you watch your mouths about Curtis. he even sucked at Purdue...
you watch your mouths about Curtis. he even sucked at Purdue...
Saying it was all because Manning went down is terribly short-sighted.
There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.
Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-22-2013 at 02:28 PM.
Dumb *** browns can't even tank right. End up winning their game without Trent while unwittingly gifting us a vicious power running game.
Painter was the biggest problem, followed closely by the OL. Once the other QB took over the team was actually kind of decent, which says a lot about Painter considering the other QB is most famous for running out of bounds in the end zone to avoid a sack on the 0-16 Lions.
New England also kept a winning mentality around their franchise in 2008 because Hoodie wouldn't allow anything else. The Colts, OTOH, allowed themselves to have a bunch of self-pitty and seemed to almost want the 2-14 season once Peyton went out.
We wanted to lose games in 2011. No, I do not think that our players and coaches actually tried to throw away games. But those who ran the franchise put a roster on the field that yielded the best chance of losing. There is no other rational explanation for leaving Painter out there for as long as we did when clearly Dan O. was a better option. Also, weren't we at the top of the waiver wire for virtually the entire season? Couldn't we have tried signing a couple of players during the course of the season to help? We did nothing to attempt to win games.
Hey, I support it 100% after seeing how it worked out. Seems like a brilliant strategic move at this point.
Oh I do not buy that at all. I think you guys are seriously not looking at the foundation factors and actual things going on around that time. On the surface, most Lay people are going to be like "Oh, well ya, they lost Peyton, so ya, it's understandable that they lost 14 games." One player does not a franchise ruin, even Peyton Manning. I'm not going to speculate that we threw the season... or that our players bought into some self-pity. I know the players on that team, and they were injured and old, and no longer effective, but they weren't whiners and quitters. Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis wouldn't buy into that philosophy at all nor would they allow it.
I wish people would just lay to rest all these crazy conspiracy theories. It's a well known fact that by the end of Polian's tenure, he had strapped the team with some bloated contracts. The result that year was a ton of money wrapped up in players who weren't playing, including Manning. That's why Grigson entered the scene and immediately starting cutting people, knowing full well we'd be paying for their services the next year ---- dead money. $30million of it. The ONLY bad contract we kept was Freeney, and he was gone the next year. (Grigson did an unreal job of cutting the fat and making hard business decisions. He's also done extremely well with the types of contracts he's brought in, ones that don't strap us long term). The talent around Manning, imo, wasn't great, but Manning masked it. The underlying problem was the overall talent of the team and how resources had been allocated. You lose that guy who is THAT much a part of the overall system (and you cannot argue that the way the team was structured, Manning represented an exorbitant amount of the make-up of that team), and all of a sudden the system takes a ****. And when the system takes a ****, we didn't have Belichick to address it -- we had Jim Caldwell. Look back on that team --- it was built ENTIRELY around Manning. Even the defense. The defense was built fast, small, light to get after the quarterback because they could count on Manning getting out to fast starts. Very, very few QBs could be built around like that. The receivers around Manning weren't great overall receivers (except Wayne). They were receivers that fit Manning's style. The running backs Manning used --- after Edge, was a buncha no-names, because the running game was an after thought. Manning needed a running back mostly as a decoy. James Mungro is all he needed. But Peyton goes down and you have to insert a "normal" QB into his spot --- they're not used to getting out fast. The receivers aren't built for Painter. The defense isn't built to play from behind. Having a running game becomes important, but you aren't going to get that with a pass-protect O-Line and a James Mungro or Donald Brown or whoever other no name RB Manning used. So you have a problem of poor personel getting over-paid, coupled with a management infrastructure incapable of handling that type of adversity and voila --- worst team in the NFL. The team was not well-rounded --- it was 100% taylored to Peyton Manning. It was a very lop-sided team in overall make-up. Brady is every bit the centerpiece of his team, and the Patriots, who have ALWAYS made smart shrewd business decisions, were still able to roll out their backup QB and win 11 games. It wasn't *just* Painter. It was total system failure, starting with bad contract decisions. Our drafting during that time wasn't stellar either, although not as bad as people want to believe (they generally drafted system guys who fit into Manning's grand scheme, to which they mostly succeeded).
Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-23-2013 at 10:55 AM.
ProFootballMock ***** all over the browns in NFL QBs talkin' on Facebook today http://profootballmock.com/facebookc...posite-day-13/
Now, that said, I'm glad they went 2-14 the year Luck came out... but that's an entirely different argument. Sometimes a purge is required.
Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-23-2013 at 12:43 PM.
Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-23-2013 at 03:46 PM.
What does that have to do with the cap though, which kicked off this discussion?
Those choices, and the results of those choices, weren't made because the Colts were pinching pennies. Those decisions were conscious ones, trying to design the team a certain way. They weren't forced into making those decisions because they didn't cap flexibility. The salary cap really didn't have anything to do with why the Colts were so awful without Manning.
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.
What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?
Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.
The defense was built to play with the lead and our offense typically could do that. Once Manning went down we had real protection issues and our defense actually had to be stout and could not rely on Manning.
Now we would have had cap issues had we kept Manning because of how much he was getting paid, but the 2-14 season was all because this team was built for Peyton.
Grigs learned from Polian's mistake and is trying to establish a running game and defense so we have a better shot of not completely falling on our face if Luck got hurt. Even with that said if Luck went down we would still be screwed because you need a QB to win in this league long term.
it's been a minute so I may be a bit hazy on the specifics, but even a few weeks into the season there was no guarantee Peyton wasn't going to play in 2011. the thinking was maybe he misses preason but that he could play week one, that was the thinking all of training camp and into the preseason. we didn't go that whole offseason knowing he was going to miss the whole year, that wasn't announced until well into September. it wasn't the cap that prevented us from getting a different QB, especially since we did when we signed Kerry Collins for 4 million, it was uncertainty with Peyton.
I don't think my theory is all that crazy. I'm not saying that the players or coaches actually tried to deliberately lose games on the field. All I'm saying is that the organization did not even remotely try to improve things when we were losing a lot of games, and instead seemed to deliberately stick with the things that were not working so that they'd continue to lose games.
If they were honestly trying to win, then Curtis Painter should not have started 8 games. He probably should have been yanked after the New Orleans 62-7 massacre, yet he still started 4 games after that. He should have been yanked after the next game when we were smacked in Tennessee, yet he still got to keep starting. He should have been yanked after the Atlanta beatdown, yet he still got to keep starting. He should have been yanked after the pitiful 3 point effort at home against Jax, yet he still got to keep starting. It was only after the loss against Carolina, when we were virtually assured at getting the number 1 pick, that we finally brought Dan Orvlosky in. And his first start was in New England of all places, which was akin to throwing him to the wolves. Had we honestly cared about winning games, then we'd have started him at home against Carolina in the previous week, which would have been a far better environment for a player making his first start of the season.
Had we honestly been trying to field a team that would give us the best chance at winning the game, then there is simply no way that we would have rolled with Painter for as long as we did when it was so apparent that he was absolutely awful. A team that was trying to win would have given Dan O. a chance long before he finally got one. Once we lost those close games at the beginning of the season and it became clear that we had zero chance at the playoffs without Peyton, we did all we could to ensure that we would continue to lose games so that we would get that number 1 pick.
Also, we never added waiver players or attempted to make trades. Some of those guys could have maybe been better than the scrubs we were putting out there.
I agree 100% with what the Colts did. Leaving Painter out there for as long as they did was a great strategic move that appears to have paid off big time. Our franchise saw the big picture and understood that 2011 was a complete throwaway. Winning some more meaningless games could have hurt our draft position, which would have been idiotic for our future. But you have to call a spade a spade. This was not a team that was honestly trying to win games. They didn't try at all to improve the team and deliberately stayed with the things that were losing.
Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-24-2013 at 10:26 AM.
1) Majority of Browns fans would not have voted that it was a good trade WHEN the trade occurred,
2) Browns 2-0 since the trade and now tied for the division lead in what has become a weak division! Browns defense is a top 5 in the league. Just need an offense that can get near 20 PPG.
Trent Richardson appears to be the exact same player as Vick Ballard. Not sure Vick Ballard = a 1st round draft pick
If turner beats out hill and mahinmi in camp then fine, but odds of that happening are slim.