The "Soft" Label of our Colts

[sreeb2deeni]

Is it fair to say that "Indy" has been identified by opposing players, coaches and talking-heads as a "soft" team?

 

If so, why did we get it? And what do we need to do to change it?

 

I have heard things like they're a indoor turf team, a finesse team, a pass first team, etc.

 

 

[a06cc]

It’s also because of our uniforms. Teams hated when Manning’s White away jersey never got dirty. 

[Trueman]

12 minutes ago, sreeb2deeni said:

Is it fair to say that "Indy" has been identified by opposing players, coaches and talking-heads as a "soft" team?

 

If so, why did we get it? And what do we need to do to change it?

 

I have heard things like they're a indoor turf team, a finesse team, a pass first team, etc.

 

 

 

Haha yes , it’s fair. 

 

We got it because we’d get routinely dominated physically, specifically at the line of scrimmage and the 2nd level of our defence.

 

Manning covered a lot of deficiencies ... on both sides of the ball.

 

I’m not sure the Grigson era is even worth discussion, but we weren’t as ‘soft’ even though we were still completely QB reliant.

 

[IndySouthsider]

Cover two principles didn’t necessarily require them to out physical the other team.

 

Colts weren't soft en route to the AFC championship in 95. One of the best run stopping defense I can remember in Indy.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, sreeb2deeni said:

Is it fair to say that "Indy" has been identified by opposing players, coaches and talking-heads as a "soft" team?

 

If so, why did we get it? And what do we need to do to change it?

 

I have heard things like they're a indoor turf team, a finesse team, a pass first team, etc.

 

 

Why did we get it? There is a number of factors that go into that. One being personnel drafted under Grigson. One being coaching and lack of development / busted FA acquisitions on the fronts. One being us getting manhandled by the New England Patriots several times in a 4 year span. 

 

Anytime you can't run the ball and stop the run, you are going to be labeled soft... and that was the case for the last 6 years...

[Boiler_Colt]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Why did we get it? There is a number of factors that go into that. One being personnel drafted under Grigson. One being coaching and lack of development / busted FA acquisitions on the fronts. One being us getting manhandled by the New England Patriots several times in a 4 year span. 

 

Anytime you can't run the ball and stop the run, you are going to be labeled soft... and that was the case for the last 6 years...

We had that label long before Grigson.

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

We had that label long before Grigson.

We have had that label a lot more lately because of Grigson. 

 

Peyton Manning teams could at least run the ball.  They struggled in cold and wet games. That was on Peyton a great deal of the time. A lot of the time because the defense had 25-30% of the cap, which is bad management. YES, I am saying Bill Polian managed the team badly in that regard. A little balance on defense could have won another superbowl or two for this franchise. 

 

 

I don't think people labeled Bob Sanders and the pass rush for those teams as soft. They were soft on stopping the run and winning games in January. I think it was more of New England being tough than Indy being soft.

[#12.]

1 hour ago, sreeb2deeni said:

If so, why did we get 

 

They earned it.

[Trueman]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

We have had that label a lot more lately because of Grigson. 

 

Peyton Manning teams could at least run the ball.  They struggled in cold and wet games. That was on Peyton a great deal of the time. A lot of the time because the defense had 25-30% of the cap, which is bad management. YES, I am saying Bill Polian managed the team badly in that regard. A little balance on defense could have won another superbowl or two for this franchise. 

 

“Peyton teams” could run the ball primarily because of Peyton. Teams were terrified of him , and he also had the intelligence/freedom to diagnose plays and check to a run. This made our running game far more efficient and productive than it would’ve been with any other QB.

 

It wasn’t because we had dominant line play. We struggled “in cold and wet” games usually because we were playing elite defences who could jam our passing game and actually force our line to block. Couple that by getting dominated in time of possession because our defence couldn’t get off the field and it was always a massive task for Peyton. Blaming him for our playoff losses is hilarious to me.

 

We rarely had the ability to run when we wanted to , and when the opponent knew we were going to. That is the sign of a great line. We had to win by deception and intelligence...but when you’re going against teams that can make you one-dimensional and have brilliant defensive minds coaching them , it’s supremely difficult and way too much to put on one player. 

 

And the crazy thing is , as flawed as those Peyton teams were (believe me they were) , Peyton had far  more to work with on the field and off it , than Andrew ever did.

 

Polian built a team that was incapable of winning without Manning , as did Grigson with Luck. 

 

Ballard is trying to actually build a team. 

 

 

[Fisticuffs111]

Look no further than the draft to answer both questions.

 

We got dominated up front on offense and we couldn’t get to the QB on defense. This draft, focusing on the fronts, is Ballard’s first step toward improving that.

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, Trueman said:

 

“Peyton teams” could run the ball primarily because of Peyton. Teams were terrified of him , and he also had the intelligence/freedom to diagnose plays and check to a run. This made our running game far more efficient and productive than it would’ve been with any other QB.

 

It wasn’t because we had dominant line play. We struggled “in cold and wet” games usually because we were playing elite defences who could jam our passing game and actually force our line to block. Couple that by getting dominated in time of possession because our defence couldn’t get off the field and it was always a massive task for Peyton. Blaming him for our playoff losses is hilarious to me.

 

We rarely had the ability to run when we wanted to , and when the opponent knew we were going to. That is the sign of a great line. We had to win by deception and intelligence...but when you’re going against teams that can make you one-dimensional and have brilliant defensive minds coaching them , it’s supremely difficult and way too much to put on one player. 

 

And the crazy thing is , as flawed as those Peyton teams were (believe me they were) , Peyton had far  more to work with on the field and off it , than Andrew ever did.

 

Polian built a team that was incapable of winning without Manning , as did Grigson with Luck. 

 

Ballard is trying to actually build a team. 

 

 

Peyton was to blame for several playoff losses. To not put some of the blame on him in those losses but put all of the credit on him for the HOF he played with and the stats/wins they did have is contradicting. 

[Trueman]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Peyton was to blame for several playoff losses. To not put some of the blame on him in those losses but put all of the credit on him for the HOF he played with and the stats/wins they did have is contradicting. 

 

Which game? I’ve heard this narrative be passed around a bunch , but give me a specific game.

[a06cc]

I will admit that 2014 Finalist banner has to go. That really makes us soft

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, a06cc said:

I will admit that 2014 Finalist banner has to go. That really makes us soft

Why,we hung a 1995 Banner for making the Final 4 and everyone then thought it was the greatest thing ever. I could care less we hung a banner for that, it was a hell of season. I get a kick out of people that are ok with hanging a Division Title Banner if a team goes 9-7 but aren't ok with a team that makes it 1 game away from the SB hanging one. What is that deal?

[NewEra]

You can't even fathom how excited I would be to see us run the ball down opposing teams throat. Throw a Nelson t-bag here and there and I'm going to be all smiles. 

[TonyBungee]

Lots of good points here, and I'm sure some of those teams may have deserved the "soft" label.  But I also think it's often about perception and attitude.  The Dungy era teams typically took on his personality: professional,  classy, and tough without being boisterous or showy.  Some teams strut, taunt, & crow about how tough they are, and others just kick your butt, shake your hand at the end of the game, then go prepare to kick it again. 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Trueman said:

 

Which game? I’ve heard this narrative be passed around a bunch , but give me a specific game.

4 interceptions in 2004 is a start. 

 

Look at his ratings for each playoff loss/playoff games in general compared to his average regular season games. Night and day. Even against upper echelon defenses. Regular season/playoffs was night and day.  He was certainly to blame for the loss against us in 2014 in Denver. Threw a pick 6 to seal the superbowl loss against the Saints. They lost 41-0 in 2003 to the Jets and he had a whole 137 yards passing.  In 2005 against the Patriots, he had a 69.3 passing rating and scored a whole 3 points. 

 

Regardless, they were still soft compared to the Patriots. They allowed teams to beat their defense up by running the ball and eating clock... relying on Manning to bail them out. 

[Trueman]

59 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

4 interceptions in 2004 is a start. 

 

Look at his ratings for each playoff loss/playoff games in general compared to his average regular season games. Night and day. Even against upper echelon defenses. Regular season/playoffs was night and day.  He was certainly to blame for the loss against us in 2014 in Denver. Threw a pick 6 to seal the superbowl loss against the Saints. They lost 41-0 in 2003 to the Jets and he had a whole 137 yards passing.  In 2005 against the Patriots, he had a 69.3 passing rating and scored a whole 3 points. 

 

Regardless, they were still soft compared to the Patriots. They allowed teams to beat their defense up by running the ball and eating clock... relying on Manning to bail them out. 

 

Or how about you re-watch the games?

 

To blame against us in Denver? The dude was severely injured.

 

The pick 6 against the Saints wasn’t his fault. Reggie ran the wrong route. 

 

41-0 is just his fault? If that doesn’t epitomize what I’m talking about , I’m not sure what will.

 

In 2004/2005 , the Patriots defence smothered/held our receivers , and we couldn’t run the ball on them because guess what? Our OL got dominated. Re-watch those games. Look at the turnovers, look at the line of scrimmage, look at the lack of separation our receivers got/how much time Peyton got. Look at how easy it was for Brady to move the ball on our defence and control the clock.

 

I’m not sure what you wanted Peyton to do. (Not to mention the Patriots seemed to “diagnose” offences remarkably well during those years)

 

I urge you , the games are on YouTube ... re-watch them. 

[ColtStrong2013]

27 minutes ago, Trueman said:

 

Or how about you re-watch the games?

 

To blame against us in Denver? The dude was severely injured.

 

The pick 6 against the Saints wasn’t his fault. Reggie ran the wrong route. 

 

41-0 is just his fault? If that doesn’t epitomize what I’m talking about , I’m not sure what will.

 

In 2004/2005 , the Patriots defence smothered/held our receivers , and we couldn’t run the ball on them because guess what? Our OL got dominated. Re-watch those games. Look at the turnovers, look at the line of scrimmage, look at the lack of separation our receivers got/how much time Peyton got. Look at how easy it was for Brady to move the ball on our defence and control the clock.

 

I’m not sure what you wanted Peyton to do. (Not to mention the Patriots seemed to “diagnose” offences remarkably well during those years)

 

I urge you , the games are on YouTube ... re-watch them. 

I have rewatched them. Time and time again. I'm not a casual fan. I am also not fan that conveniently thinks Peyton Manning was the almighty. He had flaws just like his rosters did. They were exposed in the playoffs. No 41-0 is not "just his fault" but it was pathetic on all fronts and he was the quarterback and expected to put points on the board. He could have put up 30 points and it wouldn't have mattered, but he didn't put a single one on the board in a playoff game. 

 

Yes I am aware of the Patriots mauling the receivers. It is the epitome of this topic. We were soft. Peyton threw 4 interceptions and the rules that were enforced afterwards would have made a big difference. I'm aware of all of it. But again, this can't be blamed on everyone else. Peyton bears the brunt of a great deal of that criticism for a reason. Only Colts/Peyton fans defend him... 

 

I love Peyton dearly. He has a statue outside of LOS for a reason. He is one of the greatest to ever play the game. He should have the title of greatest ever, but he had soft teams to play with. That doesn't reflect him, but he wasn't perfect, far from it in many playoff runs.

 

 Back to the topic at hand, as this would be ongoing conversation going nowhere