Some Day After Thoughts to Share.....

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, dodsworth said:

Bingo, they really came to play. I believe fatigue played a big role in

 the downfall of the Colts and Chargers. Having a bye raises the odds of going to the SB by being the 

better rested team. 

 

Their defense didn't look like a 31st

ranked unit.

 

 

The bye is definitely an advantage.

 

But realistically, the better teams won. And that's why they had the bye in the first place.

 

I don't think the Colts lost because they were fatigued, I think they lost because they were outplayed and outcoached. And even if they weren't outplayed and outcoached, we had a slightly above average defense (and I'm being generous; I think our defense was way overrated by virtue of an easy schedule) going against the best and most explosive offense in the league, in their building. I never expected our defense to stop them, but our offense didn't come close to pulling their weight. And I don't think that's because of fatigue, I think it's because of gameplanning, play calling and execution.

 

And credit to the defense, they only gave up 7 points in the second half. But I get the feeling that if our offense had threatened at all, their offense had another gear to it; I watched that Chiefs/Rams game earlier this season, they can go when they need to. And it's worth mentioning that their second half TD came right after our offense scored; the "answer TD" is a hallmark of a great offense, and it's back-breaking.

[Colt.45]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The bye is definitely an advantage.

 

But realistically, the better teams won. And that's why they had the bye in the first place.

 

I don't think the Colts lost because they were fatigued, I think they lost because they were outplayed and outcoached. And even if they weren't outplayed and outcoached, we had a slightly above average defense (and I'm being generous; I think our defense was way overrated by virtue of an easy schedule) going against the best and most explosive offense in the league, in their building. I never expected our defense to stop them, but our offense didn't come close to pulling their weight. And I don't think that's because of fatigue, I think it's because of gameplanning, play calling and execution.

 

And credit to the defense, they only gave up 7 points in the second half. But I get the feeling that if our offense had threatened at all, their offense had another gear to it; I watched that Chiefs/Rams game earlier this season, they can go when they need to. And it's worth mentioning that their second half TD came right after our offense scored; the "answer TD" is a hallmark of a great offense, and it's back-breaking.

 

Nailed it.

The Colts had to play the perfect game on offense i.e. mistake-free, taking points from as many drives as possible, dominating possession, etc. They had to be perfect just to keep it close. Anything else and it was always going to be a really ugly outcome.

 

That 1st drive was killer, once that Ebron drop happened, you could see shoulders drop, you could see the disappointment. My biggest surprise was the Chiefs didn't get to 40, second biggest was that QB not throwing a TD.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Nailed it.

The Colts had to play the perfect game on offense i.e. mistake-free, taking points from as many drives as possible, dominating possession, etc. They had to be perfect just to keep it close. Anything else and it was always going to be a really ugly outcome.

 

That 1st drive was killer, once that Ebron drop happened, you could see shoulders drop, you could see the disappointment. My biggest surprise was the Chiefs didn't get to 40, second biggest was that QB not throwing a TD.

 

That first drop was deflating, but we had three more three-and-outs after that, then came up empty on the only productive drive of the half. We were 0-9 on third down. The offense had plenty of chances to get involved, and never did.

[John Waylon]

18 hours ago, threeflight said:

Exactly.

 

Saints have Brees, Thomas, Kamara, and others.

Pats have..well we know who they have.

Chiefs have Mahomes, Kelce, had Hunt, and their great wr's.

Rams have so many weapons.

 

We have....Luck (when he is playing well) and.....Hilton???

 

Bell and AB would make us SB favs imo.  The goal of this is to win the SB right?  So we get a good 2-3 years out of each and that allows us time for Lucks prime to win SBs now AND grow some youngsters via the draft.  Those that say no Bell or no AB because of.....reasons......not really sure why.  WE CAN AFFORD IT.

 

I would take both of them in a heartbeat.  And the thing is you can get them both for a total of maybe a second and a third IN TOTAL.

 

We aren't playing catholic choir boys on our team here.  We are playing grown men NFL players.  

And as I said, we HAVE to spend this salary cap money.  I would rather pay guys like Bell and AB who are true stars then overpay some of our own just to meet the salary cap.

 

@Calmack

 

Sorry to deliver the bad news to your grandmother. 

 

And this is just one. Of many. 

[Calmack]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

 

@Calmack

 

Sorry to deliver the bad news to your grandmother. 

 

And this is just one. Of many. 

Apparently I have to exclude threeflight from my previous assertion then

[The Fish]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The bye is definitely an advantage.

 

But realistically, the better teams won. And that's why they had the bye in the first place.

 

I don't think the Colts lost because they were fatigued, I think they lost because they were outplayed and outcoached. And even if they weren't outplayed and outcoached, we had a slightly above average defense (and I'm being generous; I think our defense was way overrated by virtue of an easy schedule) going against the best and most explosive offense in the league, in their building. I never expected our defense to stop them, but our offense didn't come close to pulling their weight. And I don't think that's because of fatigue, I think it's because of gameplanning, play calling and execution.

 

And credit to the defense, they only gave up 7 points in the second half. But I get the feeling that if our offense had threatened at all, their offense had another gear to it; I watched that Chiefs/Rams game earlier this season, they can go when they need to. And it's worth mentioning that their second half TD came right after our offense scored; the "answer TD" is a hallmark of a great offense, and it's back-breaking.

 

I agree with this, but the D actually locked them up for a few drives at a point where they wanted to break the Colts back and couldn't. Penalties and Kenny Moore's blitz's stopped them a few times IIRC. 

If the offense had anything, at all they could have been with-in a score and that's way closer than the on the field action would have lead anyone to guess was even possible. 

 

I'll say it one more time (and move on soon-ish) I'm really surprised that a good portion of what decided that game came down to Luck playing so poorly. The rest of it's just details if he can't complete passes. That Chiefs D was no joke, hope they give some of that to Tom.

[John Waylon]

9 minutes ago, Calmack said:

Apparently I have to exclude threeflight from my previous assertion then

 

You should probably get a pen and paper and start making a list. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

I agree with this, but the D actually locked them up for a few drives at a point where they wanted to break the Colts back and couldn't. Penalties and Kenny Moore's blitz's stopped them a few times IIRC. 

If the offense had anything, at all they could have been with-in a score and that's way closer than the on the field action would have lead anyone to guess was even possible. 

 

I'll say it one more time (and move on soon-ish) I'm really surprised that a good portion of what decided that game came down to Luck playing so poorly. The rest of it's just details if he can't complete passes. That Chiefs D was no joke, hope they give some of that to Tom.

 

Locked them up is a stretch too far. They had one three and out, and that was a conservatively called drive that started well into the 4th quarter. We were scratching and fighting to get their offense off the field, and could only do that after they gained two or three first downs.

[Colt.45]

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Locked them up is a stretch too far. They had one three and out, and that was a conservatively called drive that started well into the 4th quarter. We were scratching and fighting to get their offense off the field, and could only do that after they gained two or three first downs.

 

Yeah, locked them up isn't something I saw either. KC pretty much marched down the field when they needed to. The one genuine time the Colts defense did anything was that Leonard fumble. Outside of that, I think the Chiefs knew that game was wrapped and bagged up. They could score at will.

[tfunky14]

21 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So, everyone has been starting a thread to share their viewpoint...    I was mostly (but not entirely quiet yesterday)   But it feels like I should offer my two cents now...     those of you who are not fans/friends of mine,  well,  here is your chance to rip me.     Take your best shot.   Here we go....

 

 

1.   Not surprised we lost,  but WAS surprised the game was so lopsided.    But it was from the very first play/series.

 

2.   In my judgement we lost badly and the "game plan" looked so poor basically because we got whipped badly at the LOS on both sides of the ball.   Their D-line outplayed our O-line.    Their O-line had their way with our D-line.    When you lose the battle at the line of scrimmage,  there aren't many game plans that succeed.  I think all the comments about what "a terrible game plan" are badly overstated.     Lose the Line of Scrimmage,  lose the game.    I don't know WHY we got beat so badly there,  but we clearly did.   Reich's comment about being outcoached and outplayed were the exact right things to say.   You don't throw any one,  or any group under the bus.   But inside the franchise,  there ARE answers to be found.   The coaches WILL KNOW what happened.    So will Chris Ballard. 

 

3.   I don't believe we gave up on the run too early as many here do.    I believe the Chiefs took the run away from us.   There's a difference.  When you can't win with your bread and butter,  then you become one dimensional and easier to defend and defeat.

 

4.   I'm not the least bit down on Frank Reich and can't understand why many here have lost faith in him over one loss.    After such an incredible season,  you jump ship over one game?     Sorry,  but that says much more about you than it does about him.   And what it says is not good.    If you're one who wonders if we can do better at the HC position,  then I hope you're cooling off after blowing off some steam for a day.    Frank Reich coached a not very good team and got every last ounce of talent out of them.    Most coaches would not have turned this team into 10-6 and a playoff win in their first year.    Major props to Frank.    Glad he's our coach.

 

5.   I don't know why,  but Luck was dreadful yesterday.    Seriously dreadful.   I think his first 3 or 4 passes were either batted down at the line of scrimmage,  or batted down by LB's or DB's...      and it looked like he lost a LOT off his fast ball.    Was it weather related?    Don't know?    Was his arm tired after a long season?    Don't know?     But he was clearly off his game.  He looked like the Andrew from the first 6 weeks of the season.   I'm still hopeful that after an off-season of rest and rebuilding we will see an even BETTER Andrew Luck in 2019.     His arm got stronger and better during the season.   Should be even better next season.

 

6.   Still curious if the success of this season will accelerate Ballard's 3-year plan of rebuilding?    It might,  but I have no gut instinct for it.    I think there are arguments both for and against it.    Ballard and Reich will probably have an end of the season meeting with the media tomorrow.   Really looking forward to hearing/reading what they have to say.  If not tomorrow, then Tuesday or Wednesday.   Would recommend everyone pay close attention to it.    Both are pretty transparent if you kow how to read between the lines.

 

7.   Been a football fan for more than 50 years and this season was one of the most enjoyable I've ever expereinced.   I suspect it's the same for many of you.   Nothing that happened yesterday changes anything for me.   I've been referencing the expression we're playing with House Money for months and that's the way I feel.    We had everything to gain and nothing to lose.    I kept posting about letting the young players play and learn on the job,  even if it meant some losses.    We did that and we will be a better team for it.    I'm glad we didn't trade for all the big name players around the trade deadline.    I'm not expecting a major trade this off-season either.    Not for Antonio Brown or LeVeon Bell or anyone else.     We might move up or down in the draft to get who we want,  but that's standard for Ballard.    But he's not trading for an expensive player.    Not happening.

 

I'm probably forgetting some things...   over looking some things.    Perhaps what you respond with will trigger some other thoughts.   But I welcome hearing from you.    Even if you want to tell me that I'm full of...   well...   you know.     Bring it!     The 2019 off-season has begun!    Let the fun begin!!

 

Love this, well said.

[Coltsman1788]

On 1/13/2019 at 8:14 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Good post.    And I agree mostly with your thoughts.

 

And we won't keep sitting on $120 Mill.    At worst,  one more year.    The day Ballard made his deal with the Jets to trade down and get three 2nd round picks,  he said to the cameras and microphones that the limited and targeted spending in free agent was NOT going to be a perminent thing.   It's a short time thing.    So, at worst,  it's limited and targeted for one more year.   But I think we will spend at least $10 Mill-plus on a free agent WR.     There are a number we can buy.  I'm convinced Ballard will buy one of them.    We will all know by the end of the first week of free agency.    Those type of contracts go out the first week of FA.    Mid-March.    I'll be disappointed if we don't.

 

To me the free agent WR class seems pretty mediocre. Who is out there that you really like?  Golden Tate is probably the top name out there and that doesn’t really excite me.  We can probably find the receiver we need with one of our first two draft picks. 

 

I’d prefer Ballard spend some of that cap money on bringing in more defensive playmakers.  Imagine adding a bonafide pass rusher like Demarcus Lawrence or even Clowney. 

[Surge89]

On 1/13/2019 at 4:56 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm probably forgetting some things...   over looking some things.    Perhaps what you respond with will trigger some other thoughts.   But I welcome hearing from you.    Even if you want to tell me that I'm full of...   well...   you know.     Bring it!     The 2019 off-season has begun!    Let the fun begin!!

 

 

1. Agreed.

2. Agree somewhat. I'll touch on this later.

3. Disagree. We needed to empower the line and you don't do that by playing into the fact that they are teeing off.  Once luck had a batted pass they should have ran about 4 straight and let luck try and draw them offside.

4. Agreed. Anyone who thinks Reich needs to go is rediculous and full of emotion (of course I was that way too so I understand lol).

5. Yes he was. My goodness was that embarrassing.  I'm not sure I hold the optimism you do as this may be what we deal with from here on out.  But the degradation of the arm was apparent.

6. No. Ballard will stay the course. But don't be shocked if we take a receiver in the first. It will be great value with how the draft is starting to line up.

7. Agreed. I just wish the team looked even remotely like the team I watched this year. Then the game wouldn't have stung so bad.

 

My biggest issue with the game was that our best players on both sides of the ball looked terrible and the team felt it.  The defense started actually playing lights out when Leonard finally settled down which is understandable for him as a rookie but to have luck be the same and at no point did he really recover was severely dissappointing. 

 

Either way I'm excited for the future but cautious on the quality of luck going forward for an entire season. 

[Surge89]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Locked them up is a stretch too far. They had one three and out, and that was a conservatively called drive that started well into the 4th quarter. We were scratching and fighting to get their offense off the field, and could only do that after they gained two or three first downs.

 

We stopped them the entire 3rd quarter...  The defense played great relative to the opponent and did their job the entire second half. That was mostly because Leonard decided to start playing the game instead of running himself out of it. 

 

Literally 3 straight plays were made off Leonard within the first 5 minutes of the game.  The theme continued until the second half where he started playing much more disciplined which in turn made the defense actually work again. 

[NewColtsFan]

47 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

To me the free agent WR class seems pretty mediocre. Who is out there that you really like?  Golden Tate is probably the top name out there and that doesn’t really excite me.  We can probably find the receiver we need with one of our first two draft picks. 

 

I’d prefer Ballard spend some of that cap money on bringing in more defensive playmakers.  Imagine adding a bonafide pass rusher like Demarcus Lawrence or even Clowney. 

 

As far as spending money....

 

I don't believe guys like Lawrence or Clowney or Ansah will make it to FA.    At worst,  their teams will Tag them and that will be that.    Or,  they'll get re-signed to a long-term deal.    I don't think we'll get near them.

 

For WR's...     I'll break it down to two different possibilities....     younger guys with long term potential....    older, classy vets who might agree to a shorter deal for the chance to make a deep run in the playoffs.

 

Young Guys:

 

Tyrell Williams of SD.

Adam Humphries of TB.

Richie Anderson of NYJ.

 

They're all in the mid-20's and will receive deals of $8-10 Mill or more.   As you noted,  this isn't a great group of FA WR's,  so by Law of Supply and Demand, these guys might get more than we think due to a possibly bidding war.

 

Older Guys:

 

Larry Fitzgerald of Ari

Golden Tate of Phi

 

Super high character guys,  who'd be great in the locker room and good on the field.    A pro's pro.  Great leadership while still giving good performance without a big expensive contract.

 

I suspect Ballard would prefer a younger guy,   but if you listen to hs 50 minute post-season presser conference video he gushes about leadership and character in the locker room and how great it was.    I don't think he'll deviate from that.

 

Just some food for thought....

 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, Surge89 said:

We stopped them the entire 3rd quarter...  The defense played great relative to the opponent and did their job the entire second half.

 

That's one way of looking at it.