cmgww Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
oldunclemark Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 I agree....very much so.. they simply didnt have a competent backup and their offense was based in the QB throwing for 300 a game...and they haven't won a game without aaron Good call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad72 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
cmgww Posted November 29, 2013 Author Share Posted November 29, 2013 Sorry for the error...but you get my idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PATS16N0 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Superman Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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.FACEPALM.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConBro Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 How can you use that username lol? That seems like it would be a constant reminder of losing in the superbowl.I agree. I would have gone with something like "Harriet the Spygate" myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaoBerry Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 I agree. I would have gone with something like "Harriet the Spygate" myself. Or dirty dickie and waterGATE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConBro Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Or dirty dickie and waterGATE. In college my friends and I won a trivia contest, and our team name was "Tricky Dick and the Watergates" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaoBerry Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 In college my friends and I won a trivia contest, and our team name was "Tricky Dick and the Watergates" That's awesome bro!LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synthetic Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
OldManP Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgww Posted November 29, 2013 Author Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
cmgww Posted November 29, 2013 Author Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
amfootball Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
chad72 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
BOTT Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
BOTT Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
amfootball Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
amfootball Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 You must also believe the Texans are tankingThey are not 0-12 and continuing to play Curtis Painter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOTT Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 They are not 0-12 and continuing to play Curtis Painter.And yet the Colts replaced Curtis Painter just when they were closing in on the #1 pick.....makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amfootball Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
BOTT Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Dustin Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 And yet the Colts replaced Curtis Painter just when they were closing in on the #1 pick.....makes perfect sense.This is the same person who thinks that Irsay was serious about signing Ed Reed and making him a WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amfootball Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Not even worthy of a responseLet'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 More sharing options...
House Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 The willfully ignorant are so amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldManP Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Brent71 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
James Harden Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOTT Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 More sharing options...
MaoBerry Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 That's why were (colts) in the WIN NOW mode, just so we can take advantage of these cheap rookie contracts, because in a couple of years andrew (along with ty, allen and fleener) will get flacco money. If you want an elite QB, then you pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Actually, I think it was a ploy by Bill Polian to get fired so he could live large off unemployment. That makes more sense than anything else I've read in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shecolt Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 . 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 More sharing options...
coming on strong Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 aron rogers is overrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaoBerry Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 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 More sharing options...
amfootball Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 . 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shecolt Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 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. 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 More sharing options...
coltsfanatic24 Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Superman Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now