Bob Kravitz is spot on.

[RockThatBlue]

I'm not even a huge fan of his, but he is absolutely 100% correct with this article.

http://www.wthr.com/story/27400654/2014/11/17/kravitz-call-the-colts-what-they-are-after-the-new-england-massacre-pretenders

[Larry Horseman]

It's funny how there is a thread blasting Wells' ESPN column and this thread praising Kravitz's column when they are pretty much identical. Just an observation, not an attack on anyone.

 

I'm disappointed to say that they are correct. That said, the sky isn't falling; it just never was as high as people thought it was. 

[Moopsiepuffs]

I haven't read much of his work and he seems to get a bad wrap from Colts fans, but that article is basically common sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take off the blue and white spectacles.

[The Fish]

It's true as it stands today, but things will change, for better or worse. My feelings right now are that this squad would do well to win the Wild Card game.. 

[RockThatBlue]

It's funny how there is a thread blasting Wells' ESPN column and this thread praising Kravitz's column when they are pretty much identical. Just an observation, not an attack on anyone.

I'm disappointed to say that they are correct. That said, the sky isn't falling; it just never was as high as people thought it was.

Wells is right too. We have lost to every really good team this year. We absolutely are pretenders.

[Moopsiepuffs]

It's true as it stands today, but things will change, for better or worse. My feelings right now are that this squad would do well to win the Wild Card game.. 

 

In what way do you think things might get better?

 

An average/good running defense isn't going to pop up out of no where. Richardson isn't going to become a servicable running back out of the blue and I don't think Bradshaw's ankle is going to heal itself within the next couple of weeks.

 

If there's going to be anymore change, it's going to be for the worse. Thank God for the easiest remaining schedule known to man.

[RockThatBlue]

Stat of the day from this article.

The six victories have come over teams that are 23-35-1; the four losses have come to teams who are 28-12.

[BlueCollarColts]

No it's completely false, if you are an NFL fan you should realize by now if you make the playoffs you can do damage. Are we the favorites? No but we have a shot.

[The Fish]

In what way do you think things might get better?

 

An average/good running defense isn't going to pop up out of no where. Richardson isn't going to become a servicable running back out of the blue and I don't think Bradshaw's ankle is going to heal itself within the next couple of weeks.

 

If there's going to be anymore change, it's going to be for the worse. Thank God for the easiest remaining schedule known to man.

I generally agree with you, but maybe Herron can fall forward for 4 yards at a time. Maybe Shipley gets his job back, maybe Moncrief  get's more reps, maybe the D remembers how to play the run, maybe other stuff and things, events, occurrences... umm. 

[Superman]

It's funny how there is a thread blasting Wells' ESPN column and this thread praising Kravitz's column when they are pretty much identical. Just an observation, not an attack on anyone.

 

I'm disappointed to say that they are correct. That said, the sky isn't falling; it just never was as high as people thought it was. 

 

This isn't a good article, either.

 

As an example, Kravitz says 'you can't make mistakes against the Patriots.' Every team makes mistakes, every game. We made too many, absolutely, but Brady made huge mistakes in the first half. His first interception, a deep pass on first down, Kravitz tweets that it's 'as good as a punt.' What? No, it was a terrible decision, a terrible interception, and it's an example of how even really good teams with future HOF QBs make mistakes.

 

So a team making mistakes and not playing well in a game in November doesn't make them a "pretender." Again, this is a bad article, just like Wells' article was bad.

[Superman]

In what way do you think things might get better?

 

An average/good running defense isn't going to pop up out of no where. Richardson isn't going to become a servicable running back out of the blue and I don't think Bradshaw's ankle is going to heal itself within the next couple of weeks.

 

If there's going to be anymore change, it's going to be for the worse. Thank God for the easiest remaining schedule known to man.

 

This is the only game this season where our run defense has been bad. Generally speaking, we don't get beat on the ground, especially against straightforward running teams. 

[Moopsiepuffs]

This is the only game this season where our run defense has been bad. Generally speaking, we don't get beat on the ground, especially against straightforward running teams. 

 

Something tells me we might face some more run-heavy attacks in the coming weeks after last night's debacle, particularly if that includes another rainy night in Foxborough come the playoffs.

 

The suggestion that Indianapolis is anything other than a pretender is simply wide of the mark.

[Coffeedrinker]

It's not a bad piece.  

 

Using the phrase "pretenders" is wrong in this article.  He starts off by talking about how he's not a fan, he just reports the truth as he sees it but then calls them pretenders.  The Colts have never said they are a SB team so if Kravitz thinks they are pretenders that is only because his expectations at one point was for them to be better than they are.

[Tracy Denton]

Something tells me we might face some more run-heavy attacks in the coming weeks after last night's debacle, particularly if that includes another rainy night in Foxborough come the playoffs.

 

The suggestion that Indianapolis is anything other than a pretender is simply wide of the mark.

Colts can still beat any team in the NFL !! I guess since denver got smoked by the rams they have no chance to go deep in the playoffs. The Pats are a really good team and they came to play,we didn't and lost but that dosent mean that we won't win if we meet them again ! I think the real pretenders are people such a Kravits and what looks like a lot of so called Colts fans, Don't throw in the towel..the season is not over !!

[Superman]

Something tells me we might face some more run-heavy attacks in the coming weeks after last night's debacle, particularly if that includes another rainy night in Foxborough come the playoffs.

 

The suggestion that Indianapolis is anything other than a pretender is simply wide of the mark.

 

Other teams have tried to run on us. They've put an extra lineman on the field. It usually doesn't work. One of the big differences is that we chose to keep lining a safety up on Gronkowski, giving them an advantage. Another thing is that the Pats schemed some good blocks. They whipped us fair and square.

 

But the Pats are the only team that has been able to line up and dominate the line of scrimmage like that against us, in two years. We don't get run on like that. The games where we have given up a lot of rushing yardage have mostly been against read option teams, not teams that can just cram the ball down our throats. So again, the idea that we can't stop the run is patently false. We just can't stop the Pats run. 

 

As for the "pretender" remark, it's just dumb. Six weeks ago, the Pats were a pretender. Brady was going to get benched or traded. The Belichick era was coming to a close. Remember all that stupid stuff? Even good teams have ups and downs. What matters is whether you can win enough games to get into the postseason, and then hopefully you can make enough plays to win some games and have a chance at doing some damage, and maybe you get to the Super Bowl. NFL history is littered with Super Bowl participants who took bad losses during the season. 

[Moopsiepuffs]

We just can't stop the Pats run. 

 

So you are saying we can't stop the best team in the AFC, but we are not pretenders? Interesting...

 

You do understand that for the Colts to reach the Super Bowl, they will more than likely need to play New England again? On the road. A team you just said they can't stop...Pretenders?

[Superman]

So you are saying we can't stop the best team in the AFC, but we are not pretenders? Interesting...

 

You do understand that for the Colts to reach the Super Bowl, they will more than likely need to play New England again? On the road. A team you just said they can't stop...Pretenders?

 

So is every team that doesn't go to the Super Bowl a "pretender." That's dumb. It's a stupid label to put on any team, especially in mid-November.

 

And I don't think it's determined that we can't beat New England. Each game is it's own entity. 

[Superman]

It's not a bad piece.  

 

 

Yes it is.

[Coffeedrinker]

Yes it is.

In what way?

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

The truth hurts

[MJD42]

Other teams have tried to run on us. They've put an extra lineman on the field. It usually doesn't work. One of the big differences is that we chose to keep lining a safety up on Gronkowski, giving them an advantage. Another thing is that the Pats schemed some good blocks. They whipped us fair and square.

 

But the Pats are the only team that has been able to line up and dominate the line of scrimmage like that against us, in two years. We don't get run on like that. The games where we have given up a lot of rushing yardage have mostly been against read option teams, not teams that can just cram the ball down our throats. So again, the idea that we can't stop the run is patently false. We just can't stop the Pats run. 

 

As for the "pretender" remark, it's just dumb. Six weeks ago, the Pats were a pretender. Brady was going to get benched or traded. The Belichick era was coming to a close. Remember all that stupid stuff? Even good teams have ups and downs. What matters is whether you can win enough games to get into the postseason, and then hopefully you can make enough plays to win some games and have a chance at doing some damage, and maybe you get to the Super Bowl. NFL history is littered with Super Bowl participants who took bad losses during the season. 

It is a copy cat league though. Teams will try to do to the Colts what the Pats did.

[Moopsiepuffs]

So is every team that doesn't go to the Super Bowl a "pretender."

 

Ehh...this is awkward.

 

"Pretender" is the opposite of "contender" in this context.

 

If a team doesn't go to the Super Bowl, they cannot "contend" for the championship.

 

You don't thnk the Colts can stop the Pats, therefore they won't be going to the Super Bowl, therefore, they are not contenders.

[RockThatBlue]

Yes it is.

Being a pretender may not matter in November, but we are a pretender at least for the moment. We just are not there yet. The Broncos, Eagles, Steelers and last nights Patriots game have proved it to me. We are more than likely once again a one and done team and I am sick of these one and dones.

[Superman]

In what way?

 

First off, your post identifies the flawed premise that the article is based on. I'm not sure why we need more than that.

 

It's a bad game against in good team in mid November. It is not a reflection of all that the Colts are and ever will be. It's just a bad game.

[Superman]

Ehh...this is awkward.

 

"Pretender" is the opposite of "contender" in this context.

 

If a team doesn't go to the Super Bowl, they cannot "contend" for the championship.

 

You don't thnk the Colts can stop the Pats, therefore they won't be going to the Super Bowl, therefore, they are not contenders.

 

I didn't say I don't think the Colts can stop the Pats. I said we can't -- as in, haven't been able to -- stop the Pats run game.

 

Also, a team doesn't have to go to the Super Bowl to contend for a Super Bowl. The Pats were contenders last season, and so were the Niners. Neither team went to the Super Bowl. 

 

Lastly, words have meaning. Pretender isn't the opposite of contender. That's not what either of those words mean. 

[Coffeedrinker]

First off, your post identifies the flawed premise that the article is based on. I'm not sure why we need more than that.

 

It's a bad game against in good team in mid November. It is not a reflection of all that the Colts are and ever will be. It's just a bad game.

1.  That is true.  IMO though a piece can be overall good even if I disagree with a part.

 

2.  Good point on your second sentence.

[Superman]

It is a copy cat league though. Teams will try to do to the Colts what the Pats did.

 

Teams have tried to do what the Pats did. They didn't invent pull blocking, counters, end arounds, double teams, heavy sets, etc. This isn't a Bill Belichick mastermind philosophy. What they did is what the Niners do, for the most part. And we shut the Niners down last year. 

Also, there are few teams with tight ends that can block like Gronk and also are capable of undressing linebackers in the receiving game. So the box advantage that the Pats have against us doesn't hold up for other teams.

 

Anyways, my point is just that our run defense has held up against some pretty good rushing teams. That we got dominated by the Pats doesn't automatically make us a bad run defense. 

[Moopsiepuffs]

Lastly, words have meaning. Pretender isn't the opposite of contender. That's not what either of those words mean. 

 

I said in this context, and that is exactly what those words mean IN THIS CONTEXT.

 

"Contender or Pretender" is an extremely common phrase used in sports. In fact, I believe NFL.com have a video segment with that exact title.

 

Secondly, how can you contend for a Super Bowl championship if you don't reach the Super Bowl?

[Superman]

1.  That is true.  IMO though a piece can be overall good even if I disagree with a part.

 

2.  Good point on your second sentence.

 

This is obviously my opinion. I was being facetious and flippant in responding to your previous post.

 

You're not on Twitter, are you? Last night, Kravitz tweets after Luck's pick about how terrible a decision it was, and how it's obvious that the coach's talks with him about mistakes aren't getting through. (Trolling, IMO.) Then, Brady throws a terrible pass on first down that gets picked off, and Kravitz says it's "as good as a punt." On first down. He magnified our issues, minimized our good plays -- the pick was a result of good pass pressure -- and in general, has spent the last 5+ years putting himself at odds with Colts management and trying to rile up Colts fans. And then he spent last night slobbering all over the Pats and Tom Brady. So I really don't take Kravitz seriously, in general.

[Superman]

I said in this context, and that is exactly what those words mean IN THIS CONTEXT.

 

"Contender or Pretender" is an extremely common phrase used in sports. In fact, I believe NFL.com have a video segment with that exact title.

 

That's dumb. It makes no sense. That's not what those words mean. 

 

And I don't think that an NFL.com video segment changes the meaning of words. Sorry.

[Larry Horseman]

This isn't a good article, either.

 

As an example, Kravitz says 'you can't make mistakes against the Patriots.' Every team makes mistakes, every game. We made too many, absolutely, but Brady made huge mistakes in the first half. His first interception, a deep pass on first down, Kravitz tweets that it's 'as good as a punt.' What? No, it was a terrible decision, a terrible interception, and it's an example of how even really good teams with future HOF QBs make mistakes.

 

So a team making mistakes and not playing well in a game in November doesn't make them a "pretender." Again, this is a bad article, just like Wells' article was bad.

 

IDK, Superman. While there are flaws with both articles (I agree with the examples you provided and that mistakes always happen during a game for both teams), I do think it is concerning the Colts a) have lost to three of the four division leaders they have played this year and b) lost so badly to the Pats. I'm not sure that pretender is the correct word to classify what the Colts are. Right now they are leading arguably the worst division in football by 1 game; have lost 3 games in conference; and have lost 2 home games. That does not read as the resume of a serious super bowl contender, which I think both Kravitz and Wells are using as their measuring stick. Also, playing your best football in November and December is much more important than September and October. 

 

I personally think this team is on par with last years--could they make a run? Sure, and I hope they do. Do I really believe they will? Not at the present, but there is still plenty of football left. 

[Superman]

Being a pretender may not matter in November, but we are a pretender at least for the moment. We just are not there yet. The Broncos, Eagles, Steelers and last nights Patriots game have proved it to me. We are more than likely once again a one and done team and I am sick of these one and dones.

 

Once again? Did we go one and done last year? Weren't people saying all the same stuff, for instance after the Rams loss, or the Cardinals loss (both of which were worse than the Pats loss), or the Bengals loss? 

[MJD42]

Teams have tried to do what the Pats did. They didn't invent pull blocking, counters, end arounds, double teams, heavy sets, etc. This isn't a Bill Belichick mastermind philosophy. What they did is what the Niners do, for the most part. And we shut the Niners down last year. 

Also, there are few teams with tight ends that can block like Gronk and also are capable of undressing linebackers in the receiving game. So the box advantage that the Pats have against us doesn't hold up for other teams.

 

Anyways, my point is just that our run defense has held up against some pretty good rushing teams. That we got dominated by the Pats doesn't automatically make us a bad run defense. 

You said yourself they came up with creative blocking schemes and no it was not brain surgery which is what makes it stunning. For teams with similar personnel, Colts will see it again and again. They never stopped it all game and that was with a practice squad back and a line that most felt just a few weeks ago was the weakest unit on the team.

[Moopsiepuffs]

That's dumb. It makes no sense. That's not what those words mean. 

 

And I don't think that an NFL.com video segment changes the meaning of words. Sorry.

 

The fact you've never heard of the phrase, "contender or pretender" in a sporting context is absoultely hilarious. Of course, anything that doesn't make sense to you must be dumb...

[Superman]

IDK, Superman. While there are flaws with both articles (I agree with the examples you provided and that mistakes always happen during a game for both teams), I do think it is concerning the Colts a) have lost to three of the four division leaders they have played this year and b) lost so badly to the Pats. I'm not sure that pretender is the correct word to classify what the Colts are. Right now they are leading arguably the worst division in football by 1 game; have lost 3 games in conference; and have lost 2 home games. That does not read as the resume of a serious super bowl contender, which I think both Kravitz and Wells are using as their measuring stick. Also, playing your best football in November and December is much more important than September and October. 

 

I personally think this team is on par with last years--could they make a run? Sure, and I hope they do. Do I really believe they will? Not at the present, but there is still plenty of football left. 

 

I wouldn't take as much issue with the word choice if he said "the Colts are not serious contenders." Pretender implies that they are phonies, fakes, not to be taken seriously, don't have a chance at winning anything against any good team, etc. And I disagree with that.

[Superman]

You said yourself they came up with creative blocking schemes and no it was not brain surgery which is what makes it stunning. For teams with similar personnel, Colts will see it again and again. They never stopped it all game and that was with a practice squad back and a line that most felt just a few weeks ago was the weakest unit on the team.

 

I never said they had creative blocking schemes. I said they had good blocking schemes.

 

And the point is that we've seen all this stuff already. We usually play better. The Pats didn't do anything special. They just did it really well, and we were sloppy up front and tackled poorly.

[sweetsurrender]

I never said they had creative blocking schemes. I said they had good blocking schemes.

 

And the point is that we've seen all this stuff already. We usually play better. The Pats didn't do anything special. They just did it really well, and we were sloppy up front and tackled poorly.

Between this game and the Pitt game I am worried about our defense. What do you see as fixable? Was it more coaching last night or just unable to match up up front? We never stopped a thing with the run and with Pitt it was an aerial attack.

[Coffeedrinker]

This is obviously my opinion. I was being facetious and flippant in responding to your previous post.

 

You're not on Twitter, are you? Last night, Kravitz tweets after Luck's pick about how terrible a decision it was, and how it's obvious that the coach's talks with him about mistakes aren't getting through. (Trolling, IMO.) Then, Brady throws a terrible pass on first down that gets picked off, and Kravitz says it's "as good as a punt." On first down. He magnified our issues, minimized our good plays -- the pick was a result of good pass pressure -- and in general, has spent the last 5+ years putting himself at odds with Colts management and trying to rile up Colts fans. And then he spent last night slobbering all over the Pats and Tom Brady. So I really don't take Kravitz seriously, in general.

No, I'm not on twitter and I don't take Kravitz too seriously either.

[TheJACKCOLT]

Both articles were spot on, you can nit-pick words like "pretenders' or find a couple more things to nit-pick, like the "you can't make mistakes against the Pats" but it doesn't change the fact that if you make mistakes against the Pats, they will make you pay. I don't grasp for straws by pointing out the pats mistakes because we only made them pay for one of those mistakes. The Steelers totally dominated the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, just like the Pats, they just chose to throw for six TD's instead or running for their TD's.

I have been a Colts fan for over 45 years, and I love the Colts, but our run defense has not been good this year before this game. Early leads and time of possession has forced teams to throw more, no there hasn't been another team to run that much on us, but that hasn't been because we have a great run defense, it has a lot more to do with game situations and we have been dominated on both sides of the line before last night.

All you fans with the rose colored glasses need to wake the hell up, yes there is still plenty of this season left. but at this point this team has done nothing to make us believe that they can even compete with the big boys, much less go into one of their home fields and beat them in Jan. Now is when you have to start running the ball and stopping the run, winning at the line of scrimmage. I so hope we can start doing that, losing Bradshaw will make that task harder. I'm not giving up hope, but I'm a realist, where we stand right now, I just can't see us going to New England, Denver, or Pittsburgh and not getting blown out.

nit-pick "words" or "phrases" if it makes you feel better, but the message of both articles hit the nail on the head.

[Narcosys]

That was me blasting wells, and i think kravitz is like wells.  Slow to praise and quick to tear down.  It was a Patriots team that by all right was the better team on both sides of the ball going into the game.  The outcome was only slightly worse than I expected.  I think too much was pout on the Colts to beat the Patriots who have a solid defense right now and an Offense that, honestly i dont know a good way to justly describe them.  The only two losses that were shocking losses in my opinion were the Eagles and the Steelers.  The Broncos and Patriots were expected, even before the season.

 

It's funny how there is a thread blasting Wells' ESPN column and this thread praising Kravitz's column when they are pretty much identical. Just an observation, not an attack on anyone.

 

I'm disappointed to say that they are correct. That said, the sky isn't falling; it just never was as high as people thought it was.