Are the Colts tanking?

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, Shive said:

QFT. We'll come back to this in a year.

They might very well not even win that many this year depending on how long Luck's out but the Colts have pretty much been telling everyone since they fired Grigson that the goal is to build a team that can win for years to come and not focus as much on this season alone.  They won't publicly say it but they are rebuilding.  That will take sometime.  It's going to require a little patience.  

[IinD]

49 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

Tank Season!!!!

 

 

 

* Jets, get ready for that #2 pick, #1 is ours.

[ricker182]

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

They might very well not even win that many this year depending on how long Luck's out but the Colts have pretty much been telling everyone since they fired Grigson that the goal is to build a team that can win for years to come and not focus as much on this season alone.  They won't publicly say it but they are rebuilding.  That will take sometime.  It's going to require a little patience.  

Anyone with eyes can see this team isn't very good and probably worse than last year's team.    

  

But there's no way they're tanking or thinking about tanking.

[GoColts8818]

11 minutes ago, ricker182 said:

Anyone with eyes can see this team isn't very good and probably worse than last year's team.    

  

But there's no way they're tanking or thinking about tanking.

Right I don't think they are tanking.  I think they are rebuilding and there is a big difference between the two.

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

They might very well not even win that many this year depending on how long Luck's out but the Colts have pretty much been telling everyone since they fired Grigson that the goal is to build a team that can win for years to come and not focus as much on this season alone.  They won't publicly say it but they are rebuilding.  That will take sometime.  It's going to require a little patience.  

 

Rebuilding is one thing....

 

Deliberately tanking is quite another....

 

Despite the observation of the OP,  I don't think there's any clear and obvious evidence that this franchise is deliberately tanking....

 

 

[Yoshinator]

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Rebuilding is one thing....

 

Deliberately tanking is quite another....

 

Despite the observation of the OP,  I don't think there's any clear and obvious evidence that this franchise is deliberately tanking....

 

 

We're not tanking. We'll probably get our butts handed to us this year and finish somewhere between 6-10 and 8-8, but it's not a tank job. We aren't releasing all of our players or trading them off for draft picks like the Jets and Bills. I think it's a transition year to see who improves and who sticks, and figure out who is going to be the base of the team next year when we get another group of draft picks and FA's to add to the team. The injuries we had are devastating, plain and simple, basically ruins the first 4 games of the season. With Brissett most likely not being able to learn the playbook that quick, it will be a painful first month, along with some unknowns with Luck afterward.

 

We went 8-8 when Luck played 15 games last year. Even with Luck at 100%, there's no guarantee that he takes us to the playoffs or anything should we survive the first month. We're not tanking, but just incredibly unlucky, which is probably enough to ruin the season before it starts without a miracle.

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We're not tanking. We'll probably get our butts handed to us this year and finish somewhere between 6-10 and 8-8, but it's not a tank job. We aren't releasing all of our players or trading them off for draft picks like the Jets and Bills. I think it's a transition year to see who improves and who sticks, and figure out who is going to be the base of the team next year when we get another group of draft picks and FA's to add to the team. The injuries we had are devastating, plain and simple, basically ruins the first 4 games of the season. With Brissett most likely not being able to learn the playbook that quick, it will be a painful first month, along with some unknowns with Luck afterward.

 

We went 8-8 when Luck played 15 games last year. Even with Luck at 100%, there's no guarantee that he takes us to the playoffs or anything should we survive the first month. We're not tanking, but just incredibly unlucky, which is probably enough to ruin the season before it starts without a miracle.

 

Good post.

 

But I dont know why you and so many others here think a QB can't get a basic understanding of the playbook pretty quickly.       Remember in 2015, when Freeman and Lindley got up to some level of understanding in less than a week??

 

Remember last year when Sam Bradford learned the Vikings playbook in roughly a week?

 

I doubt Brissett is good to go for week 1 vs. the Rams.     But he might be ready for week 2 vs. the Cardinals.     I'm not predicting it,   but I'm not ruling it out and wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

 

[GoColts8818]

37 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Rebuilding is one thing....

 

Deliberately tanking is quite another....

 

Despite the observation of the OP,  I don't think there's any clear and obvious evidence that this franchise is deliberately tanking....

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Right I don't think they are tanking.  I think they are rebuilding and there is a big difference between the two.

 

[Yoshinator]

37 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Good post.

 

But I dont know why you and so many others here think a QB can't get a basic understanding of the playbook pretty quickly.       Remember in 2015, when Freeman and Lindley got up to some level of understanding in less than a week??

 

Remember last year when Sam Bradford learned the Vikings playbook in roughly a week?

 

I doubt Brissett is good to go for week 1 vs. the Rams.     But he might be ready for week 2 vs. the Cardinals.     I'm not predicting it,   but I'm not ruling it out and wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

 

I think Brissett can get a basic understanding of the playbook, but that's the best case scenario. I would guess that the Colts decide to start someone like Tolzien over him because they don't want to be limited on what plays Brissett knows and can use early on. If Brissett doesn't know the entire playbook, I would agree with that because I want to have the best chance to win. Brissett probably provides that once he learns the whole playbook, but until then, I would start Tolzien before Luck comes back, and release him after Luck comes back and make Brissett the backup.

 

I also don't know how intelligent that Brissett is. He may be fully capable of learning the playbook quickly, if he is, then I say stick him in there as soon as possible. I just don't believe he's proven to be good enough to play at a disadvantage of not knowing certain plays when Tolzien does. He hasn't separated himself yet, and it's possible we'd put ourselves in a worse position to win games early on without Luck otherwise.

[krunk]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Good post.

 

But I dont know why you and so many others here think a QB can't get a basic understanding of the playbook pretty quickly.       Remember in 2015, when Freeman and Lindley got up to some level of understanding in less than a week??

 

Remember last year when Sam Bradford learned the Vikings playbook in roughly a week?

 

I doubt Brissett is good to go for week 1 vs. the Rams.     But he might be ready for week 2 vs. the Cardinals.     I'm not predicting it,   but I'm not ruling it out and wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

 

First of all Bradford was already familiar with the scheme of the offensive coordinator in Minnesota after Norv Turner left. Norv Turners offense I dont think Sam was familiar with and their offense stunk so bad that Turner decided to leave. Probably because Sam would have been better off with Shurmur whose offense he knew. Additionaly Bradford , Freeman and Lindley were veterans. Third as it relates to the Colts that was an emergency situation as we had already lost all of our QBs. If we had someone on the Roster like a Tolzien who new the playbook then neither Freeman or Lindley start. Lastly Tenn was a pretty bad team that year so yeah you can pull off something like that once maybe. Lindley and Freeman were veterans who already had some exposure to Air Coryall. Jacoby hasn't seen any of this stuff in New England. Its a totally different offensive attack here. Unless hes had some familiarity from college it makes no sense to throw him out there if you have someone on the roster who knows the playbook backwards and forwards and has worked with all these receivers the whole off season.

[krunk]

Does anybody remember when Josh Freeman went to Minnesota to quarterback for them and he was forced to play barely knowing any of the playbook and having no timing with his receivers. It looked flat out awful. I hate to mention this again but so did Kerry Collins who was quickly yanked after about one or two games for Curtis Painter. We all know if Kerry knew the playbook and had a full off season with his receivers that doesn't happen as he was way better than Painter. I remember Reggie Wayne didnt like Collins being brought in at the last minute not one bit. Because he knows what that takes to get on the same page.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

First of all Bradford was already familiar with the scheme of the offensive coordinator in Minnesota after Norv Turner left. Norv Turners offense I dont think Sam was familiar with and their offense stunk so bad that Turner decided to leave. Probably because Sam would have been better off with Shurmur whose offense he knew. Additionaly Bradford , Freeman and Lindley were veterans. Third as it relates to the Colts that was an emergency situation as we had already lost all of our QBs. If we had someone on the Roster like a Tolzien who new the playbook then neither Freeman or Lindley start. Lastly Tenn was a pretty bad team that year so yeah you can pull off something like that once maybe. Lindley and Freeman were veterans who already had some exposure to Air Coryall. Jacoby hasn't seen any of this stuff in New England. Its a totally different offensive attack here. Unless hes had some familiarity from college it makes no sense to throw him out there if you have someone on the roster who knows the playbook backwards and forwards and has worked with all these receivers the whole off season.

 

Good points....    strong post.

 

I'm not saying it's a genius idea...    I'm not even saying it's likely...     all I'm saying is that I think it's possible.

 

I don't think we traded a commodity that could have brought us a draft pick to get a player whose primary purpose is to be the main back-up in 2018.     That doesn't make sense to me.     

 

I think Ballard will want to see if Brissett can be brought up to speed quickly.     If not,  then Tolzein gets the nod.   But if he can..........      I think Ballard believes Brissett has a higher ceiling than Tolzein.     Depending on how long Luck is out,  we may find out....

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Good points....    strong post.

 

I'm not saying it's a genius idea...    I'm not even saying it's likely...     all I'm saying is that I think it's possible.

 

I don't think we traded a commodity that could have brought us a draft pick to get a player whose primary purpose is to be the main back-up in 2018.     That doesn't make sense to me.     

 

I think Ballard will want to see if Brissett can be brought up to speed quickly.     If not,  then Tolzein gets the nod.   But if he can..........      I think Ballard believes Brissett has a higher ceiling than Tolzein.     Depending on how long Luck is out,  we may find out....

 

 

The thought that Ballard might have got us a legit back up QB not only helps in the depth department, it might turn into a decent trade that could involve a draft pick later down the line.

 

[Coltsman1788]

9 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

After deciding to waive Stephen Morris, and keeping Scott Tolzien, it appears the Colts are tanking. After pre-season, it was obvious that Morris was the better player. Having Tolzien as your starter, instead of Morris, gives the Colts a better chance of losing. If you believe that Scott gives us the same or even better chances of winning, then you are free to have your opinion, but would be incorrect.

 

Ballard inherited a mess of a roster, and implied during his introductory press conferences that this was going to take time. In terms of winning games, Ballard didn't have any sense of urgency. 

 

If Luck will miss extended time, tanking makes sense. Our defense is horrible, and we need a star player on defense to get the ball rolling. Best place to find a star defender is picking high in the draft. 

I don't think they are tanking per say but Irsay has said he is fine with a few losing seasons if it leads to a better chance to win Lombardi's down the road.  So I feel like this season there is little pressure or expectation to win much.  They are treating this year very much as a rebuilding one and Luck's uncertain status just amplifies the approach.

 

I agree that I would have preferred Morris to Tolzien.  I really don't know what the coaching staff sees in Tolzien.  He is is perhaps one of the worst in the league in my opinion.  The offense will struggle.

 

A lot of people say the defense is horrible.  However, what gets me down on the Colts these days is the offense or lack thereof without Luck.  The defense actually has undergone an extensive revamping and we have added some young talent to it.  Sure they will have growing pains but I actually like what I have seen from them during the preseason. I am actually looking forward to seeing how they progress.  From what I have seen thus far...they are playing more aggressively and taking the ball away more.  How our defense plays will determine if we have any chance of beating the Rams on Sunday.

 

 

[coltsfeva]

It's your choice to believe what you want. As for us "glass half full" posters...this: 

https://giphy.com/gifs/hope-stephen-king-the-shawshank-redemption-908pc2O6Tf78Y

[DaveA1102]

Rebuild? Yes.  Tanking? Nonsense.

 

Ballard has made a lot of moves to bring in "younger players with upward arrows" as he likes to say.  The QB situation is an odd one looking in from the outside as an average fan, but Ballard lives and breathes the game 24/7 and I, for one, can at least see what he is trying to do and so will follow him and see where we get to.

[aaron11]

10 hours ago, ricker182 said:

Anyone with eyes can see this team isn't very good and probably worse than last year's team.    

  

the only reason we are worse than last year is lucks injury.  once he comes back we are better than before

 

as for the backup QB spot, i like JB about as much as any other available QB.  

[aaron11]

11 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

There is no possible way that Tolzien is better than Morris. What kind of information are you referring to?

Brisett is better than both

 

the simple answer is that they like what tolzien does in practice better than morris.  neither tolzien nor morris is really the answer so thats why they made the trade 

[OffensivelyPC]

What a pointless waste of energy typing the original post was.

[Shive]

7 hours ago, krunk said:

First of all Bradford was already familiar with the scheme of the offensive coordinator in Minnesota after Norv Turner left. Norv Turners offense I dont think Sam was familiar with and their offense stunk so bad that Turner decided to leave. Probably because Sam would have been better off with Shurmur whose offense he knew. 

It was still Norv's scheme they were running. Shurmur's playcalling, but Norv's scheme. You don't change the scheme midseason, you just tweak it the best you can. I think Shurmur's familiarity with Bradford helped the most, as he was able to play to his strengths early.

 

That said, I don't see Brisset playing early. There's no need to rush him.

[RockThatBlue]

No they aren't.

 

/thread over.

[TDewar1987]

Yeah man. Choosing Tolzein over Morris is a sure sign of tanking.... 

 

 

[The Fish]

Luck being hurt is not tanking..

What an obtuse and slightly stoopid take. Might as well make up a cool story about how Irsay took a bat to Lucks shoulder.

[OLD FAN MAN]

ballard is trying to win, we will see that when they play the games, he has brought in almost a whole new roster, upgrades at most positions, except o-line which they must think is ok

[jvan1973]

12 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Ballard knows more about football than anyone here. He has to know that Tolzien sucks. It isn't like we are talking about a QB that has had prior success, like Fitzpatrick. What possible incentive would Ballard have to keep Scott on the roster?

He was the best option that isn't recovering from surgery.  You make it sound like Morris is a great qb.  He isn't,  that's why he has never played in a meaningful game.  

[jskinnz]

15 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

After deciding to waive Stephen Morris, and keeping Scott Tolzien, it appears the Colts are tanking. After pre-season, it was obvious that Morris was the better player. Having Tolzien as your starter, instead of Morris, gives the Colts a better chance of losing. If you believe that Scott gives us the same or even better chances of winning, then you are free to have your opinion, but would be incorrect.

 

Ballard inherited a mess of a roster, and implied during his introductory press conferences that this was going to take time. In terms of winning games, Ballard didn't have any sense of urgency. 

 

If Luck will miss extended time, tanking makes sense. Our defense is horrible, and we need a star player on defense to get the ball rolling. Best place to find a star defender is picking high in the draft. 

 

I give you credit.  Normally when you troll you just offer a drive by opinion and leave never to return.  At least this time you came back to defend your position, never mind that the position is indefensible.  But hey, baby steps.

[throwing BBZ]

16 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

After deciding to waive Stephen Morris, and keeping Scott Tolzien, it appears the Colts are tanking. After pre-season, it was obvious that Morris was the better player. Having Tolzien as your starter, instead of Morris, gives the Colts a better chance of losing. If you believe that Scott gives us the same or even better chances of winning, then you are free to have your opinion, but would be incorrect.

 

Ballard inherited a mess of a roster, and implied during his introductory press conferences that this was going to take time. In terms of winning games, Ballard didn't have any sense of urgency. 

 

If Luck will miss extended time, tanking makes sense. Our defense is horrible, and we need a star player on defense to get the ball rolling. Best place to find a star defender is picking high in the draft. 

 

 

   Elway is a dum____ not trading for our should be starter Morris instead of signing Osbungler. ya!  

 

  get some rest

[csmopar]

19 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

After deciding to waive Stephen Morris, and keeping Scott Tolzien, it appears the Colts are tanking. After pre-season, it was obvious that Morris was the better player. Having Tolzien as your starter, instead of Morris, gives the Colts a better chance of losing. If you believe that Scott gives us the same or even better chances of winning, then you are free to have your opinion, but would be incorrect.

 

Ballard inherited a mess of a roster, and implied during his introductory press conferences that this was going to take time. In terms of winning games, Ballard didn't have any sense of urgency. 

 

If Luck will miss extended time, tanking makes sense. Our defense is horrible, and we need a star player on defense to get the ball rolling. Best place to find a star defender is picking high in the draft. 

 

 

Best stay over with the Pacers and the money wins league that is the NBA these days......

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I give you credit.  Normally when you troll you just offer a drive by opinion and leave never to return.  At least this time you came back to defend your position, never mind that the position is indefensible.  But hey, baby steps.

 

Bless you!!        

 

 

 

[Superman]

17 hours ago, krunk said:

Does anybody remember when Josh Freeman went to Minnesota to quarterback for them and he was forced to play barely knowing any of the playbook and having no timing with his receivers. It looked flat out awful.

 

That same Josh Freeman came to the Colts in Week 17 of 2015 and played with five days prep. The Colts won, and Freeman looked like a legit backup QB (not without his rough spots, but still a good showing for five days prep). By the way, he hadn't played in two years. 

 

This is not ideal, in any case, but it seems pretty obvious that either the Vikings didn't manage that situation well, or that Freeman wasn't in anywhere near the right frame of mind to handle it. 

[krunk]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That same Josh Freeman came to the Colts in Week 17 of 2015 and played with five days prep. The Colts won, and Freeman looked like a legit backup QB (not without his rough spots, but still a good showing for five days prep). By the way, he hadn't played in two years. 

 

This is not ideal, in any case, but it seems pretty obvious that either the Vikings didn't manage that situation well, or that Freeman wasn't in anywhere near the right frame of mind to handle it. 

It was against the worst or very close to worst team in the league. Very last game of the season with nothing on the line. They didnt put him out there and ask him to play a full football game. And I admitted maybe you get away with it once. Again that was an emergency situation. Not likely he plays if we have a QB on the roster who has had a full camp, preseason and knows the playbook.

[Superman]

Just now, krunk said:

It was against the worst or very close to worst team in the league. And I admitted maybe you get away with it once. Again that was an emergency situation. Not likely he plays if we have a QB on the roster who has had a full camp, preseason and knows the playbook.

 

Yeah it was a rare emergency when all our QBs were suddenly unavailable. No reason to throw someone out there under any other circumstance.

 

That said, Pagano even referenced that game today when talking about the potential for Brissett to play as soon as Week 1. I would like to see them give him a couple series, if they can put something together for him.

[krunk]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah it was a rare emergency when all our QBs were suddenly unavailable. No reason to throw someone out there under any other circumstance.

 

That said, Pagano even referenced that game today when talking about the potential for Brissett to play as soon as Week 1. I would like to see them give him a couple series, if they can put something together for him.

Yeah I can see them script some things situationally. Not a whole lot but its not out of the question I suppose. Of course id be a bit concerned about injury. I just can't see him coming immediately in and starting over Tolzien with a handful of plays and saying "Go Win It For Us Buddy!" Ideally I'd rather not see him at all if there's any chance Luck gets back in the saddle between games 3-4. I can see Brissett getting the nod over Tolzien somewhere after that point if Lucks not back. I'm hoping Scott plays well enough to give the guy all the time he needs to learn the scheme and the guys around him.

[cbear]

If they were tanking, Luck would still be on pup if not flat out IR.  And you don't waste another 2-3 years of Luck in his prime years by tanking.  Anyway, my 2 cents if this post was real. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 9/4/2017 at 1:27 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Good post.

 

But I dont know why you and so many others here think a QB can't get a basic understanding of the playbook pretty quickly.       Remember in 2015, when Freeman and Lindley got up to some level of understanding in less than a week??

 

Remember last year when Sam Bradford learned the Vikings playbook in roughly a week?

 

I doubt Brissett is good to go for week 1 vs. the Rams.     But he might be ready for week 2 vs. the Cardinals.     I'm not predicting it,   but I'm not ruling it out and wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

 

 

i concur

[stitches]

Unlike many here I wouldn't say this question is entirely unmerited.

 

I don't think we are doing an outright tank, but the moves Ballard has done are much more weighted toward the future than toward this year. This includes the way we are treating players with injuries. We are no longer trying to get them on the field whatever it takes, we seem much more happy to wait and let them heal completely. We traded for QB which seems like a move for the future 3 years more than a move for today since Brissett probably won't be starting anytime soon. We have stacked the team with young players that we are hoping to pan out but probably will struggle as rookies/2nd years in the league. We have started replacing our special teamers(snapper, punter), I think they are preparing for Vinatieri to retire soon too. I wonder if Rigoberto's ability to kick FGs isn't part of the reason they decided to keep him and not Locke for when Adam retires.

 

I don't think they will actively try to lose games but if we start 0-3 or 0-4 without Luck, I wouldn't be shocked if they don't rush his return and give him even more time to get right. Same with Kelly and Vontae.

 

I don't know if you call this tanking. Overall I don't even mind it. I don't have any expectations for this year, this is not the year to win it all. Give the youngsters reps and develop their skills, try to limit injuries...

[Superman]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

Unlike many here I wouldn't say this question is entirely unmerited.

 

I don't think we are doing an outright tank, but the moves Ballard has done are much more weighted toward the future than toward this year. This includes the way we are treating players with injuries. We are no longer trying to get them on the field whatever it takes, we seem much more happy to wait and let them heal completely. We traded for QB which seems like a move for the future 3 years more than a move for today since Brissett probably won't be starting anytime soon. We have stacked the team with young players that we are hoping to pan out but probably will struggle as rookies/2nd years in the league. We have started replacing our special teamers(snapper, punter), I think they are preparing for Vinatieri to retire soon too. I wonder if Rigoberto's ability to kick FGs isn't part of the reason they decided to keep him and not Locke for when Adam retires.

 

I don't think they will actively try to lose games but if we start 0-3 or 0-4 without Luck, I wouldn't be shocked if they don't rush his return and give him even more time to get right. Same with Kelly and Vontae.

 

I don't know if you call this tanking. Overall I don't even mind it. I don't have any expectations for this year, this is not the year to win it all. Give the youngsters reps and develop their skills, try to limit injuries...

 

So there's a big difference between tanking and what you're describing. They are not sacrificing the future development of players and the roster in an effort to win a SB right now, but they are also not trying to lose games or make the team less competitive on a weekly basis.

 

If you're going to build through the draft -- which every team should -- you have to be focused on the future. Most draft picks aren't going to help you win right away, some need a couple years, and many will never provide a meaningful contribution. We sometimes get excited about a draft prospect and think that one player is going to improve your team on Day 1, but that's rarely the case. 

 

So Ballard refocused on building the roster from the bottom up. He added a lot of free agents, but the youth movement is obvious, and the free agents added aren't foundational players. So it will take time to see positive effects from Ballard's reshaping of the roster, and that's assuming the players he brought in produce to a reasonable degree. Everyone who wanted Ballard to come in and put together a championship level roster in one offseason is fooling themselves. 

 

And I think the reason the OP is being rejected is because the premise is based on the Morris/Tolzien decision, as if Morris is so much better than Tolzien that not choosing him sacrifices a real chance for the team to compete in Luck's absence. Based on the games, I would have gone with Morris because he has more playmaking ability, but I don't think either of them can lead this roster to 2-2 if Luck misses four games. And that's primarily because of how I feel about the rest of the roster -- OL, corners, pass rush, ILBs -- not necessarily because of the QBing. To me, any difference between Morris and Tolzien is still inconsequential, short term and long term.

[tikyle]

On 9/3/2017 at 10:50 PM, Pacergeek said:

After deciding to waive Stephen Morris, and keeping Scott Tolzien, it appears the Colts are tanking. After pre-season, it was obvious that Morris was the better player. Having Tolzien as your starter, instead of Morris, gives the Colts a better chance of losing. If you believe that Scott gives us the same or even better chances of winning, then you are free to have your opinion, but would be incorrect.

 

Ballard inherited a mess of a roster, and implied during his introductory press conferences that this was going to take time. In terms of winning games, Ballard didn't have any sense of urgency. 

 

If Luck will miss extended time, tanking makes sense. Our defense is horrible, and we need a star player on defense to get the ball rolling. Best place to find a star defender is picking high in the draft. 

 

It's not tanking, it's politics.

Tolzien "learned under Aaron God-gers.

Tolzien probably is making much more than Morris.

Tolzien is seen as more of a conventional backup aka a stiff who will not win games but looks really experienced holding a clipboard with headsets on.

Tolzien is a career backup with no aspirations (or delusions) of actually ever starting.

[crazycolt1]

41 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

It's not tanking, it's politics.

Tolzien "learned under Aaron God-gers.

Tolzien probably is making much more than Morris.

Tolzien is seen as more of a conventional backup aka a stiff who will not win games but looks really experienced holding a clipboard with headsets on.

Tolzien is a career backup with no aspirations (or delusions) of actually ever starting.

Where do you get this politics horse dung?

It has already been explained into detail why Morris was cut. How he looked against 3rd and 4th stringers has zero to do with why he was cut.

Tolzien "learned under Aaron God-gers"??  sorry, another pile of horse dung.

[Colts1974]

On 9/3/2017 at 10:50 PM, Pacergeek said:

After deciding to waive Stephen Morris, and keeping Scott Tolzien, it appears the Colts are tanking. After pre-season, it was obvious that Morris was the better player. Having Tolzien as your starter, instead of Morris, gives the Colts a better chance of losing. If you believe that Scott gives us the same or even better chances of winning, then you are free to have your opinion, but would be incorrect.

 

Ballard inherited a mess of a roster, and implied during his introductory press conferences that this was going to take time. In terms of winning games, Ballard didn't have any sense of urgency. 

 

If Luck will miss extended time, tanking makes sense. Our defense is horrible, and we need a star player on defense to get the ball rolling. Best place to find a star defender is picking high in the draft. 

Is long as there is a franchise QB on a team as Luck getting paid what he is. IMO there will be NO TANKING!! Luck would never go for that!!! IMO He is to competitive.