Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts are reason for new NFL?


Chrisaaron1023

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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^^ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Like 1
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.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Does anybody know what happened to or became of Princeton? I used to enjoy his "everything will be alright" comment.
    • Wilt dominated Bill Russell when they played, what Boston fans don't comprehend for some reason is, the Celtics had all the best players on their team other than players like West, Baylor, and Robertson. Outside of that the league had a bunch of MEH players back then except on Boston. Boston had Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, and KC Jones besides Russell. Russell could get away with playing a bad game on occasion because Havlicek or Sam Jones or even Heinsohn could go for 25 and they would still win. Cousy wasn't a great shooter but was a great Assist guy and would just run that team like a great QB does.   Bill Simmons has Bill Russell as the 2nd greatest player ever, that is what ruins his list and I agree with a lot of his rankings. Loved his book and love his knowledge on ranking players but his Russell ranking is simply because he is from Boston. No way in hell is Bill Russell the 2nd greatest player of all-time. He had too many offensive deficiencies to be that. To me Larry Bird was the better player compared to Bill Russell.    Simmons top 10 updated: 1. Michael Jordan 2. Bill Russell 3. LeBron James 4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 5. Magic Johnson 6. Larry Bird 7. Wilt Chamberlain  8. Tim Duncan 9. Kobe Bryant  10. Jerry West   Mine is: 1. Michael Jordan (we agree)   2. Magic Johnson   3. LeBron James (we agree)   4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (we agree)   5. Kobe Bryant   6. Larry Bird (we agree)   7. Wilt Chamberlain (we agree)   8. Steph Curry - Bill has Curry 15th.   9. Shaq O'Neal - Bill has Shaq 13th.   10. Bill Russell - yes, he makes my top 10, great defensive player, great rebounder, a good scorer but not a dominant scorer and a winner. His 11 championships can be viewed in a lot of different ways compared to how players won theirs in the 80's-up until now. 11 is 11 though so a top 10 list without him would not like right.   He had West and Duncan in his top 10 - I don't. I have Shaq and Curry instead. To me Shaq was more dominant at his peak than Duncan was, and Curry changed the game with his 3-point shooting. Shaq is the only player in NBA history other than Michael Jordan to win 3 straight Finals MVP's (2000-2002), he has to be top 10. I never thought I would see a better shooter than Reggie Miller, then Steph entered the building. Steph also does have 4 championships, a Finals MVP, and 2 League MVP's + he has the most 3 pointers made in NBA history.
    • Caitlin Clark 1 Angel Reese 0. Fever beat Sky 71-70. You lose Angel Reese. 
    • I'm all for doubling down and going EDGE in the 1st again. Just got to make sure we get the right one. Depending on where we draft, I'm okay with trading up a couple of picks to snatch the better pass rusher of the bunch. Since there will be a good amount of rushers, I hear, let's go get the better one. I can also see the draft being the opposite as this years. Most teams will go defense now in this draft, and very good offensive players fall. I think we are perfect on offense, that's why I'm okay with trading up to get the guy we need on defense.
  • Members

    • RollerColt

      RollerColt 12,588

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,945

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DEColtsLover36

      DEColtsLover36 2,111

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hooch

      Hooch 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TheNewGuy

      TheNewGuy 52

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Knuckles79

      Knuckles79 244

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shepman

      Shepman 401

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • HoosierHero

      HoosierHero 199

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 4,312

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 19,915

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...