Colts are reason for new NFL?

[Chrisaaron1023]

https://www.patspulpit.com/2018/11/23/18104996/rivalry-week-hate-all-the-pass-interference-penalties-thank-the-colts

 

Read and weep 

[DraftMaster]

 

Peyton a system QB? He was the furthest from being that! He had 4 different coaches! Stories upon stories about him being a general on the field. If anyone is a system QB, it's Tommy Boy with the same coach and system tailored to him for years!

 

[SteelCityColt]

Click bait doing what click bait is meant to do..

[MPStack]

Not to mention, Peyton played and won SBs with two teams.

 

Brady, same coach and team his entire career. Add all that up and I doubt he's as productive as he's been, playing else where.

[Boiler_Colt]

Yawn, more insecurity out of Beantown. It's not like the Pats havent taken full opportunity of the way the rules have been constructed. But then again rules have never really meant much to them.

[#12.]

The 16-0 Pats who choked away the Super Bowl are the poster boys of the new NFL. 

 

Talk about living in the past.  The Pats have been a finesse team for well over a decade.  Outside of a few games with Corey Dillon, they were always a finesse offense.

[MPStack]

[WoolMagnet]

1 hour ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

https://www.patspulpit.com/2018/11/23/18104996/rivalry-week-hate-all-the-pass-interference-penalties-thank-the-colts

 

Read and weep 

Consider the source.

Cheaters.com

 

[crazycolt1]

The rules were not changed by Polian.  All he wanted was the rules already in place to be enforced. 

Now the NFL is doing the same thing the NBA has done. Put up more points to keep the fans happy.  And now these Beanheads are blaming Polian? 

 

[MPStack]

It's going to be great when the Pats are no longer relevant anymore. IMO it may becoming sooner than expected as I think we are seeing a decline in the GOAT.

 

They may want Brissett back.

[Superman]

I'm going to ignore the stupid origin and just state a couple things that are always on my mind when people bring this up.

 

1) As has been stated, the Colts and Polian didn't change the rule. They asked that the rule be properly enforced. If anyone goes back and rewatches that 2003 playoff game, it's very obvious that the Pats were grabbing and holding in a way that was a violation of the rule, and I think their grabbiness was even mentioned on the broadcast.

 

If you go back to the Pats/Rams SB a couple years before that, the Pats were doing something similar to Marshall Faulk to keep him from catching the ball out of the backfield. I don't blame the Pats, I blame the refs; if they're not calling it, it's not a foul. 

 

The point of the competition committee highlighting that rule is that defenders should not be able to grab and hold receivers to prevent them from running their routes. That's not football, never has been, and that's why the defensive holding rule has existed for decades, well before 2004.

 

The defensive penalties called Monday night were all legitimate. And for every call that was even borderline, there was probably a missed defensive penalty that should have been called.

 

2) There have been several other rules adjustments in the last 15 years that have had a direct impact on passing offense. Tracing the increased number of PI/holding calls back solely to that rules committee decision is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Many of these rules are intended to protect defenseless players -- a player who cannot protect his body while carrying out a football motion, either throwing or catching a pass -- and inherently make it less dangerous to complete a pass. Same thing for the target zone for a QB ( defenders can't dive at the QB's knees) and the head protections (defenders can't make forcible contact with a QB's head while he's in the pocket). I'm not sure why this is considered a bad thing.

 

3) The NFL went through a QB drought for over a decade, where there was a dramatic lack of quality QBs. This resulted in changes to offensive approach, which is connected to way even high school QBs are coached and developed. In the last few years, there's been a renaissance in QBing, reaching all the way to the NFL. Not only are young QBs better equipped when the reach the NFL, the way NFL offenses are run makes it easier for QBs to adjust to the NFL.

 

4) Closely related to #3 is the increase of offensive-minded NFL coaches, especially their willingness to embrace spread offenses and other "amateur" offensive approaches. Andy Reid has always been an innovative offensive coach, and Sean McVay is obviously qualified in that regard. 

 

So now you have easier to run offenses, better passers, and multiple rules changes that make QBing easier, thus increasing the productivity and efficiency of NFL passing attacks.

 

The offensive explosion from the Rams and Chiefs is a result of all these factors, and probably others. Not just because Bill Polian felt his team got robbed in a playoff game 15 years ago.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm going to ignore the stupid origin and just state a couple things that are always on my mind when people bring this up.

 

1) As has been stated, the Colts and Polian didn't change the rule. They asked that the rule be properly enforced. If anyone goes back and rewatches that 2003 playoff game, it's very obvious that the Pats were grabbing and holding in a way that was a violation of the rule, and I think their grabbiness was even mentioned on the broadcast.

 

If you go back to the Pats/Rams SB a couple years before that, the Pats were doing something similar to Marshall Faulk to keep him from catching the ball out of the backfield. I don't blame the Pats, I blame the refs; if they're not calling it, it's not a foul. 

 

The point of the competition committee highlighting that rule is that defenders should not be able to grab and hold receivers to prevent them from running their routes. That's not football, never has been, and that's why the defensive holding rule has existed for decades, well before 2004.

 

The defensive penalties called Monday night were all legitimate. And for every call that was even borderline, there was probably a missed defensive penalty that should have been called.

 

2) There have been several other rules adjustments in the last 15 years that have had a direct impact on passing offense. Tracing the increased number of PI/holding calls back solely to that rules committee decision is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Many of these rules are intended to protect defenseless players -- a player who cannot protect his body while carrying out a football motion, either throwing or catching a pass -- and inherently make it less dangerous to complete a pass. Same thing for the target zone for a QB ( defenders can't dive at the QB's knees) and the head protections (defenders can't make forcible contact with a QB's head while he's in the pocket). I'm not sure why this is considered a bad thing.

 

3) The NFL went through a QB drought for over a decade, where there was a dramatic lack of quality QBs. This resulted in changes to offensive approach, which is connected to way even high school QBs are coached and developed. In the last few years, there's been a renaissance in QBing, reaching all the way to the NFL. Not only are young QBs better equipped when the reach the NFL, the way NFL offenses are run makes it easier for QBs to adjust to the NFL.

 

4) Closely related to #3 is the increase of offensive-minded NFL coaches, especially their willingness to embrace spread offenses and other "amateur" offensive approaches. Andy Reid has always been an innovative offensive coach, and Sean McVay is obviously qualified in that regard. 

 

So now you have easier to run offenses, better passers, and multiple rules changes that make QBing easier, thus increasing the productivity and efficiency of NFL passing attacks.

 

The offensive explosion from the Rams and Chiefs is a result of all these factors, and probably others. Not just because Bill Polian felt his team got robbed in a playoff game 15 years ago.

^^This exactly^^ 

[The Fish]

People say there's no rivalry with Pats, that might be true, might not be. What there is plenty of is animosity between the fans. That's not going away.

Bill Burr, comedian, Pats honk does a podcast a few times a week and I'd wager not 3 go by where he doesn't mention this and how it's perceived among Pats fans as ground zero for cheapening Defensive play across the board. 

 

That 03' playoff loss is probably #2 or #3 on the list of disgusting, gut wrenching losses in the Peyton era. The way the Colts lost that day, it looked like the Pats took Peyton's soul or something. Ick.

 

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, The Fish said:

People say there's no rivalry with Pats, that might be true, might not be. What there is plenty of is animosity between the fans. That's not going away.

Bill Burr, comedian, Pats honk does a podcast a few times a week and I'd wager not 3 go by where he doesn't mention this and how it's perceived among Pats fans as ground zero for cheapening Defensive play across the board. 

 

That 03' playoff loss is probably #2 or #3 on the list of disgusting, gut wrenching losses in the Peyton era. The way the Colts lost that day, it looked like the Pats took Peyton's soul or something. Ick.

 

As a Colts fan it was disgusting to see the total disregard of the rules being not enforced in that game. 

Add the fact that Goodell and Kraft were buddy buddy at the time and yes, as a Colt fan it's understandable for them to think that game was fixed.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Add the fact that Goodell and Kraft were buddy buddy at the time and yes, as a Colt fan it's understandable for them to think that game was fixed.

 

Wasn't Tagliabue the commish back then?

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Wasn't Tagliabue the commish back then?

Yeah, you are right. I guess I was just mixed up on what years the Patriots were seen as cheaters.

[Four2itus]

I have yet to see player with as much disregard for the discussed rules, as Grabme Harrison. 

 

You mean that the way Manning played set the bar for new QB's preparing for the NFL? Then yes, we'll take credit.

 

 

[Smoke317]

Peyton was a system QB.  His own system...  And Peyton wasn’t dinking and dunking.  He was taking deep shots.  Deep outs. Deep comebacks. Deep digs. Deep shots up the seam.  I can’t imagine the numbers Peyton would have/could have put up running more of theses new innovative schemes?

[Luck 4 president]

49 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Peyton was a system QB.  His own system...  And Peyton wasn’t dinking and dunking.  He was taking deep shots.  Deep outs. Deep comebacks. Deep digs. Deep shots up the seam.  I can’t imagine the numbers Peyton would have/could have put up running more of theses new innovative schemes?

Exactly. He was the system. Didn’t matter who coached or who he had around him. He ran the offense and made players out of everybody. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Luck 4 president said:

Exactly. He was the system. Didn’t matter who coached or who he had around him. He ran the offense and made players out of everybody. 

 

He didn't really make players out of everybody. He had a lot of first round talent around him on offense, and other guys who worked their butts off and deserve plenty of recognition. 

 

Peyton's the man but this gets overstated at times. 

[#12.]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't really make players out of everybody

 

Quick release, getting into the right play - made every O-lineman and back look better.

 

Constant, infinite pressure on the opposing offense - certainly made a perpetually flawed defense look better.  He gave Freeney and Mathis many more opportunities than they would have enjoyed otherwise.

 

Could Marv break ankles?  Yes. Was Reggie the consummate pro... solid as hell?  Yes.  Edge before the knee injury?  Yes.

 

Manning still made everyone look better.  Marv wasn't going for 1700 with Harbaugh slinging it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't really make players out of everybody. He had a lot of first round talent around him on offense, and other guys who worked their butts off and deserve plenty of recognition. 

 

Peyton's the man but this gets overstated at times. 

Had Polian put as much into the defense as he did the offense there would have been more than one championship too.

[Tsarquise]

19 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Had Polian put as much into the defense as he did the offense there would have been more than one championship too.

The Colts really didn't lose in the playoffs in '03, 04, and 05 due to bad defense. Nor did they really lose due to bad defense in 08, or 09.

 

The offense only scoring a field goal or two in that 04 divisional loss is just confounding. I just don't understand how they were so inept. 

[crazycolt1]

25 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

The Colts really didn't lose in the playoffs in '03, 04, and 05 due to bad defense. Nor did they really lose due to bad defense in 08, or 09.

 

The offense only scoring a field goal or two in that 04 divisional loss is just confounding. I just don't understand how they were so inept. 

Are you serious?  How many playoff games did the Colts lose after Manning had the lead in the 4th quarter and the defense couldn't hold or the poor special teams play gave up the chance to win?  

[WoolMagnet]

Someone needs to document all the "rule changes" caused by the Pats.  Especially the ones involving testing foofball pressure before games and the use of recording devices.  BOTH audio AND video.

  These people are too much.

[King Colt]

This question has been the same for 50 years, "What channel are the Colts on?"

[TonyBungee]

Sports have rules.  That Colts passing offense might have been the most precise that the NFL has ever seen, and it couldn't be stopped...within the rules.  The hoodie knew this, so he instructed his DBs to hold if necessary, & just hope they got away with it.  And it worked. 

 

In any sport, when a team wins a championship by not only ignoring the rules, but by intentionally breaking them, the league kinda needs to do something. 

 

[RI Colt]

19 hours ago, MPStack said:

It's going to be great when the Pats are no longer relevant anymore. IMO it may becoming sooner than expected as I think we are seeing a decline in the GOAT.

 

They may want Brissett back.

That time will be coming sooner than you think. There are already fissures in Pats fandom as 90 percent of them are wagon riders. I hear it every day when something goes amiss in Patriots land, they fall out of allegiance at the drop of a hat. But when there is some great happening they all have their jerseys on, it's rather ridiculous to watch.

[jskinnz]

9 hours ago, Tsarquise said:

The Colts really didn't lose in the playoffs in '03, 04, and 05 due to bad defense. Nor did they really lose due to bad defense in 08, or 09.

 

The offense only scoring a field goal or two in that 04 divisional loss is just confounding. I just don't understand how they were so inept. 

 

8 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Are you serious?  How many playoff games did the Colts lose after Manning had the lead in the 4th quarter and the defense couldn't hold or the poor special teams play gave up the chance to win?  

 

I think his point is reasonable.  The offense was just as culpable if not more in the losses as the defense.

 

In 2003 Manning threw 4 picks against the Pats.  The one in the first quarter is still confounding to me as Pollard was wide open for a TD.  They never had the lead.

 

In 2004 the D held up OK but only a field goal from the offense.  The Colts never had the lead.

 

In 2005, how many sacks did the O-line give up?  And the Colts never had the lead.

 

In 2007, the Colts turned it over 3 times against the Chargers.  They had an early lead but my recall is that they were always fighting uphill in the 2nd half.

 

The losses in which the Colts gave up the lead were in 2008 against the Chargers.  That loss was due to a punter having the greatest game ever.  Also the Colts needed one first down at the end but failed to get it.  No way to pin that solely on the defense.

 

2009 came in the Super Bowl after the Colts had the lead early in the 4th quarter but a Manning INT sealed the loss.

 

2010 the loss against the Jets came after they gave up a long kick off return and poorly timed TO by Caldwell.

 

I love Manning and what he meant to Indy.  But he shares much blame in the Colts playoff loses.

 

[Coltsman1788]

21 hours ago, #12. said:

The 16-0 Pats who choked away the Super Bowl are the poster boys of the new NFL. 

 

Talk about living in the past.  The Pats have been a finesse team for well over a decade.  Outside of a few games with Corey Dillon, they were always a finesse offense.

Yeah...the Pats became a finesse team after the Colts whooped their butts twice in 2006-2007 on their way to the Lombardi. 

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

 

I think his point is reasonable.  The offense was just as culpable if not more in the losses as the defense.

 

In 2003 Manning threw 4 picks against the Pats.  The one in the first quarter is still confounding to me as Pollard was wide open for a TD.  They never had the lead.

 

In 2004 the D held up OK but only a field goal from the offense.  The Colts never had the lead.

 

In 2005, how many sacks did the O-line give up?  And the Colts never had the lead.

 

In 2007, the Colts turned it over 3 times against the Chargers.  They had an early lead but my recall is that they were always fighting uphill in the 2nd half.

 

The losses in which the Colts gave up the lead were in 2008 against the Chargers.  That loss was due to a punter having the greatest game ever.  Also the Colts needed one first down at the end but failed to get it.  No way to pin that solely on the defense.

 

2009 came in the Super Bowl after the Colts had the lead early in the 4th quarter but a Manning INT sealed the loss.

 

2010 the loss against the Jets came after they gave up a long kick off return and poorly timed TO by Caldwell.

 

I love Manning and what he meant to Indy.  But he shares much blame in the Colts playoff loses.

 

11 playoff losses

8 losses with 6 interceptions with 3 of them deflected off Colt receivers.

Colts led in finale 4 minutes- 4 times.

Led in finale 40 seconds 4 times.

Three overtimes losses

Two games lost due to Vanderjage misses.

2000-Eddie George 162 yards.

2001-Lamar Smith 209 yards ended with a missed Vanderjage miss.

2003- Manning didn't touch the ball till the Colts were down 17-0 after a Vanderjage miss.

2006-Defense gave up over 400 yards to the Chargers without Rivers or Tomlinson.

2009-Defense gave up 328 total yards to Darren Sproles.

I would say the Colts playoff woes were more on poor defense and poor special teams play than at Manning's feet.

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

6 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

 

I think his point is reasonable.  The offense was just as culpable if not more in the losses as the defense.

 

In 2003 Manning threw 4 picks against the Pats.  The one in the first quarter is still confounding to me as Pollard was wide open for a TD.  They never had the lead.

 

In 2004 the D held up OK but only a field goal from the offense.  The Colts never had the lead.

 

In 2005, how many sacks did the O-line give up?  And the Colts never had the lead.

 

In 2007, the Colts turned it over 3 times against the Chargers.  They had an early lead but my recall is that they were always fighting uphill in the 2nd half.

 

The losses in which the Colts gave up the lead were in 2008 against the Chargers.  That loss was due to a punter having the greatest game ever.  Also the Colts needed one first down at the end but failed to get it.  No way to pin that solely on the defense.

 

2009 came in the Super Bowl after the Colts had the lead early in the 4th quarter but a Manning INT sealed the loss.

 

2010 the loss against the Jets came after they gave up a long kick off return and poorly timed TO by Caldwell.

 

I love Manning and what he meant to Indy.  But he shares much blame in the Colts playoff loses.

 

 

I think Manning's teams have more losses when he had a decent game than any other QB ever. I'll try to find one of the many breakdowns that have been posted over the years, but the conclusion is basically that if Manning didn't play a near perfect game, the Colts couldn't win in the playoffs, with the except5of 2006. And no other QB has had that burden in the last 35 years (maybe Rodgers at this point). 

 

We have other QBs who could play pedestrian games in the playoffs, but the rest of the team would be capable of making plays. The Colts defense usually didn't make plays in the playoffs, and special teams cost us a couple of games as well.

 

No question Manning had some bad games, but even when he had good games, it often wasn't enough. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

The 2 seasons where Manning could get alot of blame are 2005 and 2009 when we lost. 2009 - the pass at the end sealed the game for the Saints. When we were up 10-0 we failed to put the game away when the Defense was playing well. Having said that an Onside Kick and a Garcon drop were very critical to why we lost that SB to the Saints, neither Peyton's fault. Freeney's injury was crucial too. Against Pitt in 2005 - Peyton was Average but there again our O.Line played like crap and VanderMISS, missed a FG that would've tied it at the end. In 03 and 04 at NE, NE simply had the better team and just kicked our butt, but they did get away with alot of holding. In 2007, Peyton threw for 300 Yards and 3 TD's vs the Chargers and we scored 24 Points, that game wasn't Peyton's fault. Our D gave up 28. In 2008 at Chargers, we had the lead late and our D failed to get key stops.

[Peterk2011]

On 11/23/2018 at 6:51 PM, Superman said:

I'm going to ignore the stupid origin and just state a couple things that are always on my mind when people bring this up.

 

Meh... Doesn't worth the time. We all know, they all now, everyone knows.

 

I find it actually funny, that whenever these Pats beatwriters get insecure about their team - because they ARE insecure right now -, they still blame Peyton, who's been retired for 3 years. I think, deep in their hearts, they know, who is/was the true GOAT, and who was made by the system. That's why they can't get off of Peyton.

[2006Coltsbestever]

In a year or 2 the Pats will not be Good to Great anymore IMO. Brady will retire and I can see BB following him. We have Luck for the next 10 years so we will be a Playoff team at least for many of those years. When it comes to Peyton vs Brady both are Great. Brady has won more SB's with 5 but Peyton still has 2 with 2 different teams which proves Peyton is his own system and Peyton has more MVP's 5-3. 

[aaron11]

On 11/24/2018 at 4:03 AM, WoolMagnet said:

Someone needs to document all the "rule changes" caused by the Pats.  Especially the ones involving testing foofball pressure before games and the use of recording devices.  BOTH audio AND video.

  These people are too much.

thats why patriots fans bring this up so often, they want ammo to fire back at everyone online 

[Tsarquise]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think Manning's teams have more losses when he had a decent game than any other QB ever. I'll try to find one of the many breakdowns that have been posted over the years, but the conclusion is basically that if Manning didn't play a near perfect game, the Colts couldn't win in the playoffs, with the except5of 2006. And no other QB has had that burden in the last 35 years (maybe Rodgers at this point). 

 

We have other QBs who could play pedestrian games in the playoffs, but the rest of the team would be capable of making plays. The Colts defense usually didn't make plays in the playoffs, and special teams cost us a couple of games as well.

 

No question Manning had some bad games, but even when he had good games, it often wasn't enough. 

This really applies to the 07 playoff loss. The defense let Billy Volek win the game. Manning was great in this game, but there were drops, and fumbles galore. The team played badly around Manning.

 

It kind of applies to 08 with the Chargers marching down the field for a touchdown in OT, although the Colts had a chance to seal the deal before then in offense. 

 

In 05, the Colts had protection problems, but once again, that's on the offense. The defense even forced Bettis to fumble and gave the Colts a chance to win, but the offense and special teams failed. 

 

Don't remember a lot before 2003 even though I attended the 99 Titans playoff game as a kid. I know there was a close one between the Dolphins and Colts where Vanderjagt missed a field goal, and of course, that Jets loss in 02. 

[Luck is Good]

Bottom line is the Colts had a lot of playoff failures in the Manning era. Whether it was bad defense or bad offense, it didn’t matter. There were just so many letdowns. Definitely should’ve had more than one championship

[aaron11]

11 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Bottom line is the Colts had a lot of playoff failures in the Manning era. Whether it was bad defense or bad offense, it didn’t matter. There were just so many letdowns. Definitely should’ve had more than one championship

05 should have been a super bowl year.  that team was too good to lose to a 6th seed at home

 

[Luck is Good]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

05 should have been a super bowl year.  that team was too good to lose to a 6th seed at home

 

I hate that game