2012

[NannyMcafee]

If I am remembering correctly. We we're one game away from having the 2nd overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft.

 

If that were to happen, our Oline would have effectively ended RGIIIs career and we would be sitting here without a legitimate franchise QB.

 

We love you Andrew!

[Dark Superman]

Maybe we would've traded back and landed Russell Wilson. Thank god Luck stayed in college one more year!

[shasta519]

They weren't losing against JAC. Even if they somehow lost that pick by winning an extra game, they would have traded up...it would have cost a lot more...so thankfully that didn't happen. But STL would have been in a position to basically trade the #1 pick twice...so IND was getting Luck.

[Boiler_Colt]

In that hypothetical scenario they probably would have kept Manning around and drafted a successor in the later rounds. It was reported that the Colts did like Russell Wilson a ton that year.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I still can't believe how many people in the media thought RG3 would be better than Luck. What a joke. Thank you Mr Irsay for making sure we didn't make that blunder.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Boiler_Colt said:

In that hypothetical scenario they probably would have kept Manning around and drafted a successor in the later rounds. It was reported that the Colts did like Russell Wilson a ton that year.

 

No way they don't draft a QB with the #2 pick. They would have flipped spots with STL. The amount that WAS would have had to pay to get the rights to Luck would have been silly. STL would was far better off trading with IND and then trading the #2 pick to WAS. Recall they ultimately ended up trading back twice from the #1 pick (WAS and then DAL)...so they obviousvly had that in mind with the draft.

 

Also (and not to sidetrack the discussion)....I think Manning was gone regardless in an amicable split between Manning and Irsay. Luck just made it a whole hell of a lot easier to justify.

[Alex22]

9 hours ago, shastamasta said:

They weren't losing against JAC. Even if they somehow lost that pick by winning an extra game, they would have traded up...it would have cost a lot more...so thankfully that didn't happen. But STL would have been in a position to basically trade the #1 pick twice...so IND was getting Luck.

 

Tbh if they traded up .....

 

...... there would be less Grigson busts 

9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I still can't believe how many people in the media thought RG3 would be better than Luck. What a joke. Thank you Mr Irsay for making sure we didn't make that blunder.

 

RG3 might have been great if he didn’t injure his knee. 

 

Feel for the guy 

[Matthew Gilbert]

My wife had a Colts Andrew Luck jersey custom made for me when the Colts started 0-12. I did start to sweat a little when they rattled off those two late season wins but we still got our man in the end. 

[Myles]

Tanking works.    Not saying the Colts tanked, but there are situations where a team should maybe sit a couple players who are questionable.   

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

Tanking works.

 

Tanking is a myth.  There are too many people that would need to be involved that wouldn't be on board because it hurts their ability for future employment in the league.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

Tanking works.    Not saying the Colts tanked, but there are situations where a team should maybe sit a couple players who are questionable.   

"Tanking works". It does but it doesn't. If you have a once in a generational QB coming out of college like a Peyton, Elway, and Luck then yes if your team gets to like 0-8, other than that I am against tanking, always have been because the draft is a crapshoot in reality. Alot of #1 and #2 picks have been busts. 

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Tanking is a myth.  There are too many people that would need to be involved that wouldn't be on board because it hurts their ability for future employment in the league.

I agree for the most part.   Players are not going to participate.    However a strong owner/GM/Coach connection could effectively make some tanking work.    Like I said, choose to sit questionable players rather than play them.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree for the most part.   Players are not going to participate.    However a strong owner/GM/Coach connection could effectively make some tanking work.    Like I said, choose to sit questionable players rather than play them.

 

I think it would be too obvious if they were actually trying to lose.

 

An interesting thought:  Would an owner trying to tank attempt to payoff refs?  I would think that could have a bigger impact on the outcome of a game.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree for the most part.   Players are not going to participate.    However a strong owner/GM/Coach connection could effectively make some tanking work.    Like I said, choose to sit questionable players rather than play them.

Yeah there are little slick ways teams can come up with if they really don't care about winning at the end of the season. What was strange was when we got to 0-13, we actually won 2 in a row and had a tight game with the Jags in the last week. We were trying to win at the end  

[shasta519]

46 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Tanking is a myth.  There are too many people that would need to be involved that wouldn't be on board because it hurts their ability for future employment in the league.

 

Tanking would incredibly hard to pull off...but when you compile the ghost of Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter and Dan Orlvosky (who actually QB'ed an 0-16 season) as your QB depth chart...you are absolutely going to lose games. I think it would be naive to say they weren't aware of this going into that season.  

 

Not sure who made the call (supposedly Caldwell)...but actually allowing Curtis Painter to start 8 games that season before putting a better QB in Orlvosky in as the starter...made it pretty clear that winning was the not the goal. 

 

And by the time they let Orlovsky play...they were 0-11 and every other team was at least 2-9. With the tiebreaker already in hand due to SOS...they only had to lose three of the remaining games to secure the #1 pick. Pretty easy to do when you have a 12-4 BAL team and a 13-3 NE team upcoming. So in comes Orlovsky.

 

But I do agree that (nearly all) players and coaches (especially with the constant coaching changes)...have no incentive to tank. A coach would have to really really trust his GM who really really trusts the owner.

 

That season was about circumstance as much as anything. Though I wonder what Painter would have to say under oath.

 

[shasta519]

13 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah there are little slick ways teams can come up with if they really don't care about winning at the end of the season. What was strange was when we got to 0-13, we actually won 2 in a row and had a tight game with the Jags in the last week. We were trying to win at the end  

 

Of course they won a couple games...they had a two game "lead" on everyone else...and the tiebreaker. Had to make it look good...haha.

 

But winning that game against JAC would have been incredibly costly. I just can't imagine that happening.

 

I don't think it was really that close of a game...Orlovsky turned it over three times and the Colts didn't score a TD until garbage time. JAC was just not very good...so they couldn't pull away.

 

Ironically, the QB in that JAC game is the same QB that just played for TEN...and played bad. The Gift of Gab-bert...just keeps on giving.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, shastamasta said:

 

Of course they won a couple games...they had a two game "lead" on everyone else...and the tiebreaker. Had to make it look good...haha.

 

But winning that game against JAC would have been incredibly costly. I just can't imagine that happening.

 

I don't think it was really that close of a game...Orlovsky turned it over three times and the Colts didn't score a TD until garbage time. JAC was just not very good...so they couldn't pull away.

 

Ironically, the QB in that JAC game is the same QB that just played for TEN...and played bad. The Gift of Gab-bert...just keeps on giving.

That game is the only time I didn't want us to win. Had we won that, no Luck.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I think it would be too obvious if they were actually trying to lose.

 

An interesting thought:  Would an owner trying to tank attempt to payoff refs?  I would think that could have a bigger impact on the outcome of a game.

 

You mean like trotting Curtis Painter onto the field and asking him to run the Colt offense the same way Manning did? The coaching staff didn't make any apparent changes to the offensive scheme and playcalling until they made the switch to Orlovsky.

 

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Tanking is a myth.  There are too many people that would need to be involved that wouldn't be on board because it hurts their ability for future employment in the league.

 

Not really.  You only need 2 people at most....the Head Coach and Offensive coordinator.  Interestingly, both of those guys (Caldwell and Christiansen) were supposed to survive the house cleaning.  Christiansen DID survive and stayed with the Colts and their new regime, and Caldwell was going to be kept but was fired shortly after Spagnuolo turned down the opportunity to be the Colts DC.

 

I'm not saying they did tank, but I can't say with 100% confidence that they didn't.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

6 minutes ago, J@son said:

You mean like trotting Curtis Painter onto the field and asking him to run the Colt offense the same way Manning did?

 

What else were they supposed to do?  The organization was banking on Manning playing that year.

 

By the time it was clear Manning wasn't going to play they had two choices:  1) Let Painter try to run the system and see how it goes so they know what they have in him, or 2) Start from scratch and be at least a full month behind every other team in preparation.

 

It was a lose/lose situation that showed how irreplaceable Manning really was.

[Jason_]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

What else were they supposed to do?  The organization was banking on Manning playing that year.

 

By the time it was clear Manning wasn't going to play they had two choices:  1) Let Painter try to run the system and see how it goes so they know what they have in him, or 2) Start from scratch and be at least a full month behind every other team in preparation.

 

It was a lose/lose situation that showed how irreplaceable Manning really was.

 

The same thing they did when they switched to Painter.  Run the ball more.  Use less shotgun.  Not try to force Painter to make the same presnap reads that Manning would.  Every team that has their starting QB go down for a long stretch makes adjustments to the scheme and playcalling to try to make things easier for the backup.  

 

To your first point, I don't think that seeing what they had in Painter was ever a real consideration.  They knew very well what they had in him...a poor backup that was never going to be a starting caliber QB.  

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I think it would be too obvious if they were actually trying to lose.

 

An interesting thought:  Would an owner trying to tank attempt to payoff refs?  I would think that could have a bigger impact on the outcome of a game.

I think paying off the refs is too risky.      

However, if a team is 1-10 and there are two other teams at 2-9, I can see a tight Owner/GM/Coach getting together on a plan to not try hard to win.   The team would already be the underdogs in their remaining games, they just would need to keep it that way.   Players would still be playing to win, so it's not assured, just stacked.   If the Colts wanted to tank this week, I would suggest that they hold Kelly out with his injury.   Of course you don't tank a playoff game.  

 

I wonder if Arizona had any questionable players who didn't play last week.    They would have been smart to hold them out to help secure the loss and #1 pick in the draft.