Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Not Only Team Built This Way...


dn4192

Recommended Posts

There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?

The Packers have been to three SBs during the Polian era. They are 2-1 during this era and have won 13 world championships overall during their existence. Not too shabby. Also, just during the Polian era, the Patriots have been to four SBs with a 2-2 record and an had an NFL record twenty-one game winning streak in 2003-2004

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers have been to three SBs during the Polian era. They are 2-1 during this era and have won 13 world championships overall during their existence. Not too shabby. Also, just during the Polian era, the Patriots have been to four SBs with a 2-2 record and an had an NFL record twenty-one game winning streak in 2003-2004

lol The Packers have not been to three Super Bowls during the Polian era... And the Pats are 3-1 in Super Bowls during the Polian era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?

I agree with what you;re saying...

I dont have a problem with the way we're structured......our style encourages shootouts..which, with Manning ..indoors..we usually win..

..as inept as we seem now...it all turns around if the old country boy can come back to his 2010 form...

I d ow wish we'd evolve defensively....though...The Bears (who i know..have much superior linebackers do the same base defense we do but they vary coverages......ansd they emphasize stripping the ball for turnovers

./.That's what I'd like to see....us do....more of..

..and I'm thinking we need better athletes on the perimiter to get that done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you;re saying...

I dont have a problem with the way we're structured......our style encourages shootouts..which, with Manning ..indoors..we usually win..

..as inept as we seem now...it all turns around if the old country boy can come back to his 2010 form...

I d ow wish we'd evolve defensively....though...The Bears (who i know..have much superior linebackers do the same base defense we do but they vary coverages......ansd they emphasize stripping the ball for turnovers

./.That's what I'd like to see....us do....more of..

..and I'm thinking we need better athletes on the perimiter to get that done

Why....must you....use so many....periods...?

none of the teams were built that way on purpose. and to say they were is bullcrap. you think BB intentionally whiffed on several draft picks so he could have a porous defense???

So we intentionally whiffed on draft picks to make our defense bad on purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No team is built like the colts... none at all... the packers have some great pass rushers with some pretty good corners and really good LB's.... the colts on the other hand are a underseized defense using alot of UFA's... with a small offensive line which is just starting to change.. i do not call that similar at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots and Packers are nothing like the Colts. They have a very complete team on both sides of the ball AND special teams. The Colts lack a lot of defensive talent especially in the secondary and have a very poor special teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Pats went 10-5 without Brady (first game they had him).

Ahman Green was a top notch running back with Packers during his tenure there and they had great players on their D, Al Harris, Mike McKenzie, Darren Sharper, and the list keeps going on.

I think that just about ends that, oh and the Packers had bad years with Favre, even when he was performing well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The backup qb for the Packers almost beat the Pats last year, it was a close game.

yes he did, Painter almost beat the Steelers this year, anyone can have a good game. I am sure if Flynn was called on for a long term answer there might be more problems. Once teams get tape on guys back up QBs tend to look like back ups. Look at what happened to Painter, after the Bengals game when teams figured him out he really started to struggle.

Also just adding to the thread now people have left the Saints and Chargers off this list both of them are very much built like the Colts too in that they depend on having a franchise QB.

I saw someone hit the nail on the head hear the teams who defenses work with this sytem get turnovers. We used to get a lot under Dungy but that more than anything has fallen off since he left and to me that's the biggest problem with our defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol The Packers have not been to three Super Bowls during the Polian era... And the Pats are 3-1 in Super Bowls during the Polian era.

You are right. I included the Polian era from 1996 to the present and he has only been the Colts GM from 1998. During that time the Packers went to two, not three, SBs, after the 1997 season (lost to the Broncos 31-24) and after the 2010 season (beat the Steelers 31-25). The Pats are 3-1 in SBs during the Polian era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pats/Packers generate a ton of turnovers. we don't do that. and they also give up most of the yards/points in garbage time when the game is over. also those teams are great in screens. we are not. screen is just an extension of the running game.

Turnovers are a lot easier to force when you're playing with a lead, the kind of lead Manning/Rodgers and Brady give you normally. You are absolutely right about screens though. Addai should be getting 3 or 4 screens every week. He's 10 times better in space than he is between the tackles. It also gets the LB's out of the middle so you can run it there when you are not predictable about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers looked alot more like this team during their last few years with Favre. Since then they have rebuilt their team they have improved their defense. Their stats don't look great because like others have said they get big leads and soften up their D. Their D gets the job done, makes turnovers and doesn't allow alot of points. Also they have one of the best linebacker cores in the league.

As far as the Pats go they are still a better all around team without Brady. This is a very similar team to what they had in '08 and that team won 11 games. This team is actually built completely different from the Colts, it is constantly bringing in new players and getting rid of old ones. Besides Brady and some of the offensive line, the Pats don't have alot of players that have been with the team for over 5 years. Just because a player has a good season they don't sign him to a 5-year deal that is one of the highest in the league. The Patriots continue to draft good players and many of their best players have went to other teams. While this team has kept some of their best players and not been able to draft good players around them. If anything the Colts should have a better team than the Patriots but don't because of poor drafting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers have a West Coast offense that maximizes a quarterback level. Below average qb's can look adequate in it. Average qb's can look good. Good qb's can look really good and great qb's are phenomenal in it.

We do not run that type of offense, therefore we are nothing like Green Bay!

The similarity is that the Packs have little to no running game and a defense that is built to play with a lead. If not for the Packer high powered offense they lose to the Giants yesterday, lose to the Saints on opening day and may have another loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?

The Packers are pretty good at running the ball, evidence of that is when they call a play action pass. The defense is completely faked out and Rodgers has all the time in the world to find an open target down the field. They don't run the ball for touchdowns though, they throw when in the redzone a lot. James Starks usually gets pretty good yardage, but almost 0 touchdowns. I'm guessing Ryan Grant is the same.

The Patriots are also pretty good at running the ball as well. They have a very good O-line that is good at both run blocking and pass blocking.

And would you call these the 2 best teams in the league? If the Texans still had Matt Shaub then I would say they are #1.

As an ESPN college announcer said last Saturday, "Offenses win games, defenses win championships."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The similarity is that the Packs have little to no running game and a defense that is built to play with a lead. If not for the Packer high powered offense they lose to the Giants yesterday, lose to the Saints on opening day and may have another loss.

That doesn't change the fact that their offensive system is far different from ours.

They are 100 yards or so off a couple of our season team rushing totals over the past few years and they have 4 games to go, so not exactly the same.

I would still take their defense over what we have put on the field over the past decade.

They have had to put up some points to win ball games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers are pretty good at running the ball, evidence of that is when they call a play action pass. The defense is completely faked out and Rodgers has all the time in the world to find an open target down the field. They don't run the ball for touchdowns though, they throw when in the redzone a lot. James Starks usually gets pretty good yardage, but almost 0 touchdowns. I'm guessing Ryan Grant is the same.

The Patriots are also pretty good at running the ball as well. They have a very good O-line that is good at both run blocking and pass blocking.

And would you call these the 2 best teams in the league? If the Texans still had Matt Shaub then I would say they are #1.

As an ESPN college announcer said last Saturday, "Offenses win games, defenses win championships."

Last year the Packs running game wasn't bad, this year it is near the bottom I believe in the league and Pats are not a running threat against many teams. I mean if so would they have not run more on us to eat up clock? Also Texans are a good team that are getting better but no where near in the league with the Pats/Saints/Packers at this point and right now are gonig to struggle to win a playoff game due to their key injuries at QB/WR and defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?

Each is totally different than us as has interchangeable parts while we have a core of elite players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No team is built like the colts... none at all... the packers have some great pass rushers with some pretty good corners and really good LB's.... the colts on the other hand are a underseized defense using alot of UFA's... with a small offensive line which is just starting to change.. i do not call that similar at all.

Don't forget that Jackson, Hayden and Sanders were all high draft picks who "should" still be in their prime. It isn't as if the Colts planned ahead to have UFAs as DBs. You only get so many draft picks, and when injuries happen faster than you can replace people you have down years like this. If those three guys were still here and playing well we'd probably have several wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year the Packs running game wasn't bad, this year it is near the bottom I believe in the league and Pats are not a running threat against many teams. I mean if so would they have not run more on us to eat up clock? Also Texans are a good team that are getting better but no where near in the league with the Pats/Saints/Packers at this point and right now are gonig to struggle to win a playoff game due to their key injuries at QB/WR and defense.

Their defense is #1 in the NFL even without Mario Williams, they have the #3 running game in the NFL and it was #2 when they had Matt Shaub. Andre Johnson has been injured at times this year. They are still on a 6 game winning streak. With Matt Shaub, I think they are #1 as of right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you;re saying...

I dont have a problem with the way we're structured......our style encourages shootouts..which, with Manning ..indoors..we usually win..

..as inept as we seem now...it all turns around if the old country boy can come back to his 2010 form...

I d ow wish we'd evolve defensively....though...The Bears (who i know..have much superior linebackers do the same base defense we do but they vary coverages......ansd they emphasize stripping the ball for turnovers

./.That's what I'd like to see....us do....more of..

..and I'm thinking we need better athletes on the perimiter to get that done

I agree with this. Get better depth, upgrade a few spots, and get coaches who can make adjustments on the fly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?

Huh?

For the Packers:

Sometimes it's not all about the stats but it's about TO's the defense causes and the names on that defense. The Packers have a lot of names on that defense from Charles Woodson (didn't he win DPOY recently?), Raji, Mattews, etc. They have quality players on that defense even though the stats might not back up that statement. Also, when I say quality, I mean players that have some talent in them and strike a nerve when their names are mentioned. When it comes to the Colts, outside of dwight and mathis (and maybe Brackett), our defense is pretty much nameless. Antoine Bethea is underrated so he is an exception. Back to the Packers defense, as said before, it forces TO's at critical times and step up when it needs to.

For the Patriots:

During there dynasty run, the Pats had one of the best defenses in the league. Many people believe that it was TB who carried that team to glory but truly it was the monster defense that BB put together. With players like Samuel, Harrison, Wilfork, Bruschi, and others, that defense was very physical and fast at the same time. It was only then when the Pats defense started to decline (from injuries, retirements, and lower quality players) is when TB started to struggle. Even though the Pats have put up good numbers for years, they will never return to that glory road unless they get a defense together.

The main difference b/w us and those teams is that Peyton had to put the team on his back numerous times because he couldn't depend on the defense to get a stop or a TO. Peyton couldn't come onto the field after his defense got a TO and score on a short drive. No, Peyton had to drive 80-90 yds because our crappy ST couldn't get past the 20 yard line. Then he had to sit on the sideline for 8-10 mins because our defense couldn't stop anyone! With Rodgers and Brady and Brees, they get those opportunities.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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