Colts 1.5 games back of Houston

[krunk]

• re: T.Y. Hilton's comments to Pittsburgh reporters, I think there's some confusion as to whether he actually said Luck is ruled out. FYI

  — Stephen Holder (@HolderStephen) Nov 22, 2016

[BertJones]

15 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree. That is how big that win was over Tennessee

 

and Green Bay.

its going to be an 8-8 tie with the tie Breaker going to Colts

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, BertJones said:

 

and Green Bay.

its going to be an 8-8 tie with the tie Breaker going to Colts

Could be but it may take 9-7 to win the Division? We can still go 9-7 even if we lose to Pitt and Oakland but have to win the others of course.

[Stephen]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Chargers could easily beat them. They are capable of scoring a lot of points and if they get ahead early it will be tough for the Texans to keep up with them IMO.

yea rivers has a habit of playing good late in the year and upsetting good teams

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Could be but it may take 9-7 to win the Division? We can still go 9-7 even if we lose to Pitt and Oakland but have to win the others of course.

we need 10-6 imo. 

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah losing to the Saints did stink and I am still not over the fact we gave up on 16-0 either. To this day I believe we had a better team than the Saints, Saints fans like Bogie would disagree but I think everyone knows we would've been 16-0 had Peyton played out the game vs the Jets and played in Buffalo. Hard to say anyone is better than a 16-0 team/14-0 technically. Saints lost 3 in a row to end that season and got super lucky vs Minnesota. Minnesota dominated that game but had 5 Turnovers. It's not sour grapes or anything but that is fact. Freeney being injured was huge too, I mean huge. Brees didn't do anything in the first Half and then with Freeney out he had all day to throw so I don't care if someone says 25-7 after Half. We were missing our best Pass Rusher. I don't dislike the Saints though, I hate the Pats and Steelers. Chargers were just a thorn in our side for a couple of years but I don't hate them either as they have never won a SB.

 

Yeah I would say 

 

patriots

steelers

saints

chargers 

 

in that order of hatred from me personally. And you could see the whole team change after that jets game. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

 

Yeah I would say 

 

patriots

steelers

saints

chargers 

 

in that order of hatred from me personally. And you could see the whole team change after that jets game. 

I would probably go Pats #1, Steelers #2. #3 is really tough for me as I just don't like anyone in our Division for obvious reasons and I am sure Texans fans hate us for obvious reasons. The whole Division has to hate us because we have dominated it since it became the South in 2002.

[Arodgers12]

Hey Colts fans do you guys remember a game you played against us in 2000 where we won 26-24 in GB. I was at that game and it was Peyton's 3rd year in the NFL. Ahman Green had a big day and Pathon had a huge day for you guys.

[NorthernBlue]

Ideally for us though, it would be nice if Houston could lose another AFC south match up (In addition to us). If both teams are tied and the head to head is tied, Houston would own the divisional tie break at 5-1 (compared to our 4-2). However if they both finish at 4-2, the next tie breaker would be common games, which if my calculations are correct, Houston currently owns at 4-3 (compared to our 3-4). That can change however if they lose some games to GB, SD, and/or TEN, whilst Indy gets a win vs MIN or OAK.

[tikyle]

On 11/22/2016 at 11:59 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The number of picks we have is the key and if we aren't picking first with an Andrew Luck or Peyton there than who cares. You do know the Draft is a crapshoot unless you pick 1st with a sure Franchise QB there don't you? Reggie Wayne went 30th in Round 1. Mathis went in Round 5??

How would that have worked out if we had the 2nd pick in 2011 instead of the 1st.  Where you pick means EVERYTHING.  Don't try to discount that.  And having "bragging rights" for a year when the division is trash is not worth future talent.

 

On 11/22/2016 at 0:37 PM, krunk said:

Oh but you are saying tank.  What else are you saying emphasizing all those high round draft picks?   And who exactly is it that's going to make the Colts a 1st round dog in the playoffs?  What team are you going to name that won't likely be a problem for pretty much any opponent?    Talent doesn't guarantee in any way shape form or fashion a win or wins in the playoffs.   Ask that Steve Mcnair Baltimore Ravens team that was littered with talent that we beat in the playoffs when we had Peyton.  Anybody can lose in the playoffs good or bad.  Ask that Pittsburgh Steeler team that lost to Tim Tebow in the playoffs.    We want to win our games buddy because that's what you play the games for.   You cite that one example with Houston as if that's the end all be all.   Plenty of examples that say otherwise but you're silent about those.

Everything you posted is irrelevant b/c this team is fatally flawed.  So lets say we are like those Tebow Broncos.  We win the wild card game and then get destroyed in the divisional round?  What did that team gain.  They felt so highly about that run that they cut their QB and went on a recruiting trail and got Peyton.  We are talent lacking.  Winning or losing a meaningless playoff gain will not net us any talent.

 

On 11/22/2016 at 1:19 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Picking 10th or 21st doesn't make 2 craps difference IMO, look at all the picks the Jags made on Defense, how's that working out? They suck so I am about winning 99.9% of the time and just think it's silly to tank unless your team is 0-8 or worse = season is over anyway and you have Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning ready to Draft #1.

First off the Jags D is pretty good.  When your QB is as flawed as Bortles you will have problems winning consistently, ask the Texans how that goes.  And why are you being so short sighted.  Just like in 2011, in 2016 we need talent.

 

In our division that we are supposed to own.  We have the 2nd ranked total offense, 1st ranked passing offense, 4th ranked rushing offense, 2nd ranked scoring offense, 4th ranked total defense, 4th ranked passing defense, 3rd ranked rushing defense and 4th ranked scoring defense.

 

Those rankings are not of those of a team that is "suppose to own" a division.  At best that is a middling team within the division.

[aaron11]

54 minutes ago, tikyle said:

Where you pick means EVERYTHING. 

 

 

no it really doesnt.  we were not going to take RG3 either, if we missed out on luck.  it would have been wilson.  the colts would not have had the #2 overall pick, it would have been lower with one more loss

 

tanking is not the key to fixing the defense, its a matter of taking the right guys where ever you end up picking in the rounds.  our problem is that we took dorsett, werner and TR.  there were better players available at those spots.

 

its interesting that the vikings took two guys that we should have, kendricks and rhodes.  now they have one of the best defenses in the nfl

 

[tikyle]

4 hours ago, aaron11 said:

no it really doesnt.  we were not going to take RG3 either, if we missed out on luck.  it would have been wilson.  the colts would not have had the #2 overall pick, it would have been lower with one more loss

 

tanking is not the key to fixing the defense, its a matter of taking the right guys where ever you end up picking in the rounds.  our problem is that we took dorsett, werner and TR.  there were better players available at those spots.

 

its interesting that the vikings took two guys that we should have, kendricks and rhodes.  now they have one of the best defenses in the nfl

 

You really believe the Colts would have taken a guy with a 3rd round grade with the #2 pick in the draft?  OK.........yeah........right.  The Colts would have taken RG3.  Please don't think otherwise.  There's a reason Washington traded away their future for the right to pick the guy.

 

That hindsight of yours is really strong.

[IndySouthsider]

On 11/22/2016 at 10:01 AM, King Colt said:

Look at their record and the Texans are a better team as I see it.

So much for that!

[aaron11]

11 hours ago, tikyle said:

You really believe the Colts would have taken a guy with a 3rd round grade with the #2 pick in the draft?  OK.........yeah........right.  The Colts would have taken RG3.  Please don't think otherwise.  There's a reason Washington traded away their future for the right to pick the guy.

 

That hindsight of yours is really strong.

i didnt say they were going to take him at # 2, you read that into it.  they would have taken him later.  its not just hindsight on my part, grigson said he was planning on drafting him if we missed out on luck

 

the colts would not have had the #2 pick either.  one more win would have dropped them further than that

[jskinnz]

On November 22, 2016 at 11:46 AM, tikyle said:

I'm not saying to tank.  I'm saying we are not a worthy playoff team.  Winning the worse division in football by a hair gets you what?  Ask Houston if that got them anything?  They won the division by a hair last year, got blasted in the wild card round and now what?  That playoff appearance cost them like 6 spots in the draft.

 

Not really.  I already went over this, but the difference between say the 12-15th pick and the 20th-22nd pick is the difference between an Odell Beckham, Ryan Shazier, Aaron Donald, Kyle Fuller to a Brandin Cooks,  Ha Ha Dix or Dee Ford.  It is a huge difference in talent level.  And we need talent.  Yes late round picks can end up being gems but having a mid round pick gives you a much better margin for error in making that selection.  I just really want one person to tell me what the Colts can gain from making the playoffs at 9-7 and being a home dog in the wild card game?

 

I think there is tremendous value in winning.  It is part of the culture you want to build as a team.  

 

I also think once you get into the tournament, you never know what can happen.  The Giants were 9-7 and won the Super Bowl.  Or they could catch lightning in a bottle like the 2006 Colts did when all o f the sudden the worst defense became damn near dominant.  Plus when you have a franchise level QB, like I believe Luck is, he can carry a team.

 

Lastly there is no sure bet that a pick between 12-15 turns out to be a better player than 20-22.

 

Winning is always better than losing.

[braveheartcolt]

"Winning is always better than losing".....

 

Simple and short, but says it all really, and we don't need a million words to discuss.....

[RollerColt]

[tikyle]

SMH.  So short sighted.

5 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i didnt say they were going to take him at # 2, you read that into it.  they would have taken him later.  its not just hindsight on my part, grigson said he was planning on drafting him if we missed out on luck

 

the colts would not have had the #2 pick either.  one more win would have dropped them further than that

And you are assuming we would have gotten him before Seattle.  You are also assuming the Colts would have passed on RG3 if they had the opportunity to pick him.  Or Tannehill or Weeden or Osweiler, who were all picked before Wilson.  Trusting Grigson had Wilson as the #2 QB on his board is very convenient after the fact.

 

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think there is tremendous value in winning.  It is part of the culture you want to build as a team.  

 

I also think once you get into the tournament, you never know what can happen.  The Giants were 9-7 and won the Super Bowl.  Or they could catch lightning in a bottle like the 2006 Colts did when all o f the sudden the worst defense became damn near dominant.  Plus when you have a franchise level QB, like I believe Luck is, he can carry a team.

 

Lastly there is no sure bet that a pick between 12-15 turns out to be a better player than 20-22.

 

Winning is always better than losing.

The Giants were on like a six game winning streak before losing the last game going into the playoffs.  These Colts are struggling to win two in a row.  They didn't catch lightning in a bottle.  That was a team that got better over the course of the season and was playing well going into the playoffs.  2006 Colts were 12-4 despite that defense............this team is neither.  If they make the playoffs they will back in with a bunch of help from the Texans and Titans.  Then they will get throttled in the wild card game vs the Chiefs or Broncos or Dolphins or Steelers.

 

37 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

"Winning is always better than losing".....

 

Simple and short, but says it all really, and we don't need a million words to discuss.....

Not always.  When the winning is empty and you stand more to gain from losing it sure is not.  See SF for example.  That team is depleted due to injuries and retirements.  If they win half of their remaining games and go from the potential #2 pick to say pick #5 what good would winning 3 of their last 6 really have gained them?  Yah we didn't go 1-15 we were a solid 4-12.  Here's a cookie.  You went from having the ability to draft a potential franchise QB or edge rusher to having to take what falls to #5.  No thank you.  You can keep those 3 wins if it gains me nothing but letting my fan base feel better about their team NOT going 1-15.

[krunk]

This makes no sense.  At what point do you expect the team to say "Time for us to start losing so we can get some good draft picks"?  Any man who instills that in his team won't be around long.      You reasoning is "hollow".

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

SMH.  So short sighted.

And you are assuming we would have gotten him before Seattle.  You are also assuming the Colts would have passed on RG3 if they had the opportunity to pick him.  Or Tannehill or Weeden or Osweiler, who were all picked before Wilson.  Trusting Grigson had Wilson as the #2 QB on his board is very convenient after the fact.

 

The Giants were on like a six game winning streak before losing the last game going into the playoffs.  These Colts are struggling to win two in a row.  They didn't catch lightning in a bottle.  That was a team that got better over the course of the season and was playing well going into the playoffs.  2006 Colts were 12-4 despite that defense............this team is neither.  If they make the playoffs they will back in with a bunch of help from the Texans and Titans.  Then they will get throttled in the wild card game vs the Chiefs or Broncos or Dolphins or Steelers.

 

Not always.  When the winning is empty and you stand more to gain from losing it sure is not.  See SF for example.  That team is depleted due to injuries and retirements.  If they win half of their remaining games and go from the potential #2 pick to say pick #5 what good would winning 3 of their last 6 really have gained them?  Yah we didn't go 1-15 we were a solid 4-12.  Here's a cookie.  You went from having the ability to draft a potential franchise QB or edge rusher to having to take what falls to #5.  No thank you.  You can keep those 3 wins if it gains me nothing but letting my fan base feel better about their team NOT going 1-15.

we were higher than seattle in the draft order, we could have had pretty much any pick we wanted in that draft through trades

 

but maybe you are right and we should just give up and tank

 

only one team can win it all, the 25 teams or so with no chance might lose every game they can

 

and not just this year, every single year there should be at least 2/3s of the league tanking, since they cant win the super bowl right?

 

 

[braveheartcolt]

3 hours ago, tikyle said:

SMH.  So short sighted.

And you are assuming we would have gotten him before Seattle.  You are also assuming the Colts would have passed on RG3 if they had the opportunity to pick him.  Or Tannehill or Weeden or Osweiler, who were all picked before Wilson.  Trusting Grigson had Wilson as the #2 QB on his board is very convenient after the fact.

 

The Giants were on like a six game winning streak before losing the last game going into the playoffs.  These Colts are struggling to win two in a row.  They didn't catch lightning in a bottle.  That was a team that got better over the course of the season and was playing well going into the playoffs.  2006 Colts were 12-4 despite that defense............this team is neither.  If they make the playoffs they will back in with a bunch of help from the Texans and Titans.  Then they will get throttled in the wild card game vs the Chiefs or Broncos or Dolphins or Steelers.

 

Not always.  When the winning is empty and you stand more to gain from losing it sure is not.  See SF for example.  That team is depleted due to injuries and retirements.  If they win half of their remaining games and go from the potential #2 pick to say pick #5 what good would winning 3 of their last 6 really have gained them?  Yah we didn't go 1-15 we were a solid 4-12.  Here's a cookie.  You went from having the ability to draft a potential franchise QB or edge rusher to having to take what falls to #5.  No thank you.  You can keep those 3 wins if it gains me nothing but letting my fan base feel better about their team NOT going 1-15.

My first ever game in the US was the week 17 Giant v Patriots at the Meadowlands, when the Pats were going for 16-0. Both had locked their seeds, 1 & 6 in their respective divisions. The Giants went flat out for victory, and so nearly pulled it off. I saw enough to say to my buddy after, you guys can win it all. He laughed. Winning is a good habit. Ask the players.

 

But why win you ask? Because the fans who paid their hard earned cash deserve it. Cheating them (like Polian did to us in week 16) is disgusting. Cheer for a loss every time if you want, but it's a pretty shallow wish if you ask me.

 

And drafting 5 places higher / lower is probably irrelevant, but I don't have the facts, so moot point really.

 

Just out of interest, how many games do you go every year? Are you a season ticket holder? If you are, and still want them to lose, then fair enough....

[tikyle]

36 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Just out of interest, how many games do you go every year? Are you a season ticket holder? If you are, and still want them to lose, then fair enough....

To answer your question none.  I have never lived within 1000 miles, give or take, of Indianapolis.  When I lived in Atlanta I went to the Thanksgiving night game Colts vs Falcons.  I also caught the Colts v Falcons game in Atlanta a year ago.  I was going to drive to Jacksonville to see Colts v Jags since I live in South Florida now but that game was moved to London.

 

All that said I just want my team to improve.  I don't mind if they lose.  If I thought winning games this season would help the team down the road or that they needed to get the taste of the playoffs then I'd be rooting for that.  This team has tasted the playoffs.  At this moment it's talent that we need.  We just are not good.  Part of it is coaching, but another big part is talent.  I just don't see how anyone can watch just the division games we've played and not think "wow, when did the (insert any AFC South team: Jaguars, Titans or Texans) get more talent than Indy?"  Just last year we were an Andrew Luck injury away from owning this division as we always had.  And the answer is in all that winning we did.  All that 11-5 and getting closer to the SB, we didn't draft well or develop the guys we had.  We were a .500 team that feasted on it's division.  Going 5-5 every year outside of your division is telling.  Especially when your division is ghastly.

 

All that winning, while exciting, just masked the deficiencies we had.  And now we are paying dearly for it.  So my thing now is why not lose these "we got totally outplayed but Andrew and TY saved the day in the 4th quarter" games and draft better at a higher position and get things rolling.  The entire Colts resurgence happened because we drafted 1st (or 2nd in every round that draft) and look what that draft got us.

 

P.S. I'm not saying to lose just for the sake of losing.  I'm saying why not play young guys and get them experience and not worry about our record.  Outside of playing La'Raven Clark (it might get Luck hit even more), I'm all for going young.  Mike Adams is great but let's see more TJ Green.  DQ is great but let's see more Antonio Morrison.  Art Jones is OK, but he can be benched for Ridgeway and some of the young guys.  I love Gore, but give Todman half his carries.  It's just time to go young.  I don't want to wake up one day and realize we wasted Luck's prime trying to get aging veterans to the promised land.

[MacDee1975]

On 11/22/2016 at 8:49 AM, King Colt said:

The Texans are undefeated in the conference. The Colts are going to have to win the division as a tie will go to the best conference record. I don't want to see Luck Thursday, it is not worth the risk. Even if he is "cleared" he will still be getting hit at the league leading pace because the bosses don't believe he deserves protection. The Texans got screwed last night against the Raiders so they could have won that game and they should beat the Chargers. 

 

Great call.

[MacDee1975]

8 hours ago, tikyle said:

To answer your question none.  I have never lived within 1000 miles, give or take, of Indianapolis.  When I lived in Atlanta I went to the Thanksgiving night game Colts vs Falcons.  I also caught the Colts v Falcons game in Atlanta a year ago.  I was going to drive to Jacksonville to see Colts v Jags since I live in South Florida now but that game was moved to London.

 

All that said I just want my team to improve.  I don't mind if they lose.  If I thought winning games this season would help the team down the road or that they needed to get the taste of the playoffs then I'd be rooting for that.  This team has tasted the playoffs.  At this moment it's talent that we need.  We just are not good.  Part of it is coaching, but another big part is talent.  I just don't see how anyone can watch just the division games we've played and not think "wow, when did the (insert any AFC South team: Jaguars, Titans or Texans) get more talent than Indy?"  Just last year we were an Andrew Luck injury away from owning this division as we always had.  And the answer is in all that winning we did.  All that 11-5 and getting closer to the SB, we didn't draft well or develop the guys we had.  We were a .500 team that feasted on it's division.  Going 5-5 every year outside of your division is telling.  Especially when your division is ghastly.

 

All that winning, while exciting, just masked the deficiencies we had.  And now we are paying dearly for it.  So my thing now is why not lose these "we got totally outplayed but Andrew and TY saved the day in the 4th quarter" games and draft better at a higher position and get things rolling.  The entire Colts resurgence happened because we drafted 1st (or 2nd in every round that draft) and look what that draft got us.

 

P.S. I'm not saying to lose just for the sake of losing.  I'm saying why not play young guys and get them experience and not worry about our record.  Outside of playing La'Raven Clark (it might get Luck hit even more), I'm all for going young.  Mike Adams is great but let's see more TJ Green.  DQ is great but let's see more Antonio Morrison.  Art Jones is OK, but he can be benched for Ridgeway and some of the young guys.  I love Gore, but give Todman half his carries.  It's just time to go young.  I don't want to wake up one day and realize we wasted Luck's prime trying to get aging veterans to the promised land.

 

Atlanta is like 500 miles away from Indianapolis.

[Arodgers12]

You guys think we can take Houston for ya this week?

[krunk]

20 hours ago, Arodgers12 said:

You guys think we can take Houston for ya this week?

 

20 hours ago, Arodgers12 said:

You guys think we can take Houston for ya this week?

I think you will smoke them

[lollygagger8]

At 5-6, the Colts still have a shot.......