Warhawk
-
Posts
1,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Warhawk
-
-
I'm just going to take this in the most positive way, which is to say that the Colts were considering a QB who has had a fantastic rookie season, and when he was taken before their pick, ended up settling for a WR who has had a fantastic rookie season.
I think that speaks rather highly of our scouting department.
-
I would err on the high side if I were guessing because of the following reasons:
1. Luck's average yards per game over the last 6 games is about 40 yards more than his average over the first 6 games (though his attempts have stayed pretty much the same)
2. Houston is having some problems on pass defense lately, giving up 300+ to Henne and Locker and 400+ to Stafford. They are ranked 19th in the league in pass defense, but 2nd in run defense.
3. The Colts will likely have to pass a lot against Houston due to the scoreboard, so in addition to being the right way to attack Houston, it's also likely to be necessary.
4. 3 of the last 4 games will be played indoors (2 at home, 1 in Houston).
-
Slice the data provided above as to who were home teams. That matters a lot.
If I remember right, the 7-9 Seahawks in 2010 had a home game, so did the 2006 Seahawks with Romo muffing a hold for the game winning FG. The 2011 Broncos with Tebow, we know Ryan Clark cannot play there and Polamalu has to play last line of D instead of a game changing role which he does by instinct up front. In all my years of playoff watching, that was the worst game that Dick LeBeau has ever called in the playoffs on D. Give credit to Tebow to make the throws that he had to but a lot of things were not right with the Steelers' D that night, cant explain why.
Home teams are 6-1 (4-0 in their last 4), Away teams are 4-5 (although 3-1 in their last 4). Oddly, the last 5 teams were all home teams, while the 6 previously were all away teams.
-
Could be bad news if you factor in the law of averages.
Which is really just a more sophisticated way of saying something is "due" to happen.
-
I just did some Colts-related research, looking at teams who have made the playoffs with a negative point differential.
The conclusion is that they are at an overwhelming disadvantage against the top 2 seeds, BUT, you do NOT want to face a team with a negative point differential in the wild card round.
Since 1990, when the playoffs expanded to 6 teams per conference, there have been 17 teams to make the playoffs with a negative point differential. 2 of them went 10-6, 12 went 9-7, 2 went 8-8, and 1 went 7-9 (the Colts could very easily be the third at 10-6, if they can beat Tennessee and Kansas City - it's not inconceivable they could be the first to do it at 11-5 or 12-4, because even if they did somehow win out and sweep Houston, they'd have to win those 4 games by an average of over 10 points per game, which doesn't seem likely the way they've been winning).
Teams with a negative point differential (all of whom played in the wild card round) are a combined 10-7 in wild card round games, and 13-16 overall in the playoffs. However, 5 of those wild card losses came prior to 1997. Since 1997, those teams are an astonishing 7-2 in the wild card round, and 10-8 overall. That would include the 2011 Giants (who won the Super Bowl), the 2011 Broncos, 2010 Seahawks, 2006 Seahawks, 1999 Dolphins, 1998 Cardinals, and 1997 Vikings (who all won their first playoff games), and the 2004 Seahawks and 1999 Lions (both of whom lost their first playoff games).
Even more astonishing is the record if you take out teams who only have negative point differentials by a small margin. Teams with a double-digit negative point differential are 7-3 in their first playoff games, and are currently on a 4-game winning streak in first-round games.
Still, that means that teams with a negative point differential are 1-9 in the divisional round, and teams with a double digit negative point differential are 0-7.
-
I'd rather play the Ravens.
Because the Ravens, frankly, aren't very good.
-
We'll see how it all comes out but I think here's how it all played out. Green bay jumped ahead of us and grabbed Casy Hayward , a CB from Vandy , who btw is playing lights out. Grigson wanted to jump off a roof as he had to stick with his board and take another TE . The following round , Grigson was not going to lose his guy (his board must have been getting thin again) and he traded up around 8 (?) spots to draft Hilton. He later said he was informed that he indeed would have lost Hilton also if he had stayed put. We did lose this year's 5th making that move.
WORTH IT.
-
-
ESPN's playoff predictor gives the Ravens a 98.7% chance of making the playoffs.
-
yeah keep telling yourself this and in the mean time you might actually try watching a few Redskins games.
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?*=QB
Going into this weekend, of 36 QBs, Luck is 1st in terms of % of passes that go at least 15 yards. Griffin is 32nd, ahead of only Ponder, Kolb, Skelton, and Alex Smith.
-
27-24 Colts.
-
this team has earned that rep against teams with good defense and qb
The only team the Lions have beat by more than one score are the Jaguars, by 17, the same margin as the Colts the following week, both games in Jacksonville. They lost to the Titans and twice to the Vikings. They beat the Rams, Eagles, and Seahawks by a combined 11 points. They're 2-3 at home. The Colts aren't going to lose by 35.
-
Seems pretty cut and dried that what Arians said could be considered tampering if that's an example of it. Anybody know what the fine is for it? Is it just cash, or could we be out a draft pick?
Well, according to one commenter on that article, the punishment is that Suh will be allowed to use a baseball bat to cripple Andrew Luck on Sunday.
-
And this schedule that we've had in 2010 and 2011 at the end of the year (and this year as well) is unique to the Colts. Not many other teams have three divisional games in the last four weeks, and I'm pretty sure no other team has had that overloaded closing schedule in the last three seasons. Last year, our final three were divisional games. I don't even really mind that, but having Houston twice in three weeks is really unnecessary, and is rare in the NFL, especially at the end of the season. The Steelers and Ravens don't play each other twice in the last three weeks of the season; the Giants and Cowboys don't; the Chargers and Broncos don't; the Saints and Falcons don't. As a matter of fact, I think all of those matchups have already happened twice this season, and it's Week 13.
This is something the NFL saddled the Colts with because they didn't like how we shut it down in 2009. I don't like how we shut it down in 2009 either, but you can't force a team to play for a win in a game they don't care about. If we had divisional games at the end of 2009, we still wouldn't have kept playing, because our seeding was locked up. And if Houston's seeding is locked up by Week 17, they won't push hard just because they play a divisional rival. Like I said, you can't make unimportant games important just by making them divisional games.
This is just silly, especially claiming that the NFL is trying to get back to at the Colts for 2009. In 2011, the Colts, Dolphins, Browns, Titans, Giants, Cowboys, Falcons, Panthers, 49ers, and Seahawks all had 3 divisional games in their final 4, and probably half of the rest of the teams had divisional games for their last 2 games of the season. This year the Colts, Raiders, Packers, Bears, and Seahawks have 3 of their last 4 in the division, and lot of teams finish with 2 straight division games or 2 of their last 3.
No, the Colts are not being singled out by the league for some kind of ridiculous "retribution."
-
Stopped reading after the factual error in the second paragraph.
-
Best thing is that we're in a pretty good tiebreaker scenario. If it's a 3-way tie between us, the Bengals, and the Steelers, the Colts are in automatically. Colts have an advantage in conference record on both those teams, to the point where only a very specific combination of wins and losses would result in the Colts losing the tiebreaker to the Steelers (wherein the Steelers would have to lose to the Cowboys and the Colts would have to beat the Lions, plus they'd obviously have to end up tied so the Colts would have to drop 2 or 3 more games while the Steelers go on a run). And if that happens it would be based on strength of victory. As for the Bengals, the Colts have a lead in conference and common games (and if the Colts beat the Chiefs, Colts win the tiebreaker in common games). So if the Colts lose to the Chiefs and the Texans twice, and the Bengals ended up tied with them, the Bengals would have had to lose to the Eagles AND the Cowboys to win the tiebreaker. Now, while either of those scenarios where the Colts lose the tiebreak to the Steelers or Bengals could happen, it would only be a seeding tiebreak unless the other team has a flat-out better record as well. And, of course, the Colts have a head to head win over the Dolphins. So, barring 2 of those 3 teams basically winning out, or at least going 4-1 (Dolphins would have to actually win out and the Steelers and Bengals play each other so at least one of those teams can go 4-1 at best) all the Colts really have to do is beat the Titans and Chiefs to get in the playoffs, because that would likely clinch almost any tiebreaker scenario.
TBH, the Lions game isn't that important from a tiebreaking perspective. If we had to pick a game to lose, it would be the Lions, because it wouldn't count against our conference record. Now, obviously, getting a playoff spot outright would be nice, but the point is that if we're tied with another team at the end of the season, we'd rather have lost to the Lions and beaten the Titans and Chiefs than beaten the Lions and lost to either the Titans or Chiefs.
-
Well, Grigson would know best in that regard.
Part of Asomugha's problem is the team he plays for, FWIW. If we think he can do well in our system, it make sense to go after him - for the right price, of course.
-
Figure this is as good a thread as any to mention this.
Played a game on Madden 11 between my specially-constructed 2013-roster Colts team against the Broncos (who were mostly 2011 roster, except that I made sure they got Manning).
Colts win 35-25, but that's not the funny part. Check these stat lines:
Andrew Luck: 16/27, 265 yards, 2 TDs, 5 INT, 8 rushes, 57 yards, 1 rush TD (yeah, I suck)
Peyton Manning: 26/40, 366 yards, 3 TDs, 3 INT
And Vontae Davis had 5 tackles, 1 sack, 2 INTs, and 1 TD.
That's a lot of picks!
-
We need O & D linemen more than FA CBs.
This is not an either/or proposition.
Plus there's the draft.
-
There's a big difference between "we can beat them" and "we should beat them."
-
Patty Mac... must have the most tackles by a punter in the history of the NFL.
If you don't count, like, Baugh, maybe.
But seriously, in 3.5 seasons he already has more tackles than Lechler has had in 12.5, Moorman has had in 12.5, McBriar has had in 8.5, Scifres has had in 9.5, or Kluwe has had in 7.5.
Although it doesn't appear they have tackle stats from before 2001. So I can't give an accurate comparison with a guy like Hentrich.
-
Nicely done!
OMG!
I have power!
Umm...
For my NEXT BOLD prediction... 2 hot naked chicks will materialize in my bedroom right now!
-
That is Darius Butler's first interception since 2009, and the second touchdown of his career (the first also in 2009).
-
Ken Wisenhunt
in Colts Football
Posted
Well, I do think Whisenhunt is probably the best option among the fired head coaches. Shurmur being a close second. I'd rather not try to get Turner, Gailey, or Reid.
As far as past connections with Pagano and Grigson... obviously I wouldn't want to see Cam Cameron. Maybe a bit on the fence as far as Marty Mornhinweg goes, Grigson would know whether that would be a good idea or not (this is assuming that he gets tossed along with Reid).