Colts lack of integrity
-
The Colts lack of integrity at the end of the season could (and hopefully will) come back to bite them in the ass.
Recall that the Colts and Jets played in like the next to last game of the season and the Colts were winning I believe in the second half when they "called off the dogs" and put in their scrub players to finish up against the Jets in that game. Recall that the Jets, whose playoff lives were on the line, came back to win that game by a slim margin.
The Colts, by choking it back, in essence manipulated the playoff scenario by allowing the Jets to win that game. If the Jets lose that game, their playoff dreams would have been over. If the Colts play that game with integrity, the Jets are likely sitting home. As it is, because they surrendered their integrity, the Jets, who would have been out had the the Colts won, are now one of the hottest teams in the playoffs and are vying against the Colts for the AFC title.
The move by the Colts could come back and bit them in the A$$. And I, for one, hope it does. I recall how the Colts did this a few years ago when the Browns playoff chances were on the line. If they beat the Titans, the Browns make the playoffs. But no, the Colts played their scrubs that whole game. It was still a close game, but the Tits won. If the Colts played THAT game with integrity, the Browns, not the Tits would have been in the playoffs.
So, here is hoping the Jets beat the Colts, and it would only be a fate which they deserve, because they manipulated the playoff by putting the Jets in there.
And also, personally, I don't see how that is any different than the Black Sox throwing games for money.
Fair to say?
The Colts lack of integrity at the end of the season could (and hopefully will) come back to bite them in the ass.
Recall that the Colts and Jets played in like the next to last game of the season and the Colts were winning I believe in the second half when they "called off the dogs" and put in their scrub players to finish up against the Jets in that game. Recall that the Jets, whose playoff lives were on the line, came back to win that game by a slim margin.
The Colts, by choking it back, in essence manipulated the playoff scenario by allowing the Jets to win that game. If the Jets lose that game, their playoff dreams would have been over. If the Colts play that game with integrity, the Jets are likely sitting home. As it is, because they surrendered their integrity, the Jets, who would have been out had the the Colts won, are now one of the hottest teams in the playoffs and are vying against the Colts for the AFC title.
The move by the Colts could come back and bit them in the A$$. And I, for one, hope it does. I recall how the Colts did this a few years ago when the Browns playoff chances were on the line. If they beat the Titans, the Browns make the playoffs. But no, the Colts played their scrubs that whole game. It was still a close game, but the Tits won. If the Colts played THAT game with integrity, the Browns, not the Tits would have been in the playoffs.
So, here is hoping the Jets beat the Colts, and it would only be a fate which they deserve, because they manipulated the playoff by putting the Jets in there.
And also, personally, I don't see how that is any different than the Black Sox throwing games for money.
Fair to say?
Peyton girl will find a way to blow it. He'll probably throw 3 picks in a 17-14 loss to the Jets.
-
I couldn't disagree more. You want to make the playoffs? Win your games and don't cry about another team's strategy. When you clinch the first seed halfway through the season, then you've absolutely earned the right to not only rest your starters, but also pick your spots when you'll rest your starters depending on what teams you'd like to see in your playoff brackets. I wonder how many other teams' fans are still obsessing about this, or if it's mostly Browns fans who are still upset about their team chok...I mean, those mean Colts being solely responsible for the team not making the playoffs.
Dennis
This argument has merit but it doesn't address the question of fans who have paid for tickets to enjoy watching their team play.
This argument has merit but it doesn't address the question of fans who have paid for tickets to enjoy watching their team play.
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
-
This argument has merit but it doesn't address the question of fans who have paid for tickets to enjoy watching their team play.
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
Too many hyphens Dencys, let's clean it up a bit you're lacking flow.
Has Tenn found their new savior yet? Oh yeah, Vince's son. Tenny and hiring known sons, kinda weird.
-
I couldn't disagree more. You want to make the playoffs? Win your games and don't cry about another team's strategy. When you clinch the first seed halfway through the season, then you've absolutely earned the right to not only rest your starters, but also pick your spots when you'll rest your starters depending on what teams you'd like to see in your playoff brackets. I wonder how many other teams' fans are still obsessing about this, or if it's mostly Browns fans who are still upset about their team chok...I mean, those mean Colts being solely responsible for the team not making the playoffs.
Dennis
I couldn't disagree more. You want to make the playoffs? Win your games and don't cry about another team's strategy. When you clinch the first seed halfway through the season, then you've absolutely earned the right to not only rest your starters, but also pick your spots when you'll rest your starters depending on what teams you'd like to see in your playoff brackets. I wonder how many other teams' fans are still obsessing about this, or if it's mostly Browns fans who are still upset about their team chok...I mean, those mean Colts being solely responsible for the team not making the playoffs.
Dennis
I've said this before Dennis- I respect your opinion (it's a minority one- based on talking to other fans), and I totally disagree. The NFL is all about competitive balance- and a team not giving 100% effort in the regular season DOES skew the balance- for other teams in the playoff hunt.
So I finally came up with a solution- probably not a very workable one-if you're so great & you want to sit your starters in week 17, go ahead- it will cost you your 7th round draft pick. Start in week 16, it goes up to a 6th. Hey Billy Boy got docked a 1st rounder for spygate, depends what you consider cheating. And as a season ticket holder, I think I have the right to ask my team to at least try and win- and not with the scrubs.
Personally- if a team is so worried about injuries, I'd much rather see the NFL let them flat out forfeit a game (never happen) than see this travesty.
-
This argument has merit but it doesn't address the question of fans who have paid for tickets to enjoy watching their team play.
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
And maybe that is one of the reasons I am not inclined to buy tickets. The last two times I went to a game it was freebies.
Call me a cheap SOB if you want. Or prefereably say that I want the teams I pay good money to go see put on an honest performance, and right now, I am concerned whether or not that will happen.
-
I couldn't disagree more. You want to make the playoffs? Win your games and don't cry about another team's strategy. When you clinch the first seed halfway through the season, then you've absolutely earned the right to not only rest your starters, but also pick your spots when you'll rest your starters depending on what teams you'd like to see in your playoff brackets. I wonder how many other teams' fans are still obsessing about this, or if it's mostly Browns fans who are still upset about their team chok...I mean, those mean Colts being solely responsible for the team not making the playoffs.
Dennis
I've said this before Dennis- I respect your opinion (it's a minority one- based on talking to other fans), and I totally disagree. The NFL is all about competitive balance- and a team not giving 100% effort in the regular season DOES skew the balance- for other teams in the playoff hunt.
So I finally came up with a solution- probably not a very workable one-if you're so great & you want to sit your starters in week 17, go ahead- it will cost you your 7th round draft pick. Start in week 16, it goes up to a 6th. Hey Billy Boy got docked a 1st rounder for spygate, depends what you consider cheating. And as a season ticket holder, I think I have the right to ask my team to at least try and win- and not with the scrubs.
Personally- if a team is so worried about injuries, I'd much rather see the NFL let them flat out forfeit a game (never happen) than see this travesty.
I've said this before Dennis- I respect your opinion (it's a minority one- based on talking to other fans), and I totally disagree. The NFL is all about competitive balance- and a team not giving 100% effort in the regular season DOES skew the balance- for other teams in the playoff hunt.
So I finally came up with a solution- probably not a very workable one-if you're so great & you want to sit your starters in week 17, go ahead- it will cost you your 7th round draft pick. Start in week 16, it goes up to a 6th. Hey Billy Boy got docked a 1st rounder for spygate, depends what you consider cheating. And as a season ticket holder, I think I have the right to ask my team to at least try and win- and not with the scrubs.
Personally- if a team is so worried about injuries, I'd much rather see the NFL let them flat out forfeit a game (never happen) than see this travesty.
Forfeiting would mean they couldn't sell you $8 watered down beers.
-
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
Too many hyphens Dencys, let's clean it up a bit you're lacking flow.
Has Tenn found their new savior yet? Oh yeah, Vince's son. Tenny and hiring known sons, kinda weird.
Too many hyphens Dencys, let's clean it up a bit you're lacking flow.
Has Tenn found their new savior yet? Oh yeah, Vince's son. Tenny and hiring known sons, kinda weird.
What can I say--I like my dashes--which are, oddly enough, pretty close to the way I talk--I've been told not to use them as much, but identity is important--they are who I am--love me, love my dashes.
As for Tennessee, I'm torn. On the one hand, Dooley carries himself like a responsible adult, with a minimum of douchebaggery. In othetr words, he's the opposite of Lane Kiffin. And he has the kind of assistant coaching pedigree that might translate into him doing a good job at Tennessee. The players seem to like him, and he's done a good job of at least stabilizing UT's recruiting class as well as could be expected.
That said, you're right about the big question about him. Another guy with a losing record as a head coach but with a famous name. Kiffin had Monte and a short career assisting Pete Carroll; Dooley has Vince and a short career assisting Nick Saban.
At the same time, it's hard to imagine anyone better ditching their school at the end of January. Part of is that Tennessee isn't the football mecca that people here think it is, even though it's still a really good job. Another part of it is just the timing. Had Carroll left USC at the end of the college football season, we would have had a better shot at getting a more appealing candidate.
Dennis
The real loser in all of this is me. This is my third year in UT's grad school, and even if Dooley does a great job the team will be rounding into form right after I leave. Screw you, Kiffin.
-
Too many hyphens Dencys, let's clean it up a bit you're lacking flow.
Has Tenn found their new savior yet? Oh yeah, Vince's son. Tenny and hiring known sons, kinda weird.
What can I say--I like my dashes--which are, oddly enough, pretty close to the way I talk--I've been told not to use them as much, but identity is important--they are who I am--love me, love my dashes.
As for Tennessee, I'm torn. On the one hand, Dooley carries himself like a responsible adult, with a minimum of douchebaggery. In othetr words, he's the opposite of Lane Kiffin. And he has the kind of assistant coaching pedigree that might translate into him doing a good job at Tennessee. The players seem to like him, and he's done a good job of at least stabilizing UT's recruiting class as well as could be expected.
That said, you're right about the big question about him. Another guy with a losing record as a head coach but with a famous name. Kiffin had Monte and a short career assisting Pete Carroll; Dooley has Vince and a short career assisting Nick Saban.
At the same time, it's hard to imagine anyone better ditching their school at the end of January. Part of is that Tennessee isn't the football mecca that people here think it is, even though it's still a really good job. Another part of it is just the timing. Had Carroll left USC at the end of the college football season, we would have had a better shot at getting a more appealing candidate.
Dennis
The real loser in all of this is me. This is my third year in UT's grad school, and even if Dooley does a great job the team will be rounding into form right after I leave. Screw you, Kiffin.
Dennis
The real loser in all of this is me. This is my third year in UT's grad school, and even if Dooley does a great job the team will be rounding into form right after I leave. Screw you, Kiffin.
Since we're talking college here. Let me help. Dennis, when I went to college far too many moons ago we had this miserable guy named Andy that lived in the basement of our fraternity house. ANY time I had a bad day - I'd go see him to hear how much worse his day was. Then my day didn't seem so bad afterall. That was about as therapeutic as it gets. Worked everytime.
So how is this relevant to your situation today? Your buddy Flugel has season tickets to Vanderbilt Football Games where they went O-for-SEC in 2009. It could always be worse.
FWIW, I HOPE Dooley does a nice job there for yuz.
- Tom F.
-
This argument has merit but it doesn't address the question of fans who have paid for tickets to enjoy watching their team play.
That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.
Dennis
That's pretty much right. When you go 14-0, you've pretty much earned the right to do just about anything you want. Want to manipulate the teams? Why not? Want to rest some guys? Why not?
As for us season ticket buyers, we never know what we're going to get when we cut those checks in the spring. We didn't know that we'd see the team go 7-1 at home in 2007. Nor did we expect to see one of the most inept teams in our history just one season later. This year i got a nice dose of both extremes.
Again, the Colts worked their hearts out in order to put themselves in the position where they could decide whether they want to coast to the finish line.You may agree with it or not agree. It doesn't really matter. For those that are hot happy, feel free to send your TS card in to me, and i'll stamp it for you.
-
I disagree...the point is to get into the playoffs and have home field advantage. In the Jets game, the play that turned the game around was the sack of the back up QB that the Jets took in for a TD. What if that had been Manning and the hit not only takes him out of the game but ends his season, do you think Colts fans would be pissed that they're season essentially is ended in a game that doesn't matter? If you should play your starters in every game, why isn't there the same outrage when the starters sit in the last week of the preseason?
The Colts did the right thing. The other teams who missed out on the playoffs should've taken care of their own business and gotten in just like we should've in 2007.
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login