Great dig at the Colts by BB re., QB philosophy

[Tunescribe]

I'm not sure what happy has to do with it. If Brady went down, and Andrew Luck was the prize for going in the tank, I'd be all for it.

"Happy," in this case, means willingness to accept your team intentionally being non-competitive to improve its draft position. I'm glad you're in the minority with that line of thought. BB disagrees with you as well, but then you seldom buy his approach to personnel.

 

[mgteich]

I'm not sure what happy has to do with it. If Brady went down, and Andrew Luck was the prize for going in the tank, I'd be all for it. If Brady went down, and Sam Bradford was the prize for going in the tank, I'd be against it.

It's about long-term strategy at that point.

Yes, long-term strategy IS the point. You can't count on having a Luck at the top of the draft. You might have a Bortles.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, long-term strategy IS the point. You can't count on having a Luck at the top of the draft. You might have a Bortles.

The Colts knew about Manning's issue long before the season started, and they knew Luck was the prize.

 

[Deus Irae]

"Happy," in this case, means willingness to accept your team intentionally being non-competitive to improve its draft position. I'm glad you're in the minority with that line of thought. BB disagrees with you as well, but then you seldom buy his approach to personnel.

What BB says publicly is often at odds with what BB actually believes, as we see by how things play out. If avoiding the Indy situation was truly something on his list, he'd not have cut Hoyer for Mallett, when Hoyer had outperformed Mallett.

I suppose one could choose to believe he's changed his stance since then.

 

[Tunescribe]

What BB says publicly is often at odds with what BB actually believes, as we see by how things play out. If avoiding the Indy situation was truly something on his list, he'd not have cut Hoyer for Mallett, when Hoyer had outperformed Mallett.

OK Deus.

 

[varjao]

We could stay one more year with Mallet and in case of an injured BRady we would have a qualified backup for the job, than we could go that approach next draft. The Colts 2011 season would not happen here if that's the concern.

What was in the best interest of the team was getting players in a mix of BPA and need, the QB position is totally set for the next season and we have a starter under contract for 4 more years, that was not a need. I would like BB to use that pick in a player to actually improve the team this season, but, that's past now.

I like Garopollo, but overall I didn't like this draft, months and months of expectation for this.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK Deus.

Great response. I'm sure you're going to tell me that BB never does something like pimping a player just shortly before cutting him, for example.

 

[Danger Zone]

What BB says publicly is often at odds with what BB actually believes, as we see by how things play out. If avoiding the Indy situation was truly something on his list, he'd not have cut Hoyer for Mallett, when Hoyer had outperformed Mallett.

I suppose one could choose to believe he's changed his stance since then.

I know Deus can read Belichick's mind and can at a glance ascertain what Bill "actually" believes.. but alas, since I am human, I can not read Deus' mind. As such, I'm at a bit of a loss to know what Deus is trying to imply here.

Belichick cut Hoyer and kept Mallet because..

.. he was secretly trying to suck for Luck back then..

.. but decided to lie about it..

.. two years later..

.. to the press..

.. because he was recently asked questions..

.. about why he felt the need to draft a quarterback in the 2nd round..


I think I got it.

Belichick is a lying, conniving hypocrite who is not smart enough to hide his not so secret intention to mimic the Colts by assuring the Patriots will lose as MANY games as possible by not so subtlety making sure his team has the worst backup quarterback possible.

Did I miss the gist of it?

I suppose I would be just proving I am still a mindless homer if I suggested that when Belichick cut Hoyer and kept Mallet he might actually have been trying to field the best team possible?

 

[Gwedd]

I was furious at what the Colts did, deliberately tanking their season. It isn't what sportsmanship is about. You play to win, every snap, every quarter, every game.

By tanking their season, they also skewed the playoff picture by giving a "free" win to each of their opponents. That's not fair to the other teams, and to their fans who lost out in a chance to get into the playoffs because of the Colts' actions.

The Colts should have been sanctioned by the league for their actions, not rewarded with a top QB prospect.

 

[grux]

"Suck for Luck" is definitely the way to go, in a league without a lottery.

What happens if you suck for luck and you don't have the worst record in the league?

 

[BritPat]

The Colts knew about Manning's issue long before the season started, and they knew Luck was the prize.

What if Luck had decided to stay in for his Senior season?

What do they do then? What we do know is that RG3 blew off their request for a Private Workout the other year, do you think the Colts take him if there's no Luck?

Purposely tanking a year is a disgrace and the first thing it's doing is ripping off the fans. You as the bastion of fairness and the champion of the common man, or how you seem to portray yourself on here anyway, should be conceding that fact at the very least.

 

[upstater1]

Colts didn't really have a choice that year. They sucked because.... they sucked.

When they put Dan Orlovsky in, they actually won 2 games.

Curtis Painter is Lee Harvey Oswald. I mean, we're talking a QB like Orlovsky, 3rd on any other depth chart, winning some games. Painter was infinitely worse than that.

 

[patfanken]

They also sucked because Polian had a HORRIBLE few years drafting prior to Manning going down,.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I think the Colts got it exactly right, Manning #1 pick, decade of excellence. Suck for a year a get Luck, keep him for a decade. What is the difference between 1-15 and 8-8 ? The difference is most teams get stuck at 8-8 for years, but the team that gets a Luck type QB can instantly rebound.

I know BB has a job to do and is hell bent on his approach but as a fan I don't have a realistic expectation that the Patriots will be a championship caliber team once Brady retires.

You also failed to mention that they got exactly "zero" compensation from a still viable FHoF QB. Would you see BB not getting something for releasing a QB of that caliber?

 

[jeffro]

I think the Colts got it exactly right, Manning #1 pick, decade of excellence. Suck for a year a get Luck, keep him for a decade. What is the difference between 1-15 and 8-8 ? The difference is most teams get stuck at 8-8 for years, but the team that gets a Luck type QB can instantly rebound.

I know BB has a job to do and is hell bent on his approach but as a fan I don't have a realistic expectation that the Patriots will be a championship caliber team once Brady retires.

Where do you get 8-8? Since BB took over, the Pats have lost the starting QB twice. The first time they won the Superbowl. The 2nd time they went 11-5.

 

[MassPats38]

I don't believe the Colts deliberately tanked to get Luck. 6 games were decisions of 7 points or less that year, and they lacked the ability to be master point-shavers. With Manning the year before the Colts were 10-6, so there were already issues before the cornerstone of the franchise got bounced for a year. I will not credit the Colts with a deliberate strategy to get a new QB. That's like saying the 2-14 Texans were in a "suck for Clowney" mode.

The Colts had a few very good players and no depth. The QB backups were never brought in to compete with Manning, so Polian believed Manning would play forever and would not get injured (Manning had the longest active consecutive game streak, so not an entirely unreasonable assumption until disaster strikes). The run defense was good or bad when Bob Sanders played or sat out, so the Colts had no depth.

Nice dig on Polian, while at the same time using the analogy to show the rookie QB is a disaster plan not an heir apparent as many in the media will claim (there have been 2 3rd round QBs and now a 2nd round pick, so I wouldn't bet on a long-term commitment to a starter other than Brady).

 

[Marinlik]

I was furious at what the Colts did, deliberately tanking their season. It isn't what sportsmanship is about. You play to win, every snap, every quarter, every game.

By tanking their season, they also skewed the playoff picture by giving a "free" win to each of their opponents. That's not fair to the other teams, and to their fans who lost out in a chance to get into the playoffs because of the Colts' actions.

The Colts should have been sanctioned by the league for their actions, not rewarded with a top QB prospect.

I doubt that they tried to suck. The owner might have wanted that. But for the coaches and players it meant loosing their job or getting pay cuts. I severely doubt that players and coaches accepted loosing their jobs because it would make the Colts better in the long run. It's rediculous to claim that a team deliberately lost a full season for one player.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Stop. Just stop.

They didn't "get it right". They were lucky the timing worked out. Not any of their own doing. So they didn't "get it right". Another year and they might've been stuck with Jamarcus Russell or Vince Young as their QB.

Why do you assume they'd have selected either one of them as QB if they got the first pick?

 

[Snake Eyes]

"Happy," in this case, means willingness to accept your team intentionally being non-competitive to improve its draft position. I'm glad you're in the minority with that line of thought. BB disagrees with you as well, but then you seldom buy his approach to personnel.

The point of being competitive is to win, if tanking a season puts you in a position to get Luck you're vastly more competitive in the long term because of it how is it a bad idea?

 

[Deus Irae]

What if Luck had decided to stay in for his Senior season?

What do they do then? What we do know is that RG3 blew off their request for a Private Workout the other year, do you think the Colts take him if there's no Luck?

Purposely tanking a year is a disgrace and the first thing it's doing is ripping off the fans. You as the bastion of fairness and the champion of the common man, or how you seem to portray yourself on here anyway, should be conceding that fact at the very least.

This is professional sports, not Little League. As so many here like to say, there's no such thing as running it up in the NFL.