Have any of you changed your minds?

[chad72]

I'm inferring that the O-line looked subpar VS a terrible rams team. Against a legitmate competitive team. they'll get thrown around like rag dolls as usual. Luck was not protected well.

The Rams' D-line is not a bunch of slouches, a lot of high first round picks with Quinn and Long, and Brockers recently as well. Their D-line pressure was relentless vs Brees and Saints last year. However, their secondary was terrible and adding Finnegan and Jenkins does not seem like has made a HUGE difference, that is where the Rams lost most of their games, in the backfield and an ineptitude on offense.

The Rams were the 11th worst defense in the league, yardage wise. 2nd worst offense in the league normally does not win you many games. No co-incidence that the Rams and Colts were the 2nd worst and 3rd worst on offense and we had the top 2 picks. Blaine Gabbert however managed to one up Curtis Painter and company though with the title of worst. The Jags' D and running game saved their behinds and gave them a No.7 pick.

So, while our O-line play, when they settled down, may not have been a world beating performance, I dont think the Rams being terrible as a team was a direct reflection of their D-line, which is a brighter spot than many other dud areas for the Rams.

If I would be cautious on something, it would be on overestimating our defensive prowess against a woeful Rams offense.

[ruksak]

It's never particularly wise to let the preseason dramatically alter your expectations. The NFL has had plenty of teams whose preseason showing was the complete opposite of the final product, for better or for worse.

Jelly?

[NewColtsFan]

Not with this years schedule.

I'm honestly not sure what your meaning is with that sentence..... but for what it's worth, I don't think we have a very hard schedule. It may not be easy, but it could have been more difficult. There are a number of winnable games on our schedule. It's why I've projected 5-7 wins for the Colts.

If I've misinterpreted your meaning, my apologies. Otherwise.... ??

[crazycolt1]

One pre season game does not tell anything as far as wins or losses. What I was most impressed with is how well the whole team played considering this is basically a new team. There will be ups and downs all season as players get used to each other. We all knew going into this season it is a work in progress. What I DID see was Luck not looking like a rookie. All 3 QBs have very good mechanics and never tried to force something that wasn't there.

[NewColtsFan]

We aren't comparing Andrew Luck to Otto Gram. Peyton Manning is still playing his era is not that different from Luck. Like I said take it for what it's worth. I still stand by the fact that different passing rules or not anytime you can say you did something better than Peyton Manning it's a good thing. Andrew Luck's passes were also not a result of the changes in the passing rules. The TD pass to Collie and the dart he threw to the guy on the goal line were great throws I don't care who you are. Like it or not but Andrew Luck had a better first pre-season game than Peyton Manning did. That's all that means it doesn't mean per say Luck will have a better career but he's off to a great start.

15 years might as well have been many decades ago with Otto Graham.

Look at the numbers and the stats and the philosophy changes across the NFL in that time. The number of QB's who throw for 5,000+ yards in a season. Heck, 4,000 used to be tremendous, now it's almost routine.

The number of receivers who catch 100 passes a year. Used to be unheard of.... now every team is looking for that guy.

The devaluation of RB's in the game means the elevated importance of passing and catching.

Pass blocking rules favoring the OL... what a DB can do to a WR favoring the offense.

The list of changes goes on and on.... don't blame me. I didn't make the changes. But they were made and the game has changed.

I'm in no way diminishing Luck. I'm here on this website all the time precisely because I'm an Andrew Luck fan. I don't discount his talent or accomplishments. I'm only asking for some perspective. I'm a Big Picture guy. As great as today was, it's one game, and it's just the first pre-season game. This is a marathon, not a sprint. They'll be plenty of bad days and Luck will throw a few picks that will make many here scratch their heads. Comes with the territory.

But the game has changed and that's to Luck's advantage. All he can do is all he can do and be judged how he compares with those who are playing the same game. Not playing a game that doesn't much resemble what the NFL used to be.

Just my opinion....

[Gavin]

Ok off topic but I got a roster question, How many total players can we have going into the season, I know 53 players but what about practice squad

[Poster X]

I'm not changing my mind based off of one preseason game... However, the future looks bright for this team and I'm excited to watch each and ever game. The prediction of 6-10 still stands.

[John Waylon]

Other than Luck exceeding expectations, it was what I thought it would be.

Little of this, that, good and bad.

The #1 thing that stood out to me today was corner play. I caught myself scowling a time or two looking for caldwell and coyer on the sidelines with all the cushion we were giving their WR's.

Interested to see if we can keep up the amount of QB pressure we showed today.

[GoColts8818]

15 years might as well have been many decades ago with Otto Graham.

No it's not and no it's not unreasonable to compare a player to another player who is STILL playing in the NFL. People sure didn't have a problem comparing Manning to Marino when he first came in and that is close to the gap we are looking at now. Most people would say the game is very similar which it is.

Look at the numbers and the stats and the philosophy changes across the NFL in that time. The number of QB's who throw for 5,000+ yards in a season. Heck, 4,000 used to be tremendous, now it's almost routine.

It's not like they went from 2,000 yards a season to 4,000 yards they went from around 3,500 to 3,700 to 4,000. Also 4,000 yards is not a routine. It's still a major accomplishment. Only 10 QBs did it last year. If it was routine most of the starting QBs in the NFL would have done it. Do teams pass more than they did when they did when Manning came in? Sure. Is it great enough that we can't compare Manning to Luck as a result? No.

The number of receivers who catch 100 passes a year. Used to be unheard of.... now every team is looking for that guy.

Not really. Only two receivers had more than 100 catches last year compared to 2002 (the furthest back ESPN tracks records) when five receiver did it.

The devaluation of RB's in the game means the elevated importance of passing and catching.

Yes but again we aren't talking like Jim Brown vs. today's backs either. Do teams run less than when Manning came into the league? Sure Again is it so great that it's going to majorly shift things so you can't compare two QBs? No.

Pass blocking rules favoring the OL... what a DB can do to a WR favoring the offense.

The list of changes goes on and on.... don't blame me. I didn't make the changes. But they were made and the game has changed.

I didn't blame you I just said the changes aren't enough that you can't compare the two.

I'm in no way diminishing Luck. I'm here on this website all the time precisely because I'm an Andrew Luck fan. I don't discount his talent or accomplishments. I'm only asking for some perspective. I'm a Big Picture guy. As great as today was, it's one game, and it's just the first pre-season game. This is a marathon, not a sprint. They'll be plenty of bad days and Luck will throw a few picks that will make many here scratch their heads. Comes with the territory.

Exactly which is all I am doing in saying if you go back and look at both of their first pre-season games Lucks was better. Those passing rules had nothing to do with Manning's INT or fumble in his first game, something Luck avoided. Again anytime you can say you did something better than Peyton Manning (even if it's a meaningless pre-season game) it's a good thing. It doesn't mean we need to get the bust ready in Canton. It's just a good start. Nothing more nothing less. Luck’s play was what was impressive today and that has nothing to do with the “rules” he made some great throws that would have been great had he made them today, 15 years ago or 30 years ago. Manning’s first pre-season game was impressive for the same reason. With that said when you look at the two of them Luck’s was better and no it’s not because of the “rules” it’s because Luck played better. Now again that’s one game. Like I said before it doesn’t mean Luck is going to be better than Peyton but for now it’s all we have to go on and frankly I think most Colts fans are just taking comfort in the fact that you can legitimately put Luck’s name in a conversation with Peyton Manning after today even if it was just for one game.

But the game has changed and that's to Luck's advantage. All he can do is all he can do and be judged how he compares with those who are playing the same game. Not playing a game that doesn't much resemble what the NFL used to be.

Just my opinion....

It's changed but not that drastically that we can't compare two guys who are still playing.

[RGIII]

Jelly?

Obviously. It's not like the Redskins have a young, promising QB who performed well in their preseason debut, got a TD off a screen pass, and got a lot of media attention for it ;)

[dgambill]

Remember, Peyton's rookie year was roughly 15 years ago. The NFL game has change dramatically since then. And all the changes favor more and better passing. What Peyton did in his first game does not translate to what Andrew does...

It just doesn't. Different world. For more proof of that all you need to do is look at what Cam Newton did his rookie year.

The world has changed. Luck is great, but comparing him to Peyton isn't fair to either.

Just go back and watch the Patriots Super Bowls and watch their corners and saftey's man handle our receivers and the Rams receivers back then. Watch PM get turned into a pretzel with no penalty....lol...all the rules have changed. PM has received some benefit the last few years of it but when he first came in he was playing with Dan Marino and John Elway if that tells you the era lol....different era different rules....why I still say Dan Marino was the best throwing qb ever....a beast....and also why we failed to move on against the patriots for so long playing in their stadium against their rules....with our small wide outs (wayne/harrison). Same thing happened to the Rams in the super bowl.

Not diminishing Luck at all because WOW...I was impressed but come on....this is a whole different NFL with a completely different COMISH even lol...things definately changed since PM early years.

[ruksak]

Obviously. It's not like the Redskins have a young, promising QB who performed well in their preseason debut, got a TD off a screen pass, and got a lot of media attention for it ;)

I was actually a little impressed with Bob Griffin's performance in his first game. Not bad for a flashy show off with a ridiculous name.

[JoKeR]

You guys can as cautious as you want but I think the goal should always be the same. Playoffs. Yes Jim Mora, playoffs. I won't be upset if we don't make it but regardless , it's the goal.

[Spencer88]

No it's not and no it's not unreasonable to compare a player to another player who is STILL playing in the NFL. People sure didn't have a problem comparing Manning to Marino when he first came in and that is close to the gap we are looking at now. Most people would say the game is very similar which it is.

It's not like they went from 2,000 yards a season to 4,000 yards they went from around 3,500 to 3,700 to 4,000. Also 4,000 yards is not a routine. It's still a major accomplishment. Only 10 QBs did it last year. If it was routine most of the starting QBs in the NFL would have done it. Do teams pass more than they did when they did when Manning came in? Sure. Is it great enough that we can't compare Manning to Luck as a result? No.

Not really. Only two receivers had more than 100 catches last year compared to 2002 (the furthest back ESPN tracks records) when five receiver did it.

Yes but again we aren't talking like Jim Brown vs. today's backs either. Do teams run less than when Manning came into the league? Sure Again is it so great that it's going to majorly shift things so you can't compare two QBs? No.

Pass blocking rules favoring the OL... what a DB can do to a WR favoring the offense.

I didn't blame you I just said the changes aren't enough that you can't compare the two.

Exactly which is all I am doing in saying if you go back and look at both of their first pre-season games Lucks was better. Those passing rules had nothing to do with Manning's INT or fumble in his first game, something Luck avoided. Again anytime you can say you did something better than Peyton Manning (even if it's a meaningless pre-season game) it's a good thing. It doesn't mean we need to get the bust ready in Canton. It's just a good start. Nothing more nothing less. Luck’s play was what was impressive today and that has nothing to do with the “rules” he made some great throws that would have been great had he made them today, 15 years ago or 30 years ago. Manning’s first pre-season game was impressive for the same reason. With that said when you look at the two of them Luck’s was better and no it’s not because of the “rules” it’s because Luck played better. Now again that’s one game. Like I said before it doesn’t mean Luck is going to be better than Peyton but for now it’s all we have to go on and frankly I think most Colts fans are just taking comfort in the fact that you can legitimately put Luck’s name in a conversation with Peyton Manning after today even if it was just for one game.

It's changed but not that drastically that we can't compare two guys who are still playing.

its amazing after all that all your doing is a pointless and incredibly inacrruate comparing of peyton and luck... again... im so tired of this! its one PRESEASON game for crying out loud! lol its practically practice.

oh and btw, the rules have changed way more than you know obviously...

[Restored]

History repeats itself.. All I'm saying.

[SilentHill]

Well... I had originally thoguht 12-4.... but, now 14-2 seems more realistic..

[Esquire59]

I went from 4-5 wins to 6-7 wins. 10-11 wins in 2013.

[GoColts8818]

its amazing after all that all your doing is a pointless and incredibly inacrruate comparing of peyton and luck... again... im so tired of this! its one PRESEASON game for crying out loud! lol its practically practice.

oh and btw, the rules have changed way more than you know obviously...

Which is why i am comparing their first two pre-season games and have said more than once take it for what it's worth and it just means Luck out played Peyton Manning in his first pre-season game nothing more nothing less. I've also said it doesn't mean we need to get Luck a spots in Canton ready which is admitting it's not an end all be all. Like I said anytime you can say you did something BETTER than Peyton Manning, and yes even a meaningless pre-season game, that's a good thing. That's all I am saying. Does it mean he's going to be the greatest QB ever? No and I have never said it does mean that. I've said it's a good start and used Manning's good start as a comparison to that since for weeks going into this game people were saying he'd never be able to equal Manning's start of a touchdown pass on his first throw. Well guess what he not only saw Manning's first start he raised it.

None of that has to do with the rule changes thank you very which is what I keep trying to say. Luck's performance on Sunday had NOTHING to do with the new rules. That's why I am not going to sit here and go oh well the rules are so much different. Yes they are different but they aren't earth shatteringly different like if you looked at an era where Otto Graham played vs. Andrew Luck. The rules are close enough you can look at what Manning did in one game where most felt like he played well as a rookie and turn around and compare that to what Luck did in his first game as a rookie. These are for the most part the same rules the league had last and how many people do you see going "oh well Cam Newton did it with different rules than when Peyton Manning did it as a rookie." You don't hear that other than from a few die hard Peyton Manning fans who don't like hearing anyone is better than Peyton. Most people just say Cam Newton had a better rookie season than Peyton who up to that point had what many thought to be the best rookie season ever for a rookie QB. Heck if we are going to use the silly you can't compare players you probably can't Manning had the greatest rookie season ever for a rookie QB because after all the rules were different for him than when other rookies came in. See how silly this gets after a while? So how about rather than trying to find reasons to take away from the great job Luck did on Sunday let's just admit he played well. We all know it's a pre-season game but what would you rather him struggled? After last year I figured most people would just be thrilled that even if it's one game it looks like we have a QB again.

[krunk]

What happens after the starters leave a pre-season game is largely irrelevant (other than evaluating individuals of course). When Luck was playing he was running for his life on most every play. His mobility is terrific of course, but saying that the lack of sacks reflects the quality of the o-line play makes no more sense now then it did when Peyton was using his quick release and then getting slammed into the turf. "No sacks - woo woo. What time is his surgery again?" During this same period they had a few decent running plays and a few that went completely nowhere - against a team that was arguable worse than the Colts last year. I thought that the oline was largely horrific.

On the same theme, isn't anyone else concerned that the defense couldn't get off the field in the first quarter? Bradford didn't do anything special, but they just kept the chains moving. With the new defensive philosophy (and the lack of quality in the opposition), that can't be what they had in mind. I think that the three points given up was extremely miss-leading. Some individual plays were encouraging on both sides of the ball, and with the upgrade in QB play you'd have to assume that they won't be competing for the number one pick again - but there be a lot of holes here. Lets not get too carried away. Six wins sounds like a really good number to me.

You're saying these things while missing the fact that no one game planned for this game. It's easier to execute your offense when the opposition has not planned ahead of time via film study to take away what you do best. A lot of those easy completions could have been negated through preparation. Secondly on many of those completions Bradford was simply taking what the defense gave him, so it's not like he was just beating people because our defenders were poor. And to add to that you may be able to point out using statistics from last year that Sam Bradford is a bad quarterback, but I think most of us know that Bradford is definitely a quarterback you can respect if you look at his overall body of work. I think he stunk up the joint last year largely because he was having a heck of a time adjusting to the Patriots style of offense which was installed by Josh Mcdaniels. It just did not work for him.

The great thing about our D was that when they gave up a play in the passing game they were immediately on it and made a sure tackle. It would have been a bad sign if they were extending drives due to bad tackling or executing the wrong coverages. Initially in the beginning of the 1st quarter I thought we were giving up too much in the run game to Steven Jackson, but we eventually shored that up as well. I did not come away from that game feeling bad about the defense at all! I can't say I felt like they were a top 5 defense, but I definitely felt like they wouldn't be in the bottom half of the league in defense.

What things happened on Sunday to make you feel so glum about the defense? There's really not that much you can point out. If you take the Colts defense and compare it talent wise to what the Texans had last year when they were installing the 3-4 I don't see a big difference in the talent level at any position and the Texans ended up in the top 5 with what they had. I don't believe we will have a top 5 defense this year because I think we are facing some stronger offenses this year, and an overall stronger schedule than what the Texans had last year. If you include the Texans offense, this year we are facing about 4 to 5 really good offensive teams that we are playing this year. When I look at the Texans schedule from last year I can only point out 2 good offenses in the form of the Saints and the Atlanta Falcons.

Overall I really don't feel that bad about our defense other than we need a bit more depth mainly at middle linebacker and CB. The effort is there, the tackling seems to be there, the focus seems to be there. I think we have good depth at OLB with Hughes and Fugger backing up Mathis and Freeney. I think we have good depth along the D-line as well. Offensively I think we are loaded, but young at all the skill positions. I believe the offensive line will improve with game planning and execution.

[southwest1]

IT WAS THE RAMS!!!!!

Let's stay realistic...

The Rams have a bad D, and it doesn't help that they didn't start some of their starters. Luck had a great game, but the Colts beat the backups of a deflated team.

Just wait a few more games (preseason and regular) before we start talking about double digit wins.

What happens after the starters leave a pre-season game is largely irrelevant (other than evaluating individuals of course). When Luck was playing he was running for his life on most every play. His mobility is terrific of course, but saying that the lack of sacks reflects the quality of the o-line play makes no more sense now then it did when Peyton was using his quick release and then getting slammed into the turf. "No sacks - woo woo. What time is his surgery again?" During this same period they had a few decent running plays and a few that went completely nowhere - against a team that was arguable worse than the Colts last year. I thought that the oline was largely horrific.

On the same theme, isn't anyone else concerned that the defense couldn't get off the field in the first quarter? Bradford didn't do anything special, but they just kept the chains moving. With the new defensive philosophy (and the lack of quality in the opposition), that can't be what they had in mind. I think that the three points given up was extremely miss-leading. Some individual plays were encouraging on both sides of the ball, and with the upgrade in QB play you'd have to assume that they won't be competing for the number one pick again - but there be a lot of holes here. Lets not get too carried away. Six wins sounds like a really good number to me.

Bravo! I just love accurate evaluations with no sugar coating at all. Thank you reddmmann, Andy, and MAC. This overflowing fan enthusiasm is a tad bit over the top. Thank you for the cold shower of reality for all of Colts Nation. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Superman]

Bravo! I just love accurate evaluations with no sugar coating at all. Thank you reddmmann, Andy, and MAC. This overflowing fan enthusiasm is a tad bit over the top. Thank you for the cold shower of reality for all of Colts Nation. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I'm going to be honest here, and I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but you say you appreciate no sugar coating, so...

This is annoying. Some people are excited and optimistic. I don't understand why more pessimistic and more "let's not get carried away" is considered an "accurate evaluation," or "reality."

Step into a time machine with me, and let's go back one year. Our first preseason game in 2011 was against the same Rams that wound up going 2-14 just like us. They had just come off a 7-9 season, so still not expected to be a good team. Do you remember that game? We lost 33-10. Our quarterbacking was terrible throughout the game, from start to finish. Our defense was atrocious, not just because they gave up 342 yards, but mostly because they looked slow and lacked physicality. We gave up 47% on third down.

This year, it was a night and day difference. Let's ignore the score, because it's irrelevant. But focusing on the way our players looked, the energy on the field, the speed of the defense, the physicality of our linebackers and defensive backs, the superb play of all of our quarterbacks, the depth on both sides of the ball, etc. Even in the preseason, against a not-so-good team, there are positives to be drawn from this game. And when you compare it with the same Week 1 matchup from last preseason, you recognize that things could have gone much differently.

There are TONS of positives to be taken from this game. Yes, it's only the first preseason game of the year. I think everyone knows that, and I'm pretty certain everyone recognizes that the outcome of preseason games has NOTHING to do with whether the team is good or not. Like last year's Rams, you can dominate a preseason game and still go 2-14. But think about it from another perspective: We clean housed in the front office and the coaching staff, overhauled the roster, and are starting a rookie quarterback. This game could have been full of negatives. We could be talking about the defense not playing very well, we could be talking about our quarterback not looking comfortable, or a lackadaisical feeling from the entire team. Instead, we're tempering excitement about the exact opposite.

Just let people be excited. I understand what MAC and Andy are saying, along with many others. We're not out of the woods. There are still question marks on this team, areas that aren't very positive, like the offensive line. And even though we won, and we finished, this game doesn't count for anything. But that's not to say that it doesn't mean anything. And for people who take comfort in knowing that we aren't sitting here rationalizing another ugly preseason loss to a bad team, it's unfair to have to hide their enthusiasm for a very positive performance. Just because a person is enthusiastic doesn't mean they're not being realistic.

[JoKeR]

I'm with Superman on this and the Oline wasn't that bad, they were just the low point and the Rams were not that vanilla with those blitzes. They need some experience together and maybe more depth.

[southwest1]

I'm going to be honest here, and I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but you say you appreciate no sugar coating, so...

This is annoying. Some people are excited and optimistic. I don't understand why more pessimistic and more "let's not get carried away" is considered an "accurate evaluation," or "reality."

Step into a time machine with me, and let's go back one year. Our first preseason game in 2011 was against the same Rams that wound up going 2-14 just like us. They had just come off a 7-9 season, so still not expected to be a good team. Do you remember that game? We lost 33-10. Our quarterbacking was terrible throughout the game, from start to finish. Our defense was atrocious, not just because they gave up 342 yards, but mostly because they looked slow and lacked physicality. We gave up 47% on third down.

This year, it was a night and day difference. Let's ignore the score, because it's irrelevant. But focusing on the way our players looked, the energy on the field, the speed of the defense, the physicality of our linebackers and defensive backs, the superb play of all of our quarterbacks, the depth on both sides of the ball, etc. Even in the preseason, against a not-so-good team, there are positives to be drawn from this game. And when you compare it with the same Week 1 matchup from last preseason, you recognize that things could have gone much differently.

There are TONS of positives to be taken from this game. Yes, it's only the first preseason game of the year. I think everyone knows that, and I'm pretty certain everyone recognizes that the outcome of preseason games has NOTHING to do with whether the team is good or not. Like last year's Rams, you can dominate a preseason game and still go 2-14. But think about it from another perspective: We clean housed in the front office and the coaching staff, overhauled the roster, and are starting a rookie quarterback. This game could have been full of negatives. We could be talking about the defense not playing very well, we could be talking about our quarterback not looking comfortable, or a lackadaisical feeling from the entire team. Instead, we're tempering excitement about the exact opposite.

Just let people be excited. I understand what MAC and Andy are saying, along with many others. We're not out of the woods. There are still question marks on this team, areas that aren't very positive, like the offensive line. And even though we won, and we finished, this game doesn't count for anything. But that's not to say that it doesn't mean anything. And for people who take comfort in knowing that we aren't sitting here rationalizing another ugly preseason loss to a bad team, it's unfair to have to hide their enthusiasm for a very positive performance. Just because a person is enthusiastic doesn't mean they're not being realistic.

Did I ever deprive anyone of their ability to express their true excitement about over the Rams? When did evaluations only become positive in nature? I must have missed that crucial memo. I'm not saying one Preseason Game is meaningless; I merely pointing out it does NOT mean everything. Yes, I am fully aware of the massive overhaul this franchise undertook from last year. Just because, I decide to view our franchise from the level of competition on the field and how well we played between the white lines doesn't mean that I am am being unfair to what our squad achieved on Sunday either.

I am not exactly sure what your response is intended to accomplish Superman. If people dislike my commentary, they can bypass it or put me on the ignore list as Nadine has encouraged patrons to do several times to avoid tension and unpleasant experiences. I want everyone to get along and contribute freely as much as they prefer without provocation or intimidation of any kind.

I'm not raining on anyone parade here. People can interpret Sunday's game exactly as they see fit. Just remember: A difference of opinion in a respectful tone always makes for an insightful debate. I believe what I believe and whether you like the term "sugarcoat" or not; I call like I see it. I always have and I always will. No disrespect intended Superman. Have a nice day.

[Balzer40]

I'm going to be honest here, and I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but you say you appreciate no sugar coating, so...

This is annoying. Some people are excited and optimistic. I don't understand why more pessimistic and more "let's not get carried away" is considered an "accurate evaluation," or "reality."

Step into a time machine with me, and let's go back one year. Our first preseason game in 2011 was against the same Rams that wound up going 2-14 just like us. They had just come off a 7-9 season, so still not expected to be a good team. Do you remember that game? We lost 33-10. Our quarterbacking was terrible throughout the game, from start to finish. Our defense was atrocious, not just because they gave up 342 yards, but mostly because they looked slow and lacked physicality. We gave up 47% on third down.

This year, it was a night and day difference. Let's ignore the score, because it's irrelevant. But focusing on the way our players looked, the energy on the field, the speed of the defense, the physicality of our linebackers and defensive backs, the superb play of all of our quarterbacks, the depth on both sides of the ball, etc. Even in the preseason, against a not-so-good team, there are positives to be drawn from this game. And when you compare it with the same Week 1 matchup from last preseason, you recognize that things could have gone much differently.

There are TONS of positives to be taken from this game. Yes, it's only the first preseason game of the year. I think everyone knows that, and I'm pretty certain everyone recognizes that the outcome of preseason games has NOTHING to do with whether the team is good or not. Like last year's Rams, you can dominate a preseason game and still go 2-14. But think about it from another perspective: We clean housed in the front office and the coaching staff, overhauled the roster, and are starting a rookie quarterback. This game could have been full of negatives. We could be talking about the defense not playing very well, we could be talking about our quarterback not looking comfortable, or a lackadaisical feeling from the entire team. Instead, we're tempering excitement about the exact opposite.

Just let people be excited. I understand what MAC and Andy are saying, along with many others. We're not out of the woods. There are still question marks on this team, areas that aren't very positive, like the offensive line. And even though we won, and we finished, this game doesn't count for anything. But that's not to say that it doesn't mean anything. And for people who take comfort in knowing that we aren't sitting here rationalizing another ugly preseason loss to a bad team, it's unfair to have to hide their enthusiasm for a very positive performance. Just because a person is enthusiastic doesn't mean they're not being realistic.

Very well said Superman. There were many good things in that game and I think even the least knowledgeable fan realizes that its just preseason and what happened in that game does not necessarily reflect on what will happen in the regular season. I really do not want to question people's understanding of the game, but many said the O-line was horrible and that is simply not true. I do not know if those people are making these comments based on the 1st couple of series in the game and just ignored what happened there after, but they surely did not pay much attention to the rest of the game or they do not have a grasp on the position. Like you, I, and others have said, there were many positive's from the game and just because it was preseason does not mean you can't look at those positives. Im fairly certain the coaching staff seen the positive's also.

[Superman]

I am not exactly sure what your response is intended to accomplish Superman.

It's only intended to defend the perspective of posters who think the outcome of the game is a reason to be excited about the future of the team, to be confident in the rookie quarterback, to be enthusiastic about the defense, etc.

And it's not just directed at you. There is even a thread started telling people to stop overreacting. There's plenty of pessimism on this board, and there has been for a long time. When positive things happen (and Sunday's game was full of positives), and people react positively, I don't think they should be scolded for their over the top enthusiasm.

[MAC]

I really do not want to question people's understanding of the game, but many said the O-line was horrible and that is simply not true. I do not know if those people are making these comments based on the 1st couple of series in the game and just ignored what happened there after, but they surely did not pay much attention to the rest of the game or they do not have a grasp on the position.

As one of the people questioning the oline play, I'll readily admit that I'm no expert. I simply said that Luck was often running for his life. While it's wonderful to have a good QB in there again - any of last years crew would have had 3/outs, sacks, fumbles, and interceptions in the face of that pressure - that doesn't change the fact that Luck was often forced to make quick decisions and bail out of the pocket. If these had resulted in errors a thread like this might be all about debating whether to absolve Luck of responsibility because of the line play.

And if it got better later in the game - great, but I didn't notice because I was FFing. As I also said, once the starters go out anything but individual evaluations become largely irrelevant. I could find nice things to say about individuals (including both reserve QBs), and it's entirely possible that our reserve oline did a fine job against their 3rd string dline, but it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Granted it's better than the alternative, but it is unlikely to mean much in the regular season since so many of those involved on both sides will be released.

[Superman]

As one of the people questioning the oline play, I'll readily admit that I'm no expert. I simply said that Luck was often running for his life. While it's wonderful to have a good QB in there again - any of last years crew would have had 3/outs, sacks, fumbles, and interceptions in the face of that pressure - that doesn't change the fact that Luck was often forced to make quick decisions and bail out of the pocket. If these had resulted in errors a thread like this might be all about debating whether to absolve Luck of responsibility because of the line play.

To the bolded, you're absolutely right. At least three of Luck's incompletions were the direct result of pressure on the quarterback: the quick throw to Reggie that was overthrown, and the two throwaways. (Makes his performance even more impressive, because you can legitimately say that he didn't throw a single bad ball in 16 attempts.)

That said, it's important to note that a lot of the pressures the line gave up were on blitzes. There's a lot of talk about Luck's performance being against vanilla coverages from the Rams, and they did play a lot of simple zone coverage, but they brought some heat also. Castonzo made a comment about how they gave up pressure because the defense brought extra guys; that's not an excuse. It's up to the quarterback and the center to get the protections adjusted based on what the defense is showing, so there's plenty of room for improvement. But it does highlight the fact that a) Luck wasn't doing all of his damage against Cover 2 defense, and b) the offensive line wasn't just getting run over by the Rams defensive front.

[BleedingBlue]

Still haven't changed my mind. Luck is as good as I thought he'd be. Manning is as healthy as I thought he'd be.

next topic.

[MAC]

You're saying these things while missing the fact that no one game planned for this game.

Secondly on many of those completions Bradford was simply taking what the defense gave him, so it's not like he was just beating people because our defenders were poor.

What things happened on Sunday to make you feel so glum about the defense?

If you take the Colts defense and compare it talent wise to what the Texans had last year when they were installing the 3-4 I don't see a big difference in the talent level at any position and the Texans ended up in the top 5 with what they had.

First of all, the lack of preparation goes both ways - but I suspect that it's easier to anticipate what a vet coach and QB are going to do rather than a rookie coach and QB.

What's your definition of a poor defense? All I said was that the three points was very misleading and perhaps was contributing to some excessive enthusiasm. Of course Bradford was taking what the defense gave him - and we gave him quite a bit by playing back and then coming up to tackle. Isn't that exactly what people complained about with the old system? I could find 30 threads focused on people berating the old system on it's own merits even when successful. It was DESIGNED to bend but not break. Our new one is designed to get off the field, yet they couldn't stop the Rams from getting into Colts territory until there were two minutes left in the first half. Were their starters even in at that point? If not for a ridiculous unforced fumble and a couple of penalties, the Rams would very likely have scored 2-3 times more in the first half. What happens when we play a good team? I think that Bradford has a lot of potential (slowed by injuries) but he didn't look all that special yesterday - yet he was still 7-9.

I'm not glum about anything, I just have minimal emotions available for a pre-season game in a rebuilding year. Meaningless game in what is very likely to be a long and comparatively dull season. The only plays in that game which resulted in my feeling any emotions at all were the 5-6 where Luck did something to suggest that he's going to be special. I started to have confidence in him, which after last years "expectation of disaster" on every single play was a blessed relief. That did NOT include the first play by the way. The euphoria for that anomaly is a bit ridiculous.

The Texans were a team which was horrible for years, and invested a LOT of high draft picks garnered during those years on defense - primarily to try and stop the Colts. They were always a talented disappointment. Last year they added a great DC who was able to put the talent to better use. How does that compare to the Colts? There are question marks galore and obvious holes. I doubt that even the coaches have a clue how they will stack up. It will be interesting to watch the transition, and they will be more effective simply because the offense will hold the ball more and perhaps get the lead occasionally, but it seems unlikely that they will be remotely comparable to last years Texans defense.

[chadedward]

i'd be thrilled with 6. Anything else would just be the cherry on top.

[TennEngr]

I will have a better idea after the 3rd preseason game when the starters play 3 quarters. Right now ... still at 3 wins ... actually leaning toward a couple more wins due to Lucks composure but it was still the Rams. GO COLTS!!!

[Superman]

First of all, the lack of preparation goes both ways - but I suspect that it's easier to anticipate what a vet coach and QB are going to do rather than a rookie coach and QB.

What's your definition of a poor defense? All I said was that the three points was very misleading and perhaps was contributing to some excessive enthusiasm. Of course Bradford was taking what the defense gave him - and we gave him quite a bit by playing back and then coming up to tackle. Isn't that exactly what people complained about with the old system? I could find 30 threads focused on people berating the old system on it's own merits even when successful. It was DESIGNED to bend but not break. Our new one is designed to get off the field, yet they couldn't stop the Rams from getting into Colts territory until there were two minutes left in the first half. Were their starters even in at that point? If not for a ridiculous unforced fumble and a couple of penalties, the Rams would very likely have scored 2-3 times more in the first half. What happens when we play a good team? I think that Bradford has a lot of potential (slowed by injuries) but he didn't look all that special yesterday - yet he was still 7-9.

I don't care very much about the there points. But I also don't think the defense had trouble getting off the field. They did get off the field. With Bradford in the game, they failed on 4th down (by the way, I think coaches should go for that conversion every time from that spot on the field, with that down and distance, unless you have a sure-fire kicker), and punted on 4th and long, after fumbling on 3rd and long. Even without the fumble, we're still in 4th and long because the defense was there.

You're painting a picture of a defense that's designed to attack and limit teams to short possessions, but that's not necessarily the case. I think we're going to play plenty of zone defense, and I think we're going to be content with the kind of stops we got against the Rams first team offense, even though they gained five first downs and converted 2/4 third downs. I don't want to put too much stock into stats in this game, but we kept Bradford throwing short, and we tackled well. He averaged 6.3 YPA, which is very respectable for a defense.

I don't think the way we played off with Justin King is indicative of how we're going to play most of the time. I expect us to challenge receivers more before the ball is thrown and while the ball is in the air, but I think that's something that will be used cautiously because of the players we have at corner. The "bend but don't break" design is still a part of our defense, although I don't think we're going to play soft, deep cushions nearly as often, and we're obviously going to press and blitz a lot more than we did over the past ten years.

Aside from all of that, what I mostly liked about the defense is that our players played fast and hit hard. They tackled well, they pressured the quarterback, and they didn't give up big plays. I'm not getting excited about only giving up three points or about Rucker's interception (bad route by the receiver, nothing special by the defender). But we played fast and hit hard. That would have come in handy last season. I've been saying all offseason that I can't see our defense being worse than it was last year, and the game on Sunday reinforced that belief. So I'm high on the defense.

[jbaron04]

After watching Andrew Luck rip the Rams and our defense play relatively better than was expected, are any of you thinking differently about the regular season?

Before today's game I had us at 5 wins, but after seeing how well we played (even if it was against the Rams) I have us winning 9-10 games. I mean c'mon. Our defense seems to be on great pace, and we don't even need to worry about our offense.

Your thoughts?

We can win 10 game next year a make playoffs look at schegudel

[krunk]

First of all, the lack of preparation goes both ways - but I suspect that it's easier to anticipate what a vet coach and QB are going to do rather than a rookie coach and QB.

What's your definition of a poor defense? All I said was that the three points was very misleading and perhaps was contributing to some excessive enthusiasm. Of course Bradford was taking what the defense gave him - and we gave him quite a bit by playing back and then coming up to tackle. Isn't that exactly what people complained about with the old system? I could find 30 threads focused on people berating the old system on it's own merits even when successful. It was DESIGNED to bend but not break. Our new one is designed to get off the field, yet they couldn't stop the Rams from getting into Colts territory until there were two minutes left in the first half. Were their starters even in at that point? If not for a ridiculous unforced fumble and a couple of penalties, the Rams would very likely have scored 2-3 times more in the first half. What happens when we play a good team? I think that Bradford has a lot of potential (slowed by injuries) but he didn't look all that special yesterday - yet he was still 7-9.

I'm not glum about anything, I just have minimal emotions available for a pre-season game in a rebuilding year. Meaningless game in what is very likely to be a long and comparatively dull season. The only plays in that game which resulted in my feeling any emotions at all were the 5-6 where Luck did something to suggest that he's going to be special. I started to have confidence in him, which after last years "expectation of disaster" on every single play was a blessed relief. That did NOT include the first play by the way. The euphoria for that anomaly is a bit ridiculous.

The Texans were a team which was horrible for years, and invested a LOT of high draft picks garnered during those years on defense - primarily to try and stop the Colts. They were always a talented disappointment. Last year they added a great DC who was able to put the talent to better use. How does that compare to the Colts? There are question marks galore and obvious holes. I doubt that even the coaches have a clue how they will stack up. It will be interesting to watch the transition, and they will be more effective simply because the offense will hold the ball more and perhaps get the lead occasionally, but it seems unlikely that they will be remotely comparable to last years Texans defense.

There was no preparation or anticipation for what either side was going to do because no one game planned on either side, so the first statement doesn't apply. Neither side went in anticipating what the other was going to do I suspect. Luck clearly stated as far as the colts go that they watched very little to no film in order to "anticipate" what the other side was going to do. I can make a decent assumption that the Rams took the same position.

There is not a team in this league that you can find that doesn't employ some form of bend but don't break defense at some point in the game. Even when teams are not playing cover 2 you will still find them playing some form of off coverage. There is obviously a benefit to playing off otherwise teams would never do it. They had a reason for choosing to do so. I don't believe there are any teams that line up and say "hey we don't want these guys to get off the field". Every defense is designed to get the other team off the field. Unfortunately the other team gets paid as well to keep themselves on the field and they do it either by exploiting weak areas in the defense if it's zone or if it's man to man they exploit favorable talent and size match ups.

My statement regarding poor defenders had to do with the fact that we were getting beat due to the coverage that was played at the time and Bradfords ability to recognize the weak point in the defense. I made the point to say it had nothing to do with the talent level of the players on the defense. I don't care if the real Baltimore Ravens were running that defense against the Rams, the same result would have been achieved because Bradford found the weak point in the defense scheme. Any team would have got beaten who chose to run that defensive coverage against that offensive formation regardless of talent. These are things that are correctable in my eye. The pre-season is a time for experimentation, they can certainly make adjustments to what is being ran. Those things can be fixed most definitely.

Now if the Colts would have game planned for the Rams it is likely they may have chosen to attack those formations with a better defensive look because they prepared for it. In regards to you asking me about a definition of a poor defense, I did not attempt to say what a poor defense was as a collective but my statement was that the completions were not due to a lack of individual talent or busted coverages, or bad tackling. Your take on things sounds more like you are saying the colts "holes" are due to lack of talent. I disagree.

Let's get to your statement about the Texans. As far as I am aware, Chuck Pagano was brought to Indianapolis to do the exact same thing as Wade Phillips was in Houston. They bought him in to fix the defense primarily. I'm not sure what "talent" you are speaking to in your assesment of the Texans when Phillips was brought in? Who did they have other than Mario Williams, Connor Barwin, and Brian Cushing? Is there anyone else on that defense that was worth mentioning other than those 3? They had the cornerback that now plays for Atlanta, but obviously he doesn't count. They had Kareem Jackson, but no one in there right mind will call that guy a good player.

When the draft came around they drafted Brooks Reed, J.J. Watt and they aquired Jonathan Joseph. Which one of those guys will you take over someone on this Colts team? I'd say not many! I wouldn't have any problems keeping Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis over Mario Williams and Connor Barwin or even Brooks Reed and Connor Barwin. I'd keep Jarrard Powers over Kareem Jackson. Brian Cushing is okay, but he's not so great that I would really be in a rush to get rid of Pat Angerer. I'd get rid of someone on this team for Jonathan Joseph, but that guy is definitely not talented enough for me to want him really bad. I'd also get rid of someone on this team for J.J. Watt, but i'm satisfied with Cory Redding if we had to keep him, and then there is Drake Nevis who is no slouch. I think the talent level between the Colts and the Texans is not far off at all defensively when you look closely at things. Point to someone on their defense and say "This guy is way better than anyone we have". You won't come up with many players at all!

I don't think I am saying we will do what they did last year because only time will tell, but talent wise I don't think we are far off at all when compared to what they have even on their current team.

[jbaron04]

After watching Andrew Luck rip the Rams and our defense play relatively better than was expected, are any of you thinking differently about the regular season?

Before today's game I had us at 5 wins, but after seeing how well we played (even if it was against the Rams) I have us winning 9-10 games. I mean c'mon. Our defense seems to be on great pace, and we don't even need to worry about our offense.

Your thoughts?

How many winning season have over rated fisher had in his 20 years glad drew12 layed the smack down on him lol

[Gavin]

How many winning season have over rated fisher had in his 20 years glad drew12 layed the smack down on him lol

He took the Titans to the Super Bowl

[jbaron04]

He took the Titans to the Super Bowl

One time 13 years ago fisher sucks

[Superman]

I don't think Jeff Fisher sucks, but he's definitely overrated.

[jbaron04]

I don't think Jeff Fisher sucks, but he's definitely overrated.

He's overrated I mean you would think he's won superbowls or something the way some people talk bout him, the game is slowing passing him bye as it do many coaches

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO We just beat a VERY BAD Rams team, IN PRE SEASON to boot!! We are still a 4 to 5 win team lmao