Denver CB Harris says Wilson is better than Luck [Merge]

[sweetsurrender]

The effort of the Colts 2011 is team is highly questionable as was the coaching. I am not sure on the tanking but I can't rule it out either.

[amfootball]

So did the team start tanking after they started 0-4, 0-5, 0-6? Or did they decide to tank when they signed Kerry Collins, who you claimed should have been in a bar instead of on the football field? Or was it when they started Curtis Painter?  Or was it back in July when they failed to sign a better backup QB?

 

It doesn't help your argument that you can't even state clearly what you think happened. 

lol. I was just making fun of the Collins signing. I think tanking came into play after they lost their first few games and they decided to go with Painter long term.

[Gramz]

This thread is a low point for the intelligence of certain posters on this board. And it is spiraling so fast.

 I've been away from the board for a few days, and came back and it was still going on.....  and going and going, and now I think I'll leave again.

[House]

The effort of the Colts 2011 is team is highly questionable as was the coaching. I am not sure on the tanking but I can't rule it out either.

Classic fence sitting.

[House]

So did the team start tanking after they started 0-4, 0-5, 0-6? Or did they decide to tank when they signed Kerry Collins, who you claimed should have been in a bar instead of on the football field? Or was it when they started Curtis Painter? Or was it back in July when they failed to sign a better backup QB?

It doesn't help your argument that you can't even state clearly what you think happened.

We started tanking in the last game of the year when we almost cost ourselves the number 1 pick by almost winning.

[Superman]

lol. I was just making fun of the Collins signing. I think tanking came into play after they lost their first few games and they decided to go with Painter long term.

 

Then why bench Painter before you've clinched the first pick? The Vikings and Rams were still in the mix.

 

And as bad as Painter was, he was the guy who had been with the team for two seasons, who had taken all the first reps in training camp and preseason (and wasn't that bad, actually), who already had the support of the #1 WR and most veteran member of the offense... etc., etc.... 

 

When Painter first took over, he didn't play that poorly, nor did the team lose that badly. We lost 17-24, 24-28, and 17-27. He had 5 TDs and 1 INT, and was averaging 250 yards/game through three starts. Then the Saints game happened. We gave him four more starts, where he was really bad, then not quite as bad, then bad again. Then we benched him during the bye. 

 

You can't just look back at how bad Painter wound up being and pretend that it was obvious that he was going to be that bad the entire time. (And that's why I said that I have greater expertise than you with regard to the 2011 Colts. I put up with that entire situation, and I know how much I vacillated between keeping Painter on the field, benching him, and putting out a hit on him. It was absolutely NOT clear from jump that Painter was going to be that bad, and it certainly wasn't clear that Orlovsky would be any better.)

[Superman]

We started tanking in the last game of the year when we almost cost ourselves the number 1 pick by almost winning.

 

Yup.

[sweetsurrender]

Classic fence sitting.

Yes it is. I don't know what to make of that season. When I watched the games, effort was lacking it seemed mid-way through the season - Saints, Titans and Falcons. Things seemed to change when Orlosky (sp?) was inserted which left me wondering why we had not gone to him sooner or why we had went to him at all at 0-12. I mean why not just ride it out with Painter at that point who had started 8 games and lost all of them. Perhaps we wanted to get at least the one win so we would not be 0-16 like the Bucs and Lions but many questions on that season in my head anyways. I can't rule out tanking either.

[amfootball]

Then why bench Painter before you've clinched the first pick? The Vikings and Rams were still in the mix.

 

And as bad as Painter was, he was the guy who had been with the team for two seasons, who had taken all the first reps in training camp and preseason (and wasn't that bad, actually), who already had the support of the #1 WR and most veteran member of the offense... etc., etc.... 

 

When Painter first took over, he didn't play that poorly, nor did the team lose that badly. We lost 17-24, 24-28, and 17-27. He had 5 TDs and 1 INT, and was averaging 250 yards/game through three starts. Then the Saints game happened. We gave him four more starts, where he was really bad, then not quite as bad, then bad again. Then we benched him during the bye. 

 

You can't just look back at how bad Painter wound up being and pretend that it was obvious that he was going to be that bad the entire time. (And that's why I said that I have greater expertise than you with regard to the 2011 Colts. I put up with that entire situation, and I know how much I vacillated between keeping Painter on the field, benching him, and putting out a hit on him. It was absolutely NOT clear from jump that Painter was going to be that bad, and it certainly wasn't clear that Orlovsky would be any better.)

All fair points. Again, we can just agree to disagree.

 

Back to topic I think is in order.

[Superman]

Yes it is. I don't know what to make of that season. When I watched the games, effort was lacking it seemed mid-way through the season - Saints, Titans and Falcons. Things seemed to change when Orlosky (sp?) was inserted which left me wondering why we had not gone to him sooner or why we had went to him at all at 0-12. I mean why not just ride it out with Painter at that point who had started 8 games and lost all of them. Perhaps we wanted to get at least the one win so we would not be 0-16 like the Bucs and Lions but many questions on that season in my head anyways. I can't rule out tanking either.

 

If the Colts tanked, who did the directive come from?

[sweetsurrender]

If the Colts tanked, who did the directive come from?

I don't know. The season was odd on so many levels. I would think anything that serious would have to come from Irsay. I can't imagine an GM or coach doing it on his own. But it is possible I suppose.

[dw49]

So did the team start tanking after they started 0-4, 0-5, 0-6? Or did they decide to tank when they signed Kerry Collins, who you claimed should have been in a bar instead of on the football field? Or was it when they started Curtis Painter?  Or was it back in July when they failed to sign a better backup QB?

 

It doesn't help your argument that you can't even state clearly what you think happened. 

 

 

Now if somebody were to say that this team didn't go out of their way to win games after week 9 or 10 , I can appreciate that. But fact is you can't tell players not to go hard nor can you tell coaches to try to blow games. You can probably just try to stop improving the team if you are Polian and Irsay as you would want Luck. Thing is there probably wasn't a whole lot they could have done differently other than maybe get the Russian guy in a week earlier ? Is this "tanking ?"  dunno...

[House]

Yes it is. I don't know what to make of that season. When I watched the games, effort was lacking it seemed mid-way through the season - Saints, Titans and Falcons. Things seemed to change when Orlosky (sp?) was inserted which left me wondering why we had not gone to him sooner or why we had went to him at all at 0-12. I mean why not just ride it out with Painter at that point who had started 8 games and lost all of them. Perhaps we wanted to get at least the one win so we would not be 0-16 like the Bucs and Lions but many questions on that season in my head anyways. I can't rule out tanking either.

Lol really? Honestly think it through. How do you get the players to stop performing, costing themselves jobs, and keep everything quiet. Not to mention how much of the coaching staff and management lost their jobs as well.

The season isn't even that strange. We lost the one player our team was dependent upon and we just weren't a good team without Peyton.

Luckily when the Pats lost Tom they had a halfway decent backup and great coaching. Colts had neither of those things.

Not weird. Not weird at all.

[Superman]

I don't know. The season was odd on so many levels. I would think anything that serious would have to come from Irsay. I can't imagine an GM or coach doing it on his own. But it is possible I suppose.

 

If the directive came from Irsay, and then he fired everyone who was involved in carrying it out, and let nearly half the players get cut, it's hard to imagine that no one rolled on him. It's been three years now.

 

If the directive came from Polian, same thing. Plus, both his sons were fired on the heels of that season. 

 

If Caldwell did it on his own, it cost him his job, and earned him a reputation as one of the most inept head coaches in recent NFL history.

 

The players openly resented the Suck for Luck implications. They would have had something to say about any semblance of impropriety.

 

The idea just doesn't work. I know you're not promoting it, so I'm not trying to call you out or anything. But we have to come full stop on this theory at some point.

[sweetsurrender]

Lol really? Honestly think it through. How do you get the players to stop performing, costing themselves jobs, and keep everything quiet. Not to mention how much of the coaching staff and management lost their jobs as well.

The season isn't even that strange. We lost the one player our team was dependent upon and we just weren't a good team without Peyton.

Luckily when the Pats lost Tom they had a halfway decent backup and great coaching. Colts had neither of those things.

Not weird. Not weird at all.

Your scenario has everything all worked out though from week 8 on. I don't believe Irsay was planning on firing anyone mid-season, and he was not sure even then about not keeping Manning. I do think he was SURE that he wanted Luck though. I don't pretend to know how one would orchestrate such a thing but I do think executives in the NFL are very smart especially when a franchise guy like Luck is in the balance and you don't have to do anything to get him but tank an already disastrous season.

[Superman]

Now if somebody were to say that this team didn't go out of their way to win games after week 9 or 10 , I can appreciate that. But fact is you can't tell players not to go hard nor can you tell coaches to try to blow games. You can probably just try to stop improving the team if you are Polian and Irsay as you would want Luck. Thing is there probably wasn't a whole lot they could have done differently other than maybe get the Russian guy in a week earlier ? Is this "tanking ?"  dunno...

 

At that point, why bench Painter at all? You want to secure the #1 pick, you leave in the guy who is losing you games.

 

And you don't switch defensive coordinators, either.

[sweetsurrender]

If the directive came from Irsay, and then he fired everyone who was involved in carrying it out, and let nearly half the players get cut, it's hard to imagine that no one rolled on him. It's been three years now.

 

If the directive came from Polian, same thing. Plus, both his sons were fired on the heels of that season. 

 

If Caldwell did it on his own, it cost him his job, and earned him a reputation as one of the most inept head coaches in recent NFL history.

 

The players openly resented the Suck for Luck implications. They would have had something to say about any semblance of impropriety.

 

The idea just doesn't work. I know you're not promoting it, so I'm not trying to call you out or anything. But we have to come full stop on this theory at some point.

Yes, all excellent points. I just don't think Irsay had everything worked out from mid-season on in terms of the firings or what to do with Manning. I think you can just stop improving the team and let them flounder. I don't really know what happened but there was a lot of pressure when the team was 0-8 to not win to get Luck. I remember it well. You really can't let a prospect like him go by the wayside. You know what I mean?

[House]

Your scenario has everything all worked out though from week 8 on. I don't believe Irsay was planning on firing anyone mid-season, and he was not sure even then about not keeping Manning. I do think he was SURE that he wanted Luck though. I don't pretend to know how one would orchestrate such a thing but I do think executives in the NFL are very smart especially when a franchise guy like Luck is in the balance and you don't have to do anything to get him but tank an already disastrous season.

really?

I mean if anything you wrote makes any sense to you I guess we are done here, but you honestly struck me as more intelligent then that. Because everything you wrote is tinfoil hat stuff at best.

It was a bad season. They happen to literally every team.

How about discussing how the Texans went from division winners to worst record in the NFL. Any conspiracy thoughts regarding them?

[sweetsurrender]

really?

I mean if anything you wrote makes any sense to you I guess we are done here, but you honestly struck me as more intelligent then that. Because everything you wrote is tinfoil hat stuff at best.

It was a bad season. They happen to literally every team.

How about discussing how the Texans went from division winners to worst record in the NFL. Any conspiracy thoughts regarding them?

Why the insults? I don't even know you on these boards. I am being honest that I just don't know with regards to 2011. If you think this whole thing is that obvious than good for you. I don't. I can admit that and not have to try to feel superior to anyone else on the board.

[dw49]

At that point, why bench Painter at all? You want to secure the #1 pick, you leave in the guy who is losing you games.

 

And you don't switch defensive coordinators, either.

 

 

I'm not saying they (don't even know who the "they " would be) tanked the season. Just saying that with a few weeks to go , I'm thinking they would be very happy to draft Luck. Is that a "tank ?" No way , that would be a real stretch. I would think that there might have been a little more urgency to get Painter out of there as they wouldn't want to be 0-16 and I didn't even remember that they replaced the D coordinator. 

[House]

Why the insults? I don't even know you on these boards. I am being honest that I just don't know with regards to 2011. If you think this whole thing is that obvious than good for you. I don't. I can admit that and not have to try to feel superior to anyone else on the board.

Insults? My good man I do believe I said you appear intelligent.

Just not on this.

Not a superiority issue. Just a common sense issue. Because it's speculation based on literally nothing.

I mean with all the prying the NFL is subjected to, you think not one person could catch evidence of this? Too many jobs were lost, that never got replaced, to not have a single piece of evidence supporting this tanking "theory."

Pardon my bluntness on the subject, but I'm not one to mince words. Straight to the point is the best way IMO.

[Superman]

Yes, all excellent points. I just don't think Irsay had everything worked out from mid-season on in terms of the firings or what to do with Manning. I think you can just stop improving the team and let them flounder. I don't really know what happened but there was a lot of pressure when the team was 0-8 to not win to get Luck. I remember it well. You really can't let a prospect like him go by the wayside. You know what I mean?

 

Yeah, well, when you're 0-6, you're not trying to work a deadline trade or anything, right? We brought players in here and there, but there weren't any real difference makers out there at that point. When you're 0-8, the season is over. You don't have to tank to know that it's time to start thinking ahead to next year.

 

But the question remains: If you're 0-10, and you want the #1 pick, but you haven't clinched the worst record in the league, why bench Painter? Why fire Larry Coyer?

 

At a certain point, I can see Irsay zoning in on Luck. You don't pass on him, no matter what, if you have a chance at him. But any directive to avoid improving the game, or especially to lose games on purpose, would have been exposed by one of the 20+ guys who lost their jobs, or one of the 30+ players who lost their jobs. Guys lost a lot of money over 2011. Staffers lost a lot of standing. There's no way everyone keeps quiet if there's any kind of directive, at any point, to undermine real competition that season.

[Gavin]

Then why bench Painter before you've clinched the first pick? The Vikings and Rams were still in the mix.

 

And as bad as Painter was, he was the guy who had been with the team for two seasons, who had taken all the first reps in training camp and preseason (and wasn't that bad, actually), who already had the support of the #1 WR and most veteran member of the offense... etc., etc.... 

 

When Painter first took over, he didn't play that poorly, nor did the team lose that badly. We lost 17-24, 24-28, and 17-27. He had 5 TDs and 1 INT, and was averaging 250 yards/game through three starts. Then the Saints game happened. We gave him four more starts, where he was really bad, then not quite as bad, then bad again. Then we benched him during the bye. 

 

You can't just look back at how bad Painter wound up being and pretend that it was obvious that he was going to be that bad the entire time. (And that's why I said that I have greater expertise than you with regard to the 2011 Colts. I put up with that entire situation, and I know how much I vacillated between keeping Painter on the field, benching him, and putting out a hit on him. It was absolutely NOT clear from jump that Painter was going to be that bad, and it certainly wasn't clear that Orlovsky would be any better.)

Well Painter did only complete 54.6% of his passes in the preseason while a Colt and 3 td's to 7 picks all while never throwing anymore then 21 passes in a preseason game, Not necessarily an indication he was going to be bad in  regular season but it would have been hard to imagine him at QB of all positions to think he would be better if he started to play against an opposing teams #1's though Im not saying it couldn't happen and Im one that thought they should have started Painter from game 1 and let him learn by playing

[Vance]

I remember fans on this board saying they should suck for Luck in the first game day thread of the season in 2011. So it was definitely on people's minds. Just saying. 

[Superman]

I'm not saying they (don't even know who the "they " would be) tanked the season. Just saying that with a few weeks to go , I'm thinking they would be very happy to draft Luck. Is that a "tank ?" No way , that would be a real stretch. I would think that there might have been a little more urgency to get Painter out of there as they wouldn't want to be 0-16 and I didn't even remember that they replaced the D coordinator. 

 

Yeah, I understand what you're saying.

 

As for getting Painter out of there, I think they did it by the book. Waited until the bye. Also, Orlovsky was nothing special. He came in and played better than Painter, but he's being propped up as this savior, and really he wasn't. Benching Painter would have been only because you were sick of Painter, not because you necessarily had a better option on the team.

 

And yeah, they 86'd the DC, and did a very good job of scapegoating him as they did so. And he raised no fuss, just quietly rode off into the sunset. He resurfaced in 2013 as a scout for the Redskins (yeah, from a coordinator to a scout, at 70 years old), and now he's the DC at New Mexico State. Yet, he's said nothing, in three years, about the Colts tanking.

[House]

I remember fans on this board saying they should suck for Luck in the first game day thread of the season in 2011. So it was definitely on people's minds. Just saying.

Case closed then.

Someone call ESPN, because I have a heck of a breaking story.

"This hour on Sports Center: Suck for Luck cracked. Fans were quoted as rooting for 'Suck for Luck' providing all the proof we need. NFL insiders are also looking into reports of fans cheering "Choke for Clowney" more at the top of the hour."

[rsrobinson]

No, I don't buy that he Colts intentionally tanked in 2011. Most players in the league are fighting for starting jobs or to even stay in the league. You can't tell me that some were intentionally giving less than full effort so the team could draft high the next year at a potential cost to their own careers. If a player lacks effort or plays poorly that ends up on tape and everyone around the league sees it. Same goes for the coaches. It's hard enough to keep your job as it is in the NFL without intentionally tanking games. It just wouldn't happen.

It was just a bad team.

[Clem-Dog]

Superman has the most competent opinion on this matter. Most of this thread is just noise.

[Vance]

Case closed then.

Someone call ESPN, because I have a heck of a breaking story.

"This hour on Sports Center: Suck for Luck cracked. Fans were quoted as rooting for 'Suck for Luck' providing all the proof we need. NFL insiders are also looking into reports of fans cheering "Choke for Clowney" more at the top of the hour."

 

Psh. Up until the day he was drafted, Texans fans didn't know who they wanted. You guys knew all along. Boom roasted!

[sweetsurrender]

Insults? My good man I do believe I said you appear intelligent.

Just not on this.

Not a superiority issue. Just a common sense issue. Because it's speculation based on literally nothing.

I mean with all the prying the NFL is subjected to, you think not one person could catch evidence of this? Too many jobs were lost, that never got replaced, to not have a single piece of evidence supporting this tanking "theory."

Pardon my bluntness on the subject, but I'm not one to mince words. Straight to the point is the best way IMO.

I get you. No hard feelings. I know it is a sensitive subject and I agree with what you have here. But I really don't think the players were told to do anything. I think if tanking happened at all and I am only giving it a 20 percent chance in my own mind, it would have happened from the upper levels with mgmt not improving the team and the game planning. I mean teams lose all the time from poor coaching in this league so it is possible to insert a game plan that you know won't yield a victory.

[sweetsurrender]

Yeah, well, when you're 0-6, you're not trying to work a deadline trade or anything, right? We brought players in here and there, but there weren't any real difference makers out there at that point. When you're 0-8, the season is over. You don't have to tank to know that it's time to start thinking ahead to next year.

 

But the question remains: If you're 0-10, and you want the #1 pick, but you haven't clinched the worst record in the league, why bench Painter? Why fire Larry Coyer?

 

At a certain point, I can see Irsay zoning in on Luck. You don't pass on him, no matter what, if you have a chance at him. But any directive to avoid improving the game, or especially to lose games on purpose, would have been exposed by one of the 20+ guys who lost their jobs, or one of the 30+ players who lost their jobs. Guys lost a lot of money over 2011. Staffers lost a lot of standing. There's no way everyone keeps quiet if there's any kind of directive, at any point, to undermine real competition that season.

I think they benched Painter as a last ditch effort to avoid going 0-16. I also think they were trying to swell the tanking talk which had hit full throttle by then with most pointing to Painter starting as the reason why the Colts were tanking. Do you believe they thought Orloskvy would come in and almost win 3 games? I don't. As if they really did believe that then it begs the question as to why they did not go to him sooner.

[sweetsurrender]

I remember fans on this board saying they should suck for Luck in the first game day thread of the season in 2011. So it was definitely on people's minds. Just saying. 

It was at a fever pitch in Indy once Manning was declared out for the season with his neck fusion. Signs were at the games, people were talking about it on the radio, TV. It only increased in volume as the Colts began to lose game after game. 

[thedude]

Oh boy! One whole game winning drive! Well this changes EVERYTHING!

Show us that you are right.

 

Here, I'll do it.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=LuckAn00

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=WilsRu00

 

Oh look,  How about that?

[thedude]

Luck made up for his mistakes, he's been doing it his entire career.

His entire career? All two years and three weeks of it too, huh?

[Jules]

14 pages?

 

Both are freaking awesome. And not to mention nice. And smart.

 

That is all.

[Superman]

I think they benched Painter as a last ditch effort to avoid going 0-16. I also think they were trying to swell the tanking talk which had hit full throttle by then with most pointing to Painter starting as the reason why the Colts were tanking. Do you believe they thought Orloskvy would come in and almost win 3 games? I don't. As if they really did believe that then it begs the question as to why they did not go to him sooner.

 

Again, they didn't just bench Painter. They used the bye week to switch things up offensively, simplifying the game plans and making things a little easier for the new QB.

 

They also fired the defensive coordinator and simplified things on defense.

 

And even then, it took two weeks to get a W. We got beat soundly by the Pats, despite a second half rally. We got beat soundly by the Ravens. It's not like Orlovsky came in and turned everything around, although he was better than Painter had been over the past month. 

 

Also, think about who/what Dan Orlovsky was. The guy who stepped out of the back of the end zone when he was the starting QB for the last team to start 0-13 (the Lions, who eventually went 0-16). That's the last team he started for, three years prior. Orlovsky was nothing special; he didn't even survive final cuts, and wasn't back on the roster until Week 4, after Collins got hurt. There was little reason to think that he'd be able to come in and play any better than Painter for those first four or five weeks. Once Painter really started struggling and even got worse, then it was time for him to go to the bench.

[UKCOLT17]

i dont think we tanked your playing for a job and your going to lose on purpose no way even if someone told me to lose i couldnt id rather try and play good and get picked up by another team basically your career could be on the line by playing so poor. i dont think we tanked so many people and players lost there jobs but thats my opinion 

[sweetsurrender]

Again, they didn't just bench Painter. They used the bye week to switch things up offensively, simplifying the game plans and making things a little easier for the new QB.

 

They also fired the defensive coordinator and simplified things on defense.

 

And even then, it took two weeks to get a W. We got beat soundly by the Pats, despite a second half rally. We got beat soundly by the Ravens. It's not like Orlovsky came in and turned everything around, although he was better than Painter had been over the past month. 

 

Also, think about who/what Dan Orlovsky was. The guy who stepped out of the back of the end zone when he was the starting QB for the last team to start 0-13 (the Lions, who eventually went 0-16). That's the last team he started for, three years prior. Orlovsky was nothing special; he didn't even survive final cuts, and wasn't back on the roster until Week 4, after Collins got hurt. There was little reason to think that he'd be able to come in and play any better than Painter for those first four or five weeks. Once Painter really started struggling and even got worse, then it was time for him to go to the bench.

Exactly. They went to Orlovsky who Qb'd the 0-16 Lions and did not survive the final roster cuts. That is my point. I don't think they inserted Dan with any belief or hope that he would win any games. I think they did it to quell the tanking rumors which had hit a fever pitch with most blaming the tank on them starting Painter week after week. My point is they were not trying to win games that season once the Collins signing blew up. They knew what they had waiting for them in Luck. Really, if you think about it, it would have been ridiculous for them to try win games at 0-8 and beyond and would make them look worse IMO if they had done that and missed out on Luck. Of course, as we are learning now, Wilson would have been there for them too, although they probably would have picked RG. Sometimes it truly is better to lose than to win.

[Dustin]

Exactly. They went to Orlovsky who Qb'd the 0-16 Lions and did not survive the final roster cuts. That is my point. I don't think they inserted Dan with any belief or hope that he would win any games. I think they did it to quell the tanking rumors which had hit a fever pitch with most blaming the tank on them starting Painter week after week. My point is they were not trying to win games that season once the Collins signing blew up. They knew what they had waiting for them in Luck. Really, if you think about it, it would have been ridiculous for them to try win games at 0-8 and beyond and would make them look worse IMO if they had done that and missed out on Luck. Of course, as we are learning now, Wilson would have been there for them too, although they probably would have picked RG. Sometimes it truly is better to lose than to win.

"They"

Who is they?

[thedude]

"They"

Who is they?

They are those guys one mentions when "they" don't know who "they" are.  They are those anonymous fellows who who seem to be involved in everything.  At least that's what they say.