Who in the hell wants to go 8-8?

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

the only good reason to tank is for a qb.  the good teams in the league now didnt get there by losing 

True enough.  This mindset of getting better draft picks by losing is bogus.  It has always been not where you pick, it's who you pick.

[CaptainColt12]

On 10/12/2018 at 12:59 PM, Four2itus said:

I think you just accidentally made up a new word....one I happen to like a lot. (the rest of this post not directed at you)

 

Mantality - The mental state of a male fan who uses terms such as: 

 

"no excuse to lose this game"

"we should tank for a better draft pick"

"players are weak today"

"this is flag football"

"if he was tough, he's be out there playing"

 

 

Well I meant mentality, and I can't tell if you're criticizing me or not.

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, CaptainColt12 said:

Well I meant mentality, and I can't tell if you're criticizing me or not.

no...that's why I put an explanation in post. Also why I said "accidentally"

[NewEra]

At this point in time I'd love to be 8-8

[tikyle]

On 10/14/2018 at 10:07 AM, crazycolt1 said:

True enough.  This mindset of getting better draft picks by losing is bogus.  It has always been not where you pick, it's who you pick.

 

Because if we had the 3rd pick in 2012 we'd still have Luck right?

 

**EXPLETIVE** NO

 

It's always about who you pick, but where you pick gives you the allowance to expand on the pool of who you pick.  If the draft in 2019 has two elite defensive players and we pick 4th instead of 2nd we could miss out on both.  That's not to say someone available might not end up being better than both, but having the ability to draft those guys has premium value.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

 

Because if we had the 3rd pick in 2012 we'd still have Luck right?

 

**EXPLETIVE** NO

 

It's always about who you pick, but where you pick gives you the allowance to expand on the pool of who you pick.  If the draft in 2019 has two elite defensive players and we pick 4th instead of 2nd we could miss out on both.  That's not to say someone available might not end up being better than both, but having the ability to draft those guys has premium value.

Yep, the better your draft pick spot, the better the odds at getting the player you want.   Not just the 1st round either.   It's not a sure thing, but the odds are better. 

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-draft-hall-famers-come-003451925.html

[Rally5]

On 10/12/2018 at 7:47 AM, Matthew Gilbert said:

 Exactly how does football work?

Today is your answer.

[Rally5]

On 10/11/2018 at 12:19 PM, tikyle said:

So, I was thinking this is going to come up soon so why not just address the deflated football in the room now.  TANKING.  If we lose to the Jets (which is a strong possibility given 1. it's football and 2. our injury report) is it time to start rooting for losses?

 

I know, I know, players don't "tank" in football.  I mean their lives are literally on the line when they play (Slauson).  But as fans who want the best for the team, wouldn't the best scenario be to get the highest pick possible of this lost season and get some positive PT for all of our young players?

 

With all of the bottom teams having their future QB on the roster a top 5 pick could get us a nice trade from a middling team who's tired of their QB situation (see NYG or PIT or JAX).  Just a thought.  But at 1-5 (possibly) the playoffs and the division are surely out of reach.

Still like the idea of tanking?

[braveheartcolt]

Stop chasing the Crow Eaters. Leave em alone. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, braveheartcolt said:

Leave em alone.

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

[oldunclemark]

Its like the lottery

You always want your ticket. You never throw it away

 

..because you never know

[Matthew Gilbert]

20 hours ago, Rally5 said:

Today is your answer.

How many 1-5 teams make it to the playoffs? Yes, I'm eating my words. After a 1-4 start (which became 1-5), never in my wildest dreams did I think the Colts would be in the position they're in. I thought at best they could make the playoffs but still wouldn't be a SB contender until next year. Fast forward to the playoffs and there really isn't a clear cut favorite in the AFC and the Colts have as good a shot as any team to make it to the SB. I thought next year would be the official start of the Luck Dynasty (Luck winning championships) but it may just start this year.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

How many 1-5 teams make it to the playoffs? Yes, I'm eating my words. After a 1-4 start (which became 1-5), never in my wildest dreams did I think the Colts would be in the position they're in. I thought at best they could make the playoffs but still wouldn't be a SB contender until next year. Fast forward to the playoffs and there really isn't a clear cut favorite in the AFC and the Colts have as good a shot as any team to make it to the SB. I thought next year would be the official start of the Luck Dynasty (Luck winning championships) but it may just start this year.

 

 

Don't worry about it I have seen much worse threads. Your Thread isn't close to being the worse in 2018. I usually wait until we are 0-8 before I give up, at that point it is over like in 2011.

[tikyle]

On 1/5/2019 at 8:15 PM, Rally5 said:

Still like the idea of tanking?

Yes.

 

We made an unbelievable run this year.  To go from 1-5 to 10-6 is pretty much unprecedented.  But we need to be honest, practical and smart.  The reason we are in this position right now is because we had the #3 pick last draft.  That pick turned out to be 2 AP All Pro rookies.  If we had the #6 pick instead and won some meaningless Week 12 or Week 16 games last year when we had a chance to tank we would undoubtedly not be in this position right now.

 

The outcome this time worked out and it's a great run.  But if this run statistically is like a 5% chance of happening and we "go for it" we are gonna end up on the wrong side of things the next 15-19 times (statistically speaking).

 

Look at the Giants.  They won some late meaningless games trying to win a division they had close to zero % chance of winning and now they have the #6 pick instead of pick #1 or #2.

 

Tanking is the right and practical thing to do.  You can't just point to the outlier time that not tanking was correct to negate the fact that in the vast majority of times it is the correct thing to do.

[Rally5]

2 hours ago, tikyle said:

Yes.

 

We made an unbelievable run this year.  To go from 1-5 to 10-6 is pretty much unprecedented.  But we need to be honest, practical and smart.  The reason we are in this position right now is because we had the #3 pick last draft.  That pick turned out to be 2 AP All Pro rookies.  If we had the #6 pick instead and won some meaningless Week 12 or Week 16 games last year when we had a chance to tank we would undoubtedly not be in this position right now.

 

The outcome this time worked out and it's a great run.  But if this run statistically is like a 5% chance of happening and we "go for it" we are gonna end up on the wrong side of things the next 15-19 times (statistically speaking).

 

Look at the Giants.  They won some late meaningless games trying to win a division they had close to zero % chance of winning and now they have the #6 pick instead of pick #1 or #2.

 

Tanking is the right and practical thing to do.  You can't just point to the outlier time that not tanking was correct to negate the fact that in the vast majority of times it is the correct thing to do.

We earned those picks we didn't quit on the fans, teammates, coaches, etc to get them.  When you quit you don't learn, this is so fundamentally flawed I can't even have the conversation.  If you believe strongly in quitting and giving up, I don't think there's any common ground here.  I do respect you have your own opinion.

[Rally5]

19 hours ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

How many 1-5 teams make it to the playoffs? Yes, I'm eating my words. After a 1-4 start (which became 1-5), never in my wildest dreams did I think the Colts would be in the position they're in. I thought at best they could make the playoffs but still wouldn't be a SB contender until next year. Fast forward to the playoffs and there really isn't a clear cut favorite in the AFC and the Colts have as good a shot as any team to make it to the SB. I thought next year would be the official start of the Luck Dynasty (Luck winning championships) but it may just start this year.

 

 

Finders crossed!  It's experiences and memories like these that last a lifetime, which is why we don't quit.  It's been an amazing ride!

[OffensivelyPC]

lol we should tank.  Get outta here with that nonsense.  Every one romanticizes the first couple picks in the draft which wouldn't be so ridiculous if a large portion of those fans didn't in the same breath say that we should trade down and acquire more picks.  The fact is, if you have a competent FO who drafts sensibly, and an averageQB, you've got a shot to make the playoffs as long as those pieces are in place.  Wtih an elite QB, you're almost guaranteed a playoff berth.    From there, anything can happen.  Just because you get the first pick in the draft doesn't mean much if you don't draft well.  And a competent FO will draft well no matter where in the draft he is picking.  Teams have been doing this for years and haven't had a top 10 pick in 10 plus years.  You tank and you lose a locker room, and probably your job.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 hours ago, tikyle said:

Tanking is the right and practical thing to do.  You can't just point to the outlier time that not tanking was correct to negate the fact that in the vast majority of times it is the correct thing to do.

 

Fiddle-Faddle Flapdoodle!

 

[Four2itus]

5 hours ago, tikyle said:

Tanking is the right and practical thing to do.  You can't just point to the outlier time that not tanking was correct to negate the fact that in the vast majority of times it is the correct thing to do.

[tikyle]

22 hours ago, Rally5 said:

We earned those picks we didn't quit on the fans, teammates, coaches, etc to get them.  When you quit you don't learn, this is so fundamentally flawed I can't even have the conversation.  If you believe strongly in quitting and giving up, I don't think there's any common ground here.  I do respect you have your own opinion.

 

Sports in general but football in specific is about talent, coaching and health.  Learning and development is important but if you don't have the talent foundation there those developed guys will only be so good.  With all the turnover that goes on in a football roster year to year how much is really lost on tanking in a season when you start off terrible?

 

There are many ways to tank other than "quitting."  People think tanking is going out there and basically point shaving.  You can tank by sitting healthy players in lieu of younger guys you want extended looks at (which can benefit by developing guys who during a normal year not get much PT).  You can tank by running overly aggressive or overly conservative plays.  There are many ways to do it other than going out there and just laying down.  And we "earned" those picks by losing and losing a lot.

 

I just don't see how people can look at this team over the last decade and not realize that the most impactful players we have on the roster now came from our worst seasons record wise (Andrew Luck, TY Hilton, Quentin Nelson, Darius Leonard).  You can spin it any way you want but we got those guys from losing not from winning.  So whether you quit or cook the books or sit guys you have mild injuries, as long as the outcome is the same, that gives you the best chance of rebuilding.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, tikyle said:

football in specific is about talent

 

Wrong.  Football is the ultimate team game.  That's why a team can lose it's best player and still win the Super Bowl like the Eagles losing Wentz last year.  This isn't basketball where you just need a Michael Jordan or a Lebron James.

 

The Pats have had zero top-10 picks yet keep going to the AFCCG/SB every year.  While the Browns have top-10 picks every year, yet never make the playoffs.

 

There is literally zero evidence to support your tanking argument.

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Wrong.  Football is the ultimate team game.  That's why a team can lose it's best player and still win the Super Bowl like the Eagles losing Wentz last year.  This isn't basketball where you just need a Michael Jordan or a Lebron James.

 

The Pats have had zero top-10 picks yet keep going to the AFCCG/SB every year.  While the Browns have top-10 picks every year, yet never make the playoffs.

 

There is literally zero evidence to support your tanking argument.

 

The Eagles were literally the deepest team in the NFL last year.  They were talented at starting and backup positions.  There was not a big drop off in talent from starter to bench guy.  It was talent.  Yes it is a team game but you need TALENT.  If Nick Foles was Jim Sorgi or Curtis Painter they would not have won anything.  Their back up QB was a guy who had a 27 TD to 2 INT season under his belt.

 

As for you Pats example you just conveniently skipped over where I said coaching.  And it's real nice that everyone points to the outlier as a shining example of how something is false.  You cannot use the Pats as any example in football because absolutely zero of the other 31 teams have been able to duplicate anything they have done since 2000.  That's like me saying a 6th round QB is the way to win the most Superbowls because the Patriots have won the most since 2000 with one.  But no other team in the NFL has won one with one.  There is a reason they are an outlier.

 

I will say this.  If the Browns get a good coach, they will win their division next year.  They indeed have the most talented roster in their division and with that mess of a coaching staff they had, they were 2 games from winning it.  And I never said tanking was fool proof.  It just gives you the best opportunity to acquire talent.  You actually have to make good picks with those opportunities.  The AFC South is a shining example.  Texans and Jags were dumpster fires and they got high picks and they got drastically better with those picks but the Jags picked a poor QB with a top pick and the Texans picked a good one and look how it shaped up.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, tikyle said:

You cannot use the Pats as any example in football because absolutely zero of the other 31 teams have been able to duplicate anything they have done since 2000.

 

Wrong again.  The Steelers and Ravens are both in the playoff hunt every year so they never have top-10 picks, yet have won SBs recently because they draft well no matter where they draft.

 

Teams that draft well don't need top-10 picks to draft well.  Teams that don't draft well don't draft well WITH top-10 picks.

 

Tanking is not how you have sustained success.  You are wrong.

[tikyle]

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Wrong again.  The Steelers and Ravens are both in the playoff hunt every year so they never have top-10 picks, yet have won SBs recently because they draft well no matter where they draft.

 

Teams that draft well don't need top-10 picks to draft well.  Teams that don't draft well don't draft well WITH top-10 picks.

 

Tanking is not how you have sustained success.  You are wrong.

 

#1 I never said tanking is how you have sustained success.

#2 I never said tanking is a guaranteed way to get good.

 

Now that that is done.  You keep giving examples of teams that are good and not ones that need rebuilding.  Tanking is a tactic to rebuild a team that is in the woes.  And the Steelers and Ravens both are on their sustained success streaks with QBs they drafted when they MISSED THE PLAYOFFS (Ben 11th pick, Flacco 18th pick, Lamar Jackson 32nd pick).  Lamar is the only late 1st pick they could have gotten even if they made the playoffs.

 

You are correct, teams that are already good (which you conveniently left out), and draft well don't need top 10 picks.  How many of those teams are there in the NFL?  And how many of those teams have had that sustained success without a high pick 1st round QB?

 

The problem here is that you keep running from what the basis for tanking is: TO GIVE YOURSELF THE BEST CHANCE AT ACQUIRING TOP TALENT.  Keywords are CHANCE and TOP.  And if you think that that is a false statement then you don't believe in reality when the franchise you root for is essentially built on having two #1 pick QBs that have carried it for over 20 years.  Talk about irony...............

[Lucky Colts Fan]

@tikyle  You advocated tanking this season.

 

That is obviously foolish now considering where the Colts team is currently.

 

Slice it any way you want, but:  Chance at a SB > Chance at a top draft pick

[Cynjin]

58 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

There are many ways to tank other than "quitting."  People think tanking is going out there and basically point shaving.  You can tank by sitting healthy players in lieu of younger guys you want extended looks at (which can benefit by developing guys who during a normal year not get much PT).  You can tank by running overly aggressive or overly conservative plays.  There are many ways to do it other than going out there and just laying down.  And we "earned" those picks by losing and losing a lot.

 

 

Maybe it's your use of the word tanking that is the issue.   Tanking is losing on purpose, which is not what most people want the team they root for to do.

[Crunked]

Every time one of these older threads pop up, the first thing I do is search to see if I said anything really dumb lol ........It looks like we were 1-4 when I chimed in and said maybe we could be 4-4 and a little healthier in the next 3 games but I was seeing a 6-10 finish.......8-8 was looking optimistic to me........none of us knew what to expect with new staff, new players and where/when/if Luck would return to form. I can tell you if someone had said 10-6 in the divisional round with D playing good and run game humming I would have scoffed.

 

It is a situation where I am happy to be wrong, and if that mojo was a viable tool I would say something like were done were toast cant be KC, if that would get us a SB win, I might be tempted to tattoo it on my forehead at this point, house money baby lets just go 1-0 this week!

 

Ps, (full disclosure)  I didn't like taking a guard with #6 not because of Quentin, not because we didn't need a guard....I just didn't value a guard (any guard) that high.......I also thought we reached for Leonard, I thought he was bottom 2nd round talent.......and that is why my check stubs don't say "Colts" on it....lol

 

I am still not in the "Ballard we trust" band camp, but I am willing to at least acknowledge it might be a camp worth attending in the near future......

[Lucky Colts Fan]

31 minutes ago, tikyle said:

TO GIVE YOURSELF THE BEST CHANCE AT ACQUIRING TOP TALENT.

 

But it's not something any team should ever be thinking of doing.  If a team "lucks" into the #1 pick and end up with a great player, like the Colts have done twice, good for them.  But that's rare, and there are no guarantees the #1 pick is "top talent".  Leaf and RG3 were considered "top talent", and people actually advocated for the Colts picking them.

 

Just because a team is 1-5 like the Colts, or 0-3 like the Texans doesn't mean they should think about tanking.  Both of those teams made the playoffs and had a chance at a SB this year, despite bad starts to the season.

 

And again:  Chance at a SB > Chance at a top draft pick

[tikyle]

23 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

@tikyle  You advocated tanking this season.

 

That is obviously foolish now considering where the Colts team is currently.

 

Slice it any way you want, but:  Chance at a SB > Chance at a top draft pick

 

You are correct.  But if we go case by case I will be correct more times than you will for advocating tanking when a team starts 1-5.  I was undoubtedly wrong this time.  I can easily admit that.  But statistically the numbers are and will always be with me when a team starts 1-5.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Maybe it's your use of the word tanking that is the issue.   Tanking is losing on purpose, which is not what most people want the team they root for to do.

 

Most people don't want it but it can also be what's best for the team.  In 2011 most people didn't want the Colts to go 2-14, but if they had won 2 or 3 more meaningless games where would we be right now?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, tikyle said:

But statistically the numbers are and will always be with me when a team starts 1-5.

 

But this year shows why the numbers and statistics don't matter.

 

As long as you have a chance, you throw all of that out the window and play to win the game.

 

Once a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, then I admit it might be in their best interest to get a higher draft pick.  Especially with a GM like Ballard that has proven what he can do with a high draft pick.  But you have to admit that a higher draft pick isn't any sort of guarantee that it will benefit the team going forward. 

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

But it's not something any team should ever be thinking of doing.  If a team "lucks" into the #1 pick and end up with a great player, like the Colts have done twice, good for them.  But that's rare, and there are no guarantees the #1 pick is "top talent".  Leaf and RG3 were considered "top talent", and people actually advocated for the Colts picking them.

 

Just because a team is 1-5 like the Colts, or 0-3 like the Texans doesn't mean they should think about tanking.  Both of those teams made the playoffs and had a chance at a SB this year, despite bad starts to the season.

 

And again:  Chance at a SB > Chance at a top draft pick

 

Let's be honest, do you really think the Colts couldn't find a better player to trot out there in 2011 than Curtis Painter?  They didn't "luck" into the #1.  That was tanking.  Tanking isn't laying down, rolling over and point shaving.  Tanking is actively trotting out there inferior talent when you can do better.  Tanking is releasing guys or trading away talent that can help your team (see the 2018 Oakland Raiders).

 

And yes Leaf and RG3 were top talent.  RG3 won the rookie of the year.  He outplayed Luck that season and took his team to the playoffs and was up 14-0 in the playoffs on that vaunted Seahawks defense before getting knocked out the game.  Injuries derailed his career.  Leaf was a head case.  He had talent but was mentally damaged.  He's human.

 

And I do agree that having a higher draft pick isn't a guarantee, it's just an opportunity.  But I do not agree that you should always wait until you are guaranteed out of the playoffs to start tanking.  I don't have a definitive time as to when you should or shouldn't start.  I would say you shouldn't start until after the first 4 games.  But after that to me it depends on circumstance.

 

But it's all a strategy.  I'm not saying tanking is the best one but I do believe it gives you the best chance at talent.  But I will concede that you will have times like now where if you tanked you would have booted on a season that got you into the playoffs.  It's all a gamble.

[Cynjin]

21 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

Let's be honest, do you really think the Colts couldn't find a better player to trot out there in 2011 than Curtis Painter?  They didn't "luck" into the #1.  That was tanking.  Tanking isn't laying down, rolling over and point shaving.  Tanking is actively trotting out there inferior talent when you can do better.  Tanking is releasing guys or trading away talent that can help your team (see the 2018 Oakland Raiders).

 

 

Now you're just perpetuating a myth.  They did try to get a better Qb once they saw what they had with Painter.

 

Tanking is losing on purpose, coaches and GMs are not going to do that.  Why you ask?  Because they tend to get fired when they lose.  Players are not going to tank for the same reason. 

 

Your assertion that the Colts tanked in 2011 is just silly.

[aaron11]

38 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 He outplayed Luck that season

no he didnt.  luck had more yards and TDs and had to run a much tougher NFL offense on a worse team 

[tikyle]

43 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Now you're just perpetuating a myth.  They did try to get a better Qb once they saw what they had with Painter.

 

Tanking is losing on purpose, coaches and GMs are not going to do that.  Why you ask?  Because they tend to get fired when they lose.  Players are not going to tank for the same reason. 

 

Your assertion that the Colts tanked in 2011 is just silly.

 

They knew when Manning was here that Painter wasn't an NFL QB.  Manning was notorious for not letting backups take any snaps even in practice and the Colts had guys backing him up that were not NFL caliber players and everyone knew it.  You can call it what you want but if you go into a season with him at starter you are not expecting to win hardly any games at all.  If it makes you feel better they didn't tank, but you know deep down from watching Painter even before the season that the Colts were doomed and the team made no real effort to get a starting QB when Peyton got hurt the season prior.

 

In contrast the Colts traded for Brissett in 2017 before the season to avoid doing what they did in 2012.

 

And you are right, most coaches and GMs don't tank due to job security.  Tanking has to be an organizational decision.  And again tanking is not just blatantly losing and laying down.  Its not giving your team the best chance to win.

 

32 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

no he didnt.  luck had more yards and TDs and had to run a much tougher NFL offense on a worse team 

 

Luck: 23 TD, 18 INT, 4374 yds, 54.1% completion, 41 sacks, 5 rushing TDs, 76.5 QBrating

Griffin: 20 TD, 5 INT, 3200 yds, 65.6% completion, 30 sacks, 7 rushing TDs, 102.4 QBrating

 

Again, he outplayed Luck that season.  It's just plain and simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

[aaron11]

4 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

They knew when Manning was here that Painter wasn't an NFL QB.  Manning was notorious for not letting backups take any snaps even in practice and the Colts had guys backing him up that were not NFL caliber players and everyone knew it.  You can call it what you want but if you go into a season with him at starter you are not expecting to win hardly any games at all.  If it makes you feel better they didn't tank, but you know deep down from watching Painter even before the season that the Colts were doomed and the team made no real effort to get a starting QB when Peyton got hurt the season prior.

 

In contrast the Colts traded for Brissett in 2017 before the season to avoid doing what they did in 2012.

 

And you are right, most coaches and GMs don't tank due to job security.  Tanking has to be an organizational decision.  And again tanking is not just blatantly losing and laying down.  Its not giving your team the best chance to win.

 

 

Luck: 23 TD, 18 INT, 4374 yds, 54.1% completion, 41 sacks, 5 rushing TDs, 76.5 QBrating

Griffin: 20 TD, 5 INT, 3200 yds, 65.6% completion, 30 sacks, 7 rushing TDs, 102.4 QBrating

 

Again, he outplayed Luck that season.  It's just plain and simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

no he didnt,  QB rating isnt everything.  luck had more yards and tds and actually ran an offense.  

[Superman]

6 hours ago, Crunked said:

Every time one of these older threads pop up, the first thing I do is search to see if I said anything really dumb lol

 

Me too.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, tikyle said:

Again, he outplayed Luck that season.  It's just plain and simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

No he didn't. He had some better stats, which, good for him, and smart on that coaching staff to get that production out of him. Luck was the vastly superior player, had a greater burden of responsibility, and made more plays as a QB. Luck was the best (or one of the best) passer on third and long, had to overcome a comically bad OL, and had a below average run game.

 

Context matters. The idea that because Griffin had some better stats than Luck that he outplayed him is devoid of context.

[2006Coltsbestever]

The Colts are proof you should never give up on a season at 1-5. Like I posted earlier I can see it if a team is 0-8, it's over then. The only time a team should so called tank is if they need a QB and a QB like a Peyton or Luck is coming out otherwise tanking or playing backups is just wrong. Everyone knew Peyton and Luck would without a doubt be Great. The Draft is a crapshoot in general anyway. Look how Jeff George, Heath Shuler, Tim Couch, JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, and RG3 ended up. Every top Draft expert said those guys weren't cant misses, they would be great, blah blah. All those QB's sucked.

[Cynjin]

5 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

They knew when Manning was here that Painter wasn't an NFL QB.  Manning was notorious for not letting backups take any snaps even in practice and the Colts had guys backing him up that were not NFL caliber players and everyone knew it.  You can call it what you want but if you go into a season with him at starter you are not expecting to win hardly any games at all.  If it makes you feel better they didn't tank, but you know deep down from watching Painter even before the season that the Colts were doomed and the team made no real effort to get a starting QB when Peyton got hurt the season prior.

 

In contrast the Colts traded for Brissett in 2017 before the season to avoid doing what they did in 2012.

 

And you are right, most coaches and GMs don't tank due to job security.  Tanking has to be an organizational decision.  And again tanking is not just blatantly losing and laying down.  Its not giving your team the best chance to win.

 

 

They brought in Kerry Collins that season once they saw what Painter was like in game.  Then they brought in Orlovsky, who went 2 and 3.  They tried to bring in a better QB, therefore they were not tanking.  Your characterization of it as tanking is wrong, they were not losing on purpose.

 

Also, who decided to tank the 2011 season?  Caldwell and Polian sure didn't, they were fired because of that season, many players were no longer employed after that season.  Your stance makes zero sense at any level of a football team. 

[Four2itus]

What....we're arguing this in two threads now.....with one person arguing against nearly everyone else?

 

We get it, you like the idea of not trying as hard as you can to win to gain a different advantage. I think it is freaking disgusting on every level of why I follow sports.