Irsay says Colts need to be physical to win a championship

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Per PFT:

 

"Colts owner Jim Irsay knows the importance of a franchise quarterback, and he knows he was fortunate to follow Peyton Manning with Andrew Luck. But Irsay believes it takes more than a good passing game to win a title.

 

Irsay says the way the Colts played on Sunday against the 49ers — with physical defense and a tough running game — is the way he believes the Colts need to play to win another Super Bowl.

 

“We know we have the rare talent with Andrew,” Irsay told the Indianapolis Star. ‘[We had] just some incredible dynasty years; no one in the history of the National Football League won more than games [in a decade] than we did from 2000 to 2009. But, at the same time, when it comes to world championships, we’re trying to make a little adjustment in terms of building this thing with a physical team on defense and a running game that can really be depended on.”

 

It may be asking too much of Luck to expect him to become as good as Peyton Manning. But the Colts may be getting the pieces in place around Luck to be a tougher team, and a better team, than they had in the Manning years."

[Carlos Danger]

He's right...

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

He;s right, but I also think Luck could be as good as Peyton. We'll see..

[sreylas937]

This is gonna bring out the trolls, who think we need to pass the ball 80 times a game... Gonna say fire Pep we aren't a running team and such, what else have they been saying? I am all for us running the ball, we need to be able to, so the passing game opens up, easier to find wayne on a 30 yard post when they just drop 4 into coverage then when they drop 6 or 7

[cmgww]

Cue the Luck-Manning debate in 3...2...1...

[MarylandTerrapin]

I think it took the failure of BP to put a complete/balanced team on the field to change the philosophy of Colts management.  If BP would've adjusted after a few years, then I feel that the Colts would've had multiple championships with Manning.  BP was stubborn and unwilling to change.  If Luck ends up with several rings when it's over, then it will validate management's new vision of the team. 

 

I really don't think that the new philosophy will turn Luck into a game manager - he still may get his 4000 yards each year.  The difference will be that he'll be able to it without throwing it 40 times a game.  A solid running game will make Luck even more dangerous and it will also allow us to run out the clock late in the 4th quarter more often while protecting a lead.  

[Valpo2004]

I think it took the failure of BP to put a complete/balanced team on the field to change the philosophy of Colts management.  If BP would've adjusted after a few years, then I feel that the Colts would've had multiple championships with Manning.  BP was stubborn and unwilling to change.  If Luck ends up with several rings when it's over, then it will validate management's new vision of the team. 

 

I really don't think that the new philosophy will turn Luck into a game manager - he still may get his 4000 yards each year.  The difference will be that he'll be able to it without throwing it 40 times a game.  A solid running game will make Luck even more dangerous and it will also allow us to run out the clock late in the 4th quarter more often while protecting a lead.  

 

In theory I like the idea. . . the problem I have thus far is . . . with all the success of our running game we have taken very few shots down field.  

 

Typically teams that run a lot in the NFL do it for one of 2 reasons.  1 is that their QB sucks so they have to.  2. (which should be us) is that running it successfully will open up things for shots down field because their safeties bite on play action fakes.  

 

But I just don't see a lot of shots down field.  Our down field/stretch the field specialist (TY Hilton) has seen very little involvement in the game.  On top of that DHB also has the speed to stretch the field and he's not been used in this role either.

 

And after this week Brazil returns to the game and he's also a guy with the speed to stretch the field.  With all that speed and a running game you would think we could take some shots down field.  

[MarylandTerrapin]

In theory I like the idea. . . the problem I have thus far is . . . with all the success of our running game we have taken very few shots down field.  

 

Typically teams that run a lot in the NFL do it for one of 2 reasons.  1 is that their QB sucks so they have to.  2. (which should be us) is that running it successfully will open up things for shots down field because their safeties bite on play action fakes.  

 

But I just don't see a lot of shots down field.  Our down field/stretch the field specialist (TY Hilton) has seen very little involvement in the game.  On top of that DHB also has the speed to stretch the field and he's not been used in this role either.

 

And after this week Brazil returns to the game and he's also a guy with the speed to stretch the field.  With all that speed and a running game you would think we could take some shots down field.  

 

The main reason we aren't going down field more often is that our pass blocking stinks.  BA was more of a downfield OC - we hit alot of long passes last year, but Luck also got hammered in the process.  Our 1st priority is to keep Luck upright.  What I see happening is that as teams are forced to respect the run, it will allow us do #2 as you stated above and slow down the pass rush - this will help compensate for our poor pass blocking.  This will come as the season progresses.  I do believe we'll eventually take more shots down field, but we will never go downfield as much as last year simply because we run a different offense now.  I'm sure we'll get Hilton/DHB involved in other ways too - think bubble screens or slants for big gains like we ran with Garcon a couple years back. 

[GoDeep]

We won after 2006 when our D came on and we ran the ball well.

 

It is a formula that works.  Peyton wasn't otherworldly in that playoff run.

[lollygagger8]

Crazy tweets aside, I'll give it up to Irsay. The man has great vision. 

[pacolts56]

In theory I like the idea. . . the problem I have thus far is . . . with all the success of our running game we have taken very few shots down field.  

 

Typically teams that run a lot in the NFL do it for one of 2 reasons.  1 is that their QB sucks so they have to.  2. (which should be us) is that running it successfully will open up things for shots down field because their safeties bite on play action fakes.  

 

But I just don't see a lot of shots down field.  Our down field/stretch the field specialist (TY Hilton) has seen very little involvement in the game.  On top of that DHB also has the speed to stretch the field and he's not been used in this role either.

 

And after this week Brazil returns to the game and he's also a guy with the speed to stretch the field.  With all that speed and a running game you would think we could take some shots down field.  

 

 

The main reason we aren't going down field more often is that our pass blocking stinks.  BA was more of a downfield OC - we hit alot of long passes last year, but Luck also got hammered in the process.  Our 1st priority is to keep Luck upright.  What I see happening is that as teams are forced to respect the run, it will allow us do #2 as you stated above and slow down the pass rush - this will help compensate for our poor pass blocking.  This will come as the season progresses.  I do believe we'll eventually take more shots down field, but we will never go downfield as much as last year simply because we run a different offense now.  I'm sure we'll get Hilton/DHB involved in other ways too - think bubble screens or slants for big gains like we ran with Garcon a couple years back. 

You guys are both right and hopefully, we continue progressing toward what Jim Irsay said....which I agree 100% with.

 

Not only do I believe we have the long-term philosophy right and the "adjustments" he mentioned correct...but realistically....we're now only 2-3 O-linemen away from cementing ourselves as a true "pick your poison" offense, including the deep passing game. When those remaining pieces in front of Andrew Luck are strengthened, the Colts offense could be as deadly....but using a much more physical approach....as our offense during the Manning years.

 

And assuming teams like Seattle and Chicago stay good....it will without question require an offense capable of matching their physical play to beat them and win Super Bowls. 

[SOMDColtsfan]

Per PFT:

 

"Colts owner Jim Irsay knows the importance of a franchise quarterback, and he knows he was fortunate to follow Peyton Manning with Andrew Luck. But Irsay believes it takes more than a good passing game to win a title.

 

Irsay says the way the Colts played on Sunday against the 49ers — with physical defense and a tough running game — is the way he believes the Colts need to play to win another Super Bowl.

 

“We know we have the rare talent with Andrew,” Irsay told the Indianapolis Star. ‘[We had] just some incredible dynasty years; no one in the history of the National Football League won more than games [in a decade] than we did from 2000 to 2009. But, at the same time, when it comes to world championships, we’re trying to make a little adjustment in terms of building this thing with a physical team on defense and a running game that can really be depended on.”

 

It may be asking too much of Luck to expect him to become as good as Peyton Manning. But the Colts may be getting the pieces in place around Luck to be a tougher team, and a better team, than they had in the Manning years."

Kind of already knew this and the fact Irsay imploded the team to reach these goals.

[smittywerb]

I think it took the failure of BP to put a complete/balanced team on the field to change the philosophy of Colts management.  If BP would've adjusted after a few years, then I feel that the Colts would've had multiple championships with Manning.  BP was stubborn and unwilling to change.  If Luck ends up with several rings when it's over, then it will validate management's new vision of the team. 

 

I really don't think that the new philosophy will turn Luck into a game manager - he still may get his 4000 yards each year.  The difference will be that he'll be able to it without throwing it 40 times a game.  A solid running game will make Luck even more dangerous and it will also allow us to run out the clock late in the 4th quarter more often while protecting a lead.

BP would still be here if he had just adjusted.

[The Old Crow]

I agree with Mr. Irsay about the physical defense and running game added to Luck definately enhance the chances of a Super Bowl victory. Not to be Johnny Raincloud but I don't agree with 2000-2009 years being " dynasty years" because of the number of regular season games won. One Super Bowl win in 2006 , and one loss in 2009 doesn't make a dynasty, although it was certainly a great run. The word dynasty is reserved for teams like the 1960's Packers and 1970's Steelers. Calling the 2000-2009 Colts dynastic years, falls a bit short. They may be more comparable to the 1966-1971 Baltimore Orioles, or the 1958-1971 Baltimore Colts, who won many games and had more Championships, but the Championships and appearances were more spread out over time. Both those teams had many awesome regular seasons , but fell short in Championship games, or failed to make Championship games, in some cases. In these two cases , the Orioles had two World Series wins in six years, and the Colts had four Championships in thirteen years. However, very few experts would consider these team dynasties. Had the Orioles won one more World Series, and the Colts had won in 1964 and 1967, you could have made a stronger case for a dynasty. One Championship in nine years barely gets you on the list.  

[HarassedOffTheSite]

BP would still be here if...

 

...he had not misled the owner regarding our cap management and just how behind the curve we had gotten.

...he had not lumped the fans of the Indianapolis Colts in with journalists who simply cover the Indianapolis Colts when the backlash came regarding HIS decision to forgo the perfect season.

 

He screwed up the management of the money...and he offended the source of the money.

 

You gotta go.

[jskinnz]

He;s right, but I also think Luck could be as good as Peyton. We'll see..

 

I think in 5 years Luck will be the standard in which other QB's are measured.  So I guess my question would be, why can't Luck be that good and the Colts still have a physical team that can run and defend?  It does not mean that they are mutually exclusive.

[chad72]

I agree with Mr. Irsay about the physical defense and running game added to Luck definately enhance the chances of a Super Bowl victory. Not to be Johnny Raincloud but I don't agree with 2000-2009 years being " dynasty years" because of the number of regular season games won. One Super Bowl win in 2006 , and one loss in 2009 doesn't make a dynasty, although it was certainly a great run. The word dynasty is reserved for teams like the 1960's Packers and 1970's Steelers. Calling the 2000-2009 Colts dynastic years, falls a bit short. They may be more comparable to the 1966-1971 Baltimore Orioles, or the 1958-1971 Baltimore Colts, who won many games and had more Championships, but the Championships and appearances were more spread out over time. Both those teams had many awesome regular seasons , but fell short in Championship games, or failed to make Championship games, in some cases. In these two cases , the Orioles had two World Series wins in six years, and the Colts had four Championships in thirteen years. However, very few experts would consider these team dynasties. Had the Orioles won one more World Series, and the Colts had won in 1964 and 1967, you could have made a stronger case for a dynasty. One Championship in nine years barely gets you on the list.  

 

I agree. It is more of a prolific run than a dynasty run, in terms of numbers. Colts got pushed around on the OL and DL front when it mattered, IMO.

[dw49]

You guys are both right and hopefully, we continue progressing toward what Jim Irsay said....which I agree 100% with.

 

Not only do I believe we have the long-term philosophy right and the "adjustments" he mentioned correct...but realistically....we're now only 2-3 O-linemen away from cementing ourselves as a true "pick your poison" offense, including the deep passing game. When those remaining pieces in front of Andrew Luck are strengthened, the Colts offense could be as deadly....but using a much more physical approach....as our offense during the Manning years.

 

And assuming teams like Seattle and Chicago stay good....it will without question require an offense capable of matching their physical play to beat them and win Super Bowls. 

 

 

I think you will see more down field throws as the season progresses. For sure last week , the game plan was as we saw for good reason. We had a patchwork O line going against a top 2 front 7. I think we saw at least a bit more in the first two games and it will at least look more like that than what we saw last week.

[BOTT]

You guys are both right and hopefully, we continue progressing toward what Jim Irsay said....which I agree 100% with.

 

Not only do I believe we have the long-term philosophy right and the "adjustments" he mentioned correct...but realistically....we're now only 2-3 O-linemen away from cementing ourselves as a true "pick your poison" offense, including the deep passing game. When those remaining pieces in front of Andrew Luck are strengthened, the Colts offense could be as deadly....but using a much more physical approach....as our offense during the Manning years.

 

And assuming teams like Seattle and Chicago stay good....it will without question require an offense capable of matching their physical play to beat them and win Super Bowls.

Chicago? Not exactly the first team I would have thought of...

[Andy]

The way they played against the 49ers was the way to win championships.

 

No mistakes on offense and some great hard nose D. 

 

So yes, Irsay is right, you gotta be physical. 

[The Old Crow]

I agree. It is more of a prolific run than a dynasty run, in terms of numbers. Colts got pushed around on the OL and DL front when it mattered, IMO.

Prolific is a much better word. Maybe he just misspoke

[braveheartcolt]

I think it took the failure of BP to put a complete/balanced team on the field to change the philosophy of Colts management. If BP would've adjusted after a few years, then I feel that the Colts would've had multiple championships with Manning. BP was stubborn and unwilling to change. If Luck ends up with several rings when it's over, then it will validate management's new vision of the team.

I really don't think that the new philosophy will turn Luck into a game manager - he still may get his 4000 yards each year. The difference will be that he'll be able to it without throwing it 40 times a game. A solid running game will make Luck even more dangerous and it will also allow us to run out the clock late in the 4th quarter more often while protecting a lead.

I don't think he (BP) was stubborn or unwilling to change. I think he was over-rated and out of his depth.

[throwing BBZ]

I think it took the failure of BP to put a complete/balanced team on the field to change the philosophy of Colts management.  If BP would've adjusted after a few years, then I feel that the Colts would've had multiple championships with Manning.  BP was stubborn and unwilling to change.  If Luck ends up with several rings when it's over, then it will validate management's new vision of the team. 

 

I really don't think that the new philosophy will turn Luck into a game manager - he still may get his 4000 yards each year.  The difference will be that he'll be able to it without throwing it 40 times a game.  A solid running game will make Luck even more dangerous and it will also allow us to run out the clock late in the 4th quarter more often while protecting a lead.  

 

Polian became a pawn of satisfying Manning who wanted his stats and MVP`s more than he wanted a running game and good D. 

 He lost the Heisman and got pulled from his last college game and pouted over it for Many Many Years.

 

 Hilarious that he only won the big one because the running game and D did it for him.

 JMO

[buccolts]

Random thoughts......

 

- Irsay is correct.

 

- If the team vision works out, Luck will never be considered in Manning's class if you measure by stats and dissecting a defense. However, if you measure by more deep play-off runs, and SBs, he'll likely surpass Manning's stay in Indy. That, all on the premise of those who believe it's all about the QB.

 

- More shots down field? We've proclaimed a power running game. We just picked up Richardson, which screams power running game. Our OL is much better at run blocking than pass protection, at this time. We ran it down SFs throats. Run, run, run, however we do still have Luck. I see this as a set up, and a set up doesn't have to be within a game, but within a season, and beyond. Pound it. Set up play action. Chuck it when you want/need to. If set up properly the OL doesn't need to become elite at pass protection, as long as we're not in obvious pass situations. Shots down field will come. Heck, after demonstrating we can pound it, we may see games where we chuck it quite often as that's what the opposing defense gives us.

 

JMO

[Danfish98]

Irsay is right and I love how the team is being built right now.  One question I have though.  Why do so many consider the phrase "game manager" a negative phrase for a qb?  Really, if I'm honest, I know why and it's because it's a term that's been misused and applied to bad qb's who happen to have a great team around them.  Every successful quarterback is a game manager to some extent.  What we're seeing this year is Luck not feeling pressure to win the game all by himself and throw 20 yards down the field every play, creating a low completion % and high interception numbers.  He's managing the game by limiting turnovers, throwing high percentage passes, and not taking unnecessary risks.  That's a good thing and a winning formula!  Does that mean the Colts will never take shots down the field now?  Of course not!  Work needs to be done in pass blocking before we'll see many successful downfield passes but I predict they will come.  When that happens what in the falafel are other teams going to do to stop the Colts offense?  Exciting things to think about while we enjoy this year.

[BOTT]

Polian became a pawn of satisfying Manning who wanted his stats and MVP`s more than he wanted a running game and good D. 

 He lost the Heisman and got pulled from his last college game and pouted over it for Many Many Years.

 

 Hilarious that he only won the big one because the running game and D did it for him.

 JMO

That may be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum....and that's saying a lot.

[pacolts56]

Chicago? Not exactly the first team I would have thought of...

Me neither....Seattle was.

 

But right now I'd put them next behind the Seahawks among the most physical of playoff-caliber NFC teams....which was the point.

[Superman]

...he had not misled the owner regarding our cap management and just how behind the curve we had gotten.

...he had not lumped the fans of the Indianapolis Colts in with journalists who simply cover the Indianapolis Colts when the backlash came regarding HIS decision to forgo the perfect season.

 

He screwed up the management of the money...and he offended the source of the money.

 

You gotta go.

 

You're not gonna mention his substandard drafting in later years? Not that you don't have enough reasons stated already, just thought I'd mention that as well.

[BOTT]

Me neither....Seattle was.

 

But right now I'd put them next behind the Seahawks among the most physical of playoff-caliber NFC teams....which was the point.

Yeah, maybe. Although I find it hard to believe SF won't bounce back

[dw49]

You're not gonna mention his substandard drafting in later years? Not that you don't have enough reasons stated already, just thought I'd mention that as well.

 

 

You can say that Polian had a "pass" on building a "complete.. balanced" team as he had to spend so much cap on Manning and the other stars that warranted big contracts. I contend that he not only did a poor job drafting but also made at least his share of personnel decisions. In any event , if you want to give him the "benefit of the doubt " on building a team that Irsay describes ... fine. However he has to get an F - minus on his ridiculous futile 3 year whiff - mania attempt at fixing the O line. Probably all he had to do was find a way to keep both the guards. Should have been not that difficult as he released one (R.L) that made the pro bowl after he made him a scape goat.

[pacolts56]

Yeah, maybe. Although I find it hard to believe SF won't bounce back

Me too....I'm still trying to process how badly McGlynn and Co. kicked their butts last Sunday.

 

I figured we had a chance to win the game....just not by slapping em' around the field like that.

[MarylandTerrapin]

I agree with Mr. Irsay about the physical defense and running game added to Luck definately enhance the chances of a Super Bowl victory. Not to be Johnny Raincloud but I don't agree with 2000-2009 years being " dynasty years" because of the number of regular season games won. One Super Bowl win in 2006 , and one loss in 2009 doesn't make a dynasty, although it was certainly a great run. The word dynasty is reserved for teams like the 1960's Packers and 1970's Steelers. Calling the 2000-2009 Colts dynastic years, falls a bit short. They may be more comparable to the 1966-1971 Baltimore Orioles, or the 1958-1971 Baltimore Colts, who won many games and had more Championships, but the Championships and appearances were more spread out over time. Both those teams had many awesome regular seasons , but fell short in Championship games, or failed to make Championship games, in some cases. In these two cases , the Orioles had two World Series wins in six years, and the Colts had four Championships in thirteen years. However, very few experts would consider these team dynasties. Had the Orioles won one more World Series, and the Colts had won in 1964 and 1967, you could have made a stronger case for a dynasty. One Championship in nine years barely gets you on the list.  

 

The best analogy for the 2000-2009 Colts is the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s through the mid-2000s.  All those consecutive division titles and only one World Series championship to show for it.  Ironically, the Braves won their only championship with one of their weaker teams on paper, but turned it on in the postseason.  Sound familiar?

[HarassedOffTheSite]

You're not gonna mention his substandard drafting in later years? Not that you don't have enough reasons stated already, just thought I'd mention that as well.

 

I don't think....or at least Irsay has not indicated that...the drafting results played a part in his decision to move on. But it coulda been.

[throwing BBZ]

That may be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum....and that's saying a lot.

 

 

One & Done

[theanarchist]

Per PFT:

 

"Colts owner Jim Irsay knows the importance of a franchise quarterback, and he knows he was fortunate to follow Peyton Manning with Andrew Luck. But Irsay believes it takes more than a good passing game to win a title.

 

Irsay says the way the Colts played on Sunday against the 49ers — with physical defense and a tough running game — is the way he believes the Colts need to play to win another Super Bowl.

 

“We know we have the rare talent with Andrew,” Irsay told the Indianapolis Star. ‘[We had] just some incredible dynasty years; no one in the history of the National Football League won more than games [in a decade] than we did from 2000 to 2009. But, at the same time, when it comes to world championships, we’re trying to make a little adjustment in terms of building this thing with a physical team on defense and a running game that can really be depended on.”

 

It may be asking too much of Luck to expect him to become as good as Peyton Manning. But the Colts may be getting the pieces in place around Luck to be a tougher team, and a better team, than they had in the Manning years."

I posted a week or so ago how I hoped the Colts would not make the same mistake with Luck as they made with Manning late in his days here which was devalue the running game and put the entire load on Manning's shoulders.

 

In today's NFL you better have a franchise QB. We have one. you better be able to protect that QB. That's done several different ways. 1) build a great pass blocking OL so he has time to throw anytime he drops back. 2) Build a strong running attack so that a) you can run effectively to set up play action passing b) wear down a defense and the clock in the 2nd half of games 3) build a strong physical defense that can get you the ball back when you need it to.

 

Sunday all those things happened. I was great to see. Even though Richardson didn't look impressive I can see where the defense definitely keyed on him when he was in the game. I hope we continue to see the types of games we saw on sunday.

 

Oh and by the way, Costanzo had a terrific game both pass blocking and run blocking. He is becoming, in my opinion, one of the better run blocking LT's in the league.

[SkyBane]

The Colts are obviously no longer adhering to the Howard Mudd theory of pass protection first, and are instead working on being a power line with a power running game, allowing the QB to buy himself time with the play-action fake and his athleticism. Which works to Luck's strengths honestly, he's physically more Big Ben or even Cam Newton than he is Peyton Manning. The question was if they had the backs to do this, but with the acquisition of Trent Richardson, and Ahmad Bradshaw showing he still has some tread left on the tires, that's no longer a question anymore.

 

I think what we saw with the line improvements against the 49'ers had less to do with who was at center, and more to do with the fact that the gameplan played to the strengths that the line has, the burst strength and pushing off the line of power run blocking, vs the more prolonged hold your ground style pass blocking.

[jbaron04]

Do any of u remember the stretch play action with edge deep to Marvin lol

[MR. Blueblood]

I think what we saw with the line improvements against the 49'ers had less to do with who was at center

If Satele is back this Sunday, we'll see if they are as effective running the ball.  Granted Jax stinks at run defense (especially compared to SF), but Satele hasn't shown much of anything in a year + of being here....except that the line always seems to play better when he is out with an injury.  Coincidence, maybe.....but I doubt it.

[shakedownstreet]

olivia newton john agrees with irsay

 

[Dark Superman]

Grigson is absolutely correct..

Which is why we signed Guys like Landry and Bradshaw..

And more recently Trent Richardson..