What Action Should the NFL Take Against the Colts for Intentionally Tanking?

Ibleedburgundy · #1 11-21-2011, 11:06 AM

Or maybe you think they aren't intentionally tanking and their personel department can legitimately think Curtis freakin Painter and Kerry freakin Collins are better than David Garrard, Brett Favre, Carson Palmer, or any of the other available QBs that the Colts didn't even bother trying to contact.

Anyway, I am not sure if there is a rule against this. If there is, I haven't found it. Regardless, should the NFL take action here? Should they take away a pick from the Colts? Move them down ten spots? Institute a lottery?

Poll to follow. Discuss.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...ft-andrew-luck

silverspring · #2 11-21-2011, 11:12 AM

Good question. No question that they have thrown in the towel. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove. The only solution is to have some type of lottery system. I would suggest a hybrid of standings and a lottery the result being that a the worst teams would get a high pick, but the worst team would never be guaranteed the top pick.

RedskinsDave · #3 11-21-2011, 11:19 AM

Garrard might be the only legitimate argument and even then the argument is weak. What is the Redskins excuse for not going after those same players?

CNYSkinFan · #4 11-21-2011, 11:22 AM

I don't think you can equate not signing a player as equal to tanking a season. If they were intentionlly sititng players on bogus "suspensions" or "injuries"

They went into the season thinkiNg Manning would be fine, got a set back, and chiose not to waste money on a marginally better player in garrard who does not know the system at all.

Lets say Manning is done and cant come back, IMo the Colts are the least talented sqaud in the NFL and deserve the #1 pick.

As much as I hat the Redskins current roster makeup, I think we have better talent then most of the sqauds in the bottom 8 teams, we just have coaches unwilling to maximize that talent and provide adequate depth.

Ibleedburgundy · #5 11-21-2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNYSkinFan

They went into the season thinkiNg Manning would be fine, got a set back, and chiose not to waste money on a marginally better player in garrard who does not know the system at all.

Dude, Garrard is more than marginally better than Painter. Garrard had a 103.5 passer rating one season and he's never even had a decent WR to throw to.

And keep in mind the Clots could have at least inquired about Palmer, Garrard, or Favre. Allegedly they did not.

To me, it's not debatable whether or not they are intentionally tanking. Peyton Manning is great, but he isn't the difference between 10-6 and 0-16. Nobody is.

Fathead · #6 11-21-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgundy

To me, it's not debatable whether or not they are intentionally tanking. Peyton Manning is great, but he isn't the difference between 10-6 and 0-16. Nobody is.

That's the thing though, he is, because that's how the Colts have built that team. They are a rhythm offense based on Manning's ability to read a D at the line, and a play with the lead go after the QB defense. They completely sold out to be the Peyton Manning team.

And they aren't tanking any more than the Lions did when they went 0-16.

CNYSkinFan · #7 11-21-2011, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgundy

Dude, Garrard is more than marginally better than Painter. Garrard had a 103.5 passer rating one season and he's never even had a decent WR to throw to.

And keep in mind the Clots could have at least inquired about Palmer, Garrard, or Favre. Allegedly they did not.

To me, it's not debatable whether or not they are intentionally tanking. Peyton Manning is great, but he isn't the difference between 10-6 and 0-16. Nobody is.

I disagree, the Indy team has ALWAYS been marginally talented and just lifted by a superior qb play. They have routinely refused to get big price fas because in essence they are a small market team with a big time qb. They let people go throughout the years And the team was really limited last year and going into this year with really bad talent.

I don't think they are tanking, they are just horrible. And Garrard can not play in their system...hell probably only Manning can. They hoped he was ready for start of season, and gambled. They lost on that gamble and are stuck with Painter. Not wanting to give up two first rounders for Palmer was a good decision by them, plus then Palmer would still be there when Manning comes back. Favre is retired and it is unrealistic to think that 15 other teams also passed on Garrard, he is done and no one wants to pay him a big contract or even a small one.

nicefellow31 · #8 11-21-2011, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgundy

Or maybe you think they aren't intentionally tanking and their personel department can legitimately think Curtis freakin Painter and Kerry freakin Collins are better than David Garrard, Brett Favre, Carson Palmer, or any of the other available QBs that the Colts didn't even bother trying to contact.

Anyway, I am not sure if there is a rule against this. If there is, I haven't found it. Regardless, should the NFL take action here? Should they take away a pick from the Colts? Move them down ten spots? Institute a lottery?

Poll to follow. Discuss.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...ft-andrew-luck

David Garrard had said more than once that he wanted to go to a place where he was going to be a starter and long term one at that.

Brett Favre is retired. Really he is.

Carson Palmer. You saw what the Raiders gave up for him. They were the only team that would do that move. Also, what do you do with Palmer if and when Manning comes back?

What other available QBs are there that are clearly better than the mediocre ones that they have? Mark Bulger? If they are available, it because they are mediocre.

cal_junior · #9 11-21-2011, 11:48 AM

As long as the Colts and their coaching staff are trying to do their best to win every week that's all you can ask for. There doesn't need to be punishment for a team not pulling out all the stops so that it can be 4-12 instead of 1-15.

RedskinsDave · #10 11-21-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicefellow31

David Garrard had said more than once that he wanted to go to a place where he was going to be a starter and long term one at that.

Brett Favre is retired. Really he is.

Carson Palmer. You saw what the Raiders gave up for him. They were the only team that would do that move. Also, what do you do with Palmer if and when Manning comes back?

What other available QBs are there that are clearly better than the mediocre ones that they have? Mark Bulger? If they are available, it because they are mediocre.

You nailed it and saved me time typing the same thing. Garrard is being picky about where he goes and teams know it. Favre sucks and is retired but who wants that circus anyways? Only the Raiders were going to be dumb enough to give up what Brown wanted for Palmer.

Again though, they didn't do anything worse than us running Checkdown Charlie and Loss of two Loser out there every week.

dj_stouty · #11 11-21-2011, 01:02 PM

The Colts aren't tanking intentionally. Its easy to say they could go after QB X, Y or Z...but the fact is, the Redskins, the Cardinals, the Texans, The Chiefs, and The Dolphins all passed on those same QBs even though they are all in trouble at QB.

Ibleedburgundy · #12 11-21-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_stouty

The Colts aren't tanking intentionally. Its easy to say they could go after QB X, Y or Z...but the fact is, the Redskins, the Cardinals, the Texans, The Chiefs, and The Dolphins all passed on those same QBs even though they are all in trouble at QB.

Does the timing supports the Cards, Texans and Chiefs? Cards had Kolb until a few weeks ago. By then Garrard was already out for the season and Palmer was agreeing to terms with the Raiders.

For Miami that makes sense IMO.

Ibleedburgundy · #13 11-21-2011, 01:37 PM

Seeing as how the Colts are giving up a touchdown more per game this year, I must have underestimated Peyton Manning's defensive prowess.

BraveHeartFan · #14 11-22-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgundy

Or maybe you think they aren't intentionally tanking and their personel department can legitimately think Curtis freakin Painter and Kerry freakin Collins are better than David Garrard, Brett Favre, Carson Palmer, or any of the other available QBs that the Colts didn't even bother trying to contact.

Anyway, I am not sure if there is a rule against this. If there is, I haven't found it. Regardless, should the NFL take action here? Should they take away a pick from the Colts? Move them down ten spots? Institute a lottery?

Poll to follow. Discuss.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...ft-andrew-luck

Let me say this on the QBs you're talking about as I have no idea if they're tanking or not and don't care to be quite honest with you.

David Garrard was hurt and that was finally revealed recently as he had to have surgery. So picking him up would have been a waste cause he wouldn't have been able to play. It's the biggest reason none of the other teams who could have used better QB play didn't look at him.

Brett Favre was NOT coming back. I know many figured he would for the right money and all that but he simply wasn't going to. The moment he didn't start for the first time in forever last year signaled the absolute end of him. Again a waste of time to even consider it.

Carson Palmer? Seriously? Indy has been contending for years now precisely because they don't do stupid things like the Raiders and give up a 1st and a 2nd, potentially 2 firsts, for a QB whose average at best.

So none of the options you've presented here make any sort of case for what you're claiming.

Ibleedburgundy · #15 11-22-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveHeartFan

David Garrard was hurt and that was finally revealed recently as he had to have surgery. So picking him up would have been a waste cause he wouldn't have been able to play. It's the biggest reason none of the other teams who could have used better QB play didn't look at him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keino

Didn't Garrard have season ending back surgery?

Yes, Garrard is out for the season but the timing of it doesn't quite support what Braveheart is saying here. Garrard's injury was not even disclosed until October 17th - after the week 5 games. Prior to that, the Colts didn't so much as inquire about him (according to the bleacher report article in the OP). Pick up the phone, call his agent, send out a tickler - nothing. Maybe he would Tomas Vokoun it and do a year on the cheap somewhere. They didn't even try to find out.