mouthofsouth Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldunclemark Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDeep Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldunclemark Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 and Jim Caldwell is working for his job..He's probably gone at 0-16..Not so likely at 4-12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I'll try to contain the overwhelming shock I feel after seeing who has the only "yes" vote so far. *sarcasm alert* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doogansquest Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDeep Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I'll try to contain the overwhelming shock I feel after seeing who has the only "yes" vote so far. *sarcasm alert*SHOCKING! :duh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewholefnshow28 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldunclemark Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDeep Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Horseshoe Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 14-1Sometimes 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewholefnshow28 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSO Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) I voted yes but the question was worded differently than I likedI 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
since 1960 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 and Jim Caldwell is working for his job..He's probably gone at 0-16..Not so likely at 4-12Who 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockywoj Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldunclemark Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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.,.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDeep Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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 14-1Sometimes 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockywoj Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewholefnshow28 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockywoj Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) ... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NM_Colts Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I voted yes but the question was worded differently than I likedI 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn4192 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Horseshoe Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad72 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldunclemark Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Adelaide Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Gee, the way the Colts have been playing lately if we tried to tank games we would probably win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now