Is the team more Super Bowl ready than last year?

[sfergson727]

We will know more after next week, but I personally don't think this team is better than last years.  The only hope I do hold, is that we are finding ways to win, even though we are making horrible, horrible mistakes and lack luster play at times.  

 

Why this coaching staff keeps starting Trent Richardson is a mystery to me, and playing Reggie with such frequency when he was hurt.....those types of things are going to bite us in the butt (IMHO) when we start playing playoff caliber teams.  As much as I personally like Chuck, (I've never been a fan of Pep, but have changed from wanting him fired immediately, to Meh, which is an improvement) I really wonder about his thought process in certain game situations and overall game planning.

 

The reality is that we have won 10 games, which is commendable.  The other side to that, is those wins have come against very weak opponents for the most part.  If we could channel the team that we saw against Cincy, we would be in great shape....but that team is nowhere to be found at the moment.  Can they reappear next week?  I hope so.

[James Ducheteau]

I think the team overall is better, when you look at the teams we beat last year and then look at how we did in the playoffs i don't think those wins against the top tier teams really amounted to much, maybe even some over confidence. This year we've beat the middle of the pack and bottom feeders but not the "elite" teams, so going forward I think every one knows that they will have to play at a much higher level to advance in the playoffs. Once we get to that point I think anything can really happen, we have seen this team play lights out a few times this year, so it is entirely possible they can do it again. I don't like our chances against Denver or  the Pats any more this year than last but the fact is those teams are beatable and we do have a team that can do it if they play the way they have show they can. It really will come down to luck for us this year, and i don't just mean our quarterback. 

[Jdubu]

The pre-Pittsburg game team could win the Superbowl. The one we are seeing currently can not. It has all been downhill from then. The defense is overall better, but this offense just doesn't do things conducive to a Super Bowl winning team, regardless of their supposed top ranking.

I agree with this. We were rolling well until Pitt kicked us in the mouth. I don't know what happened after that game but my goodness it has been a roller coaster ride since.

Our defense has looked good enough at times to win it all but they also look terrible in parts of games as well. I don't know if that's a change of in game strategy or out coached on the other side. We've won the majority of them so it's hard to complain as much, more an observation.

Our special teams has been on fire most of the year but since the Cleveland game, the returner now looks scared. Cribbs flat out looked frightened in Cleveland and I'm not sure if it was out of fear of messing up in Cleveland or something else but now 2 weeks in a row, special teams looked a bit more avg.

Offense. My lord what has happened to this group? The coaching plans are just head scratching the oline combinations they have placed together are maddening and nobody understands it. I certainly question WHY you play AQ one week, and he did ok and then a healthy scratch next week. Makes no logical sense UNLESS he said something in the locker room. Then the RG spot, Holmes played well enough in his first extended play to get a start imo to see what he can do game day. I did see Holmes come in at least once and it didn't go well but I didn't understand why they didn't give him the game try.

QB jeez Andrew is making some odd choices for a guy supposedly a photographic memory guy and super smart man. Unless he is not putting it all in during film study I don't understand how he makes the same bad choices over and over again.

Oline. This team will only win deep if they get that oline playing better. The coaching and game plan offensively has to improve greatly in order to advance. Their is no flow to how they call their games lately. I know the run has looked mostly bad but even when they were doing ok, they didn't seem to integrate it well, they ran it than followed it up with 5-6 passes, no keeping them off balance, no PAP after a pass or a run. I just don't get what they are at this point.

The good news is the team has shown in many points they have what it takes to win it all during the year but they have also showed they look like a version of the current decade of Raiders style play.

[Track Guy]

I'd say about the same. In both cases we've got playoff caliber teams that are not Super Bowl caliber teams, but could beat Super Bowl caliber teams if they got real hot at the right time. The only way I see us winning is if Andrew Luck goes on an absolute tear, plays head and shoulders above guys like Manning and Brady who we'll have to get through to make it.

[ProblChld32]

Well if we are comparing this teams to Last years, i would have to say. Still dont think its "good enough" i think we fall short. Anything can happen tho!

[wordofmouth]

A lot of good thoughts. Happy2Behere great job with those stats!  On one had they are comforting, on another, they show how misleading stats can be.

For those who replied "who cares?"  I'd say most Colts fans care if we are moving in the right direction or not. And I sure hope management  does!  

A couple people mentioned how we are a "young" team but, actually as of opening day, we had the 4th oldest roster in the league.

Obviously many of our key players are young, and we have a lot to build around, but as a whole, this is not a roster that can just be counted on to improve with experience.

One of the big questions, in my opinion, is where does coaching come in? I'm not even talking about game management etc. it's more the behind the scenes teaching, planning, culture building type stuff. I have no idea what the answer is, but in the long run, that maybe the most important factor.

[CS Coltsfan]

I don't see us being a SB contender yet.. not saying it can't happen, but not seeing it... IMO Luck is not as accurate as he was last year . The TO are horrible this year.. last year we lead the league in fewest  penalties and TO...so in that area yes we have regressed...

 

The Oline still isn't where in needs to be... and we can't run effeciently on most teams and we still good teams gutting our defense... we give up way to many yards and points....

 

I'm seeing very similar team asa we had with Peyton.. I know we are in a rebuilding period, but Defense still gets gutted and our QB carries the team on his shoulders... I hope that we see a big change in this after the drtaft and offseason.

 

Go COLTS

[Gavin]

We didn't have Robert Mathis.

Not likely Mathis would have had quite the impact on the game for us as Green does for them even if you added in the pressures he gets, Without Mathis we are still top 10 in sacks even if its by committee...yes I know we have went stretches without getting pressure on the QB and we do need Mathis or another good pass rusher in general, Green not available means your taking an average 8.7 td's (his career average a season) off the board a season......That comes to 63 points over the course of an average season off the board...He has missed 4 games...only 6 td's for him this year (Yes I know that would be a lot for most wr's but were talking a star wr here)

[deedub75]

I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. 

[hawkeyes]

No. As long as we don't have serviceable running game, we won't be playoff-ready. Winning AFCS is nice, but some further frontiers are set for this team.

 

Boom is proving that he can provide a very serviceable run game ...

 

The real question is can Luck take care of the ball or not?

[chrisfarley]

Unfortunately we did not build the monster to beat Billichik.  It's like a broken record, the Patriots just won't go away. Pedestrian efforts against the league's non-playoff or barely playoff teams and nasty stinkers against the elite won't get-er-done.

[masterlock]

It's a toss-up, since the team has progressed in some ways, but regressed in others. The addition/improvement of certain playmakers (Hilton, Moncrief, Adams, Fleener, Davis, Newsome) was offset by the loss/regression of other playmakers (Mathis, Wayne, Cherilus, Bethea, Thomas).

 

So no, the team is really no further along. Luck has been hit more than any other QB in the league...for the 3rd straight year. They still aren't great at running the ball. Pass rush is fine, so long as they're facing 2nd-tier QBs/O-lines, but against elite competition it can be abysmal.

 

That said, once the playoffs begin, it's 0-0, and anything can happen. We can at least be grateful they haven't sucked like some other teams, and made this far.

[Larry Horseman]

 

 

I'd note that if either Cleveland last week or Houston today had any type of decent quarterback,  the Colts would've lost both games.

 

 

This is and isn't directed at you, NCF, but I wanted to point out that it that the "if the other team had a better QB the Colts would have lost" argument is a logical fallacy. If Cleveland or Houston had a different (better) QB, the game would have been entirely different. The Colts and the opposing team would have both had different game plans and the game would not have followed the same trajectory. Perhaps the Colts would have lost, won a close game, or blew them out, but we don't know and to state it otherwise just doesn't make sense and is faulty analysis. I understand it is the popular fan and media line that the Colts would lose if the opponent(s) was better, but really, no one knows that and it just makes no sense for folks to keep saying that. What I do know is they won two close games against middle of the road teams who were fighting for their playoff lives. Does that make the Colts "serious SB contenders"? Probably not, but to me, it also doesn't make them any worse than before those games and if the Colts blew them out, I wouldn't think much more of them. GB losing to Buffalo is much worse than the Colts winning close games against Cleveland and Houston (Cleveland and Houston are arguably better than Buffalo but all three were playoff contending teams in the AFC). Would GB be better if they lost to Buffalo when they were starting a better QB?

[GwinnettColt]

Not likely Mathis would have had quite the impact on the game for us as Green does for them even if you added in the pressures he gets, Without Mathis we are still top 10 in sacks even if its by committee...yes I know we have went stretches without getting pressure on the QB and we do need Mathis or another good pass rusher in general, Green not available means your taking an average 8.7 td's (his career average a season) off the board a season......That comes to 63 points over the course of an average season off the board...He has missed 4 games...only 6 td's for him this year (Yes I know that would be a lot for most wr's but were talking a star wr here)

We won't know until we see all of the players that we've discussed on the field during the same game but Mathis makes a difference on our defense.  Granted, it wouldn't have been a blow-out like it was but I believe that Indy would have still won even if Green would have been on the field.  

[mintor]

I am not trying to be provocative here, but has this years team moved forward, stayed the same or actually regressed.  Last year we defeated the 49'rs, Seahawks, Broncos and the Chefs twice.

This year we have not fared well against any of the top teams we have played and not looked very good in many of the wins vs mid level competition.

Are we really moving forward ( on the field not on paper) or are we slightly regressing?

 

no . luck regress on turnovers and fumbles.  that will cost lose first playoff game.

[NewColtsFan]

This is and isn't directed at you, NCF, but I wanted to point out that it that the "if the other team had a better QB the Colts would have lost" argument is a logical fallacy. If Cleveland or Houston had a different (better) QB, the game would have been entirely different. The Colts and the opposing team would have both had different game plans and the game would not have followed the same trajectory. Perhaps the Colts would have lost, won a close game, or blew them out, but we don't know and to state it otherwise just doesn't make sense and is faulty analysis. I understand it is the popular fan and media line that the Colts would lose if the opponent(s) was better, but really, no one knows that and it just makes no sense for folks to keep saying that. What I do know is they won two close games against middle of the road teams who were fighting for their playoff lives. Does that make the Colts "serious SB contenders"? Probably not, but to me, it also doesn't make them any worse than before those games and if the Colts blew them out, I wouldn't think much more of them. GB losing to Buffalo is much worse than the Colts winning close games against Cleveland and Houston (Cleveland and Houston are arguably better than Buffalo but all three were playoff contending teams in the AFC). Would GB be better if they lost to Buffalo when they were starting a better QB?

 

I appreciate your comments, and that they were not directed at me,  but I think the reason you see this type of comment everywhere is because it's true.

 

My comment simply offers that if we had played a team with even an average quarterback we would've lost.   I don't see the flaw in that argument.     We were practically playing teams with no quarterback.    Seriously.    It was almost like playing 11 against 10.

 

We could anticipate more runs against Texas.    We could blitz more against both.    We weren't playing good quarterbacks and forcing them into having bad days.   Hoyer, who was in a bad slump before our games,  was benched after our game.   Hoyer threw an interception at the goal line from inside the 10.   He missed wide open receivers deep.   Their kicker missed a 40 yard field goal.    By all accounts we should've lost that game.   As for the Texans,  Savage was the 3rd string quarterback which means he's had almost no reps the entire season!    It wasn't hard to make him look like an inexperienced rookie.

 

That's simply stealing candy from a baby.    And the fact that these games occurred back to back I think gives my argument more weight and not less.    What does Pagano say after every game.    "We made mistakes, and we'll go watch the tape and clean them up."      Well...  what did we clean up from one week to the next?     We actually played worse from the Cleveland game to the Texas game.     We're struggling badly.

 

I wish I was more optimistic going forward, but I don't like what my eyes are seeing.

[Gavin]

We won't know until we see all of the players that we've discussed on the field during the same game but Mathis makes a difference on our defense.  Granted, it wouldn't have been a blow-out like it was but I believe that Indy would have still won even if Green would have been on the field.  

Now doubt we could win with Green playing and  I believe we have (But I'd have to double check that)

[TKnight24]

I am not trying to be provocative here, but has this years team moved forward, stayed the same or actually regressed.  Last year we defeated the 49'rs, Seahawks, Broncos and the Chefs twice.

This year we have not faired well against any of the top teams we have played and not looked very good in many of the wins vs mid level competition.

Are we really moving forward ( on the field not on paper) or are we slightly regressing?

 

No, we've regressed 

[TKnight24]

Now doubt we could win with Green playing and  I believe we have (But I'd have to double check that)

 

This year was the first time in the Luck era we beat the Bengals in the Reg. Season or Playoffs 

[Defjamz26]

That is exactly what I have been preaching all season. The Colts are still at least one draft away from being playoff ready. Add a couple of free agents to the mix would help. On average it takes 4 or 5 years to build a super bowl team. The Colts are still in the rebuild mode. Way too many fans seem to forget that.

Exactly. Grigson has done a great job of band-aiding the team with FAs like RJF, Redding,Brown,etc...but all band aids come off eventually. That's why this next draft is so key. The right guys at a few key positions (mostly on D) can make the Colts a legit yearly Superbowl contender. That's the issue now though. The duck tape and bandages are starting to come off.

[Larry Horseman]

I appreciate your comments, and that they were not directed at me,  but I think the reason you see this type of comment everywhere is because it's true.

 

My comment simply offers that if we had played a team with even an average quarterback we would've lost.   I don't see the flaw in that argument.     We were practically playing teams with no quarterback.    Seriously.    It was almost like playing 11 against 10.

 

 

No disrespect, but this line of thinking/comments is absolutely not true or the truth. It is speculation based on multiple assumptions, non of which are grounded in reality. There is nothing true or objective in saying the Colts would have lost if their opponent had a better QB. 

 

If Cleveland or Houston has a better QB, they would be a completely different team. The Colts would have a completely different game plan. The game would have been completely different. If the Colts played a team with a better QB on Sunday, you have no idea how the Colts would have played and thus cannot state it as truth that they would have lost. Further, you can place your argument on the Colts and say if the Colts had better QB the last two weeks, they would have blown out Cleveland and Houston. Right? What's the difference between saying this and saying what you are saying? Hoyer missed throws. Texans QBs missed some throws. Luck throws. There's no difference between saying it for the Colts or their opponent, but because it doesn't fit the narrative you want to use, you don't use it for the Colts.

 

To state that if x (good QB play) happened then y (plays resulting in completions for TDs to open receivers) would have happened, resulting in z (Colts loss) simply isn't true. If x (good QB play) happened the same y variables would not even exist (it would be a totally different game), resulting in you not being able to say with truth that z (Colts loss) would would have happened. 

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing with you that the Colts have holes on defense, offense, and play calling, or that the Colts have played good against above average QBs. 

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Better than last year YES! Ready to go to the super bowl IMO NO! You would have to get threw NE, & and or Denver which I am not confident we can do! The way we are playing right now it wouldn't surprise me if we lost in the first round!

[NewColtsFan]

No disrespect, but this line of thinking/comments is absolutely not true or the truth. It is speculation based on multiple assumptions, non of which are grounded in reality. There is nothing true or objective in saying the Colts would have lost if their opponent had a better QB. 

 

If Cleveland or Houston has a better QB, they would be a completely different team. The Colts would have a completely different game plan. The game would have been completely different. If the Colts played a team with a better QB on Sunday, you have no idea how the Colts would have played and thus cannot state it as truth that they would have lost. Further, you can place your argument on the Colts and say if the Colts had better QB the last two weeks, they would have blown out Cleveland and Houston. Right? What's the difference between saying this and saying what you are saying? Hoyer missed throws. Texans QBs missed some throws. Luck throws. There's no difference between saying it for the Colts or their opponent, but because it doesn't fit the narrative you want to use, you don't use it for the Colts.

 

To state that if x (good QB play) happened then y (plays resulting in completions for TDs to open receivers) would have happened, resulting in z (Colts loss) simply isn't true. If x (good QB play) happened the same y variables would not even exist (it would be a totally different game), resulting in you not being able to say with truth that z (Colts loss) would would have happened. 

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing with you that the Colts have holes on defense, offense, and play calling, or that the Colts have played good against above average QBs. 

 

The person who is making the assumption is you.    You argue if the Browns or Texans had a different QB they'd be different teams.     No, they wouldn't.

 

Cleveland had Hoyer.   The same QB they had all season.    But his play has gone badly south.  

 

Houston had Fitzpatrick.   Once he went out early,  they had Savage, a 3rd stringer for most of the year with almost no reps.   Like I said in the last post, it was almost like playing against an offense with 10 players and the QB is the most important player on the field.

 

In judging performance,  It's not unreasonable to give your opponent the semblance, the reasonable expectation,  of an average QB.

 

You'll notice I didn't use either of our games with J'Ville as an example.   It wouldn't have mattered.   Same with our game with Tennessee.    It wouldn't have mattered.   

 

But you have to at least allow for the possibility of something close to average.   And neither Hoyer or Savage were anywhere close.    And yet the Colts barely won each game.     And that's the point.    With terribly sub-standard QB play, both the Browns and Texans came close to beating the Colts.     It's a bad, bad sign.

 

I wish I felt otherwise,  but I don't....

[Larry Horseman]

You saying this: 

With terribly sub-standard QB play, both the Browns and Texans came close to beating the Colts.   

 

Is different than you saying this:

 

I'd note that if either Cleveland last week or Houston today had any type of decent quarterback,  the Colts would've lost both games.

 

It is true that the Browns and Texans came close to beating the Colts with bad QB play.

 

It is not true that the Colts would have lost both games if the Browns/Texans had better QB play. It is your opinion the Colts would have lost but you can't go shopping it around as the truth because there is no way you can prove it. 

 

I assume you can't or don't want to see the difference in the statements, so we can move on and agree to disagree. 

[NewColtsFan]

You saying this: 

 

Is different than you saying this:

 

It is true that the Browns and Texans came close to beating the Colts with bad QB play.

 

It is not true that the Colts would have lost both games if the Browns/Texans had better QB play. It is your opinion the Colts would have lost but you can't go shopping it around as the truth because there is no way you can prove it. 

 

I assume you can't or don't want to see the difference in the statements, so we can move on and agree to disagree. 

 

The two statements are part of the same theme.    They're parts 1 and 1a.    They belong together.

 

But,  we agree to disagree on this......

[The Fish]

I'm in the "no Mathis, not better" camp. I think the squad is more or less in the same spot overall though.

[BOTT]

The Bengals did not have there top 2 wr's in that game, Why does no one acknowledge that. What we saw vs Cincy was a far cry of what they are with AJ Green

Marvin Jones hasn't played a game all season....not sure why you are counting him. That would be like colts fans blaming losses on Robert Mathis missing the game. I love A J Green, but let's not act like he goes off every game for 150 and 2 tds.

[BProland85]

No because they still refuse to establish a consistent running game to take the pressure off Luck. You must run the ball to be successful in the playoffs.  

[ColtsBTM12]

That is exactly what I have been preaching all season. The Colts are still at least one draft away from being playoff ready. Add a couple of free agents to the mix would help. On average it takes 4 or 5 years to build a super bowl team. The Colts are still in the rebuild mode. Way too many fans seem to forget that.

The Colts are playoff ready because they are a playoff team (for the third year in a row). Super Bowl ready? I'm not so sure they are quite yet. We are a good team but to win the Super Bowl you have to be a great team. I think this is a squad that is capable of winning a playoff game or maybe two but like you said the Colts are still a work in progress and I do think Ryan Grigson has this team moving in the right direction however we are probably still another offseason away from having serious Super Bowl chances.

[ColtsBTM12]

No because they still refuse to establish a consistent running game to take the pressure off Luck. You must run the ball to be successful in the playoffs.  

I agree. Run game needs to get going and Boom needs to get more touches. I feel he has been under-utilized considering he has shown a ton of promise. 

[ColtsBTM12]

Boom is proving that he can provide a very serviceable run game ...

 

The real question is can Luck take care of the ball or not?

I think if Boom gets more touches and the Colts put just a little more emphasis on a run game down the stretch, then Andrew won't have as many turnovers because like you said the Colts will have a serviceable run game to lean on and the opposing defenses will have to respect that. Part of the reason why there are a lot of turnovers is because with Andrew throwing the rock 41 times a game, defenses are taking note of it and they're not respecting the run.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

We will know the first playoff game. If they don't "flip a switch" and turn it on in the playoffs

then the answer is no at this point.

[John Dee]

The Dallas game will be a very good indicator.. 

[John Dee]

Exactly...   Andy Dalton is the QB after all.      Oh and Mavin Lewis is the coach... 

 

Not afraid of them at all.. 

Marvin Jones hasn't played a game all season....not sure why you are counting him. That would be like colts fans blaming losses on Robert Mathis missing the game. I love A J Green, but let's not act like he goes off every game for 150 and 2 tds.

[ricker182]

Yes

[runthepost]

Yes

How are they?

[ricker182]

How are they?

Whoa whoa whoa.... I didn't know I had to explain myself. 

 

Just my opinion. The team is a little more complete than last season.

[crazycolt1]

The Colts are playoff ready because they are a playoff team (for the third year in a row). Super Bowl ready? I'm not so sure they are quite yet. We are a good team but to win the Super Bowl you have to be a great team. I think this is a squad that is capable of winning a playoff game or maybe two but like you said the Colts are still a work in progress and I do think Ryan Grigson has this team moving in the right direction however we are probably still another offseason away from having serious Super Bowl chances.

When I made my comment I wasn't specific enough. I guess I should have said the Colts were not ready to go deep into the playoffs. That don't mean they don't have a chance but I will not be betting  any pay checks on them! lol