A Lesson From The Rams

[Shadow_Creek]

When i first saw the rams roster after free agency i was highly impressed with all there quote on quote All stars they had acquired on pretty much all of there positions. You had a star free Agent WR and a star DT to go along with there other star plus not one but two Corners stars which made there backfield quite fearsome. Now fast forward to the Superbowl and a team which was suppose to have all the talent on there side only put up 3 points?? i mean how strange is that folks? My point is simply this after watching how the rams had there meltdown it only made me like what Ballard's doing with this team even more. Hes building this team the way that it should be built through the draft with a free agent here and there No big names just agents that can come in and create some good ol competition. I can definitely see some good things happening this year with our current roster.

 

Go Colts!!

[wig]

You're using a team that just played in the SB for what not to do, while using a team that was dominated in the division round as what to do? 

 

 

[EastStreet]

The Rams also held NE to 13 pts in the SB... Gurley was not the same late in the year. 

In short, the lesson to learn from the Rams is not to overwork your superstar. Defensively they were much more than adequate. I love Ballard, but not sure we need what is basically another * for Ballard thread.

[2006Coltsbestever]

17 minutes ago, wig said:

You're using a team that just played in the SB for what not to do, while using a team that was dominated in the division round as what to do? 

 

 

He did but the AFC is better. Pats or Chiefs win the SB no matter who they play. Chiefs would of beat the Rams. What I hate is when people point out when Peyton won his SB that he beat Rex Grossman and the Bears. If people would care to look we also beat a tough AFC in the Ravens and beat Tom Brady and the Pats. It's the whole pic, not just one game.

[EastStreet]

24 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He did but the AFC is better. Pats or Chiefs win the SB no matter who they play. Chiefs would of beat the Rams. What I hate is when people point out when Peyton won his SB that he beat Rex Grossman and the Bears. If people would care to look we also beat a tough AFC in the Ravens and beat Tom Brady and the Pats. It's the whole pic, not just one game.

The Rams beat KC in the reg season.. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

The Rams beat KC in the reg season.. 

It wouldn't of happened in SB IMO. Rams looked out of gas against the Pats and Gurley was playing injured. Mahomes would've put 30 on them.

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It wouldn't of happened in SB IMO. Rams looked out of gas against the Pats and Gurley was playing injured. Mahomes would've put 30 on them.

 

I don't know. In the Ram's win, they only rushed for 76 yards, and no RB had a TD. Goff ran for a TD and threw for 4 more IIRC.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

 

I don't know. In the Ram's win, they only rushed for 76 yards, and no RB had a TD. Goff ran for a TD and threw for 4 more IIRC.

Goff looked shaky in the SB. I would've put my money on the Chiefs in that game.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Goff was doing this in the SB  At least Grossman took chances against us in 06/07, Goff played scared.

[twfish]

You must have missed the Grigson era Colts to learn this lesson

[aaron11]

gurley was hurt.  not sure he would have won the game for them but it probably would have changed the score board

[Mitch Connors]

52 minutes ago, twfish said:

You must have missed the Grigson era Colts to learn this lesson

 

Which part did we miss?

1. Getting to an AFC Championship game?

2. No losing seasons in 5 years?

3. Three years of playoffs, winning more games each year (WC, division, AFC title game)?

4. Taking over a team with the #1 overall pick (the worst team in the league)?

5. Turning over almost the entire roster and winning 11 games in year 1?

6. By all accounts stuck with a coach he wasn't allowed to fire even though he ran the most predictable offense in the league (ill find the article if you want to read it)?

 

I get it. Everyone loves Ballard and I like what hes done so far but lets not act like Grigson burned Indy to the ground. 

[GoColtsWin]

9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He did but the AFC is better. Pats or Chiefs win the SB no matter who they play. Chiefs would of beat the Rams. What I hate is when people point out when Peyton won his SB that he beat Rex Grossman and the Bears. If people would care to look we also beat a tough AFC in the Ravens and beat Tom Brady and the Pats. It's the whole pic, not just one game.

Not to mention, the Bears defense was rolling teams all season! They dominated nearly every team they played, and yet that is usually never talked about. Reality hurts the narrative I guess. 

[dodsworth]

16 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Which part did we miss?

1. Getting to an AFC Championship game?

2. No losing seasons in 5 years?

3. Three years of playoffs, winning more games each year (WC, division, AFC title game)?

4. Taking over a team with the #1 overall pick (the worst team in the league)?

5. Turning over almost the entire roster and winning 11 games in year 1?

6. By all accounts stuck with a coach he wasn't allowed to fire even though he ran the most predictable offense in the league (ill find the article if you want to read it)?

 

I get it. Everyone loves Ballard and I like what hes done so far but lets not act like Grigson burned Indy to the ground. 

He may have not burned Indy to the ground but the fire was definitely 

burning pretty hot toward the end.

 

Grigson would have another GM job by now if he wasn't incompetent.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

35 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

I get it. Everyone loves Ballard and I like what hes done so far but lets not act like Grigson burned Indy to the ground. 

 

Well if Grigson didn't burn Indy to the ground, it sure wasn't from lack of trying. 6 years of draft picks, 0 All-Pros, & on 1 (debatably) defensive player that actually made an impact. We had a nonexistent rushing attack, & he almost singlehandedly ruined Luck's career by failing to put together some semblance of an offensive line. On top of all that, he's responsible for Deflategate, which was maybe the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to this organization & the fanbase, & it came on the heels of a 45-7 curbstomping against New England, which only made it worse. The (3) 11-5 seasons were fun, but at the end of the day, they were nothing more than fool's gold.

[aaron11]

9 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Well if Grigson didn't burn Indy to the ground, it sure wasn't from lack of trying. 6 years of draft picks, 0 All-Pros, & on 1 (debatably) defensive player that actually made an impact. We had a nonexistent rushing attack, & he almost singlehandedly ruined Luck's career by failing to put together some semblance of an offensive line. On top of all that, he's responsible for Deflategate, which was maybe the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to this organization & the fanbase, & it came on the heels of a 45-7 curbstomping against New England, which only made it worse. The (3) 11-5 seasons were fun, but at the end of the day, they were nothing more than fool's gold.

i think thats exaggerated, but he does deserve some blame for the Oline. remember though, he drafted kelly, mewhort and thornton.  mewhort and thornton were good guards that couldnt stay healthy

 

he drafted a decent running back too that also got hurt and it ended his career.  we still have not hit top 20 in rushing with ballard either.  Grigson was also hamstrung with a questionable coaching staff that he didnt pick 

 

[twfish]

50 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Which part did we miss?

1. Getting to an AFC Championship game?

2. No losing seasons in 5 years?

3. Three years of playoffs, winning more games each year (WC, division, AFC title game)?

4. Taking over a team with the #1 overall pick (the worst team in the league)?

5. Turning over almost the entire roster and winning 11 games in year 1?

6. By all accounts stuck with a coach he wasn't allowed to fire even though he ran the most predictable offense in the league (ill find the article if you want to read it)?

 

I get it. Everyone loves Ballard and I like what hes done so far but lets not act like Grigson burned Indy to the ground. 

There is a reason this team had fallen apart and we are now in year 3 of a rebuild and there are only 5 players from Grigsons time. This team was only a shell with former superstars while any drafted talent was set back in depth roles and never got true opportunities to play. Trading back for T.J Green when Cody Whitehair was there still chaps me. To your Number 6 In Grigsons time frame he had gone through 3 very different Offensive Coordinators, ya know the person who calls the offensive plays, dont get me wrong I wanted Chuck gone first but the offensive play calling isnt all on him.

[aaron11]

Chuck said he begged for TJ green

[Superman]

There's nothing wrong with the way the Rams built their team. They didn't lose in the SB due to any roster flaws or any deficiency in their team building approach. They lost primarily because they were outcoached, secondarily because two of their best and most important players weren't healthy (Gurley) or played like trash (Goff). They spent a bunch of resources bolstering their defense last year, and that defense played lights out in the SB.

 

The lesson to learn from the Rams losing the SB is that Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.

[coltsva]

48 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

On top of all that, he's responsible for Deflategate, which was maybe the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to this organization & the fanbase, 

I’d rank it as #2 all time. Pretty sure I don’t even have to name #1.

[Shadow_Creek]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

There's nothing wrong with the way the Rams built their team. They didn't lose in the SB due to any roster flaws or any deficiency in their team building approach. They lost primarily because they were outcoached, secondarily because two of their best and most important players weren't healthy (Gurley) or played like trash (Goff). They spent a bunch of resources bolstering their defense last year, and that defense played lights out in the SB.

 

The lesson to learn from the Rams losing the SB is that Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.

My point wasn't about how the rams built there team or how they lost the Superbowl. What i'm trying to say is for the ones that complain each year that we should add top tier free agents to the roster look at were that got the rams in the Superbowl only 3 points. Which goes to show you that even with top free agents decorated on the team doesn't exactly mean your gonna win it all. However your salary cap at the end of the day will be another story

[Flash7]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

My point wasn't about how the rams built there team or how they lost the Superbowl. What i'm trying to say is for the ones that complain each year that we should add top tier free agents to the roster look at were that got the rams in the Superbowl only 3 points. Which goes to show you that even with top free agents decorated on the team doesn't exactly mean your gonna win it all. However your salary cap at the end of the day will be another story

I don't think the argument is that if you add top level talent to your team, you are going to win it all.

 

The argument is: If you add top level talent, you will have a better chance to win it all, as illustrated by the Rams gong to the Super Bowl. Being in the Super Bowl gives you the greatest chance to win it all. Can't do it without getting in the big game.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

My point wasn't about how the rams built there team or how they lost the Superbowl. What i'm trying to say is for the ones that complain each year that we should add top tier free agents to the roster look at were that got the rams in the Superbowl only 3 points. Which goes to show you that even with top free agents decorated on the team doesn't exactly mean your gonna win it all. However your salary cap at the end of the day will be another story

 

There are no guarantees. Some don't get that, and for the most part, people who can't accept that fact are kind of lost causes. There's always a bunch of "sign these guys and we'll go to the SB!" every February/March. No one ever goes back to review their projections and see just how wrong they were.

 

But I don't see the Rams as any kind of cautionary tale. Just because you lose the SB doesn't mean you didn't have a good team, and that's all I want the Colts to aspire to. Build a strong roster, develop talented players, coach them well and execute quality gameplans (I think the Rams' offensive game plan in the SB was dreadful), and I think sustained success is a byproduct. Getting to the SB is a measure of success in itself; whether the Rams can sustain success remains to be seen.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

On top of all that, he's responsible for Deflategate, which was maybe the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to this organization & the fanbase

 

I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't see Deflategate as a mark against the Colts. It's a mark against the Pats (Brady may or may not have been directly involved, but their equipment guys were tampering with balls, and it was something that went on for a while), and against the NFL. The Colts reported a violation. It's not their fault the Pats were cheating, or that the NFL handled it so poorly.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

There's nothing wrong with the way the Rams built their team. They didn't lose in the SB due to any roster flaws or any deficiency in their team building approach. They lost primarily because they were outcoached, secondarily because two of their best and most important players weren't healthy (Gurley) or played like trash (Goff). They spent a bunch of resources bolstering their defense last year, and that defense played lights out in the SB.

 

The lesson to learn from the Rams losing the SB is that Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.

 

 His 6 - 1 defense was Awesome. The pressure he created up the middle with his LB's was Brilliant. Kudos.

[coltsva]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't see Deflategate as a mark against the Colts. It's a mark against the Pats (Brady may or may not have been directly involved, but their equipment guys were tampering with balls, and it was something that went on for a while), and against the NFL. The Colts reported a violation. It's not their fault the Pats were cheating, or that the NFL handled it so poorly.

The Colts were in a tough spot. The Pats were cheating and getting away with it. The only way to get a legit investigation was to report it while it was happening or immediately thereafter. But that makes it look like it's an excuse for why you lost. We all know the cheating had no bearing on the outcome...in this instance. But maybe it could have the week before in the Baltimore game.

 

If the Colts wait and report it weeks or months later, then you've probably blown all chance at having a legit investigation. Of course, if they waited all we would have heard is "if it were true, why didn't the Colts report it right away?"

 

The Colts did the right thing and have nothing to be embarrassed about (other than the score of the game).

[TonyBungee]

I know it's water under the bridge, but the Rams didn't deserve to be in that SB.  Everyone knows the Saints were screwed, but really we were all robbed of either Brees vs. Brady or Brees vs. Mahomes.  Either way, it would've made for a much better game.  JMO.

[Mitch Connors]

 

 

3 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Well if Grigson didn't burn Indy to the ground, it sure wasn't from lack of trying. 6 years of draft picks, 0 All-Pros, & on 1 (debatably) defensive player that actually made an impact. We had a nonexistent rushing attack, & he almost singlehandedly ruined Luck's career by failing to put together some semblance of an offensive line. On top of all that, he's responsible for Deflategate, which was maybe the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to this organization & the fanbase, & it came on the heels of a 45-7 curbstomping against New England, which only made it worse. The (3) 11-5 seasons were fun, but at the end of the day, they were nothing more than fool's gold.

In the end the only thing that matters in this league is wins and ultimately playoff wins. If wins arent the measuring stick than what is? You'd rather lose with "better players/roster", than win with "worse players/roster"? Not me, Ill take the wins 100% of the time.

 

[shasta519]

The LAR as a cautionary tale...LOL. They just went to the Super Bowl. 

 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

The LAR as a cautionary tale...LOL. They just went to the Super Bowl. 

 

But they lost, so it doesn't count. /s

[shasta519]

Just now, Superman said:

 

But they lost, so it doesn't count. /s

 

I seem to remember DEN putting up single digit points against SEA. Talk about cautionary tales.

[shasta519]

16 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

The Rams also held NE to 13 pts in the SB... Gurley was not the same late in the year. 

In short, the lesson to learn from the Rams is not to overwork your superstar. Defensively they were much more than adequate. I love Ballard, but not sure we need what is basically another * for Ballard thread.

 

Haha...I wonder what that word was. 

 

The LAR have drafted 27 players the last three years...the Colts have drafted 29. So it's not like they just stopped building through the draft...they just more creative in how they allocated those resources. And let's not forget...they basically had to trade the 2016 draft for Goff.

[NewColtsFan]

17 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

When i first saw the rams roster after free agency i was highly impressed with all there quote on quote All stars they had acquired on pretty much all of there positions. You had a star free Agent WR and a star DT to go along with there other star plus not one but two Corners stars which made there backfield quite fearsome. Now fast forward to the Superbowl and a team which was suppose to have all the talent on there side only put up 3 points?? i mean how strange is that folks? My point is simply this after watching how the rams had there meltdown it only made me like what Ballard's doing with this team even more. Hes building this team the way that it should be built through the draft with a free agent here and there No big names just agents that can come in and create some good ol competition. I can definitely see some good things happening this year with our current roster.

 

Go Colts!!

 

Remember...   we had our own offensive meltdown against Kansas City...    don’t see why we get a pass while the Rams get dinged...?   

[Superman]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Remember...   we had our own offensive meltdown against Kansas City...    don’t see why we get a pass while the Rams get dinged...?   

 

[NewColtsFan]

By the way....    speaking of the Rams....  they were dealing with whatever the problem was with Todd Gurley.   He’s a much bigger part of their offense and they clearly struggled mightily without him.   That’s why the Rams invested in RBs this off season.   They don’t want history to repeat itself.  

[EastStreet]

7 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Haha...I wonder what that word was. 

 

The LAR have drafted 27 players the last three years...the Colts have drafted 29. So it's not like they just stopped building through the draft...they just more creative in how they allocated those resources. And let's not forget...they basically had to trade the 2016 draft for Goff.

 

not sure why it was deleted lol. it was't a cuss word. it was a round object jerk .... 

 

yup, Rams are still building, but they haven't had a 1st round pick in 3 years, and only 2 second rounders in those 3 as well. they did take a RB with their 2nd pick this year though to help keep Gurley healthy.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Rams are a very good team but they would've never been in the SB if they were in the AFC. Does anyone think they would've beat the Pats? They didn't in the SB. Colts are on their level, the Colts just play in the better conference. Colts also have the better QB.

[Superman]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They didn't in the SB. Colts are on their level, the Colts just play in the better conference.

 

 

The Rams were a much better team than the Colts last season. The Rams would have dominated the Colts head to head pretty much any week of the season last year. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

The Rams were a much better team than the Colts last season. The Rams would have dominated the Colts head to head pretty much any week of the season last year. 

I disagree. For 3 Qtrs of the season they looked like a great team and yes they were better than us then/that stretch. At the end of the season the Colts were rolling. We lost at KC who would've smoked the Rams in the SB. People can say the Rams beat KC in the regular season, not the same and that was when the Rams were rolling and that game was at LA. The Refs cheated for them in the NFC Title Game and everyone knows it, secondly they scored 3 points in the SB. 3 points is the worse output of any team in the history of SB teams in NFL history. Saints should've been in the SB. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I disagree. For 3 Qtrs of the season they looked like a great team and yes they were better than us then/that stretch. At the end of the season the Colts were rolling. We lost at KC who would've smoked the Rams in the SB. People can say the Rams beat KC in the regular season, not the same and that was when the Rams were rolling and that game was at LA. The Refs cheated for them in the NFC Title Game and everyone knows it, secondly they scored 3 points in the SB. 3 points is the worse output of any team in the history of SB teams in NFL history. Saints should've been in the SB. 

 

Whether they should have been in the SB, or whether they would have beat the Chiefs in a rematch, those aren't the question. The question is whether they were better than the Colts. Maybe we could have caught them on a down week, or with Gurley hobbled, but they were the better team, and they played better all season.

 

The Colts had a strong stretch and a strong finish, but we played mediocre teams with mediocre QBs (and I'm being generous), and we struggled with some of them. We got shut out by Jacksonville, played not great against the Dolphins and Giants, etc. It was not surprising to beat the Texans, but when we played an actual contending team, we were dominated from wire to wire.

 

The Colts were a mid tier team last year, the Rams were a top tier team. They had a better offense and a better defense, a significantly better record against a tougher schedule, and they played better against common opponents (especially AFC opponents that dominated the Colts). Saying we're on their level is a misrepresentation, at best.