This Is Eerily Familiar....

[Indeee]

I have been wanting to bring up this observation for awhile now, but with Art Jones latest setback this is as good as of time as any. Is it just me or do any of you feel like we are going through the Peyton era colts all over again?

 

Here is what I mean by that. Yes, some would argue including myself that we as a Colts team should have had more SuperBowl wins/appearances that we did, however my point goes towards the defensive side of the ball and why that didnt come to pass. It also may lend some credence to a "possible disconnect" we keep hearing about between griggs and pags.

 

for the past 17 years or so the Colts offense has been one of the leagues tops in production. Our skill players have been off the charts productive and exciting to watch however even with fan favorites and a few nfl stars our DEFENSE has been massively underachievers, no matter what scheme we ran, no matter who coached it.

 

dungy was a defensive coach and brought in to revamp our defense but never could to match our offense. Yes in the superbowl year the D played lights out but other than that they were never consistent enough to get us to be dominant.

 

through those years Polian drafted offense a lot and kept the points rolling with peyton, where defense should have been more focused. Flashforward to Pags era.

 

brought in to revamp our defense in style of ravens. Like dungy came from another team that had formidable stars defensively and defenses that were built tough and always hard to beat consistently.

 

but here we go again. Prolific offense and a defense that cant get the job done consistently. Remember when Pags first came on board? we were told we were going to be built on a smash mouth running game and more importantly a hard nosed MONSTER of a defense, however even though we yet again have a few players on D side of ball that would be viewed stars, we find ourselves once again with a high scoring offensive team and a mediocre inconsistent defense at best and griggs like polian focusing on offense more than defense.

 

as my title states, eerily familiar to me.. Not sure we should expect different outcome until the defense seriously is taken seriously. truth is with lucks contract coming and like peytons in the past, we are about to be strapped by one player so the effort to pay quality guys become moot and we are back to where we were years prior

 

Just my take

 

 

 

 

[#12.]

All of us would like to be better in the trenches, better on defense, but whatever the situation, after the opening kick, go with your strengths, with what you're good at. Don't pretend to be something you're not. Over the past three years, that's how we've gotten into trouble.

Edited September 2, 2015 by 21isSuperman

[BProland85]

If Jim irsay really wants to win multiple titles with luck, he has to have a talk with Grigson on the type of players to go after. He should know that with having Andrew luck, you can still have a great offense if you had a dominant OL as opposed to dominant weapons.

For the defense, there simply needs to be more of an emphasis on the DL and LB core. So basically, build the trenches and everything else will fall into place.

[Jim H.]

Simple.  Sign more massive players with substance-deteriorated ligaments and tendons. Problem solved.

[#12.]

If Jim irsay really wants to win multiple titles with luck, he has to have a talk with Grigson on the type of players to go after. He should know that with having Andrew luck, you can still have a great offense if you had a dominant OL as opposed to dominant weapons.

For the defense, there simply needs to be more of an emphasis on the DL and LB core. So basically, build the trenches and everything else will fall into place.

I think it works both ways though. Even with this defense, this offense might be good enough to win a Super Bowl, but I'm not sure Chuck and Pep are the right coaches to get it out of them, to maximize the talents of this offense.

Basically, I look at it like this. If you're going with the model Grigson has built, you need a better, more creative offensive-minded coach. If you want to play Chuck's way, you need a different GM supplying the pieces. Since so much has already been invested itn the offense, I'm guessing Chuck would be the one to go.

Edited September 2, 2015 by 21isSuperman

[21isSuperman]

This is an interesting debate and there are two ways to look at it.  I'm not here to say one is right or one is wrong, but rather to explain both sides of it.

 

On the one hand, when you have a great QB talent like Luck or Peyton Manning, you want to surround them with as much offensive talent as possible to get the most out of their abilities.  Give him good receivers and good running backs and all that so he can do his job as easily as possible and really reaches his potential.

 

On the other hand, great QBs can make the guys around them better.  You can give Luck guys like Griff Whalen, and Trent Richardson, and he will still play well.  Given that, you want to boost your team with greater investments in areas your QB can't control, like the defense.  It will make the QBs job more difficult because he's playing with subpar talent, but you'll have a more complete team. 

 

I personally advocate for the latter method, but some people say you should focus on your strengths and do your best to get the most out of your once-in-a-decade QB.  I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.  However, no matter what you do, you'll never please everyone.  If you invest heavily in defense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your great QB to play with mediocre talent.  If you invest heavily in offense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your QB/your offense to carry your team.

[ColtStronger]

THANK YOU!!  A couple people who finally get it!  I have been saying this for the past 2 1/2 seasons.  However, people still like to argue.  We can pay them all, because of the new cap goes up each year...  I get that, but you're forgetting about our mediocre defense, and lack of depth.  The 2nd and 3rd (OL and front 7) focus points on a team are not up to potential.  We obviously have the correct formula with the most important part (QB), which makes up for A LOT of missing pieces to the puzzle.  Sure we can have a great team, and they can be very entertaining how we are now, but we won't ever win 3+ SB's (like the Pats, Cowboys, 49ers) unless the front office understands this concept. 

 

I was in a debate about paying TY the money he wanted.  Nothing against TY, I'm glad he's here, but there is many more important things to a team than paying a WR that much money.  With a GREAT OL (Cowboys/Pats) Luck will have time to call his wife and family in the pocket.  THAT IS PARTIALLY WHY BRADY WAS SO SUCCESSFUL.  He didn't need a Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne w/ 2 TE's like Manning or Luck now.  WHY?  Because WR is one of the most overrated positions in the NFL.  It looks flashy to get a 50 yard bomb for a quick score, but it's more disheartening/tiring (and the end result is the same) for a brick wall to shove the defense back 12-15 plays while an offense marches down the field.  It also control TOP, which is another thing.  Then you have your hardnosed defense, that can force a couple turnovers, stay after the QB and TACKLE the ball carrier the FIRST time.  It is fine if the offense scores every once in awhile, because that fearful OL is coming back out, and you do have play makers on defense that can come up big!

 

I just don't understand why people can understand that formula.  I swear people are caught up in fantasy football and love to see skilled players make electrifying plays.  I agree it is entertaining, however if that's how you plan on winning in the playoffs, then your in a fantasy land.  Playoff games are generally not that high scoring, and defenses buckle down.  Without any playmakers on the other side of the ball, there is no way to stop above average offense, and our prolific offense will be limited by the slow tempo of the game.  Now, there is an exception every once in awhile but generally that's the difference between the regular season and playoffs!

[chad72]

The only difference is Luck is not 0-3 for his first 3 playoff appearances. Just trying to see a silver lining  .

 

Luck's margin for error goes a tad up with a very good defense or OL and that is all Grigson and Pagano should focus on. I wish there were more timing concepts to the offense but I am sure Luck is the kind that will certainly improve with every year, so the offense will be fine.

[ColtStronger]

This is an interesting debate and there are two ways to look at it.  I'm not here to say one is right or one is wrong, but rather to explain both sides of it.

 

On the one hand, when you have a great QB talent like Luck or Peyton Manning, you want to surround them with as much offensive talent as possible to get the most out of their abilities.  Give him good receivers and good running backs and all that so he can do his job as easily as possible and really reaches his potential.

 

On the other hand, great QBs can make the guys around them better.  You can give Luck guys like Griff Whalen, and Trent Richardson, and he will still play well.  Given that, you want to boost your team with greater investments in areas your QB can't control, like the defense.  It will make the QBs job more difficult because he's playing with subpar talent, but you'll have a more complete team. 

 

I personally advocate for the latter method, but some people say you should focus on your strengths and do your best to get the most out of your once-in-a-decade QB.  I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.  However, no matter what you do, you'll never please everyone.  If you invest heavily in defense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your great QB to play with mediocre talent.  If you invest heavily in offense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your QB/your offense to carry your team.

Great analysis!!  I go with the latter method as well, because of this reasoning:  Q. How do GREAT players become as good as they are?   A.  By working on the weaknesses to have a more well rounded game.

How many HOF do you know that were only good at one area of expertise?  If you don't have a well rounded team, then you leave yourself vulnerable, in other areas, that will be exploited.  Sure you always want to build on strengths but that doesn't mean you things offset.  If the Colts had the best offense in history, but a weak defense plagued by injury and no depth, what is going to be the strategy of the opposing coach?  Keep them off the field by running the football (our weakness).  It's what sets us apart from the New England Patriots, and other historical great teams.  As good as Luck and our offense is, they still (and always will) make mistakes!  BB is a great coach who knows how to hit us where it hurts.  He will minimize the effect of our strengths, then exploit our weaknesses.  It really is that simple, but you must know the in's and out's of the game like he does, so I cannot be the one to do it lol.

[drrobert6]

Definitely parallels between the Manning led Colts & the Luck led Colts. Clearly Peyton had a better line most of the time than Luck. If we had someone else at QB, the Colts would have not done as well as they've done in the past couple years. We seriously lean on him to be the savior every time out. It seems the Colts game plan is to outscore everyone else and who cares what the other team scores, but that doesn't work in the playoffs. All it takes is one of these strong defensive teams (New England, Pittsburgh, Dallas) to really expose us when we can't move the ball. I think we're in trouble on 2 fronts, offensive line and run stopping...

[MarylandTerrapin]

Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."  I really thought the Colts had learned from past mistakes, but unfortunately, the team's blueprint during the Manning and Luck eras looks eerily similar. 

 

I will say that Manning had a much better o-line early in his career than Luck has had so far.  I think 2008 was the beginning of Indy's o-line troubles as the run blocking suffered greatly and Manning had to get rid of the ball much quicker when the pass blocking went south as well.

 

...and yes...Luck has had better postseason success early (3-3 start vs Manning not getting a win until season 6).  It also seems that we've been blown out more in games during the Pagano era.  Even when we lost against the Pats with Dungy/Caldwell, the games were close up until the 2012 season. 

 

I'm really curious to see how the run game develops this season because a solid run game will allow us to sustain drives, eat some clock, and make us consistent.  Also, our 3rd down D greatly improved last season, but disappeared in the playoffs against the Pats.  Those areas need to show up in the playoffs if we want a successful Super Bowl run.

[SteelDragon]

One similarity I don't care for is the Colt's defense still having the perception of being soft. Sadly, it's still true and will be true for the up-coming season. Both Grigs and Pags are on record for having said the run defense needs to be fixed. I'm hoping Anderson, Parry, Langford, and Irving provide the muscle this defense has been lacking but I'm kind of skeptical.

[Narcosys]

Yes,  this administration is adverse to drafting quality Defensive players.

[Colt Forty-Five]

If the OL is not improved you are just waiting for a disaster to happen .... Luck injury! There is no way in hell we run the ball with that OL. I know it, you know it and I guarantee you that Frank Gore knows it as well. If it was not for the paycheck , no way he comes here.  And the two's , forget about it. That is like putting a  dysfunctional family on the field. How a couple blocking assignments are blown on every play is beyond me. As long as this problem persists we will not have an effective run game and when you are one dimensional ,anyone can be stopped a la 45-7 style..

[Superman]

We have this thread every other week. 

[Superman]

Not sure we should expect different outcome until the defense seriously is taken seriously. truth is with lucks contract coming and like peytons in the past, we are about to be strapped by one player so the effort to pay quality guys become moot and we are back to where we were years prior

 

Did you know that the Colts are spending more money on defensive players than on offensive players in 2015? That includes Hilton's big signing bonus.

 

Did you know that four of the Colts first five draft picks in 2015 were defensive players?

 

Did you know that, even when Luck gets paid, the Colts will still have plenty of cap space with which to round out the roster?

[DougDew]

About two years ago now, Jim Irsay mentioned before the first Denver game (when the media hyped the return of Manning) that he really enjoyed the win over the Seahawks two weeks before because they one it with defense and special teams ( a blocked FG and a turnover on downs on SEAs final drive). Irsay got into that Manning bickerfest because he said that winning with defense and special teams, a more balanced team, was something they didn't have during the Polian/Manning years. He obviously wants that for Luck.

Via defense and special teams does not seem to be the way that Pags/Grigs has won many games...so far.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

This is an interesting debate and there are two ways to look at it.  I'm not here to say one is right or one is wrong, but rather to explain both sides of it.

 

On the one hand, when you have a great QB talent like Luck or Peyton Manning, you want to surround them with as much offensive talent as possible to get the most out of their abilities.  Give him good receivers and good running backs and all that so he can do his job as easily as possible and really reaches his potential.

 

On the other hand, great QBs can make the guys around them better.  You can give Luck guys like Griff Whalen, and Trent Richardson, and he will still play well.  Given that, you want to boost your team with greater investments in areas your QB can't control, like the defense.  It will make the QBs job more difficult because he's playing with subpar talent, but you'll have a more complete team. 

 

I personally advocate for the latter method, but some people say you should focus on your strengths and do your best to get the most out of your once-in-a-decade QB.  I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.  However, no matter what you do, you'll never please everyone.  If you invest heavily in defense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your great QB to play with mediocre talent.  If you invest heavily in offense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your QB/your offense to carry your team.

 

Great post. Irsay said that he wanted a more balanced team like the Patriots, but I'm not sure that Grigson has payed enough attention to this. Having said that, we do look pretty well set on offensive (sans the OL) for the nexts years, so it might well be the time to focus heavily on defense. They don't have to be expensive superstars all of them, but is a quality anchor on the DL too much to ask?

[Restored]

I understand people are wanting to see the similarities, but let's understand something as well. There were a few years in the Peyton/Polian era where the Colts defense was actually pretty good statistically (2003, 2005 and 2007 and 2006 playoffs). What's worse, is that I feel that the Colts haven't fielded a defense that is the level of those teams mentioned. Now, the defense has had moments of greatness (2013 against SF come to mind), but overall, they've been right on par with mediocrity each season since Pagano took over. 

[Superman]

Great post. Irsay said that he wanted a more balanced team like the Patriots, but I'm not sure that Grigson has payed enough attention to this. Having said that, we do look pretty well set on offensive (sans the OL) for the nexts years, so it might well be the time to focus heavily on defense. They don't have to be expensive superstars all of them, but is a quality anchor on the DL too much to ask?

 

Grigson's two biggest free agent signings were an OL and a DL, Cherilus and Jones. Why do we have to act like there haven't been significant efforts to improve both lines?

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Grigson's two biggest free agent signings were an OL and a DL, Cherilus and Jones. Why do we have to act like there haven't been significant efforts to improve both lines?

 

Oh, there have been efforts. But I think that it is ok to feel a bit disappointed that both lines aren't more dominant after all the talk from day one that it all starts in the trenches or what Pagano was saying back then. It just gave me the impression that the OL and DL was of paramount importance to the New Colts. I do, however, think that a lot of talent was brought into the defense this year from both FA and the draft. So there is that.

[Superman]

Oh, there have been efforts. But I think that it is ok to feel a bit disappointed that both lines aren't more dominant after all the talk from day one that it all starts in the trenches or what Pagano was saying back then. It just gave me the impression that the OL and DL was of paramount importance to the New Colts. I do, however, think that a lot of talent was brought into the defense this year from both FA and the draft. So there is that.

 

You said "I'm not sure Grigson has paid enough attention." That's what spurred my response.

 

Let's talk about whether he should have drafted and signed the players he did. Let's not suggest that he hasn't signed or drafted anyone in the trenches. And let's not pretend that only first round picks count.

[DougDew]

I think when Irsay drafted Luck, he envisioned a Stanford type of offense, a power running game and play action passing off of that, coupled with a strong defense as the formula for consistent winning throughout the Luck era.

Rather than that, I think the Colts have been winning more with a QB centric passing game like the Manning era.

Maybe that's the best formula for today's NFL, but it doesn't seem to be what Irsay talks about.

[nnjcoltsman]

Its like I've seen this movie too.........you can almost call the plays and issues.

Bob

[Colts_Fan12]

Totally feels like we're going down that road again. WRs out the *** and TEs but no Oline or D. I'd put more money and picks into the D and O line instead of WRs TEs and RBs

[peytonmanning18]

This organization is making the same mistakes now as it did 15 years ago. Bringing in exciting offensive playmakers but pretty much ignoring the offensive and defensive line which is what wins championships.

[jabbanobadda]

Totally feels like we're going down that road again. WRs out the *** and TEs but no Oline or D. I'd put more money and picks into the D and O line instead of WRs TEs and RBs

Isn't that what they did this offseason?

[Colts_Fan12]

Isn't that what they did this offseason?

yeah we will see after a few seasons who is still on the team

Didn't do much of anything to fix the o line in 4 FA and Drafts

[cmgww]

First, this year's draft was primarily defensive, especially in the later rounds. Weren't 5 of the 8 picks on defense? They went BPA in the first, and Malcolm Brown hasn't exactly impressed in NE yet...I'd say Anderson will turn out to be a better player when it's said and done. Langford looks solid, Cole too. Losing Jones sucks, but he wasn't known for being injury prone in Baltimore...Grigson has TRIED to address both lines. Problem is, you can't predict injuries, and he has cut bait with guys that didn't work out like RJF and Landry. (and didn't kill the team with cap heavy contracts). It's still the preseason. If we come out and suck on D, and it isn't resolved in the first few weeks, then I will start to wonder. But I think this year we see a more balanced offense with Gore, Boom and Robinson. The offensive line can run block. When anyone but Richardson was back there we got solid production.

[NewColtsFan]

This organization is making the same mistakes now as it did 15 years ago. Bringing in exciting offensive playmakers but pretty much ignoring the offensive and defensive line which is what wins championships.

 

We're not "ignoring" the o-line and the d-line,  but our investments have not panned out as we hoped.

 

There's a difference.

[Defjamz26]

Great post. Irsay said that he wanted a more balanced team like the Patriots, but I'm not sure that Grigson has payed enough attention to this. Having said that, we do look pretty well set on offensive (sans the OL) for the nexts years, so it might well be the time to focus heavily on defense. They don't have to be expensive superstars all of them, but is a quality anchor on the DL too much to ask?

Thats the biggest thing. The Colts haven't had a true defensive anchor in ages. In the Manning years, Freeney and Mathis were just designated edge rushers so they don't count.

Much of the same thing Mannning's Colts lacked, Andrew's Colts also lack.

[braveheartcolt]

The Colts suck. They are not even trying to build a good defense. They really suck. Signing good offensive players. How dare they. We need to follow the Jets model. The Colts really do really suck. Who needs touchdowns. I'm now a Buccs fan, they have a good D.

[buck_hunter21]

Repeating the Peyton era has crossed my mind honestly. Even though that was one of the best times in my life, I hope that the Luck era can top that. In order to do that, at some point we have to get better on the defensive side. If not, we are watching the sequel of the Star Wars numbers we had when Peyton was here.

[Flash7]

Andrew Luck is just too good. He came in as a rookie and led the Colts to 11 wins right away.

 

This had a ripple effect:

1. The team was not given a real opportunity at a rebuild through top draft picks. Grigson only had 2012 with high draft picks and we know how well he did in that draft.

 

2. Without high draft picks and following a Best Available Player philosophy(mostly), the best available players may not be defensive players. 

 

3. Without high draft picks, Grigson may have to rely more on trades and Free Agency, which is more costly and also a gamble.

 

With what I have stated above, I can see why it is so difficult for Grigson to build a solid defense.

[superrep1967]

I have been wanting to bring up this observation for awhile now, but with Art Jones latest setback this is as good as of time as any. Is it just me or do any of you feel like we are going through the Peyton era colts all over again?

I couldn't agree more.

Here is what I mean by that. Yes, some would argue including myself that we as a Colts team should have had more SuperBowl wins/appearances that we did, however my point goes towards the defensive side of the ball and why that didnt come to pass. It also may lend some credence to a "possible disconnect" we keep hearing about between griggs and pags.

for the past 17 years or so the Colts offense has been one of the leagues tops in production. Our skill players have been off the charts productive and exciting to watch however even with fan favorites and a few nfl stars our DEFENSE has been massively underachievers, no matter what scheme we ran, no matter who coached it.

dungy was a defensive coach and brought in to revamp our defense but never could to match our offense. Yes in the superbowl year the D played lights out but other than that they were never consistent enough to get us to be dominant.

through those years Polian drafted offense a lot and kept the points rolling with peyton, where defense should have been more focused. Flashforward to Pags era.

brought in to revamp our defense in style of ravens. Like dungy came from another team that had formidable stars defensively and defenses that were built tough and always hard to beat consistently.

but here we go again. Prolific offense and a defense that cant get the job done consistently. Remember when Pags first came on board? we were told we were going to be built on a smash mouth running game and more importantly a hard nosed MONSTER of a defense, however even though we yet again have a few players on D side of ball that would be viewed stars, we find ourselves once again with a high scoring offensive team and a mediocre inconsistent defense at best and griggs like polian focusing on offense more than defense.

as my title states, eerily familiar to me.. Not sure we should expect different outcome until the defense seriously is taken seriously. truth is with lucks contract coming and like peytons in the past, we are about to be strapped by one player so the effort to pay quality guys become moot and we are back to where we were years prior

Just my take

[Steamboat_Shaun]

Great post. Irsay said that he wanted a more balanced team like the Patriots, but I'm not sure that Grigson has payed enough attention to this. Having said that, we do look pretty well set on offensive (sans the OL) for the nexts years, so it might well be the time to focus heavily on defense. They don't have to be expensive superstars all of them, but is a quality anchor on the DL too much to ask?

 

It's easier said than done when you have to overhaul the entire roster. They said it'd be a 3 year process, and in year 3, they did get to the AFCCG. The personnel that we're looking for doesn't just grow on trees. The Patriots system has been built upon for years now, and it's now to a point where they can just plug and play on both sides of the ball. The Colts aren't there yet, but they're very close. 

[CoachLite]

Is it just me or do any of you feel like we are going through the Peyton era colts all over again?

Yes. It's deja vu all over again.

[cmgww]

Yes. It's deja vu all over again.

No, it isn't. The 4th year of the Luck era hasn't even begun. Peyton's Colts took six seasons to win a PLAYOFF game.

And Flash7 is exactly right. The early success led to a lower picks in the draft. Drafting at the end of each round is tough. Also, we are in year 4...the Pats are 15 years now, with a well oiled machine, the same QB and plenty of time to build through the draft and free agency.

I'll withhold judgment until mid season at the earliest, but I see this team being pretty dang good on D, barring any more major injuries. And give it more time....if in 2-3 years we are still having this issue I'll have a big problem

[The Fish]

It seems like around the 02/03 season the media started in on SB or bust for the Peyton era and in year 4 of the Luck era the expectations are the same now in the media. That's the biggest thing I see similar. 

 

The Luck era hasn't had a D or an O line as good as what Manning had for 6/7 years. 

[Coltsman1788]

The more things change the more they stay the same...Indy remains a defensively challenged football team. Good quarterback though. Unfortunately we already know how that story usually plays out in the post season.