Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

If P.manning Was Healthy And Playing At His Typical High Level...


Recommended Posts

The Colts record this year would be _________________?????????

I say 8-2 ... Losing the Texans game(barely) and the Saints game.

What is your answer?

They could be 9-1, I think the Texans game would have been different with Manning, odds are he takes Bullitt's INT and goes down the field and puts points on the board and then doesn't fumble back-to-back snaps. All well, he's not healthy so we are 0-10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the same thing about the Texans game...

Isn't that just freaking AMAZING! 0-10 and everyone complaining about the "NO TALENT ROSTER" ... if we were 9-1 what would they be saying??? LOL!

You have to admit there have been many games where the "other talent" has played just fine and its been all about QB play and not being able to sustain drives is absolutely HUGE!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texans - Loss

Browns - Win

Pitts - Win

KC - Win

TB - Win

NO - Loss

Tenn - Loss

Atlanta - Loss

Jville - Win

I find it interesting you list two of the games where QB play wasn't as big of an issue (KC and TB) as wins but yet two games where the defense played fairly well and the biggest issue was QB play you list as losses if we had Manning. If we are going to play the what if game wouldn't it make more sense to assume that we might have been more likely to win the games where the defense played halfway decent but the biggest issue was QB if we got Manning back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting you list two of the games where QB play wasn't as big of an issue (KC and TB) as wins but yet two games where the defense played fairly well and the biggest issue was QB play you list as losses if we had Manning. If we are going to play the what if game wouldn't it make more sense to assume that we might have been more likely to win the games where the defense played halfway decent but the biggest issue was QB if we got Manning back?

I view KC and TB as inferor teams to the Colts, I see Houston/NO/Atlanta and road game at TN games we would lose no matter whom the QB would have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion if Manning had started every game this season they would be 5 wins 5 losses at best.Manning as good as he is only plays QB.

So you win 12 or more games 7 years in a row (10 the year you didn't win 12 or more) and now they're going to be a .500 team with Manning?

This team would be anywhere from 9-1 to 7-3 with Manning. The offense would be humming per ushe and grinding out long scoring drives. The defense would be less exposed because of this and would in turn be more effective. The special teams would still be awful but when haven't they been. Remember we gave up an opening kickoff return to the Bears when we won the Super Bowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you win 12 or more games 7 years in a row (10 the year you didn't win 12 or more) and now they're going to be a .500 team with Manning?

This team would be anywhere from 9-1 to 7-3 with Manning. The offense would be humming per ushe and grinding out long scoring drives. The defense would be less exposed because of this and would in turn be more effective. The special teams would still be awful but when haven't they been. Remember we gave up an opening kickoff return to the Bears when we won the Super Bowl.

I don't believe I said they would be a overall .500 team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7-3 at worst, 10-0 at best.

This is the way I see it.

The defense would see a basic improvement because of our offenses ability to stay on the field. A lot of their issues they have faced this season is that our offense has put them in bad spots or just go three and for most of the game. You throw in a much improved running game and that offense could be really clicking by this point in the season.

I do not think we would be dominate and the games would be a bit more of a struggle because the pass defense is just atrocious and the run defense is not great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe I said they would be a overall .500 team.

Yet again you argue just for the sake of arguing. If you'd have paid the slightest bit of attention you'd have seen Jani Lane was responding to someone else, not you. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

7-3 at worst, 10-0 at best.

I agree.

The time has played very poorly the last month and is not an indication of the talent out there. The whole team was playing a lot better early on (except for Houston) and there is no doubt the Colts would have comfortably won a few of those games with Manning. A 4-1 team is going to put in a whole lot more effort and focus than a 0-5 team.

Also offensively Manning would have had his favourite target back this year (Collie) and would have been better than last year. Plus OL is upgraded. If Manning stayed healthy then he would be putting up the same numbers as Rodgers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again you argue just for the sake of arguing. If you'd have paid the slightest bit of attention you'd have seen Jani Lane was responding to someone else, not you. ;)

You have to give the guy credit, cause he can bait a person into any argument and he will debate either side.
Link to post
Share on other sites

8-8 for the season. Weak defense, average at best O-line, and below average STs.

Yup weak defense which is practically the same defense minus one linebacker we went to the SB in 2009 with, we have always had bad special teams and the O line hasn't been one unit since 2007. Glad to know you are here for intelligent discussion and not just trolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup weak defense which is practically the same defense minus one linebacker we went to the SB in 2009 with, we have always had bad special teams and the O line hasn't been one unit since 2007. Glad to know you are here for intelligent discussion and not just trolling.

Are you trying to tell me that Freeney and Mathis are playing as well this year as last year? I certainly hope that you wouldn't dare try to make such a ridiculous argument.

How are those safeties playing? Cornerbacks? Neither group is good.

Angerer has a lot of tackles this year. That happens almost every year for teams that has a much smaller amount of TOP than their opponents. More tackles because they're involved in more defensive plays.

Yes, 8-8. The team was 10-6 last year, and the defense got worse. 8-8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to tell me that Freeney and Mathis are playing as well this year as last year? I certainly hope that you wouldn't dare try to make such a ridiculous argument.

How are those safeties playing? Cornerbacks? Neither group is good.

Angerer has a lot of tackles this year. That happens almost every year for teams that has a much smaller amount of TOP than their opponents. More tackles because they're involved in more defensive plays.

Yes, 8-8. The team was 10-6 last year, and the defense got worse. 8-8.

It seems you fail to understand the effect Manning's absence is having on the defense.

3rd down conversions:

We go from easily top 5 last year and the best in the NFL over a 5 year span in the high 45%-50% range to 33% and 23rd in the NFL.

We go from the top Red Zone offense to 28th.

We go from from middle of the pack in TOP to dead last.

We go from the top ranked passing offense to 30th.

We go from a top 3 offense, in yards per drive, pts per drive to 30th.

Each of those factors contribute to the defense being on the field longer, not getting. I haven't seen the statistics and didn't crunch them myself but I would say that our rate of having 3 & outs from last year to this year would be very similar to the ones listed above.

So having Manning playing alone would improve the productivity of the defense. It's just one of the issues he's covered up, and one of the issues that needs to be dealt with moving forward with or without Manning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite honestly don't understand why people really think we would have lost to the Texans if Manning was healthy.

Mannning= more drives which equals less times the Texans have the ball. And NO fumbles!

With a healthy Manning, It's possible we could have beaten the Saints too.

So I say 9-1 or 10-0.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite honestly don't understand why people really think we would have lost to the Texans if Manning was healthy.

Mannning= more drives which equals less times the Texans have the ball. And NO fumbles!

With a healthy Manning, It's possible we could have beaten the Saints too.

So I say 9-1 or 10-0.

simple they beat us last year at their place with Peyton playing.

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...