Everything good comes from a loss against the Jags

[corgi]

29 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I want luck to sit too the freak accidents were crazy last week why risk injury in a pointless game

I think you'd need to run over Luck with a truck to get him to miss Sunday. I don't think he views any game as pointless.

[Buddy Lee]

I am all for using the last game to learn more about our current depth players in order to facilitate personnel decisions in the off season. For example, I'd like to see more of Jason Todman, Matthius Farley and Deiontrez Mount in action. I'd add Austin Blythe to the mix but I don't want to add to the risk of a QB getting hurt for the sake of learning more about Blythe. Let them all play hard. The fans deserve nothing less and the players are wired to play hard any time they are in the game. Let the cards fall wherever they may as far as the outcome of the game is concerned. The game would then have purpose and there would be no intentional tanking.

[RollerColt]

[Colts_Fan12]

37 minutes ago, corgi said:

I think you'd need to run over Luck with a truck to get him to miss Sunday. I don't think he views any game as pointless.

So true guy has no quit in him 

[Clem-Dog]

Who on this board supported this notion about the Colts winning in week 17 during the 2011 season? 

[DalTXColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Clem-Dog said:

Who on this board supported this notion about the Colts winning in week 17 during the 2011 season? 

This is actually an EXCELLENT question.  I wanted them to win and I was ticked when they couldn't pull it out in the end.  I knew that winning that game might cost us getting Luck but I knew that a) For every Peyton Manning there's an Alex Smith and b) A QB doesn't have to go #1 overall to get you to a super bowl.

[UKColt13]

1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I want luck to sit too the freak accidents were crazy last week why risk injury in a pointless game

 

Exactly. What is the point in playing a player that has been on the injury report for most of the season in a pointless game. That's not tanking. That's just looking long term.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

23 minutes ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

This is actually an EXCELLENT question.  I wanted them to win and I was ticked when they couldn't pull it out in the end.  I knew that winning that game might cost us getting Luck but I knew that a) For every Peyton Manning there's an Alex Smith and b) A QB doesn't have to go #1 overall to get you to a super bowl.

 

Are you still "ticked" the colts lost and drafted Luck?

[indy1888]

I'll be hoping for a Jags beatdown of the Colts.  Unfortunately i believe we will win though. It's a meaningless game and the pressure is off, isn't that always when Pagano's team are at there best?  I will always cheer for what is best for the team moving forward. In a game where a win does more harm then good, i will always hope for the loss.   

[rockywoj]

As fans, with the season now lost we might have a preference of the team losing for the bigger "good", but it is ludicrous to think the players and coaching staff are not going to be professionals and give it their all to win (though one might fairly speculate if said players and coaches had their heart in it).

 

If the Colts come out and lay an egg, getting dominated by the lowly Jaguars, that DOES speak volumes, as does the opposite, if the Colts come out and dominate like they did against the Vikings and Jets.  In other words, if Irsay is not already 100% set on retaining Pagano and Grigson, then I do believe the result of this game CAN serve to be an influencer.

 

As a fan, I want my team to win, but I will not lose any sleep if the Colts lose this meaningless game, thereby improving their draft position.  

[Defjamz26]

It's hard to root for the Colts to lose but I understand the thinking. They gain nothing if they win but a good amount if they lose (and get help from some other teams).

[DalTXColtsFan]

50 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

 

Are you still "ticked" the colts lost and drafted Luck?

I know why you're asking that question and you're not going to get the answer you're looking for.

 

The only Colts losses that come to mind that I'm still ticked about are:

1. The 2005 Pittsburgh playoff loss.  I truly may never get over that one.

2. The 2009 Super Bowl.  Even without Freeney we were the better team that day.

3. The 2007 San Diego playoff loss.  Letting Billy Volek march down the field on our top-5-ranked defense was an embarrassment.

4. The playoff game where we let Mark Sanchez drive down for a game-winning field goal that one-and-doned us out.

 

I don't want to think too hard and come up with more, because I'm in emotional pain right now thinking about those four.

 

Your point obviously is if I'm glad we got to draft Luck.  Of course - I'm not stupid.  But you don't tank games to get a better draft pick.  Are the 1998 Arizona Cardinals ticked that they won their last game and didn't get to draft Ryan Leaf?  Is any 2004 team ticked that they won too many games to get to draft Alex Smith?  Jamarcus Russell?  Robert Gallery?  Andre Wadsworth?  Chris Claiborne?  Peter Warrick?  COUNTLESS others that were "guaranteed" superstars that were total NFL washouts?

 

I could list everybody who won one game too many to get a superstar - Jacksonville picked #5 and missed out on Ezekiel Elliott - are they ticked they dropped a 50-burger on us?  Are the 2014 Steelers ticked that they won so many games they missed out on drafting Beckham or Aaron Donald?

 

Ii think you get my point.

[Colts1324]

11 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Jared, 

 

1 of the main reasons I like you as a regular on here is that you have kahunas. You are never afraid to tell me what you really think. I'm not in favor of engaging in deliberate sabotage & losing games to a divisional rival on purpose. Remember, when other teams accused INDY of the 'Suck for Luck' NFL sweepstakes in 2011? Like we wanted Painter to throw picks to improve our draft placement on purpose. I didn't like it back then & I can't condone tanking now. 

 

Having said all that, if it means fresh blood in the front office & on the sidelines, I wouldn't be upset over that new development. I just can't endorse the idea of professional football players playing half caboose on the field. Could you imagine what would happen if both the Jags & Colts treated this last regular season like 3 & a half quarters of the ProBowl? You think NFL Network & ESPN diminishes our contributions as a football team on TV now. Man, they would have a field day mocking our organization if they believed we were only going through the motions as a team like a walk thru drill with zero contact at all. INDY would be perceived as the WWF of integrity & competition then. 

 

Am I pleased we got Luck in 2012? Sure I am. But, I always argue with folks who claim we threw in the towel on purpose. Say Jimmy cuts Pags, keeps Grigs, & drafts yet another WR or lineman that fizzles out again? Are we better off? Not really. 

I agree with everything you said except that we wouldn't be better off in that scenario. I believe if we had a better coach this year. We go 10-6 or 11-5. We win those late games. Our coach would have us ready. He would rip players butts for making a dumb mistake not pat them on the back and say get em next time like Pagano.  

[James]

48 minutes ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

I know why you're asking that question and you're not going to get the answer you're looking for.

 

The only Colts losses that come to mind that I'm still ticked about are:

1. The 2005 Pittsburgh playoff loss.  I truly may never get over that one.

2. The 2009 Super Bowl.  Even without Freeney we were the better team that day.

3. The 2007 San Diego playoff loss.  Letting Billy Volek march down the field on our top-5-ranked defense was an embarrassment.

4. The playoff game where we let Mark Sanchez drive down for a game-winning field goal that one-and-doned us out.

 

I don't want to think too hard and come up with more, because I'm in emotional pain right now thinking about those four.

 

Your point obviously is if I'm glad we got to draft Luck.  Of course - I'm not stupid.  But you don't tank games to get a better draft pick.  Are the 1998 Arizona Cardinals ticked that they won their last game and didn't get to draft Ryan Leaf?  Is any 2004 team ticked that they won too many games to get to draft Alex Smith?  Jamarcus Russell?  Robert Gallery?  Andre Wadsworth?  Chris Claiborne?  Peter Warrick?  COUNTLESS others that were "guaranteed" superstars that were total NFL washouts?

 

I could list everybody who won one game too many to get a superstar - Jacksonville picked #5 and missed out on Ezekiel Elliott - are they ticked they dropped a 50-burger on us?  Are the 2014 Steelers ticked that they won so many games they missed out on drafting Beckham or Aaron Donald?

 

Ii think you get my point.

 

It's a simple yes or no question. The fact that you make it out to be more than that is very telling.

 

The week 17 loss in 2011 is one of the best things that happened to this franchise in recent history. Period.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

37 minutes ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

I know why you're asking that question and you're not going to get the answer you're looking for.

 

The only Colts losses that come to mind that I'm still ticked about are:

1. The 2005 Pittsburgh playoff loss.  I truly may never get over that one.

2. The 2009 Super Bowl.  Even without Freeney we were the better team that day.

3. The 2007 San Diego playoff loss.  Letting Billy Volek march down the field on our top-5-ranked defense was an embarrassment.

4. The playoff game where we let Mark Sanchez drive down for a game-winning field goal that one-and-doned us out.

 

I don't want to think too hard and come up with more, because I'm in emotional pain right now thinking about those four.

 

Your point obviously is if I'm glad we got to draft Luck.  Of course - I'm not stupid.  But you don't tank games to get a better draft pick.  Are the 1998 Arizona Cardinals ticked that they won their last game and didn't get to draft Ryan Leaf?  Is any 2004 team ticked that they won too many games to get to draft Alex Smith?  Jamarcus Russell?  Robert Gallery?  Andre Wadsworth?  Chris Claiborne?  Peter Warrick?  COUNTLESS others that were "guaranteed" superstars that were total NFL washouts?

 

I could list everybody who won one game too many to get a superstar - Jacksonville picked #5 and missed out on Ezekiel Elliott - are they ticked they dropped a 50-burger on us?  Are the 2014 Steelers ticked that they won so  down the road.many games they missed out on drafting Beckham or Aaron Donald?

 

Ii think you get my point.

 

Personally, there were a lot of manning playoff losses that were upsetting, too many. I still resent him some and team for that.

But No One said for the team to tank and lay down. Of course they won't and shouldn't. A lot of them won't even be here next year. What we said was to hope the colts lose and the colts may benefit from that down the road, especially if it helps with a coaching change.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

7 minutes ago, James said:

 

It's a simple yes or no question. The fact that you make it out to be more than that is very telling.

 

The week 17 loss in 2011 is one of the best things that happened to this franchise in recent history. Period.

 

Well said. 

And the loss in 1997 that gave us the #1 pick to draft Manning was nice too  

Just think about it. We came a eyelash away from Leaf & RG3 instead of Manning & Luck.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

We need to lose, just so we can get a better draft position. It's that simple, even if it's only 2-3 picks it's worth it.

[RockThatBlue]

2 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

 

Exactly. What is the point in playing a player that has been on the injury report for most of the season in a pointless game. That's not tanking. That's just looking long term.

Good luck telling this guy he shouldn't play Sunday.

 

 

[Nadine]

I don't see a reason to play luck. He's suffered enough

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, James said:

 

It's a simple yes or no question. The fact that you make it out to be more than that is very telling.

 

The week 17 loss in 2011 is one of the best things that happened to this franchise in recent history. Period.

You literally have no clue about what would have happened to us as a team had we won that game. Zero. You may think you do, but you don't. Unless you are Dumbledore....

[braveheartcolt]

48 minutes ago, 12to13 said:

We need to lose, just so we can get a better draft position. It's that simple, even if it's only 2-3 picks it's worth it.

How is it worth it? You are actually saying you know what players we will take, depending on where we finish, and how they pan out for us? So, it's not really that simple, is it.....

[dw49]

15 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We are heading into the final week of what has been a disappointing season for the most part for the Colts. There have been a few positives, mainly the draft class this year, and some positive improvements from Luck. The final game, though, we need to root for a loss for the following 3 reasons:

 

1:) Have the Jags win and weaken their draft position. Admittedly this is the least important of the 3 reasons, and I'm naming it 1st. We have a chance to hurt a division rival by losing to them in week 17 and weaken their draft position and keep them from getting a blue chip player possibly. This could be the difference from them getting Leonard Fournette and Dalvin Cook, it could keep them from getting Myles Garrett and adding another huge defensive piece to an already young and solid defense that will have a new head coach next year. If Mitch Turbisky is on the Board, this could possibly stop them from getting him to replace Bortles should they want too. Lots of possible scenarios here.

 

2.) Have us lose to improve our draft position. We are currently 13th in the NFL draft as of now. We can probably get to 10th at best. Again though, as I mentioned with the Jags, that can be a talent difference. With a pick from 10-12, Grigson (or a new GM), can possibly get a top 8 overall talent on his big board for our team. If a few Offensive players are picked before us as well, that could leave us with an elite defensive player at a position just waiting for us. McDowell at DT, Humphrey at CB, Cunningham at ILB, Peppers or Williams at OLB. All of these guys are possible players to fall to us and I can almost guarantee 1 or 2 would fall to us if we lose in week 17, and the GM, whoever it may be, can choose the best one. You can even throw in Dalvin Cook if you want an rb.

 

3.) The most important reason, to get rid of Pagano and/or Grigson. I truly believe Irsay is still on the fence about getting rid of these guys. An 8-8 season could likely end in keeping both for one more year and wasting another year of Luck's precious career for us. Pagano is one of the worst coaches in football, bar none. He doesn't develop defensive players we draft, which is supposed to be his strength. The offense has shown more development than the defense, in fact. Grigson is ok, if he's truly changed into the GM we've seen the last two years, then he's probably worth keeping over an unknown. We don't know that though. That's a decision Irsay will have to make, and it has to be the right one. A loss Vs Jacksonville should tip the scales in favor of getting rid of one or both of them, and the possibility of them getting hired and Irsay not having to pay the full bill per se, should coerce him into making the right decision. It will probably only happen if we lose though.

 

 

Pagano says this is a huge divisional game for the Colts and will play all the starters. I say nonsense to that.Just like you don't play Andrew Luck in an exhibition game , you don't play him in a week 17 game that only weakens your team for winning it. Obviously the draft position but also possibly a 2nd place schedule ? If I owned the team , there would be no way Luck sees the field Sunday. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

3 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

How is it worth it? You are actually saying you know what players we will take, depending on where we finish, and how they pan out for us? So, it's not really that simple, is it.....

How isn't it worth it? We have nothing to gain from winning, but we can get a better spot in the draft from losing. How is that not simple?

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, 12to13 said:

How isn't it worth it? We have nothing to gain from winning, but we can get a better spot in the draft from losing. How is that not simple?

So a better spot in the draft is a guarantee we will select a better player than if we finish a couple of spots later. And that better player will work better for us, even although none of these guys have played a snap in pro football. That is some crystal ball you have there......

[dw49]

5 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

How is it worth it? You are actually saying you know what players we will take, depending on where we finish, and how they pan out for us? So, it's not really that simple, is it.....

 

The difference between around 9th and 18th in the first round is 400 points That's worth around the 18th pick in the second round. The 9 spots in the second round is worth 90 points which would be equal to the 28th pick in the 3rd round. So while no one has a crystal ball , you can't argue the fact that picking higher gives you more "value" in the draft. You could make a case to just trade down to the spot that the 1 more win gives you and you will end up with a better draft as long as all the extra picks don't "bust out."

 

I understand what you're saying as there is no real science to the draft but I don't think it's a valid argument to say that there's no benefit to pick earlier in the process.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

The difference between around 9th and 18th in the first round is 400 points That's worth around the 18th pick in the second round. The 9 spots in the second round is worth 90 points which would be equal to the 28th pick in the 3rd round. So while no one has a crystal ball , you can't argue the fact that picking higher gives you more "value" in the draft. You could make a case to just trade down to the spot that the 1 more win gives you and you will end up with a better draft as long as all the extra picks don't "bust out."

 

I understand what you're saying as there is no real science to the draft but I don't think it's a valid argument to say that there's no benefit to pick earlier in the process.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

He has no idea what you're talking about, don't even bother. He'd rather get a temporary good feeling by winning a meaningless game and hurt the team in the future (both our draft position and giving the Jags a franchise QB or RB). He has no idea what's best for us long term, and if he does, he doesn't care, he just selfishly wants to win a meaningless game to feel good. This isn't about making the playoffs and having a longshot at the SB anymore, it's about a meaningless game where nothing good comes from winning it, and everything good comes from losing it. It astounds me people are actually rooting for the Colts next week.

[NannyMcafee]

11 hours ago, corgi said:

I think you'd need to run over Luck with a truck to get him to miss Sunday. I don't think he views any game as pointless.

 

Or a lacerated kidney

[Andrew Luck fan club]

2 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

So a better spot in the draft is a guarantee we will select a better player than if we finish a couple of spots later. And that better player will work better for us, even although none of these guys have played a snap in pro football. That is some crystal ball you have there......

A better spot in the draft is a better spot in the draft. Period. Stop trying to argue about nothing.

[dw49]

31 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

Or a lacerated kidney

 

Or you just don't activate him ?

[corgi]

37 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Or you just don't activate him ?

That would work too. 

[gacoop1]

Pagano and Grigson need to be fired period.  This team dwells in mediocrity every year because of those two period.

[Colts1324]

12 hours ago, rockywoj said:

As fans, with the season now lost we might have a preference of the team losing for the bigger "good", but it is ludicrous to think the players and coaching staff are not going to be professionals and give it their all to win (though one might fairly speculate if said players and coaches had their heart in it).

 

If the Colts come out and lay an egg, getting dominated by the lowly Jaguars, that DOES speak volumes, as does the opposite, if the Colts come out and dominate like they did against the Vikings and Jets.  In other words, if Irsay is not already 100% set on retaining Pagano and Grigson, then I do believe the result of this game CAN serve to be an influencer.

 

As a fan, I want my team to win, but I will not lose any sleep if the Colts lose this meaningless game, thereby improving their draft position.  

That's exactly how I feel. I want to win. But if we lose, I'm not going to be upset. As the OP said, it only helps us. 

[IinD]

@Jared

 

I equate one of your points to dumping money into a car that keeps breaking down. 

 

At some point you just cut your losses and buy a new car, regardless of how much you like it or want it to work properly. It just isn't worth hanging on to.

 

We need a new car.

 

Keeping him because of a fear that the next guy might be worse is dumb. People leave jobs and are replaced all the time if they're not right. If the next guy stinks, send him packing as well.

 

Being 'comfortable' with him gets the Colts nowhere and that's who I'm rooting for.

[braveheartcolt]

3 hours ago, 12to13 said:

A better spot in the draft is a better spot in the draft. Period. Stop trying to argue about nothing.

Has a player taken deeper in the draft ever been better than a player taken earlier in the draft. A simple yes or no answer will suffice, then we can move onto an even easier question.

[braveheartcolt]

3 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

He has no idea what you're talking about, don't even bother. He'd rather get a temporary good feeling by winning a meaningless game and hurt the team in the future (both our draft position and giving the Jags a franchise QB or RB). He has no idea what's best for us long term, and if he does, he doesn't care, he just selfishly wants to win a meaningless game to feel good. This isn't about making the playoffs and having a longshot at the SB anymore, it's about a meaningless game where nothing good comes from winning it, and everything good comes from losing it. It astounds me people are actually rooting for the Colts next week.

Simply put, you have no idea about anything. None at all. 

[AZColt11]

I don't think it matters that we rest starters for this game really.  This is NOT the 2011 situation.  We don't stand to gain the #1 selection, or even top 10.  We'll likely end somewhere in the low to mid teens in the draft no matter what happens Sunday because there are so many teams jumbled up around where the Colts are.  A win or loss at this point isn't going to change much IMHO.  So they may as well play at this point and try to gain a little momentum toward next season, if that is even possible now.

[braveheartcolt]

A win also gives us a chance at finishing second, which will settle 2 of our games next season. 2nd will give us Miami away and Oakland or Chiefs at home. Third will give us Buffalo away (no thanks), and Denver at home. Although who knows what these teams will look like next year, I'd opt for 2nd place, based on what I see now.

[zibby43]

On 12/27/2016 at 3:19 AM, Jared Cisneros said:

. . . And you aren't getting elite talent in the draft to improve.

 

While it's always nice to pick as early as possible, we need to remember that the Patriots, Steelers, Seahawks, Packers, and other recent perennial playoff teams, draft near the bottom of the first round almost every year.

 

And despite that fact, they continue to improve their rosters.  The Patriots are obviously the best example, as they continue to accumulate talent on both sides of the ball irrespective of their less-than-stellar draft positions.

 

Furthermore, volume of picks (i.e., the number of draft selections a team has) is much, much more valuable than draft position.

 

Teams like the Patriots do a great job of accumulating picks, which helps them avoid disastrous draft classes that deplete roster depth later on.

 

Food for thought.

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, zibby43 said:

 

While it's always nice to pick as early as possible, we need to remember that the Patriots, Steelers, Seahawks, Packers, and other recent perennial playoff teams, draft near the bottom of the first round almost every year.

 

And despite that fact, they continue to improve their rosters.  The Patriots are obviously the best example, as they continue to accumulate talent on both sides of the ball irrespective of their less-than-stellar draft positions.

 

Furthermore, volume of picks (i.e., the number of draft selections a team has) is much, much more valuable than draft position.

 

Teams like the Patriots do a great job of accumulating picks, which helps them avoid disastrous draft classes that deplete roster depth later on.

 

Food for thought.

I agree with this, with two thoughts. First, Grigson isn't as known for getting defensive picks as someone like Belichick. We haven't used our picks right for the most part, whether they've been early, mid, or late picks. Second, having an earlier pick actually allows us to get more Volume of picks. It'll be the difference of moving up to 10-12, or moving down to 15-16. That alone is worth a 3rd round pick, which can be worth a starter if done right. I can see going for it if we had playoff hopes, but we can't even backdoor in at this point. The future is what's best to go for.

[NannyMcafee]

7 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

Or you just don't activate him ?

 

I was joking mr serious.