Ballard is a genius

[Scott Pennock]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Didn't mean to pick on you, and I like the players we have.  It just struck me odd that you listed so many young players as trending up, when that's kind of a given with young players.

No worries, I actually just projected some workplace anger on you. My bad....lol

 

My main point was the rate they "hit" on good young, scheme specific players is well above average to me. Sure he listened to Philbin and drafted his boy from USC last year that they cut and he swung and missed (sorta) on Howard.....though I don't think anyone saw his fall coming. 

 

The closest thing he has to a bust is a 3rd round edge rusher.....not many Front Offices can say that.

 

The turnover was required but the identifying of the pieces to put in place is uncanny. Not genius yet.....but if this trend continues and we're a SB contender starting in 2019 and beyond for 10 years.....then he can approach Belichek and Polian levels of genius.

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

Wow.   So much bias to the positive for what's really unknown.

 

Aren't all 2nd year and rookies trending up....until you know better?  My 10 year old son is trending up.

 

The thought of picking Andrew Luck being a no brainer is true, but, you...and most everybody else...doesn't do a proper comparison.

 

If our franchise QB was ALREADY ON THE ROSTER at the time we had that pick, then our GM could have traded that number one pick (like our current GM traded the #3) for a RGIII type of trade.   Instead, he had to use all of those potential resources on one player, and didn't have the luxury of having a franchise QB on the roster......like most new GMs don't, unlike Ballard who did.

 

Also, when a team changes schemes, that causes turnover.  Measuring the prowess of a GM by citing how many starters he added simply fails to consider that ANY GM would have added new starters when they change from a 34 to a 43....and maybe a power man blocking to zone schemes...and a passing game that doesn't rely on talented WRs. 

 

The entire roster churned because of strategic change.

 

Young players are all trending up?

 

Oh how quickly and conveniently we forget.

 

Two words:   Ryan.    Grigson.

[Myles]

53 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Young players are all trending up?

 

Oh how quickly and conveniently we forget.

 

Two words:   Ryan.    Grigson.

I was thinking the same.   Most of Grigsons picks started trending down very soon after the started.   In fact most were not on the team 2 years after being drafted.  

[DaColts85]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I was thinking the same.   Most of Grigsons picks started trending down very soon after the started.   In fact most were not on the team 2 years after being drafted.  

Most of them aren't even in the league now or two years after being drafted.  Not good at fitting player with scheme.

[JPFolks]

What I am unsure of in all of this is how the "plan" is going to make up for all the lost Luck years by "patiently building a young team?" Luck is a generational talent who had his first 6 years wasted and perhaps 2+ more years also wasted with incomplete teams where he has to risk his health further wearing down his career treads with incomplete teams.  We're 2 years in without much chance of even making the playoffs (something we did 3 times with the old regime) unless once again Luck picks our cities teams on his back and trudges us into the fringe of the playoffs to be massacred along the way in a best case scenario.   It's hard to imagine that 2 years in to this regime of our current GM and the talent isn't equal to the first 2 years of the scrap heap of Grigson? Think about that long and hard.  

 

Every season with Luck is priceless.  Filling in gaping holes with some reasonable FAs is hardly rash thinking when considering the prospect of wasting more years of Luck.  Perhaps in this day and age of near flag football, Luck can play until he's 45.  But if the wear on his body catches up to him after 10-12 years, what an all time waste this all will have been.  

 

So maybe Ballard's slow and steady approach is rational if you have an average QB or a rookie 1st pick, but year 6+ of Luck is a bit more urgent in my opinion.  

 

Peace to the dissenters and supporters alike.  

[NewColtsFan]

46 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

What I am unsure of in all of this is how the "plan" is going to make up for all the lost Luck years by "patiently building a young team?" Luck is a generational talent who had his first 6 years wasted and perhaps 2+ more years also wasted with incomplete teams where he has to risk his health further wearing down his career treads with incomplete teams.  We're 2 years in without much chance of even making the playoffs (something we did 3 times with the old regime) unless once again Luck picks our cities teams on his back and trudges us into the fringe of the playoffs to be massacred along the way in a best case scenario.   It's hard to imagine that 2 years in to this regime of our current GM and the talent isn't equal to the first 2 years of the scrap heap of Grigson? Think about that long and hard.  

 

Every season with Luck is priceless.  Filling in gaping holes with some reasonable FAs is hardly rash thinking when considering the prospect of wasting more years of Luck.  Perhaps in this day and age of near flag football, Luck can play until he's 45.  But if the wear on his body catches up to him after 10-12 years, what an all time waste this all will have been.  

 

So maybe Ballard's slow and steady approach is rational if you have an average QB or a rookie 1st pick, but year 6+ of Luck is a bit more urgent in my opinion.  

 

Peace to the dissenters and supporters alike.  

 

Exactly HOW were Luck's first three years "wasted."      Unless you mean Luck was drunk as can be?!

 

As you know,  the Colts went 11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and went a round further in the playoffs each year ending with the AFC Championship in 2014.    How is that.....   "wasted."  ?

 

If you want to point to 15, 16, 17,  that's another story.     But Ballard isn't responsible for having to rebuild a bad franchise.    Luck is going to play a long time.    Remember, Manning's Super Bowl year didn't happen until year 9.      There is still plenty of time for Luck to take us to a Super Bowl.

 

[Alex22]

36 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Exactly HOW were Luck's first three years "wasted."      Unless you mean Luck was drunk as can be?!

 

As you know,  the Colts went 11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and went a round further in the playoffs each year ending with the AFC Championship in 2014.    How is that.....   "wasted."  ?

 

If you want to point to 15, 16, 17,  that's another story.     But Ballard isn't responsible for having to rebuild a bad franchise.    Luck is going to play a long time.    Remember, Manning's Super Bowl year didn't happen until year 9.      There is still plenty of time for Luck to take us to a Super Bowl.

 

 

I guess wasted because we had to start the whole rebuild again. 

 

Say what you want but Grigson has no long term plan to build this roster and it shows in the fact that there are not many draft picks from his time still on the team. 

 

In a way Ballard is responsible because he chooses who plays on the team and the team is the franchise. He is off to a good start but I think that the Colts are criminally underrated.  

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Alex22 said:

 

I guess wasted because we had to start the whole rebuild again. 

 

Say what you want but Grigson has no long term plan to build this roster and it shows in the fact that there are not many draft picks from his time still on the team. 

 

In a way Ballard is responsible because he chooses who plays on the team and the team is the franchise. He is off to a good start but I think that the Colts are criminally underrated.  

 

 

 

We mostly agree....   Ballard is absolutely responsible.   No question.

 

I just don’t want anyone to blame him for 15, 16, and 17.    Those are on Grigson.    Ballard is cleaning up his mess.

 

Ballard is still cleaning up...   but he clearly had Irsay’s support.    Irsay isn’t asking Ballard to “win now!”    He's letting Ballard to build this the way he thinks best.   I think 19 is the last year of the rebuild.   I also think we’ve got a good shot at the playoffs next year as well.

 

And I think 20 is when the Colts are going to be seriously good.    I predict 19, 20 and beyond are going to be very fun years for Cokts Nation!

 

[braveheartcolt]

Just to confirm, there are another 31 teams who are trying to be successful. The Colts have no divine right to have 'unwasted' seasons, whatever that actually means.

[Crunked]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 7:37 AM, ColtStrong2013 said:

... and the defense is still void of talent, right? 

 

And Hankins and Simon were bad decisions... as they sit at home and watch.

I guess your wanting to continue to cut and paste anything that makes your point until I admit Ballard is a genius......I will continue to try to cut and paste from my quote to make my point...Leonard looked good in the pre-season and he still looks good......and time will tell if the moves were warranted and good. One game/ one week is not "time in totality" it is a small sliver of it.....time will tell if any of the moves Ballard made were good, not one game.....and if it ends up being all good, I still won't be ready to crown Ballard as "Genius" but if it all turns out positively  I will say Ballard's "good" I am not that  overstate every emotion for shock and awe guy, sorry you are barking up the wrong fan for that....

 

You could work for a news agency or a restaurant though you carve things up pretty well. One day I hope to talk to you about the totality of statement, and its overall meaning instead of just the words you choose from it.

[NewEra]

On 9/21/2018 at 2:03 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Exactly HOW were Luck's first three years "wasted."      Unless you mean Luck was drunk as can be?!

 

As you know,  the Colts went 11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and went a round further in the playoffs each year ending with the AFC Championship in 2014.    How is that.....   "wasted."  ?

 

If you want to point to 15, 16, 17,  that's another story.     But Ballard isn't responsible for having to rebuild a bad franchise.    Luck is going to play a long time.    Remember, Manning's Super Bowl year didn't happen until year 9.      There is still plenty of time for Luck to take us to a Super Bowl.

 

Give me whatever Luck is drinking then. I want to get wasted too lol

[NewEra]

Look, when we drafted Luck we still had a vet Davy team who was fitting for the SB. We stayed the course and tried to stay after it with Luck. 

 

Those guys are gone so its so it's time to do it the right way. Build from the draft. Build from the lines out. We haven't seen a colts team like that for some time because we went from Manning to Luck. Tried to give them weapons. There was many attempts to address line on both sides they just didn't seem to pan out. 

 

I like what Ballard is building. More like I love it. How it's being done will also further Lucks career. Keep him clean, keep him up. Let him do his thing. Give him weapons with no line. No time to throw, you'll give him an early retirement. It's all a balancing act.

[2006Coltsbestever]

On 9/21/2018 at 2:03 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Exactly HOW were Luck's first three years "wasted."      Unless you mean Luck was drunk as can be?!

 

As you know,  the Colts went 11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and went a round further in the playoffs each year ending with the AFC Championship in 2014.    How is that.....   "wasted."  ?

 

If you want to point to 15, 16, 17,  that's another story.     But Ballard isn't responsible for having to rebuild a bad franchise.    Luck is going to play a long time.    Remember, Manning's Super Bowl year didn't happen until year 9.      There is still plenty of time for Luck to take us to a Super Bowl.

 

It is amazing how some people just sweep 2012-2014 under the rug like it never happened. Those 3 seasons were some of my best times being a Colts fan and Luck was Very Good in all of those seasons and Great at times. Had it not been for the Patriots we may have been in the SB in 2013 and 2014. We had Denver's number. 

[dodsworth]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It is amazing how some people just sweep 2012-2014 under the rug like it never happened. Those 3 seasons were some of my best times being a Colts fan and Luck was Very Good in all of those seasons and Great at times. Had it not been for the Patriots we may have been in the SB in 2013 and 2014. We had Denver's number. 

Let's face it, the Colts haven't been

consistently built year in and year

out to beat the Pats for a little under

20 years now. Ballard and Reich are

currently getting the pieces in place

to do just that. Times are changing

and it's long overdue.

[2006Coltsbestever]

37 minutes ago, dodsworth said:

Let's face it, the Colts haven't been

consistently built year in and year

out to beat the Pats for a little under

20 years now. Ballard and Reich are

currently getting the pieces in place

to do just that. Times are changing

and it's long overdue.

Tom Brady is in his 40's now and Luck is only 29 so it will be our time in a year or 2. From 2005-2009 we were actually 5-1 against them including beating them in the AFC Title Game in 2006. So we have got the better of them for a 5 season span out of their 18 year run since 2001. They haven't always dominated us. A 5 season span is a good sample size.

[JPFolks]

On 9/21/2018 at 2:03 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Exactly HOW were Luck's first three years "wasted."      Unless you mean Luck was drunk as can be?!

 

As you know,  the Colts went 11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and went a round further in the playoffs each year ending with the AFC Championship in 2014.    How is that.....   "wasted."  ?

 

If you want to point to 15, 16, 17,  that's another story.     But Ballard isn't responsible for having to rebuild a bad franchise.    Luck is going to play a long time.    Remember, Manning's Super Bowl year didn't happen until year 9.      There is still plenty of time for Luck to take us to a Super Bowl.

 

They were wasted because they used up his healthiest years with teams not good enough to win a championship.  Going 11-5 and losing in the playoffs is nice and we should always try to win as many games as possible including this year, but those years were wasted.  They did not draft well in the "rebuild" meaning he was never going to have a team with the potential to win it all.  Luck, almost single handedly won those games and could likely have won a super bowl with any lineup better than average in the league.  But he had hot garbage around him so those years were wasted.  And not only did they waste the years, but they wasted his health.  His inadequate line and inadequate running game (both of which persist through today) meant he was getting pounded a record number of times per game.  Those wasted first 3 years when he was nearly indestructible led to 3 unhealthy years STILL with no run game and no O-Line.   And he missed over half of those games because of the DAMAGE he took in year 1, 2 and 3.  For you to suggest those years were worth it is ridiculous.  They are forgotten, meaningless footnotes in a sad saga of wasting what might have been the greatest QB talent in league history.   

 

That brings us to today.  Though we have all new people around him, he still has no run game and a weak line.  Sure we got a great guard and now have a good Center/LG combo, but our RG is aging and has been playing poorly as the season has moved forward.  And our Tackle depth is inexcusable.  Even if ALL of them were healthy, we'd have a huge problem at RT and a growing problem at RG.  Same old, same old.   And even though they drafted two RB's this year, outside of one being a good pass catcher, we STILL have no run game.  

 

So I return to my original premise: How many MORE years are we going to waste the talent that used to be Andrew Luck, HOF level talent who is now brittle and closing in on 30 already? Slow and steady building of the team still has a long way to go.  It remains to be seen if we have a back capable of running between the tackles for significant yardage and our line still needs a RG and RT assuming our LT comes back and plays at an above average level which is questionable because he's had some bad years in the past by his own admission.  Our backups are inadequate at either Tackle as we've seen.  And just because they may play better now and then than the train wreck they usually are, it is STILL not good enough.  We should have spent 2 more draft picks on Tackles as it is clear in this day and age that teams with good lines have a giant advantage and few teams can keep them healthy so it needs to be the deepest group on the team to protect the only asset on our team that CAN get us to a SB with a chance to win. If we aren't working towards that, what is the point? 

 

So instead of sitting on all that money, why didn't we make sure we had serious depth on the line which would cover injuries that predictably are coming? Give Luck a great line and a RB that can pound the rock for real and the rest of the team can be garbage and he can take us to the SB.  (just look what he's doing with our train wreck of a WR depth chart!) But Ballard didn't address the O-line year one nor the RB situation.  And he did far too little in year Two on either as well as is evident through 4 games.  Ironically those first three years you're so thrilled about happened because Grigson (who I thought was terrible starting year 2) brought in a bunch of aging FA's on short deals.  If he could have drafted his way out of a wet paper bag we may have won a couple SBs with him in charge but he drafted like he worked for the Browns for the past decade and never solved the most obvious team needs: OLine and RB's.  Sound familiar? 

 

But feel free to disagree.  It's just a game and all of this is just entertaining banter between games.  No need to get worked up about it.  All these players, Top Management and Top Coaches are rich beyond most mere mortals and many players have generational wealth before they are 30.  Luck will be fine even if the best years of his career are wasted away. 

 

Peace out.  

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

They were wasted because they used up his healthiest years with teams not good enough to win a championship.  Going 11-5 and losing in the playoffs is nice and we should always try to win as many games as possible including this year, but those years were wasted.  They did not draft well in the "rebuild" meaning he was never going to have a team with the potential to win it all.  Luck, almost single handedly won those games and could likely have won a super bowl with any lineup better than average in the league.  But he had hot garbage around him so those years were wasted.  And not only did they waste the years, but they wasted his health.  His inadequate line and inadequate running game (both of which persist through today) meant he was getting pounded a record number of times per game.  Those wasted first 3 years when he was nearly indestructible led to 3 unhealthy years STILL with no run game and no O-Line.   And he missed over half of those games because of the DAMAGE he took in year 1, 2 and 3.  For you to suggest those years were worth it is ridiculous.  They are forgotten, meaningless footnotes in a sad saga of wasting what might have been the greatest QB talent in league history.   

 

That brings us to today.  Though we have all new people around him, he still has no run game and a weak line.  Sure we got a great guard and now have a good Center/LG combo, but our RG is aging and has been playing poorly as the season has moved forward.  And our Tackle depth is inexcusable.  Even if ALL of them were healthy, we'd have a huge problem at RT and a growing problem at RG.  Same old, same old.   And even though they drafted two RB's this year, outside of one being a good pass catcher, we STILL have no run game.  

 

So I return to my original premise: How many MORE years are we going to waste the talent that used to be Andrew Luck, HOF level talent who is now brittle and closing in on 30 already? Slow and steady building of the team still has a long way to go.  It remains to be seen if we have a back capable of running between the tackles for significant yardage and our line still needs a RG and RT assuming our LT comes back and plays at an above average level which is questionable because he's had some bad years in the past by his own admission.  Our backups are inadequate at either Tackle as we've seen.  And just because they may play better now and then than the train wreck they usually are, it is STILL not good enough.  We should have spent 2 more draft picks on Tackles as it is clear in this day and age that teams with good lines have a giant advantage and few teams can keep them healthy so it needs to be the deepest group on the team to protect the only asset on our team that CAN get us to a SB with a chance to win. If we aren't working towards that, what is the point? 

 

So instead of sitting on all that money, why didn't we make sure we had serious depth on the line which would cover injuries that predictably are coming? Give Luck a great line and a RB that can pound the rock for real and the rest of the team can be garbage and he can take us to the SB.  (just look what he's doing with our train wreck of a WR depth chart!) But Ballard didn't address the O-line year one nor the RB situation.  And he did far too little in year Two on either as well as is evident through 4 games.  Ironically those first three years you're so thrilled about happened because Grigson (who I thought was terrible starting year 2) brought in a bunch of aging FA's on short deals.  If he could have drafted his way out of a wet paper bag we may have won a couple SBs with him in charge but he drafted like he worked for the Browns for the past decade and never solved the most obvious team needs: OLine and RB's.  Sound familiar? 

 

But feel free to disagree.  It's just a game and all of this is just entertaining banter between games.  No need to get worked up about it.  All these players, Top Management and Top Coaches are rich beyond most mere mortals and many players have generational wealth before they are 30.  Luck will be fine even if the best years of his career are wasted away. 

 

Peace out.  

 

Peyton Manning's Super Bowl came in Year 9.

 

Luck is in Year 7.

 

[ColtsBlitz]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

Peyton Manning's Super Bowl came in Year 9.

 

Luck is in Year 7.

 

So in other words, we just have two more years to go.... THAT would be cool!

[coltsva]

I don’t get the “years wasted” sentiment. I was thoroughly entertained by Luck and the Colts in 2012, 2013, 2014. 

 

Although this season has been a bit frustrating, the Colts are certainly a team that’s interesting to watch. 

 

The past 6 years has made Luck a multi millionaire, and countless other players millionaires. I doubt they feel the years we’re wasted. 

 

Is every year a wasted season for 31 teams? 

 

I feel so bad for Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton  and Jim Kelly. Entire hall of fame careers, wasted. 

 

Rant over, carry on!

[JPFolks]

30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Peyton Manning's Super Bowl came in Year 9.

 

Luck is in Year 7.

 

Yes... and it is clear that Manning never had a team/staff around him to truly cash in on his historical talent.  It took one injury prone Safety to make the difference and get us over the top in year 9 and he missed most of that season.  But truth be told, most of Manning's years were wasted by timid coaches too nice to go for the jugular when needed more than lack of talent.  And though we did have two amazing WR's in Manning's years as well as a consistently above average to great O-line and some great RB's (gosh, sounds exactly like what I have been advocating for here), I think his talent made the rest of our team look far better than they were.  Look what happened the year he went down.  2-14. 

 

It is a tragedy that Brady will be known as the Greatest QB in history when Manning was superior but played for a weak organization who collectively get way more credit than they deserve because 2 QB's have fallen into their laps 2 of the year's they bottomed out.  If Luck wins only one SB it will have been a tragic waste of what should have been an all time great career.  

Edited October 7, 2018 by JPFolks
Typo

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, coltsva said:

I don’t get the “years wasted” sentiment. I was thoroughly entertained by Luck and the Colts in 2012, 2013, 2014. 

 

Although this season has been a bit frustrating, the Colts are certainly a team that’s interesting to watch. 

 

The past 6 years has made Luck a multi millionaire, and countless other players millionaires. I doubt they feel the years we’re wasted. 

 

Is every year a wasted season for 31 teams? 

 

I feel so bad for Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton  and Jim Kelly. Entire hall of fame careers, wasted. 

 

Rant over, carry on!

its not about winning the super bowl every year, its about having a qb like luck on a team that isnt very good

 

luck wont be around forever, i wont be surprised if he retires by 35

 

 

 

 

[JPFolks]

2 minutes ago, coltsva said:

I don’t get the “years wasted” sentiment. I was thoroughly entertained by Luck and the Colts in 2012, 2013, 2014. 

 

Although this season has been a bit frustrating, the Colts are certainly a team that’s interesting to watch. 

 

The past 6 years has made Luck a multi millionaire, and countless other players millionaires. I doubt they feel the years we’re wasted. 

 

Is every year a wasted season for 31 teams? 

 

I feel so bad for Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton  and Jim Kelly. Entire hall of fame careers, wasted. 

 

Rant over, carry on!

Well, I made the point that they are all rich myself.  But yes, when you have a talent as rare as Luck, winning even 1 SB will have been a tragic waste of his talent.  Give him a line and RB to go with Hilton and he can take a team to a SB and win.  But no one seems to ever get around to getting him those things try as they might.  

 

And many DO consider Marino and Fouts' careers to have been wasted.  All that talent with a single Super Bowl ring and only one appearance in the game at all.  Big time wastes!  If Moon had spent his entire career in the NFL, he'd have likely been the greatest of them all but we'll never know and that is unfortunate as well.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

If Luck wins 1 SB I will be happy, as long as we are Good for the next 6 or 7 years as well to go with it. Like we had with Peyton. If we can win 1 and keep a Good product on the field for a long time that is Great in my book. Only 1 team can win the SB every year, some people act like it is easy to win SB's. What the Patriots have done never happens in a short span, it's unusual. The Steelers won 4 SB's in the 70's and didn't win another one until 2005. 49ers have won 5, last one was in 1994.

[NewColtsFan]

31 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Yes... and it is clear that Manning never had a team/staff around him to truly cash in on his historical talent.  It took one injury prone Safety to make the difference and get us over the top in year 9 and he missed most of that season.  But truth be told, most of Manning's years were wasted by timid coaches too nice to go for the jugular when needed more than lack of talent.  And though we did have two amazing WR's in Manning's years as well as a consistently above average to great O-line and some great RB's (gosh, sounds exactly like what I have been advocating for here), I think his talent made the rest of our team look far better than they were.  Look what happened the year he went down.  2-14. 

 

It is a tragedy that Brady will be known as the Greatest QB in history when Manning was superior but played for a weak organization who collectively get way more credit than they deserve because 2 QB's have fallen into their laps 2 of the year's they bottomed out.  If Luck wins only one SB it will have been a tragic waste of what should have been an all time great career.  

 

Weak organization?

 

The Polian years,  the Colts were the 2nd winningest orgranization in Pro Football.    Behind only New England.

 

And you're complaining.

 

That's the text book definiiton of a spoiled fan.      I'm sorry,  but I don't know what else to say.

 

Winning in the NFL is hard and you're saying it wasn't enough and therefore the Colts were weak.      Goodness gracious....

 

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Weak organization?

 

The Polian years,  the Colts were the 2nd winningest orgranization in Pro Football.    Behind only New England.

 

And you're complaining.

 

That's the text book definiiton of a spoiled fan.      I'm sorry,  but I don't know what else to say.

 

Winning in the NFL is hard and you're saying it wasn't enough and therefore the Colts were weak.      Goodness gracious....

 

they were great in the regular season, but came up short year after year in the playoffs

 

no one expects a super bowl every year, but there were a few really good colts teams that under achieved in the playoffs 

[aaron11]

i wouldnt use the word weak origination, but they should have done even more than they did

 

dungy was the only good coach peyton ever had too

[JPFolks]

30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Weak organization?

 

The Polian years,  the Colts were the 2nd winningest orgranization in Pro Football.    Behind only New England.

 

And you're complaining.

 

That's the text book definiiton of a spoiled fan.      I'm sorry,  but I don't know what else to say.

 

Winning in the NFL is hard and you're saying it wasn't enough and therefore the Colts were weak.      Goodness gracious....

 

Winning in the regular season is completely different than the heinous underachievement we had in the post season.  Manning's talent alone (much like a healthy Luck) won regular season games in the historically weakest division year after year and then horribly underperformed in the playoffs.  All those #1 and #2 seeds meant nothing when we lost in the divisional round.  2 SB appearances in all those Indy years with supposedly the best team of the decade?  He went to Denver at the end of his career and got there 2 out of 4 years and if he'd been in his prime he likely would have won or come closer to winning all 4 years in Denver.  In Indy they were exposed as frauds in the playoffs year after year.  Have you really forgotten?

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, JPFolks said:

Winning in the regular season is completely different than the heinous underachievement we had in the post season.  Manning's talent alone (much like a healthy Luck) won regular season games in the historically weakest division year after year and then horribly underperformed in the playoffs.  All those #1 and #2 seeds meant nothing when we lost in the divisional round.  2 SB appearances in all those Indy years with supposedly the best team of the decade?  He went to Denver at the end of his career and got there 2 out of 4 years and if he'd been in his prime he likely would have won or come closer to winning all 4 years in Denver.  In Indy they were exposed as frauds in the playoffs year after year.  Have you really forgotten?

We would've won more than 1 SB, the New England factor is why we didn't. As Great as we were they were just better. In 2003 and 2004 we were the 2nd best team in the league but had to go to New England in the Playoffs. We just blew it in 2009 vs Saints with some silly mistakes but Freeney being injured was a huge factor in why we lost. Can't control injuries.

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We would've won more than 1 SB, the New England factor is why we didn't. As Great as we were they were just better. In 2003 and 2004 we were the 2nd best team in the league but had to go to New England in the Playoffs. We just blew it in 2009 vs Saints with some silly mistakes but Freeney being injured was a huge factor in why we lost. Can't control injuries.

it wasnt just the patriots,  also lost what should have been winnable playoff games to the chargers, steelers and jets 

 

we had probably the best team in  the league in 05

[Trueman]

11 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Winning in the regular season is completely different than the heinous underachievement we had in the post season.  Manning's talent alone (much like a healthy Luck) won regular season games in the historically weakest division year after year and then horribly underperformed in the playoffs.  All those #1 and #2 seeds meant nothing when we lost in the divisional round.  2 SB appearances in all those Indy years with supposedly the best team of the decade?  He went to Denver at the end of his career and got there 2 out of 4 years and if he'd been in his prime he likely would have won or come closer to winning all 4 years in Denver.  In Indy they were exposed as frauds in the playoffs year after year.  Have you really forgotten?

It's because the team was built incorrectly. We needed more in the trenches , and Polian kept trying to give Peyton weapons. Peyton didn't need more weapons. The year we broke through was the year after Edge left. Go figure. 

Still bothers me that we only got to two SB's with the best ever. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

it wasnt just the patriots,  also lost what should have been winnable playoff games to the chargers, steelers and jets 

 

we had probably the best team in  the league in 05

Ok I will give people 05 to complain about, we had no business losing to Pitt. So I am good calling that a choke. 07 to the Chargers was a bad loss too but it still doesn't deflate my point about 03 and 04. In those years if we make the SB no way we lose. Pats blocked us.

[braveheartcolt]

How dare other teams play well in the playoffs and beat us. How dare they! Outrageous.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

they were great in the regular season, but came up short year after year in the playoffs

 

no one expects a super bowl every year, but there were a few really good colts teams that under achieved in the playoffs 

 

No doubt.     But a franchise that's winning big for almost every single year Polian was the GM simply can not be called weak.     Not if you're going to claim you know and understand football.

 

I'm not saying you have to be happy with one Super Bowl,  only that some recognition of just how difficult it is to win a SB is in order.     The 2nd winningest organization in pro football for nearly 20 years can not be called weak.

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

Winning in the regular season is completely different than the heinous underachievement we had in the post season.  Manning's talent alone (much like a healthy Luck) won regular season games in the historically weakest division year after year and then horribly underperformed in the playoffs.  All those #1 and #2 seeds meant nothing when we lost in the divisional round.  2 SB appearances in all those Indy years with supposedly the best team of the decade?  He went to Denver at the end of his career and got there 2 out of 4 years and if he'd been in his prime he likely would have won or come closer to winning all 4 years in Denver.  In Indy they were exposed as frauds in the playoffs year after year.  Have you really forgotten?

 

I haven't forgotten,  but I didn't follow it as closely as most here,  as I only became a Colts fan 7 years ago.     Still,  I was a pro football fan all that time.    I know all about the disappointing playoff games.     I still roll my eyees and shake my head at those who were/are not happy.

 

Winning a Super Bowl is supposed to be hard.

 

If you're going to call an organization weak because they only went to two Super Bowls and only won one,   that's up to you.     But I'd never do that.     I'm not saying be happy.   Feel free to be disappointed.    But "weak"?      For me that's way too harsh...

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I haven't forgotten,  but I didn't follow it as closely as most here,  as I only became a Colts fan 7 years ago.     Still,  I was a pro football fan all that time.    I know all about the disappointing playoff games.     I still roll my eyees and shake my head at those who were/are not happy.

 

Winning a Super Bowl is supposed to be hard.

 

If you're going to call an organization weak because they only went to two Super Bowls and only won one,   that's up to you.     But I'd never do that.     I'm not saying be happy.   Feel free to be disappointed.    But "weak"?      For me that's way too harsh...

 

We went 89-23 from 2003-2009, won a SB in 2006, went to another in 2009. Yeah if that is weak, I guess the rest of the league must've really sucked  

[Trueman]

You guys are missing the point. We had the best two QB prospects since Elway drop in our laps. That's is absurdly lucky , and most franchises would absolutely kill to have that happen to them. 

The only reason we had that record was because of Manning. The only reason we were a playoff team between 2012-14 was because of Luck. Don't believe me? Look what happens when they don't play. People are painting it like we were some gold-standard franchise , when really, every time Manning or Luck got injured , we showed our true colours. You put a "good" Qb , or heaven forbid an "average" QB , and there's no chance we even make the playoffs --or sniff it.

It's not being a hater or a complainer saying we should've done more with Manning , and we essentially wasted the early portion of Luck's career. It's the damn truth. 

We wouldn't have been able to draft Luck had we built a proper team around Manning , and we wouldn't have a new GM and coaching staff (and be rebuilding with a 29 year old top 5 QB) if it wasn't the truth. 

Stop calling him ungrateful or mocking him ,  I'm sure he cares about this team just as much as you guys do. He felt the highs and the lows. He , like me, just beleives that our QB's are the major reason for those nostalgic times we all think of. 

We've always been an organization carried by generational QB. From 1998 onwards. Ballard is the first GM since that time to actually attempt building a TEAM , and he's been crucified on here by some who think he's wasting Luck's career , or should be drafting skill positions high. 

It's like the rose-tinted glasses aren't allowing people to understand where we actually went wrong. Manning was miles better than Brady in the early 2000's , but Brady had a way smarter GM/coach and an actual team to work with. That is the truth. We got punched in mouth over and over and over in the playoffs at the line of scrimmage and expected our QB to solve everything. 

The one time our defense showed up and Polian actually brought in a good DT (a crucial component for Dungy's defence) , we won the damn thing. 

Belichick is the smartest coach ever. He just is. It doesn't matter how talented your skilled players are , he's gunna find a way to take them outta the game. If you want to beat him , you need to beat him at the LOS. Even a brilliant mind like his can't game-plan elite lines out of the game. 

Do you guys think all the HOF coaches/GM's are blowing smoke when they say defenses/trenches win games? Hell, our own GM even says it. You can't game-plan elite lines out of the game. 

You wanna know why the Patriots had such problems with the Ravens? It's because Ozzie is a disciple of Belichick , and Baltimore was built around his principles. They had bad-* on defense and on the offensive line , and Belichick couldn't game-plan those beasts out of the game.

They couldn't intimidate them. They couldn't blow them off the ball. They couldn't stop their running game , and they couldn't run the ball on Ngata, Lewis, Suggs etc. Even though they never had a QB like Brady , they always had a chance because they always gave the Patriots fits at the LOS. 

Whereas if you give Belichick Dallas Clark and our OL to game plan against? He'll make us 1 dimensional and take at least one skill player out the game no problem. This is where it became so difficult for Peyton. Because our line wasn't that great and our defense could never stop Brady's short passing against our cover-2 or their running game from controlling the clock , it was essentially mission impossible for Peyton. They had us beat in every phase except QB play. 

Football at it's basic form is those dudes upfront in 1v1 battles. No coach, I don't care how good he is , can stop elite players there for an entire game. And no QB, I don't care how good he is, can overcome having a poor offensive line/defense and win consistently. 

This is why I like Ballard so much , we finally (FINALLY!) have a GM who gets it. Grigson was just a poor imitation of Polian. And I strongly disagreed with how Polian build teams around Peyton. Strongly. 

You build the trenches , you build the defense , and if you have an elite QB (which we do) , you'll have a real good chance at winning a lot of games in the playoffs. 

Look at what the Eagles have done around Wentz. Look at how they acquired his weapons. Look at the lines they've assembled on both sides of the ball.

If you want a modern version of Peyton's Colts , look at the Falcons. (Except they probably have more talent than Peyton ever had, and Matt Ryan is nowhere near as good as 18. Nowhere near)




 

[Scott Pennock]

7 hours ago, coltsva said:

I don’t get the “years wasted” sentiment. I was thoroughly entertained by Luck and the Colts in 2012, 2013, 2014. 

 

Although this season has been a bit frustrating, the Colts are certainly a team that’s interesting to watch. 

 

The past 6 years has made Luck a multi millionaire, and countless other players millionaires. I doubt they feel the years we’re wasted. 

 

Is every year a wasted season for 31 teams? 

 

I feel so bad for Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton  and Jim Kelly. Entire hall of fame careers, wasted. 

 

Rant over, carry on!

Except there are zero draft picks on the team from 2013/2014 and the previous regime bought overpriced aging veterans.....leaving the cupboards bare for this new regime to work with.

[horseshoecrabs]

Hey, I know Rome wasn't built in a day, but to refer to him as a genius with a 1 and 4 record this year is a little premature.  Let's can the accolades for now. and see what develops first. 

[coltsva]

I guess it's simply expectations. My expectations for any team I root for is for them to be a contender.

 

The Manning Colts were a contender almost every year, and it was great knowing we'd win 75% of our games every year and be a strong contender for the Super Bowl. 

 

The first 3 years with Luck we're a great ride, and although some may say we had no shot to win it all, that's hindsight. If the Patriots lose to the Ravens in 2014, we may very well have beaten the Ravens and gone to the Super Bowl. We were a contender to win it all. 

 

Obviously, Grigson's approach was not a good long range plan and the last 3 years have forced the franchise to reboot. Fine. Ballard is prepping us for another extended run of being a contender, and I think his approach is sound. 

 

 

 

[Four2itus]

22 minutes ago, coltsva said:

I guess it's simply expectations. My expectations for any team I root for is for them to be a contender.

 

The Manning Colts were a contender almost every year, and it was great knowing we'd win 75% of our games every year and be a strong contender for the Super Bowl. 

 

The first 3 years with Luck we're a great ride, and although some may say we had no shot to win it all, that's hindsight. If the Patriots lose to the Ravens in 2014, we may very well have beaten the Ravens and gone to the Super Bowl. We were a contender to win it all. 

 

Obviously, Grigson's approach was not a good long range plan and the last 3 years have forced the franchise to reboot. Fine. Ballard is prepping us for another extended run of being a contender, and I think his approach is sound. 

Well said. I love this team, love what they are doing, and I enjoy watching them play or listening to them on the radio. 

 

The idea of being upset at them not meeting my expectations is so odd to me. What an incredible waste of having a good time. Btw, can't wait to have a good time next week!