Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

I Am Still In Favor Of Rebuidling It All....including At Qb


Jules

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand when people say the Colts are not Super Bowl ready when just 3 yrs ago they were in the Super Bowl and two yrs ago a injury ridden team made the playoffs for tenth straight year. And now the Colts had one terrible year and everyone says not Super Bowl ready..

I guess 3 years ago they were not Super Bowl ready too...

Listen to this man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Colts are not the Packers and what happened with them might not happen with us. The Packers are really my second favorite team too and I speak to a lot of Packers fans. This whole thing to them is not the same thing they have told me.

i did not say that we were the Packers or that our situations were the same...if you read what i said, it was in direct response to something the person i was replying to said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well TBH you all might get what you want, or some of you.

I just don't want to hear crying if the Colts make it into the playoffs and lose again and then we spend the entire offseason hearing that it's a team sport and Peyton can't win by himself.

This team has a lot of work to do. A lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still end up with a QB heavy offense and there is so much salary in place, it will be hard to fully change to a different defensive philosophy.

I just look at it as more of replacing Manning for Luck and that in my opinion will be a recipe for disaster. If they would have brought in a WCO offensive OC, then I would say that we might have a chance to change the structure of the team.

Most of the great teams have a huge QB salary. The league is built around the QB especially today. It is a passing league. Very hard to win without the elite QB nowadays. They find a way to make it work. A change in D philosophy IS going to happen. No way around that. Our refusal to change on the D side of the ball is the reason Peyton only has one SB ring right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still end up with a QB heavy offense and there is so much salary in place, it will be hard to fully change to a different defensive philosophy.

I just look at it as more of replacing Manning for Luck and that in my opinion will be a recipe for disaster. If they would have brought in a WCO offensive OC, then I would say that we might have a chance to change the structure of the team.

why does bringing in Arians mean that it will be a hard system for Luck to learn? Arians was Peyton's QB coach for his first 4yrs in the NFL and learned under Tom Moore (Arians did)...also, Ben Roethlisberger seemed to not have any problem learning his offensive system in one season and was upset to see him go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when lucks rookie contract is up, if he is performing at a level you like, you realize he is going to make around 13-15 million a season right? Because that's what happens in the nfl, but maybe your anticipating luck winning in his first four seasons? But how could you believe that when u think this team is far away? You need to understand how contracts will work in the future and that this team will be in the same situation in five years if luck is as good as the hype.

I do understand how contracts work in the NFL.

When Luck's rookie contract is up in 5 years (assuming the team exercises its option) he will be 28 years old. If he is performing at an expected level that he has been hyped to (PM-like, at his prime), he will be making about $15MM a year, or even possibly more going forward.

Compare that to PM, who for the next 4 years (of his current contract) will be 40 years old at the expiration of that contract. He will be making about $18MM a year averaged over the 5 year contract (2011-2015).

If given the choice, I would go for the younger model, since all else (dollars, performance) is equal. The younger model provides more potential to win more SBs throughout his career with the team than the older model will. PM's career thus far is 14 years. Add the additional 4 years of his current contract remaining, and his career spans 18 years. With Luck, after his 5 year rookie contract has another 13 years going forward if he lasts as long as PM. I think there will be more SB winning opportunities in 13 years (post rookie contract) than in 4 years (remaining PM contract) for the Colts, assuming equivalent performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the great teams have a huge QB salary. The league is built around the QB especially today. It is a passing league. Very hard to win without the elite QB nowadays. They find a way to make it work. A change in D philosophy IS going to happen. No way around that. Our refusal to change on the D side of the ball is the reason Peyton only has one SB ring right now.

The offense should have been overhauled as well. Yes Manning was efficient in what he did, but it made it impossible to compete without him.

Manning will own any offense that they put into play. He will put in the effort. Yeah we are changing our D, but if we try to keep the same offense in tact moving forward I just don't see any as much success on the horizon as some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably fortunate we made the SB that year. It was still Dungy's team. Fortunate also that we played Flacco and Sanchez to get to the big game. In the SB against a real team and a real QB we got embarrassed. All the weaknesses showed through and even Peyton played a large role in that loss even though most don't admit it.

I know many want to relive the past. Relive Peyton's prime years and all.

I just am not convinced this is our time though right now. Might be again, but right now I am not feeling that it is.

Sure the Colts beat two teams in the division last year. It happens. Just ask the Saints because the Bucs often get them once a year too.

This team is a mess. Not even Peyton at age 36 is going to patch up all these holes in one offseason with a rookie HC and a rookie GM.

I think we get you REALLY want Luck and to rebuild and how you believe the cupboard is bare.

Maybe I'm just a optimist but this 2 win season I saw a team plagued by poor QB play more then a team deprived of talent. I saw a O-line start to run block, I saw hope with Carter ( if he holds onto the ball ) Angerer looked to be getting better every game .

So provided IF Peyton plays like Peyton He will have Garcon / Collie / Clark & maybe Wayne and a better running game then 2 years ago? Why rebuild? Where are the Colts so bad?

I say let Pagano the defensive back genius do his work and see what happens.

Oh and your rants about a rookie head coach are laughable at best.. isn't Harbaugh a rookie coach? a rookie coach doesn't doom a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said we have since added 3 rookies but its going to take a lot more then that. We are awful in defense and on the oline. A lot changes in 2 years in the nfl. Some feel we can just throw manning on this team and win a super bowl and that's fine but it's also ok to think that even with manning we aren't winning any rings anytime soon. He did it once in his prime.

If you're not getting better, you're getting worse.

Still, I don't think this team is in shambles like msot people seem to think. We still have a lot of good players, and pretty much the same core we had in 2009 when we started 14-0. Primary difference is that we've had a ton of injuries in the past two years. Three starters from 2009 (Brackett, Clark, Bullitt) have missed over half the games since then.

Doesn't mean we don't need help in certain areas (offensive line, defensive line, and secondary). We do. We can address those in a couple of different ways, and have already started. Castonzo, Ijalana and Nevis are going to be good players. Still need more, and I'm confident we'll get more.

We're also probably going to be changing our defensive scheme this season, which is a welcome change. Hopefully it takes better advantage of our players strengths than the so-called defense we played the past two seasons.

I think we can get back to being a good team right away, whether it's with Manning or Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you certain the Colts will be in the cellar w/o Manning If Luck and not Painter or O is the QB? ( on topic, but not totally)

I have a gut feeling that they will ask Luck to run a Manningesque offense and that is an offense that took him 13 years to cultivate. Simply replacing 18 for 12 is setting him up to fail.

If they installed a WCO i could see him have some earlier successes, but that's didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what will be telling if this is either a recontruction (rebuild), or merely a facelift is this:

What will be the offensive system? Will it be PM-centric like before, or something different?

Why is that we have to completely overhaul everything we do in order for people to call this a "rebuilding"? We fired the GM and most of the coaching staff. We don't have to get rid of our best and most important player in order to rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why does bringing in Arians mean that it will be a hard system for Luck to learn? Arians was Peyton's QB coach for his first 4yrs in the NFL and learned under Tom Moore (Arians did)...also, Ben Roethlisberger seemed to not have any problem learning his offensive system in one season and was upset to see him go

I have yet to see the Steelers run an offense that resembled what we have been running. Yes Arians was here, but Tom Moore was the one calling the shots. Part of it is being in the same spot(a play a way from QB 2 coming in), and with a solid offensive system such as a WCO, QB 2 has fare more likelihood of succeeding than what we run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a gut feeling that they will ask Luck to run a Manningesque offense and that is an offense that took him 13 years to cultivate. Simply replacing 18 for 12 is setting him up to fail.

If they installed a WCO i could see him have some earlier successes, but that's didn't happen.

It took Manning 13 years to develop the system that's in place. Luck only has to learn it. But who knows a WCO is very possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even think that far ahead. I am sure Irsay can though.

I just don't feel it's the right move to spend the first pick on a QB and have Peyton. Not with that many issues on this team.

Many want their cake and to eat it too.

I would love to have both QBs. I just feel it might be time to choose which direction the team wants to go in.

And we still don't even know if Peyton's performance will be affected either by these injuries even though he is cleared.

I think it is best to go all in in one or the other as well, but I would take Peyton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that we have to completely overhaul everything we do in order for people to call this a "rebuilding"? We fired the GM and most of the coaching staff. We don't have to get rid of our best and most important player in order to rebuild.

Because keeping a PM-centric offense makes the Colts vulnerable when PM goes down, as evidenced by this past season. I am going to borrow what firejim said as well:

Part of it is being in the same spot(a play a way from QB 2 coming in), and with a solid offensive system such as a WCO, QB 2 has fare more likelihood of succeeding than what we run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Colts are not the Packers and what happened with them might not happen with us. The Packers are really my second favorite team too and I speak to a lot of Packers fans. This whole thing to them is not the same thing they have told me.

If the Titans could stomach sitting Jake Locker behind Matt Hasselbeck, I don't understand why we have such a problem with seeing ANYBODY sitting behind Peyton Manning.

I don't see the issue. If Manning is healthy and you think it's worth paying him, then who his backup is becomes a different conversation. And if you have an opportunity to draft someone that's expected to be really good at the most important position in sports, then that's also a different conversation. To me, if Manning is healthy, it makes sense to keep him (think about the idea of not re-signing him last year, before the surgery). And if Luck is available, it makes sense to draft him. To me, these are mutually exclusive decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand how contracts work in the NFL.

When Luck's rookie contract is up in 5 years (assuming the team exercises its option) he will be 28 years old. If he is performing at an expected level that he has been hyped to (PM-like, at his prime), he will be making about $15MM a year, or even possibly more going forward.

Compare that to PM, who for the next 4 years (of his current contract) will be 40 years old at the expiration of that contract. He will be making about $18MM a year averaged over the 5 year contract (2011-2015).

If given the choice, I would go for the younger model, since all else (dollars, performance) is equal. The younger model provides more potential to win more SBs throughout his career with the team than the older model will. PM's career thus far is 14 years. Add the additional 4 years of his current contract remaining, and his career spans 18 years. With Luck, after his 5 year rookie contract has another 13 years going forward if he lasts as long as PM. I think there will be more SB winning opportunities in 13 years (post rookie contract) than in 4 years (remaining PM contract) for the Colts, assuming equivalent performance.

The point is the qb position is expensive in the nfl. And that's your opinion of what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see the Steelers run an offense that resembled what we have been running. Yes Arians was here, but Tom Moore was the one calling the shots. Part of it is being in the same spot(a play a way from QB 2 coming in), and with a solid offensive system such as a WCO, QB 2 has fare more likelihood of succeeding than what we run.

the whole point is that Arians is our new offensive coordinator, not Tom Moore and not Clyde Christenson. Why do you think that Arians may not run a similar offense as to what he's done in his past as an OC? The system he ran in Pittsburgh couldnt have been too hard to learn/succeed in, Roethlisberger did really well in it in only ONE season, and no real offseason to learn it in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a gut feeling that they will ask Luck to run a Manningesque offense and that is an offense that took him 13 years to cultivate. Simply replacing 18 for 12 is setting him up to fail.

If they installed a WCO i could see him have some earlier successes, but that's didn't happen.

Curtis Painter tried to run it out right and was a colossal failure, so I see that side of the coin, Orlovsky didnt and went .500 and now Painter is now a 3rd stringer for life.

I don't think anyone on the new staff has much idea on how to run Manning's offense, except Manning. So with that said how do you feel about the team in 3 years if Luck is around and a more suitable offense were in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because keeping a PM-centric offense makes the Colts vulnerable when PM goes down, as evidenced by this past season. I am going to borrow what firejim said as well:

I must not understand what the two of you mean by "west coast offense," because by all indications, we run a west coast offense. It's just Manning's offense, which is fine-tuned over the course of a decade to respond to him and the way he runs it.

I wouldn't expect anyone, least of all a rookie, to step in and do what Manning does. That's why you have coaches, and ours failed mightily last season in making adjustments to be even remotely effective. The failure was not the system. And again, we have the same players that started 14-0 two seasons ago. Better coaching would have covered over a lot of the problems we had last season. Maybe we don't win any more games, but we at least wouldn't have been as hopelessly inept.

And this is my point: IF you keep Peyton Manning, you don't have to run the same system. He'll still be at the center of the offense because he's the quarterback. And that's fine. When you have a Maybach, you don't complain about how much space it takes up in the garage. You accommodate it. But you can make adjustments and make things more backup friendly just in case you need the backup.

Lastly, the issue last year wasn't as simple as "no one can run this offense but Peyton Manning." The issue, at least offensively, was that our other options at quarterback were terrible. Kerry Collins like to hold the ball and throw to wide open receivers, particularly outside the hashes. Not a good fit. Painter looked five times better than Collins, until the Saints game, and the wheels fell off. But his biggest issue was that he struggled working through his reads and making accurate throws. With a better backup, you don't have those issues. You're likely still not as good, but you're not going to get beat 62-7, and you're not going to be a bottom five offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Titans could stomach sitting Jake Locker behind Matt Hasselbeck, I don't understand why we have such a problem with seeing ANYBODY sitting behind Peyton Manning.

I don't see the issue. If Manning is healthy and you think it's worth paying him, then who his backup is becomes a different conversation. And if you have an opportunity to draft someone that's expected to be really good at the most important position in sports, then that's also a different conversation. To me, if Manning is healthy, it makes sense to keep him (think about the idea of not re-signing him last year, before the surgery). And if Luck is available, it makes sense to draft him. To me, these are mutually exclusive decisions.

1) Matt Hasselbeck isn't getting a 28mill signing bonus

2) Matt Hasselbecks cap hit isn't 16-20M over the next 4 years

3) Even with Manning cleared we have no idea how he will play post surgery until we see him

4) Jake Locker was not the best QB coming out of his draft.

If Manning was making far less money, I personally would have no problem with Luck sitting for a year or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not understand what the two of you mean by "west coast offense," because by all indications, we run a west coast offense. It's just Manning's offense, which is fine-tuned over the course of a decade to respond to him and the way he runs it.

I wouldn't expect anyone, least of all a rookie, to step in and do what Manning does. That's why you have coaches, and ours failed mightily last season in making adjustments to be even remotely effective. The failure was not the system. And again, we have the same players that started 14-0 two seasons ago. Better coaching would have covered over a lot of the problems we had last season. Maybe we don't win any more games, but we at least wouldn't have been as hopelessly inept.

And this is my point: IF you keep Peyton Manning, you don't have to run the same system. He'll still be at the center of the offense because he's the quarterback. And that's fine. When you have a Maybach, you don't complain about how much space it takes up in the garage. You accommodate it. But you can make adjustments and make things more backup friendly just in case you need the backup.

Lastly, the issue last year wasn't as simple as "no one can run this offense but Peyton Manning." The issue, at least offensively, was that our other options at quarterback were terrible. Kerry Collins like to hold the ball and throw to wide open receivers, particularly outside the hashes. Not a good fit. Painter looked five times better than Collins, until the Saints game, and the wheels fell off. But his biggest issue was that he struggled working through his reads and making accurate throws. With a better backup, you don't have those issues. You're likely still not as good, but you're not going to get beat 62-7, and you're not going to be a bottom five offense.

We don't run anything close to the west coast offense. The Browns, Eagles, Packers, 49ers, Houston, Washington and likely a couple of others, run variations or hybrids of the WCO. Our's is nothing like it.

Part of the 2011 Quarterback issue was poor coaching not adjusting an offense to put them in a better spot. Part of it was a lack of talent(Painter), part of it was not enough time in this system(Collins), and part of it was far too late to even matter for the most part (Orlovsky).

If we had a QB friendly offense in place, Collins would have produced far better than he did. Painter would have even had a better chance to being average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, we may not have any of our best defensive players leaving via free agency this year...our GM has said its a priority to keep Mathis, Garcon and Wayne...everyone else is under contract on D with the exception of Anderson/Simms/Brayton

Secondly, to imply that Caldwell's system was the same as Dungy's...when he changed several coordinators...is wrong! We didnt have Coyer running the D when Dungy left...and we didnt have Clyde running the offense...and we had a different ST coach

Thirdly, yes, once Luck's first contract is up, he most certainly WILL make as much as Peyton...Peyton's base salary this year is barely $7million, the rest is bonuses, which Luck will also get when he signs his contracts...

Saying and doing are two different things. Of course he wants to keep all 3 but will he be able to? Probably not.

The offense was still the same whether Clyde or Moore ran it. Manning was still being Manning. Also Clyde was promoted from WR/Assistant head coach to OC. We have an entirely new OC coming in now. The defense was even worse in 2009 as opposed to 2007, 2006, 2005.

Also first off, you said same amount of money in 5 years. You didnt say base salary. Manning will make FAR more than Luck in 5 years than Luck will. Even with the base salary, Lucks base salary will not match Mannings just by going off Cam Newtons contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why some don't see disaster even with Manning. The schedule is easier next year so things might be better no matter who the QB is IMO.

We have a new coach too. We have no idea if he will work out either.

This whole thing could end really well or end really bad.

Why? How many peices on offense have we lost? All the team needs is a defense and a better running game; which I feel like the organization is addressing now thru coaching. Can you imagine Manning with a top five Defense? Forget about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curtis Painter tried to run it out right and was a colossal failure, so I see that side of the coin, Orlovsky didnt and went .500 and now Painter is now a 3rd stringer for life.

I don't think anyone on the new staff has much idea on how to run Manning's offense, except Manning. So with that said how do you feel about the team in 3 years if Luck is around and a more suitable offense were in place?

Painter doesn't deserve an NFL job if truth be told. I don't think anyone on the staff knows it either. Arians likely knows concepts just as Clyde has some clues about it.

I feel that if Luck is a different system, then he will be better than he would be if nothing changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Matt Hasselbeck isn't getting a 28mill signing bonus

2) Matt Hasselbecks cap hit isn't 16-20M over the next 4 years

3) Even with Manning cleared we have no idea how he will play post surgery until we see him

4) Jake Locker was not the best QB coming out of his draft.

If Manning was making far less money, I personally would have no problem with Luck sitting for a year or two.

1) There is just as good of a chance that Manning wont be paid the $28million option bonus even if he DOES stay here, and that he signs a completely new contract with us that makes his salary cap #s completely different

2) We have no idea how Luck will do in the NFL as a starter, either...much the same as we dont know how Manning will do when he comes back. But i would think that holding such high standards for himself, Peyton will not come back if he would embarrass himself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't run anything close to the west coast offense. The Browns, Eagles, Packers, 49ers, Houston, Washington and likely a couple of others, run variations or hybrids of the WCO. Our's is nothing like it.

Part of the 2011 Quarterback issue was poor coaching not adjusting an offense to put them in a better spot. Part of it was a lack of talent(Painter), part of it was not enough time in this system(Collins), and part of it was far too late to even matter for the most part (Orlovsky).

If we had a QB friendly offense in place, Collins would have produced far better than he did. Painter would have even had a better chance to being average.

the difference is, last year we didnt have TIME to change the offense...we had basically NO offseason due to the lockout and we thought Peyton would be our starting QB.

Now, we have changed OCs completely and have a full offseason... you keep saying "the Colts offense" but that was LAST YEAR, not the upcoming year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Matt Hasselbeck isn't getting a 28mill signing bonus

2) Matt Hasselbecks cap hit isn't 16-20M over the next 4 years

3) Even with Manning cleared we have no idea how he will play post surgery until we see him

Matt Hasselbeck isn't Peyton Manning. If Manning is healthy, is he worth the money? I'd say yes, and a year ago, everyone else would have as well. That's a big IF, but that's what it comes down to.

4) Jake Locker was not the best QB coming out of his draft.

What difference does that make? He was probably the second best. And the point is that they drafted a quarterback in the first round, pretty doggone high (#8 overall), and then stuck him behind a veteran. And this is a veteran that hadn't been a part of turning the team into a perennial contender. He was a hired gun. They drafted Locker, and THEN signed Hasselbeck to be the starter.

Point is, even really good prospects drafted in the first round making a lot of money (by backup quarterback standards) can ride the bench behind a veteran. It's not the end of the world. It often turns out really well.

If Manning was making far less money, I personally would have no problem with Luck sitting for a year or two.

Doesn't that nullify point #4? Luck IS, by all accounts, the best quarterback in the draft (and maybe the best one of the last ten years). He can sit. He'll live. Might be better off for it.

If this is about Manning's money, then my question becomes "where was your objection last year when he was a free agent?" If Manning is healthy and capable of being what he has been for his entire career (which was never about his athleticism, it was about his accuracy and his cerebral ability to attack defenses where they were weak), then the Luck issue is separate.

And if Luck is what people think he is, then the Manning issue is separate.

I see it as being the best of both worlds. You get to keep the good veteran (in this case, one of the best of all time), and you get to stash his replacement for a little while. It's not about the money, and it's not about the draft pick. If Manning is healthy, he's worth the money. If Luck is what he's touted as, he's worth the draft pick. Accommodate both of them and consider yourself lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying and doing are two different things. Of course he wants to keep all 3 but will he be able to? Probably not.

The offense was still the same whether Clyde or Moore ran it. Manning was still being Manning. Also Clyde was promoted from WR/Assistant head coach to OC. We have an entirely new OC coming in now. The defense was even worse in 2009 as opposed to 2007, 2006, 2005.

Also first off, you said same amount of money in 5 years. You didnt say base salary. Manning will make FAR more than Luck in 5 years than Luck will. Even with the base salary, Lucks base salary will not match Mannings just by going off Cam Newtons contract.

Cam Newton is on his rookie contract...i'm talking about when Luck's rookie contract runs out and he signs his second contract, in 5yrs, with whichever team he is playing for whether that is us or someone else.

And i agree that the D was even worse in 2009, thats why i pointed out that it wasnt the same as when Dungy was here as you had said.

This year we will have BETTER (in my opinion) coaches with better systems on Offense and Defense AND Special Teams, and a whole offseason to work with them. And before you say that we cant make the change in one year, several teams did just that this past year with NO offseason to work with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? What would you call the basis of the Manning offense? What's really fundamentally different?

Arians has never coached it. He's not well versed in it.

Manning's offense key is execution and timing. The majority of success is on Manning knowing what the defense is doing and picking it apart. The WCO is more of predetermined reads, and the thought that they can't take everyone away at the same time. Manning's offense is based in a 11, or 12 set. The WCO is usually a 20, or 21 or 22 set. The WCO uses a running back in the passing game as an extended hand off. Ours are used more as an outlet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference is, last year we didnt have TIME to change the offense...we had basically NO offseason due to the lockout and we thought Peyton would be our starting QB.

Now, we have changed OCs completely and have a full offseason... you keep saying "the Colts offense" but that was LAST YEAR, not the upcoming year

We had plenty of time to install a basic NFL offense, that Collins & Orlvosky would have had a better shot of running. Jim Caldwell & Clyde Christensen failed this team/franchise by having Collins & Painter attempt to run Manning's offense. They should have ditched that as soon as Manning went under the knife again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably fortunate we made the SB that year. It was still Dungy's team. Fortunate also that we played Flacco and Sanchez to get to the big game. In the SB against a real team and a real QB we got embarrassed. All the weaknesses showed through and even Peyton played a large role in that loss even though most don't admit it.

I don't buy this at all. In the Super Bowl against the Saints the Colts dominated in the first half but Kendra's husbind couldn't handle the onside kick and it went down hill from there. I give the Saints credit for the gamble.

I know many want to relive the past. Relive Peyton's prime years and all.

I just am not convinced this is our time though right now. Might be again, but right now I am not feeling that it is.

Sure the Colts beat two teams in the division last year. It happens. Just ask the Saints because the Bucs often get them once a year too.

This team is a mess. Not even Peyton at age 36 is going to patch up all these holes in one offseason with a rookie HC and a rookie GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not understand what the two of you mean by "west coast offense," because by all indications, we run a west coast offense. It's just Manning's offense, which is fine-tuned over the course of a decade to respond to him and the way he runs it.

I wouldn't expect anyone, least of all a rookie, to step in and do what Manning does. That's why you have coaches, and ours failed mightily last season in making adjustments to be even remotely effective. The failure was not the system. And again, we have the same players that started 14-0 two seasons ago. Better coaching would have covered over a lot of the problems we had last season. Maybe we don't win any more games, but we at least wouldn't have been as hopelessly inept.

And this is my point: IF you keep Peyton Manning, you don't have to run the same system. He'll still be at the center of the offense because he's the quarterback. And that's fine. When you have a Maybach, you don't complain about how much space it takes up in the garage. You accommodate it. But you can make adjustments and make things more backup friendly just in case you need the backup.

Lastly, the issue last year wasn't as simple as "no one can run this offense but Peyton Manning." The issue, at least offensively, was that our other options at quarterback were terrible. Kerry Collins like to hold the ball and throw to wide open receivers, particularly outside the hashes. Not a good fit. Painter looked five times better than Collins, until the Saints game, and the wheels fell off. But his biggest issue was that he struggled working through his reads and making accurate throws. With a better backup, you don't have those issues. You're likely still not as good, but you're not going to get beat 62-7, and you're not going to be a bottom five offense.

If we started with a WCO, it has sufficiently morphed to the point where it is unrecognizable by QBs who have familiarity with the WCO, like Collins. Other QBs like Painter who have been in our system for 2 years cannot grasp it enough to operate it efficiently (OK, maybe a lack of talent has something to do with this). Orlovsky didn't have enough time. Our offense is PM-centric as it is now. If Arians rebuilds our Offense to something that is not PM-centric, I will think this is a truly rebuilding team, rather than a facelift on the same ol' same ol'. If he does rebuild it, PM and any QB will start afresh. And perhaps the new offense will be more efficient/effective when there is a Porsche running it rather than a Maybach. Who knows? Maybe the Maybach can morph into a Porsche. Maybe the Porsche may morph into a faster upgraded Porsche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't run anything close to the west coast offense. The Browns, Eagles, Packers, 49ers, Houston, Washington and likely a couple of others, run variations or hybrids of the WCO. Our's is nothing like it.

Part of the 2011 Quarterback issue was poor coaching not adjusting an offense to put them in a better spot. Part of it was a lack of talent(Painter), part of it was not enough time in this system(Collins), and part of it was far too late to even matter for the most part (Orlovsky).

If we had a QB friendly offense in place, Collins would have produced far better than he did. Painter would have even had a better chance to being average.

West coast offense is a very broad term. More than anything else, it refers to an offense that utilizes timing routes and short passes, allows the quarterback to make several reads, and sends most of the receivers out rather than keeping players in to block. Every team that uses a so-called WCO doesn't do it exactly how Bill Walsh did it, and you don't necessarily need a mobile quarterback. It's a concept that allows you to use short passes rather than using the running game to set up deep throws.

I don't know what about Houston's offense makes anyone thing WCO, because they pound the ball and then run bootlegs to throw the ball deep. It's pretty much the opposite of the WCO.

That said, most teams use principles of WCO. Including us. But that's not the answer to what ailed us this season. The problem was that the quarterbacks weren't good. Collins wasn't a good fit for us because we throw quick and to receivers that haven't broken open yet. Painter struggled with accuracy and making reads. Orlovsky benefited from some changes we made and the softer part of our schedule, but he wasn't anything special and neither was the offense when he was running it. It's as simple as the fact that our quarterbacks sucked, and our coaches didn't do enough to adjust for them.

By all accounts, Andrew Luck doesn't suck. And hopefully, our offensive coaches are better than they were last season. No one can do what Manning has done, but that doesn't mean we have to completely change what's made him so good. If we move on from him, then yes, it makes sense to implement something that's more friendly to other quarterbacks. But if we keep him, we should accommodate him.

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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm good with picking up the option. I kind of agree a little with Ballard that there is more upside to Paye on passing downs. He is a good athlete and he has improved each season. Important that he says healthy, he was quite a raw prospect coming out of college and was then injured alot in his first 2 seasons in the NFL. So I can see why Ballard would like him around for another 2 years to see how much they can improve him. He's also an excellent run defender, which is important to note, especially in that LDE role.
    • Doug….   I’ve just read your latest two posts.   And as has been the recent trend, I don’t understand your logic.   So I’ve got a long post to respond to your long post.    So let me ask you an important question:     Have you noticed in the last month or so that I am responding to your posts very slowly?   I’m taking 8, 10, even 12 hours to respond.    I’m doing it deliberately.  I don’t want us to be going back and forth and back and forth while we’re both awake.  I’m trying to slow the pace of communication so things don’t get heated.  So I’m not trying to pick a fight,  I’m trying to AVOID a fight.   As to your two posts….   I think your memory is playing tricks with you.  Ballard said “let’s take the wide receiver” this draft for Mitchell.  His quote in 2022 after the Colts had no pick in the first round was this…. “Tomorrow,  wide receiver, tight end, tackle, and safety or corner.”   What did Ballard do?   He took those 4 positions in that order.  But not until he had traded DOWN from 35 to 53 for Pierce.   That was Reich’s personal pick.  Ballard was confident the players would be there and they were.   Not possible if everyone has same info as you assert.    Do you remember the 2019 draft when Ballard took Rock, Benagu, Campbell, and Okereke on Day 2,  that was the first year of the popular video series and the most memorable sound was Frank going around the war room high fiving everyone yelling “Four for Four!  Four for Four!”   Those were the guys Frank wanted, those were the guys Ballard got him.   Not possible if every team sees things the same.    The story of the 21 draft was the Colts picking 21.  And Ballard telling the scouts he had a good feeling that Paye, who the Colts ranked 10th on their board, would fall to the Colts.   And he did.   Ballard thought Dayo would fall to pick 54, and he said he likely would’ve taken Dayo at 21 if Paye had been taken.  Ballard was right again.   And again, not possible if everyone sees things the same.    Historically speaking…. In 2012, Seattle had Russell Wilson ranked THIRD on their board.  But they waited to draft him at pick 75 because they thought at 5’10” and 5/8ths,  RW would still be there.  And he was.   That wouldn’t be possible if everyone had mostly similar rankings as you believe.  As for Reimann:  picked 77.  You talk about his value as a left tackle.  Yet he lasted to pick 77.   Any other team could’ve taken him before the Colts did.   They didn’t.  Yet you think it has nothing to do with his age.  I don’t understand the logic you use to reject the age argument.   I don’t see an alternative view that makes sense.    All of these are examples of teams seeing the same thing differently.  They value things differently.  When asked recently, Steichen said he valued quickness in a wide receiver.  For other teams they might value speed, or precision route running.   Every team has its own identity based on what they value.    GMs are different.  Head coaches are different.  Scouts are different.   They are NOT working with the same information.  Every team has their own Big Board and the differences are big, not small.  32 teams, 32 very very different looking boards.     I’m 67.  I have literally studied the draft for more than 50 years.   The draft has always been a passion of mine, even before I became a TV sports producer at age 23.   I’m not making this up.     This post could be longer, but I think it’s gone long enough.  There was much to talk about.   Thanks for reading.               
    • Next year imagine the Colts will be looking at 2 QBs.  My top dual threat/mobile pocket passers are Jalen Milroe, Grayson McCall, and KJ Jefferson.   For offensive lineman got to love LT Kelvin Banks Jr who managed to hold his own versus Will Anderson a few years ago and LG Donovan Jackson.  Jackson has generated all-conference honors the past two seasons; Nelson's contract expires at the end of 2026 where he will be 30 years old.   So far for running backs I like Treveyon Henderson, DJ Giddens, and Kyle Monangai.  Each back knows how to secure the rock.  Last I checked both Dalvin Cook and Damien Harris are still free agents that would improve our roster.   Not sure if we need a top talented wide receiver early but am interested in Tre Harris and Ricky White.  While De'Corian Clark been compared to Alec Pierce and made Bruce Feldman's Freak list.  Still need to see where his high school numbers would have ranked compared to this year's draft class.     Plenty of defensive lineman to like in the next draft and probably one of the best groups coming out.   Edge Princely Umanmielen - one I feel is a fit for the Colts Edge Jack Sawyer is another stud that I want to pair with Latu and Paye Edge James Pearce Jr. DT 3-tech Tyleik Williams Edge/DL Mykel Willaims - as a freshman led all FBS true freshman edge defenders LDT Kenneth Grant NT/DT Walter Nolan Edge Dani Dennis-Sutton Edge Landon Jackson Edge Patrick Payton Edge Tyler Baron DL Shermar Turner - been one of the more disruptive DTs in the SEC.  Has a quick first step and body control to shoot the gaps. NT/DT Tonka Hemingway Edge Jasheen Davis NT/DT Alfred Collins. Linebackers got an interesting group of prospects to keep an eye on from the following: WLB Jack Kiser WLB Danny Stutsman LB Dasan McCullough MLB/OLB Jay Higgins LB/Edge Collin Oliver LB Eugene Asante SLB/Edge Khordae Sydnor LB Keaten Wade LB/Edge Steve Linton WLB Eric Gentry Read where some say this is a very weak safety class but got a few that seem to have potential.  This draft class I noticed more excel in press/man more than zone but still very capable of playing both.  Some of the defensive backs I like so far are: LCB Will Johnson CB Benjamin Morrison CB Ricardo Hallman SS Kevin Winston Jr - Blackmon signed a 1-year deal but only a 2% missed tackle rate and ranked 2nd among all safeties in 2023. SS Xavier Nwankpa - 4.39s-forty speed reminds me of Nick Cross FS Rod Moore - excellent 4.40s-forty speed FS Hunter Wohler - slower 4.52s-forty speed, if can improve his speed might be better than Rod Moore CB Tacario Davis CB Maxwell Hairston FS Jahdae Barron CB Jacobee Bryant CB Jordan Hancock CB Denver Harris SS Keon Sabb CB Malik Spencer CB Aydan White CB Tommi Hill - In 2023 had an outstanding QB rating when targeted of 38.6.  With another solid year Hill could move up the draft boards. Still on the lookout of those players not listed on the primary draft boards that the Colts always seem to find hidden gems to draft.
    • This is the list of Retired Colts Numbers. Peyton Manning — No. 18 Johnny Unitas — No. 19 Buddy Young — No. 22 Lenny Moore — No. 24 Art Donovan — No. 70 Jim Parker — No. 77 Raymond Berry — No. 82 Gino Marchetti — No. 89
    • a lot of the recent super bowl winners had game changing tight ends bowers would have been a nice addition but i like who we got, imo an a plus draft  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...