I SAY LETS WIN NOW..

[jskinnz]

Of course we managed to make the playoffs, we didn't lose our starting QB, Its not about always the number of people you lose, Its about who you lose, Which player did we lose outside of Wayne is an established player? There isn't one yet...Dwayne Allen will be probably but he isn't there yet, you can argue Bradshaw and Ballard

 

 

Back away from this argument.  Schaub was a very large reason why they were losing.  Remember his consecutive game pick 6 streak?

 

And to say that Wayne is the only established player the Colts lost is really silly.  How about this - they lost 2 of their initial 3 RB's, a starting TE, and a starting G among to say nothing of defensive missed games.

 

I agree on balance that they are a team better than their record would indicate, but your support for that point is weak. 

[a06cc]

If they continue with the emphasis on the draft and don't sign talent around Luck now, Grigson may not be around in the years ahead. Can you not see that in 2006 when Luck gets $20 million+, there won't be room to sign Hilton, Allen, Fleener and Ballard anyway? That is the whole problem. The NFL has changed in the last two years and the days of getting a franchise QB, paying him a ton of money, and getting to the SB may be over. Peyton with Denver may be the last to do it that way. I think they might do it again this year but those three teams I keep mentioning didn't do it that way and they count as the last two SB champions.

We can dish out a good contract for Luck and have a chance to resign guys. The cap for team is going to increase again next season

[BlueCollarColts]

doubt it reports say we are looking to waste our cap space on a damn WR like Decker

Reports said we were going to get Cliff Avril as well, don't just believe everything you hear

[Jaric]

Of course we managed to make the playoffs, we didn't lose our starting QB, Its not about always the number of people you lose, Its about who you lose, Which player did we lose outside of Wayne is an established player? There isn't one yet...Dwayne Allen will be probably but he isn't there yet, you can argue Bradshaw and Ballard

Based on the way he was playing, losing pickasaurus should have been an improvement for the Texans.

Look, I get it, they have a talented roster on paper. But that's not the same thing as being a good football team. Good football teams don't lose 14 straight football games. Look at the 2011 Colts. Would you call that a good football team? I would not. At times they redefined my definition of "bad." But that team had talented players.

[USAFHoosier]

In theory front loading bigger contracts in this FA to have the cap space the next few years to resign our own makes sense.  Now getting a player and agent to bite on that in order to get a ring is another thing.

[Beauregarde]

Based on the way he was playing, losing pickasaurus should have been an improvement for the Texans.

Look, I get it, they have a talented roster on paper. But that's not the same thing as being a good football team. Good football teams don't lose 14 straight football games. Look at the 2011 Colts. Would you call that a good football team? I would not. At times they redefined my definition of "bad." But that team had talented players.

If Peyton had been able to play, that teams wins ten or more games and makes the playoffs.

[Jaric]

If Peyton had been able to play, that teams wins ten or more games and makes the playoffs.

I thought having a high priced pro bowl QB was bad for a team? Hasn't that been the argument all this time? That we'd somehow be better off passing on a QB like Luck for a bunch of draft picks?

Regardless, even if the above hypothetical statement is correct, he didn't play and they didn't win 10 or more games. They won 2 games and IMO were lucky to get that many.

[Beauregarde]

I thought having a high priced pro bowl QB was bad for a team? Hasn't that been the argument all this time? That we'd somehow be better off passing on a QB like Luck for a bunch of draft picks?

Regardless, even if the above hypothetical statement is correct, he didn't play and they didn't win 10 or more games. They won 2 games and IMO were lucky to get that many.

Oh, boy. No, I didn't say that. There is nothing wrong with having an experience pro bowl QB. That will get you in the playoffs most years and every eight to ten years you might even get to a SB. While you are doing that the 49ers, Seahawks and the Ravens will already have won one or two. The Texans will build a great team and then add a franchise QB and they might win one or two also. It is just my opinion and I don't mind that several of you disagree but I think the Colts will be a consistent playoff team with a mediocre playoff record for years to come if things stay as they are. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[Jaric]

I love how it's a forgone conclusion the Houston Texans will just build a great team and then add a franchise QB.

You know, because their track record has just been consistently excellent on both of those fronts.

Franchise QBs don't just grow on trees. To read your posts you'd think a GM could just pick one up at Walmart. They keep them next to the tires.

QBs like Andrew Luck come around like once a decade. You even admitted a player of that caliber can be the difference between winning 2 games and 10+.

I don't care what you get from trading Luck, you won't get enough players that by themselves make that significant a difference to the success or failure of a franchise.

[Beauregarde]

I love how it's a forgone conclusion the Houston Texans will just build a great team and then add a franchise QB.

You know, because their track record has just been consistently excellent on both of those fronts.

Franchise QBs don't just grow on trees. To read your posts you'd think a GM could just pick one up at Walmart. They keep them next to the tires.

QBs like Andrew Luck come around like once a decade. You even admitted a player of that caliber can be the difference between winning 2 games and 10+.

I don't care what you get from trading Luck, you won't get enough players that by themselves make that significant a difference to the success or failure of a franchise.

What you deserved for your approach would be what happened to Carr, Couch and many other can't miss prospects like Luck. What you deserved was to invest all that in just him and then have him go out behind a leaking O-Line and have him suffer a career ending injury. I cringed every time I saw him getting nailed hard. Yes, they have changed the rules to protect the QB but one big hit and you will be looking for another franchise QB and he will still be playing behind a lousy line and a mediocre defense. I can see that you are a bit brainwashed into thinking that is the only way to win a Super Bowl. Recent teams have shown there is another more sensible way of doing it. The new salary cap and CBA make the new way of thinking possible. Perhaps you do not need a QB like Peyton or Luck if the rest of the team is really good. A good game manager like Wilson might be just the ticket to win a SB.

[Beauregarde]

I love how it's a forgone conclusion the Houston Texans will just build a great team and then add a franchise QB.

You know, because their track record has just been consistently excellent on both of those fronts.

Franchise QBs don't just grow on trees. To read your posts you'd think a GM could just pick one up at Walmart. They keep them next to the tires.

QBs like Andrew Luck come around like once a decade. You even admitted a player of that caliber can be the difference between winning 2 games and 10+.

I don't care what you get from trading Luck, you won't get enough players that by themselves make that significant a difference to the success or failure of a franchise.

They are an expansion team and yes, they made lots of mistakes. But they have a good defense that is on the way to being great if they add Clowney. Schaub was bad last year but he has been very good up until then. He might be able to come back or they might deal for a veteran and sign a lower round QB like Derek Carr to develop. I would not be one bit surprised to see Houston win ten games or more this year and they are building a nightmare for the Colts and Andrew Luck.  Do you remember how the Cowboys were built during their Super Bowl years? What let them get Emmett Smith, Aikman and a host of others? They traded Herschel Walker for an enormous package of draft picks, hired a great coach in Jimmy Johnson and they won Super Bowls with a host of HOF players. So, Yes, I would rather have had the picks than putting all of the emphasis on Luck. That doesn't mean he isn't great. It just means that he came to a team with lots of holes to fill and he was going to get beaten up rather badly in the process. Happily, he is going to survive it. Many did not using that approach.

[Gavin]

Back away from this argument.  Schaub was a very large reason why they were losing.  Remember his consecutive game pick 6 streak?

 

And to say that Wayne is the only established player the Colts lost is really silly.  How about this - they lost 2 of their initial 3 RB's, a starting TE, and a starting G among to say nothing of defensive missed games.

 

I agree on balance that they are a team better than their record would indicate, but your support for that point is weak. 

Schaub is a QB who led the league in passing yards just a a few years ago, I agree Schaub had a big hand in why they lost but with him they were a regular 9-10-11-12 win team, Yes the Colts lost some starters but who was an established starter other then Wayne? Thomas showed promise but thats through 2 games, Allen showed promise but was far from an established big time TE at that point, Balllard showed promise and I love his running style but I wouldn't call him an established player yet, Bradshaw Ill give you is an established player but at this point not a Back you can trust to carry the load anymore

[Jaric]

If by "brainwashed" you mean "not overreacting to the circumstances that lead Seattle to the Super Bowl," then yeah I guess I am. This "new model" you keep blathering about is a set of outlying circumstances. It rarely works out the way it did for Seattle. Meanwhile drafting a guy of Andrew Luck's caliber consistently gets your team closer to winning superbowls.

Go back through NFL History. Even in the dead ball era of the 70s, teams that consistently won had what we would refer to as franchise quarterbacks.

Also, your Dallas Cowboy analogy is absurd. They traded a running back who was past his prime for those picks not a budding franchise QB, one of which was used to draft a franchise QB. So yeah, if you can find a team willing to trade us two years worth of draft picks for Vick Ballard, just show me where to sign.

As to your continued insistence that not addressing their most obvious and pressing need will somehow transform the Houston Texans into superbowl winners, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Personally, I'll start taking them seriously when they finally win a game in Indianapolis.

[Jaric]

Sorry, double post, please delete

[Colts_Fan12]

Reports said we were going to get Cliff Avril as well, don't just believe everything you hear

I'm sure were not looking to get who we need to

[Andre The Colt]

Well there is Jimmy Graham and Jeremiah Finley at TE. How about Eric Decker, Hakeem Knicks, Golden Tate, Julian Edelman, Andre Caldwell and Jacoby Jones as WRs. I would take all of those receivers over Hilton. Some, like Andre Caldwell and Golden Tate, don't have his stats because they were lower options on their own team but they all have number one receiver potential. Hilton doesn't. Dwayne hasn't done much but be injured. Hilton is OK but he isn't a Reggie Wayne nor is he a number one receiver. I will give you that his stats are very good for two years. Let these others play with Luck and play as much as Hilton and you will see similar or superior numbers in my opinion. I do think Hilton is closer to these receivers than Allen is to Graham and Finley.

You obviously don't know nothing. Do us all a favor and get off theses forums kthxbye.

[snkdy]

What you deserved for your approach would be what happened to Carr, Couch and many other can't miss prospects like Luck. What you deserved was to invest all that in just him and then have him go out behind a leaking O-Line and have him suffer a career ending injury. I cringed every time I saw him getting nailed hard. Yes, they have changed the rules to protect the QB but one big hit and you will be looking for another franchise QB and he will still be playing behind a lousy line and a mediocre defense. I can see that you are a bit brainwashed into thinking that is the only way to win a Super Bowl. Recent teams have shown there is another more sensible way of doing it. The new salary cap and CBA make the new way of thinking possible. Perhaps you do not need a QB like Peyton or Luck if the rest of the team is really good. A good game manager like Wilson might be just the ticket to win a SB.

 

Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger have been to thirteen Superbowls. Do you think this is a coincidence? Many of those appearances have been in the past five years. Eli may not be elite, but he's been money in the playoffs and has two rings of his own. The Ravens had a good defense two years ago, but Baltimore won a ring because of Flacco's 11 TDs and zero interceptions in the post-season. This idea that the franchise QB has become obsolete is ridiculous.

[Beauregarde]

You obviously don't know nothing. Do us all a favor and get off theses forums kthxbye.

Well, my grammar is obviously much better than yours even if I do not know anything.

[Beauregarde]

Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger have been to thirteen Superbowls. Do you think this is a coincidence? Many of those appearances have been in the past five years. Eli may not be elite, but he's been money in the playoffs and has two rings of his own. The Ravens had a good defense two years ago, but Baltimore won a ring because of Flacco's 11 TDs and zero interceptions in the post-season. This idea that the franchise QB has become obsolete is ridiculous.

I am only talking about the last three years. Times have changed and I did not say the franchise QB has become obsolete. I only suggested that some teams may decide to build everything else first and then get the QB as opposed to how it has been done in the past. The rules have changed and you have to change with them.

[snkdy]

I am only talking about the last three years. Times have changed and I did not say the franchise QB has become obsolete. I only suggested that some teams may decide to build everything else first and then get the QB as opposed to how it has been done in the past. The rules have changed and you have to change with them.

 

But outside of this year, the evidence doesn't support your argument. What we need is good quarterback play in conjunction with a good defense. Let's look at the last three years. Seattle did manage to win pretty easily last month, but SF (a team very similar to SEA in nearly every respect) did in fact lose last year because of Flacco's play. And the Ravens weren't built in the manner you're suggesting is necessary to create a successful team. The Giants beat the Pats the year before that with another great defense, but again, Eli performed admirably under pressure. And I consider the Giants to be different from SEA and SF. The year before that, Rodgers won his first ring. And I don't think anyone could call Rodgers a game manager.

[Jaric]

I am only talking about the last three years. Times have changed and I did not say the franchise QB has become obsolete. I only suggested that some teams may decide to build everything else first and then get the QB as opposed to how it has been done in the past. The rules have changed and you have to change with them.

No rules have changed. You're overreacting to outliers.

Under your "new method" you're going to have to try and keep an entire team together. Take your Seahawks for example. What do you think happens when all those players under rookie contracts are up for free agency? You're panicking over having to pay one player when the method you're talking about will require you to pay probably at least a dozen players.

Not to mention that this method requires you stumble onto a franchise QB at the exact right time when you have your team built but still under rookie contracts. This gives you a window of "maybe" 3 years. Realistically less than that. Then of course you're expecting a young QB to just show up and within a year or two lead his team to a Super Bowl?

Basically the stars aligned for the Seahawks. Bully to them, I'm not taking a single thing away from them. But that doesn't represent a change in philosophies.

Look at the teams who won the way you're talking about. The 2000 Ravens and 2002 bucs are good examples of building a team that can carry an average QB. (BTW, Wilson is much better than average but that's another argument)

What happened after they won? Nothing. They couldn't keep their team together and went right back to sucking.

Look at teams who achieved sustained success in the NFL. There's one constant, and it's a franchise QB.

You can really divide NFL teams up into two categories. Teams with a franchise QB and teams without one.

If you don't have one, and you have a chance to get one, you don't pass on him. It's that simple.

[SteelCityColt]

No rules have changed. You're overreacting to outliers.

Under your "new method" you're going to have to try and keep an entire team together. Take your Seahawks for example. What do you think happens when all those players under rookie contracts are up for free agency? You're panicking over having to pay one player when the method you're talking about will require you to pay probably at least a dozen players.

Not to mention that this method requires you stumble onto a franchise QB at the exact right time when you have your team built but still under rookie contracts. This gives you a window of "maybe" 3 years. Realistically less than that. Then of course you're expecting a young QB to just show up and within a year or two lead his team to a Super Bowl?

Basically the stars aligned for the Seahawks. Bully to them, I'm not taking a single thing away from them. But that doesn't represent a change in philosophies.

Look at the teams who won the way you're talking about. The 2000 Ravens and 2002 bucs are good examples of building a team that can carry an average QB. (BTW, Wilson is much better than average but that's another argument)

What happened after they won? Nothing. They couldn't keep their team together and went right back to sucking.

Look at teams who achieved sustained success in the NFL. There's one constant, and it's a franchise QB.

You can really divide NFL teams up into two categories. Teams with a franchise QB and teams without one.

If you don't have one, and you have a chance to get one, you don't pass on him. It's that simple.

Well put that man.