Two days later: I’ll be the lone voice — it didn’t look like the Colts wanted to win on Sunday

December 13, 2011 | Drew Forrester

Two days later: I’ll be the lone voice — it didn’t look like the Colts wanted to win on Sunday

I decided to give it two full days before I brought the subject up here at “Two Days Later”.

I’ve looked, listened, watched and still…nothing.

No one has brought it up.

Except for me.

And that either makes me completely off-base — or I’m simply the only one willing to point out that there’s a big white elephant in the room and, accordingly, offer some evidence for what I saw this past Sunday when the Indianapolis Colts came to town.

I’ll say it:  I absolutely don’t think the Colts wanted to win the game on Sunday in Baltimore.  Yes, I’m saying what you think I’m saying.  It looked to me like Indianapolis wasn’t trying to win the game.

While most NFL followers consider the #1 pick in the college draft to be an albatross no team REALLY wants, it would seem the Colts are hell-bent on “earning” that distinction in time for the 2012 draft, otherwise known as the “Andrew Luck gets to learn from Peyton Manning for two years” jam session.

I understand this smacks at the entry-level qualification for a professional sports event to be considered a “professional sports event”.  In other words, for it to be a game that “counts”, per-se, both teams have to be trying to win.  That’s the most minimal starting point for any competition — are YOU trying to beat ME?  And vice versa.  If so, we got ourselves a game.

I don’t think the Colts were trying to win on Sunday.  In case you haven’t seen the standings recently, our friends in Indianapolis have a stranglehold on that #1 draft pick if they just keep losing.

I watched the game with my own two eyes from the comfy confines of M&T Bank Stadium.  I watched carefully.  The Indy skill-set players on offense — that means anyone, except the center, who has a chance to touch the ball — were absolutely invisible until about two minutes remained in the game.  I observed them all.  It was a mass-mail-in effort from every one of them on the offensive side of the ball.  Wayne, Garcon, Collie, Clark, Addai, Brown…none of them put in a half day’s work, let alone took a lunch hour.  Dan Orlovsky was the sacrificial lamb who perhaps wasn’t in on the joke, but he traded his legitimate effort for poor play.  I think Orlovsky tried — he just wasn’t any good.

But the guys who most affected the game from the standpoint of offense had ZERO impact in 58 minutes.  Prior to their final series that generated 76 yards, the Colts had only 91 yards of TOTAL offense for the entire day.  And I’m not sure how they produced that much, honestly.

Go around the league and start HONESTLY assessing all the teams and their skill-set players minus their quarterback.  Just breeze through the rosters and look at wide receivers, tight ends and running backs.  You’ll be surprised how many of those teams have inferior skill-set players to those the Colts have.  Jacksonville, St. Louis, Cleveland, Buffalo, Washington, Oakland…I’ve just rattled all five.  Keep playing at home if you want.

Does no one else find it odd that a team loaded with high-efficiency offensive players is 0-13?

Is the NFL not interested in looking into the subject at all?

I’m being completely serious here — does the NFL not see 0-13 and 62-7 losses and 91 yards of total offense for 58 minutes and ask themselves, “Is something fishy going on in Indianapolis?”

If they’re not at least ASKING that question, there’s something fishy going on there, too.

I don’t know what they’d find, if anything.  I’m completely aware that intentionally losing a game or games — or at the very least, not TRYING to win — is extremely difficult to pull off, but I will take this opportunity (please see next page)

Comments on Facebook

7 Comments For This Post

  1. unitastoberry Says:

    Jimmy is just a chip off the old block! Hopefully this kid Luck turns out to be the next Heath Shuler when they draft him number one.

  2. eric Says:

    You do understand that tanking does not benefit the players right? It benefits the organization and the fans but everything the players do is on film and affects their ability to get jobs and paychecks in the future. If the Colts players have quit it’s because it’s hard to get motivated playing on a winless team it is NOT to get the #1 pick. Alot of the players who quit on Sunday will not be in Indy in 2012.

  3. eric Says:

    Again, the organization may be tanking for a pick but the players are not. And the fact that Collie,Wayne,Garcon and other regulars played tells me the organization is not going out of it’s way to tank by playing all backups.

  4. David S Says:

    I think the Colts have dug themselves a hole so deep, there is no motivation or desire to fight, scratch and claw for a victory each week.
    It just looks like they are “mailing it in” when in reality, there is nothing there for them to play for. Lets give the Ravens some credit……they beat up on them and THAT had something to do with the Colts looking so lack luster.

  5. over40Don Says:

    Maybe the reason you are the “lone voice” is because your assertion is preposterous? Billick had nothing to add to warrent your theory this a.m.. The Colts offense stinks and the Ravens defense is superb. That’s all ANY person should take from the game. Of course that’s just my opinion and probably most anybody elses.

  6. The "Armchair QB" Says:

    Obviously, from their praise of the Colts last week, the Ravens players don’t agree with your assessment. And, frankly, it didn’t look that way to me, either. As someone has previously noted, success in the college ranks doesn’t always translate to success in the NFL – just ask….Ryan Leaf!

  7. matt Says:

    i must agree, they have nothing better to play for than pride, and they have none of that.

    either the colts trade their 1st pick and draft robert griffin III and keep peyton manning or,

    the colts draft luck and trade manning to the titans, redskins, or vikings.

Leave a Reply