Isaiah Rodgers being investigated for gambling policy infractions ((MERGE))

[NFLfan]

20 hours ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Not defending Rogers at all. It seems like the league has a double standard since they are partanering and making money off the gambling themselves. The league could just as easily control outcomes of games as players, with refs and rules. I believe that any sports league shouldn't be partanered with gambling it creates a reasonable doubt perception that ruins the integrity of the sport for me.

 

That is a valid point too. Many sports leagues seem to place more value on money than principle. I was just reading how the PGA Tour (Golf) announced today that they merged with LIV, a league that the PGA had previously called corrupt.

 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

That is a valid point too. Many sports leagues seem to place more value on money than principle. I was just reading how the PGA Tour (Golf) announced today that they merged with a league that the PGA had previously called corrupt. Apparently they received a lot of money to merge.

The most boring “sport” in history merged

[sb41champs]

Every NFL player - regardless of team - needs to KNOW & UNDERSTAND all of the NFL conduct policy rules.

 

Failure to abide by these rules has consequences.

 

Enough said.

 

I feel badly that Isaiah Rodgers failed to live up to the rules and the expectations of the league and the Colts.  

 

I pray that he will learn from this experience - and - be able to move on to the next chapter of his life.

[jvan1973]

I think everyplayer in the league should be forced to bet 10% of their game checj on their team to win every week.   No one would be taking plays off.

[csmopar]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I think everyplayer in the league should be forced to bet 10% of their game checj on their team to win every week.   No one would be taking plays off.

Eh you’d still have lazy ones

[Zoltan]

Well he's gonna be gone for at least a year, which really hurts our CB group, maybe have to bring in Marcus Peters for a workout.

[w87r]

Just now, Zoltan said:

Well he's gonna be gone for at least a year, which really hurts our CB group, maybe have to bring in Marcus Peters for a workout.

Yep a year minimum for him. That's the floor, as long as investigation proves guilt, but with his self admission, seems to be just a matter of time. 

 

Peters might be too much, not that we don't have some to spend, but that was part of Gilly move, + "alleged" trade request.

 

Still like our current top 5, although they are young, but might just be that type of year.

 

Brents and Rush have some major potential, Flowers has shown that do.

 

I like Jones as well.

 

Agree we still need another vet for the group though.

[Rhodelesstraveled]

Not a big loss.  We stunk with him and we'll stink this year without him.  Not sure why this is such a big deal.  

[John Waylon]

8 minutes ago, Rhodelesstraveled said:

Not a big loss.  We stunk with him and we'll stink this year without him.  Not sure why this is such a big deal.  

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Rhodelesstraveled said:

Not a big loss.  We stunk with him and we'll stink this year without him.  Not sure why this is such a big deal.  

[NFLfan]

Going back to the topic, it seems that most fans believe that the alleged gambling did not seem to change how Rodgers played. Most believe there is not much evidence that Rodgers's play was influenced by how he bet on the games. Despite that, it seems that he may still get a hefty fine or suspension, as players' gambling on NFL games is not allowed.

 

Who replaces Rodgers?

[Chucklez]

On 6/7/2023 at 12:25 AM, NFLfan said:

Going back to the topic, it seems that most fans believe that the alleged gambling did not seem to change how Rodgers played. Most believe there is not much evidence that Rodgers's play was influenced by how he bet on the games. Despite that, it seems that he may still get a hefty fine or suspension, as players' gambling on NFL games is not allowed.

 

Who replaces Rodgers?

As it stands... Probably Brents or Rush, or a mix of the two, which is a bit of trial by fire for the young kids.... 

I also wouldn't put it past this coaching staff to stick Kenny Moore outside more though, not exclusively, but a bit more.... which I am not particularly a fan of the idea of. 

Unless of course we bring in another Vet, which is definitely not out of the realms of posibility, the list of available guys have been posted a few times, but the only ones that intrigue me as a 1 year filler at the position for us are Marcus Peters (maybe id give him 2 years) or Ronald Darby, supposing he passes all physicals etc.

The rest of the available guys are just "meh" and id rather develop young players than bring anyone else in.

 

[csmopar]

Honestly, I’m not worried about it. Ballard has been good finding serviceable CBs. Not super stars but solid enough. Besides, this was expected to be a down year anyway so at least the young guys can learn with zero pressure of expectations 

[smittywerb]

Hate to see him sit down for a year.  Was looking forward to seeing him in an increased role.  But this will be an evaluation year anyway so that means more time for our rookies to shine.  This could be a blessing.

[w87r]

3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Honestly, I’m not worried about it. Ballard has been good finding serviceable CBs. Not super stars but solid enough. Besides, this was expected to be a down year anyway so at least the young guys can learn with zero pressure of expectations 

He has also been pretty good at finding good ones in the draft.

 

 

I imagine they will make some mistakes, but they will make some big plays too, and playing time will kick start their growth.

 

I know it doesn't seem like there is high expectations this season, but I think the Colts have a division title in mind.

 

Can it happen? Certainly, just have to see how it plays out.

 

Our run game is going to be top of the league, imo, Richardson and Taylor are going to be tough to contain. The defense should be around top 10 as well I think.(especially if Leonard is back to himself, big IF)

 

Those 2 things point towards a better season than some are anticipating.

 

Losing a top 5-10 rated CB last year, definitely hurts, but I have confidence in the young guys to step up.

[shasta519]

16 hours ago, w87r said:

https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/football/nfl/odds/87736

 

Spread was:

+3.5 for Colts

-3.5 for Vikings

 

Colts lost by 3.

 

Not much of a gambler, so not sure what money line is(straight up?)? Think total points is pretty clear, what it is. Maybe not, with both teams having different numbers?(total points of each individual team; highest is winner?)  Gambling ignorance is a good thing for me I guess.

 

Then prop bets. Who knows there, too many options.

 

Not sure of other spreads throughout the season, but here is that games.

 

So playing the spread here was inconsequential because we had a big lead, no reason to tank and get the score closer.

Yes, the Colts still covered the spread but that’s not the angle here. The angle would have been in-game bets. 
 

Prior to the game, since MIN was the favorite, the MIN money line was meh (-200).

But at halftime, that MIN money line jumped to +4000 (and even higher at some books) since no team had ever blown that lead. And it would have remained fairly high as the comeback was happening. 
 

So there would certainly have been some money to make if you knew the Colts were going to blow that lead at halftime. 

 

Another angle would have been getting that game to OT. You can bet that as well. I am sure at halftime, that was also big odds…maybe even bigger. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

The only thing that disturbs me about this whole gambling thing regarding players is if they bet on their own team to lose and participate in such game. That makes my stomach crawl and they could throw a game. If Rodgers wanted to bet on the Vikings/Bears game I really don't see that as being bad but league rules prohibit any gambling at all so he or other players just can't do it. 

 

My question is, if Rodgers goes to Vegas, can he play Poker, Black Jack, Slot Machines? Can other players? That is gambling.

[shasta519]

17 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

So you are speculating that the Ivy League kid playing a whole lot of snaps could have been  involved in a gambling ring ? The big bets he made were said to be 2 bets in the low thousands. I'm very doubtful that he made any bets that would arise suspicions that he was trying to throw games. Anything is possible but what you have been saying is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AND HIGHLY UNLIKELY . I mean it's possible that Anthony Richardson makes the All Pro team and the Colts win the SB. Possible is what you have and highly unlikely is how I describe it.

 

Why don't you just wait until you see all the facts before throwing all this speculative crap out there. I was betting $50 to $100 on NFL games when I was 10 years old. A kid that probably was placing bets with a college bookie got hooked on betting and made the bad judgement to keep betting is MOST likely what we have here. $50 to $100 bets in NO WAY IN THE NAME OF GOD indicative of a gambling scheme to fix NFL games.

 

 

Edit: Wasn't aware that this was about Thomas because of the deleted posts. And no, I wasn't saying Thomas could have been involved in a gambling ring. I don't know where this idea of a gambling ring came from. 

 

What I said is that if Rodgers bet on the Colts to lose that game, even though he wasn't playing, people would watch the ending and there would still be a lot of speculation.

[MikeCurtis]

20 hours ago, csmopar said:

If February is true, we were neck deep in coaching searches and the QB situation. Is it possible that someone missed the notification? Especially with the staff turnover?

Maybe.

 

Its also curious during the draft that we drafted 3 CBs 

 

We lost 1

 

Its almost as if we "knew" (again a possible)

 

 

At this stage is doesnst really matter..... but I do hope that we bring in a vet

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The only thing that disturbs me about this whole gambling thing regarding players is if they bet on their own team to lose and participate in such game. That makes my stomach crawl and they could throw a game. If Rodgers wanted to bet on the Vikings/Bears game I really don't see that as being bad but league rules prohibit any gambling at all so he or other players just can't do it. 

 

My question is, if Rodgers goes to Vegas, can he play Poker, Black Jack, Slot Machines? Can other players? That is gambling.

Yes,  they can't bet on NFL games.   They can bet on other sports, just not while in team facilities 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Yes,  they can't bet on NFL games.   They can bet on other sports, just not while in team facilities 

Thanks, I wasn't quite sure what all the rules were. The main thing that would really make me mad and disappoint me is, if one of our players bet on us to lose. They could throw a game and rig it themselves which is scary. I am not sure what Rodgers bet on yet, that will come out shortly I am sure.

[csmopar]

41 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Maybe.

 

Its also curious during the draft that we drafted 3 CBs 

 

We lost 1

 

Its almost as if we "knew" (again a possible)

 

 

At this stage is doesnst really matter..... but I do hope that we bring in a vet

I think we will. I think it’s a given that we have too

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Honestly, I’m not worried about it. Ballard has been good finding serviceable CBs. Not super stars but solid enough. Besides, this was expected to be a down year anyway so at least the young guys can learn with zero pressure of expectations 

I agree, although Rodgers has potential to be good, we don't know if he will be. It is not like we are losing a pro-bowl starter. When I read some of the rumors it may be Pittman, that caused me to panic a bit. We can't lose him.

[dw49]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

 

Edit: Wasn't aware that this was about Thomas because of the deleted posts. And no, I wasn't saying Thomas could have been involved in a gambling ring. I don't know where this idea of a gambling ring came from. 

 

What I said is that if Rodgers bet on the Colts to lose that game, even though he wasn't playing, people would watch the ending and there would still be a lot of speculation.

 

Really , I didn't;t

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

 

Edit: Wasn't aware that this was about Thomas because of the deleted posts. And no, I wasn't saying Thomas could have been involved in a gambling ring. I don't know where this idea of a gambling ring came from. 

 

What I said is that if Rodgers bet on the Colts to lose that game, even though he wasn't playing, people would watch the ending and there would still be a lot of speculation.

 

And what Intold you was "why wait until all the facts are out until you put all that speculation out there. "  Furthermore if Rodgers bet against the Colts that game , I would not think Thomas play ate the end was "suspicious" as you say. If it were "suspicious " the suspicion would be that Thomas was involved in a gambling ring or scheme. Sorry but 2 and 2 is still 4. 

[smittywerb]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

 

 

My question is, if Rodgers goes to Vegas, can he play Poker, Black Jack, Slot Machines? Can other players? That is gambling.

 

I would assume so.  The thing about playing in the league and betting is that it opens the possibility of insider trading which would open up the league to criminal charges and a lot of lawsuits.  It’s just best to eliminate any doubt and don’t do it at all. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree, although Rodgers has potential to be good, we don't know if he will be. It is not like we are losing a pro-bowl starter. When I read some of the rumors it may be Pittman, that caused me to panic a bit. We can't lose him.

Here’s my fear, we are all focused around it being Rodgers. 
 

If that Pittman claim on twitter is accurate, which I’m not saying it is,  but what are the odds Rodgers was the sole player on this team doing that? 
 

remember, the lions debacle started out similarly, with one player then eventually it went to 5(?) players that did it?

 

I almost wonder if the league isn’t going team by team looking at roster players doing this. 

[DiogoSales]

RYS is still out there? Maybe he signed somewhere and I missed

[DiogoSales]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Here’s my fear, we are all focused around it being Rodgers. 
 

If that Pittman claim on twitter is accurate, which I’m not saying it is,  but what are the odds Rodgers was the sole player on this team doing that? 
 

remember, the lions debacle started out similarly, with one player then eventually it went to 5(?) players that did it?

 

I almost wonder if the league isn’t going team by team looking at roster players doing this. 

 

Agree on the thinking, can be more than one..

Disagree that Rodgers will not be deeply missed, he was a top 10 CB PFF last year and without Gilly, by far our best CB on roster (the others are maily rookies).

To be really honest, he being out without one of the rookies clearly overdelivering early, will have a similiar impact than Pitt out, my opinion.

[MikeCurtis]

53 minutes ago, DiogoSales said:

 

Agree on the thinking, can be more than one..

Disagree that Rodgers will not be deeply missed, he was a top 10 CB PFF last year and without Gilly, by far our best CB on roster (the others are maily rookies).

To be really honest, he being out without one of the rookies clearly overdelivering early, will have a similiar impact than Pitt out, my opinion.

One of the commentators mentioned that this defense needed (Mostly cover 3) bigger CBs fast enough but counting on the FS over the top.  This bigger CBs HAVE to be able to assist in the run game

 

Im not saying that Rodgers wont be missed, but he is a little guy, that doesnt fit the cover 3. 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

Really , I didn't;t

 

And what Intold you was "why wait until all the facts are out until you put all that speculation out there. "  Furthermore if Rodgers bet against the Colts that game , I would not think Thomas play ate the end was "suspicious" as you say. If it were "suspicious " the suspicion would be that Thomas was involved in a gambling ring or scheme. Sorry but 2 and 2 is still 4. 

 

Well there won't be suspicion if we find out that he didn't bet against the Colts. But if we do, it could get ugly. That's all I have been saying. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[dw49]

38 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Well there won't be suspicion if we find out that he didn't bet against the Colts. But if we do, it could get ugly. That's all I have been saying. 

 

If he was stupid enough to bet against the Colts , he will probably receive a suspension that will be for life or one that has no stated ending. That would include the Colt games he did not play in also. Just my opinion there.

 

Let's face it , he's has to get at least a year when you consider the precedents that have already been set. Unless there are some really significant things we don't know about the Lion players or Ridley , how could he not get at least a year. The smallish bets won't play into it as common sense would tell us. The rule is no betting NFL games and it doesn't mention bet size. 

That said , I just thought that this had all the earmarks of a stupid kid that was in the habit of betting sports. Probably started in college ? Thus I didn't buy into all the theories that were being thrown out there in this thread. I no doubt came down hard on you and by the respectfulness I see in your post , I think I glossed over the fact that you're a good guy or girl. For that you have my apologies. 

[John Waylon]

28 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

If only the league had told these guys this in advance-

 

Oh wait a minute…

[Goatface Killah]

2 hours ago, DiogoSales said:

 

Agree on the thinking, can be more than one..

Disagree that Rodgers will not be deeply missed, he was a top 10 CB PFF last year and without Gilly, by far our best CB on roster (the others are maily rookies).

To be really honest, he being out without one of the rookies clearly overdelivering early, will have a similiar impact than Pitt out, my opinion.

Thats pretty misleading. 

 

You cant compare a backups rating to players who are asked to do much tougher jobs.

 

 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I was putting $23 on the New York Mets 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Interesting Zach moss and Granson asked if gambling rules are clear. Both said they don’t really dabble in gambling. All players should think this way while they are playing. Just don’t start so you don’t become addicted to it. Speed said the same thing. 

[w87r]

1 hour ago, Goatface Killah said:

Thats pretty misleading. 

 

You cant compare a backups rating to players who are asked to do much tougher jobs.

 

 

He started 9 of 13 games(2 other games he played he had no defensive snaps to rate, just SPT), 69% of games, and had increased reps prior to starting. 

 

The other 4 games he got CB snaps, he played in (51%, 47%, 44%, 38%) of defensive snaps. Not like he was out here playing 10 snaps against the #4 WR, usually he was lined up outside on the teams #1/#2 on the snaps he played.

 

Just took to long for Bradley to play him in front of his guy Facyson.

[w87r]

10 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Interesting Zach moss and Granson asked if gambling rules are clear. Both said they don’t really dabble in gambling. All players should think this way while they are playing. Just don’t start so you don’t become addicted to it. Speed said the same thing. 

I'm sure that's what there all gonna say right now. Lol.

 

What's "don't really dabble" really mean.

 

Probably just some poker games. All that really matters is they don't bet on NFL and don't bet on anything at the facility.

 

No gambling at all is the best practice though, as you've stated a couple times.

[stitches]

 

 

Jameson Williams got suspended for 6 games for this. 

[w87r]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

 

Jameson Williams got suspended for 6 games for this. 

That seems a little extreme.

 

I don't like that, not that that matters, but come on. Just tell them they can't gamble at all.