I'm shocked and speechless - Manning

[Mazz22]

I bet Manning decided to "leak" the information out that he plans to retire because no one was talking about him again.

Wouldn't doubt it but Brady just trumped him with this 2 year contract extension. :dbanana:

 

[Roberto71]

Wouldn't doubt it but Brady just trumped him with this 2 year contract extension. :dbanana:

One guy accused of sexual assault and running a vendetta against a woman, accused of PED taking and hiding it, a sleaze by all accounts who will shag anything moving but pretends to be Ward Cleaver.

The other, a loyal greatest of all time, one team player, multi SB winner, loyal family man who you would never hear anything bad about, an inspiration to anyone trying to make it in life.

And which one is portrayed as the villain?

 

[O_P_T]

If you are a NFL or NBA GM are you going to sign a player to help you win if you know he quit on his team? You are saying the Colts 53 man roster quit because they wanted to draft Luck. Preposterous. Looking at the Colts schedule in 2011, they lost games with the following scores: 27-19, 23-20, 24-17, 28-24, 27-19, 31-24 (to the Patriots), and 19-13. That means of their 14 loses, 7 of them could have went either way. And that from a team that was tanking for a draft pick? Preposterous.

The players aren't the only people who can influence the outcome.

There was quite a bit of discussion here about the last two games of the regular season, asking if BB was not doing everything to win.

What was the evidence for this question?

• Who played in the game and who didn't.
• What were the plays that were called on offense

Now I'm not sure BB actually tried to lose, but perhaps he didn't try to win as hard as he would have in a post season game.

It isn't that much of a shift from not trying to win to actively trying to lose and a coaching staff can do that just by deciding who's on the field and what plays they call.

So it is completely possible that the Colts coaching staff made decisions that would reduce their chances of winning, intentionally.

 

[mooseontheloose]

The players aren't the only people who can influence the outcome.

There was quite a bit of discussion here about the last two games of the regular season, asking if BB was not doing everything to win.

What was the evidence for this question?

• Who played in the game and who didn't.
• What were the plays that were called on offense

Now I'm not sure BB actually tried to lose, but perhaps he didn't try to win as hard as he would have in a post season game.

It isn't that much of a shift from not trying to win to actively trying to lose and a coaching staff can do that just by deciding who's on the field and what plays they call.

So it is completely possible that the Colts coaching staff made decisions that would reduce their chances of winning, intentionally.

Doesn't even have to be intentional.

Let's say you just lost you HOF QB and your team isn't bursting with talent. It's a good team, but nothing special. You have complete dogshit at QB though. You lose the first few games and slowly realize that this team isn't going anywhere. You'll win a few games maybe, but you're not contending.

So then in coaching meetings or when designing/calling plays, maybe you're just more lackadaisical and less investment in the outcome. Subconsciously it's like, "Meh, we're losing anyway" ... throw in "but at least if we do we may get Luck" and it's not hard to imagine the coaches being less than totally invested (ie. BB at end of season with a bye secured), even if it wasn't part of some elaborate, preconceived plan.

 

[SCC]

Doesn't even have to be intentional.

Let's say you just lost you HOF QB and your team isn't bursting with talent. It's a good team, but nothing special. You have complete dogshit at QB though. You lose the first few games and slowly realize that this team isn't going anywhere. You'll win a few games maybe, but you're not contending.

So then in coaching meetings or when designing/calling plays, maybe you're just more lackadaisical and less investment in the outcome. Subconsciously it's like, "Meh, we're losing anyway" ... throw in "but at least if we do we may get Luck" and it's not hard to imagine the coaches being less than totally invested (ie. BB at end of season with a bye secured), even if it wasn't part of some elaborate, preconceived plan.

See I'd be with you on that, and it would fit somewhat in that remember at the start of the season there was talk Manning would be back, or even be back to run Red Zone only (!). But then they won their 2 games later on in the season.

If the fix was in I'd have expected Polian to have mouthed about it by now, blaming Irsay and portraying it as a tying of hands.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------

The players aren't the only people who can influence the outcome.

There was quite a bit of discussion here about the last two games of the regular season, asking if BB was not doing everything to win.

What was the evidence for this question?

• Who played in the game and who didn't.
• What were the plays that were called on offense

Now I'm not sure BB actually tried to lose, but perhaps he didn't try to win as hard as he would have in a post season game.

It isn't that much of a shift from not trying to win to actively trying to lose and a coaching staff can do that just by deciding who's on the field and what plays they call.

So it is completely possible that the Colts coaching staff made decisions that would reduce their chances of winning, intentionally.

I'd agree too that it's entirely possible, I just don't think it's how it went down. If coaching had no effect on a team then we'd just have GMs and a roster right?

 

[HSanders]

Taking out this specific situation and looking at it generally:
The players aren't the only people who can influence the outcome. BUT...I cannot ever believe that there would be a way that as many of them as would be required to do so would all lay down and stop competing, whether they were told to by higher ups or not( ie "the season is hopeless, I give up"). They are all subcontractors. Even if they give 0 fvcks about their team, the record, etc., they all realize that if they but crap performances on tape on purpose, they run a big risk of losing their jobs. No way people are going to do that.

A bunch of these same Colts were FURIOUS with Polian for laying them down in 09...you think they'd lay down for a draft pick????? Nope.

 

[Patriots71]

Vastly different roster between 2011 and 2012.

2012 was a outlier season in many ways, you have to remember the whole team was rallying around Pagano and you saw crazy games like GB happen.

Vastly different meaning not as good. Luck did not have as good of a defense or oline when he became QB.

 

[Patriots71]

Then people don't know football...

You're trying to compare a team where 70%+ of the roster of changed, including at the most influential position of all, had a complete change of FO and coaching staff and think that's indicative of a team tanking.

Add to that the 2012 season was flukey, I mean really flukey. Seriously check the Pythagorean Expectation of the 2012 Colts team.

Yeah but it got worse, not better. Luck did not get all of these amazing players. Face it, they tanked, because they wanted luck, they knew they were not keeping manning. There is zero way in hell they wanted to win games.

 

[deec77]

See I'd be with you on that, and it would fit somewhat in that remember at the start of the season there was talk Manning would be back, or even be back to run Red Zone only (!). But then they won their 2 games later on in the season.

If the fix was in I'd have expected Polian to have mouthed about it by now, blaming Irsay and portraying it as a tying of hands.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------




I'd agree too that it's entirely possible, I just don't think it's how it went down. If coaching had no effect on a team then we'd just have GMs and a roster right?

who picked Cadwel?
http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/10...ldwell-while-jim-irsay-apologies-to#storyjump
Irsay after the loss

About half way through the season.

Titanic collapse,apologies 2 all ColtsNation..problems identifiable;solutions in progress but complex in nature/ better days will rise again

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/24/winds-of-change-could-be-blowing-in-ind/

In the interim, the question becomes whether Irsay will embrace the free-fall to the bottom of the league, in the hopes of landing the heir to the Peyton Manning franchise quarterback throne, Andrew Luck. Then the question becomes whether Irsay will feel compelled to make significant changes contemporaneously with the arrival of Luck, who could do to Jim Irsay what the last great Stanford quarterback did to Robert Irsay in 1983.

And then the question becomes whether a new regime would prefer a Manning-to-Luck handoff or whether the new regime would prefer to save the $28 million Manning is due to be paid in early March and move on.

Regardless, for a consistently elite team over the past decade, a disastrous 2011 season could spark the kind of overhaul that disastrous seasons often do.

Do I think they thought the season would play out that way no at first but by the midway point they had lots of choices. One do we lose players or do we change the front office they went with front office win win

~Dee~

 

[SCC]

Yeah but it got worse, not better. Luck did not get all of these amazing players. Face it, they tanked, because they wanted luck, they knew they were not keeping manning. There is zero way in hell they wanted to win games.

So why win two?

I didn't say that the 2012 roster was amazingly better, as I said the number of the games they won was freaky. Chuckstrong had a huge effect on that roster and they played well above themselves in key moments. I think it was something silly like 7 games won by a score or less.

Face it all you (plural) have is opinion and circumstance, if you have anything concrete I'm sure Roger would like to give gumshoe Ted Wells another case

---------- Post added at 03:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 AM ----------

who picked Cadwel?
http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/10...ldwell-while-jim-irsay-apologies-to#storyjump
Irsay after the loss

About half way through the season.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/24/winds-of-change-could-be-blowing-in-ind/



Do I think they thought the season would play out that way no at first but by the midway point they had lots of choices. One do we lose players or do we change the front office they went with front office win win

~Dee~

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by Irsay "picked" Caldwell half way through the season?

 

[deec77]

So why win two?

I didn't say that the 2012 roster was amazingly better, as I said the number of the games they won was freaky. Chuckstrong had a huge effect on that roster and they played well above themselves in key moments. I think it was something silly like 7 games won by a score or less.

Face it all you (plural) have is opinion and circumstance, if you have anything concrete I'm sure Roger would like to give gumshoe Ted Wells another case

---------- Post added at 03:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 AM ----------



Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by Irsay "picked" Caldwell half way through the season?

I never said that:shrug_n: I asked who choose Caldwell? :shrug_n: Now I'm going to ask- Who choose to franchise Manning that year, tying up all kinds of cap space? May Mannings surgery, and lockout. Signs deal july 31 lowering the cap hit 16 million. Put on PUP

Irsay originally said doctors expected Manning's rehab to take six to eight weeks; however, sources say Manning still has "quite a ways to go" to be ready for a full practice regimen, let alone play in a preseason game.

They knew this before training camp yet didn't (and couldn't now) because of the lockout try to get a replacement. Ended up with Collins who got hurt in the 4 th week. Only left with Painter and Orlovsky as a result.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Irsay made the announcement this morning at a breakfast in Indianapolis, but the Colts are 0-3 and statistically, they have virtually no shot at the playoffs. When you consider the Colts will suit up Curtis Painter or Kerry Collins the rest of the year, Indianapolis can call it a season. Manning a second neck procedure this year in September, and was supposed to be out 2-3 months, but everyone knew that basically meant the season, because what’s the point of having a 35-year-old QB suit up to play 4-5 games for a team that isn’t playoff-bound?

I still can’t believe I had an ounce of faith in those quitters. I thought they’d cover at home last week against Cleveland (didn’t), and I thought the Colts would get slaughtered by the Steelers last night (didn’t). I have no read on this team, but thankfully, they’re irrelevant in 2011, so it doesn’t matter.

Then I said this what Irsay said after the loss to the Saints midday way through the season

Irsay after the loss

About half way through the season.

Quote:
Titanic collapse,apologies 2 all ColtsNation..problems identifiable;solutions in progress but complex in nature/ better days will rise again

Irsay midway through the season having lost 8 games says he's identified the problem and has a solution but it's complex and better days will eventually come.:shrug_n: Seems to me he decision was made by week 8 midway through the season. He knew he was canning all of them and going in a new direction after the season was over.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...lowing-in-ind/

Quote:
In the interim, the question becomes whether Irsay will embrace the free-fall to the bottom of the league, in the hopes of landing the heir to the Peyton Manning franchise quarterback throne, Andrew Luck. Then the question becomes whether Irsay will feel compelled to make significant changes contemporaneously with the arrival of Luck, who could do to Jim Irsay what the last great Stanford quarterback did to Robert Irsay in 1983.

And then the question becomes whether a new regime would prefer a Manning-to-Luck handoff or whether the new regime would prefer to save the $28 million Manning is due to be paid in early March and move on.

Regardless, for a consistently elite team over the past decade, a disastrous 2011 season could spark the kind of overhaul that disastrous seasons often do.
Do I think they thought the season would play out that way no at first but by the midway point they had lots of choices. One do we lose players or do we change the front office they went with front office win win

Stop with the whole Chuckstrong having such an impact Arians was/and is simply a better coach.

Goodell was way to busy framing the Saints for bounty gate to worry about the Colts.

~Dee~

 

[PatsFan09]

So why win two? I didn't say that the 2012 roster was amazingly better, as I said the number of the games they won was freaky. Chuckstrong had a huge effect on that roster and they played well above themselves in key moments. I think it was something silly like 7 games won by a score or less. Face it all you (plural) have is opinion and circumstance, if you have anything concrete I'm sure Roger would like to give gumshoe Ted Wells another case ---------- Post added at 03:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 AM ---------- Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by Irsay "picked" Caldwell half way through the season?

How is this so difficult to understand ?

The players wanted to win. The FO clearly did not. Show me the moves the FO made to put the Colts' in position to win.
Let's see. Take two horrific back ups and start them at QB.
Talk a mediocre QB out of retirement.

Yep, sounds like trying to me.

 

[PatsFan09]

Yeah, I find it laughable that the players were playing for Chuck. They barely knew him, if at all, and were doing what professional athletes do: go out and try to win games.
It's not as if Pagano had coached those guys for years, or heck, even one season.

 

[SCC]

Yeah, I find it laughable that the players were playing for Chuck. They barely knew him, if at all, and were doing what professional athletes do: go out and try to win games.
It's not as if Pagano had coached those guys for years, or heck, even one season.

Tell that to Reggie Wayne.. go look at some of the locker room stuff and tell me those guys weren't playing for him.

The entire Colts community was pulling for the guy.

 

[deec77]

Tell that to Reggie Wayne.. go look at some of the locker room stuff and tell me those guys weren't playing for him.

The entire Colts community was pulling for the guy.

They may have been playing for him but but those same guys wanted according to you wanted to win the year before too. Some motivation sure but please. So your saying if Pagano wasn't ill they wouldn't have won those games Or perhaps once again Arians was a better coach or …………

Dungy
2004 12-4
2005 12-4
2006 12-4
2007 13-3
2008 12-4

Caldwell
2009 14-2
2010 10-6
2011 2-14

Arians/Pagano
2012 11-5

Pagano
2013 11-5
2014 11-5
2015 8-8 (now you could say they were playing for Pagano's job here)

~Dee~

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

So why win two?

They didn't want to compete with the Lions? :shrug_n:

 

[mikiemo83]

I credit Arians with the 11-5 season in 2012 more than Luck, Pags or the new GM.

 

[HSanders]

Schefter this morning on Mike & Mike said that PM wants to keep playing, but it's a matter of if anyone he cares to play for will offer him a deal.
Seriously...WHY??????

 

[deec77]

They didn't want to compete with the Lions? :shrug_n:

Not to mention the 2 wins were meaningless at that point in the season. They already virtually guaranteed the first pick as long as they didn't win the last game. Everyone had at least 2 losses they were tied with St Louis now and they just grab Bradford the year prior with their first pick and the Colts owned the tie breakers.:shrug_n:

~Dee~

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

I credit Arians with the 11-5 season in 2012 more than Luck, Pags or the new GM.

Me too.

~Dee~

 

[mikiemo83]

Schefter this morning on Mike & Mike said that PM wants to keep playing, but it's a matter of if anyone he cares to play for will offer him a deal.
Seriously...WHY??????

stunt to get released by the Broncos so he can retire a Colt.


if he does not get released, no 1 day contract, no retiring a Colt, No way he can "come home" to Indy and make money.


it is all about the Benjamins!!