Andrew Luck

[flyingfooldoug]

15 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?

Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.

Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.

Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck.  The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games. 

[Gunz41]

30 minutes ago, flyingfooldoug said:

Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck.  The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games. 

Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets? 

And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.

And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?

Because the Colts TRIED to lose games specifically to be able to draft Luck.  As bad as the Browns were...I don't think they ever tried to lose. The Browns had a program by which they wanted to obtain draft picks, but they never specifically tried to lose.

Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.

Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other.

Don't let your naivetee cloud your judgment. 

They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach.

Didn't Caldwell coach them into a Super Bowl?  

Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.

Besides, I am really talking more about the year the Browns had a chance to make the playoffs if the Colts would have taken care of business by beating a bunch of bums after they had already secured their playoff positioning.  It was as bad in my mind as a player taking money to tank a game.   A total lack of integrity.

Let's put it this way....take last year.  The Browns had NO chance to make the playoffs....their season was over really.  Yet, they tried their hardest to beat the Ravens and by doing so give the Steelers the division title.   What the Colts did would have been the same as if the Browns had said: let's sit Baker, let's sit Chubb, let's sit Garrett...etc. etc.  sit all their top line players....and hand the playoff spot to Baltimore.  But they did not do that,  they had more integrity. The played hard and honestly...and while they came up short, it was not for lack of effort.  Indy TANKED the game they played...giving the playoff spot to another team...can't recall who.....and denying it to the Browns.

Fuck them.  I am sorry for Luck because he felt he had to do what he did.....but I am NOT sorry for the Colts organization. Not one bit.

 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Gunz41 said:

Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets? 

And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.

And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.

I assume you meant "not" trying to lose.    And no, I would not debate that.  The players that were on that team did not try to lose.  The organization however, was. 

And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better.   The Astros did it,  the 76ers are famous for it.   I understand that.    Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.

Who said it:  You play to win the game.  The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.

Fuck them....let them lose forever.  The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years.  Let them do the same.  Do you disagree with that sentiment?

[hoorta]

7 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.

From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?

He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.

You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.

But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April

We  may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little  bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise  healthy  guy in his 20s.

And regarding Gippers venom about the  Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a  playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly  won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're  locked into a  playoff spot. If you don't  like it, win more games  the next time. 

[flyingfooldoug]

7 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets? 

And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.

And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.

I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions 

[The Gipper]

8 hours ago, hoorta said:

We  may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little  bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise  healthy  guy in his 20s.

And regarding Gippers venom about the  Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a  playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly  won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're  locked into a  playoff spot. If you don't  like it, win more games  the next time. 

Sure....but it still lacks integrity.   Do you disagree?

And like I said...why should teams who are NOT in the playoff hunt play their main contributors?  Why should they not play to lose in order to acquire a better draft standing....and to hell with the team that is in a playoff race with the team they are facing at the end of the year?   Why should last year's Ravens game have come down to the final few plays?  Why should they not have just said "Fuck the Steelers, we hate them anyway and don't want them to get into the playoffs?  Why not sit Baker, Chubb etc.   But they didn't.....they gave the effort, even if it came up a little short.  

So, bottom line, to me, the Browns showed integrity, and in a somewhat similar situation, the Colts did not.  I repeat, let them take another 60 years to be in contention for anything.

[Gunz41]

11 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I assume you meant "not" trying to lose.    And no, I would not debate that.  The players that were on that team did not try to lose.  The organization however, was. 

And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better.   The Astros did it,  the 76ers are famous for it.   I understand that.    Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.

Who said it:  You play to win the game.  The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.

Fuck them....let them lose forever.  The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years.  Let them do the same.  Do you disagree with that sentiment?

I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.

I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship 

[Gunz41]

8 hours ago, hoorta said:

We  may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little  bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise  healthy  guy in his 20s.

And regarding Gippers venom about the  Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a  playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly  won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're  locked into a  playoff spot. If you don't  like it, win more games  the next time. 

O I know it was more. My point was that people feeling he should have known at the time of Draft are looking at the conclusion, while at that time it was thought to be small.

I can even see people being upset, but with anything I think everyone can see I just think should call it like it is. Any same situation can't be viewed one way for another team and differently for the Browns

[Gunz41]

6 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions 

Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win? 

The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.

The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.

I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.

I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.

[jrb12711]

On 8/26/2019 at 10:47 AM, TexasAg1969 said:

Dorsey seems to be loading up on "football guys", not just players. The kind that are there for the game itself and money comes second to what they love. When I hear players like Baker and Garrett wanting to be the best that's ever been, I know who we have on this team.

Eh, to be honest I'm not sure how much that "means" to me. I'm motivated by money to be the best at my job, and I don't think that's a wrong mentality to have as a football player ya know? It just seems like the trend of players is going towards that idea of thinking, but I'm just spit balling here.

22 hours ago, mjp28 said:

It's happening now when I played high school football in the 1960s we had 105 boys out for JV and varsity football our graduating class had 327 total students.

Now I see some local schools here in football crazy NE OHIO that can barely get 30 or 40 players most playing two ways and some special teams.

The soccer, volleyball and those sports are not having those kinds of problems.

I believe kids are lazier and many soccer moms and dads don't want their kids playing tackle football. Why? Just read the papers and watch the news.....or PBS or 60 minutes.

For sure. I can't find it in front of my face for some reason, but I heard on the radio recently Pop Warner is having an identity crisis as they keep trying things, but the number of kids playing goes down without fail. Being totally honest, even though I'm being blessed with a girl here at the end of the year I have strong opinions on if I'd let my son play football. That's coming from someone who played high school and college (briefly) level of the sport. I'd probably relent, but makes sense.

[The Gipper]

37 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.

I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship 

Of course, I understand all that.  But, again...A.  it IS against the integrity of the game to give one team vying for a playoff spot an advantage. I mean, let's say the Browns and the Titans were vying for a playoff spot.  The Browns need the Titans to lose.  The Titans are playing the Colts.  Instead of playing Peyton Manning, they play Curtis Painter.   Boom...done deal. Give the Titans the playoff spot.  Why bother playing the game?

And, again, I ask, why should it just be a team that is 13-2 that rests its players.  Again, I use the Browns last year.  Losing the game to the Rats gives them perhaps a better draft position.  Why risk getting Baker or any of our other guys hurt....just to try to help the freeking Steelers. Yet they did do their damndest to win. Fair to say. At the risk of serious injury to our best player. That is full integrity....the other is the opposite.

[The Gipper]

30 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win? 

The Colts SAT their best players.....the Browns played their best players.  The Colts maybe didn't "try" to lose...they just didn't "try" to win.  Same damn difference. (again...I am going back to the playoff year, not the year they tanked for Luck)

The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.

The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.

I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.

I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.

 

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

Of course, I understand all that.  But, again...A.  it IS against the integrity of the game to give one team vying for a playoff spot an advantage. I mean, let's say the Browns and the Titans were vying for a playoff spot.  The Browns need the Titans to lose.  The Titans are playing the Colts.  Instead of playing Peyton Manning, they play Curtis Painter.   Boom...done deal. Give the Titans the playoff spot.  Why bother playing the game?

And, again, I ask, why should it just be a team that is 13-2 that rests its players.  Again, I use the Browns last year.  Losing the game to the Rats gives them perhaps a better draft position.  Why risk getting Baker or any of our other guys hurt....just to try to help the freeking Steelers. Yet they did do their damndest to win. Fair to say. At the risk of serious injury to our best player. That is full integrity....the other is the opposite.

I agree that if its fine to do with a 13-2 team then it is for a team not going further. As I said, I wouldn't do it but I understand why others do it

[Gunz41]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

 

I'm not arguing the playoff year, I am arguing the Luck year.

I just don't think it is right/fair to condemn the Colts for that and not see an issue with the Browns.

I guess I am not a fanatic. I try to look at things logically and apply the same "rules" to everyone, not look at it differently because I am a Browns fan. To me, if someone applies different standards for one over another they lose credibility. An example (and not using specific players/teams), but I can't get behind denigrating a Steeler player for DV and then turn around and not be just as harsh or make excuses for a Browns player for the same thing. 

[The Gipper]

9 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

I'm not arguing the playoff year, I am arguing the Luck year.

I just don't think it is right/fair to condemn the Colts for that and not see an issue with the Browns.

I guess I am not a fanatic. I try to look at things logically and apply the same "rules" to everyone, not look at it differently because I am a Browns fan. To me, if someone applies different standards for one over another they lose credibility. An example (and not using specific players/teams), but I can't get behind denigrating a Steeler player for DV and then turn around and not be just as harsh or make excuses for a Browns player for the same thing. 

I am sorta, basically with you on the Suck for Luck year. They were not a good team, really.   I mean, OL issues were a problem then....and remained so all during Luck's tenure up to last year.  And they had no defense.   Peyton really carried that team...a lot.

[Dste Ace]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.

I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship 

It never upset me that the Colts sat their starters in '07. The sewed up their division, and the week before clinched home field advantage for the playoffs. Why would you send your starters out in a meaningless game? I can assure you that if the Browns have home field sown up going into the final week and I see Baker and OBJ and Landry and Chubb running out onto the field I'm gonna lose my shit. Fuck the other teams; we took care of our business---you take care of yours.

Bottom line, Indy took care of their business. They were not responsible to help the Browns or anyone else make the playoffs. Especially when you consider that Cleveland fucked itself when we shit the bed in Cincinnati the week before and lost (badly) to a shitty 5-9 Bengals team. The Browns had complete control of their own destiny going into that game and fucked it up. Not Indy's responsibility to pick us up.

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Sure....but it still lacks integrity.   Do you disagree?

And like I said...why should teams who are NOT in the playoff hunt play their main contributors?  Why should they not play to lose in order to acquire a better draft standing....and to hell with the team that is in a playoff race with the team they are facing at the end of the year?   Why should last year's Ravens game have come down to the final few plays?  Why should they not have just said "Fuck the Steelers, we hate them anyway and don't want them to get into the playoffs?  Why not sit Baker, Chubb etc.   But they didn't.....they gave the effort, even if it came up a little short.  

So, bottom line, to me, the Browns showed integrity, and in a somewhat similar situation, the Colts did not.  I repeat, let them take another 60 years to be in contention for anything.

Who needs integrity? You do what's best for your team. The Cheatriots are leaders in the clubhouse in that regard. As Al Davis said- "just win,baby".  If you want to hate the Colts because of the Irsays and that one game, your POV is justified. Maybe karma is catching up with them, as except for that one year, they've had great QBs since 1998. But as I pointed out- they could "Tank for Tua", though it sure sounds like from reports I've seen they're not about to throw in the towel just because Luck abruptly retired. They have too much surrounding talent around Brissett to not finish at least 8-8, maybe better- unless Brissett totally sucks- like he has in the past. My eyeball test at the Colts game told me he's not exactly a stiff. 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Dste Ace said:

It never upset me that the Colts sat their starters in '07. The sewed up their division, and the week before clinched home field advantage for the playoffs. Why would you send your starters out in a meaningless game?

Because it wasn't a meaningless game.  It had playoff implications for the league. It was a gutless move....so I guess you are in favor of gutless moves.

I can assure you that if the Browns have home field sown up going into the final week and I see Baker and OBJ and Landry and Chubb running out onto the field I'm gonna lose my shit. Fuck the other teams; we took care of our business---you take care of yours.

Well...I am sure that is the thinking. It is still gutless.

Bottom line, Indy took care of their business. They were not responsible to help the Browns or anyone else make the playoffs.

They were as equally as responsible for the integrity of the league as any other team.  Again, the Ravens game at the end of last year was just as meaningless to the Browns....but they fought hard to win and to maintain the integrity of the game. 

Especially when you consider that Cleveland fucked itself when we shit the bed in Cincinnati the week before and lost (badly) to a shitty 5-9 Bengals team. The Browns had complete control of their own destiny going into that game and fucked it up. Not Indy's responsibility to pick us up.

No, but integrity IS their responsibility.

Again...FUCK them. Let them die as a franchise.   Do you disagree with that?

 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, hoorta said:

Who needs integrity? You do what's best for your team.

But....the Browns last year didn't do the best for their team. Hell, the best for them was to get a better draft pick.  They did their best for the sake of the other teams in the league that were still in the race.

The Cheatriots are leaders in the clubhouse in that regard.

Are you condoning that activity as well then?

As Al Davis said- "just win,baby".  If you want to hate the Colts because of the Irsays and that one game, your POV is justified.

That is right...it is  righteous and justified.

Maybe karma is catching up with them, as except for that one year, they've had great QBs since 1998. But as I pointed out- they could "Tank for Tua", though it sure sounds like from reports I've seen they're not about to throw in the towel just because Luck abruptly retired.

But no one, I do not believe thinks that Tua is by any means any sure fire NFL prospect.  I don't personally think that he will be the first QB taken.  The guy from Oregon...Justin Herbert, I think, I consider a better pro prospect.  The next player to "Suck for"  is Trevor Lawrence from Clemson...who is being touted as the best QB prospect to come out since Luck. But that won't be unti 2021.

They have too much surrounding talent around Brissett to not finish at least 8-8, maybe better- unless Brissett totally sucks- like he has in the past. My eyeball test at the Colts game told me he's not exactly a stiff. 

They are a good team....would have been in the hunt for their division title...and maybe more.  Brissett will be...OK.  And I think that 8-8 there is just about right....give or take.

 

[hoorta]

15 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Who needs integrity? You do what's best for your team.

But....the Browns last year didn't do the best for their team. Hell, the best for them was to get a better draft pick.  They did their best for the sake of the other teams in the league that were still in the race.

The Cheatriots are leaders in the clubhouse in that regard.

Are you condoning that activity as well then?

As Al Davis said- "just win,baby".  If you want to hate the Colts because of the Irsays and that one game, your POV is justified.

That is right...it is  righteous and justified.

Maybe karma is catching up with them, as except for that one year, they've had great QBs since 1998. But as I pointed out- they could "Tank for Tua", though it sure sounds like from reports I've seen they're not about to throw in the towel just because Luck abruptly retired.

But no one, I do not believe thinks that Tua is by any means any sure fire NFL prospect.  I don't personally think that he will be the first QB taken.  The guy from Oregon...Justin Herbert, I think, I consider a better pro prospect.  The next player to "Suck for"  is Trevor Lawrence from Clemson...who is being touted as the best QB prospect to come out since Luck. But that won't be unti 2021.

They have too much surrounding talent around Brissett to not finish at least 8-8, maybe better- unless Brissett totally sucks- like he has in the past. My eyeball test at the Colts game told me he's not exactly a stiff. 

They are a good team....would have been in the hunt for their division title...and maybe more.  Brissett will be...OK.  And I think that 8-8 there is just about right....give or take.

Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river. 

I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10. 

[Gunz41]

1 minute ago, hoorta said:

Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river. 

I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10. 

I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.

Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?

[The Gipper]

34 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.

Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?

Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in.  If they are playing another team that has their  playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns  for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game. 

I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.

[Gunz41]

4 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in.  If they are playing another team that has their  playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns  for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game. 

I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.

I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?

If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.

And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.

[The Gipper]

12 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?

If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.

And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.

I will give you my answer when I am confronted with that situation....because right now I don't know.  Hopefully we will be 13-2 this year and have the #1 seed locked in.....and we will be playing the Bengals...who, if we win will knock them out of a playoff spot and put the Steelers or Ravens in the playoffs. 

Could you ever see tanking a game that would allow one of those teams to make the playoffs....but which by winning would knock them out?  

I would love to say no...I would not want the Browns to do that.

But, Ask me then....hopefully!!

[Nero]

Every team has to win its games if it wants to be a playoff contender. If the last week of the regular season you need someone else winning it for you, then you probably are not such contender, thus you cannot complan if certain team doesn't win a rival in the hunt for a playoff berth. No matter the how they do it. 

I would 100% rest my starters if I could on Week 17. 

Ironically, in soccer there are or have been, at least in Spain, some under the table bonus payment offers between teams so they would compete last games of the season when they had nothing to play for. No need to say that it is forbidden by league authorities. 

[Dutch Oven]

The Browns tanked for two seasons under Sashi. 

I know it might rock the moral high ground some here think they are on concerning the Browns vs the Colts, but it is true. 

But if it makes people feel better about the Browns not making the playoffs 12 years ago, in a season where the team was tailing off at the end, then knock yourself out. 

[The Gipper]

25 minutes ago, Nero said:

Every team has to win its games if it wants to be a playoff contender. If the last week of the regular season you need someone else winning it for you, then you probably are not such contender, thus you cannot complan if certain team doesn't win a rival in the hunt for a playoff berth. No matter the how they do it. 

Uhmm...it happens ALL the time. Nearly every single year. I mean, I don't know if/where you could find the stats....but I doubt there has been a season where every playoff berth has been wrapped up before the final week.  There is ALWAYs relying on help from someone else for them to make the playoffs.

I would 100% rest my starters if I could on Week 17. 

Ironically, in soccer there are or have been, at least in Spain, some under the table bonus payment offers between teams so they would compete last games of the season when they had nothing to play for. No need to say that it is forbidden by league authorities. 

 

[The Gipper]

16 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

The Browns tanked for two seasons under Sashi. 

I know it might rock the moral high ground some here think they are on concerning the Browns vs the Colts, but it is true. 

But if it makes people feel better about the Browns not making the playoffs 12 years ago, in a season where the team was tailing off at the end, then knock yourself out. 

You are not getting it, at all apparently.  We are talking about the integrity of the game. (again referring to 2007)

And I don't think they were tailing off at the end. They went 10-6.  Most teams that go 10-6 make the playoffs.  Yes, they cacked up a furball vs. the Bengals in the next to last game....but they took care of business in the final game...but because the Colts did us no favors, they had no chance to make the playoffs.

I mean...bring to point up to date....I am NOT going to have a fucking pity party for the cocksucking Baltimore Colts (yes, I meant it that way)....over losing their QB.  We have waited 55 years now...then can go that long from here on out.

[Gunz41]

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I will give you my answer when I am confronted with that situation....because right now I don't know.  Hopefully we will be 13-2 this year and have the #1 seed locked in.....and we will be playing the Bengals...who, if we win will knock them out of a playoff spot and put the Steelers or Ravens in the playoffs. 

Could you ever see tanking a game that would allow one of those teams to make the playoffs....but which by winning would knock them out?  

I would love to say no...I would not want the Browns to do that.

But, Ask me then....hopefully!!

But by your stance on it it doesn't have to be this year (since it is unlikely that the Bengals will be able to make playoffs).

Or let's look at it another way, so maybe you can understand the point. IF the Browns are locked into a playoff spot and win or lose makes no difference for the spot, and the Bengals game doesn't matter for it, would you be okay with the Browns sitting the starters to preserve them?

Because whether it effects the playoffs or not, ANY time sitting the starters would be against the integrity no? Or let's go even more; say Baker gets hurt and misses Week 15 and 16, the Browns are in playoff position, and Baker has been cleared. Should they send him out there for the game after missing the past 2 games in a game that won't matter in the grand scheme of things, or rest him to make sure he is ready for the postseason? Remember he has been cleared, so him not playing by your feelings is the Browns not playing with integrity.