Best at Being Bad

[Bravo]

Here's a Bleacher Report article about the Colts.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2734235-despite-more-competition-than-ever-no-teams-better-at-being-bad-than-the-colts

 

I agree that the Colts possibly are the worst team in the league but this article fails to recognize many things about the organization and roster.

 

One of the last lines in the article really sum it up for me. 

 

"If Luck developes eyes for another team".

Do people outside of the Colts organization really not realize that he just signed a 6 year extension last season? Lol All of these "experts" seem to be oblivious to that because they want Luck out of Indy so bad.

[PeterBowman]

no teams better at being bad?

 

have they not seen the Browns or the Jets?

[XxGoosexX]

I say let them all believe that, I hope they all underestimate us... hope they don't bother coming up with a game plan when they play us! I love these kind of articles.  lol

[csmopar]

nah.  If luck was healthy and playing week 1, no doubt we'd be 2-0.  none.

[XxGoosexX]

don't we always start off 0-2?? I aint scared...

[Boiler_Colt]

People really have the attention span of gnats these days. One losing in the past 15 years. While some teams have gone almost 20 years without making the playoffs. People say the organization is bad, but guess what, they will list Indy as the #1 destination job regarding coaching vacancies next offseason.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

People really have the attention span of gnats these days. One losing in the past 15 years. While some teams have gone almost 20 years without making the playoffs. People say the organization is bad, but guess what, they will list Indy as the #1 destination job regarding coaching vacancies next offseason.

I think the media has a lot to do with all the negativity going on and then some of the forum members fall right into the horse dung.

[Buck Showalter]

Man that Grigson guy did some damage....

[DaColts85]

This article is terrible.  Bleacher Report needs some clicks apparently.  

[coltsfeva]

  This is click bait, not based on anything substantial.

   Let them think there are no playmakers on defense. 

   This year is going to be interesting. 

[CanuckColtsFan]

This is one of the winingest franchises of the century.

[CanuckColtsFan]

Just now, CanuckColtsFan said:

This is one of the winingest franchise of the century.

 

[Hammer]

1 hour ago, XxGoosexX said:

I say let them all believe that, I hope they all underestimate us... hope they don't bother coming up with a game plan when they play us! I love these kind of articles.  lol

 

I think it may be impossible to underestimate us.

[Malakai432]

46 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

  This is click bait, not based on anything substantial.

   Let them think there are no playmakers on defense. 

   This year is going to be interesting. 

 

Yeah it seems like the offense is having a difficult time.  The D has been making plays.  5 sacks, 2-3 ff and an INt in two games, doing well at stopping the rush with two solid defensive players out and a bunch of new and young fellas.  

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, PeterBowman said:

no teams better at being bad?

 

have they not seen the Browns or the Jets?

 

I think yoiu're going to find that Cleveland is much better than you think.

 

Perhaps it won't be reflected in many more wins this year,   but I suspect they're going to be much, much more competitive this year.    

 

I think Jackson is doing a decent job there.....

 

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

This is one of the winingest franchises of the century.

Winingest is a smidgeon away from winngiest.....gotta be careful with that one......

 

[southwest1]

27 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

Yeah it seems like the offense is having a difficult time.  The D has been making plays.  5 sacks, 2-3 ff and an INt in two games, doing well at stopping the rush with two solid defensive players out and a bunch of new and young fellas.  

Well said M-432. Hooker picks off Palmer. LB John Simon keeps making his presence felt week to week. Seriously, all this pile on INDY nonsense needs to stop. 

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, Boiler_Colt said:

People really have the attention span of gnats these days. One losing in the past 15 years. While some teams have gone almost 20 years without making the playoffs. People say the organization is bad, but guess what, they will list Indy as the #1 destination job regarding coaching vacancies next offseason.

Love your 1st sentence BC. LOL! It is mind boggling to think that just because INDY hasn't won our division in a couple of seasons we're a dumpster fire now Bleacher Report? They didn't say that directly, but you know that's all they're basing this ridiculous sentiment on. 

 

Anyway, nicely written post nevertheless BC.  Bleacher Report is just another form of toilet paper to me. 

[PeterBowman]

43 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think yoiu're going to find that Cleveland is much better than you think.

 

Perhaps it won't be reflected in many more wins this year,   but I suspect they're going to be much, much more competitive this year.    

 

I think Jackson is doing a decent job there.....

 

they're going in the right direction for sure and have some nice pieces in play....but the Colts franchise is nowhere near the level of ineptitude the Browns have had in recent memory.

[Blueblood23]

4 hours ago, csmopar said:

nah.  If luck was healthy and playing week 1, no doubt we'd be 2-0.  none.

He's started in other years and the Colts were 0-2. Maybe no doubt to you, but a lot of doubt to me.

[MB-ColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

He's started in other years and the Colts were 0-2. Maybe no doubt to you, but a lot of doubt to me.

This defense makes the offense better.  That is a big difference maker in itself.  I project this will be the best defensive team Luck has played with in Indy.

[Superman]

This is so stupid.

 

The Colts have made the playoffs in 3 of the last 5 seasons. I wonder how many other teams have not made the playoffs at all in the last five seasons.

The Colts have underperformed in winning 16 games in the last two years. The Jaguars have won a total of 17 games in the last five years.

 

It doesn't make me feel good to say that the Colts are not the worst team in the league, that they're not the 'best at being bad,' whatever the Sam Hill that even means... but it's still very obviously and undeniably true. The Colts don't even belong in the conversation for worst at anything in the league, aside from a poor start in 2017 (without our QB).

 

This crap can go to the depths and burn. 

[BullsColtsFan1]

It's bleacher report, I take bleacher report with a grain of salt lol

[PeterBowman]

1 hour ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

It's bleacher report, I take bleacher report with a grain of salt lol

more like a truck full

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

It's bleacher report, I take bleacher report with a grain of salt lol

I agree, not a fan of Bleacher Report.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

This is so stupid.

 

The Colts have made the playoffs in 3 of the last 5 seasons. I wonder how many other teams have not made the playoffs at all in the last five seasons.

The Colts have underperformed in winning 16 games in the last two years. The Jaguars have won a total of 17 games in the last five years.

 

It doesn't make me feel good to say that the Colts are not the worst team in the league, that they're not the 'best at being bad,' whatever the Sam Hill that even means... but it's still very obviously and undeniably true. The Colts don't even belong in the conversation for worst at anything in the league, aside from a poor start in 2017 (without our QB).

 

This crap can go to the depths and burn. 

I posted on another Thread that we are arguably the 2nd best franchise over the last 2 decades (only behind the Pats). There are a few other teams that have us 2-1 in SB's but not many in that timeframe but we have won more games than anyone except the Pats. Even in Luck's 1st 3 seasons we won 33 games and made a Final 4. I agree with you 100%.

[NewEra]

Lol Wow, ridiculous. Have had one bad year during the year Manning was out. 

[Defjamz26]

I understand the argument. If you remove the QB from the equation (even going back to the Manning era) the Colts quietly have had some of the worst rosters. The Colts haven't had a mediocre QB in almost 20 years, being fortunate enough to go from Peyton to Luck. I think if you give the Colts an average QB (Tyrod Taylor, Andy Dalton, Jay Cutler,etc...) I think they easily look like the Browns or Jets have looked like the last couple seasons. At the same time if you give the Jets Luck (and one decent receiver) they could have been 11-5 for 3 years in a row.

 

If you take away Luck (which we've seen now) the Colts are an 8-8 team at best. So they're not that much better than the Jets, Browns, etc...

[Flash7]

The article is talking about the worst team this year -- not worst franchise over the last decade or anything like that.

 

Could anyone really argue that the Colts are not contenders for the worst roster without Luck?

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I understand the argument. If you remove the QB from the equation (even going back to the Manning era) the Colts quietly have had some of the worst rosters. The Colts haven't had a mediocre QB in almost 20 years, being fortunate enough to go from Peyton to Luck. I think if you give the Colts an average QB (Tyrod Taylor, Andy Dalton, Jay Cutler,etc...) I think they easily look like the Browns or Jets have looked like the last couple seasons. At the same time if you give the Jets Luck (and one decent receiver) they could have been 11-5 for 3 years in a row.

 

If you take away Luck (which we've seen now) the Colts are an 8-8 team at best. So they're not that much better than the Jets, Browns, etc...

Totally irrelevant. If we had a mediocre QB, our roster would be totally different, as we would be drafting lower etc. Lazy argument, and obviously a stupid one.

[RockThatBlue]

10 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Man that Grigson guy did some damage....

Yup he did, but not sure I 100% agree with the article. The Jets are a much worse organization IMO.

[Buck Showalter]

20 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Yup he did, but not sure I 100% agree with the article. The Jets are a much worse organization IMO.

Oh, definitely...

My initial response was attempting to refer to the lasting impression and stigma associated with the team that Grigson has left upon the culture of the franchise as much or more than the actual state of the roster, (which I think Ballard has on the mend as much as possible)...

 

Assuming it is possible to differentiate between those aspects. 

 

I've been binge watching some Norm  MacDonald Live, so I was sorta riffing on Norms ongoing joke where he'll talk about Hitler or some serial killer & say something like...

"That Hitler guy.... You know...

He's a real jerk..." 

 

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

Totally irrelevant. If we had a mediocre QB, our roster would be totally different, as we would be drafting lower etc. Lazy argument, and obviously a stupid one.

I'm fine with disagreeing, but how is it a lazy argument? We're saying the Colts aren't the worst team because we're better than the Browns, Jets, etc... but I'm saying those teams don't have franchise QBs so it's sensible.

 

And whose to say we'd have a better roster because we'd have higher draft picks? Grigson bungled a bunch of his picks during his time here. Whose to say he wouldn't have done the same with higher picks?

 

But look at it like this. Take away every teams starting QB and which team has the most star studded roster? You'd find that the Colts have the least. Hilton would be the only real elite player. Doyle is good and a healthy Vontae is elite, but the roster is below average if you consider the rookie and FA guys Ballard brought in are still "unproven ".

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I'm fine with disagreeing, but how is it a lazy argument? We're saying the Colts aren't the worst team because we're better than the Browns, Jets, etc... but I'm saying those teams don't have franchise QBs so it's sensible.

 

And whose to say we'd have a better roster because we'd have higher draft picks? Grigson bungled a bunch of his picks during his time here. Whose to say he wouldn't have done the same with higher picks?

 

But look at it like this. Take away every teams starting QB and which team has the most star studded roster? You'd find that the Colts have the least. Hilton would be the only real elite player. Doyle is good and a healthy Vontae is elite, but the roster is below average if you consider the rookie and FA guys Ballard brought in are still "unproven ".

I never said we would be better. But it is fairly certain we would have a different rosrer, which moots the whole concept of your argument. If we 'froze' all picks, and removed the QB's then you might have a decent point, but this ain't no Batman movie.