Anyone else worried?

[coltsfeva]

5 hours ago, Trueman said:

 

Because we underachieved with, in my opinion, the best QB ever. 

 

Looking back at that time fondly is natural and justified, but to suggest we didn't make massive mistakes based on limiting principles and philosophies would be denying the truth.

 

I get that Grigson and Pagano's era was so bad that reverting back to the past seems like a logical decision, but I don't think it is. 

 

Like I said, maybe Ballard will value different positions/dispositions  and maybe he'll just flat out be better at evaluating talent . Maybe that will prove to be the difference. 

 

But if going down the exact same path is the plan , I don't like it. 

 

 

 

  One of Polian’s regrets was that they didn’t get a run stopper in the middle until Booger. Woods and Hankins are better than what we had before with the exception of Booger.

[Chrisaaron1023]

Not worried. I am happy with 4-3 again. I wanna see some more sacks lol. We tried to build a bring strong defense with Pagano and Grigs.. it took 6 years and we got pooped on 

 

And honestly on offense. I'm just gonna be so happy to see 12 back i won't even complain. Even if we start out slow. At least Andrew luck is back under Kelly

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, Finball said:

 

Polian would probably have made the Hall anyway but Dungy wouldn't have without Manning. Manning would have without Dungy.

I think Dungy is extremely under valued for what he did here and how he helped Peyton take his game to another level.  

[GoColts8818]

5 hours ago, Trueman said:

 

Those stats ( game scores) are beyond simplistic, self-serving and devoid of context . Nor do they consider the symbiotic nature of defence/offence/special teams/running/time of possession etc

 

Newsflash : having an elite defence matters. Which is what I'm talking about...

 

I could easily flip those stats and say we only had one win without scoring at least 20 (ravens). And had to score 38 points twice just to win.

 

Whereas Brady/Belichick have 4 wins of 20 or under scored. 7 wins of 24 points or less. 11 wins of scoring 24 or less combined. Many of those being close games.

 

How many did we have scoring less than 24 ? 3. And none of them were close scores. (9 points was the closest margin).

 

 

That’s not how those teams were built.  They were built around a great offense and the point you keep trying to make is that Manning carried Dungy and Polian to the point you said the later cost the Colts playoff wins with no blame on Manning,  it’s the old Manning gets all the credit when they win arguement but when they lose it was all Dungy and Polian fault.  It doesn’t work that way.  It’s not like the Colts were losing playoff games 45 to 44 with Manning,  in fact as I just showed the offense regularly under performed in playoff defeats under Manning,  He shoulders at least some of the blame and I am sure he would be the first one to tell you that.  

 

By the way if the 10 defeats six were decided by a touchdown or less and another was 10 points.  So yes many were close games that had the offense performed like they were capable of they would have won.  

 

The Colts just spent six years trying to play defense like the Pats and you can argue the Colts are in worse shape now on defense then they ever were under Dungy.  There is no system if you run it it’s guaranteed to work,  if there was all teams would run it,  it’s all about players.  If you have the right players any defensive system can work.

 

Still despite their flaws the Colts under Polian, Dungy, and Manning were wildly successful and was the golden era of Colts football.  If you told me the Colts could rebuild that for another run I’d take it in a heart beat.  Like I said before though I don’t expect them too because you don’t get a Hall of Fame GM, Head Coach, and QB all at the same time very often.  If you feel the Colts wasted that then fine that’s your right as I think your seeing many don’t agree with you.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

7 hours ago, Trueman said:

Is anyone worried or concerned that we look like we're mimicking the Polian/Dungy era a little too much?

 

I for one wasn't excited to hear that we're going back to the 4-3 cover 2 and the Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style. I'd rather mimic Denver's 4-3 , than ours of old.

 

I dunno, maybe Ballard is the key difference in building a different Colts era. I love that guy , and I believe in him. I just don't want it to be predictable and soft. I want some nasty and some complexity to our defence. 

 

Just curious to hear your guys thoughts. 

 

Not at all I just hope they do a much better job with the defense , the Polian Dungy era was exciting & a decade of excellence of course we would love to see a return to our winning ways .

[lollygagger8]

If you can score more than the other team, who cares about defense? 

 

This last super bowl proved that. Reich was the one who put all the offensive plays on the sheet to chose from and who helped a backup QB score 41 points against a pretty decent defense. 

 

Regardless, I'm not worried. I'm excited about Eberflus. He understands that his system isn't plug and play, and he plays to player's strengths. That's already light years better than the previous DC's we've had.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Short answer NO NOT WORRIED!!!! Actually EXCITED!!!

[dodsworth]

8 hours ago, Trueman said:

Is anyone worried or concerned that we look like we're mimicking the Polian/Dungy era a little too much?

 

I for one wasn't excited to hear that we're going back to the 4-3 cover 2 and the Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style. I'd rather mimic Denver's 4-3 , than ours of old.

 

I dunno, maybe Ballard is the key difference in building a different Colts era. I love that guy , and I believe in him. I just don't want it to be predictable and soft. I want some nasty and some complexity to our defence. 

 

Just curious to hear your guys thoughts. 

Ok, you bring up some valid concerns so I'm not going to jump on the

"Bash Trueman" bandwagon. First, I believe Irsay is smart enough to

learn from the past and not go directly down the year's of Polian and

build a team that consistently comes up short in the playoffs.

 

I believe Ballard won't poo poo the defenSe in the draft or free agency

Like Polian mostly did "save Freeney and Mathis" and build a title

worthy defenSe.

 

Also, Reich has me believing his offense will be less predictable and aggressive to keep the

chains moving, which in turn will help keep our defenSe on the sideline and fresh for crunch

time at the end of games.

 

Lastly, defense is spelled with a s and not a c as half of posters on here will spell it.

[aaron11]

8 hours ago, Trueman said:

 

Because we underachieved with, in my opinion, the best QB ever. 

 

we had the best team in 2005 and 2009.  it just didnt go our way in the playoffs 

[jshipp23]

Manning was the best REGULAR season QB in NFL history..The honest truth is he choked many times in the playoffs..

[jshipp23]

Just now, jshipp23 said:

Manning was the best REGULAR season QB in NFL history..The honest truth is he choked many times in the playoffs..

 

[RollerColt]

I can see where there is some worry about this. On the surface, yes it looks as if we are reverting back to the days of Manning. But I say this:

 

Predictable and soft are the exact opposite of what Reich plans on doing here. And if he brings a similar scheming style that the Eagles deployed, then he has the history to back his statements up. 

 

Chris Ballard is not Bill Polian. His vision of our future defense is closer to Seattle than the Colts of old. He wants a hybrid defense that can fluctuate week by week. So while Tampa 2 is listed as the base, I don't think it will always be Tampa 2 throughout the game and even season. The key to all of this is playmakers. We desperately need some tough and highly intelligent men to run this kind of defense. They're going to be studying a lot. 

 

So, I understand your worry Truman, but the key to all of this is Chris Ballard. 

[deedub75]

I kinda of see where the OP is coming from. Under Dungy/Polian, the Colts won a lot of regular season games and put up monster offensive numbers.  But more often than not, they were bounced in the first round of the playoffs. This is why I wasn’t happy with the Caldwell hire. Nothing against him personally, I was hoping they’d hire a coach with a different philosophy who’d tweak some things instead of just towing the company line. Polian wasn’t having that though. Everyone knew those teams relied heavily on Peyton playing at a very high level almost every game for them to win and when he did not the team was likely to lose. 

 

I think Ballard and Reich will put together an all around good team that isn’t totally reliant on the QB to play at an elite level every game. Ballard is constantly preaching this and Reich is fresh off a Super Bowl run with a backup. QB. 

 

I don’t like the Tampa 2 though. 

[BProland85]

I'm hoping this defense resembles the Seattle Cover 3 defense more so than the Dungy Tampa 2 Defense. With Eberflus, I've heard he was implementing some of Seattle's schemes so hopefully thats where they're going. We already have our elite cover safety in Hooker. And I think both Melvin and Wilson fit the outside press corner that fits that style of defense.  

[Dilger85]

8 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

I'm hoping this defense resembles the Seattle Cover 3 defense more so than the Dungy Tampa 2 Defense. With Eberflus, I've heard he was implementing some of Seattle's schemes so hopefully thats where they're going. We already have our elite cover safety in Hooker. And I think both Melvin and Wilson fit the outside press corner that fits that style of defense.  

This will be more in line with what they will be running.  Eberflus ran the coverage in Dallas and he did run a lot of Cover 3.  I do believe that we will see a mixture of the two philosophies on D.

[buccolts]

7 hours ago, Trueman said:

 Thanks, it's going to take me a while to understand each poster's general tone. 

 

I believe in the direction we're going too, I just feel the Tampa 2 is a mistake. I want us to have a good/great defence for Andrew. 

 

I think Ballard is a total stud , and I hope he values things that Polian didn't. That's all. 

 

What did you think of the Bears defenses of the '80s?

That was a Tampa 2.

The Tampa defense of the Dungy era was a Tampa 2.

I thought those were two pretty good defenses.

[jshipp23]

I will say the Tampa 2 can be dangerous defense but it requires a top player at every level...If we go heavy defense in this draft with Chubb and Vander Esch round 1 and 2 it could work for us quick..We have the safety with Hooker, and 2 very good d-linemen in Anderson and Hankins..If we resign Melvin to go with our young CB's..This defense can be formidable..

[Four2itus]

Truthfully? I mean this with no antagonism or criticism.....I feel sorry for many of today's sports fans. 

 

The whole point of following a team is to have fun. I have never had more fun as a Colt fan......and that includes going back to SB V, than I did in the era that you are now worried about returning to. As a younger man, I would have been angry, or combative to your question. I have learned that not only does that cast negative shade on you, there are others who read as well, and it could have similar effects on them. I guess I have reached a place of peace. All I have for you is a bit of sadness, because in my opinion, you are missing out on something truly wonderful...the joy of happily following your team with acceptance and faith.

 

Enjoy following the Colts however you choose, perhaps someday you will get to enjoy it another way. Life is a long journey and the paths are endless. 

[jameszeigler834]

10 hours ago, Trueman said:

Is anyone worried or concerned that we look like we're mimicking the Polian/Dungy era a little too much?

 

I for one wasn't excited to hear that we're going back to the 4-3 cover 2 and the Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style. I'd rather mimic Denver's 4-3 , than ours of old.

 

I dunno, maybe Ballard is the key difference in building a different Colts era. I love that guy , and I believe in him. I just don't want it to be predictable and soft. I want some nasty and some complexity to our defence. 

 

Just curious to hear your guys thoughts. 

I'll give it a chance.

[Finball]

56 minutes ago, buccolts said:

 

What did you think of the Bears defenses of the '80s?

That was a Tampa 2.

The Tampa defense of the Dungy era was a Tampa 2.

I thought those were two pretty good defenses.

 

Different time now, no team should use Tampa/Cover 2 as a base. Too easy to shred by good QBs.

[Cynjin]

10 hours ago, Trueman said:

Is anyone worried or concerned that we look like we're mimicking the Polian/Dungy era a little too much?

 

I for one wasn't excited to hear that we're going back to the 4-3 cover 2 and the Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style. I'd rather mimic Denver's 4-3 , than ours of old.

 

I dunno, maybe Ballard is the key difference in building a different Colts era. I love that guy , and I believe in him. I just don't want it to be predictable and soft. I want some nasty and some complexity to our defence. 

 

Just curious to hear your guys thoughts. 

 

My thought is that you and others should let this staff and team play out before you jump to conclusions.  Maybe wait a couple of years to see what if any progress is made.

[Trueman]

4 hours ago, dodsworth said:

Ok, you bring up some valid concerns so I'm not going to jump on the

"Bash Trueman" bandwagon. First, I believe Irsay is smart enough to

learn from the past and not go directly down the year's of Polian and

build a team that consistently comes up short in the playoffs.

 

I believe Ballard won't poo poo the defenSe in the draft or free agency

Like Polian mostly did "save Freeney and Mathis" and build a title

worthy defenSe.

 

Also, Reich has me believing his offense will be less predictable and aggressive to keep the

chains moving, which in turn will help keep our defenSe on the sideline and fresh for crunch

time at the end of games.

 

Lastly, defense is spelled with a s and not a c as half of posters on here will spell it.

 hah maybe half the posters here aren't American? It's "defence" in British-English, I'm not spelling anything wrong. Thanks for the lesson though.

[Trueman]

4 minutes ago, Trueman said:

 

 

4 hours ago, RollerColt said:

I can see where there is some worry about this. On the surface, yes it looks as if we are reverting back to the days of Manning. But I say this:

 

Predictable and soft are the exact opposite of what Reich plans on doing here. And if he brings a similar scheming style that the Eagles deployed, then he has the history to back his statements up. 

 

Chris Ballard is not Bill Polian. His vision of our future defense is closer to Seattle than the Colts of old. He wants a hybrid defense that can fluctuate week by week. So while Tampa 2 is listed as the base, I don't think it will always be Tampa 2 throughout the game and even season. The key to all of this is playmakers. We desperately need some tough and highly intelligent men to run this kind of defense. They're going to be studying a lot. 

 

So, I understand your worry Truman, but the key to all of this is Chris Ballard. 

 Thank you , this is all I wanted to discuss. But instead people took it as an attack on their sacred nostalgia.

 

 

[Trueman]

2 hours ago, Finball said:

 

Different time now, no team should use Tampa/Cover 2 as a base. Too easy to shred by good QBs.

Bingo. The rules and the game have evolved.

 

The Tampa 2 is antiquated and easily overcome.

[Trueman]

2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Truthfully? I mean this with no antagonism or criticism.....I feel sorry for many of today's sports fans. 

 

The whole point of following a team is to have fun. I have never had more fun as a Colt fan......and that includes going back to SB V, than I did in the era that you are now worried about returning to. As a younger man, I would have been angry, or combative to your question. I have learned that not only does that cast negative shade on you, there are others who read as well, and it could have similar effects on them. I guess I have reached a place of peace. All I have for you is a bit of sadness, because in my opinion, you are missing out on something truly wonderful...the joy of happily following your team with acceptance and faith.

 

Enjoy following the Colts however you choose, perhaps someday you will get to enjoy it another way. Life is a long journey and the paths are endless. 

And this is when I leave the site.....

 

So long everyone , it was fun while it lasted!

[Trueman]

3 hours ago, BProland85 said:

I'm hoping this defense resembles the Seattle Cover 3 defense more so than the Dungy Tampa 2 Defense. With Eberflus, I've heard he was implementing some of Seattle's schemes so hopefully thats where they're going. We already have our elite cover safety in Hooker. And I think both Melvin and Wilson fit the outside press corner that fits that style of defense.  

Agreed , thanks for the input.

[Finball]

FA should tell us something about the scheme.. If we are going hard after top corners, weren't going to be predominantly tampa 2 team.

[Jason_]

14 hours ago, Trueman said:

Is anyone worried or concerned that we look like we're mimicking the Polian/Dungy era a little too much?

 

I for one wasn't excited to hear that we're going back to the 4-3 cover 2 and the Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style. I'd rather mimic Denver's 4-3 , than ours of old.

 

I dunno, maybe Ballard is the key difference in building a different Colts era. I love that guy , and I believe in him. I just don't want it to be predictable and soft. I want some nasty and some complexity to our defence. 

 

Just curious to hear your guys thoughts. 

 

Matt Eberflus worked with Rod Marinelli.  Rod Marinelli was the DC of the Bears when we played them in the SB in 2006. It was their defense that got them there.  Marinelli's defense, while still cover-2 based, was far more physical and aggressive than Dungy/Caldwell's defenses were.  In that regard I'm not too worried.  Plus, it's been reported many times and I checked the Dallas depth chart, their defense seems to mimic Seattle's more than it does the Chicago cover-2 that Marinelli ran when he was there.  

 

So I think our defense will look much closer to Seattle's than the Dungy era Colt defense.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

15 hours ago, Trueman said:

Is anyone worried or concerned that we look like we're mimicking the Polian/Dungy era a little too much?

 

I for one wasn't excited to hear that we're going back to the 4-3 cover 2 and the Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style. I'd rather mimic Denver's 4-3 , than ours of old.

 

I dunno, maybe Ballard is the key difference in building a different Colts era. I love that guy , and I believe in him. I just don't want it to be predictable and soft. I want some nasty and some complexity to our defence. 

 

Just curious to hear your guys thoughts. 

 

I couldn't be happier that the 3-4 defense experiment is finally over in Indianapolis. How many seasons did we need to finish 31st in the league for everyone to be on board with a switch back to 4-3?

[The Peytonator]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with a 4-3 Cover 2, Dungy just didn’t have very good defenders to run it. He also showed waaaay too much of a preference for absolutely minuscule defensive tackles. He was rolling out 250 pound DTs on the reg. There’s a place for those types of guys, and it’s on third and long. He’d also employ a borderline prevent coverage all game long that just led to easy completions and long drives. 

 

A Cover 2 is fine, but I believe Eberflus has plans of mixing up his coverage schemes. There are whispers of a Seattle press Cover 3 being implemented as well. Truly the only thing that matters, and I’m not saying anything earth shattering, is having good players. The right players can make any scheme work. Chris Ballard is getting us good players. 

[jskinnz]

15 hours ago, Trueman said:

 

Because we underachieved with, in my opinion, the best QB ever. 

 

Looking back at that time fondly is natural and justified, but to suggest we didn't make massive mistakes based on limiting principles and philosophies would be denying the truth.

 

I get that Grigson and Pagano's era was so bad that reverting back to the past seems like a logical decision, but I don't think it is. 

 

Like I said, maybe Ballard will value different positions/dispositions  and maybe he'll just flat out be better at evaluating talent . Maybe that will prove to be the difference. 

 

But if going down the exact same path is the plan , I don't like it. 

 

 

 

 

Couldn't you make a pretty solid case at least that part of that "underachieving" be laid squarely on Manning?  4 picks in the first AFCCG against the Pats.  Leading the offense to 3 points in the next playoff loss to New England.  Multiple picks in the 2007 loss to the Chargers and the Super Bowl pick 6 against the Saints.  Tis a team game and there is blame everywhere including 18.  Their time also coincided with the best QB / Coach tandem in league history with Brady & Belichick.

 

To the point of the thread, please tell me where I can sign up for 120 wins over the next decade and at least one Super Bowl win.  

[Aluckiswolverine]

I get what OP is saying. Would love the “Starwars” numbers on offense but not a fan of the dreadful cover 2 bend don’t break defense. 

 

Also so can do without Luck tearing it up regular season and then turning into playoff Peyton. Dominik Rhodes should have been Super Bowl MVP not Peyton.

 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, BOTT said:

I think you are jumping the gun a bit.  Not sure what "Reich hire couldn't be more Polian style" means.

 

The main problem with the Polian/Dungy era was how they built the defense.  i don't see Ballard bringing in 280lb defensive tackles and 216lb linebackers.

 

Dungy was also overly conservative, for my liking. I don't see Reich being that way.

 

They are similar in terms of temperament (somewhat, Reich isn't as mild mannered and soft spoken as Dungy), and they both talk about being men of faith. Other than that, they aren't very similar, IMO. Different coaching backgrounds, different philosophies, different influences.

 

We'll see what Ballard is in terms of player evaluation and talent acquisition, but I don't see him ever pulling back from the world entirely, like Polian did. They are also different, at least their public persona. 

[BOTT]

2 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I couldn't be happier that the 3-4 defense experiment is finally over in Indianapolis. How many seasons did we need to finish 31st in the league for everyone to be on board with a switch back to 4-3?

If you Ballard fails to bring in talent the results will be the same, whether they play a 34 or 43.

[Peterk2011]

16 hours ago, Trueman said:

Well, this is the thing , if it's Tampa 2 and we do the same thing as we did under Dungy, I'm not gunna be happy. But we'll see what happens.

 

It's 2018, not 2004. What you call (well, not just you) tampa 2 is more influenced by Seattle's cover 3 than Dungy's original tampa 2. Way more. Actually, it is barely cover 2 (only mostly in RZ). It is mostly cover 3, with a single high safety, and a strong safety up close to the box. Not to mention the unbalanced front 4, which loooks more like a "shifted" 3-4 front, plus a tweener, than a traditional 4-3 front line.

 

We will talk a lot about it during the offseason I guess, because what's coming is not retro, but the opposite. New wave at it's finest.

[jshipp23]

4 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

It's 2018, not 2004. What you call (well, not just you) tampa 2 is more influenced by Seattle's cover 3 than Dungy's original tampa 2. Way more. Actually, it is barely cover 2 (only mostly in RZ). It is mostly cover 3, with a single high safety, and a strong safety up close to the box. Not to mention the unbalanced front 4, which loooks more like a "shifted" 3-4 front, plus a tweener, than a traditional 4-3 front line.

 

We will talk a lot about it during the offseason I guess, because what's coming is not retro, but the opposite. New wave at it's finest.

Lets hope...I think if we get a couple ILB's that can run, we  have a lot of good personnel to run a Seahawks type defense..

[Steamboat_Shaun]

36 minutes ago, BOTT said:

If you Ballard fails to bring in talent the results will be the same, whether they play a 34 or 43.

 

I'm already encouraged just after one draft. Hooker/Wilson/Hairston is a great foundation for a young secondary, and the DL is much improved. We just need to add more depth, bring in that blue chip pass rusher, and upgrade the ILBs. It's obviously easier said than done, but I don't think we're as far off as a lot of others suggest.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

To the dismay of any Colt Fans hoping for a Defense like the '85 Bears, the Von Miller led Broncos, the Steel Curtain.... etc.... I'm predicting You will be Disappointed. 

[Jason_]

4 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I couldn't be happier that the 3-4 defense experiment is finally over in Indianapolis. How many seasons did we need to finish 31st in the league for everyone to be on board with a switch back to 4-3?

 

Finishing 31st in the league was not scheme related 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

To the dismay of any Colt Fans hoping for a Defense like the '85 Bears, the Von Miller led Broncos, the Steel Curtain.... etc.... I'm predicting You will be Disappointed. 

Where did you come up with that? I haven't heard or seen anyone post that.