Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Musings on the 2013 Packers without Rodgers compared to 2011 Colts

cmgww

By cmgww
in NFL General

 Share

Recommended Posts

cmgww Walk On

cmgww

Posted
Posted

After seeing today's massacre at the hands of the Lions, and seeing GB go 0 for November since Discount Double Check went out....a lot of people on the interwebs are comparing the Packers to the 2011 Colts. Too dependent on Rodgers as the Colts were Manning, QB covering up a lot of weaknesses, etc. That got me to thinking, the past few seasons have been eerily similar to the Manning era Colts. 2011, GB cruises to 15-1 and gets dumped in the Divisional Round. In 2012 they go 11-5 and again one and done. Mediocre defenses have done them in despite a high flying offense. And they havent been really strong running the ball either for the past few seasons. Now Rodgers is out and they can't win a game. And I count the tie against terrible Minnesota as a loss.

I know there are differences in the two organizations so don't throw out a bunch of stats, but it does feel very familiar to this Colts fan at least....thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chad72 Ring of Honor

chad72

Posted
Posted

They didn't go one and done in 2012, 1-1 with win vs Vikes and loss vs 49ers.

But yes, their backup situation is terrible and losing Randall Cobb, Jermichael Finley, Clay Mathews for a big chunk of games and Casey Hayward on IR leaves them with less playmakers. With Rodgers, they'd be like 2010 colts with collie and Clark on IR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dustin Walk On

Dustin

Posted
Posted

I think even with Peyton the Colts would of failed to make the play offs in 2011. You were a pretty bad team, even if you lost a lot of close games.

I also think there was some front office truth to sucking for Luck.

How can you use that username lol? That seems like it would be a constant reminder of losing in the superbowl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synthetic Walk On

Synthetic

Posted
Posted

Needless to say had Rodgers played today they still would have lost.

 

 

They have no defense whatsoever. Everyone has been bringing this up since they won the Super Bowl and no one cares until Rodgers goes down.

 

 

The defense has been god awful 3 out of the last 4 years. Sure they won a Super Bowl, but that was the only season their defense was even any good.

 

 

That whole anti-free agency plan the Packers run and using the draft every year to build on while giving mega contracts to useless players like A.J. Hawk has not done them any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cmgww Walk On

cmgww

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Lions are dirty players, and I agree with the statements of Josh Sitton and the earlier statements of Brandon Marshall. Too bad the Packers couldn't do anything about it yesterday.

And I love it! Sutton ran his mouth and got schooled yesterday. Right or not he should have let his play do the talking. I am not condoning trying to injure guys but I like their attitude. Like I said in my OP...I like the old school down and dirty mentality. You think those guys in the 70s weren't trying to rip each other's heads off? Remember Dick "Night Train" Lane? Mean Joe Greene, Conrad Dobler (NFLs Dirtiest Player back in the day), Jack Tatum, etc....Sitton should have kept his mouth shut bc he got worked yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cmgww Walk On

cmgww

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Side note...Night Train Lane would have been thrown out of today's NFL. He loved to tackle guys around the head/neck area. His signature move was the "Night Train Necktie"...He played for 14 years back when playing careers were even shorter than they are now.

Now back on topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

Green Bay suffers from the same malaise that plagued the Colts - an org that had no plan B if their franchise guy went down.

 

"Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson said in an interview with USA Today’s Tom Pelissero that he is responsible for bringing in backup Seneca Wallace even though he didn’t have familiarity with the offense or have him in preseason camp."

http://tracking.si.com/2013/11/09/packers-ted-thompson-admits-fault-backup-qb-situation/

 

 

How does that saying go? The most important position on any football team is the back up QB? Of course for the Packers it came mid-season and Rodgers is returning. The Colts had the entire season and not only did not find even a decent Qb they inserted Painter and stuck with him to get Luck.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chad72 Ring of Honor

chad72

Posted
Posted

Green Bay suffers from the same malaise that plagued the Colts - an org that had no plan B if their franchise guy went down.

 

 

How does that saying go? The most important position on any football team is the back up QB? Of course for the Packers it came mid-season and Rodgers is returning. The Colts had the entire season and not only did not find even a decent Qb they inserted Painter and stuck with him to get Luck.  

 

Polian and the Colts got away with it for the longest time because Peyton wasn't as mobile and thus stayed in the pocket plus had a quick release thus prolonging his longevity. But now, even with Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, RG3, RW etc., even a slightly mobile QB that does use his legs to get out of the pocket for throws more often than the Bradys and Mannings, his team is going to have to place a premium on the backup QB more so than other teams, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

Green Bay suffers from the same malaise that plagued the Colts - an org that had no plan B if their franchise guy went down.

 

"Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson said in an interview with USA Today’s Tom Pelissero that he is responsible for bringing in backup Seneca Wallace even though he didn’t have familiarity with the offense or have him in preseason camp."

http://tracking.si.com/2013/11/09/packers-ted-thompson-admits-fault-backup-qb-situation/

 

 

How does that saying go? The most important position on any football team is the back up QB? Of course for the Packers it came mid-season and Rodgers is returning. The Colts had the entire season and not only did not find even a decent Qb they inserted Painter and stuck with him to get Luck.

You must also believe the Texans are tanking

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

And I love it! Sutton ran his mouth and got schooled yesterday. Right or not he should have let his play do the talking. I am not condoning trying to injure guys but I like their attitude. Like I said in my OP...I like the old school down and dirty mentality. You think those guys in the 70s weren't trying to rip each other's heads off? Remember Dick "Night Train" Lane? Mean Joe Greene, Conrad Dobler (NFLs Dirtiest Player back in the day), Jack Tatum, etc....Sitton should have kept his mouth shut bc he got worked yesterday.

I thought Sitton's comments were hilarious and had nothing to do with the Packers loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

Polian and the Colts got away with it for the longest time because Peyton wasn't as mobile and thus stayed in the pocket plus had a quick release thus prolonging his longevity. But now, even with Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, RG3, RW etc., even a slightly mobile QB that does use his legs to get out of the pocket for throws more often than the Bradys and Mannings, his team is going to have to place a premium on the backup QB more so than other teams, IMO.

In general both Brady and Manning have been the exception not the rule in terms of QBs staying healthy. Eli too. A GM has to have a capable back up in place. For the GM of the Pack to say he signed Senaca knowing he did not know the offense or have him in camp in the preseason is inexcusble. If I was a Pack fan, I would be irate. Rodgers will have only missed 5 games total and left with the team at 5-2. A decent back up who could have at least won 2 games would have them tied for first with Detroit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

And yet the Colts replaced Curtis Painter just when they were closing in on the #1 pick.....makes perfect sense.

We have been over this before. I have never seen a more obvious tank job in more than 35 years of watching football. Look at GB this year, they have already tried three different QBs in just a few games to get a win. Colts put in the ancient Collins who promptly gets hurt and then stick with Painter for game after game after game until the #1 seed was all but in the bag. I don't blame them as I have said before when you have Luck sitting right there and your current QB is at age 35 and had four neck surgeries it would be even more foolish not to tank. But GB is in a totally different situation. Rodgers is there guy for many seasons to come and he played half the season before getting hurt for a month. Their GM admitted not having a capable back up in there but at least they have tried different guys to keep in the hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

We have been over this before. I have never seen a more obvious tank job in more than 35 years of watching football. Look at GB this year, they have already tried three different QBs in just a few games to get a win. Colts put in the ancient Collins who promptly gets hurt and then stick with Painter for game after game after game until the #1 seed was all but in the bag. I don't blame them as I have said before when you have Luck sitting right there and your current QB is at age 35 and had four neck surgeries it would be even more foolish not to tank. But GB is in a totally different situation. Rodgers is there guy for many seasons to come and he played half the season before getting hurt for a month. Their GM admitted not having a capable back up in there but at least they have tried different guys to keep in the hunt.

Not even worthy of a response

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

Not even worthy of a response

Let's drop it as I don't want to upset many Colts fans here as I know it is a sensitive subject. Suffice to say the two situations are very different with the only similarity being that neither team had a decent back up in place and that falls on mgmt.

 

Back to GB, I still think they can get in the post-season as I don't trust Detroit but they have to win out and Rodger is still not 100 percent sure he will play Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldManP Walk On

OldManP

Posted
Posted

And I love it! Sutton ran his mouth and got schooled yesterday. Right or not he should have let his play do the talking. I am not condoning trying to injure guys but I like their attitude. Like I said in my OP...I like the old school down and dirty mentality. You think those guys in the 70s weren't trying to rip each other's heads off? Remember Dick "Night Train" Lane? Mean Joe Greene, Conrad Dobler (NFLs Dirtiest Player back in the day), Jack Tatum, etc....Sitton should have kept his mouth shut bc he got worked yesterday.

You love it? How would you love it if Suh or any other of your 'old school' heroes stomped Luck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brent71 Walk On

Brent71

Posted
Posted

I like the old school down and dirty mentality. You think those guys in the 70s weren't trying to rip each other's heads off?

and those guys are suing the NFL now. That's why I will never knock the NFL for making any rules they deam nescessary for player safety. If they want to make it flag football I'm Ok with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

I still think the 2011 Colts were not that horrible. I'm sure someone in the organization told the Colts the tank the season to get Andrew Luck. Suck for Luck campaign work.

Actually, I think it was a ploy by Bill Polian to get fired so he could live large off unemployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shecolt Walk On

shecolt

Posted
Posted

.

 

 

How does that saying go? The most important position on any football team is the back up QB? Of course for the Packers it came mid-season and Rodgers is returning. The Colts had the entire season and not only did not find even a decent Qb they inserted Painter and stuck with him to get Luck.  

 

 

We have been over this before. I have never seen a more obvious tank job in more than 35 years of watching football. Look at GB this year, they have already tried three different QBs in just a few games to get a win. Colts put in the ancient Collins who promptly gets hurt and then stick with Painter for game after game after game until the #1 seed was all but in the bag. I don't blame them as I have said before when you have Luck sitting right there and your current QB is at age 35 and had four neck surgeries it would be even more foolish not to tank. But GB is in a totally different situation. Rodgers is there guy for many seasons to come and he played half the season before getting hurt for a month. Their GM admitted not having a capable back up in there but at least they have tried different guys to keep in the hunt.

 

 

Let's drop it as I don't want to upset many Colts fans here as I know it is a sensitive subject. Suffice to say the two situations are very different with the only similarity being that neither team had a decent back up in place and that falls on mgmt.

 

Back to GB, I still think they can get in the post-season as I don't trust Detroit but they have to win out and Rodger is still not 100 percent sure he will play Sunday.

 

Truly amazing.

 

You make posts to talk about it.

 

Then, since you don't want to upset Colt's fans; you want to drop it.

 

Followed by, suffice it to say, talking about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaoBerry Walk On

MaoBerry

Posted
Posted

We have been over this before. I have never seen a more obvious tank job in more than 35 years of watching football. Look at GB this year, they have already tried three different QBs in just a few games to get a win. Colts put in the ancient Collins who promptly gets hurt and then stick with Painter for game after game after game until the #1 seed was all but in the bag. I don't blame them as I have said before when you have Luck sitting right there and your current QB is at age 35 and had four neck surgeries it would be even more foolish not to tank. But GB is in a totally different situation. Rodgers is there guy for many seasons to come and he played half the season before getting hurt for a month. Their GM admitted not having a capable back up in there but at least they have tried different guys to keep in the hunt.

 

 

A tank job of that size would involve too many different variables, such as owner, gm and players. Not to mention playing just good enough to make it seem legit. I'm pretty sure polian wouldn't agree to that, since he would be canned along with his son and alot of players lost their jobs as well. This just isn't possible...sorry. I suggest you read my excellent thread about the occam's razor theory, that pertains to the simpliest explaination tends to be the correct one. The short answer is we majorly sucked that year, due to manning's bloated contract and when he got injured the holes within the team became obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truly amazing.

 

You make posts to talk about it.

 

Then, since you don't want to upset Colt's fans; you want to drop it.

 

Followed by, suffice it to say, talking about it. 

And here you are cutting and pasting my posts again. It was a comment that was then followed by a heated response which prompted my following comment to drop it. I think you owe me another love emoticon actually. :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shecolt Walk On

shecolt

Posted
Posted

And here you are cutting and pasting my posts again. It was a comment that was then followed by a heated response which prompted my following comment to drop it. I think you owe me another love emoticon actually. :thmup:

 

I didn't cut and past.  I multi-quoted.

 

And, I'll be happy to debate the difference with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coltsfanatic24 Practice Squad

coltsfanatic24

Posted
Posted

Without Rodgers the Packers wouldn't win a game. Outside of Clay Matthews and Shields the Packers don't have that much talent. The wr's are good but not great, Rodgers makes them look better then what they really are. The Colts still had Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Garcon, Saturday, Castonzo,Diem, Collie, Clark and Bethea. With just an average QB we would have won 8 games that year, a lot of the games were competitive. As bad as we were in 2011 we were still a much better team then the Packers without Rodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Without Rodgers the Packers wouldn't win a game. Outside of Clay Matthews and Shields the Packers don't have that much talent. The wr's are good but not great, Rodgers makes them look better then what they really are. The Colts still had Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Garcon, Saturday, Castonzo,Diem, Collie, Clark and Bethea. With just an average QB we would have won 8 games that year, a lot of the games were competitive. As bad as we were in 2011 we were still a much better team then the Packers without Rodgers.

 

You're obviously more familiar with the Colts than you are with the Packers. They have plenty of good players outside of the three you named. Eddie Lacy is better than any back we had in 2011. Jordy Nelson is as good as any receiver we had, outside of Reggie Wayne. They have a much better defense: AJ Hawk, Nick Perry, BJ Raji, etc. And they have much better coaching, all the way around. 

 

The Packers revolve around Rodgers, obviously. But they've already been more competitive than we were without Manning. A lot of the players you listed from the Colts had bad seasons in 2011, particularly on defense.

 

I agree that we should have won more than 2 games. The quarterbacking was terrible, and the coaching was terrible. With some tweaks to the gameplans on both sides of the ball, and slightly better quarterbacking, I think 5-7 wins would have been possible. But our QBs were dreadful, most of the time. So was the coaching. Moderate improvements to those two areas would have resulted in better results. But I don't think our roster in 2011 was as good as the Packers roster in 2013, nor do I think we would have won 8 games with just an average QB. That's the same roster that struggled to win 10 games with an excellent QB in 2010. Give us Ryan Fitzpatrick or Alex Smith or someone like that, and a coaching staff that doesn't take three months to change the schemes, and I think we're a 6 win team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...