volsunghawk
New member
RolandDeschain":955vj4c2 said:Yeah, because it'd take a concerted effort to lose 14 games with Curtis Painter at QB all year and a mediocre defense. Otherwise, hell, they'd have just stumbled onto a 16-0 season, right?volsunghawk":955vj4c2 said:Because throwing 14 games is on par with deflating balls by 2 PSI. Notice that every time you hear about cheating, it's in an attempt to WIN games. You never hear about cheating with the goal of losing games and very likely your job along with them. Coaches lost jobs. Players got cut. Polian got fired and so did his son. I'm sure that was their goal. :roll:
Also, way to imply that they wouldn't win by losing in the form of being able to draft Andrew Luck. Yep, no upside to it at all. Keep it comin', Volsung; I love it! :lol:
No upside to it for Polian, the coaching staff, the other QBs on the roster. You do get the concept that losing badly tends to cost folks their jobs, right? So all those people were fine with the possibility of losing their jobs just so the guys who replaced them could draft Luck?
Oh, and now you admit that the team had poor QBs and a mediocre defense. Those were essentially all the same players they had the year before when they went 10-6. The 2010 team had an awful defense and an awful rush offense, and the Colts were a team that was starting to decline some from their height. The only thing keeping them relevant was a weak AFC South and Peyton Freaking Manning. And when the one player keeping the Colts in contention went down, the steep drop off to becoming a really bad team somehow indicates "tanking"?
Think of it this way. The Colts were a racecar with subpar tires, suspension, transmission, etc. But that car had an INCREDIBLE engine. Just phenomenal. And the only reason it was winning races was because of that great engine. And so everything about that car was tweaked just so to complement the engine. Plus, the engine was really expensive, so the racing team had to skimp on improving those other parts of the car, and the replacement engines they had available weren't much to speak of. Now, when that engine breaks down and the racing team is forced to put a crap engine in there with all the other subpar components, and that car loses race after race... is the racing team TANKING the races, or is it just a case of "well, yeah, when you take away the one thing that made that car competitive, no wonder it loses"?
I have no idea why so many people love to jump to conspiracy when all the evidence available points to poor planning or just plain human incompetence.