Are the Colts Top 10?

[IndyTrav]

Fairly simple question. I personally have them tied @ 10 with a few other teams. This being the Colts forum, Im sure to get blasted and called a hater, but I call it how I see it, and this team doesn't seem to do anything particularly well.

In no order: Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Jets, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons.

Tied with: Texans, Buccs, Chiefs.

[Peyton and Eli fan]

right around 10th is fair

[NYColt]

Nice first post

Patriots - on paper they're better than us but as usual this will come down to the wire no matter who's playing

Ravens - we have their number

Jets - they did not upgrade their pass-rush, they will lose at least Edwards or Cromartie, or even both which will be a huge blow to a team that invested heavily in free agency (and rented Cro for 1 year with a 2nd rounder if they don't re-sign him). Their 1st round draft pick is in danger of being deported and their D, talent-wise is pretty mediocre. If we were healthy we'd kill these guys. Rex is a fantastic coach though (I would love him to be the Colts HC in a fantasy world) - but his team is bound to take a step back this year after over-achieving for 2 years.

Chargers - these guys could be 1-15 and they'd probably still beat us. Hate these guys. But they just lost Ron Riviera who has been excellent at limiting (and outright embarassing Manning) the last few years ...hopefully with him gone their D will take a step back

Steelers - they likely won't be able to re-sign Ike Taylor and their secondary is a huge weakness plus their poor pass-protecting O-line plays to our D's strengths. I'm not scared of these guys at all - they would've been massacred by the Patriots last year if they beat the Jets

Packers - I think they're better than the Colts; what I find impressive about them is they won the Superbowl with the highest number of games missed by starters in the league (although we had more players on IR) meaning they'll only be better this year. We got crushed by these guys in 2008 and they're even better now - this is one team I don't want to face.

Eagles - we were half a roster short of beating these guys with a FG despite them coming off a bye-week and Manning throwing to Brandon King. Not scared of them one bit.

Saints - F these guys. Seriously.

Falcons - lol!!!!!!!!

Remember that last year was an aberration - half our players were on IR practically. We get that much better this year simply by getting healthy - I don't think this year's squad will be as dominant as those of years past but then again that's what I thought about the 2009 roster and look how that played out

I'd slide us in around 5th or 6th

[braveheartcolt]

Nice first post

Patriots - on paper they're better than us but as usual this will come down to the wire no matter who's playing

Ravens - we have their number

Jets - they did not upgrade their pass-rush, they will lose at least Edwards or Cromartie, or even both which will be a huge blow to a team that invested heavily in free agency (and rented Cro for 1 year with a 2nd rounder if they don't re-sign him). Their 1st round draft pick is in danger of being deported and their D, talent-wise is pretty mediocre. If we were healthy we'd kill these guys. Rex is a fantastic coach though (I would love him to be the Colts HC in a fantasy world) - but his team is bound to take a step back this year after over-achieving for 2 years.

Chargers - these guys could be 1-15 and they'd probably still beat us. Hate these guys. But they just lost Ron Riviera who has been excellent at limiting (and outright embarassing Manning) the last few years ...hopefully with him gone their D will take a step back

Steelers - they likely won't be able to re-sign Ike Taylor and their secondary is a huge weakness plus their poor pass-protecting O-line plays to our D's strengths. I'm not scared of these guys at all - they would've been massacred by the Patriots last year if they beat the Jets

Packers - I think they're better than the Colts; what I find impressive about them is they won the Superbowl with the highest number of games missed by starters in the league (although we had more players on IR) meaning they'll only be better this year. We got crushed by these guys in 2008 and they're even better now - this is one team I don't want to face.

Eagles - we were half a roster short of beating these guys with a FG despite them coming off a bye-week and Manning throwing to Brandon King. Not scared of them one bit.

Saints - F these guys. Seriously.

Falcons - lol!!!!!!!!

Remember that last year was an aberration - half our players were on IR practically. We get that much better this year simply by getting healthy - I don't think this year's squad will be as dominant as those of years past but then again that's what I thought about the 2009 roster and look how that played out

I'd slide us in around 5th or 6th

Are we rating at end of last year, with injuries? Are we rating as projected roster for week 1? How do we rate without knowing who is coming back, how the rookies will be (normal puzzle I suppose), how well teams cope with the lockout and loss of summer activities, what FA's are signed, how will Peyton's neck be etc? Probably the hardest preseason 'forecast' there has been for a while.

But with all things being equal, we must be a top 5, along with Packers, Patriots, Steelers & Saints.

[Wyld1]

Simple answer, YES.

[BOTT]

if you are going by roster talent the colts probably aren't top 10....but somehow they will be a top 5-6 team in the league.

[Coltswarriors]

No doubt.

In no order the top 10 for me would be:

1. Colts

2. Patriots

3. Ravens

4. Steelers

5. Jets

6. Chargers

7. Packers

8. Saints

9. Falcons

10. Eagles

[Rich Cannon]

this was def a fairly simple vote, looking at our team for the past 10 years we have been a playoff contender, had several pro bowl players, and have one a superbowl (should have at least 2 more) you can ask anyone in the NFL doesnt matter what team they cheer for, thay have to give our INDY COLTS the respect they deserve. TOP 10 EASILY

[Superman]

I think, until/unless we get our issues figured out and are healthy, we're right outside the elite bunch, all of whom are flawed in one way or another -- Packers, Patriots, Steelers, Eagles. I'd put us in the same group with the Jets, Ravens, Falcons, Bears, Chargers, Saints, probably toward the top of that group. And ahead of the Texans, Giants, Bucs, etc.

This is all premature, considering free agency will change the landscape. I'm also automatically downgrading every team with a new head coach, aside from the Vikings and Cowboys. Now it seems smart that the Texans and Jaguars didn't make any changes, and it puts the Niners, Raiders, Panthers, Broncos, etc. behind the curve.

[Superman]

I think, until/unless we get our issues figured out and are healthy, we're right outside the elite bunch, all of whom are flawed in one way or another -- Packers, Patriots, Steelers, Eagles. I'd put us in the same group with the Jets, Ravens, Falcons, Bears, Chargers, Saints, probably toward the top of that group. And ahead of the Texans, Giants, Bucs, etc.

This is all premature, considering free agency will change the landscape. I'm also automatically downgrading every team with a new head coach, aside from the Vikings and Cowboys. Now it seems smart that the Texans and Jaguars didn't make any changes, and it puts the Niners, Raiders, Panthers, Broncos, etc. behind the curve.

[Andy]

no order: Patriots, Steelers, Saints, Packers, Jets... then the Colts. I see the Colts around 6th or 7th, but it's one of few teams in the NFL that will always put up a good fight. You don't see that with the Steelers...

[BOTT]

I think, until/unless we get our issues figured out and are healthy, we're right outside the elite bunch, all of whom are flawed in one way or another -- Packers, Patriots, Steelers, Eagles. I'd put us in the same group with the Jets, Ravens, Falcons, Bears, Chargers, Saints, probably toward the top of that group. And ahead of the Texans, Giants, Bucs, etc.

This is all premature, considering free agency will change the landscape. I'm also automatically downgrading every team with a new head coach, aside from the Vikings and Cowboys. Now it seems smart that the Texans and Jaguars didn't make any changes, and it puts the Niners, Raiders, Panthers, Broncos, etc. behind the curve.

you kinda lost creditability when u mentioned the bears.....

[21isSuperman]

In no order: Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Jets, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons.

Tied with: Texans, Buccs, Chiefs.

Pats - Colts-Pats game are almost always a toss-up. You could flip a coin and predict the winner. They are almost always close and come down to the final few possessions. I certainly wouldn't say they are better than the Colts, it's too close to call.

Ravens - We have their number. Every Colts-Ravens game is "This time it's revenge for taking the Colts" and we end up beating them by 15 points. Peyton knows their defense very well and they might have some tricks for him in the first half, but by the second half, Peyton knows their defense and shreds them.

Steelers - As we saw the Pack do, you just need to go out in a 2 by 2 receiver set and you take care of their defense easily. Roethlisberger is overrated. Their team has a few screws loose (Roethlisberger, Mendenhall, Harrison)

Jets - I'm still not sold on them. Decent running game and a good defense (which Peyton knows pretty well too, since it's similar to the Ravens' D), but I'm not sold on Sanchez yet. He hasn't improved the way a guy like Matt Ryan has and didn't start out as well as a guy like Sam Bradford.

Chargers - It is always tough playing these guys. They did lose Rivera, who knew how to get to Peyton well, but they are still a threat to beat us any time we play.

Eagles - I like the Eagles, I like Vick and I like their explosive offense. This is a Super Bowl contending team if you ask me.

Pack - Solid, young team. Won the Super Bowl with tons of injuries, so how good will they be with all of their starters back healthy?

Saints - If you replay the Super Bowl with a healthy Colts team and a healthy Saints team, the Colts win 9 times out of 10. They are a good team, but let's recall the last game they played. A playoff loss to arguably the worst playoff team in NFL history. The (former) defending Super Bowl champions lost to the only team to ever make it to the playoffs by losing more games than they won.

Falcons - I like this team. I still put the Colts above them, but only slightly.

Chiefs/Bucs - I don't think these teams are considered top 10 yet. They did have success last year, but they need to keep it going to be considered a contender and a top 10 team. I am not sold on Cassel as a franchise QB.

I would put is in the 4-6 range.

[Peyton and Eli fan]

I don't think you can say Colts are top 5 until we know how Peyton's neck/shoulder are and until something is done to improve the run defense a bit.

[wercolts]

The best QB, 2 top shelf pass rushers, top ten recieving crew, good corners, underrated O-line, outstanding kickers, very fast defense and a built in culture of winning. I think that narrows it down to top 5 at the very least, and more like top 3 IMO.

[Andy]

The best QB, 2 top shelf pass rushers, top ten recieving crew, good corners, underrated O-line, outstanding kickers, very fast defense and a built in culture of winning. I think that narrows it down to top 5 at the very least, and more like top 3 IMO.

I agree on the Qb, pass rusher, receiving, fast defense and kicking, but....

We have some corners with great potential, but as of right now there not that great. We have an overpaid one who only gets 2 picks a year. A guy who's only good in the nickel defense. A guy who has a lot of potential, but is still young and learning. Same with Tryon. I wouldn't say good yet.

We don't know about our O-line, it's going to be completely different next year, because 2 rookies could very well be starters next year (probably), and a tackle moving back to his old position. Now if you're talking about last year, our O-line was horrible, so bad that it made Peyton uncomfortable and made him throw stupid interceptions that cost us some games. The running game was also horrible, and our O-line was a part of that problem. I would change it to up-and-coming cornerbacks, and bad O-line, but it's looking good for next year.

[Superman]

you kinda lost creditability when u mentioned the bears.....

They won 11 games last year, and that's with Jay Cutler holding on to the ball and taking 50 sacks. Once he started getting rid of it, they started putting up points, and they went to the NFC Championship. If not for Cutler's injury, they might have been in the Super Bowl. Then they went out and absolutely nailed the first three rounds of the draft (Carimi, Paea, Conte). Before free agency, the Bears are a top ten team in the NFL.

By the way, every team was flawed. The Pats were the best team in the NFL last year, and Brady was the best quarterback, but they lost their first playoff game because they had trouble rushing the passer and defending the pass. The Packers couldn't run the ball. Until we see what these final 53's look like, this is all premature. But based on what we know now, there's no way the Bears aren't a top ten team in the NFL.

[husker61]

easily top 5 without injury problems (12-4).

[BOTT]

They won 11 games last year, and that's with Jay Cutler holding on to the ball and taking 50 sacks. Once he started getting rid of it, they started putting up points, and they went to the NFC Championship. If not for Cutler's injury, they might have been in the Super Bowl. Then they went out and absolutely nailed the first three rounds of the draft (Carimi, Paea, Conte). Before free agency, the Bears are a top ten team in the NFL.

By the way, every team was flawed. The Pats were the best team in the NFL last year, and Brady was the best quarterback, but they lost their first playoff game because they had trouble rushing the passer and defending the pass. The Packers couldn't run the ball. Until we see what these final 53's look like, this is all premature. But based on what we know now, there's no way the Bears aren't a top ten team in the NFL.

i don't think the bears are good now and i didn't think they were good when they went to the super bowl. i wouldn't be surprised at all if they didn't make the playoffs. it always seems the bears win games in odd ways....i can't really put a finger on it, but every time i watch them i don't see a top team.

[21isSuperman]

i don't think the bears are good now and i didn't think they were good when they went to the super bowl. i wouldn't be surprised at all if they didn't make the playoffs. it always seems the bears win games in odd ways....i can't really put a finger on it, but every time i watch them i don't see a top team.

I feel the same way. The play from their offensive line was shaky and their defense is starting to get up there in age. I'm not completely sold on Cutler yet and they need a solid number 1 WR.

[-JJ-]

Well the top 10 (which has to included the Colts and Pats) are all tied for 10th. No team is above 10 at this point:)

[Terman8er]

if you are going by roster talent the colts probably aren't top 10....but somehow they will be a top 5-6 team in the league.

Your point about "roster talent" is proof positive how a "team" will always beat out a good group of talented players.

And to answer your question, yes. We are most definitely top 10.

[21isSuperman]

If you go by talent alone, the Cowboys should be pretty high each year...

[John Waylon]

I voted "No" simply for the lols, and I'm disappointed that I am the first one to do so. Shame on all of you. :pot:

Yes, we're top 10. TBH, I'd have trouble ranking us in the top 5 because we DO have some issues that could become pretty serious if we don't do something about it, but top 10 is fair.

[BOTT]

If you go by talent alone, the Cowboys should be pretty high each year...

i feel the cowboys have been held back by lackluster coaching the last several years. the same can be said of san diego.

considering the colts hired caldwell, maybe i shouldn't be throwing stones.....

[Superman]

i don't think the bears are good now and i didn't think they were good when they went to the super bowl. i wouldn't be surprised at all if they didn't make the playoffs. it always seems the bears win games in odd ways....i can't really put a finger on it, but every time i watch them i don't see a top team.

Fourth best record in the NFL last year, final four team in the playoffs, home playoff win... I get that they don't pass your eyeball test, but that doesn't undermine the fact that they won 11 games last year and were *this close* to the Super Bowl. Top ten is basically the top third of the NFL. It's not exclusive company.

[NYY13]

definitely in the top 10 and there is not doubt about that. i might even say they may be one of the top 5 teams in the NFL right now. if they didnt have so many injuries, they would have had a much better season.

[ViriLudant]

I'd say in the 6-10 range.

Great WR corp, great TEs, and of course, great QB.

Other than that, I don't find any other unit to be especially impressive.

The two DE's are great, of course, but not the O-line in general, and Freeney spins himself out of a LOT of plays. I know what his role is, but it's very easy to run at his spot on the line.

LBs are decent, certainly nothing special.

Secondary is pretty decent; still have to see about Bullitt, who's a good, not great, safety.

O-Line? Gotta hope that the rookies come to play, otherwise it'll be another tough year in that area.

Special teams? Vinatieri aside, nothing great. Particularly on coverage.

[jskinnz]

i feel the cowboys have been held back by lackluster coaching the last several years. the same can be said of san diego.

considering the colts hired caldwell, maybe i shouldn't be throwing stones.....

Dude - I so feel you about Caldwell and his lackluster team. I mean in his two years as coach they have only won 75% of their regular season games, been to the playoffs twice, the Super Bowl once and despite a virtually unprecendented rash of injuries last year still won 10 games and their division. If that is not a record worth firing someone over, I don't know what is.

On topic, the Colts are a top 10 team.

[IndyTrav]

I see a lot of people mentioning past accomplishments as an indicator to future results, and this bothers me. I really enjoy when people list the Colts resume as if everyone in this forum doesn't know it by heart already. I've narrowed it down to two things, blind homerism, or a blind eye to 31 other NFL teams. I've been expecting to see some interesting thoughts and ideas, but aside from a few posters, it's just been 'blah colts blah'. So let's gets this debate started a little further. We have a 35 yr old QB coming off neck surgery, a 32yr WR who can't afford to lose a step, a 31yr speed rusher with a history of leg problems, a RB who can run N and S, another RB who can't block, a 2 WR that can catch half the time, another WR who's career is still in question, a 32yr TE who's taken a career beating and coming off season ending surgery, and a HC who would probably not be a HC on 30 other teams. And this is the team most of you consider top 5? I love to Colts as much as all of you, but let's be real here.

[IndyTrav]

Double post

[Superman]

I see a lot of people mentioning past accomplishments as an indicator to future results, and this bothers me. I really enjoy when people list the Colts resume as if everyone in this forum doesn't know it by heart already. I've narrowed it down to two things, blind homerism, or a blind eye to 31 other NFL teams. I've been expecting to see some interesting thoughts and ideas, but aside from a few posters, it's just been 'blah colts blah'. So let's gets this debate started a little further. We have a 35 yr old QB coming off neck surgery, a 32yr WR who can't afford to lose a step, a 31yr speed rusher with a history of leg problems, a RB who can run N and S, another RB who can't block, a 2 WR that can catch half the time, another WR who's career is still in question, a 32yr TE who's taken a career beating and coming off season ending surgery, and a HC who would probably not be a HC on 30 other teams. And this is the team most of you consider top 5? I love to Colts as much as all of you, but let's be real here.

This is hogwash. First of all, just because someone is more optimistic than you doesn't make them a blind homer, nor does it mean they don't pay attention to the other teams in the NFL. You're the one that's being close-minded.

Secondly, you listed a bunch of facts that you think are issues. Those may be issues moving forward, but what affect will those potential issues have on the performance of the team?

And it's also funny that you discount the real and tangible results of seasons past, and then in the next breath, talk about a bunch of hypothetically bad situations that haven't been realized as even being a problem at this point. You're taking issue with four of our players that are unquestionably top five at their respective positions in the NFL. Let's wait for Freeney, Wayne, Clark and Manning to actually start to decline before we attribute any concern about the team to said decline (which hasn't happened yet).

In reality, people are optimistic about the team because, in the middle of losing a record amount of man-games to injury last season, the team still won the division and was basically one play away from a playoff win. The quarterback that everyone is certain was playing through a serious injury all year (even though he's said himself that he experienced some minor discomfort and wouldn't have had surgery if not for the lockout) basically duplicated his previous season's MVP performance.

How ridiculous this is! "A 32 year old receiver who can't afford to lose a step..." What does that even mean? He caught 111 passes for 1300+ yards last year, much of the time as the only receiving threat on the field.

And then there's the fact that the poll question asks whether the team is top ten, not top five, yet you misrepresent even that. This is all too much. If you don't see reason for optimism, that's fine. But acting like everyone else has something wrong with them because they don't see having a four-time MVP at quarterback and perennial Pro Bowlers at four other positions as reason to strip it all bare and start over is just absurd.

[jskinnz]

I see a lot of people mentioning past accomplishments as an indicator to future results, and this bothers me. I really enjoy when people list the Colts resume as if everyone in this forum doesn't know it by heart already. I've narrowed it down to two things, blind homerism, or a blind eye to 31 other NFL teams. I've been expecting to see some interesting thoughts and ideas, but aside from a few posters, it's just been 'blah colts blah'. So let's gets this debate started a little further. We have a 35 yr old QB coming off neck surgery, a 32yr WR who can't afford to lose a step, a 31yr speed rusher with a history of leg problems, a RB who can run N and S, another RB who can't block, a 2 WR that can catch half the time, another WR who's career is still in question, a 32yr TE who's taken a career beating and coming off season ending surgery, and a HC who would probably not be a HC on 30 other teams. And this is the team most of you consider top 5? I love to Colts as much as all of you, but let's be real here.

I see you are bothered by some of the posts in here and some do reek of blind homerism. I am also bothered by some of the fallacies in your arugment as well.

Until I see Manning performing poorly with his neck, it seems reasonable to assume that he will be fine and be at his high level of play.

Wayne caught 100 balls last year as a 31 year old WR. Does it really seem likely to you that one year later his performance will drop significantly? Me either.

Freeney had his Lis Franc issues a few years ago. And he has been All Pro in the years since. These leg injuries you mention don't seemed to have slowed him too much.

I think you dramatically overstate Garcon's drop issues.

Clark was a track to a great year last year. Maybe the time off ultimately does him good. Even still I see no reason to think he won't get back to at least close to his previous level of play.

The HC comment is just a shot in the dark. Under Caldwell, the Colts have won a measely 75% off their games so it seems he has done something right.

One thing you fail to mention was the injuries from last year. Doesn't it seem reasonable to expect a team that gets back Clark and Collie to be better offensively? And I hate to depend on rookies because who really knows, especially this year, but they did address a team weakness with the draft.

Having faith that the Colts are a top ten team this year is not unreasonable as you make it seem.

[BOTT]

Dude - I so feel you about Caldwell and his lackluster team. I mean in his two years as coach they have only won 75% of their regular season games, been to the playoffs twice, the Super Bowl once and despite a virtually unprecendented rash of injuries last year still won 10 games and their division. If that is not a record worth firing someone over, I don't know what is.

On topic, the Colts are a top 10 team.

ohhhh the sarcasm!! hey everybody welcome barry switzer to the board!!! or is it larry coker?

[braveheartcolt]

Dude - I so feel you about Caldwell and his lackluster team. I mean in his two years as coach they have only won 75% of their regular season games, been to the playoffs twice, the Super Bowl once and despite a virtually unprecendented rash of injuries last year still won 10 games and their division. If that is not a record worth firing someone over, I don't know what is.

On topic, the Colts are a top 10 team.

You or I could have managed this team to the same record. In fact, probably to better one.

[IndyTrav]

This is hogwash. First of all, just because someone is more optimistic than you doesn't make them a blind homer, nor does it mean they don't pay attention to the other teams in the NFL. You're the one that's being close-minded.

Secondly, you listed a bunch of facts that you think are issues. Those may be issues moving forward, but what affect will those potential issues have on the performance of the team?

And it's also funny that you discount the real and tangible results of seasons past, and then in the next breath, talk about a bunch of hypothetically bad situations that haven't been realized as even being a problem at this point. You're taking issue with four of our players that are unquestionably top five at their respective positions in the NFL. Let's wait for Freeney, Wayne, Clark and Manning to actually start to decline before we attribute any concern about the team to said decline (which hasn't happened yet).

In reality, people are optimistic about the team because, in the middle of losing a record amount of man-games to injury last season, the team still won the division and was basically one play away from a playoff win. The quarterback that everyone is certain was playing through a serious injury all year (even though he's said himself that he experienced some minor discomfort and wouldn't have had surgery if not for the lockout) basically duplicated his previous season's MVP performance.

How ridiculous this is! "A 32 year old receiver who can't afford to lose a step..." What does that even mean? He caught 111 passes for 1300+ yards last year, much of the time as the only receiving threat on the field.

And then there's the fact that the poll question asks whether the team is top ten, not top five, yet you misrepresent even that. This is all too much. If you don't see reason for optimism, that's fine. But acting like everyone else has something wrong with them because they don't see having a four-time MVP at quarterback and perennial Pro Bowlers at four other positions as reason to strip it all bare and start over is just absurd.

Not once did I say being optimistic was the equivalent to being a homer, but to simply imply that "We are the Colts!" as a reason to be Top 10 is worthless. Why have a forum if you cant have a quality, intelligent discussion. Instead its "def top 5" well, why are they Top 5? They are Top 5 because we won a bunch of games in 08 and 09? Because we have a great Off, and Def gameplan? Explain your position. Obviously this isn't directed at you, because you present the reasons you feel the way you do.

One play from winning the game? That applies to every botched snap, missed throw, and blown call in every game, every week, for every team. The reason we lost is because the Jets were the better team. We were 6-6, won 4 (3Div) and got beat, at home by a team who isn't scared of us.

What about Reggie not being able to afford losing a step is not accurate. Reggie isn't a burner, he runs crisp routes and has hands of gold, but even the best get old, Reggie will be 33 during the stretch run. Some players that were similar to Reggie in there careers were Marvin, Torry Holt, Housh, Chad OchoCinco, Isaac Bruce, L. Coles, D. Driver, H.Ward. All players of similar size and weight (5/11-6/1 180-220), not burners, quality rec, all having seasons of over 90rec... If you get a chance, take a look at those careers and the player ages throughout the season. I think you'd be surprised by the sudden and drastic drop that occurs. Obviously I hope Reggie is the exception, and continues on to be the Farve of WRs, but I just dont see it happening, especially if he has an injury of any kind below the waist, which at this point would only be speculation.

Yes, the poll does say Top 10, which was followed by a plethora(always reminds me of 3 Amigos) of replys saying they're are easily Top 5. I have nothing against people and the optimisim they have. I think we a good healthy season and a few good bounces we could very well be in the SB this year, and win it, but the same can be said for at least 15 other NFL teams, 9 or so that I believe can be better than us on any given Sunday, thats the beauty of the NFL, its the turnover.

[IndyTrav]

I see you are bothered by some of the posts in here and some do reek of blind homerism. I am also bothered by some of the fallacies in your arugment as well.

Until I see Manning performing poorly with his neck, it seems reasonable to assume that he will be fine and be at his high level of play.

Wayne caught 100 balls last year as a 31 year old WR. Does it really seem likely to you that one year later his performance will drop significantly? Me either.

Freeney had his Lis Franc issues a few years ago. And he has been All Pro in the years since. These leg injuries you mention don't seemed to have slowed him too much.

I think you dramatically overstate Garcon's drop issues.

Clark was a track to a great year last year. Maybe the time off ultimately does him good. Even still I see no reason to think he won't get back to at least close to his previous level of play.

The HC comment is just a shot in the dark. Under Caldwell, the Colts have won a measely 75% off their games so it seems he has done something right.

One thing you fail to mention was the injuries from last year. Doesn't it seem reasonable to expect a team that gets back Clark and Collie to be better offensively? And I hate to depend on rookies because who really knows, especially this year, but they did address a team weakness with the draft.

Having faith that the Colts are a top ten team this year is not unreasonable as you make it seem.

Im not saying being Top 10 is unreasonable, I am saying Top 5 is a bit of a reach.

The fact that Manning not performing at all should be a bit of an alarm. The last time he did, how many games did it take us to get back on track?

Actually Wayne dropping off significantly in one season is a huge possibility, at this point I'd be willing to say 50/50 this year. My previous post I mentioned some WR who were of similar size,weight, and skill set of Reggie. They were Marvin,Bruce,Holt,OchoCinco,Housh,Driver,Ward and maybe some others, but take a look at the career decline right around the age of 31. Very interesting. Obviously I hope Reggie is the exception, but as I said before, I think its a 50/50 shot. Having Peyton does not hurt his chances of out performing one bit.

Freeney was arguably the 2nd best DE on this team last year. He was 18th in the NFL in sacks, and of the other 17 none of them had less than 33 tackles (2) one at 35/37 and the rest were all well above. Dwight had 21. His sacking is becoming less and less of an impact when he helps allow 90rush yds on his side of the field.

Garcon worries me(see Wayne, Reggie) because I don't believe he has what it takes to be a #1 WR, not even close, and with my worries about Reggie I feel Garcon may be put in that situation.

Honestly with Clark, I expect a 50/50 split with him and Tamme by week 10. Just can't do that to Tamme, he deserves a shot, he proved it.

Its my opinion that 90% the time the other sideline has the advantage over the Colts, it all comes down to the product on the field obviously, but I don't hold the Colts coaching staff in high football regard.

No its not unreasonable to expect the Colts to be better with Collie (maybe he comes back 100%)or Clark (season ending injury) back on the field, but however I think it is unreasonable for most of our team to even come close to replicating past success.

[jskinnz]

Im not saying being Top 10 is unreasonable, I am saying Top 5 is a bit of a reach.

The fact that Manning not performing at all should be a bit of an alarm. The last time he did, how many games did it take us to get back on track?

Actually Wayne dropping off significantly in one season is a huge possibility, at this point I'd be willing to say 50/50 this year. My previous post I mentioned some WR who were of similar size,weight, and skill set of Reggie. They were Marvin,Bruce,Holt,OchoCinco,Housh,Driver,Ward and maybe some others, but take a look at the career decline right around the age of 31. Very interesting. Obviously I hope Reggie is the exception, but as I said before, I think its a 50/50 shot. Having Peyton does not hurt his chances of out performing one bit.

Freeney was arguably the 2nd best DE on this team last year. He was 18th in the NFL in sacks, and of the other 17 none of them had less than 33 tackles (2) one at 35/37 and the rest were all well above. Dwight had 21. His sacking is becoming less and less of an impact when he helps allow 90rush yds on his side of the field.

Garcon worries me(see Wayne, Reggie) because I don't believe he has what it takes to be a #1 WR, not even close, and with my worries about Reggie I feel Garcon may be put in that situation.

Honestly with Clark, I expect a 50/50 split with him and Tamme by week 10. Just can't do that to Tamme, he deserves a shot, he proved it.

Its my opinion that 90% the time the other sideline has the advantage over the Colts, it all comes down to the product on the field obviously, but I don't hold the Colts coaching staff in high football regard.

No its not unreasonable to expect the Colts to be better with Collie (maybe he comes back 100%)or Clark (season ending injury) back on the field, but however I think it is unreasonable for most of our team to even come close to replicating past success.

From people who have a clue, you have basically lost all credibility with this post. The statement that Freeney was the 2nd best DE on the team should earn you a lifetime ban from this board. That is a comically uninformed thought.

Almost as bad is the Clark splitting time with Tamme by week 10. The reason given is a beauty - because "you can't do that to Tamme." 100% pure bovine excrement. You know how you do that to Tamme? Because Clark is better. Significantly so.

And Manning's injury? You mention the last time he had a procedure in advance of the season, he only managed to lead them to 12 wins again and won an MVP. Does not mean that will happen again but the common reporting is that he will only miss a few weeks of camp. If that is the case, there is no reason to expect anything less than what he has proven time and again.

[IndyTrav]

From people who have a clue, you have basically lost all credibility with this post. The statement that Freeney was the 2nd best DE on the team should earn you a lifetime ban from this board. That is a comically uninformed thought.

Almost as bad is the Clark splitting time with Tamme by week 10. The reason given is a beauty - because "you can't do that to Tamme." 100% pure bovine excrement. You know how you do that to Tamme? Because Clark is better. Significantly so.

And Manning's injury? You mention the last time he had a procedure in advance of the season, he only managed to lead them to 12 wins again and won an MVP. Does not mean that will happen again but the common reporting is that he will only miss a few weeks of camp. If that is the case, there is no reason to expect anything less than what he has proven time and again.

Really? You think so? Our inability to stop the run would surely be assisted Dwight shot a gap rather than swim move himself out of 85% of plays. Im sure you've seen it a thousand times, but thats what one magical sack does, it makes people forget that the guy was getting butchered for the last 6 qts. Obviously Dwight is an excellent player, one we are lucky to have, but he is absolutely horrendous at helping defend the run. I would 100% take 2 Robert Mathiss over 2 Freeneys. Esp. from a GM stand point.

Yea, we started 3-4, and had an amazing run to finish the season. Of course I remember, I also clearly remember the 3-4 part b/c of a weakly lead Offense, nearly all of whom will be the starters this year, only 3 years older, some coming off injury, in a very weird NFL off-season.

And yes, we will all be seeing a lot of Tamme this year, how is that even a question? The guy caught 67 passes in 10 games. Two TE sets out the kazoo, and he'll only have progressed more this offseason. Clarks clearly the starter for now, but don't dismiss the Peytons security blanket for 10 games last year, 7 rec a game for the last 3 games, all of which we needed to win. An aging star gets injured, young guy comes in and performs well in his absence. What generally happens in situations like this?

[Superman]

Not once did I say being optimistic was the equivalent to being a homer, but to simply imply that "We are the Colts!" as a reason to be Top 10 is worthless. Why have a forum if you cant have a quality, intelligent discussion. Instead its "def top 5" well, why are they Top 5? They are Top 5 because we won a bunch of games in 08 and 09? Because we have a great Off, and Def gameplan? Explain your position. Obviously this isn't directed at you, because you present the reasons you feel the way you do.

So your calling out posters on the board for not giving what you call quality, intelligent discussions, but there's tons of quality and intelligent discussion in this thread already. I don't understand why you'd see the need to antagonize a few people you don't agree with when you could engage posters who have thrown down some meat. And I don't mean to antagonize you, I just don't get it, and the whole "blind homer" thing is a lowest common denominator type one-liner that isn't really any better than "We are the Colts!" JMO

One play from winning the game? That applies to every botched snap, missed throw, and blown call in every game, every week, for every team. The reason we lost is because the Jets were the better team. We were 6-6, won 4 (3Div) and got beat, at home by a team who isn't scared of us.

Very true. It's trite and cliched, but football is a game of inches. And with a stop on special teams, we probably win that game. One play. Jets might have been the better team, but I think that would hold true even if we got that special team stop and won the game. I don't think it matters that they're not afraid of us, as I don't think any team is afraid, and I certainly don't think we lost because we're afraid of them.

Matter of fact, fear works in a lot of different ways. Rex Ryan held the dogs back, contrary to his every instinct and what he's done throughout his career as a defensive playcaller, because he didn't want to give Manning blitz looks. That fear, if you want to call it that, helped them win the game. Especially when you contrast that matchup with the AFCCG in 2009. Just an aside.

What about Reggie not being able to afford losing a step is not accurate. Reggie isn't a burner, he runs crisp routes and has hands of gold, but even the best get old, Reggie will be 33 during the stretch run. Some players that were similar to Reggie in there careers were Marvin, Torry Holt, Housh, Chad OchoCinco, Isaac Bruce, L. Coles, D. Driver, H.Ward. All players of similar size and weight (5/11-6/1 180-220), not burners, quality rec, all having seasons of over 90rec... If you get a chance, take a look at those careers and the player ages throughout the season. I think you'd be surprised by the sudden and drastic drop that occurs. Obviously I hope Reggie is the exception, and continues on to be the Farve of WRs, but I just dont see it happening, especially if he has an injury of any kind below the waist, which at this point would only be speculation.

Many of the receivers you mentioned had significant injuries as they got older. Some of them were never as good as Reggie. Some of them were burners, and lost their speed. I think the fact that Reggie is a technician as opposed to a speedster could prolong his career. Marvin was still at the top of the game before he got hurt, and it's a "who knows" situation with him. But yeah, everybody gets old. But Reggie hasn't suffered any significant injuries, nor does he get hit with any regularity. He's a smart receiver who relies on his technical skills more than his physical abilities, and he has shown no signs of slowing down. I think it's a super stretch to say that his age is a possible reason that the Colts aren't a top ten team in the NFL.

Yes, the poll does say Top 10, which was followed by a plethora(always reminds me of 3 Amigos) of replys saying they're are easily Top 5. I have nothing against people and the optimisim they have. I think we a good healthy season and a few good bounces we could very well be in the SB this year, and win it, but the same can be said for at least 15 other NFL teams, 9 or so that I believe can be better than us on any given Sunday, thats the beauty of the NFL, its the turnover.

So, in so many words, you'd probably put the Colts in the top ten if you were to break it down team by team yourself, no? That's why I don't get the reply. I think the only reason we didn't perform better last year was the injuries and a few bad bounces (Collie's fumble in the opener against the Texans cost us big time, and a win there might set some things different throughout the year).