I was comparing their stats against the 2008 Lions, and it's pretty pathetic. The Lions scored 29 TDs that year. Indy has 14 with only 6 games left. I certainly can't see them scoring 15 TDs in 6 games...especially without Peyton Manning. It's amazing how fast a team can fall. I DO think the think they decided early in the year to tank the season, but I think they went a bit too far.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2011 06:38AM by montequi.

It makes me sick to think that a team would purposely lose. Somehow I'm able to justify a fan rooting for a team to lose for the long-term good of the team, but I can't stand the idea of players or an organization tanking. Blacksox Scandal...

And, to me, it's a bit fishy that a team can go from a full decade of excellence to worst in history in one year - even with the Peyton thing. It's not even like they play in a super-tough division.

i agree it is fishy. this is the same team that was one of the best teams in the afc for many years, until this one. now you are telling me that they have gone from that to the worst team ever because of an injury to one player? I can see them winning 3 or 4 without manning, but this is rediculous

They're not even being clever about it... At least pretend like you're trying to win.

What a Joke. Its one thing to lose, its another to throw all of the Teams respect into the Street and then Piss all over it. But in the long run ,Football fans have very short memories. They are smart trying to get another Franchise QB to take over for Peyton Manning. Must be nice to be a fan of a franchise with Brains unlike the Phins.

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a Joke. Its one thing to lose, its another to
> throw all of the Teams respect into the Street and
> then Piss all over it.


They're not.

They are not losing on purpose.

See the post directly above yours which explains why.

If givien the choice by the football godz, would you take an 0-16 season with 10 years of being a Super Bowl contender or take a 4-12 record and continue to waffle from 2-14 to 6-10 for 10 years?

How many of the Indy fans are going to remember the 0-16 pain during the night of their next Super Bowl championship? There may be some, but they will be thinking that that was the year that started the rebuilding.

Enjoy 6-10 people cause that is where we are and that is where we stay. Check the last 10 years (with one year exception - the one immediatley after we got the first pick in the draft).

Panteraize Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think there's a shot in hell that that
> organization, the players, the coaching staff,
> etc. is purposely tanking the entire season. I
> think they are genuinely dreadful and I think
> there are several factors that explain why.
>
> 1. Peyton Manning is the most important and
> valuable player to the team he plays for more so
> than any other player is or was to their
> respective team in the history of the NFL.
>
> 2. Unlike the Patriots 2008 season, when Tom Brady
> was lost for the season and the Patriots still
> played very well, The Colts had absolutely no
> NFL-caliber backup QB's on their roster behind
> Peyton Manning. Curtis Painter is absolutely
> terrible and Kerry Collins had nothing left and
> was completely ill-prepared getting thrown into
> that extremely complex offense. They have arguably
> the worst QB situation in the NFL, Washington
> included. I believe this team would have been able
> to finish the season with 3-4 wins had they had
> even one serviceable QB on their roster. They
> don't so they won't.

---THE FO KNEW ABOUT MANNING'S INJURY LONG BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED AND DID NOTHING TO GET A DECENT BACKUP. COLLINS WAS WASHED UP AND SIGNED RIGHT BEFORE THE SEASON, AND PAINTER IS THE WORST QB IN THE LEAGUE (HE PROVED IT IN LIMITED PT BEFORE THIS YEAR). THAT WAS A DELIBERATE CHOICE TO HAVE CRAP AT QB==TANK THE SEASON

>
> 3. The team is not tanking. I think they
> completely lost their motivation and gave up hope
> when Manning went down. And it didn't take long
> for any glimmer of hope that they may have had at
> the start of the season to completely disappear
> after the first couple games, when they realized
> their QB play and overall offense was beyond awful
> and would be the death of them no matter how well
> the defense played. I think you have a locker room
> of guys who gave up, are not motivated, and are
> completely unorganized and not playing in sync as
> a team or with the other players within their
> respective units (be it the defensive line, the
> secondary, etc.).

----PLAYERS NOT PLAYING WITH ANY MOTIVATION, AND THEREFORE PLAYING CRAPPY. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN TANKING?
>
> 4. Finally, I think fans severely overestimate the
> value and excitement that NFL players put on and
> have towards the prospect of drafting an
> impressive and majorly hyped rookie who could be
> playing on their team the next year. Players don't
> salivate over some soon-to-be rookie. On the
> contrary, I think many of them actually get
> annoyed by the media's focus on, obsession with,
> and constant questioning about the prospect of
> them drafting a college star QB. Moreover, with
> the way the league is structured, a lot of guys
> who are playing for a team today won't be playing
> for that team next season. Players are focused on
> the here and now. And with the Colts, they HAVE
> Peyton Manning. Most of the players are probably
> looking forward to his return more than they're
> looking forward to the possibility of the team
> drafting and playing with a young, talented,
> unknown commodity at QB. These guys aren't sucking
> on purpose. They really are that bad.

THE PLAYERS OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT TRYING TO LOSE IN THE SENSE OF DELIBERATELY NOT MAKING PLAYS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO WIN. BUT AS YOU YOURSELF ADMIT, THE TEAM STOPPED BRINGING IN GOOD PLAYERS AND THE PLAYERS ON THE TEAM NOW ARE PLAYING UNMOTIVATED FOOTBALL. 6 OF ONE, HALF DOZEN OF THE OTHER. SOUNDS LIKE "TANKING" TO ME

Where I think there is evidence of "tanking" is in the fact that when it became clear that Manning would be out, and that Kerry Collins was useless... they failed to look for a QB that would be at least serviceable. When we lost Pennington, we traded for Thigpen. The Colts could have traded for someone like a Thigpen who would have been appreciably better than Painter. I think that by standing pat with what they had, it was a clear indication that they weren't interesting in salvaging a few wins this season. A below average QB would play better than Painter (who might do better to be employed as a painter, because as a QB he stinks).

Doug-THE-Dolfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If givien the choice by the football godz, would
> you take an 0-16 season with 10 years of being a
> Super Bowl contender or take a 4-12 record and
> continue to waffle from 2-14 to 6-10 for 10
> years?
>
> How many of the Indy fans are going to remember
> the 0-16 pain during the night of their next Super
> Bowl championship? There may be some, but they
> will be thinking that that was the year that
> started the rebuilding.
>
> Enjoy 6-10 people cause that is where we are and
> that is where we stay. Check the last 10 years
> (with one year exception - the one immediatley
> after we got the first pick in the draft).




Exactly. They may not be "tanking" But they are not trying to hard to reverse it either. For good reason.

Whenever you do not do your best to win on each play, whenever you do not play on each play the best player (except for injury reasons) for that play, then there is really philosophically no difference. You are tanking.

I think they are tanking. How do you expalain running the ball & punting the ball instead of going for it on 4th in that Saints game when they were down so many points??? At some point you start going for it and try to preserve the clock if you are serious about getting back into the game.

i've said a million times that no nfl players is deliberately trying to lose, and the "retort" that this is the case when someone mentions suck for luck is just missing the point---I don't think anyone thinks players are trying to lose. I will define tanking as what the colts are doing: (a) playing unispired football under the auspices of (b) a FO that is doing nothing to bench nonperformers or attemp to add better ones.

Oh, well if we're redefining the word tanking, than sure. The Colts are tanking in as much as the bottom 8-12 teams in the power rankings are.

really? they are tanking as much as us and the panthers? just b/c a team doesn't have many wins doesn't mean they are "tanking," as I have described what the colts are doing

yeah that was my point. None of them are tanking. The colts aren't doing anything different than a bunch of awful teams, not bringing in better players outside of a journeyman QB here and there, not benching underperforming players playing uninspired football, etc.

The Cardinals suck, but they keep putting Joey Porter out there.
The Redskins seem perfectly content with that menacing dual-threat two-headed monster QB situation they have in Grossman/Beck.
Lot of uninspired football being played in Cleveland and St. Louis.
Not a whole lot of eye catching roster moves going on in Seattle.

By your definition of tanking, all of those teams are tanking. But they're not because that's not what tanking really means. Those teams are just bad. Just like the Colts aren't tanking, they're just bad.

none of those teams you mentioned were playoff and superbowl teams for most of the past 10 year. the colts are missing one player, a great one sure, but he should not be the difference between a playoff team and an 0-16 one. something else is going on there