Tanking The Season A Blessing In Disguise?

[Dark Superman]

Hear me out about this..

 

The Colts even with a healthy Luck are in no way, shape or form, ready to contend for a Superbowl in 2017.

Could Irsay be planning to sit #12 for the remainder of the season in order to snatch the first overall pick in the 2017 draft? Tanking this season could very well benefit the Colts down the stretch if they end up landing the first overall pick in the 2018 NFL Draft.

The 2018 Draft is loaded with QB Talent (Something the Colts don't need) and some team would be more than willing to trade up with the Colts, and the payoff could be a stockpile of Draft picks, in which the Colts clearly could use.

I don't feel comfortable bringing Luck back this season. He needs to sit and heal, while Ballard can fire Pagano and bring in someone he's more comfortable with. A new head coach and a stock pile of picks, as well as approximately $60 million in cap space.

Chris Ballard can turn this team around in one more off-season if the Colts choose to go this route.

 

I believe Jim Irsay already made his mind up when it comes to Luck playing this season. He could just be keeping Luck's name alive to fill seats, until he decided to put his franchise QB on I.R.

 

If Irsay ends up placing Luck on Injured Reserved, I won't be surprised. It's just something to think about.

If the Colts are 0-5 and Irsay needs to make a decision on Luck. Sit him. Rebuild this team the way it should've been built six years ago. Give Luck the Coach and Talent around him that he deserves.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

Hear me out on this...

 

Tanking is for losers with a loser mentality. These players are paid to play their best. The fans do not pay their money out to watch players who do not give their best.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

10 minutes ago, Blue Shoe Savior 12 said:

Hear me out about this..

 

No.

 

I didn't even read the rest.  Take your "tanking" argument and throw it in the trash.

 

Maybe you, maybe even Irsay, think it's best to sit Andrew in hopes of next year, but this is the big boy league.  There are grown men who feed their family by playing/working toward a WIN on Sundays because WINS = MORE $.  You try talking 53+ players and multiple coaches (most being TEMPORARY employees) into sacrificing their financial futures for the sake of the franchise and its star QB...

 

GTFOH with this nonsense.  Please.

[Indyfan4life]

This isn’t the NBA. The Colts are not tanking. This team will give it their all, and if they happen to finish with a top 5 pick, then so be it. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Hear me out on this...

 

Tanking is for losers with a loser mentality. These players are paid to play their best. The fans do not pay their money out to watch players who do not give their best.

 

Thank you for coming back.  As you can see, our counterparts have come out of the woodwork with their torches and pitchforks after game 1...

[Luck is Good]

I wouldn't mind a top pick. I can't lie there

[Yoshinator]

Here's the Schlegdaddy with a good opinion on the situation that I agree with. 

 

 

[CF4L]

I don't think Irsay is going to put Andrew on IR he didn't do that with Manning I doubt he would with Luck with tickets to sell and all.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

17 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Here's the Schlegdaddy with a good opinion on the situation that I agree with. 

 

 

 

Nope.  30 secs of that video makes me wish I could give your post a "thumbs-down"...

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Nope.  30 secs of that video makes me wish I could give your post a "thumbs-down"...

I guess you don't care about winning a SB then. You'd rather just coast along as a one and done playoff team, if that. That makes you a bad fan.

[braveheartcolt]

"Hey, TY. When Toby throws you the ball, make a decent effort to catch it, but let it fall to the ground, OK? "What, you  mean like what Dwayne Allen used to do? "Yup, just like that.........'

 

"Coach, is this so we can get lots of high draft picks who might replace us as starters? If so, I'm all for it!"

 

Thread closed.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

"Hey, TY. When Toby throws you the ball, make a decent effort to catch it, but let it fall to the ground, OK? "What, you  mean like what Dwayne Allen used to do? "Yup, just like that.........'

 

"Coach, is this so we can get lots of high draft picks who might replace us as starters? If so, I'm all for it!"

 

Thread closed.

Actually, all we have to do to tank is keep Luck out. The coaching will be bad enough on it's own, and the players are bad enough on their own. They can tank without trying if Luck is kept out. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

8 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I guess you don't care about winning a SB then. You'd rather just coast along as a one and done playoff team, if that. That makes you a bad fan.

 

Sorry, I know you think you would make a good GM in the NFL, but please try to explain to me how you're going to convince an entire team (players, coaches, etc.) to "tank" for a year so that the team will be in a better position a few years from now, when most of these players and coaches will be gone, without coming off like Grigson did.  AKA The * GM

 

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Actually, all we have to do to tank is keep Luck out. The coaching will be bad enough on it's own, and the players are bad enough on their own. They can tank without trying if Luck is kept out. 

 

Actually, this post sums it up pretty well for me.  You are the * GM.  I'm sure all the coaches and players will be lining up to work for you after a statement like that.

 

Don't ever let your future prospective players see these posts...

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Sorry, I know you think you would make a good GM in the NFL, but please try to explain to me how you're going to convince an entire team (players, coaches, etc.) to "tank" for a year so that the team will be in a better position a few years from now, when most of these players and coaches will be gone, without coming off like Grigson did.  AKA The * GM

 

 

Actually, this post sums it up pretty well for me.  You are the * GM.  I'm sure all the coaches and players will be lining up to work for you after a statement like that.

 

Don't ever let your future prospective players see these posts...

Well, by the time the Colts will be in contention the normal way, Luck will be at the end of his second contract (and I'm not even exaggerating). Also, he may not even re-sign with us if he thinks the team can't get him a SB 10 years into his career, it'll be the Denver/Manning situation all over again where he wins one there. You didn't think this through, you want to win a SB, then you have to make up for Grigson's mess. It won't happen with mid 1st round picks unless Ballard literally hits on every pick the next 3 years, and even the biggest homer doesn't think that. You get a high pick, trade down with a team who needs Sam Darnold, and rebuild your team with a ton of draft currency the next 3 years. Doubles your chances of rebuilding before Luck's contract is up, and you only sacrifice a year that you weren't contending anyway while getting a good look at Brissett. 

 

 

[Dark Superman]

35 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Nope.  30 secs of that video makes me wish I could give your post a "thumbs-down"...

This guy gets it..

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Well, by the time the Colts will be in contention the normal way, Luck will be at the end of his second contract (and I'm not even exaggerating). Also, he may not even re-sign with us if he thinks the team can't get him a SB 10 years into his career, it'll be the Denver/Manning situation all over again where he wins one there. You didn't think this through, you want to win a SB, then you have to make up for Grigson's mess. It won't happen with mid 1st round picks unless Ballard literally hits on every pick the next 3 years, and even the biggest homer doesn't think that. You get a high pick, trade down with a team who needs Sam Darnold, and rebuild your team with a ton of draft currency the next 3 years. Doubles your chances of rebuilding before Luck's contract is up, and you only sacrifice a year that you weren't contending anyway while getting a good look at Brissett. 

 

 

 

If Luck doesn't want to re-sign,  the team can always use the Franchise Tag --- three times if need be.

 

Or have you already forgotten about that?

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Also, he may not even re-sign with us if he thinks the team can't get him a SB 10 years into his career, it'll be the Denver/Manning situation all over again where he wins one there.

 

What?  We didn't even give Manning the option to re-sign.  We forced Manning to sign with another team.  When given the option, Manning always re-signed with the Colts.  I think Luck would do the same as long as his relationship with Irsay is fine.

 

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

You get a high pick, trade down with a team who needs Sam Darnold, and rebuild your team with a ton of draft currency the next 3 years.

 

I do agree with you about draft capital.  I would not turn down better/more picks.  And if your thinking is that if you can't be 1st (SB), then might as well start building for the future, I can't blame you.

 

But that is a distant goal in the far future.  We have a closer goal in the near future.  If we're eliminated from the playoffs and losing a game or six helps our draft-capital situation, great, but let's save all this tanking talk until we cross that bridge.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, Blue Shoe Savior 12 said:

This guy gets it..

 

Sorry to stomp all over your thread.  I just wish we could all save this "tank" talk for when we actually cross that bridge.

 

I don't disagree that picking higher in the draft and trading back for more picks will help the Colts, but please let's just wait until we are officially Eliminated and officially one of The Worst Teams.

 

Rome wasn't built in a day and the SB wasn't won in week 1.  Patience is all I ask.

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

What?  We didn't even give Manning the option to re-sign.  We forced Manning to sign with another team.  When given the option, Manning always re-signed with the Colts.  I think Luck would do the same as long as his relationship with Irsay is fine.

 

 

I do agree with you about draft capital.  I would not turn down better/more picks.  And if your thinking is that if you can't be 1st (SB), then might as well start building for the future, I can't blame you.

 

But that is a distant goal in the far future.  We have a closer goal in the near future.  If we're eliminated from the playoffs and losing a game or six helps our draft-capital situation, great, but let's save all this tanking talk until we cross that bridge.

I think it'll depend on Luck's injury situation the next few years. If the O-Line is about the same, he may not want to re-sign or ask for a trade. AS NCF said, we can Franchise Tag him, but that'll be costly, especially in a few years. The draft capital basically hedges our bets against busts, which is crucial, so I'd like to get a couple extra 1st rounders if we could. Be honest with me though, knowing the state of the team in a rebuild, and that Luck being out for a while handicaps us even more, do you think we can honestly have a shot at the SB? If your answer is no, then why shouldn't we tank? The ultimate goal is a SB, so yes, it's either that, or do what you need to do to win one. Keeping Luck out for Brissett gives us time to evaluate Brissett, and gets Luck 100% for 2018.

[Dark Superman]

Grigson and Pagano really buried this team..

And Irsay allowed it to happen.

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

If Luck doesn't want to re-sign,  the team can always use the Franchise Tag --- three times if need be.

 

Or have you already forgotten about that?

 

Yeah, I did lol, my bad. 

[Reboot]

15 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Well, by the time the Colts will be in contention the normal way, Luck will be at the end of his second contract (and I'm not even exaggerating). Also, he may not even re-sign with us if he thinks the team can't get him a SB 10 years into his career, it'll be the Denver/Manning situation all over again where he wins one there. You didn't think this through, you want to win a SB, then you have to make up for Grigson's mess. It won't happen with mid 1st round picks unless Ballard literally hits on every pick the next 3 years, and even the biggest homer doesn't think that. You get a high pick, trade down with a team who needs Sam Darnold, and rebuild your team with a ton of draft currency the next 3 years. Doubles your chances of rebuilding before Luck's contract is up, and you only sacrifice a year that you weren't contending anyway while getting a good look at Brissett. 

 

 

I know exactly what you're saying, I can't believe how successful the Jags are picking in the top 10 every year for 10 straight years.  And most of those in the top 5.  Yep, high draft picks absolutely guarantee success.   I mean, the Patriots picking at 32, in the last handful every year, have sustained no success.  

 

The power of a healthy franchise quarterback changes everything.   It will again.  It will hide a lot of shortcomings.  It always does.  

 

And as important is finding a match in coaching and GM.  Those styles have to mesh.  The Colts have one of the three. And maybe two if Ballard is the guy we all hope he is.  That today remains to be seen.  But the coach...  

 

Drafting players and signing free agent players that compliment your identity that fit your scheme matter far more then where they are picked or for how much and how many years.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Be honest with me though, knowing the state of the team in a rebuild, and that Luck being out for a while handicaps us even more, do you think we can honestly have a shot at the SB? If you're answer is no, then why shouldn't we tank? The ultimate goal is a SB, so yes, it's either that, or do what you need to do to win one. Keeping Luck out for Brissett gives us time to evaluate Brissett, and get Luck 100% for 2018.

 

We shouldn't tank because I DO think we have a shot a the SB.  It might be one in a million, but not many leagues have as much parity as the NFL.  We see it every year.  It changes from week to week depending on injuries (HELLO, Luck).  We could get lucky this year, no pun intended, and shouldn't deny ourselves the chance.

 

But let's continue your line of thinking.  Tanking apparently makes it more likely that the Colts will win a SB.  Please back that up.  How many recent SB winners can contribute their SB to a "tank-draft" (oh yeah, I think I just coined that phrase)?  The Broncos picked Von Miller #2 in 2011.  Was that the benefit of a tank-draft?  I can't really remember the last time a team had a tank-draft and then won a SB because of it...  The Colts with Manning?

 

You could argue that teams like NE, even with top picks due to trades, routinely trade down for more picks once the draft starts.  They accumulate draft-capital, but NEVER tank a season to do so.  I imagine anyone in a FO position that seriously brought up the idea of tanking would get ran out of the NFL with their heels on fire.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Dirty Mudflaps said:

I know exactly what you're saying, I can't believe how successful the Jags are picking in the top 10 every year for 10 straight years.  And most of those in the top 5.  Yep, high draft picks absolutely guarantee success.   I mean, the Patriots picking at 32, in the last handful every year, have sustained no success.  

 

The power of a healthy franchise quarterback changes everything.   It will again.  It will hide a lot of shortcomings.  It always does.  

 

And as important is finding a match in coaching and GM.  Those styles have to mesh.  The Colts have one of the three. And maybe two if Ballard is the guy we all hope he is.  That today remains to be seen.  But the coach...  

 

Drafting players and signing free agent players that compliment your identity that fit your scheme matter far more then where they are picked or for how much and how many years.  

Take every pick the Jags have had and replace Bortles with Luck, they'll be in the playoffs contending with the Pats every year. Your argument is flawed, the QB carries the team, even Luck carries us as much as he can with nothing around us. If the Jags had a franchise QB, they can go to the SB, that's all they're missing. We have the QB, and are missing everything else and are still an 8-8 team. Imagine if we had a team around Luck, now imagine multiple 1st round picks so we hedge our bets against busts, that puts us in the Steelers/Pats territory in a couple of years. We are nowhere close to that now, and we won't be without gaining more draft capital for a very long time. Brady is possibly the greatest QB of all time, Belichick is possibly the best coach of all time and they draft better than us, no comparision there.

[gacoop1]

No way, no how will this Pagano and company will ever win anything as long as he is still attached to the team.  Sad to say this, but it's a fact......You don't even have to try tanking this season, because Pagano and Co don't know how to coach, don't know how to make decisions, and they are unprepared every week..........I would be surprise, if they even come close this Sunday in beating Arizona....Also, if Chud is calling those predictable calls and plays, it's a loss for sure.....Then, definitely they'll be in the top five in 2018 for the pick in the draft for sure.....

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

We shouldn't tank because I DO think we have a shot a the SB.  It might be one in a million, but not many leagues have as much parity as the NFL.  We see it every year.  It changes from week to week depending on injuries (HELLO, Luck).  We could get lucky this year, no pun intended, and shouldn't deny ourselves the chance.

 

But let's continue your line of thinking.  Tanking apparently makes it more likely that the Colts will win a SB.  Please back that up.  How many recent SB winners can contribute their SB to a "tank-draft" (oh yeah, I think I just coined that phrase)?  The Broncos picked Von Miller #2 in 2011.  Was that the benefit of a tank-draft?  I can't really remember the last time a team had a tank-draft and then won a SB because of it...  The Colts with Manning?

 

You could argue that teams like NE, even with top picks due to trades, routinely trade down for more picks once the draft starts.  They accumulate draft-capital, but NEVER tank a season to do so.  I imagine anyone in a FO position that seriously brought up the idea of tanking would get ran out of the NFL with their heels on fire.

If you think we have a shot at the SB, then there's not a whole lot more I can say to you. You are talking with your heart and not your brain. The idea would be to trade the 1st pick down to obtain lots of draft capital. The Herschal Walker trade made the Cowboys a dynasty in the 90s. I know the Bears did a trade way back then and got Gale Sayers and either Ditka or Butkus in the same draft in the top 10. The Vikings made lots of trades in the last few years where they had 2 to 3 picks in the first round and now are working their way up. Unfortuantely Bridgewater getting hurt has cost them. I think Luck was a tankjob, but people here will argue otherwise. I don't want to do it for one pick, I want to do it for multiple years of 1st round picks to sustain our draft wealth. This is what will keep us contending, even if Ballard isn't perfect.

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, gacoop1 said:

No way, no how will this Pagano and company will ever win anything as long as he is still attached to the team.  Sad to say this, but it's a fact......You don't even have to try tanking this season, because Pagano and Co don't know how to coach, don't know how to make decisions, and they are unprepared every week..........I would be surprise, if they even come close this Sunday in beating Arizona....Also, if Chud is calling those predictable calls and plays, it's a loss for sure.....Then, definitely they'll be in the top five in 2018 for the pick in the draft for sure.....

If we get a top 5 pick and Luck is 100% in 2018, then it's a win/win.

[Reboot]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Take every pick the Jags have had and replace Bortles with Luck, they'll be in the playoffs contending with the Pats every year. Your argument is flawed, the QB carries the team, even Luck carries us as much as he can with nothing around us. If the Jags had a franchise QB, they can go to the SB, that's all they're missing. We have the QB, and are missing everything else and are still an 8-8 team. Imagine if we had a team around Luck, now imagine multiple 1st round picks so we hedge our bets against busts, that puts us in the Steelers/Pats territory in a couple of years. We are nowhere close to that now, and we won't be without gaining more draft capital for a very long time. Brady is possibly the greatest QB of all time, Belichick is possibly the best coach of all time and they draft better than us, no comparision there.

The Jags have won 42 games in the last 10 years.  Their issues run much deeper than QB.  

 

Oh, and thanks for proving my point about the uncertainty of the NFL draft and why it may be a building block but isn't the end game. Bortles was the 3rd overall pick in that 2014 draft, one of many players in that string of 10 years of top 10 picks.   

 

 

[gacoop1]

Another year of disappointment. Getting to old for this...

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Take every pick the Jags have had and replace Bortles with Luck, they'll be in the playoffs contending with the Pats every year. Your argument is flawed

 

Your argument is flawed.  Neither of those teams have won a SB in a decade.  Put all the best players from both teams on the same team and guess what?  Still no SBs.  You're dealing in completely theoretical scenarios.

 

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We have the QB, and are missing everything else and are still an 8-8 team. Imagine if we had a team around Luck, now imagine multiple 1st round picks so we hedge our bets against busts, that puts us in the Steelers/Pats territory in a couple of years.

 

There was a time (2006) when Manning didn't have a "team" around him, and the defense was especially bad (allowed 375 rush yds in JAX).  Imagine Manning on the Pats instead of Brady, or on the Steelers instead of Rothelisberger.  Again, you're dealing in completely theoretical scenarios.

 

Just let the season play out.

 

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If you think we have a shot at the SB, then there's not a whole lot more I can say to you.

 

If you think there's 0% chance that the Colts have a shot at the SB, then there's not a whole lot more I can say to you.  And any fan that thinks their team has 0% chance at a championship should reconsider their definition of fanatic.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Dirty Mudflaps said:

The Jags have won 42 games in the last 10 years.  Their issues run much deeper than QB.  

 

Oh, and thanks for proving my point about the uncertainty of the NFL draft and why it may be a building block but isn't the end game. Bortles was the 3rd overall pick in that 2014 draft, one of many players in that string of 10 years of top 10 picks.   

 

 

Their issues really don't anymore. Their defense is elite, and their running game is fixed. The O-Line is average, but literally the only weakness is QB now. Again, replace Bortles with Luck, and they are a SB contender. They only need to find one last piece, and this is a great draft to it. We need about 15 pieces. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

8 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The Herschal Walker trade made the Cowboys a dynasty in the 90s. I know the Bears did a trade way back then and got Gale Sayers and either Ditka or Butkus in the same draft in the top 10.

 

Ok, so if you're willing to give the Bears and Cowboys credit for those "tank-draft" SBs, that's 4 SBs ('85, '92, '93, and '95) that we're crediting to tank-drafts.  The most recent over 30 years ago, before the current FA and salary cap rules.

 

Yet, somehow, in the current NFL, we're supposed to win a SB in the near future by tanking for a season, like the Jags, Browns, 49ers, Titans, Lions, etc. etc. have done recently?  All those SBs.  All those dynasties.

 

Trivia Question of the Day:  When was the last time a team picked in the top-5 of the draft and then won a SB in the next 5 years?

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Your argument is flawed.  Neither of those teams have won a SB in a decade.  Put all the best players from both teams on the same team and guess what?  Still no SBs.  You're dealing in completely theoretical scenarios.

 

 

There was a time (2006) when Manning didn't have a "team" around him, and the defense was especially bad (allowed 375 rush yds in JAX).  Imagine Manning on the Pats instead of Brady, or on the Steelers instead of Rothelisberger.  Again, you're dealing in completely theoretical scenarios.

 

Just let the season play out.

 

 

If you think there's 0% chance that the Colts have a shot at the SB, then there's not a whole lot more I can say to you.  And any fan that thinks their team has 0% chance at a championship should reconsider their definition of fanatic.

My point to the first paragraph is that a franchise QB is all the Jags are missing. They have actually drafted well besides Bortles. He was just a huge weakness and the runningback was just filled with Fournette this year, so the offense was horrible and killing the elite defense of theirs until now. This is a QB heavy draft, if the Jags draft right this year, an elite QB (one player) is all they need to be SB contenders very soon. The rest of the team is that good now. We have 4 top players on our team. Even so, Luck got us to 8-8, that's how valuable he is. What can a Luck-type QB do for the Jags with Fournette and that Defense? It'll be like the Seahawks in our division. 

 

I used to always believe in miracles and all that other stuff when I was a kid, now I'm an analytics guy and I analyze every situation to the last detail. Nothing says we win a SB this year. If they show me otherwise, I'll eat crow, but with Pagano as coach, Chud as OC, and the team we have, I don't buy it, and I wouldn't bet on it for a million to one odds. For now, I would have to see it to believe it. I'll watch the games because I'm a fan, but that's out of the love of football.

[Reboot]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

Their issues really don't anymore. Their defense is elite, and their running game is fixed. The O-Line is average, but literally the only weakness is QB now. Again, replace Bortles with Luck, and they are a SB contender. They only need to find one last piece, and this is a great draft to it. We need about 15 pieces. 

 

There is nothing elite about a team that continually goes 4-12.  Until that team contends for a title, heck even makes the playoffs in consecutive years, there is nothing different about them then any middle of the road team.  

 

Keep repeating Bortles and maybe it will click that he is one of many poster-children for what's wrong with your theory.  For every Luck there are 100 Bortles.

 

Your vision of tanking to magically find a trade partner who would give up multiple first rounders who all would become all stars and exactly fill those 15 holes you see needing filled is unrealistic and simply not happening.  It's a cool fantasy.  To magically move the roster ahead four years in one.  It doesn't happen that way though.  

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok, so if you're willing to give the Bears and Cowboys credit for those "tank-draft" SBs, that's 4 SBs ('85, '92, '93, and '95) that we're crediting to tank-drafts.  The most recent over 30 years ago, before the current FA and salary cap rules.

 

Yet, somehow, in the current NFL, we're supposed to win a SB in the near future by tanking for a season, like the Jags, Browns, 49ers, Titans, Lions, etc. etc. have done recently?  All those SBs.  All those dynasties.

 

Trivia Question of the Day:  When was the last time a team picked in the top-5 of the draft and then won a SB in the next 5 years?

Trivia Question answer the Broncos: Von Miller in 2011 and they won it a few years later.

 

Besides that, the Bears drafted Sayers and Butkus in the 60s, not 85. 

 

I'm not going to go over the Jags and others being bad teams because of not being able to draft a good QB again explanation, but that's why they keep drafting in the top 5. We have our franchise QB, we just need other position players around him, and multiple 1sts for a few years will help do that. They are helpless until they hit on a QB, we aren't.

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, Dirty Mudflaps said:

 

There is nothing elite about a team that continually goes 4-12.  Until that team contends for a title, heck even makes the playoffs in consecutive years, there is nothing different about them then any middle of the road team.  

 

Keep repeating Bortles and maybe it will click that he is one of many poster-children for what's wrong with your theory.  For every Luck there are 100 Bortles.

 

Your vision of tanking to magically find a trade partner who would give up multiple first rounders who all would become all stars and exactly fill those 15 holes you see needing filled is unrealistic and simply not happening.  It's a cool fantasy.  To magically move the roster ahead four years in one.  It doesn't happen that way though.  

You must not of heard of Sam Darnold, there is no imaginary trade partner for QBs, that happens every year, especially for ones hyped up like him. We would easily find a trade partner and have a bidding war if we wanted for him. We may not get 15 holes filled, but we'd get multiple 1sts for a few years and speed up the process. Even if Ballard only hits on 3 of those 6 picks, that's like hitting on your 1st rounder three years straight, which is HUGE!

 

Also, the Jags may not ever hit on a QB, but if they do, they are instant playoff contenders and possible SB contenders. That's how good the rest of the team is now. It may never happen, but they're one player away from it, and this draft is the best chance in years for franchise QB's to be drafted. Can we say any one or even three players makes us a SB contender? No way. We need a few years of rebuilding, and trading down like that would really do it for us.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

15 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't buy it, and I wouldn't bet on it for a million to one odds.

 

So if I gave you those odds and offered you a $1,000,000 payout for a $1 buy-in, you are saying, to my face, in front of all the gods, in front of all Colts fans, that you would not bet $1 on the Colts winning the SB?  GTFOH

 

[SaturdayAllDay]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

You must not of heard of Sam Darnold, there is no imaginary trade partner for QBs, that happens every year, especially for ones hyped up like him. We would easily find a trade partner and have a bidding war if we wanted for him. We may not get 15 holes filled, but we'd get multiple 1sts for a few years and speed up the process. Even if Ballard only hits on 3 of those 6 picks, that's like hitting on your 1st rounder three years straight, which is HUGE!

 

Also, the Jags may not ever hit on a QB, but if they do, they are instant playoff contenders and possible SB contenders. That's how good the rest of the team is now. It may never happen, but they're one player away from it, and this draft is the best chance in years for franchise QB's to be drafted. Can we say any one or even three players makes us a SB contender? No way. We need a few years of rebuilding, and traded down like that would really do it for us.

One- no

Three - yes, provided we have better coaches

A top LT, a stud pass rusher and a shutdown corner would put us in serious contention next yr provided a few of our rookies from this yr pan out and our injured players come back to 100%. Unfortunately those 3 players are some of the hardest players to come by. Chances of making that a reality without perfect drafting, excellent coaching and a lot of luck are next to nothing with what we currently have. 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So if I gave you those odds and offered you a $1,000,000 payout for a $1 buy-in, you are saying, to my face, in front of all the gods, in front of all Colts fans, that you would not bet $1 on the Colts winning the SB?  GTFOH

 

Yes, because I would do it to prove a point to everyone here that I would be wasting a dollar. If that's what it took to show everyone that tanking is the correct option, I would deny a million to one dollar bet on youtube to your face.

[Smitto]

The Colts are not tanking, cut it out with this silly talk (I'd use stronger words if I could)... You think Irsay will pay top dollar to see a guy sit on the bench while he's healthy? No player wants to do that either... The fact that fans think that way baffles me.