Luck Looks Sensational Again

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : You didn't notice him locking onto his receivers? I mean it's probably just a rookie thing, but I did notice it. I didn't get a chance to watch the entire game, so I really shouldn't comment about his play, but I did see his highlights. The good news for you guys is that he didn't go out there and completely crap his pants, because most of these sure thing quarterbacks do just that. How many times have these top quarterbacks been complete garbage? At the very least you got a guy that has a decent arm and seems like he likes football...way more than you can say about half of these guys drafted over the last ten years. 
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]
    I wasn't paying enough attention to that, but I don't doubt your assessment. 

    And I agree with you (and its the most positive thing) that he had poise amidst, some serious defensive disguises and fronts from the Steelers.  They gave him an education about what to expect from one of the most creative defenses in the game, and he managed well. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]He looks pretty good, but I think the Colts as a team will struggle. They have problems with the O Line and LB corps. As I stated last year, when you finish last in the NFL it is because your team has a multitude of deficiencies. If the Colts really did tank on purpose they should've been penalized worse than losing the #1 overall pick. Teams should not be rewarded for deliberately s--king. Losing on purpose defeats the whole idea of competition. He does lock on to WRs, but expect that to change. I could see a 6-10 or 7-9 record, but I have yet to see the Colts schedule.
    Posted by JohnHannahrulz[/QUOTE]
    the colts didn't purposefully tank.  No player whose job is on the line would do such a thing.  No coach or gm would either.  You don't get to this level of the profession without professional pride.  The idea that someone would swallow that AND risk his job for the first pick is unfathomable. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    pathetic?  don't you see the similarity of tanking card to the spygate card?
    RESPONSE: No. The tanking is factual...the claims that the Pats' won their titles due to filming in an improper area are BS. 
    LOL - what facts do you have that the colts intentionally tanked?  Please share. 



    Again, am I somehow subject to a different set of standards than the rest of the board?
    RESPONSE: I guess you learned how to whine from Peyton...LOL!! Of course you're subject to a different set of standards. It's a result of you being continually caught in lies. You have no credibility here.
    Asking a question is whining?  Why not just answer the question TP?  Gosh its fun slapping you around again.  Thanks for making my day.
    Laughing
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TroyBrown80. Show TroyBrown80's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    I just copied this from my other thread.  Funny how Luck looks good, here comes UD6 being a dork again.  Trying to say they DIDN'T TANK?  HA!

    " Funny how people have issues with prostitution, but not with the Clots intentionally tanking to get the top pick.  Same thing, really.  In both cases you are letting someone stick it to you for a reward."
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TroyBrown80. Show TroyBrown80's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : pathetic?  don't you see the similarity of tanking card to the spygate card?  Again, am I somehow subject to a different set of standards than the rest of the board? 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    Yes, you are.  BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOTS FAN, STUPID.  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]I just copied this from my other thread.  Funny how Luck looks good, here comes UD6 being a dork again.  Trying to say they DIDN'T TANK?  HA! " Funny how people have issues with prostitution, but not with the Clots intentionally tanking to get the top pick.  Same thing, really.  In both cases you are letting someone stick it to you for a reward."
    Posted by TroyBrown80[/QUOTE]

    Do you have some proof they intentionally tanked?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : Yes, you are.  BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOTS FAN, STUPID.  
    Posted by TroyBrown80[/QUOTE]

    LOL - interesting set of standards you have there.  Here's the correct answer.  No, I am not subject to different standards than you.  If you are going to dish it out, be ready to take it.  If you wish to have civil discourse, then I am game for that, too. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : Do you have some proof they intentionally tanked?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Do you have proof the Pats filming helped them win the SB's? If not that nether can be assumed and you can't use spygate anymore unless you assume that the Colts also tanked
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : Do you have proof the Pats filming helped them win the SB's? If not that nether can be assumed and you can't use spygate anymore unless you assume that the Colts also tanked
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]
    I know what the Commissioner said, to paraphrase, an effort to subvert rules to promote fair play.  I know that Belichick said he did this going back to his first days in NE.  That provides enough authority regarding the actions to ask the question. 

    On the other hand, you just throw out the tanking thing with wild assumptions and no authoritative evidence to support it.  Its really apples and oranges.  

    I don't care to get into a pis-ing match, but I do fight fire with fire. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : pathetic?  don't you see the similarity of tanking card to the spygate card? RESPONSE: No. The tanking is factual...the claims that the Pats' won their titles due to filming in an improper area are BS.  LOL - what facts do you have that the colts intentionally tanked?  Please share.  Again, am I somehow subject to a different set of standards than the rest of the board? RESPONSE: I guess you learned how to whine from Peyton...LOL!! Of course you're subject to a different set of standards. It's a result of you being continually caught in lies. You have no credibility here. Asking a question is whining?  Why not just answer the question TP?  Gosh its fun slapping you around again.  Thanks for making my day.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

         You..."slapping me around again"?? There you go again with the lies...LOL!!!

         Must I go back and produce examples of the numerous times that I in fact slapped you around, by catching you in lies and misrepresentations?? I'll be happy to, if you insist.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again :      If Luck beats the Pats by passing for 330 yards and 4TDs, why hate the guy for that? What made me dislike Peyton Manning was his propensity to whine and make excuses whenever the Pats beat the Colts. It was also his constant grandstanding at the line of scrimmage on every play, with his numerous gyrations.      I can't hate Eli Manning, even though he's beaten the Pats in those two gut-wrenching SB losses. The guy did his job. Eli doesn't grandstand, or whine and make excuses, whenever he loses...like big brother Peyton.  
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me be clear, I hate the Colts. I live in Indiana, and have put up with talk of Peyton Manning's greatness for 13 years. I'm sick of it. First of all, he's not that great because he has a PS record of what? Something like 9-10? And the year they won the SB he was mediocre at best, and they wouldn't have even gotten past Baltimore if Ray Lewis hadn't tipped that should be/would have been INT into a completion. Second, all the Colts fans are hoping to just press the "reset" button and have Peyton Manning II. This is very unlikely, yet they believe it, and after listening to talk about Manning for 13 years, now it's "Andrew Luck" and etc. What you aren't getting is that I have the unique problem of having to listen to this crap day in and day out in the local media, at work--wherever I go. That qualifies me to be able to take the position I'm taking and feel completely comfortable with it. As far as Eli goes, I disliked him before he even threw a pass in the NFL. For one thing, he plays for the Giants, who I have disliked for 25 years, another thing is he's Peyton's brother, and more than that, he's a prima-donna that refused to play for the team that drafted him because mommy and daddy wanted him to play under the big lights in NY. Now he's been "adopted" by all the Colts fans because their own team is lousy, and they somehow think Eli beating TB is some kind of sick justice. Both times he's won he's gotten nothing but lucky. There was the Tyree once in a century catch (with holding that wasn't called), then there was Gronkowski tearing up his ankle, and Welker not catching the pass--among other things--and he wouldn't even have been there if Kyle Williams hadn't made the stupid, bonehead play of all time in Frisco muffing a punt that he had no business being anywhere near to begin with. And yet, as Colts fans tell me, I'm supposed to give Eli his "just dos". Not here. Unless you live around it friend, you just have no idea. I loathe the Colts, I loathe the Giants, and if they went 1-15 it would be one win too many. I don't wish them any ill off the field, but burying them with 20 sacks per game for the rest of their careers when they're on the field would be the ticket. Hopefully my feelings on this are made clear. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : I know what the Commissioner said, to paraphrase, an effort to subvert rules to promote fair play.  I know that Belichick said he did this going back to his first days in NE.  That provides enough authority regarding the actions to ask the question.  On the other hand, you just throw out the tanking thing with wild assumptions and no authoritative evidence to support it.  Its really apples and oranges.   I don't care to get into a pis-ing match, but I do fight fire with fire. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    what fire you have given no proof that filming helped the Pats win the SB. You have as much evidence as to such as I do that the Colts tanked the season. So, until you can provide proof that it gave the Pats an advantage or stop using spygate as an argument then I don't have to provide you proof that the Colts didn't tank it.

    Oh yeah you apparently don't know what the commish said because he said it didn't give a competitive advantage
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : what fire you have given no proof that filming helped the Pats win the SB. You have as much evidence as to such as I do that the Colts tanked the season. So, until you can provide proof that it gave the Pats an advantage or stop using spygate as an argument then I don't have to provide you proof that the Colts didn't tank it. Oh yeah you apparently don't know what the commish said because he said it didn't give a competitive advantage
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    Well said, but somehow I don't think that will shut him up. Like I've been trying to tell everyone on here, spygate is the favorite topic of ALL Colts fans. You think UD6 is bad, you should live in a state full of them. And now, they like to whip out "Eli" like he actually plays for them--as if the use of his name is a weapon that will act like kryptonite on NE fans. THIS is why I don't like Andrew Luck, and THIS is why I hope he is Ryan Leaf II. FB around here was full of that "Belicheat" crap as soon as the last whistle blew las Feb. "They can't win without cheating" was the mantra. On it's surface that is utterly ridiculous, (how did they get to the SB? By cheating? Then they decided to play it straight in the actual game, and couldn't win?) but none of that matters to Colts fans, they don't care about what the facts actually are.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : What we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me be clear, I hate the Colts. I live in Indiana, and have put up with talk of Peyton Manning's greatness for 13 years. I'm sick of it. First of all, he's not that great because he has a PS record of what? Something like 9-10? And the year they won the SB he was mediocre at best, and they wouldn't have even gotten past Baltimore if Ray Lewis hadn't tipped that should be/would have been INT into a completion. Second, all the Colts fans are hoping to just press the "reset" button and have Peyton Manning II. This is very unlikely, yet they believe it, and after listening to talk about Manning for 13 years, now it's "Andrew Luck" and etc. What you aren't getting is that I have the unique problem of having to listen to this crap day in and day out in the local media, at work--wherever I go. That qualifies me to be able to take the position I'm taking and feel completely comfortable with it. As far as Eli goes, I disliked him before he even threw a pass in the NFL. For one thing, he plays for the Giants, who I have disliked for 25 years, another thing is he's Peyton's brother, and more than that, he's a prima-donna that refused to play for the team that drafted him because mommy and daddy wanted him to play under the big lights in NY. Now he's been "adopted" by all the Colts fans because their own team is lousy, and they somehow think Eli beating TB is some kind of sick justice. Both times he's won he's gotten nothing but lucky. There was the Tyree once in a century catch (with holding that wasn't called), then there was Gronkowski tearing up his ankle, and Welker not catching the pass--among other things--and he wouldn't even have been there if Kyle Williams hadn't made the stupid, bonehead play of all time in Frisco muffing a punt that he had no business being anywhere near to begin with. And yet, as Colts fans tell me, I'm supposed to give Eli his "just dos". Not here. Unless you live around it friend, you just have no idea. I loathe the Colts, I loathe the Giants, and if they went 1-15 it would be one win too many. I don't wish them any ill off the field, but burying them with 20 sacks per game for the rest of their careers when they're on the field would be the ticket. Hopefully my feelings on this are made clear. 
    Posted by TheExaminer[/QUOTE]

         I do get what you're saying. But, all the guys that led to me hating the Indianapolis Colts, with the exception of "The Dog(ggggg)", are gone. "Mr. Wonderful" is in Denver, Tony Dungy, a/k/a "The Pius One", is out of the game. The Polians have been fired. Sorry...but I really can't bring myself to dislike Luck. I admire his abilities. I understand how obnoxious Indy fans can be. But, they have reason to crow. Luck is the real deal.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again :      I do get what you're saying. But, all the guys that led to me hating the Indianapolis Colts, with the exception of "The Dog(ggggg)", are gone. "Mr. Wonderful" is in Denver, Tony Dungy, a/k/a "The Pius One", is out of the game. The Polians have been fired. Sorry...but I really can't bring myself to dislike Luck. I admire his abilities. I understand how obnoxious Indy fans can be. But, they have reason to crow. Luck is the real deal.
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    Spoken from a distance. Some of us still live in the middle of it. Hence, the disagreement.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : what fire you have given no proof that filming helped the Pats win the SB. You have as much evidence as to such as I do that the Colts tanked the season. So, until you can provide proof that it gave the Pats an advantage or stop using spygate as an argument then I don't have to provide you proof that the Colts didn't tank it. Oh yeah you apparently don't know what the commish said because he said it didn't give a competitive advantage
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]
    Eng - I am not interested in reopening wounds.  I'll simply say that Goodell said the pats did something against the rules in an attempt to gain an advantage.  Belichick said he'd been doing it since day one with the pats.  That means they'd been doing something against the rules since Belichick's first year with the pats to gain an advantage.  Whether or not they did is immaterial although I'd like to think Belichick is smart enough to know that if the process produces nothing then it should be scrapped.  Violating rules in that way taints success. 

    On the other hand, your comments about the colts intentionally tanking are simply opinion.  IMO your opinion is based on some flawed thinking.  You certainly are welcome to continue thinking as you wish, but I'd suggest logic would tell you something else.  That's said, the root of fandom is fanatic and fanatical thinking doesn't always lend itself to logic. 

    again - apples and oranges.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again :      I do get what you're saying. But, all the guys that led to me hating the Indianapolis Colts, with the exception of "The Dog(ggggg)", are gone. "Mr. Wonderful" is in Denver, Tony Dungy, a/k/a "The Pius One", is out of the game. The Polians have been fired. Sorry...but I really can't bring myself to dislike Luck. I admire his abilities. I understand how obnoxious Indy fans can be. But, they have reason to crow. Luck is the real deal.
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    And let me add too--for clarity's sake--that I have no problem whatsoever with Tony Dungy's Christianity or his proclamation and living out of it. Much of what he says and believes I also believe. I think he seems like a very good person, and I think what happened to his son was horrible. I just hate the Colts as a football team, and therefore, anyone who plays for them I want to see fail on the field. That's just all there is to it. Nothing personal, just business.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TroyBrown80. Show TroyBrown80's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again : LOL - interesting set of standards you have there.  Here's the correct answer.  No, I am not subject to different standards than you.  If you are going to dish it out, be ready to take it.  If you wish to have civil discourse, then I am game for that, too. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    Not with you.  Get lost.  Stay lost.  Anything you say here is unimportant because YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HERE.  The way you spew "Spygate" at every turn just backs that up.  Go find a Clots/Manning site and bother them.  You are a bad fan, and a bad person.  Be gone.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

         Want proof that the Colts tanked the 2011 season to get lucky with Luck? It's all in the following article, which was located in the Indy blog, Stampede Blue:

    Colts Are In Full 'Suck 4 Luck' Mode



    The Indianapolis Colts seem content to lose out the rest of the 2011 NFL season, putting them firmly in 'Suck For Luck' mode.

    Nov 24, 2011 - The consensus amongst 'NFL draft gurus,' as Colts vice chairman and ogre-in-chief Bill Polian likes to call them, is that Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck will be the first overall selection in 2012. SB Nation's Dan Kadar, who runs the NFL Draft blog Mocking The Draft, has Luck listed No. 1 in his rankings of all college football prospects. Kadar's draft profile of Luck begins with this:

    First word: Without question, Stanford junior quarterback Andrew Luck is the highly regard NFL Draft prospect in years. He's not only the talk of draftniks, but NFL personnel men. John Elway, Broncos executive vice president of football operations, raved about Luck earlier this year.

    "I'll tell you this, I think Andrew Luck is the best football player in the draft, without a doubt," Elway said about Luck. "If that were to happen, then you're going have to have some very serious conversations of exactly which direction you want to go, whether it's with Tim (Tebow) or take a guy like Andrew Luck. To me, barring injury, he's going to be very successful in the NFL."

    What will make Luck successful in the NFL is his combination of natural ability, size and football intelligence. While none of the traits he possesses are rare, few quarterbacks of his age have Luck's combination of skills.

    Bold statement: If his offensive line in the NFL doesn't get him killed, Andrew Luck will be a Hall of Fame player.

    Here's more:

    Throughout the NFL season, beat writers and bloggers, like Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, have been wondering which team or teams will begin to intentionally lose games near the end of regular season in an effort to snare the No. 1 overall pick in next year's draft.

    This type of cynical 'throwing' of games would blast a big hole in the carefully crafted narrative NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners have sold to the public: That all games matter, and that no one can or should intentionally lose games. To do so would damage the credibility of the league and diminish the overall product.

    Oh, and it would kind of tick off the thousands of fans who paid $200 a pop to eat overpriced food in a stadium that they already front a yearly maintenance bill for. In the case of Indianapolis, that bill is $26 million.

    But, such dynamics do not sway the thinking of one Bill Polian, a man who knows a thing or two about intentionally losing games in order to gain an advantage. Two years ago, around this time, the Colts vice chairman was instructing his head coach, Jim Caldwell, to pull starters out of the third quarter of a supposedly 'meaningless' Week Sixteen game against the New York Jets. At the time, the Colts were 14-0, and were flirting with a 19-0 undefeated season. They'd clinched the division and homefield advantage two weeks prior, and had played starters in an equally 'meaningless' game the week before against the Jacksonville Jaguars (a game the Colts won).

    However, the difference between that Jacksonville game and the New York one was the NFL Network, owned and operated by NFL owners, carried the Jags v. Colts game. It was also a primetime contest. Pulling starters from that game would have upset the stuffy suits who sign the checks Bill Polian cashes. However, the Jets game was a 4:00 PM contest on CBS. When the starters exited the game in the early third quarter, the boos rained down like hellfire from the Lucas Oil Stadium rafters.

    And Bill Polian could have cared less.

    The fallout from that disaster was a series of P.R. blunders. Whatever good will Bill Polian had with fans evaporated when he went on his weekly radio show the next day and berated callers who dared question his decision-making. Despite paying fans making valid arguments that Polian had disgraced himself, his team, and the game of football by intentionally throwing a game, the Colts head task master remained belligerently defiant, going so far as to question whether or not a woman caller was, indeed, a 'real' fan.

    Two months later, the Colts would lose in the Super Bowl to the Saints, a team they were favored to beat. Indianapolis has gone 10-19 since they threw their Week Sixteen game against the Jets, including a playoff loss to those Jets last season.

    Karma. It's a bia-itch.

    Now, almost two years to the day when the Colts disgraced the integrity of the league, Bill Polian and his cronies at the Colts West 56th Street front office are at it again. The club is currently lost in an 0-10 swamp of suck due, in large part, to the failures of the personnel department. Draft picks have busted from 2007 to the present, and with the front office treating veteran free agency like it's some sort of disease, the Colts talent base has gotten older, slower, and less dynamic. Couple this with coaching incompetence and a neck injury to all-world quarterback Peyton Manning, and you have 0-10.

    But, what sets this team apart from other teams that are struggling is the seeming unwillingness to do anything to stop the losing. Note these examples:

    Example One

    The Colts entered their bye week late this year (Week Eleven). At 0-10, it seemed a good time to fire head coach Jim Caldwell. Yes, he led the Colts to the Super Bowl two years prior, but 0-10 is 0-10. The team is flirting with an 0-16 season, and has been blown out regularly. The point differential for Indianapolis is currently -169, including an embarrassing 62-7 loss to the same New Orleans Saints that upset, and outcoached, the Colts and Jim Caldwell in the Super Bowl two years ago.

    Yet, despite a good opportunity to make a coaching change and, hopefully, spark a few late-season wins, the Colts opted for none.

    Example Two

    The Denver Broncos decided to cut quarterback Kyle Orton earlier this week. Orton, who played his college ball at Purdue University, has thrown 49 touchdowns the last three years, completing roughly 60% of his passes. He's not Aaron Rodgers, but he ain't half bad either. Certainly, he can fling the football better than the Colts Curtis Painter, who is the third worst rated quarterback this season, and THE worst rated non-rookie quarterback currently starting.

    Because the Broncos waived Orton, he had to pass through the NFL waiver system, which allows the worst team in the NFL (record-wise) to claim a released player before anyone else can sign him. Well, the Colts are the league's worst team, and apparently had interest in trading for Orton earlier this year. The trade talks didn't amount to anything, and the Colts front office ended up wasting $4 million on Kerry Collins, who came out of retirement only to last three games.

    Claiming Orton now would give the Colts a much better quarterback option not just for the final weeks of the season, but into next year as well. The overall health of Peyton Manning is still very much in doubt, and when talent like Orton is practically handed to you... well, you take it! Especially if you are 0-10!


    However, the Colts opted not to claim Orton, citing salary cap restrictions. The excuse doesn't hold up because Orton's contract only counts $1.588 million against the cap. I realize the Colts are only $3 mil under the cap (a depressing thought considering they are winless after 11 weeks), but spending $1.588 million of that on Orton is still justified. Again, Indy is 0-10. It's not like their current formula for cap management is working. Also, after 2011, Orton is a free agent. Should he leave and sign somewhere else, the Colts would be given a compensation draft choice for the 2012 NFL Draft. No-brainer, right?

    Well, apparently for Bill Polian, it isn't. The Colts passed on claiming Orton, allowing the 4-6 Kansas City Chiefs to scoop him up.

    Example Three

    As previously stated, Curtis Painter is indeed a terrible quarterback. His cumulative QB rating is 60.6. He's completed just 51% of his passes with five touchdowns, nine interceptions, and enough fumbles that could fill a clown car. In his last outing, a 17-3 smackdown at home at the hands of the Jaguars, Painter had just 94 yards heading into the fourth quarter. He was mercifully benched in favor of Dan Orlovsky. In one drive, Orlovsky had almost as many yards throwing (67) as Painter did in three quarters.

    After the bye week, it seemed logical to bench Painter and see what Orlovsky could bring to the table. Eight games is enough to evaluate a player, and in Painter's case, eight games netted just 1,315 yards and the offense scoring an average of 13.1 a game, third worst in the league. Painter hasn't thrown a meaningful touchdown in a meaningful, non-garbage-time-situation, since the second quarter against the Chiefs way back on October 9th.


    Seems obvious that, in order to spark some kind of chance to win a game, there needs to be a change at quarterback.

    But, no. Yesterday, Jim Caldwell announced that Curtis Painter would remain the starter, failing to give any kind of rational justification for keeping the third worst rated quarterback currently playing under center. The perception is Painter will play out the rest of the season, which could likely end with Painter dead last in the QB rankings based on his current state of regression.


    What these examples show is either a complete disconnect between the Colts front office leadership and reality, or a concerted effort to intentionally lose games.

    The Colts often preach 'staying the course,' and not making big, over-arching changes. Well, that philosophy has the club at 0-10 now, flirting with 0-16. An 0-16 season would cripple the franchise. Clubs just don't 'get over' embarrassments like that. This current Indianapolis roster is already historically bad. Going 0-16 would put them in the same company as the 2008 Detroit Lions and the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Both teams went winless in their respective seasons, and both are considered the worst teams ever to play on an NFL field.


    Interesting side note: The quarterback of the 0-16 2008 Detroit Lions was Dan Orlovsky.

    By changing nothing, the Colts look to be guaranteeing little change in the win-loss column. This is either a concerted effort to lose and gain the rights to Andrew Luck (hence the phrase 'Suck for Luck'), or the Colts leadership is truly THAT stupid.

    The current leaders in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes are Indianapolis (0-10), Minnesota (2-8), Carolina (2-8), and St. Louis (2-8). The Vikings, Panthers, and Rams all have used first round picks on quarterback the last two years, with the Rams using the No. 1 overall pick on Sam Bradford in 2010 and the Panthers using the first pick on Cam Newton in 2011. The Vikings used the 12th overall pick on quarterback Christian Ponder last year.

    Thus, the team most likely in play for Luck is Indy.


    Personally, I'm not opposed to Andrew Luck playing under center for the Colts next year and beyond. When people like Dan Kadar are telling me he is the real deal, I can't help but get excited. But, to get the rights to Luck in this way, a way that seems so blatantly cynical and dismissive of the integrity of the game, it just seems so wrong; just as throwing the Week Sixteen game against the Jets two years ago felt wrong.


    And, really, does Bill Polian want to spit in the face of Karma again? Sure, he's probably going to the Hall of Fame as a personnel executive, but if this club goes 0-16, how can voters really view this man as a true 'great' in this sport? How can they cast a 'yes' vote when they know he threw those games in 2009, and seems content to let his club lose this year either through cynical dealings or blatant incompetence?

    Regardless of the motives, it's clear the Colts are in full 'Suck 4 Luck' mode, and for someone like me who has covered this team for six years, it seems like they are rubbing feces in the face of the 'Football Gods' yet again. And, like last time, it will probably come back to bite them big time.

    http://indiana.sbnation.com/indianapolis-colts/2011/11/24/2584676/colts-are-in-full-suck-4-luck-mode


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    I don't think any 2 INT game could ever be called exceptional.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    What a let down TP.  I was actually thinking you had proof that the colts intentionally tanked.  What you've got is an article from a writer who's known to have an axe to grind against Polian and who prefers to stir the pot from the negative instead of the seeing the positive. 

    Do you know what proof means?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again:
    [QUOTE]What a let down TP.  I was actually thinking you had proof that the colts intentionally tanked.  What you've got is an article from a writer who's known to have an axe to grind against Polian and who prefers to stir the pot from the negative instead of the seeing the positive.  Do you know what proof means?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

         Are you denying that the examples he lists in his article have merit? Also, are you denying the fact that this article was written by a Colts fan? Are you calling one of your own brethren a liar?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    I'm not sure I would get too excited about a couple meaningless pre-season games.

    The kid might be good; we have no way of knowing at this point.  What we do know is that when he struggled in college it was against speed on defense, and when the games begin to matter he is going to to see nothing but speed and awareness on defense.

    I don't think I could care much less what happens to the Colts, but I predict this kid will throw about a gazillion interceptions this year.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again

    In response to "Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Luck Looks Sensational Again :      Are you denying that the examples he lists in his article have merit? Also, are you denying the fact that this article was written by a Colts fan? Are you calling one of your own brethren a liar? Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE] Depending on one's preconceived feelings, the article may or may not have merit. His examples are opinions. I don't know if brad wells is a colts fan. Based on his articles that I've read he more opinion maker searching for web hits than a fan. Further, it is widely known that he had an axe to grind with polian and used his keyboard to grind it at every opportunity ad nauseum and frequently quite childishly. Given all of the above, his article is not a surprise. Some may agree with him. Some may not. Finally, opinions can't be lies. You frequently confuse opinion and fact. Then again, like the writer you cite, you always come with an agenda.
     

Share