset were Cleveland Cav fans were when their team tanked games so they could ge Lebron James? Plus I really don't think they ever considered trading out of that pick for more pick and players, which they could have done and built up their overall franchise. When a frachise player comes around and in the case of the NFL have a need at that position, you don't pass it up.

Edited October 28, 2011 by dn4192

[Jason_]

So they go 0-16...I still fail to see what the big deal is? It's one season, it's not like this team has had repeated poor seasons. A sesason at 0-16 is not a big deal.

So being only the 2nd EVER team to go 0-16 in HISTORY is not a big deal? Your Luck-love runs deep.

[dn4192]

So being only the 2nd EVER team to go 0-16 in HISTORY is not a big deal? Your Luck-love runs deep.

2nd? Didn't Detroit go 0-16 a while back and then there was my Bucs in the 70's who went 0-27 I believe when they came into the league. And no going 0-16 is not the end of the world. Detroit has bounced back pretty well from what I can see. It's just 1 season, if the Colts bounce back next year and say win 9-10 games and division people won't even care.

[rockywoj]

If the Colts go 0-16, then I view it as a chance to make history .... had any team ever gone from being winless to winning the championship the following year?

Go Colts!

[Thewholefnshow28]

If they give up THAT much, then perhaps we trade down. But I think we are thinking of replacing Manning if the opportunity arrises. What makes you think that the organization shifts gears and ACTUALLY focuses on D.

Watch them trade down and get a WR, TE and OL with those picks!

:hush:

A guy can dream, right? :hush:

Transitioning to a more defensive focused team would do more to help Manning and our transition from Manning to whomever then another WR, or TE. Unless we get Ashlon Jeffrey I do not want to see skill position taken at all in the 2012 draft.

[rockywoj]

... Unless we get Ashlon Jeffrey I do not want to see skill position taken at all in the 2012 draft.

Yes, let's concentrate on the unskilled players.

(Sorry, being facetious, I am.)

Edited October 28, 2011 by rockywoj

[Jason_]

If they give up THAT much, then perhaps we trade down. But I think we are thinking of replacing Manning if the opportunity arrises. What makes you think that the organization shifts gears and ACTUALLY focuses on D.

Watch them trade down and get a WR, TE and OL with those picks!

:hush:

While I'm in no way saying I'd want to take those positions early in the draft, at the very least they would improve the team's chances of winning both now and in the future when the new QB takes over.

2nd? Didn't Detroit go 0-16 a while back and then there was my Bucs in the 70's who went 0-27 I believe when they came into the league. And no going 0-16 is not the end of the world. Detroit has bounced back pretty well from what I can see. It's just 1 season, if the Colts bounce back next year and say win 9-10 games and division people won't even care.

*sigh* Yes, the Lions went 0-16. That was the first and only time in the 16 game format of the current era to ever not win a single game. Therefore, the Colts would be the 2nd. I would prefer not to have that distinction. If you want Luck so badly that you're willing to endure only the second winless season of the modern era then good for you. Seems completely and totally absurd to me, especially given the fact that he's a player you only "know of". But hey, that's just me.

[NM_Colts]

I voted yes but the question was worded differently than I liked

I don't want them to lose purposely but I would be happy to get the top pick. Disregard my avatar

I also want to add I was pro-Luck but the more I watch the game I think addressing our defense would be the main priority. I would rather us trade the pick for a stock pile of picks to help out the defense.

You can go back and change your vote. From what you say here, it seems a No vote is what you really meant.

[dn4192]

While I'm in no way saying I'd want to take those positions early in the draft, at the very least they would improve the team's chances of winning both now and in the future when the new QB takes over.

*sigh* Yes, the Lions went 0-16. That was the first and only time in the 16 game format of the current era to ever not win a single game. Therefore, the Colts would be the 2nd. I would prefer not to have that distinction. If you want Luck so badly that you're willing to endure only the second winless season of the modern era then good for you. Seems completely and totally absurd to me, especially given the fact that he's a player you only "know of". But hey, that's just me.

So exactly what did the Tampa Bay Bucs do?

[Jason_]

So exactly what did the Tampa Bay Bucs do?

The 70's bucs you're referring to that were pre-current era? Don't care.

[dn4192]

The 70's bucs you're referring to that were pre-current era? Don't care.

So then what the Dolphins did in the 70's doesn't matter either, so no NFL team has ever gone undefeated....

[Jason_]

So then what the Dolphins did in the 70's doesn't matter either, so no NFL team has ever gone undefeated....

I never said what the Dolphins did in the 70's DID matter. Good god man you grasp at any straw you can.

[dn4192]

I never said what the Dolphins did in the 70's DID matter. Good god man you grasp at any straw you can.

So only what has happen in the past decade of the NFL matters?

[Blue Horseshoe]

The differerence with the mid 70's Bucs, just like the early 60's Cowboys is that they were expansion teams built by a supplemental draft from other teams waived players in an era without a salary cap. They players remaining to be selected were very poor quality. These teams both took a few years before their own drafted players, like Bob Lily and Leroy Selmon, became stars.

The 2011 Colts were a team built in the salary cap era and they have quite a few players drafted by this franchise. They have the players they want and the production on the field is a function of the front office's ability to pick players.

Comparing the 1976 Bucs to the 2011 is comparing a team built entirely from castoffs and a team consisting mainly of handpicked players with a few key injuries. There should be no comparison between the two and the fact that there is reflects poorly on Polian.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Blue Horseshoe

[Jason_]

So only what has happen in the past decade of the NFL matters?

Again, not what I said. Learn to read. And as a preemptive strike for when you come back and say "I can read" then my reply is "ok, then learn to comprehend."

*sigh* Yes, the Lions went 0-16. That was the first and only time in the 16 game format of the current era to ever not win a single game. Therefore, the Colts would be the 2nd. I would prefer not to have that distinction. If you want Luck so badly that you're willing to endure only the second winless season of the modern era then good for you. Seems completely and totally absurd to me, especially given the fact that he's a player you only "know of". But hey, that's just me.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Jason

[chad72]

Again, not what I said. Learn to read. And as a preemptive strike for when you come back and say "I can read" then my reply is "ok, then learn to comprehend."

Jason, check your PM

[oldunclemark]

If the Colts go 0-16, then I view it as a chance to make history .... had any team ever gone from being winless to winning the championship the following year?

Go Colts!

That's definetly seeing the glass as 'half full' Rocky.. :vomit:

[Port Adelaide]

Gee, the way the Colts have been playing lately if we tried to tank games we would probably win.