Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Shame on Doug Pederson


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Gramz said:

I agree that a 6-10 team shouldn't feel that someone robbed them....   They put themselves in this position.   They did not play well enough to earn a playoff spot.   

 

I do agree with them about the integrity of the game.   If you're playing to "lose"   why show up at all?   Just forfeit.   It was pretty pathetic to watch it play out.   Maybe the Eagles fans are okay with it.     I, as a fan,  NEVER want my team to lose, let alone on purpose.    Why play?  Why watch?   

 

Week 17 always presents these questions. I don't really agree that the Eagles quit or didn't show up.. They're a 4 win team, they played their future for three quarters in a game that didn't help them in a macro sense to win. And if Peterson get's Hurts hurt (hah!) that's his job security. I get it. Winning didn't help the Eagles draft stock. When your team is talent deficient, better picks is a part of the equation to stop losing.

 

The quickest way to get fans to stop caring is to suck for an extended period of time, suck for a few years- then no one will care if said team is playing and they certainly won't be watching. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anytime the Cowboys get eliminated from the playoffs it is funny to me. 

There really should be a limit on messing up a game like Pederson did tonight. That was disgraceful and made absolutely no sense. League should fine Philly and take a draft pick away. That was really

They're entirely baseless, and the preponderance of available evidence makes that clear. You're saying 'there's evidence we don't have access to,' and that's also baseless. The presumed existence of e

25 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Owner may have forced Pederson to take the draft capitol. Either way it should be punishable.

I disagree.   It's too subjective.  how do you determine which teams wanted to lose a game.   Heck, the Eagles could have started Sudfell, and that would have guaranteed a loss.   They used the last quarter to do what was best for their team.   Check out their backup and secure the 6th pick.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Week 17 always presents these questions. I don't really agree that the Eagles quit or didn't show up.. They're a 4 win team, they played their future for three quarters in a game that didn't help them in a macro sense to win. And if Peterson get's Hurts hurt (hah!) that's his job security. I get it. Winning didn't help the Eagles draft stock. When your team is talent deficient, better picks is a part of the equation to stop losing.

 

The quickest way to get fans to stop caring is to suck for an extended period of time, suck for a few years- then no one will care if said team is playing and they certainly won't be watching. 

 

Clearly it’s time for the NFL to go to a draft lottery and that has nothing at all to do with the Jags getting Lawrence :goodluck:

 

just in case anyone thinks otherwise the above was said in sarcasm.  

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Week 17 always presents these questions. I don't really agree that the Eagles quit or didn't show up.. They're a 4 win team, they played their future for three quarters in a game that didn't help them in a macro sense to win. And if Peterson get's Hurts hurt (hah!) that's his job security. I get it. Winning didn't help the Eagles draft stock. When your team is talent deficient, better picks is a part of the equation to stop losing.

 

The quickest way to get fans to stop caring is to suck for an extended period of time, suck for a few years- then no one will care if said team is playing and they certainly won't be watching. 

 

luckily.... for the most part we had some very competitive and exciting games to watch yesterday.   

 

In reality, if I'm being honest .I don't really care what the Eagles did or did not do.      

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is if you are a 6-10 NY Giants team hoping for a favor from a Philadelphia team, you have a snowball’s chance in you know where of getting a break. 

The Ravens were 6-5 this year, and had to win five straight and get some help. If they didn’t get in, they deserved it , because they lost to a crummy NE team, and the coaching staff blew two games against TN, and the first Pittsburgh game. I remember years ago, the Ravens were hoping the resting Colts with Jim Sorgi would beat someone to get in the playoffs. Didn’t happen, and we didn’t deserve to get in . Don’t put your team’s playoff fate in the hands of another team, especially Philadelphia. Bad team, fans, coaches, stadium, you name it. No tears for NY either. It is what it is. 
 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get the outrage. The game meant nothing to the Eagles. If they had shut down Hurts before the game and went with Sudfeld, it wouldn't have made this many waves.

 

I wasn't watching when Hurts got pulled, but from the little I did see of the game, Hurts wasn't playing winning football. (Side note, I think there's a little bit of undeserved hype surrounding Hurts. I don't see him being that good in the NFL. Could be wrong.)

 

I also think the 'integrity of the game' is compromised more by the fact that a 6-10 team could have gone to the playoffs, while four teams without losing records are sitting at home. The entire NFC East should have been eliminated from the playoffs this year for the sake of integrity.

 

6 hours ago, The Old Crow said:

Hate to say it, but kind of reminds me of the “ Suck for Luck “ campaign starring Curtis Painter 

 

There was no Suck for Luck campaign from the Colts. Stop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Superman said:

I don't really get the outrage. The game meant nothing to the Eagles. If they had shut down Hurts before the game and went with Sudfeld, it wouldn't have made this many waves.

 

I wasn't watching when Hurts got pulled, but from the little I did see of the game, Hurts wasn't playing winning football. (Side note, I think there's a little bit of undeserved hype surrounding Hurts. I don't see him being that good in the NFL. Could be wrong.)

 

I also think the 'integrity of the game' is compromised more by the fact that a 6-10 team could have gone to the playoffs, while four teams without losing records are sitting at home. The entire NFC East should have been eliminated from the playoffs this year for the sake of integrity.

 

There was no Suck for Luck campaign from the Colts. Stop it.


Did they print T Shirts ? Did Polian meet with Luck in September ? Could they have gotten a QB better than Painter and Collins ? Didn’t Manning try to come back in the last two games ? Enquiring people want to know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:


Did they print T Shirts ? Did Polian meet with Luck in September ? Could they have gotten a QB better than Painter and Collins ? Didn’t Manning try to come back in the last two games ? Enquiring people want to know. 

 

Are you making stuff up?

 

What better QB could they have gotten?

 

When did Manning try to come back, what was the Colts record at the time, and how many games did they win from that point on?

 

This take needs to die. It's clearly nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derakynn said:

It was pretty ridiculous. But I can't feel bad for the Giants either. Nobody in the NFC East deserved to get to the playoffs. You have teams in the AFC at risk of not making the playoffs at 11-5, meanwhile you have an 8-8 and a 7-9 (potentially could have been 6-10...)team in the NFC playoffs. Probably the easiest opportunity to get in the playoffs that the NFL has seen.

 

 

I really don't feel bad for the Giants either. I just think the NFL should be frowning on a team dumping an important game in the 4th quarter in the manner Philly did. I also think it's much different for playoff teams that protect or rest their players in week 17.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:


Did they print T Shirts ? Did Polian meet with Luck in September ? Could they have gotten a QB better than Painter and Collins ? Didn’t Manning try to come back in the last two games ? Enquiring people want to know. 

 

A little weird that the GM and the coaching staff would have to agree to suck for luck which included in the end all of them being fired.  

 

That's why I say that teams don't tank entire seasons.  Because very few teams have the #1 overall pick by their own rights (instead of via a trade) and also have the same coaching staff and front office as they did the year they earned that #1 overall pick.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

A little weird that the GM and the coaching staff would have to agree to suck for luck which included in the end all of them being fired.  

 

That's why I say that teams don't tank entire seasons.  Because very few teams have the #1 overall pick by their own rights (instead of via a trade) and also have the same coaching staff and front office as they did the year they earned that #1 overall pick.

 

 

The only theory that could possibly happen to the bolded is that maybe Irsay paid Polian and the Coaches under the table to tank and set the Colts up for the future after they got fired and secured the #1 pick. Chris Polian was doing the 2011 draft if I remember right, and Bill was basically done at that point, so I don't think he cared if he got fired. The coaches I can't speak for, but Irsay cleaned house, and it wouldn't be too hard to bribe them to get the no1 pick and fire them to make it look legit that he was punishing them for a 2-14 record when it was the plan all along.

 

Just a thought from an elite perspective.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The only theory that could possibly happen to the bolded is that maybe Irsay paid Polian and the Coaches under the table to tank and set the Colts up for the future after they got fired and secured the #1 pick. Chris Polian was doing the 2011 draft if I remember right, and Bill was basically done at that point, so I don't think he cared if he got fired. The coaches I can't speak for, but Irsay cleaned house, and it wouldn't be too hard to bribe them to get the no1 pick and fire them to make it look legit that he was punishing them for a 2-14 record when it was the plan all along.

 

Just a thought from an elite perspective.

 

Pretty sure under the table payments like that would be a pretty big scandal.  So I doubt that would happen.

 

The other thing is that these coaches and GM's are already pretty wealthy, so I'm guessing that their reputations as coaches/GM's probably mean more to them than any under the table payment.

 

I think the reason why the rumor that the Colts purposefully tanked for Luck persists is because they were so successful with Manning and then Manning gets hurt for the first time ever right as Luck is about to come out.  It was insanely good luck so to speak.  Whereas the typical team that gets the #1 overall pick usually is bad for several years before that.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I really don't feel bad for the Giants either. I just think the NFL should be frowning on a team dumping an important game in the 4th quarter in the manner Philly did. I also think it's much different for playoff teams that protect or rest their players in week 17.

 

Just curious, what if they had started Sudfeld?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Valpo2004 said:

Pretty sure under the table payments like that would be a pretty big scandal.  So I doubt that would happen.

 

Exactly.

 

The only way to defend this claim is to suggest highly scandalous actions took place, then everyone involved in those actions was unceremoniously fired or released (the Polians, Caldwell and most of the coaching staff, every QB on the 2011 roster, Manning himself), paid off, or otherwise kept quiet for the last nine years. Is that what's being suggested?

 

Chris Polian has toiled away in obscurity since he was fired by the Colts, never coming close to another GM job. Painter and Collins never played again. Manning was subsequently cut. Half of the roster was turned over from 2011 to 2012. So all of the people who would have been involved would have known in advance that they weren't going to benefit from this strategy, and still they would have gone along with it? Does that make any sense?

 

Every single person that would have been involved in this kind of scheme has a platform, and could have gotten a lot of attention by speaking out since then. This is in the early days of Twitter, anyone could have leaked something that would have blown this up. And since you're talking about dozens of people involved and/or affected, you would have to imagine that at least some of them would have been inclined to report this scheme to the league, just out of their own sense of honor.

 

None of the veteran players who were in the building in 2011, including those who stayed in 2012, have suggested that there was anything short of a full effort to win every week.

 

There are no leaked memos, no recordings, no phone calls, no directives, not even any rumors from people tangentially associated with the team. There is no evidence that any of this happened. Nothing.

 

It's just a baseless conspiracy theory that people continue to parrot, then defend with meaningless platitudes like 'you can't tell me they didn't try to get the #1 pick,' etc., without offering any evidence that it's true. 

 

If they planned to get the #1 pick, they would not have allowed the team to win 2 of the last 3 games of the season, nearly costing themselves the #1 pick. They would not have benched Painter with fives games to go, because the job wasn't done yet. They would not have fired the defensive coordinator with five games left. They would not have considered bringing Manning back at any point that season.

 

What happened in 2011 is simple. The Colts roster was already starting to fall apart, and that was clear in 2010. Manning had surgery, the team expected him back and didn't have a good backup plan in case he couldn't play, then he had another operation right before the season started, and the team scrambled for a veteran at the 11th hour. The coaching staff wasn't capable of compensating for bad QB play, the defense wasn't good, and the team sucked. They started 0-13 and finished 2-14 because they were a really bad team, with bad coaching, and bad QB play.

 

Anyone who says otherwise needs to submit some real evidence in support of the tanking theory, not this circumstantial, theoretical scandal garbage. And yet, they cannot, because it didn't happen.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Pretty sure under the table payments like that would be a pretty big scandal.  So I doubt that would happen.

 

The other thing is that these coaches and GM's are already pretty wealthy, so I'm guessing that their reputations as coaches/GM's probably mean more to them than any under the table payment.

 

I think the reason why the rumor that the Colts purposefully tanked for Luck persists is because they were so successful with Manning and then Manning gets hurt for the first time ever right as Luck is about to come out.  It was insanely good luck so to speak.  Whereas the typical team that gets the #1 overall pick usually is bad for several years before that.  

IMO there was no "suck for Luck". 

If you remember the Colts won 2 of their last 3 games and took a chance on not getting the #1 pick. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Exactly.

 

The only way to defend this claim is to suggest highly scandalous actions took place, then everyone involved in those actions was unceremoniously fired or released (the Polians, Caldwell and most of the coaching staff, every QB on the 2011 roster, Manning himself), paid off, or otherwise kept quiet for the last nine years. Is that what's being suggested?

 

Chris Polian has toiled away in obscurity since he was fired by the Colts, never coming close to another GM job. Painter and Collins never played again. Manning was subsequently cut. Half of the roster was turned over from 2011 to 2012. So all of the people who would have been involved would have known in advance that they weren't going to benefit from this strategy, and still they would have gone along with it? Does that make any sense?

 

Every single person that would have been involved in this kind of scheme has a platform, and could have gotten a lot of attention by speaking out since then. This is in the early days of Twitter, anyone could have leaked something that would have blown this up. And since you're talking about dozens of people involved and/or affected, you would have to imagine that at least some of them would have been inclined to report this scheme to the league, just out of their own sense of honor.

 

None of the veteran players who were in the building in 2011, including those who stayed in 2012, have suggested that there was anything short of a full effort to win every week.

 

There are no leaked memos, no recordings, no phone calls, no directives, not even any rumors from people tangentially associated with the team. There is no evidence that any of this happened. Nothing.

 

It's just a baseless conspiracy theory that people continue to parrot, then defend with meaningless platitudes like 'you can't tell me they didn't try to get the #1 pick,' etc., without offering any evidence that it's true. 

 

If they planned to get the #1 pick, they would not have allowed the team to win 2 of the last 3 games of the season, nearly costing themselves the #1 pick. They would not have benched Painter with fives games to go, because the job wasn't done yet. They would not have fired the defensive coordinator with five games left. They would not have considered bringing Manning back at any point that season.

 

What happened in 2011 is simple. The Colts roster was already starting to fall apart, and that was clear in 2010. Manning had surgery, the team expected him back and didn't have a good backup plan in case he couldn't play, then he had another operation right before the season started, and the team scrambled for a veteran at the 11th hour. The coaching staff wasn't capable of compensating for bad QB play, the defense wasn't good, and the team sucked. They started 0-13 and finished 2-14 because they were a really bad team, with bad coaching, and bad QB play.

 

Anyone who says otherwise needs to submit some real evidence in support of the tanking theory, not this circumstantial, theoretical scandal garbage. And yet, they cannot, because it didn't happen.


I did hear a report at the time that Manning wanted to do some workouts late in the season , then play in only red zone opportunities in week 16 against the Texans. Supposedly , Polian took this to Irsay, who nixed it. Not that this matters, as it’s all history now. I just thought it was an interesting parallel to the Pederson situation. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't really get the outrage. The game meant nothing to the Eagles. If they had shut down Hurts before the game and went with Sudfeld, it wouldn't have made this many waves.

 

I wasn't watching when Hurts got pulled, but from the little I did see of the game, Hurts wasn't playing winning football. (Side note, I think there's a little bit of undeserved hype surrounding Hurts. I don't see him being that good in the NFL. Could be wrong.)

 

I also think the 'integrity of the game' is compromised more by the fact that a 6-10 team could have gone to the playoffs, while four teams without losing records are sitting at home. The entire NFC East should have been eliminated from the playoffs this year for the sake of integrity.

You are correct, it may have been mostly to protect their investment, but I will cite that they sure picked a unique time to use that card. However, I will add that not playing starters late in games or seasons is old hat. It's the same thing...the same thing

58 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There was no Suck for Luck campaign from the Colts. Stop it.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternate universe view is what would have happened if the Colts weren’t drafting  number 1, and got Luck. Did they give up 4 good Manning years in which he got Denver to two Super Bowls winning one. 
Probably, the Colts didn’t have the team to put around Manning those last four years to get those results. That’s why I don’t buy the Irsay blaming Manning for the one ring deal. Had they put a better team around him, more SB’s would have came Indy’s way. To me, Manning was an unbelievably great QB. One of the best ever. 
In the real universe, once they drafted Luck, I can’t blame the Colts for releasing Manning with the injuries, age, cap, etc. No one foresaw Andrew bowing out so early. Still , both were great quarterbacks. Not many organizations have had the chance to select an Elway , Manning, or Luck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:


I did hear a report at the time that Manning wanted to do some workouts late in the season , then play in only red zone opportunities in week 16 against the Texans. Supposedly , Polian took this to Irsay, who nixed it. Not that this matters, as it’s all history now. I just thought it was an interesting parallel to the Pederson situation. 
 

 

There was a very secretive workout with Manning, they were exploring bringing him in for red zone possessions at some point late in the season. (I don't remember exactly when, but if it was Week 16 vs the Texans, it's worth noting that we won the game without Manning, and that was the second win of the season. So I don't see how this supports the idea that denying Manning the chance to play late in the season was designed to help the Colts get the #1 pick.) If I remember correctly, Manning could hardly throw the ball 20 yards. 

 

It would have been disastrous to put him out there in any capacity. I say that after seeing him go through his rehab leading up to 2012, then struggle through the first month plus of the season. 

 

Last thing on Manning, you just reminded me that the Colts never put him on IR. If the strategy was to tank for Luck, and that went all the way back to the offseason when they failed to add a better backup QB, then why didn't they IR him in early September when he had the fusion surgery?

 

I'm also not sure I see the parallel to the Eagles situation last night. Are you saying they Sucked for Sixth, and that would be comparable to throwing away an entire season?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:

I did hear a report at the time

From who?  your neighbor who's a mailman and doesn't even have season tickets for the nfl? (tobin reference if you didn't get it)

 

Seriously though, and i could be wrong but, love him or hate him Jim Caldwell seems to be of the highest integrity.  I cannot imagine him agreeing to tank ever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I really don't feel bad for the Giants either. I just think the NFL should be frowning on a team dumping an important game in the 4th quarter in the manner Philly did. I also think it's much different for playoff teams that protect or rest their players in week 17.

It was only important for the Eagles if they lost and got the 6th pick.   I don't think they lost on purpose, but they knew that if they did, it would still be good for the team.  They may have lost if Hurts played as well.  

If the Colts were out of the playoff hunt and started Eason to see what he could do, I would be happy just as Eagles fans should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There was a very secretive workout with Manning, they were exploring bringing him in for red zone possessions at some point late in the season. (I don't remember exactly when, but if it was Week 16 vs the Texans, it's worth noting that we won the game without Manning, and that was the second win of the season. So I don't see how this supports the idea that denying Manning the chance to play late in the season was designed to help the Colts get the #1 pick.) If I remember correctly, Manning could hardly throw the ball 20 yards. 

 

It would have been disastrous to put him out there in any capacity. I say that after seeing him go through his rehab leading up to 2012, then struggle through the first month plus of the season. 

 

Last thing on Manning, you just reminded me that the Colts never put him on IR. If the strategy was to tank for Luck, and that went all the way back to the offseason when they failed to add a better backup QB, then why didn't they IR him in early September when he had the fusion surgery?

 

I'm also not sure I see the parallel to the Eagles situation last night. Are you saying they Sucked for Sixth, and that would be comparable to throwing away an entire season?


The suck for 6th versus 10th pick came up from the press. The parallel would be a tanking story, but I do agree it would be hard to do that for a whole year. I think the story of Manning in game 16, if he came in, and the Colts still won, would he have made a difference in week 17 versus Jacksonville ? Who knows ? 
I’m not trying to accuse the Colts of cheating, and certainly can’t blame them for drafting Luck. Just an interesting bit of history .  The one thing I will say is that Pederson could have been less ham handed if he was actually tanking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

From who?  your neighbor who's a mailman and doesn't even have season tickets for the nfl? (tobin reference if you didn't get it)

 

Seriously though, and i could be wrong but, love him or hate him Jim Caldwell seems to be of the highest integrity.  I cannot imagine him agreeing to tank ever. 


Just based on NFL reports and some stories at that time. I agree with your assessment of Caldwell. Definitely a great coach, and man of integrity. He was given the personnel he was given. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:

The alternate universe view is what would have happened if the Colts weren’t drafting  number 1, and got Luck. Did they give up 4 good Manning years in which he got Denver to two Super Bowls winning one. 
Probably, the Colts didn’t have the team to put around Manning those last four years to get those results. That’s why I don’t buy the Irsay blaming Manning for the one ring deal. Had they put a better team around him, more SB’s would have came Indy’s way. To me, Manning was an unbelievably great QB. One of the best ever. 
In the real universe, once they drafted Luck, I can’t blame the Colts for releasing Manning with the injuries, age, cap, etc. No one foresaw Andrew bowing out so early. Still , both were great quarterbacks. Not many organizations have had the chance to select an Elway , Manning, or Luck. 

 

I did have the feeling that Luck might not play as long as he could.  QB's can typically play til about 40 or so these days and I sort of thought Luck might only play til he was 35 or so because he had so many other interests.

 

But no I didn't think he'd quit as early as he did.  But to be fair I did get the feeling that he was going to keep going until he couldn't do it anymore like a lot of guys.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can understand some saying how is this to a playoff team resting starters, I do think there is an important nuanced difference there. Sure they didn't play their best team but they at least wanted to win the game still.

 

The Eagles didn't even try to hide it, and I'm not just talking about putting Sudfield in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was just saying that my theory was probably the only theory that could happen. Maybe the Colts planned the tank with knowing how good Andrew Luck was, but it's still hard to pull off for a year. It takes an effort from everyone though, and my way would be the only way that everybody could pull it off and keep quiet afterwards. 

 

There's always mini-tanking IMO, and the Eagles example is one way that they do it that was probably really obvious. Some people here still believe that a team won't try it at the beginning of the year. I think the Jets attempted that this year before winning two games. The Dolphins attempted it last year before getting the no5 pick. Those tanks were almost successful. I believe our tank succeeded even though we won two games because we ultimately got the no1 pick. Not every tank is obvious, and not every tank works. I do believe some do happen in the NFL though, and most ultimately fail by the end of the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I did have the feeling that Luck might not play as long as he could.  QB's can typically play til about 40 or so these days and I sort of thought Luck might only play til he was 35 or so because he had so many other interests.

 

But no I didn't think he'd quit as early as he did.  But to be fair I did get the feeling that he was going to keep going until he couldn't do it anymore like a lot of guys.  


Luck was a really great QB. It’s a shame Grigson didn’t put together a good OL to

protect him. To me, his career is very similar to Bert Jones. 
We had similar problems in Baltimore, as were the challenges for Manning and Luck in Indy. In our case, we couldn’t put a decent offense around Ray Lewis, Ed Reed , and our great defenses. 
The Patriots were able to put together more balance among all three units , than the Colts and Ravens, in that era,  hence a few more SB wins. Some of the other SB wins the Patriots got were the secret fourth unit, cheating and chicanery. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There was a very secretive workout with Manning, they were exploring bringing him in for red zone possessions at some point late in the season. (I don't remember exactly when, but if it was Week 16 vs the Texans, it's worth noting that we won the game without Manning, and that was the second win of the season. So I don't see how this supports the idea that denying Manning the chance to play late in the season was designed to help the Colts get the #1 pick.) If I remember correctly, Manning could hardly throw the ball 20 yards. 

 

It would have been disastrous to put him out there in any capacity. I say that after seeing him go through his rehab leading up to 2012, then struggle through the first month plus of the season. 

 

Last thing on Manning, you just reminded me that the Colts never put him on IR. If the strategy was to tank for Luck, and that went all the way back to the offseason when they failed to add a better backup QB, then why didn't they IR him in early September when he had the fusion surgery?

 

I'm also not sure I see the parallel to the Eagles situation last night. Are you saying they Sucked for Sixth, and that would be comparable to throwing away an entire season?

 

 

I'm annoyed that the suck for Luck narrative stuck, because having to endure/watch that double whammy season of losing Peyton and being terrible, one thing was for certain, none of it was on purpose. You can make the case that Kerry Collins wasn't a great contingency but he was a known quantity. As was Curtis Painter- who didn't get as much run as people seem to think. 

 

But it's totally done now. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

 

I'm annoyed that the suck for Luck narrative stuck, because having to endure/watch that double whammy season of losing Peyton and being terrible, one thing was for certain, none of it was on purpose. You can make the case that Kerry Collins wasn't a great contingency but he was a known quantity. As was Curtis Painter- who didn't get as much run as people seem to think. 

 

But it's totally done now. 


Look on the bright side, at least you got Luck ! The Jet’s are so pathetic they couldn’t even “ Tank for Trevor .”  
 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Crow said:

The alternate universe view is what would have happened if the Colts weren’t drafting  number 1, and got Luck. Did they give up 4 good Manning years in which he got Denver to two Super Bowls winning one. 
Probably, the Colts didn’t have the team to put around Manning those last four years to get those results. That’s why I don’t buy the Irsay blaming Manning for the one ring deal. Had they put a better team around him, more SB’s would have came Indy’s way. To me, Manning was an unbelievably great QB. One of the best ever. 
In the real universe, once they drafted Luck, I can’t blame the Colts for releasing Manning with the injuries, age, cap, etc. No one foresaw Andrew bowing out so early. Still , both were great quarterbacks. Not many organizations have had the chance to select an Elway , Manning, or Luck. 

In hindsight, Colts should have kept Manning. His 4 years in Denver were the best of his career. Luck was never close to Manning's level and obviously could never stay healthy.  Manning should have retired a Colt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

In hindsight, Colts should have kept Manning. His 4 years in Denver were the best of his career. Luck was never close to Manning's level and obviously could never stay healthy.  Manning should have retired a Colt.

I know how you feel. It’s like Johnny Unitas as a Charger ! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Old Crow said:

I know how you feel. It’s like Johnny Unitas as a Charger ! 

I think sometimes owners and orgs are tone deaf.  There are some players who are generational who should never play in another uniform.  Why anyone doubted Manning to be great after the neck surgery is beyond me. It is awful now to see him referred to as the "Denver Broncos" QB when he is mentioned. Very, very painful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think the Jets attempted that this year before winning two games.

 

Not even the Jets are so inept that they couldn't successfully tank for the #1 pick, if they wanted it. They fired their DC after he blew a game for them, the organization was obviously trying to win games. They just weren't good.

 

Also, interesting that everyone who was making fun of the Jets for winning their way out of the #1 pick seems to be pointing the finger at the Eagles for pulling Hurts in a game where he wasn't playing well. Seems like a double standard to me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Not even the Jets are so inept that they couldn't successfully tank for the #1 pick, if they wanted it. They fired their DC after he blew a game for them, the organization was obviously trying to win games. They just weren't good.

 

Also, interesting that everyone who was making fun of the Jets for winning their way out of the #1 pick seems to be pointing the finger at the Eagles for pulling Hurts in a game where he wasn't playing well. Seems like a double standard to me.

There was a lot of turmoil between Gase and Gregg Williams, I heard Gase fired him as a scapegoat before he was getting fired. I'm fine with any team trying to tank honestly. Most of the time it doesn't work anyway, and if it does, then you are still sacrificing a year of the team in order to try to win in the future. Most of the time, it's for a generational QB, which is understandable. The Eagles were just moving up 3 spots from 9 to 6, which will probably get them a slightly better talent and save them some draft capital if they wanted to move up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

There was a lot of turmoil between Gase and Gregg Williams, I heard Gase fired him as a scapegoat before he was getting fired. I'm fine with any team trying to tank honestly. Most of the time it doesn't work anyway, and if it does, then you are still sacrificing a year of the team in order to try to win in the future. Most of the time, it's for a generational QB, which is understandable. The Eagles were just moving up 3 spots from 9 to 6, which will probably get them a slightly better talent and save them some draft capital if they wanted to move up.

They moved to a better draft spot in each round.   They did the best thing for their team.  

Most mocks have them getting DeVonta Smith who may be the best WR in the draft and they need a great WR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

I think sometimes owners and orgs are tone deaf.  There are some players who are generational who should never play in another uniform.  Why anyone doubted Manning to be great after the neck surgery is beyond me. It is awful now to see him referred to as the "Denver Broncos" QB when he is mentioned. Very, very painful.


I agree that both Unitas and Manning should have stayed in Colt’s uniforms. Johnny was at the end of the line, but Bob Irsay and Joe Thomas handled it horribly. 
The Manning situation was more complex with the injuries , age, and cap , plus the opportunity to get Luck #1. I think the worst thing there was Jim Irsay’s bumbling comments about one ring. That didn’t need to be said, and it was a total organization thing that they got one ring. That also could have been handled better. 
Agreed, Unitas and Manning should have never been a Charger or Bronco. On top of that, letting Denver get Manning ,got Elway a SB as a GM. He basically stinks as a GM, and Manning is the only reason he won one. I still don’t like how he spurned the Colts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Myles said:

They moved to a better draft spot in each round.   They did the best thing for their team.  

Most mocks have them getting DeVonta Smith who may be the best WR in the draft and they need a great WR.

Exactly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:


I agree that both Unitas and Manning should have stayed in Colt’s uniforms. Johnny was at the end of the line, but Bob Irsay and Joe Thomas handled it horribly. 
The Manning situation was more complex with the injuries , age, and cap , plus the opportunity to get Luck #1. I think the worst thing there was Jim Irsay’s bumbling comments about one ring. That didn’t need to be said, and it was a total organization thing that they got one ring. That also could have been handled better. 
Agreed, Unitas and Manning should have never been a Charger or Bronco. On top of that, letting Denver get Manning ,got Elway a SB as a GM. He basically stinks as a GM, and Manning is the only reason he won one. I still don’t like how he spurned the Colts.  

Yeah. The one ring comment was infuriating. But you get what you wish for sometimes. You can never predict the durability of a player. Manning's durability was taken for granted in large part and also his focus on the game and desire to be great. Again, generational players are that way for a reason. It was a complex situation but handled poorly. Most situations like that are. 

 

I can't stand Elway or Eli for what they did during the draft. Both are losers in my book. I don't care what they won as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

Yeah. The one ring comment was infuriating. But you get what you wish for sometimes. You can never predict the durability of a player. Manning's durability was taken for granted in large part and also his focus on the game and desire to be great. Again, generational players are that way for a reason. It was a complex situation but handled poorly. Most situations like that are. 

 

I can't stand Elway or Eli for what they did during the draft. Both are losers in my book. I don't care what they won as a result.

I’m with you on Elway and Eli. To me, Manning was the best of his generation. Brady was great, but on better teams. 
I have great respect for Manning. Whether in Indy or Denver, he picked us clean like a Maryland Blue Crab. He was a gentleman of the old school like Unitas. As much as he thwarted the Raven’s ambitions, you couldn’t help but like the guy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...