UPDATE: Two Colts players suspended for gambling, waived by team (merged)

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, BlackTiger said:

Yes even a bet on the colts is a really bad look for the league and for vegas.  He has access to inside information about game plans, and Taylors health, and usage in practice etc..

 

He was making bets for other people too and his inside information can also influence them.  if enough people got word of what he was betting on it could even move the spreads

 

Betting on your own team or players to win or cover makes the league and vegas look bad and adds fuel to the fire that this is all rigged

 

I assure you vegas doesn't care.   They win either way

[BlackTiger]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I assure you vegas doesn't care.   They win either way

Things like this could eventually make vegas look bad too.  they dont want to be investigated by the fbi over the league being rigged.  We are not there yet but if this went unchecked for a long time without punishing players that could happen 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Things like this could eventually make vegas look bad too.  they dont want to be investigated by the fbi over the league being rigged.  We are not there yet but if this went unchecked for a long time without punishing players that could happen 

I think the league is doing the right thing by taking a hardline on the issue.   But it looks pretty bad that they are in business with sportsbooks themselves.   They make billions without being in partnership with fandual, draftkings or BETMGM.  

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I assure you vegas doesn't care.   They win either way

 

They could lose in theory. If someone with inside info placed a large bet right before the event, before sportsbooks have a chance to adjust the line and cushion themselves, it could be very costly. 

[ADnum1]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I was looking for more details on the bets placed. The article says at least one bet on the Colts, the RB prop, which is silly. I wonder what the payout was... 

 

I get the team's stance. If you violate the gambling policy, they're going to take a hard line. I hope no one else gets implicated at any point, but if this is the standard, you have to apply it equally. So if Buckner violates the gambling policy, what's the outcome??

 

While I understand it, I don't know if it's absolutely necessary to get rid of the player. Especially a young player. But I can't argue that they are going overboard or doing him wrong. 

"All animals are equal"

 

"But some animals are more equal than others"

 

-George Orwell

[ADnum1]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

Yes, it is dumb and yes, there is precedent for this suspension with Calvin Ridley.

 

However, does the punishment fit the crime when star QBs like Big Ben and DeShaun Watson get 4 games or half a season for the seriousness of what they did? I don't know, just thinking out loud. 

It just goes to show you that the NFL thinks gambling is far worse than sexual assault

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

"All animals are equal"

 

"But some animals are more equal than others"

 

-George Orwell

 

Yeah I definitely worded that poorly. What I was getting at is I think it would be interesting to see how the team would handle a similar violation from a more critical player.

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

It just goes to show you that the NFL thinks gambling is far worse than sexual assault

I don't think so. IMO it shows that NFL thinks that gambling by players is far worse FOR THEIR BUSINESS than sexual assault. In a certain way, it's reflection on society more than a reflection on the NFL, because it shows what the NFL thinks society is more willing to tolerate in their entertainment.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

"All animals are equal"

 

"But some animals are more equal than others"

 

-George Orwell

You sure - Man we are getting a huge rain storm here, the wind is wild and the rain is pouring.

[ADnum1]

51 minutes ago, stitches said:

He's not a JAG but IMO the Colts and the coaching staff don't see him the way a lot of fans see him. Gus Bradley has been reluctant to give him starting snaps since the beginning. How does Rodgers start behind Facyson in training camp? Based on what? How does Rodgers start behind Facyson before or after game 1? Or after game 2?... Or game 5? How does Rodgers lose a SINGLE SNAP to Facyson for the entire rest of the season? Purely based on level of play nobody can convince me Facyson deserved to play more snaps than Rodgers last year. IMO Gus just doesn't value him all that much. 

 

At the end of the day the Colts management did not feel Rodgers was worth the headache.

 

I agree with your analysis that he was behind Facycon on the depth chart.

 

This is a great decision trust me.  No more distractions, no more questions about Rodgers at press conferences.  Once the press gets a hold of something, they are like Pitbulls and will never let go.

 

Now onto next season !!!

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I was looking for more details on the bets placed. The article says at least one bet on the Colts, the RB prop, which is silly. I wonder what the payout was... 

 

I get the team's stance. If you violate the gambling policy, they're going to take a hard line. I hope no one else gets implicated at any point, but if this is the standard, you have to apply it equally. So if Buckner violates the gambling policy, what's the outcome??

 

While I understand it, I don't know if it's absolutely necessary to get rid of the player. Especially a young player. But I can't argue that they are going overboard or doing him wrong. 

 

The prop bet would work something like this . The rushing yards for the RB say is 85 yards. The side that looks like it's the better would be something like .. you bet $120 to win $100. Say that was over 85 yards. Then if you bet "under" 85 yards , you would wager $100 to win $100. So likely that $1000 bet returned at most $1000 and at least around $800.

[Superman]

51 minutes ago, stitches said:

He's not a JAG but IMO the Colts and the coaching staff don't see him the way a lot of fans see him. Gus Bradley has been reluctant to give him starting snaps since the beginning. How does Rodgers start behind Facyson in training camp? Based on what? How does Rodgers start behind Facyson before or after game 1? Or after game 2?... Or game 5? How does Rodgers lose a SINGLE SNAP to Facyson for the entire rest of the season? Purely based on level of play nobody can convince me Facyson deserved to play more snaps than Rodgers last year. IMO Gus just doesn't value him all that much. 

 

I think maybe they didn't view him the way YOU view him, but they showed zero interest in keeping Facyson, and traded Gilmore. I think the intention was for him to be a locked in starter this season. (Also side note, he doesn't fit Bradley's preferred physical profile, which explains why Facyson got favored treatment for so long.)

 

Quote

I mean we've seen different teams do the exact same calculation and cut certain players while retaining others for the exact same gambling infractions. I really don't think the Colts are anything special in that regard. They would act in very similar ways... the only question is where they'd put their lines. And in that regard the calculations would be very similar to what they did with Watson. Maybe the line would be a bit different. Maybe they'd put it at the 90th percentile of players rather than at the 80th... but there will be a line past which they won't cut the player for the exact same thing Rodgers did. 

 

I'm interested in what the Colts would do because their statement was kind of high-minded, IMO. It was basically 'they violated the gambling policy, so we cut them.' I'm not naive enough to think that they'd do the exact same thing if it was a more critical player, but if you take that statement purely at face value, it reads as if violating the gambling policy is a hard line for the Colts.

 

Quote

"We have made the following roster moves as a consequence of the determination that these players violated the league's gambling policy," said Colts General Manager Chris Ballard. "The integrity of the game is of the utmost importance. As an organization we will continue to educate our players, coaches, and staff on the policies in place and the significant consequences that may occur with violations."

 

To me, that can be taken to mean that if a player violates the gambling policy, the Colts will cut said player. Again, I don't believe that's absolutely true, but it seems to be the implication. Is that just my interpretation?

 

I think the Watson thing is an entirely different situation, and I don't think the situations should be compared.

 

[NFLfan]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't think so. IMO it shows that NFL thinks that gambling by players is far worse FOR THEIR BUSINESS than sexual assault. In a certain way, it's an assessment on society more than an assessment on the NFL, because it shows what the NFL thinks society is more willing to tolerate in their entertainment.

 

That is a good point. I think I would replace "society" with "football fans". Those in society who are non-football fans would most likely view sexual assault as worse. But I agree with your statement that gambling is seen as worse for business.

[NFLfan]

Quote

I need to treat everybody fairly, but fair doesn't always mean equal.

-- Tony Dungy

 

I have heard other coaches say the same. I believe Parcells said something similar when speaking of Lawrence Taylor (but I am not certain of that).

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That is a good point. I think I would replace "society" with "football fans". Those in society who are non-football fans would most likely view sexual assault as worse. But I agree with your statement that gambling is seen as worse for business.

This is fair. I was just generalizing because football is so popular and the NFL supposedly cares about not just the current fans but possibly about what prospective fans would think if they want to grow their business... 

[Superman]

@stitches Do you think the Colts would have cut Calvin Ridley? The Falcons kept him, then traded him to the Jags, but he's a higher caliber player.

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

@stitches Do you think the Colts would have cut Calvin Ridley? The Falcons kept him, then traded him to the Jags, but he's a higher caliber player.

Probably not. But I'm not sure. Again ... I'm not saying the Colts will have the exact same limits as other teams, but they will have limits. Lets say we had a Luck type of player circa 2016 and he got caught gambling on Colts games(betting for wins) he didn't participate in because he was recovering from injury and was away from the team(exactly what Ridley got suspended for). There is about ZERO chance he gets cut. NO FREAKING WAY! They will let him serve his suspension and welcome him back with open arms the next year. Now start lowering the quality of the player... at some point you will reach a level where they will cut the guy. No idea where that line is... and of course IMO the type of betting matters too for the line they will set. Example - if a Rodgers was caught betting only on NBA games... IMO Rodgers would have survived that and the Colts would have welcomed him back after he served his 6 game suspension. 

[Myles]

26 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't think so. IMO it shows that NFL thinks that gambling by players is far worse FOR THEIR BUSINESS than sexual assault. In a certain way, it's reflection on society more than a reflection on the NFL, because it shows what the NFL thinks society is more willing to tolerate in their entertainment.

and I do not blame the NFL for it.   Gambling gives an avenue for rigged games and that could ruin the sport.  MLB feels the same way which is why Rose is not in the HOF.  

[BProland85]

Silver lining is at least the Titans lost their starting RT as well. 

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Rodgers would have survived that and the Colts would have welcomed him back after he served his 6 game suspension. 

 

It is a 6 game suspension? That is not much. I would have kept him.

 

Could another team sign him during his suspension? Someone will sign him at some point.

[stitches]

Just now, NFLfan said:

 

It is a 6 game suspension? That is not much. I would have kept him.

 

Could another team sign him during his suspension? Someone will sign him at some point.

It's 6 games for players that have bet on other sports and leagues from team facility... That's what Jameson Williams got suspended for(6 games). 

Rodgers will be minimum of 1 year... indefinite... he will have to appeal next off-season and see if the NFL will reinstate him. 

[NFLfan]

Just now, stitches said:

It's 6 games for players that have bet on other sports and leagues from team facility... 

 

I believe his suspension is indefinite, no?

[stitches]

Just now, NFLfan said:

 

I believe his suspension is indefinite, no?

Yes, for Rodgers it's indefinite, but no less than a year. From what I gather, he will have to apply for reinstatement next off-season and the NFL will decide at that time whether to reinstate him or not. 

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Yes, for Rodgers it's indefinite, but no less than a year. From what I gather, he will have to apply for reinstatement next off-season and the NFL will decide at that time whether to reinstate him or not. 

 

Okay. It makes sense that he is waived if he will miss at least a year. If he was suspended for only 6 games, they likely would have retained him.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

and I do not blame the NFL for it.   Gambling gives an avenue for rigged games and that could ruin the sport.  MLB feels the same way which is why Rose is not in the HOF.  

 

I'm fine with Rose being banned from baseball activities, but I think he should be eligible for the HOF.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Silver lining is at least the Titans lost their starting RT as well. 

Didn’t realize that was their starting RT. I thought he was a nobody lol.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, stitches said:

Probably not. But I'm not sure. Again ... I'm not saying the Colts will have the exact same limits as other teams, but they will have limits. Lets say we had a Luck type of player circa 2016 and he got caught gambling on Colts games(betting for wins) he didn't participate in because he was recovering from injury and was away from the team(exactly what Ridley got suspended for). There is about ZERO chance he gets cut. NO FREAKING WAY! They will let him serve his suspension and welcome him back with open arms the next year. Now start lowering the quality of the player... at some point you will reach a level where they will cut the guy. No idea where that line is... and of course IMO the type of betting matters too for the line they will set. Example - if a Rodgers was caught betting only on NBA games... IMO Rodgers would have survived that and the Colts would have welcomed him back after he served his 6 game suspension. 

 

This is probably true. Franchise QB is nearly untouchable. 

 

I guess what I really wonder is whether the Colts were intent on sending a message, and if so was that message meant to be 'we don't care who you are, if you violate the policy we'll cut you.' Or if I'm just reading too much into the choice of words. 

[Myles]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm fine with Rose being banned from baseball activities, but I think he should be eligible for the HOF.

I agree.  I hope they put him in before he dies.  

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is probably true. Franchise QB is nearly untouchable. 

 

I guess what I really wonder is whether the Colts were intent on sending a message, and if so was that message meant to be 'we don't care who you are, if you violate the policy we'll cut you.' Or if I'm just reading too much into the choice of words. 

I think you are reading too much into the specific wording of this release. It pretty much says they don't approve of players gambling(duh!) and try to distance themselves from the guilty parties.  

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm assuming so. It's unfortunate, but it's also damage control as well I'd assume. Zero tolerance on this sort of thing.

 

I would put the odds at 3/5 that you are correct. 

[jvan1973]

35 minutes ago, Myles said:

and I do not blame the NFL for it.   Gambling gives an avenue for rigged games and that could ruin the sport.  MLB feels the same way which is why Rose is not in the HOF.  

Yet they couldn't figure out the Astros were cheating in a very obvious way

[sb41champs]

Based on what I've read in the past couple of hours - Isaiah Rodgers may have cost himself more than a new contract.  

 

He's been suspended indefinitely - plus - he placed a bet on a Colts player - which he won.

 

The NFL will definitely want to "make an example" of any and all players with this kind of infraction.

 

Sad sad sad decision by a young player. 

 

May his misfortune keep others from making such a mistake.

[throwing BBZ]

Placing the prop bet knowing inside info puts him in Pete Rose territory IMO.

  He will need a well documented, successful treatment history when he applies for reinstatement.

 I wish him well.

  I do wonder what his bank account looks like, is he carrying gambling debt, did he share information? Is there a darker side to his problem?

[jvan1973]

Just now, throwing BBZ said:

Placing the prop bet knowing inside info puts him in Pete Rose territory IMO.

  He will need a well documented, successful treatment history when he applies for reinstatement.

 I wish him well.

  I do wonder what his bank account looks like, is he carrying gambling debt, did he share information? Is there a darker side to his problem?

They were online bets .  He wasn't dealing in the dark corners of the world making money drops do dubious individuals.   He is in no danger of being strong armed by henchmen.   

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

So jags lose their Lt for four games for PED. Tough day for the AFC South.

 

 

[BProland85]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Didn’t realize that was their starting RT. I thought he was a nobody lol.

I mean he wasn't really good for them last year, but he was their 3rd round pick in 2022. 

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

23 hours ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

Border line frindge

 

He was expected to start for us, and had shown lots recent years of his ability. 

starting for the colts does not mean he is good

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

starting for the colts does not mean he is good

Starting in the NFL means you are good

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

So jags lose their Lt for four games for PED. Tough day for the AFC South.

 

 

I would put using PEDs on the same level as betting on your team to win.   Why is that not an indefinite suspension?

[ProblChld32]

Sucks that Rodgers was waived. Looks like Kenny Moore is in line to get overpaid by the end of this season. As I’m more than certain the plan was for Rodgers to take over slot duties in 24’ and let Moore walk.