Win many games or win Super Bowls?

[lennymoore24]

Do you all want to win a lot of games like we did before with one Super Bowl?  Or do you want to win multiple Super Bowls?  Because as much as some of you hate the desire for this team to run the ball better and stop the run better, that IS the difference in winning Super Bowls.  Super Bowl teams can't be one dimensional.  We went so many years with the best QB in the game, great receivers, a spongy defense, and an ineffective running attack that disappeared in big games.  No thanks!  Winning 13 games and getting beat in first playoff game for me is the same feeling as going 5-11.  It is still short of the goal.

 

I think the team is doing the right thing.  Running is a mentality that you have to keep practicing.   I am very encouraged by this team.  Sure, Mathis is a HUGE blow.  But Werner has played against two of the best left tackles in the game the last two weeks.  Don't stick a fork in him.   I think we will do very well this year  No pinball offense for me please.  I want Super Bowl wins.  Not "most winning team of decade" with 1 SB.

[HungarianColtsFan]

Thanks for posting this.

 

I would take multiple SB titles anytime over running up statistics. Since Dolphins' flawles 19-0 season in 1972 was a one and only time, I don't think any other team will ever be able to match it.

 

As Coach said it is marathon not a sprint, so spare fuel for the end, and save Luck's arm.

[theomaestro]

Do you all want to win a lot of games like we did before with one Super Bowl?  Or do you want to win multiple Super Bowls?  Because as much as some of you hate the desire for this team to run the ball better and stop the run better, that IS the difference in winning Super Bowls.  Super Bowl teams can't be one dimensional.  We went so many years with the best QB in the game, great receivers, a spongy defense, and an ineffective running attack that disappeared in big games.  No thanks!  Winning 13 games and getting beat in first playoff game for me is the same feeling as going 5-11.  It is still short of the goal.

 

I think the team is doing the right thing.  Running is a mentality that you have to keep practicing.   I am very encouraged by this team.  Sure, Mathis is a HUGE blow.  But Werner has played against two of the best left tackles in the game the last two weeks.  Don't stick a fork in him.   I think we will do very well this year  No pinball offense for me please.  I want Super Bowl wins.  Not "most winning team of decade" with 1 SB.

What many posters do not understand and neither do you is that winning 1 SB is good not bad. The Colts appeared in another and had an opportunity to win. 31 teams do not win the SB every year. Indy has been very fortunate to get there as often as we have. As soon as Luck gets his new $25 million contract, the Colts will have the same hard decisions to make as the Manning Colts did.

[CR91]

you know whos won many games? mark sanchez, vince young

[Flash7]

Do you all want to win a lot of games like we did before with one Super Bowl?  Or do you want to win multiple Super Bowls?  Because as much as some of you hate the desire for this team to run the ball better and stop the run better, that IS the difference in winning Super Bowls.  Super Bowl teams can't be one dimensional.  We went so many years with the best QB in the game, great receivers, a spongy defense, and an ineffective running attack that disappeared in big games.  No thanks!  Winning 13 games and getting beat in first playoff game for me is the same feeling as going 5-11.  It is still short of the goal.

 

I think the team is doing the right thing.  Running is a mentality that you have to keep practicing.   I am very encouraged by this team.  Sure, Mathis is a HUGE blow.  But Werner has played against two of the best left tackles in the game the last two weeks.  Don't stick a fork in him.   I think we will do very well this year  No pinball offense for me please.  I want Super Bowl wins.  Not "most winning team of decade" with 1 SB.

This is a flawed premise, IMO. Why can't we have both? For example, the Cowboys, Forty Niners, and Patriots all won multiple Super Bowls while having very good offenses and strong defenses. They could pass the ball very well, run the ball, and play solid defense.

 

If we're just wildly wishing between the options you've provided, I would take option 3, which I have described. Give me that, rather than just run and stop the run.

[BOTT]

you know whos won many games? mark sanchez, vince young

Not really

[The Old Crow]

What many posters do not understand and neither do you is that winning 1 SB is good not bad. The Colts appeared in another and had an opportunity to win. 31 teams do not win the SB every year. Indy has been very fortunate to get there as often as we have. As soon as Luck gets his new $25 million contract, the Colts will have the same hard decisions to make as the Manning Colts did.

The problem is your owner thought winning one was bad.

[theomaestro]

The problem is your owner thought winning one was bad.

Have you ever seen any of our owners tweets? I rest my case.

[coltsblue1844]

So what the OP is saying...is that we don't want our D to stop the run, but he does...And if we wanna win super bowls, we can't have good stats or be the winningest team in a decade, we have to be a running team and stop the run... Makes sense, in your own little world, I guess.

When is the last time the #1 ranked running team and/or #1 ranked run D won the super bowl? Or multiple super bowls, as you put it? And why after one good running game do you think we are all of a sudden a powerhouse running team?

[jvan1973]

you know whos won many games? mark sanchez, vince young

no, no they didn't

[B~Town]

How do we make the playoff to win a SB if we are not winning a lot of games ? I want to see multiple SB's as much as the next guy but you have to win during the season first .

[Gramz]

How do we make the playoff to win a SB if we are not winning a lot of games ? I want to see multiple SB's as much as the next guy but you have to win during the season first .

 you beat me to the punch.  I was just going to ask the same thing.

[Narcosys]

Thanks for posting this.

I would take multiple SB titles anytime over running up statistics. Since Dolphins' flawles 19-0 season in 1972 was a one and only time, I don't think any other team will ever be able to match it.

As Coach said it is marathon not a sprint, so spare fuel for the end, and save Luck's arm.

17-0. They only had a 14 game season back then.

[southwest1]

The problem is your owner thought winning one was bad.

I get what your saying TOC, but to slightly modify your original post "your owner thought winning one was" not good enough & Jim Irsay refused to settle for a failure to compete for multiple championships. 

 

Jim broke up the staff after our 2nd SB appearance in 2009, opened up his checkbook, & hired a whole new regime committed to getting this franchise back to the promiseland. I admire Jim for his passion & aggressiveness. 

 

Whenever Mr. Irsay does something off the wall, I just let it roll off my back because he listens to his fanbase & he knows drawing in premier talent on our roster takes money. Everyday, I thank my lucky stars that Jim owns this club & not say the McCaskey family of Chicago Bears or the Davis family of the Oakland Raiders who for decades was notoriously cheap. 

[Stoney]

you know whos won many games? mark sanchez, vince young

Vince Young won many games? Lol

[HungarianColtsFan]

17-0. They only had a 14 game season back then.

 

 

My bad...

 

I doubt they could have made a perfect season with 19 games, though that team was a darned monster.

[Narcosys]

My bad...

I doubt they could have made a perfect season with 19 games, though that team was a darned monster.

Meh, two more games with a defense that never let anyone tie or get ahead. They might have.

[The Old Crow]

Have you ever seen any of our owners tweets? I rest my case.

Definately , and I read the quotes in the paper with disappointment of winning one Super Bowl. I'm not sure what case you're resting , it's in the newspaper archives.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

This is a flawed premise, IMO. Why can't we have both? For example, the Cowboys, Forty Niners, and Patriots all won multiple Super Bowls while having very good offenses and strong defenses. They could pass the ball very well, run the ball, and play solid defense.

 

If we're just wildly wishing between the options you've provided, I would take option 3, which I have described. Give me that, rather than just run and stop the run.

These teams would smash your face when you were on the field with them. What Lenny was saying

was power football vs finesse.

 

The Colts are trending in that direction.

[The Old Crow]

I get what your saying TOC, but to slightly modify your original post "your owner thought winning one was" not good enough & Jim Irsay refused to settle for a failure to compete for multiple championships.

Jim broke up the staff after our 2nd SB appearance in 2009, opened up his checkbook, & hired a whole new regime committed to getting this franchise back to the promiseland. I admire Jim for his passion & aggressiveness.

Whenever Mr. Irsay does something off the wall, I just let it roll off my back because he listens to his fanbase & he knows drawing in premier talent on our roster takes money. Everyday, I thank my lucky stars that Jim owns this club & not say the McCaskey family of Chicago Bears or the Davis family of the Oakland Raiders who for decades was notoriously cheap.

I hear you and certainly understand the context. I'm actually with the crowd that winning the one Super Bowl was good, because they are so dang hard to win. It would have been nice to get a second with Peyton, but be glad you got one, especially since 2006 wasn't the best Colts team of the decade. That is just how it rolls sometimes.

Of course, every owner and fan base wants multiple Super Bowls, that goes without saying. I understand the owner's disappointment to an extent , but you have to look from where the franchise came from prior to Polian and Manning, and where the went during that decade. It was a very good football. Was it time to move away from Polian when he did, probably. The drafts weren't that great, and heads had to roll. I'm already on record as saying I fully understand moving onto Luck. That was an unprecedented situation.

To me, the original comments dealt with disappointment over not winning multiple Super Bowls while New England, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore had. I guess my feeling is I understand, but I think that as an owner /GM, you get your team in the playoffs consistently, and hope to be the hot team and win it all. We know the best team doesn't always win. I think Colt fans have a lot to be thankful for , as you've suffered through very few bad seasons since 1998. The bonus is, when you stunk the one year, you get Luck in the draft.

I agree, Jim Irsay does spend money. As a fan, you have to like an owner who does that. As far as spending and doing what it takes to win, he is the exact opposite of his father, which is why the Colts have consistently won.

By the way, I still think you guys are going to come back and win the division. You have a good team, and the easiest schedule in the NFL.

[The Old Crow]

These teams would smash your face when you were on the field with them. What Lenny was saying

was power football vs finesse.

The Colts are trending in that direction.

I know I'm not saying anything new here , but the first thing the Colts need to do, is fix the offensive line to protect Luck. That should be priority #1 . Draft and free agent money should be prioritized here first. The Ravens have appeared to fix their offensive line problems, and there is no reason the Colts can't either. I like some of the defensive pickups obviously over the years like Redding and Jones. These are good free agent pick ups of the right player, at the right price .

I think historically, the Colts have been classified as a fast, finesse dome type team. The key to the power game is having massive , yet athletic , offensive and defensive lines. Those two areas always should get priority , and define what kind of team you are. I think the Colts tried to address the D line, but really came up short with the O line. If you are picking up, and starting Shipley as an example , it's not the best. I like AQ, a real gamer , but he's undersized if you want to be a power team. I saw it last year with the Ravens where Gradkowski and Shipley were undersized, and we couldn't run the ball, and Flacco got killed. They got Zuttah now at center, and Osemili back at guard, two bigger players , and things have improved. That is the direction the Colts must go.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

I know I'm not saying anything new here , but the first thing the Colts need to do, is fix the offensive line to protect Luck. That should be priority #1 . Draft and free agent money should be prioritized here first. The Ravens have appeared to fix their offensive line problems, and there is no reason the Colts can't either. I like some of the defensive pickups obviously over the years like Redding and Jones. These are good free agent pick ups of the right player, at the right price .

I think historically, the Colts have been classified as a fast, finesse dome type team. The key to the power game is having massive , yet athletic , offensive and defensive lines. Those two areas always should get priority , and define what kind of team you are. I think the Colts tried to address the D line, but really came up short with the O line. If you are picking up, and starting Shipley as an example , it's not the best. I like AQ, a real gamer , but he's undersized if you want to be a power team. I saw it last year with the Ravens where Gradkowski and Shipley were undersized, and we couldn't run the ball, and Flacco got killed. They got Zuttah now at center, and Osemili back at guard, two bigger players , and things have improved. That is the direction the Colts must go.

Yes yes and yes. Build the O and D lines and everything else falls into place. The Colts always put a ton of money

into skill players such as Nicks and T Rich instead of spending that money into getting top linemen.

 

Building the trenches and defense is the key to winning in the playoffs.

[oldunclemark]

Do you all want to win a lot of games like we did before with one Super Bowl?  Or do you want to win multiple Super Bowls?  Because as much as some of you hate the desire for this team to run the ball better and stop the run better, that IS the difference in winning Super Bowls.  Super Bowl teams can't be one dimensional.  We went so many years with the best QB in the game, great receivers, a spongy defense, and an ineffective running attack that disappeared in big games.  No thanks!  Winning 13 games and getting beat in first playoff game for me is the same feeling as going 5-11.  It is still short of the goal.

 

I think the team is doing the right thing.  Running is a mentality that you have to keep practicing.   I am very encouraged by this team.  Sure, Mathis is a HUGE blow.  But Werner has played against two of the best left tackles in the game the last two weeks.  Don't stick a fork in him.   I think we will do very well this year  No pinball offense for me please.  I want Super Bowl wins.  Not "most winning team of decade" with 1 SB.

False choice..There is no blueprint for winning the Super Bowl other than to win a lot of games

To win tiles you have to win a lot of games...

I dont want to be the NYGs....who won two and spend the time between titles as a non-playoff team

[Flash7]

These teams would smash your face when you were on the field with them. What Lenny was saying

was power football vs finesse.

The Colts are trending in that direction.

The Niners, Cowboys and Patriots ran the ball well. Maybe they smash your face, as you say, but they were balanced and aired it out as well, with Montana/young, Aikman, and Brady. They also had great defenses. It's not one thing that gets you a SuperBowl victory.

My point was, why strive to just good at running and stopping the run? We should try to be like the teams that have won multiple Superbowls--good in all aspects. Just focusing on running and stopping the run leaves out so much else.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

The Niners, Cowboys and Patriots ran the ball well. Maybe they smash your face, as you say, but they were balanced and aired it out as well, with Montana/young, Aikman, and Brady. They also had great defenses. It's not one thing that gets you a SuperBowl victory.

My point was, why strive to just good at running and stopping the run? We should try to be like the teams that have won multiple Superbowls--good in all aspects. Just focusing on running and stopping the run leaves out so much else.

Good post. Controlling the lines and having a great defense is the meat and potatoes of success in the

postseason. You can't run the ball without holes the linemen made or pass without protection from those

same linemen. On defense it's more of the same, put pressure on the QB and the passing game falters.

Plug up the line and the running game comes to a grinding halt.

 

Give a team dominant lines and defense and they will beat a team of fancy QB's, receivers and running backs

with crappy lines every time.

[thedude]

Do you all want to win a lot of games like we did before with one Super Bowl?  

A team will not get the opportunity to win many Super Bowls unless they first win a lot of games.

[Superman]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other. We can win a lot of games and win Super Bowls.

 

But yes, it is important to have a well rounded offense, along with a defense that can hold up in the playoffs. I'm confident no one would turn that down if offered the choice.