Our misleading 3rd easiest Schedule.....

[NewColtsFan]

So....    by now you've probably seen the stories that the Colts have the 3rd easiest schedule based on our opponents 2012 record.

 

To me this is very misleading on two levels....

 

First,  we play Jax twice and KC and Oakland and a number of other sub-500 teams.

 

Second....   NFL Network just did a feature about who might be a sleeper team?

 

Five teams were mentioned,  and four of them are on the Colts 2013 schedule.

 

Dolphins,  Bengals,  Cardinals and Chiefs.

 

All four of those teams could be much better than expected....

 

I see a 10-11 win season,   but I think this schedule is harder than it looks....

[TKnight24]

No such thing as an "Easy" schedule. Pats had the easiest last year and they finished what 12-4 or 11-5? Could've been much better than that.

Some schedules are just "easier" than others. And they base them off last year.

Who's to say JAX doesn't grab Geno Smith in the draft and he comes in here & whoops our division? I'll wait till the draft is done to see if that schedule is still "3rd easiest"

[HtownColt]

I can't judge a team until I see them up to week 4 and figure out their philosophy and tendencies, right now I don't know what a team is capable of with all the change that went on throughout the NFL. I'm literally focused on the Colts and our camps/preseason and the Raiders right now as far as opponents go

[Dan]

Ridiculous to be talking about an "easy" schedule at this point. Last year, every team against us had a schedule looking much easier because of it. I think an 11-5 record shows how misleading strength of schedule is before the season begins. 

[Superman]

Cowherd said something about this today that had me thinking. Like everyone knows, you never know what a team is going to turn out to be beforehand (case in point, your 2012 Indianapolis Colts... take a bow everyone).

 

But what doesn't change like the wind is quarterbacks. We know who the good quarterbacks are in this league already, and we know how important their play is to their team. So if you look at each team's schedule with an eye on who the opposing quarterbacks are, and what the conditions might be in those matchups, you have a better idea of who is going to have a tougher schedule. It's not foolproof, but it makes more sense than saying "Team A was terrible last year, so that means you have an easy matchup." Especially when Team A has a new quarterback.

 

For instance, would the Ravens rather face Peyton Manning in Denver in September, or in December? When will he be at his best? I'm not one of these "Manning can't play in cold weather" people, but if I had to choose between giving him great conditions or throwing a little mother nature at him, I'd choose the latter. Of course, the flip side is that you also have to play in those same conditions. But it might possibly reduce their advantage at quarterback.

 

Several of the teams on our schedule might have new quarterbacks in the next week, so it's hard to project. We open against the Raiders, which is probably in our favor if they start a rookie. We have two against the Jags, and there might be a difference between Blaine Gabbert and a potential rookie draft pick. And if they do have a rookie, he'll likely be better in Week 17 than he will be in Week 4. Similarly, playing at the Chiefs in Week 16 means their quarter, if he's a rookie, has almost an entire season under his belt by the time we face him.

 

Playing the Chargers in Week 6 gives Rivers only a month and a half to acclimate to McCoy and Whisenhunt, and he said a few days ago that basically everything is new. Playing the Cardinals in Week 12 gives Carson Palmer or whoever the starter is going to be there three months to get on board with Arians and his system.

 

We get both Kaepernick and Wilson early. Rams and Titans might have Bradford and Locker in a groove by Weeks 10 and 11, then the Titans are right back in Week 13.

 

I'm really not seeing an easy schedule, but we don't play a lot of elite quarterbacks. Only one, by my count, in Week 7. A couple really good young quarterbacks, some with some promise, others unknown.

[AntonMcG]

Personally I want us to play the best teams week in, week out, but there is no doubt our schedule could have been harder. I see a 10-win season as a realistic benchmark However, does 10 wins get us into the playoffs? It should do, but who knows.

[AntonMcG]

Cowherd said something about this today that had me thinking. Like everyone knows, you never know what a team is going to turn out to be beforehand (case in point, your 2012 Indianapolis Colts... take a bow everyone).

 

But what doesn't change like the wind is quarterbacks. We know who the good quarterbacks are in this league already, and we know how important their play is to their team. So if you look at each team's schedule with an eye on who the opposing quarterbacks are, and what the conditions might be in those matchups, you have a better idea of who is going to have a tougher schedule. It's not foolproof, but it makes more sense than saying "Team A was terrible last year, so that means you have an easy matchup." Especially when Team A has a new quarterback.

 

For instance, would the Ravens rather face Peyton Manning in Denver in September, or in December? When will he be at his best? I'm not one of these "Manning can't play in cold weather" people, but if I had to choose between giving him great conditions or throwing a little mother nature at him, I'd choose the latter. Of course, the flip side is that you also have to play in those same conditions. But it might possibly reduce their advantage at quarterback.

 

Several of the teams on our schedule might have new quarterbacks in the next week, so it's hard to project. We open against the Raiders, which is probably in our favor if they start a rookie. We have two against the Jags, and there might be a difference between Blaine Gabbert and a potential rookie draft pick. And if they do have a rookie, he'll likely be better in Week 17 than he will be in Week 4. Similarly, playing at the Chiefs in Week 16 means their quarter, if he's a rookie, has almost an entire season under his belt by the time we face him.

 

Playing the Chargers in Week 6 gives Rivers only a month and a half to acclimate to McCoy and Whisenhunt, and he said a few days ago that basically everything is new. Playing the Cardinals in Week 12 gives Carson Palmer or whoever the starter is going to be there three months to get on board with Arians and his system.

 

We get both Kaepernick and Wilson early. Rams and Titans might have Bradford and Locker in a groove by Weeks 10 and 11, then the Titans are right back in Week 13.

 

I'm really not seeing an easy schedule, but we don't play a lot of elite quarterbacks. Only one, by my count, in Week 7. A couple really good young quarterbacks, some with some promise, others unknown.

 

Good points.

 

I would be very interested in seeing a start of season vs. end of season power rankings comparison from a few credible sources, because I can barely remember the hyped teams entering the 2012 season. Tried to find such comparisons online but couldn't, so if someone wants to do it for me by all means!

 

What I would also add about strength of schedule is that it focuses on the previous seasons records, but surely the previous season also had differences in strength of schedule, which give some teams inflated records, surely they should be factored in, but if you factor those in, you need to do the same for the previous season, and so on.....

[oldunclemark]

Dont fall into the trap of calling schedules 'easy' or 'hard' because nobdoy's drafted anybody yet and dozens of free agents have changed teams...,,,I think the Giants were the only team that had the same record in 2012 than they did in 2011..

..All I see for 2013 is that the bye is in a good place ....we play few late games against cold weather outdoor teams.

..and we open and close at home...and most division games come late..  

 

That's not easy...but it is good...for making the playoffs

[oldunclemark]

Cowherd said something about this today that had me thinking. Like everyone knows, you never know what a team is going to turn out to be beforehand (case in point, your 2012 Indianapolis Colts... take a bow everyone).

 

But what doesn't change like the wind is quarterbacks. We know who the good quarterbacks are in this league already, and we know how important their play is to their team. So if you look at each team's schedule with an eye on who the opposing quarterbacks are, and what the conditions might be in those matchups, you have a better idea of who is going to have a tougher schedule. It's not foolproof, but it makes more sense than saying "Team A was terrible last year, so that means you have an easy matchup." Especially when Team A has a new quarterback.

 

For instance, would the Ravens rather face Peyton Manning in Denver in September, or in December? When will he be at his best? I'm not one of these "Manning can't play in cold weather" people, but if I had to choose between giving him great conditions or throwing a little mother nature at him, I'd choose the latter. Of course, the flip side is that you also have to play in those same conditions. But it might possibly reduce their advantage at quarterback.

 

Several of the teams on our schedule might have new quarterbacks in the next week, so it's hard to project. We open against the Raiders, which is probably in our favor if they start a rookie. We have two against the Jags, and there might be a difference between Blaine Gabbert and a potential rookie draft pick. And if they do have a rookie, he'll likely be better in Week 17 than he will be in Week 4. Similarly, playing at the Chiefs in Week 16 means their quarter, if he's a rookie, has almost an entire season under his belt by the time we face him.

 

Playing the Chargers in Week 6 gives Rivers only a month and a half to acclimate to McCoy and Whisenhunt, and he said a few days ago that basically everything is new. Playing the Cardinals in Week 12 gives Carson Palmer or whoever the starter is going to be there three months to get on board with Arians and his system.

 

We get both Kaepernick and Wilson early. Rams and Titans might have Bradford and Locker in a groove by Weeks 10 and 11, then the Titans are right back in Week 13.

 

I'm really not seeing an easy schedule, but we don't play a lot of elite quarterbacks. Only one, by my count, in Week 7. A couple really good young quarterbacks, some with some promise, others unknown.

That's an ESPN guy reaching for an angle..

 

Didnt we beat Aaron Rodgers and lose to whoever quarterbacked the Jets and Jax?

 

What does playing anybody in the NFC East mean...What do those QBs say to us..?

 

JUst look at home games, warm weather games, division games and the bye

[Superman]

That's an ESPN guy reaching for an angle..

 

Didnt we beat Aaron Rodgers and lose to whoever quarterbacked the Jets and Jax?

 

What does playing anybody in the NFC East mean...What do those QBs say to us..?

 

JUst look at home games, warm weather games, division games and the bye

 

We beat the Packers due partly to a tidal wave of emotion, at home. But they still put up 27 points on us. The other elite quarterback we played put up 59 on us. The Lions put up 33, the Bears gave us 41.

 

In two games against the Jags, they averaged 16 against us. The Jets pounded us, but Sanchez had 82 yards passing. The rushing attack paced their offense.

 

Do you really think that the opposing quarterback isn't relevant?

 

I'm not arguing that this is a determining factor. But I do think it's more relevant than the opposing teams' combined winning percentage. All that other stuff about home/road, division games, bye week is important as well.

[TMPHBITEU]

Cowherd said something about this today that had me thinking. Like everyone knows, you never know what a team is going to turn out to be beforehand (case in point, your 2012 Indianapolis Colts... take a bow everyone).

 

But what doesn't change like the wind is quarterbacks. We know who the good quarterbacks are in this league already, and we know how important their play is to their team. So if you look at each team's schedule with an eye on who the opposing quarterbacks are, and what the conditions might be in those matchups, you have a better idea of who is going to have a tougher schedule. It's not foolproof, but it makes more sense than saying "Team A was terrible last year, so that means you have an easy matchup." Especially when Team A has a new quarterback.

 

For instance, would the Ravens rather face Peyton Manning in Denver in September, or in December? When will he be at his best? I'm not one of these "Manning can't play in cold weather" people, but if I had to choose between giving him great conditions or throwing a little mother nature at him, I'd choose the latter. Of course, the flip side is that you also have to play in those same conditions. But it might possibly reduce their advantage at quarterback.

 

Several of the teams on our schedule might have new quarterbacks in the next week, so it's hard to project. We open against the Raiders, which is probably in our favor if they start a rookie. We have two against the Jags, and there might be a difference between Blaine Gabbert and a potential rookie draft pick. And if they do have a rookie, he'll likely be better in Week 17 than he will be in Week 4. Similarly, playing at the Chiefs in Week 16 means their quarter, if he's a rookie, has almost an entire season under his belt by the time we face him.

 

Playing the Chargers in Week 6 gives Rivers only a month and a half to acclimate to McCoy and Whisenhunt, and he said a few days ago that basically everything is new. Playing the Cardinals in Week 12 gives Carson Palmer or whoever the starter is going to be there three months to get on board with Arians and his system.

 

We get both Kaepernick and Wilson early. Rams and Titans might have Bradford and Locker in a groove by Weeks 10 and 11, then the Titans are right back in Week 13.

 

I'm really not seeing an easy schedule, but we don't play a lot of elite quarterbacks. Only one, by my count, in Week 7. A couple really good young quarterbacks, some with some promise, others unknown.

Well that.

Or rather, I'd look at the overall changes to each team and make predictions based on that assessment. Quarterbacks still paint only part of the picture - to my knowledge there are still 21 other players on the field on any given time.

Seems to me focusing on quarterbacks only to make predictions is to simplify the problem a little too harshly. To me - it's almost as silly as predicting anything based on strength of schedule from last year, considering the monumental changes each team usually go through each off-season.

[oldunclemark]

We beat the Packers due partly to a tidal wave of emotion, at home. But they still put up 27 points on us. The other elite quarterback we played put up 59 on us. The Lions put up 33, the Bears gave us 41.

 

In two games against the Jags, they averaged 16 against us. The Jets pounded us, but Sanchez had 82 yards passing. The rushing attack paced their offense.

 

Do you really think that the opposing quarterback isn't relevant?

 

I'm not arguing that this is a determining factor. But I do think it's more relevant than the opposing teams' combined winning percentage. All that other stuff about home/road, division games, bye week is important as well.

 

 

It is a relevant factor..Supe....but its kind of a TV thing, to me

 

True...I dont want to face Rodgers again...

 

..but I'd rather face Tony Romo or Eli Manning than SF, with a third year QB. See what I'm saying?

 

I'd rather face Drew Brees in Indy than Jay Cutler in Chicago..because of the rest of the team.and the site

 

QB is not insignificant but its simplistic

[chad72]

Simple - last year the Texans started off the year playing 3 bad teams in the AFC South and everyone said their schedule was one of the weakest. Once the Colts went 11-5 from 2-14, the Texans finished with the STRONGEST strength of schedule as of the end of the season.

 

So, the strength of schedule at the end of the year is the one that matters most. Plus the competition you have faced going into the playoffs.

[FearTheNeckBeard]

Teams beat us running the ball last year.. we built the DL and sign OLB that played the run well, we should be more prepared to stop the run.

 

We did gave up Passing yards, but the defense played well in 3th down..

 

In the offensive side of the ball.. improving the O-line obviously was top priority, and we did get 2 starters, we are good now, maybe one G away to be a above-average OL. The receiver core IMO it's OK, not great, we brought Avery 2.0(the dude knew how to get open, he just couldn't catch for Sh..", Improve and filling a hole with DHB (maybe better, but let's see it first) , reggie is still 35, and TY is still a peanut. Then a bunch of guys we "hope" can produce. And ofc, expecting Luck to improve in 2nd year.. i'll be happy with 4000+ yards, 60% pct, less than 15 TO (INT and Fumbles).

[southwest1]

That's an ESPN guy reaching for an angle..

Didnt we beat Aaron Rodgers and lose to whoever quarterbacked the Jets and Jax?

We beat the Packers due partly to a tidal wave of emotion, at home.

Good point OUM, we can beat a Playoff caliber team like the Packers & still get our cabooses kicked by 2 substandard squads. Emotions can swing the momentum of games Superman, but they seldom close out NFL games without precise execution on the field. Emotional intensity is usually shortlived in a burst or a brief interval like nitris oxide in a car for swift acceleration. It rarely lasts longterm IMO.

 

 

[Superman]

Well that.

Or rather, I'd look at the overall changes to each team and make predictions based on that assessment. Quarterbacks still paint only part of the picture - to my knowledge there are still 21 other players on the field on any given time.

Seems to me focusing on quarterbacks only to make predictions is to simplify the problem a little too harshly. To me - it's almost as silly as predicting anything based on strength of schedule from last year, considering the monumental changes each team usually go through each off-season.

 

I might agree with that. It's not meant to be a comprehensive analysis, just a different (I think it's better) way of looking at how "tough" your schedule is. And it's a lot easier to look at and project the quarterback situation than it is to look at all the changes a team makes in an offseason. We weren't sure last season whether our receivers would pan out, but we knew for sure that our quarterbacking would be better. That was enough for 3-4 extra wins right there.

[Superman]

Good point OUM, we can beat a Playoff caliber team like the Packers & still get our cabooses kicked by 2 substandard squads. Emotions can swing games Superman, but they seldom close out NFL games without precise execution on the field. Emotional intensity is usually shortlived in a burst or a brief interval like nitris oxide in a car for swift acceleration. It rarely lasts longterm IMO. 

 

I don't think there was anything normal or usual about that Packers game. You use the words "rarely" and "seldom," and I think those words crystallize how special that game was.

 

The team did their job and made the plays, but there's no denying the impact that emotion had in getting that win.

 

Either way, the point stands. The Packers gave us 27 points, in our place. That's mostly attributable to their quarterback.

[TMPHBITEU]

Good point OUM, we can beat a Playoff caliber team like the Packers & still get our cabooses kicked by 2 substandard squads. Emotions can swing games Superman, but they seldom close out NFL games without precise execution on the field. Emotional intensity is usually shortlived in a burst or a brief interval like nitris oxide in a car for swift acceleration. It rarely lasts longterm IMO. 

Do you base this opinion on actual knowledge within the field of human psychology?

Emotion and its role in performance is highly debated among scholars. You are however oversimplifying the answer - although I'd say you're partially right.

[colts_mp]

 

 

Good point OUM, we can beat a Playoff caliber team like the Packers & still get our cabooses kicked by 2 substandard squads. Emotions can swing the momentum of games Superman, but they seldom close out NFL games without precise execution on the field. Emotional intensity is usually shortlived in a burst or a brief interval like nitris oxide in a car for swift acceleration. It rarely lasts longterm IMO.

 

 

 

How about the way Ray Lewis got the Ravens fired up by announcing his retirement and then they run the table for the SB win?

[Flash7]

Simple - last year the Texans started off the year playing 3 bad teams in the AFC South and everyone said their schedule was one of the weakest. Once the Colts went 11-5 from 2-14, the Texans finished with the STRONGEST strength of schedule as of the end of the season.

 

So, the strength of schedule at the end of the year is the one that matters most. Plus the competition you have faced going into the playoffs.

The "strength of schedule" argument is so overrated and unreliable that I don't even know why it's even considered. Here is an example of why it's dumb:

 

Last year we played the Dolphins in week 9. Both teams had a record of 5-4 goin into the game. The Colts won that game and gained even more confidence, while the Dolphins nose dived to end their season; clearly losing confidence after that game. It put them on the outside looking in at the playoff picture.

 

So if we had lost that game and the Dolphins continued to play better, we would have had a better strength of schedule. I don't care what the strength of schedule of a team is before we play them, or after we play them. I only care about the team we face that week and what they present as a challenge that week.

[Flash7]

Simple - last year the Texans started off the year playing 3 bad teams in the AFC South and everyone said their schedule was one of the weakest. Once the Colts went 11-5 from 2-14, the Texans finished with the STRONGEST strength of schedule as of the end of the season.

 

So, the strength of schedule at the end of the year is the one that matters most. Plus the competition you have faced going into the playoffs.

*Sorry for the double post. Please delete if necessary.

[southwest1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

QB is not insignificant but its simplistic

Care to clarify your position on that OUM. I happen to agree with Superman on that one actually.  The quality of your QB to complete drives does matter. Look at Cleveland, Oakland, & Buffalo. Their pathetic QB has been awful for years.

[NewColtsFan]

Interesting.....

 

I posted hoping to talk about the Colts' schedule....    and instead it turned into a debate the importance or unimportance of strength of schedule....

 

Didn't see that coming.....

 

Either way,  to repeat an observation....    I think games against the Dolphins, Bengals, Cardinals and Chiefs will make this season much harder than it might appear.   I think most here see a 10-11 win season.    And I do too.    I'm only suggesting some of those wins will be more difficult to come by than we think....

 

OK....   carry on!      

[chad72]

Interesting.....

 

I posted hoping to talk about the Colts' schedule....    and instead it turned into a debate the importance or unimportance of strength of schedule....

 

Didn't see that coming.....

 

Either way,  to repeat an observation....    I think games against the Dolphins, Bengals, Cardinals and Chiefs will make this season much harder than it might appear.   I think most here see a 10-11 win season.    And I do too.    I'm only suggesting some of those wins will be more difficult to come by than we think....

 

OK....   carry on!      

 

Strength of schedule talk is relevant. Chiefs and Cardinals not being as bad as the strength of schedule indicates plays along with your set of teams. 2nd place AFC teams i.e. Dolphins and Bengals will be just as important.

 

However, a case can be made as to how we fare against the top dogs Broncos, 49ers, Seahawks, Texans, all of whom were playoff teams is going to decide whether we are division contenders or just a wild card berth, IMO.

[southwest1]

Do you base this opinion on actual knowledge within the field of human psychology?

Emotion and its role in performance is highly debated among scholars. You are however oversimplifying the answer - although I'd say you're partially right.

Championship mentality is often discussed in the realm of sports. Motivation is a crucial factor ascertaining an athlete's commitment to winning, mastering the playbook, staying awake in meetings, & lifting weights when your entire body is sore. No, I am not oversimplifying the value of emotion with all due respect. I find that statement without any merit whatsoever personally.

 

Ray Lewis always gets mentioned as a vocal, in your face, emotional leader. Yes, he was a vital cog in that team, but emotions alone don't sustain tackles all game long & Ray wasn't all that great tackle wise this past SB season. Yes, we all slow down as we age, & to his credit, Ray knew it was time to retire this year long before the season ended regardless of what the Ravens outcome was or wasn't with a 2nd ring or not. 

 

By your question are you implying that a psychological expertise has no validity? NFL teams employ psychological experts on their staffs all the time for off the field issues like drug addiction, sex addiction, a gambling addiction, a death in the family or beloved player on the team, suicidal issues, or  an athlete that comes from a family with a criminal or checkered past, or rehabing from a severe field injury. Ask Darrelle Revis right now what's more important a reconstructed knee or the complete trust that the knee can make ever cut it needs too? Or Derrick Rose on the Chicago Bulls for that matter...

[Vance]

Strength of schedule for the previous year means almost zero. It's like talking about how your business did last year instead of talking about this year.

 

True SoS comes at the end of the 2013 season when all is said and done.

[southwest1]

I don't think there was anything normal or usual about that Packers game. You use the words "rarely" and "seldom," and I think those words crystallize how special that game was.

 

The team did their job and made the plays, but there's no denying the impact that emotion had in getting that win.

 

Either way, the point stands. The Packers gave us 27 points, in our place. That's mostly attributable to their quarterback.

I agree Superman. Nothing about that game was ordinary. GB lost that game due to a sad Dom Capers defense, a non existent running game, & a poor offense line. Aaron Rogers had nothing to do with that final outcome IMHO. Luck played very well though. There's no denying that. 

[ColtStrong]

Interesting.....

 

I posted hoping to talk about the Colts' schedule....    and instead it turned into a debate the importance or unimportance of strength of schedule....

 

Didn't see that coming.....

 

 

 

 

Since when do threads stay on track around here?

[NewColtsFan]

Since when do threads stay on track around here?

 

 

Point noted and taken!     

[Flying Elvis]

Strength of schedule is only meaningful after every team has played all 16 games. Basing it on last season's results has been proven faulty. Only the media thinks it's relevant.

Every win is hard to come by, especially in recent years of NFL parity but having a good coach and QB helps greatly. A 10-11 win season for the Colts certainly seems feasible.

[southwest1]

Strength of schedule is only meaningful after every team has played all 16 games. Basing it on last season's results has been proven faulty. Only the media thinks it's relevant.

Every win is hard to come by, especially in recent years of NFL parity but having a good coach and QB helps greatly. A 10-11 win season for the Colts certainly seems feasible.

Exactly FE, with both the Colts or the Broncos, I'd rather see a 10-6 season & success in the Playoffs vs a great regular season & getting knocked out in the 1st round of the post season. There are never any "easy" games. Well put! 

[southwest1]

Strength of schedule for the previous year means almost zero. It's like talking about how your business did last year instead of talking about this year.

You know Vance, that's an excellent point. SOS is a complete farce & illusion. All that matters is the health of your squad, the quality of your coaching & training staff, mastery of the playbook, few to no penalties all year long, & precise concentration on the field with zero mental errors or breakdowns on game day/night.

[funktacious2]

Yeah, I have a feeling Miami, KC, and the Titans are going to be tough. Miami was no slouch against us last year, KC wasn't either, they have a great defense, and now they have a better QB than last year too. The Titans have often given us good games, and some acquisitions so far this offseason have only made them better. 

 

I'd like to think we'll have less nailbiters this season, but looking at the schedule, I'm still expecting a handful of games to come down to the wire. 

[oldunclemark]

Care to clarify your position on that OUM. I happen to agree with Superman on that one actually.  The quality of your QB to complete drives does matter. Look at Cleveland, Oakland, & Buffalo. Their pathetic QB has been awful for years.

Sure will.....

 

I dont think the QB is the No. 1 dominant factor in who you are facing...

I consider..the other teams defense, the weather,,..home field  the other teams' offensive line and .the indoor/outdoor factor just as significant....

For example....I dont want us (an indoor passing team) to play New York or Buffalo outdoors in December

I'd rather face Tom Brady in Indy than play the Jay Cutler in Chicago ...

 

I'd much rather face a top passing QB like Drew Brees or Tony Romo in Indy because the Colts as they are constructed now are more likely to win that game...

 

 

The game the Colts are most likely to lose this season is at SF...because of their lines.

Everyplace other than ESPN, We have a much better QB than they do...

[IndyTrav]

I don't believe that at all.

I look at our schedule and I'm actually pretty worried. I see us being a 9-7 team. And I think 4 of those "wins" are toss up. And one of the losses being a toss up.

[a06cc]

If we get excellent pass rushing for our front 7 this season I can see us winning 12 or 13 games. Our defense is key to us winning this season is all I'm saying.

[a06cc]

I'm also not afraid of any team we play this season. What success they had last season is in the past. We have a chance to win every game, but all depends on our defense.

[braveheartcolt]

Sure will.....

 

I dont think the QB is the No. 1 dominant factor in who you are facing...

I consider..the other teams defense, the weather,,..home field  the other teams' offensive line and .the indoor/outdoor factor just as significant....

For example....I dont want us (an indoor passing team) to play New York or Buffalo outdoors in December

I'd rather face Tom Brady in Indy than play the Jay Cutler in Chicago ...

 

I'd much rather face a top passing QB like Drew Brees or Tony Romo in Indy because the Colts as they are constructed now are more likely to win that game...

 

 

The game the Colts are most likely to lose this season is at SF...because of their lines.

Everyplace other than ESPN, We have a much better QB than they do...

I don't think I could disagree more. If the opposition have a good to great QB (with decent o-line), then the other factors do certainly come into play. But if they have a poor to average one, then I'm expecting a victory. Assuming the team I support has a good to great one. Which we probably didn't when we played the Jets last season....