Lol. Omaha saying a fans opinion that the Colts should sit their white quarterback for the black back up so they can keep their first round pick means that all Colts fans are bad people and somehow racist is really dumb. Dumb things should be pointed out.

There’s no need to defend it.

Wentz is far from healthy. And there wouldn’t be anything wrong with sitting him with an eye toward keeping the pick, as long as he was ok with it.

If Philly didn’t want to risk not getting the 1st rounder, they shouldn’t have made the deal. There’s nothing unethical about it.

Do you expect players to fulfill the contract they signed no matter what? How is that different?

I live in Tennessee. I can confirm the existence of quite a few in this state.

As to racism, it is more subtle in Indiana but seemed far more prevalent there than here.

All I know is there have been times when I have been at bar on 38th and Sherman and did not feel very welcome.....:D

Are you a POC, or an asshole? I mean, assholes are never welcome anywhere.

o


In my rat's ass of an opinion, that 2011 season illustrated just how valuable Peyton Manning was to a team (any team that he plays/played for, not just the Colts.)

Larry Bird almost single-handedly took the 2nd-worst team in the NBA (the 1978-79 Boston Celtics) and led them to the best record in the NBA (61-21) in his rookie season in 1979-80 ...... and when Bird missed almost the entire 1988-89 season, the Celtics went from being a perennial juggernaut to being just an average team with a record of 42-40.

True greatness is not necessarily measured by how many championships a player's teams have won, but more so what happens to the team without that player (see LeBron James for another quintessential example of what happens to a team/franchise when that player leaves.)

o

No he didn't. He made the decision to give up a first round pick if Wentz plays 75% of his snaps, or 70% if the Colts make the playoffs.

So let's say by the 14th game Wentz needs to sit out the next four to get the Colts under that 75% mark, and the Colts have a horrible record like 3-10 or something and are well out of the playoff race.

What exactly is the benefit of playing him? At that point the negatives are plenty. Wentz could hurt himself the next four games in games that are meaningless for the Colts and the Colts would lose a potential top 5 or whatever pick all because...they want to follow some unwritten rules of a deal? Imagine the shitstorm that would follow if Wentz played in this scenario to the point where the Colts lost their first round pick, then he has like an ACL tear or some real significant injury. At that point the Colts wouldn't even have a high pick to fall back on.

If the deal was that Wentz was expected to play for anything other than injuries, they could have mandated that healthy scratches don't count for the snap count in the deal. Then if the Colts claimed he had a sore ankle or whatever to get him on the injury report one could make the claim the Colts were being unethical. In this case, the deal is pretty simple. He either plays 70/75% of his snaps or he doesn't.

If Ballard really wanted to trade a first round pick for the guy, he would have. These conditions are here for a reason. Either for injury, he sucks so bad that they'd rather play the backup, or the Colts suck so bad with him that they don't want to give up a first round pick.

that is because you are a shitty person apparently. if you have no integrity, your opinion is irrelevant to any debate or conversation.

i grew up in indiana and still have ties there. it is a very racist place and littered with methheads and garbage people.

if you don't fit that description then that is fine but don't pretend that isn't the truth

well that isn't even close to the point but ok. someone feels guilty i see