8.2Percent

[Crax]

Because they purposely lost those games and just didn't plain suck without Manning carrying them. Right.

You really believe that they were trying hard to win by having Collins/Painter as their QB's? That's like the vikings bringing back McNabb right now and then telling us they're trying real hard to win.

[Funkytown]

You really believe that they were trying hard to win by having Collins/Painter as their QB's? That's like the vikings bringing back McNabb right now and then telling us they're trying real hard to win.

Actually, I do. I suppose we weren't trying either? And we aren't trying this year? Heck, why do we ever even try to win? I suppose after we are mathematically out of the playoffs every year we need to play all of our backups in hopes of losing, so we can get higher draft picks...and even sometimes, when a great QB is up for the draft, let's just go into the season planning to lose all 16 to land him. (Good luck selling that idea to your competitive players...and fans!) That's fine if y'all feel that way, but if people really feel that way, then they shouldn't complain about the losing, should they?!?! Just like in '11, everyone cried week in and week out about losing, just until we won. Then it was like, "OH MY GOD! Why did we win that?!?! We should have just lost! That hurt our draft!" So, which is it? Do we play to win the game or...?

[PurpleHalo]

They could sell it to me with ease. Would have been much easier to have done it in 2011, but they still believed they were contenders. And yeah the Colts tanked that year for Luck, no question at all.

And I was crying none that year about losing. After 37 years of no NFC title, a new approach is needed, I'd prefer to quit playing 1980s football, and join the current NFL.

[Funkytown]

They could sell it to me with ease. Would have been much easier to have done it in 2011, but they still believed they were contenders. And yeah the Colts tanked that year for Luck, no question at all.

Cool. So the complaining is over? We can all agree to go 0-16?!?!

GOOD! Time to shut down the message board. If there isn't any reason to complain, what is the point?

See y'all next year with our sexy new QB. I hope he works out, but if he doesn't and we lose the first 2 or 3, we might as well lose the rest again and just keep trying. Trying to lose that is, so we can get that "fix-all-QB".

Me, personally, I want us to win. I won't apologize for that. I don't give a crap WHO is coming out of the draft.

[Crax]

Actually, I do. I suppose we weren't trying either?

Please, feel free to explain to me how bringing Collins out of retirement and playing him 3 games before a concussion was showing the colts as trying to win.

Who said the Vikings weren't trying? They had some faith in Ponder and went with it. We'll see how long they keep that faith.

And we aren't trying this year? Heck, why do we ever even try to win? I suppose after we are mathematically out of the playoffs every year we need to play all of our backups in hopes of losing, so we can get higher draft picks...and even sometimes, when a great QB is up for the draft, let's just go into the season planning to lose all 16 to land him. (Good luck selling that idea to your competitive players...and fans!) That's fine if y'all feel that way, but if people really feel that way, then they shouldn't complain about the losing, should they?!?! Just like in '11, everyone cried week in and week out about losing, just until we won. Then it was like, "OH MY GOD! Why did we win that?!?! We should have just lost! That hurt our draft!" So, which is it? Do we play to win the game or...?

I don't recall suggesting that stuff there and that has nothing to do if the colts were tanking or not. Tanking in certain situations has worked out for multiple teams. Nobody is saying you should always tank or saying you should lose on purpose.

If you want to have an argument about Teams successfully tanking(colts,spurs), then let's have one.

[The Breeze]

No way in hell this team goes 0-16. Some of you must be inbibing cleaning supplies.

[Funkytown]

Please, feel free to explain to me how bringing Collins out of retirement and playing him 3 games before a concussion was showing the colts as trying to win.

So, they made that move to continue losing? They just wanted to make it look like they were trying to fix their problems but it was actually their big, bad plan all along? A team SO used to winning, was suddenly all about losing? Why bother to win the last couple then? Why not just be SURE to get that first pick? Because *gasp* what if other teams were tanking, too? They won the first overall draft pick based on a freakin' tiebreaker, why even let it get that close if it was the big plan all along? That's stupid.

And I never said you said anything about the Vikings in '11 or even this year when it comes to losing. I'm just commenting on the general overall "let's tank the season to get a better draft pick" attitude people have. It's odd. And if that is TRULY the answer to some people, then those people shoudn't complain about losing. Get it?

Tanking in certain situations has worked out for multiple teams. Nobody is saying you should always tank or saying you should lose on purpose.

So? Teams shouldn't lose on purpose? Then why are you suggesting that the Colts did that? You're praising the Colts for doing something that the Vikings shouldn't do...or should they?

[PurpleHalo]

Trade a whole draft than, whatever it takes. Some can't stomache the thought of losing to win, fine. But the elephant has been in the room. The only time in the last 2 decades this team had any shot was with a QB who could play. That is no accident.

[The Breeze]

I seriously question some of the rationale being expressed.

The QB position is critical....but franchise guys are few. #1 overall picks don't guarantee success.

Regardless, you need a full team of guys to win a superbowl. There has been only 1 team in the history of the league to win it all with the philosophy of 'defense be dammed, we're just gonna outscore you with our amazing QB'.

Even the current Broncos have built their team around a butt kicking D. They jumped at the opportunity to get the elite QB, and he signed because of how good a team they already had. They didn't have to suck or tank games. They just built a solid team and hired a very good coaching staff to run it.

[Crax]

So? Teams shouldn't lose on purpose? Then why are you suggesting that the Colts did that? You're praising the Colts for doing something that the Vikings shouldn't do...or should they?

Management and team personnel aren't always on the same page. My boss(company owner) here at work obviously has different goals than I do.

I'm merely pointing out that if your team is awful, don't try and be mediocre. That doesn't mean lose games on purpose or throw games. It means being ok with having a bad team.

The Jazz have been mediocre for years and scraped into the playoffs one of the last 2 and just missing out last year. Signing guys like AL Jefferson from the Wolves merely enabled them to stay mediocre. It would have been wiser IMHO to not sign guys like that and just see what happens. They are doing that this year after failing repeatedly with signing decent, but not great guys over the last few years.

The Jazz will most likely be bad this year. If they aren't, great, but if they are, I'll be happy they have a chance at a guy like Wiggins. I'm more excited for this Jazz season than any of the last few where it was pretty much guaranteed that we'll be right around the 8th seed and get bounced in the 1st round.

[mondry]

Not to mention a team like the redskins "did whatever it takes" and gave up 2 drafts for RG3, so even if they have the QB, the teams degraded rapidly with no picks to improve the other areas. They might just have the #1 pick now when it's all said and done... Their defense has given up a record amount of yards even. With that said, if they have the right QB for the next 10+ years to build around they might eventually get there. The Bears are kind of an example of that, trading for Cutler. They gave up a lot but it looks like how many years later it's finally starting to come together.

The best way imo to get a QB is to draft them and it can really be anywhere in I'd say the 1st to 3rd round. It's all pretty much luck but the more shots you take in the 1st-3rd rounds the more likely you are to hit at some point and not have to pay a butt load just for that chance.

[mondry]

Not to mention a team like the redskins "did whatever it takes" and gave up 2 drafts for RG3, so even if they have the QB, the teams degraded rapidly with no picks to improve the other areas. They might just have the #1 pick now when it's all said and done... Their defense has given up a record amount of yards even. With that said, if they have the right QB for the next 10+ years to build around they might eventually get there. The Bears are kind of an example of that, trading for Cutler. They gave up a lot but it looks like how many years later it's finally starting to come together.

The best way imo to get a QB is to draft them and it can really be anywhere in I'd say the 1st to 3rd round. It's all pretty much luck but the more shots you take in the 1st-3rd rounds the more likely you are to hit at some point and not have to pay a butt load just for that chance.

[Funkytown]

I'm merely pointing out that if your team is awful, don't try and be mediocre. That doesn't mean lose games on purpose or throw games. It means being ok with having a bad team.

And being willing to lose at the appropriate times? Where did that part go?

I get it. Trust me, I do. I just don't think any team should be thinking about that this early. Those thoughts shouldn't take place until the VERY end of the season. When there is a Luck coming out of the draft...yeah, maybe the Vikings should have CONSIDERED "losing at the appropriate time" but I wasn't upset at them for not doing so. You. Play. To. Win. The. Game. But, going into the season planning to "Suck for Luck" is gross to me, and I refuse to believe a respected Colts organization did that. Maybe they sucked so badly for so long that they decided to lose at the appropriate time, but I'm not going to sit here and act like they went 0-13 on purpose. It's foolish! And that logic is even shakey because why win the last 2 of 3 to let it come down to a tiebreaker? Just lose them all and be done with it if that's the plan. That's why I don't think they PURPOSELY sucked that bad all season to get the 1st pick. That's my argument about that.

I'm just sad that Vikings fans are already dreaming of next year's draft...trying to lose for better picks and trying to trade AP and Jared Allen, too. It's sad. I know the Vikings are ridiculous right now, but already discussing the draft?!?!? Oh my god. No! Quitters! We'll have to lose at least 10 more before I start thinking about the freakin' draft. In other words...I'll think of the draft AFTER the season is over (we won't lose 10 more), which is when draft talk SHOULD be happening.

[The Breeze]

Management and team personnel aren't always on the same page. My boss(company owner) here at work obviously has different goals than I do.

I'm merely pointing out that if your team is awful, don't try and be mediocre. That doesn't mean lose games on purpose or throw games. It means being ok with having a bad team.

The Jazz have been mediocre for years and scraped into the playoffs one of the last 2 and just missing out last year. Signing guys like AL Jefferson from the Wolves merely enabled them to stay mediocre. It would have been wiser IMHO to not sign guys like that and just see what happens. They are doing that this year after failing repeatedly with signing decent, but not great guys over the last few years.

The Jazz will most likely be bad this year. If they aren't, great, but if they are, I'll be happy they have a chance at a guy like Wiggins. I'm more excited for this Jazz season than any of the last few where it was pretty much guaranteed that we'll be right around the 8th seed and get bounced in the 1st round.

I agree with you about the deathtrap of mediocrity. But comapring the NFL roster to an NBA roster doesn't really work for me. NBA, you're talking maybe 9 guys max, as far as rotations go, compared to 26ish in the NFL. The chances of getting 1 guy to create a huge impact on your starting 5 is quite good in the NBA, which is why more GMs and fans are ok with flat out losin over mediocrity now.
In the NFL, Peyton Manning only comes along every so often and you still need a really good team to win it all. Peyton is the perfect example. Took him 6 years to win a playoff game....Mark Sanchez has as many playoff victories...the Colts have never had the type of defenses that the Jets had for Sanchez's first few seasons, and look to have this season.

The Suns will tank harder than the Jazz...or just outluck them in the lottery. Wiggins....in Phoenx...yeah!

[Crax]

You. Play. To. Win. The. Game.

I agree the players should always play to win the game. I'm not sure from a management standpoint you should always sign FA's and everything else if it just minimizes a problem position.

If a team strategically mails in a season, I'm not going to get too upset with it.

When there is a Luck coming out of the draft...yeah, maybe the Vikings should have CONSIDERED "losing at the appropriate time"

I wouldn't have had a problem if we started MBT against the redskins and lost that game(sorta on purpose, management wise, not telling players to lose)