Why Can't We Play Like This Every Week?

[krunk]

2 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Just stupid that thinking this way makes us "bad" fans God forbid you believe losses are more help in a down year 

Say this with me. "I'm a Colt Fan"  "I'm Glad My Team Won".   It's not that hard bro. LOL!!!!

[braveheartcolt]

It doesn't make you a ' bad' fan, just someone who wants to suck the fun from what is just entertainment. so why even bother? 

[Jason_]

 

18 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

It really makes you wonder how good the Colts could actually be if they had good players and didn't have to over achieve with mediocre players. That game was exciting to watch and it's nice to see the Colts beat a good team.

 

But that's the reason we can't play like this all the time. Don't have the talent to play consistently good football. All we can do is beat up bad teams and overachieve to upset a decent team.

 

18 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

That's why I want the *s gone as soon as possible give us some talent with luck and the skys the limit  

 

You agreed with Defjamz26's post above so my question is this....if you both agree that the Colts are overachieving with mediocre players, then why would you want Pagano and the coaching staff gone?  Overachieving with mediocre players is the most obvious evidence of a quality coaching staff. 

 

Yes there have been mistakes made, though most of them have been blown way out of proportion by people who have already made their minds up that the coaching staff sucks.  Sure, there have been growing pains and inconsistency this year.  Hey that's how things work in the NFL when you bring in an entirely new coaching staff other than the HC and when you're faced with as many injuries at key positions as the Colts have faced so far this season on the OL, DL and in the Secondary.  

[runthepost]

To be honest if we did not convert those 3rd downs I felt like we would lose the game

[Defjamz26]

7 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Just stupid that thinking this way makes us "bad" fans God forbid you believe losses are more help in a down year 

I always root for the Colts to win but I understand the politics of why it's good. But having a high draft pick on a losing team isn't the worst thing. Sometimes that's what it takes to be good. Plus winning can disguise a lot of things. 

[braveheartcolt]

3 hours ago, runthepost said:

To be honest if we did not convert those 3rd downs I felt like we would lose the game

Really? If we never scored any point we would have lost also.......

 

[runthepost]

14 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

Really? If we never scored any point we would have lost also.......

 

I'm taking about the last drive S.A

[stitches]

Because for consistency you need good talent on the field and good coaches making consistently good decisions. We don't have that so we should be content with having good performances once or twice a month.

[OffensivelyPC]

On 11/7/2016 at 9:30 AM, tikyle said:

Everyone needs to just slow down.  The Colts just played probably the most (outside of maybe Minnesota) one dimensional offense in football.  Sure they have Rodgers and some familiar names as WR but this team was so one dimensional it played into the Colts hands.  It allowed the pass rushers to go all out almost every down.  It allowed the LBs and S to drop in coverage and not really respect the play fake.

 

Our team defense is still very fragile.  Our CB tackling still is bad.  Screens that should've been a < 5 yd gain turned into 10-15 yards.  No name TE's still beat our S from time to time.  A WR playing RB had almost 8 ypc albeit on only 7 carries.

 

This team still has a long way to go to even be a legitimate playoff team.  We beat a shell of the Packers past yesterday.  We didn't beat the 2010-2014 Packers yesterday.

I don't understand how you can say that making teams go 1-dimensional plays in the Colts hands and then list all the things that make us the a bottom 5 pass defense in the league.  Yeah, we made them one dimensional and that's helpful, but Green Bay, despite what their numbers are, are still a prolific pass attack with a top 3 QB.  Yet, we had good leads in the 4th of Detroit and Houston, the latter of which is one of the worst passing teams in the league.  Yet we still blew leads in those games because of our passing defense.  

 

If there was 1 team who should have made a comeback, it was Green Bay.  Yet, we held it down and kept the lead.  To me, you absolutely have to acknowledge that this team's secondary is improving.  That doesn't make us playoff contenders (which I'm not sure anyone has actually said that).  We still beat a very good football team who's greatest strength couldn't overcome our greatest weakness when it counted.  That IS improvement, even if slightly so.

[braveheartcolt]

3 hours ago, runthepost said:

I'm taking about the last drive S.A

I know what you meant. Point is, we did convert, so any other hypothosis is totally irrelevant.

[tikyle]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I don't understand how you can say that making teams go 1-dimensional plays in the Colts hands and then list all the things that make us the a bottom 5 pass defense in the league.  Yeah, we made them one dimensional and that's helpful, but Green Bay, despite what their numbers are, are still a prolific pass attack with a top 3 QB.  Yet, we had good leads in the 4th of Detroit and Houston, the latter of which is one of the worst passing teams in the league.  Yet we still blew leads in those games because of our passing defense.  

 

If there was 1 team who should have made a comeback, it was Green Bay.  Yet, we held it down and kept the lead.  To me, you absolutely have to acknowledge that this team's secondary is improving.  That doesn't make us playoff contenders (which I'm not sure anyone has actually said that).  We still beat a very good football team who's greatest strength couldn't overcome our greatest weakness when it counted.  That IS improvement, even if slightly so.

1. We didn't MAKE them one dimensional.  They were already that for over a year.

2. GB is 9-11 in their last 20 games.

3. CLE (multiple QBs) has more 300 yard passing games than GB (aka Aaron Rodgers) in their last 20 games.

 

This GB team is NOT your slightly older brother/sister's Packers.  This Packers team is like comparing this Colts team to the 2014 Colts team.  It's just a mirage.  Some of the names are the same and the QB is the same and the head coach is the same, but the proof is in the pudding (aka the results, the wins and losses).  The Texans are much better than this Packers team.  The Titans are on par with this Packers team.  That's all I need to say.

[Arodgers12]

9 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

I know what you meant. Point is, we did convert, so any other hypothosis is totally irrelevant.

I have to admit that hurt a lot when Luck converted that 3rd down to win the game. That one broke our hearts. You guys were the much better team Sunday and hats off to you.

[Chucklez]

Arodgers12.... are you a closet Colts fan?...

You seem to like us more than the Packers...

[colts8718]

Great win everyone stepped up just do not forget Pagano is still the coach 

[superrep1967]

On 11/6/2016 at 7:34 PM, UKColt13 said:

Well damn...

 

Every unit stepped up today. Very proud of those guys.

 

Because bad teams are inconsistent. . 

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

It's nice to see what this team can do! And an exciting win for sure... 

 

 

when properly coached. 

[OffensivelyPC]

20 hours ago, tikyle said:

1. We didn't MAKE them one dimensional.  They were already that for over a year.

2. GB is 9-11 in their last 20 games.

3. CLE (multiple QBs) has more 300 yard passing games than GB (aka Aaron Rodgers) in their last 20 games.

 

This GB team is NOT your slightly older brother/sister's Packers.  This Packers team is like comparing this Colts team to the 2014 Colts team.  It's just a mirage.  Some of the names are the same and the QB is the same and the head coach is the same, but the proof is in the pudding (aka the results, the wins and losses).  The Texans are much better than this Packers team.  The Titans are on par with this Packers team.  That's all I need to say.

Of course we made them one-dimensional.  Just because they don't have a dominant running game isn't reason to say they are one-dimensional.  They're 7th in yards per attempt rushing.  The fact they don't dominate total yardage is a tribute to the fact that they are losing games.  But saying they're one-dimensional because of who's on their roster is silly and certainly inaccurate.  You might be right if they had no running backs at all, but obviously not the case. 

 

And it's pretty tough to place the blame squarely on Rodgers for their record.  He's had a plus 90 QB rating over the past year and a half.  So bringing in clevelands passing game (which, they've also played one more game this year than the Pack), is really a hollow argument.  Despite Green Bay's struggles, Cleveland has been trailing nearly every quarter of every game this year.  Of course they're going to have more 300 yard passing games, they're trying to catch up at the end of games and playing a lot of prevent defenses!  

 

So, sure, it's not your top 3 NFL team.  It would be irresponsible to act like the Colts beat a top 3 team (which I've never said).  All I've said is they beat a good team (which they did).  The Packers are still better than us (which they are).  But putting them on Cleveland's level is just as irresponsible and probably more outright wrong than the people acting like they are better than they really are.

[tikyle]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Of course we made them one-dimensional.  Just because they don't have a dominant running game isn't reason to say they are one-dimensional.  They're 7th in yards per attempt rushing.  The fact they don't dominate total yardage is a tribute to the fact that they are losing games.  But saying they're one-dimensional because of who's on their roster is silly and certainly inaccurate.  You might be right if they had no running backs at all, but obviously not the case. 

 

And it's pretty tough to place the blame squarely on Rodgers for their record.  He's had a plus 90 QB rating over the past year and a half.  So bringing in clevelands passing game (which, they've also played one more game this year than the Pack), is really a hollow argument.  Despite Green Bay's struggles, Cleveland has been trailing nearly every quarter of every game this year.  Of course they're going to have more 300 yard passing games, they're trying to catch up at the end of games and playing a lot of prevent defenses!  

 

So, sure, it's not your top 3 NFL team.  It would be irresponsible to act like the Colts beat a top 3 team (which I've never said).  All I've said is they beat a good team (which they did).  The Packers are still better than us (which they are).  But putting them on Cleveland's level is just as irresponsible and probably more outright wrong than the people acting like they are better than they really are.

So all the reasons you gave for CLE passing don't apply to GB?  You can't have it both ways.  If they are 7th in rushing per attempt then why are they not attempting more?  Could it be that are behind?  If they were ahead wouldn't they run more? 

 

GB is a mediocre team.  So are the Colts.  It was a mediocre team (both right at .500 over the last 20 games, GB 10-10, IND 10-10) beating a mediocre team.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It's like when the Rams beat the Lions.  Are either team saying they beat a quality opponent?  I think not.  The fact that we don't see the Colts or the Packers as the Rams or the Lions is because we are viewing them in 2014 lenses but omitting what happened in 2015 and 2016.  These teams are not those 2014 teams and viewing them like that is a disservice.

[OffensivelyPC]

42 minutes ago, tikyle said:

So all the reasons you gave for CLE passing don't apply to GB?  You can't have it both ways.  If they are 7th in rushing per attempt then why are they not attempting more?  Could it be that are behind?  If they were ahead wouldn't they run more? 

But that's exactly what I said.  So I don't know why you think I am talking out both sides of my mouth.

 

We're just not going to agree and I don't care to argue any further with you on why this should be considered an "average" win instead of a good win.  It's like arguing whether someoen's performance was a B or a C.  No one really cares about the difference (I certainly don't), it's just an opinion that people can reasonably disagree on.  I've given mine, you've given yours.  So ultimately, it's pointless arguing over the difference and not really productive discussion, particularly when all you seem to be using it for is evidence to convince me or anyone else that we're not super bowl contenders - something that's obvious to pretty much everyone on here.  

 

[Arodgers12]

Funny you guys ask this question cause I cant remember the last time we played good Offensively. Missing: Packers offense, last seen in Washington January 9th 2016. If found please contact the Green Bay Police department lol.

[King Colt]

That was more on GB than on Indy.

[CR91]

Because trolls wouldn't have any purpose in their lives

[John Waylon]

The identity of this team under pagano has been inconsistency. Wild and pure inconsistency. Don't be surprised to see us come out of the bye and make Mariota look like Steve Young. That's kinda what we do.

Well, we didn't make him look exactly like Steve Young, but boy did we see that inconsistency yet again. We dominated the first half, looked like we could do no wrong. Looked to be cruising to a 38-0 win, and then BAM. Halftime comes, and we come out in the second half and we can't do anything right, and we look helpless to stop the bleeding.

Inconsistency is the one and only thing this team does with any kind of consistency.

*