AP better win the MVP and comeback player awards

[ColtsBlueFL]

I honestly don't know. And given that someone will inevitably ask for "proof" that substantiates anything I say here, I think I'm going to just leave with the reassertion that the 2011 Colts were not a "typical" 2-14 team. ;)

and I guess we'll never know because 60 of the 90 players at 2012 training camp.were brand new to the team.  However, Mel Kiper mentioned on the Colin Cowherd show today that without Luck, the Colts would be 2-14 again....   Hmmmm

[ViriLudant]

and I guess we'll never know because 60 of the 90 players at 2012 training camp.were brand new to the team.  However, Mel Kiper mentioned on the Colin Cowherd show today that without Luck, the Colts would be 2-14 again....   Hmmmm

That self-same Mel Kiper, who is wrong 90% of the time when doing his ONLY job, which is predicting draft picks?

THAT Mel Kiper?

[jvan1973]

I have a good idea....

google "colts tanked the season 2011"

then scroll down the 28 pages of articles written by the boston globe, cbs, bleacher report....

read each one....

And if you don't like what they said, or don't believe them....

WRITE TO THEM and tell them to prove their story.

I didn't write the 28+ pages of articles you will find, but I do believe they have merit.

One more thing before I am done with you.

If you don't share someones opinion, try speaking in an intelligent manner and don't belittle people by saying "you dreamt it".

I did google it. Not one major news outlet had anything about it. Like i said, i think you dreamt it

[ColtsBlueFL]

I have a good idea....

google "colts tanked the season 2011"

 

then scroll down the 28 pages of articles written by the boston globe, cbs, bleacher report....

read each one....

 

And if you don't like what they said, or don't believe them....

 

WRITE TO THEM and tell them to prove their story. 

 

I didn't write the 28+ pages of articles you will find, but I do believe they have merit.

 

One more thing before I am done with you.

 

If you don't share someones opinion, try speaking in an intelligent manner and don't belittle people by saying "you dreamt it".

I googled it.  Almost every site listed that mentions tanking it is a fan forum or blog spot.  The few known and reputable sites only have articles on Colts not tanking... There's no CBS or Boston Globe report of Colts tanking on pages 1 -4 of what you had me type in on the search line.  No other site is credible that I saw.

 

You should be the one to post a credible articles/linksout of that search to back your claim, not make your readers do your homework while telling us what to look for. Yet I did anyway and without success, and wasted many minutes in the process. Not a single article that has evidence or credible merit to it.  It appears the conspiracy theorists have vivid imaginations.

 

I did find these though-

 

NO PROMOTIONAL POSTING ON THE SITEcoltzilla-2011-archives/october/intentionally-tank-the-2011-season-colts-players-scoff-at-the-suggestion.html

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/18/colts-wont-be-tanking-to-get-andrew-luck/

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/10/11/2484082/jim-irsay-hearts-andrew-luck-colts-players-dont

 

Love Mathis comment!!

[ColtsBlueFL]

That self-same Mel Kiper, who is wrong 90% of the time when doing his ONLY job, which is predicting draft picks?

THAT Mel Kiper?

 

At least he gets paid to be wrong. you, OTOH, likely do not.  ;)

 

And it is no less credible than the conspiracy tripe being dished out, yes?

[Superman]

I honestly don't know. And given that someone will inevitably ask for "proof" that substantiates anything I say here, I think I'm going to just leave with the reassertion that the 2011 Colts were not a "typical" 2-14 team. ;)

 

I agree that they were not a "typical" 2-14 team. You usually have to be completely devoid of talent to lose that many games, especially thirteen in a row like we did. But the real problem, I think, was terrible coaching and poor quarterback play. We got rid of every quarterback we had on the roster last year, not even inviting them to camp, and we got rid of 80% of our coaching staff, starting at the top.

 

The issues were pretty clear, if you ask me.

 

As for the burden of proof issue, I know it gets a little overbearing sometimes. But like I said before, there's another poster trying to put that burden of proof on those who disagree that the Colts tanked in 2011. I think you would probably get away with prefacing your comments with "in my opinion." ;)

[Mameluc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="noah larson" data-cid="374709"><p>It's going to be a co- MVP for Manning and Peterson, both these guys really deseve it!!!</p></blockquote><br />Co MVP Peterson and Rodgers.<br /><br />

Rodgers and Brady both had better years statistically than Manning, and they did it with less. AP should be the sole MVP, if he shares it there are more deserving, but the media loves their Manning.. not to mention they have to make sure the 50 restaurants he opened with the officially sponsored by the NFL, Papa Johns.. This award will forever be tarnished if Manning wins it this year.

im sory but why with less? gronk and hernandez, his running game and the OL not to mention 110+ catches from welker...since when is that a bad supporting cast. in any case id say they are even

[BleedingBlue]

I googled it.  Almost every site listed that mentions tanking it is a fan forum or blog spot.  The few known and reputable sites only have articles on Colts not tanking... There's no CBS or Boston Globe report of Colts tanking on pages 1 -4 of what you had me type in on the search line.  No other site is credible that I saw.

 

You should be the one to post a credible articles/linksout of that search to back your claim, not make your readers do your homework while telling us what to look for. Yet I did anyway and without success, and wasted many minutes in the process. Not a single article that has evidence or credible merit to it.  It appears the conspiracy theorists have vivid imaginations.

 

I did find these though-

 

NO PROMOTIONAL POSTING ON THE SITEcoltzilla-2011-archives/october/intentionally-tank-the-2011-season-colts-players-scoff-at-the-suggestion.html

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/18/colts-wont-be-tanking-to-get-andrew-luck/

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/10/11/2484082/jim-irsay-hearts-andrew-luck-colts-players-dont

 

Love Mathis comment!!

my comments were not directed to you....  but im glad you found some interesting reading.

 

Its not "my claim"....its others claims that I think has some merit. Theres a difference.

 

BTW, you waste your own time every time you log onto this forum. don't blame someone else when you chose to engage in a conversation.

 

I see that you are camping this thread waiting for my reply. That constitutes trolling IMO, so I'm done here.

[YOUR GM]

I honestly don't know. And given that someone will inevitably ask for "proof" that substantiates anything I say here, I think I'm going to just leave with the reassertion that the 2011 Colts were not a "typical" 2-14 team. ;)

 

What does that even mean? What does a typical 2-14 team look like? Did the Chiefs this year (2-14) fit that typical look, or did they too tank games for the sake of a higher pick, in your opinion? I'll be so bold as to say that this year's Chiefs had significantly more talent than we had last year, on offense and defense

[jjcolts]

Many talking media over the past decade have said...."this team is a 6 win or 8 win team at best without Peyton"  no one ever imagined that this was a 2-14 team.

 

I am not in  no way saying Peyton was not superman QB nor Luck isn't all that great because he is and will be even better with time, But Curtis Painter was THAT bad. That Bad.

 

Now I do not have the burden of proof to prove we tanked or didn't.  If we did, I don't care...if we didn't...I don't care.

 

I am more concerned that this Colts organization is going to make Luck's arm fall off.

[hawkeyes]

Many talking media over the past decade have said...."this team is a 6 win or 8 win team at best without Peyton"  no one ever imagined that this was a 2-14 team.

 

I am not in  no way saying Peyton was not superman QB nor Luck isn't all that great because he is and will be even better with time, But Curtis Painter was THAT bad. That Bad.

 

Now I do not have the burden of proof to prove we tanked or didn't.  If we did, I don't care...if we didn't...I don't care.

 

I am more concerned that this Colts organization is going to make Luck's arm fall off.

 

Painter 54.3% CMP - Luck 54.1% CMP ... IMO Painer was/is not a GREAT QB, but he certaiinly should have been manageable on a good team - he got ZERO protection and when he did he was able to make nearly every throw necessary.   Luck has not had a lot of protection either, but in fairness the team as a whole has played much better this season than last!

[House]

Painter 54.3% CMP - Luck 54.1% CMP ... IMO Painer was/is not a GREAT QB, but he certaiinly should have been manageable on a good team - he got ZERO protection and when he did he was able to make nearly every throw necessary. Luck has not had a lot of protection either, but in fairness the team as a whole has played much better this season than last!

Unfortunately/fortunately Luck makes the line more serviceable because of his mobility.

Though I wish we could just get some consistent blocking.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Many talking media over the past decade have said...."this team is a 6 win or 8 win team at best without Peyton"  no one ever imagined that this was a 2-14 team.

 

I am not in  no way saying Peyton was not superman QB nor Luck isn't all that great because he is and will be even better with time, But Curtis Painter was THAT bad. That Bad.

 

Now I do not have the burden of proof to prove we tanked or didn't.  If we did, I don't care...if we didn't...I don't care.

 

I am more concerned that this Colts organization is going to make Luck's arm fall off.

 

 

All we have is the players and front office saying they didn't.  And they shouldn't. And those that do should be permanently blackballed out of the league if ever found out. These players are  wired to  get to some kind of off season get in shape program, then go to OTA's, Training camp, practices, all just to show up on Sunday to intentionally toss the game?  Ummmm, I kind of don't think so.  Especially because they are playing to keep their jobs and lucrative paychecks for 1, and 2 they don't know if that draft pick becomes the next Ryan Leaf or Peyton Manning. Risk / Reward uncertainty is too high.

 

If we did, I DO care greatly.  Integrity of the game is paramount.  But I am more concerned about the Colts getting better next year, and that is uncertain until we know B.A.'s situation.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

if it was an organizational decision, why was polian fired following the season? The whole premise makes no sense.

And i don't have any cookies, the wife really needs to get to the grocery store..

This may be the best argument against an organizational decision to "suck for Luck". If Irsay wanted to tank, why did he clean house? There is no way Polian and Caldwell don't squeal if they were told to tank and then got the axe. Doesn't seem logical in the least.

Unless hard evidence is presented otherwise, it's just nonsense spouted by trolls trying to stir things up.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

im sory but why with less? gronk and hernandez, his running game and the OL not to mention 110+ catches from welker...since when is that a bad supporting cast. in any case id say they are even

Haven't you heard? Poor Tom does it all and has no receivers to stroke their egos. They've been doing it for years, why stop now? Despite the fact that Gronk and Hernandez are physical freaks and Wes Welker is likely the best slot receiver ever, Tom doesn't have any weapons. That's why he's MVP, even though he didn't outperform Peyton or Rodgers.

[Superman]

Painter 54.3% CMP - Luck 54.1% CMP ... IMO Painer was/is not a GREAT QB, but he certaiinly should have been manageable on a good team - he got ZERO protection and when he did he was able to make nearly every throw necessary.   Luck has not had a lot of protection either, but in fairness the team as a whole has played much better this season than last!

 

So, Curtis Painter was as good as Andrew Luck?

[hawkeyes]

So, Curtis Painter was as good as Andrew Luck?

 

If you want to come to that conclusion thats your choice - heck CMP stats show he was better than Luck in that important category,  but I certainly was not saying that!  I clearly said CP was not a great QB - and many including myself believe that Luck has the tools to be just that - great - it's now up to him to put those tools to use.

[jjcolts]

In that completion % how many attempt?

 

I say I don' care.....because I do not know enough to care.  I am no going to lose sleep over something we have no concrete evidence.

 

Say..um Reggie..I am not sure if we sign you next year...but um...can you drop some footballs ahem by accident...you know so you can help us get Luck and along the way devalue yourself.

[GoPats]

and I guess we'll never know because 60 of the 90 players at 2012 training camp.were brand new to the team.  However, Mel Kiper mentioned on the Colin Cowherd show today that without Luck, the Colts would be 2-14 again....   Hmmmm

 

So this is what you've been getting at all along? That only two quarterbacks in the known universe, Peyton Manning (10-6 in 2010) and Andrew Luck (11-5 in 2012), could possibly lead this band of rag-tag half-wits - a group of walk-ons with fringe NFL talent - to such lofty heights?

 

You should have just said so.

[Yehoodi]

2011 Bengals.

2008 Dolphins.

2004 Steelers.

2004 Chargers.

 

That's just the past 10 years.

 

Try harder.

First off did any of those teams get the first overall pick in the following season? . . .

Second, and perhaps most importanting, none of those teams are the great teams (other than the 2000s Steelers) that I am talking about . . . this thread has to do with the colts who are one of the great teams in the history of the NFL . . . and as such we need to look at team similiarly situation to make our determination . . . i did not want to spend the time to spell out all of my thoughts as i didn't not feel like and also figured that my points were self explanantory . . .

but here are the great teams IMO (i.e. teams that were at the top for more than 5 years and or won multi-SBs)

1970s - Fins, Boys, Steelers, Raiders

1980s - Gmen, 49ers, Skins, Bears, and to a degree the fins

1990s - Boys 49ers, Broncos, Packers,

2000s - Steelers, Colts, Pats . . .

All of those great teams were great becuase they had great QBs, coaches, supporting cast and so on . . .and they are all so good that none of them ever feel off the cliff (with the "cliff" meaning going from the top to the very bottom of the leaque and thereby getting the #1 pick) . . with the exception of the 70s Boys (which i mentioned in the post after your quoted) got the #1 pick and they did so only via a trade . . .

so bottom line all of the colts peers never went from being among the best and a year later are picking first overall, it has never happened . . . and I could care less what the 1998 Vikings or 2005 Seahawks did a few years after they made one year runs . . . the issue in question is the whether or not it is unusual for a team with the talent level of the colts (who were 14-0 and on the bring of one of the best season ever two years before 2-14) to drop so fast . . . and as it has never ever happened it is just a data point in the discussion . . .

bottom line the reason why those teams are great has a hell of a more to do with a player or two . . . indeed, the colts did not rise to that level until Manning 6th year (2003) with the arrival of Coach Dundy, Freeney, Mathis, Clark, Wayne, Sanders, and so on . . . and of coarse Manning, who was around a 500 QB at the time, lead them on a legendary run from 2003-2010 . . . typically this teams don't fall down over night and will generally peter out over time as they talent leaves the team . . .

[Superman]

If you want to come to that conclusion thats your choice - heck CMP stats show he was better than Luck in that important category,  but I certainly was not saying that!  I clearly said CP was not a great QB - and many including myself believe that Luck has the tools to be just that - great - it's now up to him to put those tools to use.

 

Well, if you follow your line of reasoning through to it's logical conclusion...

 

Otherwise, I don't see any reason to EVER put a Painter stat up next to a Luck stat, because there simply is no comparison between the two players. You're right, Luck has a lot of improvement to make before he's a "great" quarterback, but he's got the right stuff.

[Yehoodi]

No other team ever before had Peyton Manning in charge....

no they have not and PM is a great field general and has helped his new team get to the #1 seed this year . . . but as i mentioned in the prior post, it takes more that one player to make a team great, and surely PM has done his part and help to a significant degree the colts 2003-2010 to make one of the greatest runs in nfl history . . . but it takes supporting cast to help out (which is true of all HOF QBs) and prior to 03, the colts were a 500ish team over PM first 5 years and the years were not that much different than the preseeding 5 years with Harbuagh, i not taking a shot at PM but just making a point that it was not until some key member came to the colts that they went on thier run . . . which has a two fold point, its take more than one player to be great and with so many great players needed to be great, it typically takes the lost of those players, that is more than 2-3, to make the teams middle to bottom of the barrel

and for what it is worth, the colts this year were 11-5 without manning . . .

[Yehoodi]

But I have documented testimony... you have ... feelings...   smoke.   fire thingy's....  what wins in the court of law?  Yours and 75% of fans (quoted by another Pats fan) is unsubstantiated opinion.  And I'll refute at every chance...  with links to 1st person denial.   Like you would if I began to mention asterisks on SB championships...   as you well should since evidence is long been eliminated....

other than doing math proofs we did when we were in school, the need to "prove" something is not always 100%. . . indeed as you mentioned a court of law and proving it in a court of law, the civil standard is by the preponderance of the evidence, which 51%, more likely than not that it happened proof . . . so if we are trying to prove our point in a court of law as you wish, all that we would have to do is to convince a jury that more likely than not something has happened . . . that is all . . .

and the only points that I was trying to bring out is that there were a handful of thing that were unique in the colts season that is all . . . among them are being the first great team since the Merger to garner a #1 pick, going 0-13 (and thereby secure the #1 pick with only needed to loose to JAX) and then going out beat two division rivals with each win having a direct impact on their playoff seeding (due to the lost to Indy hou lost a first round bye and Tenn was out of the playoffs), Manning's contract which had a poision bill clause tied to timing of the draft, Manning (who it is told injuried himself in 2006) decided to have the surgery in 2011 (don't get me wrong I don't want to step on one's health and one is entitled to seek health they way one wants and am glad that he is healthy and doing well), the closeness between the mannings/lucks/polians an indication that they knew of andrew talent well in advance of other, and so on . . .

who knows maybe the stars just line up in a certain way, and FJC is right in his earlier post about how the season went down . . . but at the same time you really can't say that nothing exists to make some of the boobirds scratch their heads . . . its one thing to have an isolated incident, but when you have a handful of things that converge at the same time some poeple are going to start to stir . . .

as for the pats, i am not so sure it is the same thing as what one is trying to prove is did the pats vidoe tape, which we know that they did, and second if they use it, but when you are discussing that one needs to make an argument if that would be useful and i do not thing so . . .tape of defense coaches i do not think is useful as team change signals . . . now on the contrary had the pats had pregame warmup tapes that is a different story as i feel that would of been helpful . . .

[YOUR GM]

What does that even mean? What does a typical 2-14 team look like? Did the Chiefs this year (2-14) fit that typical look, or did they too tank games for the sake of a higher pick, in your opinion? I'll be so bold as to say that this year's Chiefs had significantly more talent than we had last year, on offense and defense

 

 

^^Any of you "suck for luck" conspiracy theorists want to answer this?

[GoPats]

^^Any of you "suck for luck" conspiracy theorists want to answer this?

 

Quoting yourself is the first sign of senility you know. ;)

 

I kid, I kid.

 

The Colts made the playoffs for, what, nine years straight? Name one other team with that kind of run of consistency that, all of a sudden, nose-dived to a 2-14 record. You see teams drop to .500 or maybe even 5 or 6 wins, but that's a huge difference from 2-14.

 

A lot of it was, I think, because of the inadequacies that Manning helped to cover up. Great QBs do that. But - and this is my OPINION - I think the team also, somewhere along the way, lost heart. Not saying it was deliberate. Just unusual.

[YOUR GM]

Quoting yourself is the first sign of senility you know. ;)

 

I kid, I kid.

 

The Colts made the playoffs for, what, nine years straight? Name one other team with that kind of run of consistency that, all of a sudden, nose-dived to a 2-14 record. You see teams drop to .500 or maybe even 5 or 6 wins, but that's a huge difference from 2-14.

 

A lot of it was, I think, because of the inadequacies that Manning helped to cover up. Great QBs do that. But - and this is my OPINION - I think the team also, somewhere along the way, lost heart. Not saying it was deliberate. Just unusual.

 

 

That didn't answer my question. Just sayin  ;)

[GoPats]

That didn't answer my question. Just sayin  ;)

 

I thought it did, no?

 

I was probably too wordy. This is what makes them very atypical:

 

How many 2-14 teams in the history of the NFL made the playoffs for nine consecutive years prior to that season, then rebounded the following year to go back to the playoffs?

 

I don't think, well... any. But maybe I'm wrong...

[YOUR GM]

I thought it did, no?

 

I was probably too wordy. This is what makes them very atypical:

 

How many 2-14 teams in the history of the NFL made the playoffs for nine consecutive years prior to that season, then rebounded the following year to go back to the playoffs?

 

I don't think, well... any. But maybe I'm wrong...

 

Yes but if I were to show you the 2011 roster, from a talent standpoint, they fit every bit of the role of a 2-14 squad. Like I said, stack that 2-14 roster against the Chiefs current 2-14 roster and tell me where we have an advantage in talent? I think all last season proved was the overall ineptitude of the front office and coaching staff, which was masked by a HOF QB for the last 3-4 seasons. 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/ind/stats?season=2011_2&qualified=

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/kan/stats?season=2012_2&qualified=

 

 

 

I understand that the notion of such a thing is hard for you Pats fans to even wrap your heads around. Not every franchise can lose a HOF QB for an entire season and still win 10 games. The difference between our situations was the leadership, plain and simple. You guys have arguably the greatest coach ever (I just puked a little in my mouth typing that) and a world class owner who provides said coach the tools he needs to win. We have the right owner here, but he allowed loyalty cloud his judgement regarding the decisions the Polians made the last 3-4 seasons.  He received an abrupt wake-up call last season, and cleaned house because of it. 

[GoPats]

Yes but if I were to show you the 2011 roster, from a talent standpoint, they fit every bit of the role of a 2-14 squad. Like I said, stack that 2-14 roster against the Chiefs current 2-14 roster and tell me where we have an advantage in talent? I think all last season proved was the overall ineptitude of the front office and coaching staff, which was masked by a HOF QB for the last 3-4 seasons. 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/ind/stats?season=2011_2&qualified=

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/kan/stats?season=2012_2&qualified=

 

 

I understand that the notion of such a thing is hard for you Pats fans to even wrap your heads around. Not every franchise can lose a HOF QB for an entire season and still win 10 games. The difference between our situations was the leadership, plain and simple. You guys have arguably the greatest coach ever (I just puked a little in my mouth typing that) and a world class owner who provides said coach the tools he needs to win. We have the right owner here, but he allowed loyalty cloud his judgement regarding the decisions the Polians made the last 3-4 seasons.  He received an abrupt wake-up call last season, and cleaned house because of it. 

 

All well and good.

 

You believe that last year's 2-14 record was a true indication of the Colts' talent level. I do not.

 

We simply differ on opinions here. That's pretty much it, not a big deal.

[Superman]

I thought it did, no?

 

I was probably too wordy. This is what makes them very atypical:

 

How many 2-14 teams in the history of the NFL made the playoffs for nine consecutive years prior to that season, then rebounded the following year to go back to the playoffs?

 

I don't think, well... any. But maybe I'm wrong...

 

Well, there's only been one other team in NFL history to make the playoffs in nine consecutive years, so there's not much of a pool to choose from.

 

Point taken, though. I agree with you that our record wasn't a true indication of our talent. I think it reflected more on the coaching staff than it did on the roster.

[jvan1973]

Well, there's only been one other team in NFL history to make the playoffs in nine consecutive years, so there's not much of a pool to choose from.

Point taken, though. I agree with you that our record wasn't a true indication of our talent. I think it reflected more on the coaching staff than it did on the roster.

Completely agree.. Coaching without a doubt was the biggest factor in our 2 win season

[GoPats]

Well, there's only been one other team in NFL history to make the playoffs in nine consecutive years, so there's not much of a pool to choose from.

 

Point taken, though. I agree with you that our record wasn't a true indication of our talent. I think it reflected more on the coaching staff than it did on the roster.

 

Oh definitely the coaching staff... no doubt. I think some key losses around that time (Moore, Mudd), didn't help.

[fvantagio]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="noah larson" data-cid="374709"><p>It's going to be a co- MVP for Manning and Peterson, both these guys really deseve it!!!</p></blockquote><br />Co MVP Peterson and Rodgers.<br /><br />

Rodgers and Brady both had better years statistically than Manning, and they did it with less. AP should be the sole MVP, if he shares it there are more deserving, but the media loves their Manning.. not to mention they have to make sure the 50 restaurants he opened with the officially sponsored by the NFL, Papa Johns.. This award will forever be tarnished if Manning wins it this year.

Considering Manning did this in with a new team and coaches after missing all of last year AND taking the top running game last year and turning the offense into the most complete in the NFL id say hes a legit contender. Not to mention, both Decker and Thomas where average receiver at best without him and Moreno was "Noshow Moreno" before Manning. And dont even say the media just loves peyton, we all know about the crush media has on Brady.. heck you cant even watch a Vikings Bears game without Bradys name being thrown into conversation (which have nothing to do with Brady or pats)

[fvantagio]

All well and good.

 

You believe that last year's 2-14 record was a true indication of the Colts' talent level. I do not.

 

We simply differ on opinions here. That's pretty much it, not a big deal.

Yes and no. There are (obviously) a lot of factors that come into play when a team performs that bad consistently. But really at the end of the day, when you have bad QBs playing behind a bad Oline, with a coaching staff that thinks their QBs are capable of running Mannings offense..only bad things come of it.

[chad72]

Miami Dolphins went 1-15 in 2007 and 11-5 in 2008, didn't they? There is an example.

 

Did the Dolphins tank to get Jake Long???

[ViriLudant]

Considering Manning did this in with a new team and coaches after missing all of last year AND taking the top running game last year and turning the offense into the most complete in the NFL id say hes a legit contender. Not to mention, both Decker and Thomas where average receiver at best without him and Moreno was "Noshow Moreno" before Manning. And dont even say the media just loves peyton, we all know about the crush media has on Brady.. heck you cant even watch a Vikings Bears game without Bradys name being thrown into conversation (which have nothing to do with Brady or pats)

Wait, wait, wait.

How do you know that Decker and Thomas were average WRs before Peyton?

LOOK WHO WAS THROWING TO THEM!!! Less than average QBs!

[GoPats]

Miami Dolphins went 1-15 in 2007 and 11-5 in 2008, didn't they? There is an example.

 

Did the Dolphins tank to get Jake Long???

 

Yes, they did go from 1-15 in 2007 to 11-5 in 2008, but they didn't make the playoffs nine straight years before that 1-15 season. (And in 2008, one of their AFC East foes was missing someone... can't remember who... pretty good player though.) ;)

[GoPats]

Yes and no. There are (obviously) a lot of factors that come into play when a team performs that bad consistently. But really at the end of the day, when you have bad QBs playing behind a bad Oline, with a coaching staff that thinks their QBs are capable of running Mannings offense..only bad things come of it.

 

I agree. 90% of Indy's problems were coaching and QB play. But that's what I've been saying all along though. Those are probably the two biggest factors in terms of team success.

[YOUR GM]

Well, there's only been one other team in NFL history to make the playoffs in nine consecutive years, so there's not much of a pool to choose from.

 

Point taken, though. I agree with you that our record wasn't a true indication of our talent. I think it reflected more on the coaching staff than it did on the roster.

 

To be fair to the coaching staff (though they are 90% of the blame, IMO) all of our talent on the roster in 2011 was at the glamour positions, which are dependant on other positions to be successful. We had nice receivers, one good safety and great defensive ends. That's it. Everyone else was average to below average, in terms of talent by position and how they were used. You can't win games without a functional QB, and you definitely can't win without trench warriors on either side of the ball. Our secondary sucked outside of Bethea, our D tackles were average (and in the wrong scheme), our linebackers stayed hurt but were OK, our backs were average, our O-line was average at best, and our QB's go without saying. 

 

There were really only 5-6 good-to-great players on the roster. After that, the dropoff was pretty significant. Zero depth, in my opinion....And it was only compounded by an inept coaching staff.

[Superman]

To be fair to the coaching staff (though they are 90% of the blame, IMO) all of our talent on the roster in 2011 was at the glamour positions, which are dependant on other positions to be successful. We had nice receivers, one good safety and great defensive ends. That's it. Everyone else was average to below average, in terms of talent by position and how they were used. You can't win games without a functional QB, and you definitely can't win without trench warriors on either side of the ball. Our secondary sucked outside of Bethea, our D tackles were average (and in the wrong scheme), our linebackers stayed hurt but were OK, our backs were average, our O-line was average at best, and our QB's go without saying. 

 

There were really only 5-6 good-to-great players on the roster. After that, the dropoff was pretty significant. Zero depth, in my opinion....And it was only compounded by an inept coaching staff.

 

Fair to the coaching staff? I think it takes a special kind of incompetence to lose thirteen games in a row.

 

It's true that the level of quarterback play and the options we had were pretty poor, but the coaching didn't do them any favors. We tried to have Kerry Collins and Curtis Painter run basically the same offense Peyton Manning and Tom Moore had developed over the course of a decade.

 

Outside of a handful of players, we essentially had the same roster that started 14-0 two seasons earlier. Maybe a better roster than the one that went 10-6 in 2010, once you account for all the injuries that year. Without Manning, we obviously weren't anywhere near as good, but we should have been a 4-6 win team last year, I think. The poor coaching decisions and the resistance to common sense adjustments are what cost us any chance at respectability. As bad as Curtis Painter is, it's not his fault we got beat 62-7 by the Saints. That's all on Jim Caldwell and Larry Coyer. And that was Week 9. We went another month before we won a game.

 

Polian and crew get plenty of blame for not doing enough to add talent to the roster, but the coaching staff took it from a bad season to a dreadful season.