5 reason why Colts will win the AFC South

[rabidfan77]

Pats have had a top 3 offense the last three years. Ranked #1 the last 2 out of 3 years. No rings. Aaron Rodgers had what looked like an unstoppable offense in 2011 until the Gaints came to town. I wish it was just based on having a great O. But it is not. Although the game has changed, it has not changed that much in the playoffs. Defenses do shut down great offenses in the post-season. That has happened time and again the past 5 seasons with the Giants twice and then the Ravens. You need the D to win the ring.

Of course you need a D to win a SB  what SW1 in my interpretation is saying is the old-school model of Def over Off with the dominant Defensive teams he listed in a previous post all had decent but not explosive offenses. And sidenote the Giant's Def was never dominate their Dline was which made the secondary's job a lot easier. When the Pats lost in the 2007 SB it was because brady didn't have time to complete his passes. That philosophy is based on a core group of teams having elite qb's and the rest of the league looking for that elite qb, that's no longer the case in today's NFL. Most teams have solid qb's who are either elite, on the brink of elite, or have the potential to be elite for example (Peyton Manning elite, Matt Stafford brink of elite, Andrew Luck potential to be elite). The qb play as a whole around the league is such that at some point in the playoffs two qb's are going to have to shoot it out to get that SB win. 2012 Flacco vs Peyton, 2011 Flacco vs Brady, 2010 Rodgers vs Roethlisberger, 2009 Brees vs Peyton, 2008 Roethlisberger vs Warner these are a sample of the games were the defense slowed down but couldn't shutdown either offense resulting in a shootout between the qb's. I'm not saying defense isn't essential only a novice or * football fan would say that, but the offense is more important than the defense in today's NFL. And the Ravens Def didn't play that great once the lights came back on so your proving my point by picking them as an example

[rabidfan77]

there are these things called paragraphs

Wow ok you could just not read my post if they don't meet your english writing standards , im posting on a forum not writing a paper for class. As long as I post in English there shouldn't be much of an understanding problem  

[BOTT]

Wow ok you could just not read my post if they don't meet your english writing standards , im posting on a forum not writing a paper for class. As long as I post in English there shouldn't be much of an understanding problem

Yes, but paragraphs on a long post make it much more appealing to read.

[southwest1]

I am not saying that you don't need defense. I just don't think though you can go back to the old school D's everyone admired......and you mentioned.

 

Too much has changed. Rules have changed. That was my whole point.

 

I am actually more concerned at times with being able to run the ball. You need to run the ball just as much as people preach defense IMO.

I will concede that zebras tend to favor the offense & that WRs, TEs, & RBs tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

A vast majority of the penalties enforced punish the defense: Roughing the passer, holding, leaping etc. etc. but that still doesn't change the fact that stopping 3rd down conversions in the fourth quarter wins games & the Bears, Giants, & Ravens still operate to this day from the premise of relentless pass rush, QB sacks, & constant hits & punishment for WRs & TEs across the middle of the field. That formula is still alive & well today. "The more things change; the more they stay the same" Jules.  

 

The NFL is all about domination & intimidation. True, a well greased offense can display domination, but comprehensive intimidation comes from LBs, DEs, & a front 4 that never ever stops & has a superb rotation always keeping your pass rushers fresh, alert, & ready to unleash hades on the QB every single down all game long. Yes, a solid running game is vital, but give me an aggressive pass rush & I will win a high percentage of games in the post season. League history is on my side here actually. It doesn't mean you blitz every down. You just keep the opposition guessing as to who is really coming & if the are really coming on any given down. 

[southwest1]

Yes, but paragraphs on a long post make it much more appealing to read.

Well said BOTT! rabidfan77 makes great points in his replies, which are very insightful. However, they would be easier to digest & comprehend if these insights were broken up with topic sentences & paragraphs. That also aids in skimming text too.

 

Not a criticism rabidfan77 just a polite observation & request. Thank you.  English major or not; We are all capable of using paragraphs & making our viewpoints easier to see & comprehend visually with the naked eye from a white space, editing perspective IMHO. A nice layout & superb content can be achieved at the same time. That's really not too much to ask I think. 

[amfootball]

Of course you need a D to win a SB  what SW1 in my interpretation is saying is the old-school model of Def over Off with the dominant Defensive teams he listed in a previous post all had decent but not explosive offenses. And sidenote the Giant's Def was never dominate their Dline was which made the secondary's job a lot easier. When the Pats lost in the 2007 SB it was because brady didn't have time to complete his passes. That philosophy is based on a core group of teams having elite qb's and the rest of the league looking for that elite qb, that's no longer the case in today's NFL. Most teams have solid qb's who are either elite, on the brink of elite, or have the potential to be elite for example (Peyton Manning elite, Matt Stafford brink of elite, Andrew Luck potential to be elite). The qb play as a whole around the league is such that at some point in the playoffs two qb's are going to have to shoot it out to get that SB win. 2012 Flacco vs Peyton, 2011 Flacco vs Brady, 2010 Rodgers vs Roethlisberger, 2009 Brees vs Peyton, 2008 Roethlisberger vs Warner these are a sample of the games were the defense slowed down but couldn't shutdown either offense resulting in a shootout between the qb's. I'm not saying defense isn't essential only a novice or * football fan would say that, but the offense is more important than the defense in today's NFL. And the Ravens Def didn't play that great once the lights came back on so your proving my point by picking them as an example

I think I lost your train of thinking here. Most teams do not have elite QBs. But I suppose it depends how you define elite. I would never categorize Matthew Stafford as elite.

 

I think teams that do have elite QBs have a slight advantage but not a big one as those teams have to pay big money to those QBs which hurts their ability to field a balanaced team which is what I think we are really saying here. While the rules DO favor the offense, it still takes a team to win. What is fascinating to me is that the last QB to win that was making meg bucks was Peyton back in 2006. After that you have Eli, Brees (his SB win was before his huge deal), Rodgers (again Sb win before his mega deal), and now Flacco before his mega deal. And even more interesting, I would not categorize either Eli or Flacco as elite. Certainly Eli was nowhere near elite before his first SB win. So I think what has really happened is that teams that have a good possibly great QB that is not getting paid big bucks yet have the best chance to win. That's why the niners, skins, colts, seahawks are big favs and will be for a few years because they have what looks to be very good talent at the Qb that is not being paid like the top guys, i.e. Brady, Manning, Rodgers, etc ...

 

Also, I think sometimes we tend to look at the past and unfaily categorize it. The NFL of eras past had some pretty great offenses as well as great defenses. The game was more of a run game so the scoring was lower but the offenses were just as dominant in terms of imposing their will.

[AntonMcG]

I think I lost your train of thinking here. Most teams do not have elite QBs. But I suppose it depends how you define elite. I would never categorize Matthew Stafford as elite.

 

I think teams that do have elite QBs have a slight advantage but not a big one as those teams have to pay big money to those QBs which hurts their ability to field a balanaced team which is what I think we are really saying here. While the rules DO favor the offense, it still takes a team to win. What is fascinating to me is that the last QB to win that was making meg bucks was Peyton back in 2006. After that you have Eli, Brees (his SB win was before his huge deal), Rodgers (again Sb win before his mega deal), and now Flacco before his mega deal. And even more interesting, I would not categorize either Eli or Flacco as elite. Certainly Eli was nowhere near elite before his first SB win. So I think what has really happened is that teams that have a good possibly great QB that is not getting paid big bucks yet have the best chance to win. That's why the niners, skins, colts, seahawks are big favs and will be for a few years because they have what looks to be very good talent at the Qb that is not being paid like the top guys, i.e. Brady, Manning, Rodgers, etc ...

 

Also, I think sometimes we tend to look at the past and unfaily categorize it. The NFL of eras past had some pretty great offenses as well as great defenses. The game was more of a run game so the scoring was lower but the offenses were just as dominant in terms of imposing their will.

 

Interesting point.

[rabidfan77]

I think I lost your train of thinking here. Most teams do not have elite QBs. But I suppose it depends how you define elite. I would never categorize Matthew Stafford as elite.

 

I think teams that do have elite QBs have a slight advantage but not a big one as those teams have to pay big money to those QBs which hurts their ability to field a balanaced team which is what I think we are really saying here. While the rules DO favor the offense, it still takes a team to win. What is fascinating to me is that the last QB to win that was making meg bucks was Peyton back in 2006. After that you have Eli, Brees (his SB win was before his huge deal), Rodgers (again Sb win before his mega deal), and now Flacco before his mega deal. And even more interesting, I would not categorize either Eli or Flacco as elite. Certainly Eli was nowhere near elite before his first SB win. So I think what has really happened is that teams that have a good possibly great QB that is not getting paid big bucks yet have the best chance to win. That's why the niners, skins, colts, seahawks are big favs and will be for a few years because they have what looks to be very good talent at the Qb that is not being paid like the top guys, i.e. Brady, Manning, Rodgers, etc ...

 

Also, I think sometimes we tend to look at the past and unfaily categorize it. The NFL of eras past had some pretty great offenses as well as great defenses. The game was more of a run game so the scoring was lower but the offenses were just as dominant in terms of imposing their will.

Yeah you completely lost what I was saying I don't know how but I'll break it down a little better in my follow up . 

OK.First off I said " Most teams have SOLID QB's who are EITHER elite qb's, qb's with the POTENTIAL to be elite, or qb's on the BRINK of being elite then I used Peyton Manning as the elite example, Andrew Luck as the potential example, and

Matthew Stafford as the Brink of example. 

 

I understand an elite qb doesn't give you a major advantage because their teams can still be beat if the opposing team plays mistake free football for 60 minutes, so we agree (though I never claimed that elite qb's gave their teams huge advantages). In regards to teams again I never said the offense alone can win a championship (we as Colts fans know that's not true) . I even said " Of course you need a defense to win a Superbowl" Then for some reason you started talking about how much a qb was paid, which had nothing to do with skill and wasn't part of my original comments. 

 

Then you interpreted the games (I highlighted as an EXAMPLE OF GAMES THAT WERE SHOOTOUTS OR BATTLES BETWEEN THE QB'S IN THOSE GAMES) as my meaning these guys were ALL elite qb's. Again I don't know why you veered the discussion into money but I really don't have an answer for that .

 

Lastly with my supposed comments about the lack of dominant offenses in the past. AGAIN I NEVER SAID THAT I was making a reference to a comment that SW1 made and even told you to find his previous post for the CONTEXT you missed. So here is SW1's original statement " SW1 is old school. Winning is all about intimidation, punishment, & and a bloody attrition of your opponent's will. Never offense. Think 1985 BEARS, 1990 Lawrence Taylor NY GIANTS, & 2000 Baltimore RAVENS." To which I replied to you in my opening statement " Of course you need a defense to win a SuperBowl, what SW1 in MY INTERPRETATION is saying, is the old school model of defense over offense (meaning a good def is valued OVER a good off) with the dominant defensive teams he listed in a PREVIOUS POST all had DECENT but NOT EXPLOSIVE ( in the sense of the pass happy offenses of today's NFL) offenses."  Of course I don't dispute the fact that the past era's had explosive offense's but I was making a targeted statement about the teams that SW1 listed.

 

So I hope it helps put my words in context now that I've broken it down further, and you have ALL the information you need . 

[southwest1]

Yeah you completely lost what I was saying I don't know how but I'll break it down a little better in my follow up . 

OK.First off I said " Most teams have SOLID QB's who are EITHER elite qb's, qb's with the POTENTIAL to be elite, or qb's on the BRINK of being elite then I used Peyton Manning as the elite example, Andrew Luck as the potential example, and

Matthew Stafford as the Brink of example. 

 

I understand an elite qb doesn't give you a major advantage because their teams can still be beat if the opposing team plays mistake free football for 60 minutes, so we agree (though I never claimed that elite qb's gave their teams huge advantages). In regards to teams again I never said the offense alone can win a championship (we as Colts fans know that's not true) . I even said " Of course you need a defense to win a Superbowl" Then for some reason you started talking about how much a qb was paid, which had nothing to do with skill and wasn't part of my original comments. 

 

Then you interpreted the games (I highlighted as an EXAMPLE OF GAMES THAT WERE SHOOTOUTS OR BATTLES BETWEEN THE QB'S IN THOSE GAMES) as my meaning these guys were ALL elite qb's. Again I don't know why you veered the discussion into money but I really don't have an answer for that .

 

Lastly with my supposed comments about the lack of dominant offenses in the past. AGAIN I NEVER SAID THAT I was making a reference to a comment that SW1 made and even told you to find his previous post for the CONTEXT you missed. So here is SW1's original statement " SW1 is old school. Winning is all about intimidation, punishment, & and a bloody attrition of your opponent's will. Never offense. Think 1985 BEARS, 1990 Lawrence Taylor NY GIANTS, & 2000 Baltimore RAVENS." To which I replied to you in my opening statement " Of course you need a defense to win a SuperBowl, what SW1 in MY INTERPRETATION is saying, is the old school model of defense over offense (meaning a good def is valued OVER a good off) with the dominant defensive teams he listed in a PREVIOUS POST all had DECENT but NOT EXPLOSIVE ( in the sense of the pass happy offenses of today's NFL) offenses."  Of course I don't dispute the fact that the past era's had explosive offense's but I was making a targeted statement about the teams that SW1 listed.

 

So I hope it helps put my words in context now that I've broken it down further, and you have ALL the information you need . 

Focus on the highlighted blue text only please rabidfan77. A stout defense which stops an offense from scoring in the 4th quarter is necessary to win in the Playoffs to even get to the SB in addition to playing in & actually winning the SB. No team can just flip the shutdown defensive switch in February. Also, all those teams I listed were dominant & explosive defenses sir. Who are we kidding?! Seriously, let's be honest here. LOL!

 

Also, I am not saying that a Supreme Defense does not require some form of endzone scoring. It is not an either or ultimatum position. Clearly, both an offense & a defense are necessary to get to & win a SB. My central thesis is this: At some crucial juncture in the season a tight defense takes the ball away from a worthy foe on the field to either remain in the Playoffs & get to the Championship Game or stop the opposition from scoring in the final minutes of the 4th quarter. Eventually, it's a question of prevention vs acquistion scoring point wise plain & simple IMO. 

[rabidfan77]

Focus on the highlighted blue text only please rabidfan77. A stout defense which stops an offense from scoring in the 4th quarter is necessary to win in the Playoffs to even get to the SB in addition to playing in & actually winning the SB. No team can just flip the shutdown defensive switch in February. Also, all those teams I listed were dominant & explosive defenses sir. Who are we kidding?! Seriously, let's be honest here. LOL!

 

Also, I am not saying that a Supreme Defense does not require some form of endzone scoring. It is not an either or ultimatum position. Clearly, both an offense & a defense are necessary to get to & win a SB. My central thesis is this: At some crucial juncture in the season a tight defense takes the ball away from a worthy foe on the field to either remain in the Playoffs & get to the Championship Game or stop the opposition from scoring in the final minutes of the 4th quarter. Eventually, it's a question of prevention vs acquistion scoring point wise plain & simple IMO. 

I understand your points I haven't disputed anything that you list in your response to my post, everything you said is the standard for playing championship football. I've never said that a team could win a Superbowl without both a good defense or offense, I never said a dominant defense can "flip a switch". And I never said any of those teams you listed weren't explosive defenses BUT I did say those teams didn't use pass happy offenses which is true the 85 Bears, the 90's Giants, and 00 Ravens were all run focused offenses. I really don't know how to be more clear than I've been, words have been added to my post that I didn't make and misinterpretations have been made, short of double spacing and all caps I don't know how to get my points across any other way . 

 

And I never said that you think only a dominant defense can win a championship, I DID SAY that you value a good defense over a good offense, which I got from your previous post I quoted . They were not my words but your own, your the man who said "Winning is about intimidation, punishment, and a bloody attrition of your opponents will. Never offense." the last part shows you favor a good defense. While your quote typically is true for both offense and defense the last part and your defensive minded teams as the examples led me to believe your a defense first guy. I really don't understand your post, I never questioned the basic formula for winning games/championship both you and the other person I was responding to assumed I did, despite my words to the contrary or my lack of even mentioning it .    

[southwest1]

I understand your points I haven't disputed anything that you list in your response to my post, everything you said is the standard for playing championship football. I've never said that a team could win a Superbowl without both a good defense or offense, I never said a dominant defense can "flip a switch". And I never said any of those teams you listed weren't explosive defenses BUT I did say those teams didn't use pass happy offenses which is true the 85 Bears, the 90's Giants, and 00 Ravens were all run focused offenses. I really don't know how to be more clear than I've been, words have been added to my post that I didn't make and misinterpretations have been made, short of double spacing and all caps I don't know how to get my points across any other way . 

 

And I never said that you think only a dominant defense can win a championship, I DID SAY that you value a good defense over a good offense, which I got from your previous post I quoted . They were not my words but your own, your the man who said "Winning is about intimidation, punishment, and a bloody attrition of your opponents will. Never offense." the last part shows you favor a good defense. While your quote typically is true for both offense and defense the last part and your defensive minded teams as the examples led me to believe your a defense first guy. I really don't understand your post, I never questioned the basic formula for winning games/championship both you and the other person I was responding to assumed I did, despite my words to the contrary or my lack of even mentioning it .    

I know precisely what I said & I stand by those words. I just don't subscribe to the belief that an ariel attack is the new norm for winning a Championship in the NFL right now. Some people, not you rabidfan77, seem to think that stingy defenses have taken a seat to high powered offenses like a changing of the league guard almost as if an elite offense can survive with a mediocre or below average defense.  Preferring a solid defense does not mean that I endorse a weak or malfunctioning offense. It just means that when push comes to shove I trust the defense to secure me a World Championship vs a high flying offense. 

 

The key to have just enough offense at a bare minimum to hoist a Lombardi Trophy above your head. The NY Giants had TE Mark Bavaro in 1990. The Bears had RB Walter Payton in 85, & the Ravens had TE Shannon Sharpe in 2000. It just makes me laugh when some fans think that a fluid offense can win Championships alone tell that to Tom Brady & the 2007 NE Patriots...

[rabidfan77]

I know precisely what I said & I stand by those words. I just don't subscribe to the belief that an ariel attack is the new norm for winning a Championship in the NFL right now. Some people, not you rabidfan77, seem to think that stingy defenses have taken a seat to high powered offenses like a changing of the league guard almost as if an elite offense can survive with a mediocre or below average defense.  Preferring a solid defense does not mean that I endorse a weak or malfunctioning offense. It just means that when push comes to shove I trust the defense to secure me a World Championship vs a high flying offense. 

 

The key to have just enough offense at a bare minimum to hoist a Lombardi Trophy above your head. The NY Giants had TE Mark Bavaro in 1990. The Bears had RB Walter Payton in 85, & the Ravens had TE Shannon Sharpe in 2000. It just makes me laugh when some fans think that a fluid offense can win Championships alone tell that to Tom Brady & the 2007 NE Patriots...

It's quite obvious you don't subscribe to the New School thinking . With that said I do believe in the New School approach which is were we have our differences but we already " agreed to disagree" . Although I still believe that the Old School approach is fully capable of winning a title ( run the ball, limit mistakes in the passing game, play stout defense). And again I have NEVER made any assumptions about your views of offensive football, since you haven't made those clear; i can only respond to what you post. I already knew you trust or lean defensive in your football thinking based off of what you've posted so far. 

 

Now in regards to the offensive weapons you listed on those teams, I never said they were devoid of offensive play-makers BUT they didn't use the 3 reciever sets predominantly ( 3 wr's, 1 wr and 2 te's, or any other combination) to attack defenses back then. That's what I mean by explosive offenses (an offense were 1 of 3 or all 3 reciever's could burn a defense). And with the exception of Phil Simms (though Parcell's ALWAYS preached balance and always feature strong running attacks on his teams) none of those qb's were expected to win shootout's against other qb's that's not saying Jim McMahon or Trent Dilfer/ Tony Banks couldn't win a game or two like that from time to time. But those teams weren't built with the 3 receiver sets and pass happy philosophy used today, which was my only point . 

 

And of course fluid offenses can't win championships alone, we as Colts fans learned that the hard way throughout the Manning era . And in all fairest to the 2007 Pats they had a good defense, although the key defensive players were towards the end of their careers, those guys could get stops when they needed them. Now the 2011 Pats would be a better example for your fluid statement, because their pass defense was terrible . 

[southwest1]

It's quite obvious you don't subscribe to the New School thinking . With that said I do believe in the New School approach which is were we have our differences but we already " agreed to disagree" . Although I still believe that the Old School approach is fully capable of winning a title ( run the ball, limit mistakes in the passing game, play stout defense). And again I have NEVER made any assumptions about your views of offensive football, since you haven't made those clear; i can only respond to what you post. I already knew you trust or lean defensive in your football thinking based off of what you've posted so far. 

 

Now in regards to the offensive weapons you listed on those teams, I never said they were devoid of offensive play-makers BUT they didn't use the 3 reciever sets predominantly ( 3 wr's, 1 wr and 2 te's, or any other combination) to attack defenses back then. That's what I mean by explosive offenses (an offense were 1 of 3 or all 3 reciever's could burn a defense). And with the exception of Phil Simms (though Parcell's ALWAYS preached balance and always feature strong running attacks on his teams) none of those qb's were expected to win shootout's against other qb's that's not saying Jim McMahon or Trent Dilfer/ Tony Banks couldn't win a game or two like that from time to time. But those teams weren't built with the 3 receiver sets and pass happy philosophy used today, which was my only point . 

 

And of course fluid offenses can't win championships alone, we as Colts fans learned that the hard way throughout the Manning era . And in all fairest to the 2007 Pats they had a good defense, although the key defensive players were towards the end of their careers, those guys could get stops when they needed them. Now the 2011 Pats would be a better example for your fluid statement, because their pass defense was terrible . 

3 receiver sets are fine as long as your QB is accurate & has a quick release. Then again, if your defense is solid, you don't need to be the next Joe Montana throwing 45 yard  touchdown bombs either. Just move the ball, take time off the clock, don't turn the ball over, & score at least 17-20 points on offense per game if possible. Trent Dilfer did exactly that with a running game to keep the opposing DBs, safeties, & pass rushers honest. I will acknowledge though that a high powered offense that can score at will does present a problem for an opposing team that has trouble accumulating 30 points on average. I will concede that point. 

 

Scoring quickly using 3 receiver sets is nice provided that your WRs & TE's can catch the ball consistently. If your QB who loves to throw the ball is misfiring & fumbling the ball all day, my methodical & relentless defense will simply take the game over & probably win. I view football like a chess match that is methodical, calculated, & patient. It's not about speed or instant gratification. It's about wearing you down to the point of exhaustion until you drop. Focus not on the scoreboard, but the proper alignment & technique to shed blocks & beat your man down across from you to where he just gives less & less effort as the game progresses & each quarter passes. 

 

As far as stellar Patriots defenses are concerned, I liked their 2001 defense with Lawyer Milloy, Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, & Tedy  Bruschi on it. Now, that was a solid D IMO. 

[rabidfan77]

3 receiver sets are fine as long as your QB is accurate & has a quick release. Then again, if your defense is solid, you don't need to be the next Joe Montana throwing 45 yard  touchdown bombs either. Just move the ball, take time off the clock, don't turn the ball over, & score at least 17-20 points on offense per game if possible. Trent Dilfer did exactly that with a running game to keep the opposing DBs, safeties, & pass rushers honest. I will acknowledge though that a high powered offense that can score at will does present a problem for an opposing team that has trouble accumulating 30 points on average. I will concede that point. 

 

Scoring quickly using 3 receiver sets is nice provided that your WRs & TE's can catch the ball consistently. If your QB who loves to throw the ball is misfiring & fumbling the ball all day, my methodical & relentless defense will simply take the game over & probably win. I view football like a chess match that is methodical, calculated, & patient. It's not about speed or instant gratification. It's about wearing you down to the point of exhaustion until you drop. Focus not on the scoreboard, but the proper alignment & technique to shed blocks & beat your man down across from you to where he just gives less & less effort as the game progresses & each quarter passes. 

 

As far as stellar Patriots defenses are concerned, I liked their 2001 defense with Lawyer Milloy, Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, & Tedy  Bruschi on it. Now, that was a solid D IMO. 

THANK YOU      

OK so think about this:

Indy- Wayne, Allen, Fleener (our top 3)

Den- Thomas, Decker, Welker

ATL- White, Jones, Gonzalez

DAL- Austin, Bryant, Witten

GB- Nelson, Cobb, Jones

NO- Graham, Colston, Moore

PHI- Jackson, Maclin, Celek

MIA- Wallace, Keller, Hartline

NYG- Nicks, Cruz, Randle

BAL- Smith, Pitta, Jones

PIT- Miller, Brown, Sanders

DET- Johnson, Pettigrew, Burleson

SF- Davis, Boldin, Crabtree ( I know he's hurt but he still counts )

SEA- Harvin, Miller, Rice

KC- Bowe, Avery, Moeaki

 

Now all these guys are NOT elite or future hall of famers BUT they are all proven pass-catching receivers at their positions giving their respective teams the option of 3 receiver sets since they all have talented qb's NOT ALL ARE ELITE I know that but they are all solid productive qb's. That's 15 teams almost HALF the league who can use 3 receiver sets, I totally understand your old-school approach and thinking ( I'm pretty positive you played on a team yourself, probably on the defensive side ). But the pass happy offensive philosophy is here to stay as the qb play around the league rises (of course not all teams are happy with their qb but MOST are). And I didn't even mention teams with just 2 receivers, there's never really been this level of offensive talent around the entire league like in this new era.

 

It was always just a small group of teams that were consistent and poor play from everyone else, but that's not the case anymore. If you had said 4-5 years ago the Texans were going to win 12 games and had a chance at AFC home-field advantage in a season that ended on a down note, you would've been laughed off the forum because they were so terrible , BUT here we are with the Texans 2 time division winners ( another thing that would have gotten you laughed off ). Or 3-4 years ago that the 49ers and Seahawks would be favorites to be in the Superbowl, or the NFC East is ALWAYS coming down to the last week or 2 before a division winner is crowned with ALL 4 teams competitive. So as much as you favor the Old School approach NFL teams no longer agree or predominantly feature teams like that anymore, that's just the changing times my friend .  

[John Dee]

So...     We are sick of 'the stuff"...

 

And here I am...................     

 

I got TK'S back...

 

eryone is sick of articles and ready for the season to start(Tknight85)lol but since it's still a few weeks away here is another article about the Colts enjoy!

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/five-reasons-why-indianapolis-colts-win-afc-south-191800362.html

[amfootball]

Yeah you completely lost what I was saying I don't know how but I'll break it down a little better in my follow up . 

OK.First off I said " Most teams have SOLID QB's who are EITHER elite qb's, qb's with the POTENTIAL to be elite, or qb's on the BRINK of being elite then I used Peyton Manning as the elite example, Andrew Luck as the potential example, and

Matthew Stafford as the Brink of example. 

 

I understand an elite qb doesn't give you a major advantage because their teams can still be beat if the opposing team plays mistake free football for 60 minutes, so we agree (though I never claimed that elite qb's gave their teams huge advantages). In regards to teams again I never said the offense alone can win a championship (we as Colts fans know that's not true) . I even said " Of course you need a defense to win a Superbowl" Then for some reason you started talking about how much a qb was paid, which had nothing to do with skill and wasn't part of my original comments. 

 

Then you interpreted the games (I highlighted as an EXAMPLE OF GAMES THAT WERE SHOOTOUTS OR BATTLES BETWEEN THE QB'S IN THOSE GAMES) as my meaning these guys were ALL elite qb's. Again I don't know why you veered the discussion into money but I really don't have an answer for that .

 

Lastly with my supposed comments about the lack of dominant offenses in the past. AGAIN I NEVER SAID THAT I was making a reference to a comment that SW1 made and even told you to find his previous post for the CONTEXT you missed. So here is SW1's original statement " SW1 is old school. Winning is all about intimidation, punishment, & and a bloody attrition of your opponent's will. Never offense. Think 1985 BEARS, 1990 Lawrence Taylor NY GIANTS, & 2000 Baltimore RAVENS." To which I replied to you in my opening statement " Of course you need a defense to win a SuperBowl, what SW1 in MY INTERPRETATION is saying, is the old school model of defense over offense (meaning a good def is valued OVER a good off) with the dominant defensive teams he listed in a PREVIOUS POST all had DECENT but NOT EXPLOSIVE ( in the sense of the pass happy offenses of today's NFL) offenses."  Of course I don't dispute the fact that the past era's had explosive offense's but I was making a targeted statement about the teams that SW1 listed.

 

So I hope it helps put my words in context now that I've broken it down further, and you have ALL the information you need . 

ha,ha. yes, I went off the tracks and my post was not implying anything about yours. I just got to thinking about today's game and how it differs from eras past and I think the biggest aspect is the FA/Cap and the high salaries that elite QBs now make. I have actually been thinking about this since Brady signed his new under market extension because the deal was unprecedented and I have come to realize that the Pats saw the fact that Manning was the last QB to win with an elite salary and even though the Pats did make the SB in 2011, they took a terrible defense there. This is what led to my point about the teams with promising young talent at the QB position having the best chance to win the SB. I don't disagree that the NFL is more offensively focused now with the rules and all but it still comes down to defensive stops which playoff defenses still need to do.

[rabidfan77]

ha,ha. yes, I went off the tracks and my post was not implying anything about yours. I just got to thinking about today's game and how it differs from eras past and I think the biggest aspect is the FA/Cap and the high salaries that elite QBs now make. I have actually been thinking about this since Brady signed his new under market extension because the deal was unprecedented and I have come to realize that the Pats saw the fact that Manning was the last QB to win with an elite salary and even though the Pats did make the SB in 2011, they took a terrible defense there. This is what led to my point about the teams with promising young talent at the QB position having the best chance to win the SB. I don't disagree that the NFL is more offensively focused now with the rules and all but it still comes down to defensive stops which playoff defenses still need to do.

I'll tell you the same thing I told SW1 I don't dispute, challenge, or question the proven formula for winning games/championship . Yea reading your post I was like when did I bring money into the discussion? . I don't agree that high paid qb's take away money from teams to spend at other positions; it's the designed genius of the salary cap, free agency, and the most recent CBA to promote parity in the NFL. The CBA took a lot of money away from rookies with the goal of redistributing it to veterans for example 2010 #1 overall pick Sam Bradford signed a 6 year 76 Million (with 50 Million guaranteed) contract while he has potential can you really say the Rams are getting what they paid for? Compare that to 2011 #1 overall pick Cam Newton 22 Million fully guaranteed a difference of Bradford's guaranteed money. So where does the additional 50 Million get spent?.. On veteran's contracts instead of unproven rookies. While JaMarcus Russell might have been the final straw he was far from the only rookie who didn't earn the money thrown at him by teams coming out of the draft, all because agents managed to out maneuver teams desperate for talented players. Because of the salary cap teams can't just pocket that money they have to spend it, the only difference now is the veteran's get the crazy contracts and the rookie's have to outplay and wait out their rookie contracts.   

[amfootball]

I'll tell you the same thing I told SW1 I don't dispute, challenge, or question the proven formula for winning games/championship . Yea reading your post I was like when did I bring money into the discussion? . I don't agree that high paid qb's take away money from teams to spend at other positions; it's the designed genius of the salary cap, free agency, and the most recent CBA to promote parity in the NFL. The CBA took a lot of money away from rookies with the goal of redistributing it to veterans for example 2010 #1 overall pick Sam Bradford signed a 6 year 76 Million (with 50 Million guaranteed) contract while he has potential can you really say the Rams are getting what they paid for? Compare that to 2011 #1 overall pick Cam Newton 22 Million fully guaranteed a difference of Bradford's guaranteed money. So where does the additional 50 Million get spent?.. On veteran's contracts instead of unproven rookies. While JaMarcus Russell might have been the final straw he was far from the only rookie who didn't earn the money thrown at him by teams coming out of the draft, all because agents managed to out maneuver teams desperate for talented players. Because of the salary cap teams can't just pocket that money they have to spend it, the only difference now is the veteran's get the crazy contracts and the rookie's have to outplay and wait out their rookie contracts.   

But they do take away the money pool. The rookie contracts are for four years but I would bet that if Luck and RG put up the types of seasons they had last year then the rookie contract will be ripped up and a new contract will be offered in year 3. It will not be $20 mil but it will be way more than the $4-5 mil range. Now one could argue that these QBs cover up many of the weak spots on a team and make even average guys better but in the end the cap is a fixed number which means you have less to spend on other other 52 spots.

 

I just think the QB salaries are so out of whack. They for sure should be the highest paid players but now they are by a ton. And it will probably only increase in the coming seasons.

[oldunclemark]

     I was buying it until this guy started talking about the power running game.

 

Power running game? The Colts?  That's not the kind of line and backs we have.

 

Pep Hamilton is a rookie NFL offensive coordinator. I dont know exactly what he will do or can do.

 

I hope he does...

 

 

 

2) New Offense that Focuses on Colts' Strengths

 

It is no secret that the Indianapolis Colts will be running a new offense this season with offensive coordinator Pep Hamilton. Hamilton comes from the Stanford program where he ran a variation of a West Coast style of offense. With Hamilton now in Indianapolis, the Colts will likely use a similar scheme here. Many Colts players have said that the new "No Coast" offense will be implementing Stanford schemes mixed in with last year's vertical schemes. It is also likely that some of the Tom Moore offense that was used during Peyton Manning's time in Indy will be used as there are still a handful of players and position coaches left over from that era.

 

The new offense will make use of the young tight ends Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener. Fleener especially struggled last year with Bruce Arians running the offense. The Colts were a little bit too one dimensional a year ago, so building a power running game should only help improve the offensive efficiency.