Andrew Luck
-
I'm sorry....dude just did a very selfish move. I understand wanting to retire and retiring because of all those injuries................but don't tell me he had 0 idea pre-draft. Dude is very smart and educated...He knows what a QB means to a team and Jacoby is a back up....Dude could've rehabbed half the season and be welcomed back with open arms and let everyone know this is his last year. Colts fan had every reason to boo.....
I'm sorry....dude just did a very selfish move. I understand wanting to retire and retiring because of all those injuries................but don't tell me he had 0 idea pre-draft. Dude is very smart and educated...He knows what a QB means to a team and Jacoby is a back up....Dude could've rehabbed half the season and be welcomed back with open arms and let everyone know this is his last year. Colts fan had every reason to boo.....
BULLSHIT!!
First, no REAL fan would boo him.
Mike
-
I'm sorry....dude just did a very selfish move. I understand wanting to retire and retiring because of all those injuries................but don't tell me he had 0 idea pre-draft. Dude is very smart and educated...He knows what a QB means to a team and Jacoby is a back up....Dude could've rehabbed half the season and be welcomed back with open arms and let everyone know this is his last year. Colts fan had every reason to boo.....
I'm sorry....dude just did a very selfish move. I understand wanting to retire and retiring because of all those injuries................but don't tell me he had 0 idea pre-draft. Dude is very smart and educated...He knows what a QB means to a team and Jacoby is a back up....Dude could've rehabbed half the season and be welcomed back with open arms and let everyone know this is his last year. Colts fan had every reason to boo.....
This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?
He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.
You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.
But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April
-
I don't think that the Colts will be tanking. I think they will turn to Brissette and see if he can be the QB of the future.
He has played pretty well. I don't think that he will be in like the Top 20 QBs in this league, but he can be a starter and play decently. How far they go depends a lot of the quality of the rest of the team.
The Colts HAVE done a lot to put quality players around Luck...now they are going to have to rely on the supporting cast to pull the show together and not the star.
All that being said...Fuck them. Let them lose. Their tank job to get Luck was a despicable display of poor sportsmanship and in a sense was the best example of what can be wrong with the NFL these days.....letting teams tank. Fuck them. Lose. I remember when they had their division sown up, and they were playing someone who the Browns were fighting with for a playoff spot. This was 2007. They tanked that game, denying the Browns a chance to make the playoffs. Refused to play Peyton...instead played like Curtis Painter at QB. It was the worst example of a lack of integrity in the game that I have seen. So, nothing that team suffers breaks my heart....albeit that I did like Luck and thought he could be special. It wasn't against him, but that organization.
He has played pretty well. I don't think that he will be in like the Top 20 QBs in this league, but he can be a starter and play decently. How far they go depends a lot of the quality of the rest of the team.
The Colts HAVE done a lot to put quality players around Luck...now they are going to have to rely on the supporting cast to pull the show together and not the star.
All that being said...Fuck them. Let them lose. Their tank job to get Luck was a despicable display of poor sportsmanship and in a sense was the best example of what can be wrong with the NFL these days.....letting teams tank. Fuck them. Lose. I remember when they had their division sown up, and they were playing someone who the Browns were fighting with for a playoff spot. This was 2007. They tanked that game, denying the Browns a chance to make the playoffs. Refused to play Peyton...instead played like Curtis Painter at QB. It was the worst example of a lack of integrity in the game that I have seen. So, nothing that team suffers breaks my heart....albeit that I did like Luck and thought he could be special. It wasn't against him, but that organization.
Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?
Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.
Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.
-
He has played pretty well. I don't think that he will be in like the Top 20 QBs in this league, but he can be a starter and play decently. How far they go depends a lot of the quality of the rest of the team.
The Colts HAVE done a lot to put quality players around Luck...now they are going to have to rely on the supporting cast to pull the show together and not the star.
All that being said...Fuck them. Let them lose. Their tank job to get Luck was a despicable display of poor sportsmanship and in a sense was the best example of what can be wrong with the NFL these days.....letting teams tank. Fuck them. Lose. I remember when they had their division sown up, and they were playing someone who the Browns were fighting with for a playoff spot. This was 2007. They tanked that game, denying the Browns a chance to make the playoffs. Refused to play Peyton...instead played like Curtis Painter at QB. It was the worst example of a lack of integrity in the game that I have seen. So, nothing that team suffers breaks my heart....albeit that I did like Luck and thought he could be special. It wasn't against him, but that organization.
Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?
Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.
Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.
Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?
Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.
Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.
Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck. The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games.
-
Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?
Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.
Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.
Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck. The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games.
Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck. The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games.
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
-
He has played pretty well. I don't think that he will be in like the Top 20 QBs in this league, but he can be a starter and play decently. How far they go depends a lot of the quality of the rest of the team.
The Colts HAVE done a lot to put quality players around Luck...now they are going to have to rely on the supporting cast to pull the show together and not the star.
All that being said...Fuck them. Let them lose. Their tank job to get Luck was a despicable display of poor sportsmanship and in a sense was the best example of what can be wrong with the NFL these days.....letting teams tank. Fuck them. Lose. I remember when they had their division sown up, and they were playing someone who the Browns were fighting with for a playoff spot. This was 2007. They tanked that game, denying the Browns a chance to make the playoffs. Refused to play Peyton...instead played like Curtis Painter at QB. It was the worst example of a lack of integrity in the game that I have seen. So, nothing that team suffers breaks my heart....albeit that I did like Luck and thought he could be special. It wasn't against him, but that organization.
Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?
Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.
Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.
Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?
Because the Colts TRIED to lose games specifically to be able to draft Luck. As bad as the Browns were...I don't think they ever tried to lose. The Browns had a program by which they wanted to obtain draft picks, but they never specifically tried to lose.
Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.
Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other.
Don't let your naivetee cloud your judgment.
They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach.
Didn't Caldwell coach them into a Super Bowl?
Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.
Besides, I am really talking more about the year the Browns had a chance to make the playoffs if the Colts would have taken care of business by beating a bunch of bums after they had already secured their playoff positioning. It was as bad in my mind as a player taking money to tank a game. A total lack of integrity.
Let's put it this way....take last year. The Browns had NO chance to make the playoffs....their season was over really. Yet, they tried their hardest to beat the Ravens and by doing so give the Steelers the division title. What the Colts did would have been the same as if the Browns had said: let's sit Baker, let's sit Chubb, let's sit Garrett...etc. etc. sit all their top line players....and hand the playoff spot to Baltimore. But they did not do that, they had more integrity. The played hard and honestly...and while they came up short, it was not for lack of effort. Indy TANKED the game they played...giving the playoff spot to another team...can't recall who.....and denying it to the Browns.
Fuck them. I am sorry for Luck because he felt he had to do what he did.....but I am NOT sorry for the Colts organization. Not one bit.
-
Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck. The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games.
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
I assume you meant "not" trying to lose. And no, I would not debate that. The players that were on that team did not try to lose. The organization however, was.
And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better. The Astros did it, the 76ers are famous for it. I understand that. Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.
Who said it: You play to win the game. The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.
Fuck them....let them lose forever. The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years. Let them do the same. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
-
I'm sorry....dude just did a very selfish move. I understand wanting to retire and retiring because of all those injuries................but don't tell me he had 0 idea pre-draft. Dude is very smart and educated...He knows what a QB means to a team and Jacoby is a back up....Dude could've rehabbed half the season and be welcomed back with open arms and let everyone know this is his last year. Colts fan had every reason to boo.....
This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?
He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.
You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.
But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April
This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?
He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.
You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.
But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April
We may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise healthy guy in his 20s.
And regarding Gippers venom about the Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're locked into a playoff spot. If you don't like it, win more games the next time.
-
Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck. The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games.
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions
-
This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?
He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.
You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.
But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April
We may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise healthy guy in his 20s.
And regarding Gippers venom about the Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're locked into a playoff spot. If you don't like it, win more games the next time.
We may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise healthy guy in his 20s.
And regarding Gippers venom about the Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're locked into a playoff spot. If you don't like it, win more games the next time.
Sure....but it still lacks integrity. Do you disagree?
And like I said...why should teams who are NOT in the playoff hunt play their main contributors? Why should they not play to lose in order to acquire a better draft standing....and to hell with the team that is in a playoff race with the team they are facing at the end of the year? Why should last year's Ravens game have come down to the final few plays? Why should they not have just said "Fuck the Steelers, we hate them anyway and don't want them to get into the playoffs? Why not sit Baker, Chubb etc. But they didn't.....they gave the effort, even if it came up a little short.
So, bottom line, to me, the Browns showed integrity, and in a somewhat similar situation, the Colts did not. I repeat, let them take another 60 years to be in contention for anything.
-
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
I assume you meant "not" trying to lose. And no, I would not debate that. The players that were on that team did not try to lose. The organization however, was.
And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better. The Astros did it, the 76ers are famous for it. I understand that. Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.
Who said it: You play to win the game. The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.
Fuck them....let them lose forever. The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years. Let them do the same. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
I assume you meant "not" trying to lose. And no, I would not debate that. The players that were on that team did not try to lose. The organization however, was.
And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better. The Astros did it, the 76ers are famous for it. I understand that. Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.
Who said it: You play to win the game. The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.
Fuck them....let them lose forever. The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years. Let them do the same. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.
I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship
-
This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.
From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?
He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.
You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.
But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April
We may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise healthy guy in his 20s.
And regarding Gippers venom about the Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're locked into a playoff spot. If you don't like it, win more games the next time.
We may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise healthy guy in his 20s.
And regarding Gippers venom about the Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're locked into a playoff spot. If you don't like it, win more games the next time.
O I know it was more. My point was that people feeling he should have known at the time of Draft are looking at the conclusion, while at that time it was thought to be small.
I can even see people being upset, but with anything I think everyone can see I just think should call it like it is. Any same situation can't be viewed one way for another team and differently for the Browns
-
Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets?
And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.
And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.
I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions
I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions
Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win?
The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.
The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.
I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.
I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.
-
The're some dudes who will want to die on the field, but I'm just not nearly as sure this generation feels that way.
Dorsey seems to be loading up on "football guys", not just players. The kind that are there for the game itself and money comes second to what they love. When I hear players like Baker and Garrett wanting to be the best that's ever been, I know who we have on this team.
Dorsey seems to be loading up on "football guys", not just players. The kind that are there for the game itself and money comes second to what they love. When I hear players like Baker and Garrett wanting to be the best that's ever been, I know who we have on this team.
Eh, to be honest I'm not sure how much that "means" to me. I'm motivated by money to be the best at my job, and I don't think that's a wrong mentality to have as a football player ya know? It just seems like the trend of players is going towards that idea of thinking, but I'm just spit balling here.
It's happening now when I played high school football in the 1960s we had 105 boys out for JV and varsity football our graduating class had 327 total students.
Now I see some local schools here in football crazy NE OHIO that can barely get 30 or 40 players most playing two ways and some special teams.
The soccer, volleyball and those sports are not having those kinds of problems.
I believe kids are lazier and many soccer moms and dads don't want their kids playing tackle football. Why? Just read the papers and watch the news.....or PBS or 60 minutes.
For sure. I can't find it in front of my face for some reason, but I heard on the radio recently Pop Warner is having an identity crisis as they keep trying things, but the number of kids playing goes down without fail. Being totally honest, even though I'm being blessed with a girl here at the end of the year I have strong opinions on if I'd let my son play football. That's coming from someone who played high school and college (briefly) level of the sport. I'd probably relent, but makes sense.
-
I assume you meant "not" trying to lose. And no, I would not debate that. The players that were on that team did not try to lose. The organization however, was.
And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better. The Astros did it, the 76ers are famous for it. I understand that. Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.
Who said it: You play to win the game. The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.
Fuck them....let them lose forever. The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years. Let them do the same. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.
I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship
I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.
I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship
Of course, I understand all that. But, again...A. it IS against the integrity of the game to give one team vying for a playoff spot an advantage. I mean, let's say the Browns and the Titans were vying for a playoff spot. The Browns need the Titans to lose. The Titans are playing the Colts. Instead of playing Peyton Manning, they play Curtis Painter. Boom...done deal. Give the Titans the playoff spot. Why bother playing the game?
And, again, I ask, why should it just be a team that is 13-2 that rests its players. Again, I use the Browns last year. Losing the game to the Rats gives them perhaps a better draft position. Why risk getting Baker or any of our other guys hurt....just to try to help the freeking Steelers. Yet they did do their damndest to win. Fair to say. At the risk of serious injury to our best player. That is full integrity....the other is the opposite.
-
I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions
Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win?
The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.
The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.
I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.
I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.
Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win?
The Colts SAT their best players.....the Browns played their best players. The Colts maybe didn't "try" to lose...they just didn't "try" to win. Same damn difference. (again...I am going back to the playoff year, not the year they tanked for Luck)
The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.
The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.
I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.
I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.
-
I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.
I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship
Of course, I understand all that. But, again...A. it IS against the integrity of the game to give one team vying for a playoff spot an advantage. I mean, let's say the Browns and the Titans were vying for a playoff spot. The Browns need the Titans to lose. The Titans are playing the Colts. Instead of playing Peyton Manning, they play Curtis Painter. Boom...done deal. Give the Titans the playoff spot. Why bother playing the game?
And, again, I ask, why should it just be a team that is 13-2 that rests its players. Again, I use the Browns last year. Losing the game to the Rats gives them perhaps a better draft position. Why risk getting Baker or any of our other guys hurt....just to try to help the freeking Steelers. Yet they did do their damndest to win. Fair to say. At the risk of serious injury to our best player. That is full integrity....the other is the opposite.
Of course, I understand all that. But, again...A. it IS against the integrity of the game to give one team vying for a playoff spot an advantage. I mean, let's say the Browns and the Titans were vying for a playoff spot. The Browns need the Titans to lose. The Titans are playing the Colts. Instead of playing Peyton Manning, they play Curtis Painter. Boom...done deal. Give the Titans the playoff spot. Why bother playing the game?
And, again, I ask, why should it just be a team that is 13-2 that rests its players. Again, I use the Browns last year. Losing the game to the Rats gives them perhaps a better draft position. Why risk getting Baker or any of our other guys hurt....just to try to help the freeking Steelers. Yet they did do their damndest to win. Fair to say. At the risk of serious injury to our best player. That is full integrity....the other is the opposite.
I agree that if its fine to do with a 13-2 team then it is for a team not going further. As I said, I wouldn't do it but I understand why others do it
-
Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win?
The Colts SAT their best players.....the Browns played their best players. The Colts maybe didn't "try" to lose...they just didn't "try" to win. Same damn difference. (again...I am going back to the playoff year, not the year they tanked for Luck)
The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.
The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.
I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.
I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.
I'm not arguing the playoff year, I am arguing the Luck year.
I just don't think it is right/fair to condemn the Colts for that and not see an issue with the Browns.
I guess I am not a fanatic. I try to look at things logically and apply the same "rules" to everyone, not look at it differently because I am a Browns fan. To me, if someone applies different standards for one over another they lose credibility. An example (and not using specific players/teams), but I can't get behind denigrating a Steeler player for DV and then turn around and not be just as harsh or make excuses for a Browns player for the same thing.
-
I'm not arguing the playoff year, I am arguing the Luck year.
I just don't think it is right/fair to condemn the Colts for that and not see an issue with the Browns.
I guess I am not a fanatic. I try to look at things logically and apply the same "rules" to everyone, not look at it differently because I am a Browns fan. To me, if someone applies different standards for one over another they lose credibility. An example (and not using specific players/teams), but I can't get behind denigrating a Steeler player for DV and then turn around and not be just as harsh or make excuses for a Browns player for the same thing.
I'm not arguing the playoff year, I am arguing the Luck year.
I just don't think it is right/fair to condemn the Colts for that and not see an issue with the Browns.
I guess I am not a fanatic. I try to look at things logically and apply the same "rules" to everyone, not look at it differently because I am a Browns fan. To me, if someone applies different standards for one over another they lose credibility. An example (and not using specific players/teams), but I can't get behind denigrating a Steeler player for DV and then turn around and not be just as harsh or make excuses for a Browns player for the same thing.
I am sorta, basically with you on the Suck for Luck year. They were not a good team, really. I mean, OL issues were a problem then....and remained so all during Luck's tenure up to last year. And they had no defense. Peyton really carried that team...a lot.
-
I assume you meant "not" trying to lose. And no, I would not debate that. The players that were on that team did not try to lose. The organization however, was.
And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better. The Astros did it, the 76ers are famous for it. I understand that. Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.
Who said it: You play to win the game. The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.
Fuck them....let them lose forever. The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years. Let them do the same. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.
I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship
I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.
I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship
It never upset me that the Colts sat their starters in '07. The sewed up their division, and the week before clinched home field advantage for the playoffs. Why would you send your starters out in a meaningless game? I can assure you that if the Browns have home field sown up going into the final week and I see Baker and OBJ and Landry and Chubb running out onto the field I'm gonna lose my shit. Fuck the other teams; we took care of our business---you take care of yours.
Bottom line, Indy took care of their business. They were not responsible to help the Browns or anyone else make the playoffs. Especially when you consider that Cleveland fucked itself when we shit the bed in Cincinnati the week before and lost (badly) to a shitty 5-9 Bengals team. The Browns had complete control of their own destiny going into that game and fucked it up. Not Indy's responsibility to pick us up.
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