A Lesson From The Rams

[ManningGM]

On 7/2/2019 at 1:15 AM, Irish YJ said:

The Rams beat KC in the reg season.. 

Yes, the Rams defeated KC before their mojo took a swing in the wrong direction. Thank you for pointing that out. 

[EastStreet]

8 hours ago, ManningGM said:

Yes, the Rams defeated KC before their mojo took a swing in the wrong direction. Thank you for pointing that out. 

In all fairness, both of their mojos suffered late in the season. Hunt got yanked, Gurley got beat up. Neither one broke 100 yards rushing, but both had around 100 all purpose yards.

 

I do remember that game. It's was one of the best offensive games of the year. Mahomes went crazy, but also had 2 or 3 INTs. Both Goff and Mahomes has 400+ yards and near identical QBRs. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

To me the Rams didn't look right the last 4 games of the season. They were a machine the 1st 3 qtrs of the season and almost unbeatable. It seems like I am bashing the Rams a bit in here but in reality I am just going by what I seen the last part of the season and in the SB. Something wasn't right with their offense. Perhaps Gurley being dinged up had a big part to why they struggled. It may be irrelevant but they actually should not of beat the Saints either. The REFS totally did the Saints in.

[ManningGM]

45 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To me the Rams didn't look right the last 4 games of the season. They were a machine the 1st 3 qtrs of the season and almost unbeatable. It seems like I am bashing the Rams a bit in here but in reality I am just going by what I seen the last part of the season and in the SB. Something wasn't right with their offense. Perhaps Gurley being dinged up had a big part to why they struggled. It may be irrelevant but they actually should not of beat the Saints either. The REFS totally did the Saints in.

The Cooper Kupp injury did something to them

[Superman]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To me the Rams didn't look right the last 4 games of the season. They were a machine the 1st 3 qtrs of the season and almost unbeatable. It seems like I am bashing the Rams a bit in here but in reality I am just going by what I seen the last part of the season and in the SB. Something wasn't right with their offense. Perhaps Gurley being dinged up had a big part to why they struggled. It may be irrelevant but they actually should not of beat the Saints either. The REFS totally did the Saints in.

 

I agree that they fell off some, and I agree that the Saints got robbed (although it's not like the Rams weren't in the game or didn't measure up to the challenge). I still think there was a gap between the Rams and the Colts.

 

I said for most of the second half of the season that the Colts weren't as good as other playoff teams, and I still believe that. I think they were overrated due to the win streak, the sack streak, the good defensive stats, etc. But that was mostly the product of a favorable schedule and good playcalling, not an indicator that the Colts had arrived as a true contender.

 

Meanwhile, in the second half of the season and in the playoffs, excluding the SB, the Rams went 7-3, averaged 32 points/game, and won two playoff games. Around the same time they were putting up an ugly game against the Bears, the Colts were getting shut out by the Jags. Gurley got hurt, Kupp was hurt, Goff started to struggle, etc. And they still went to the SB, with the defense playing a whale of a game. 

 

We'll see what happens next year. I'm excited for the Colts, but they still have a lot to prove.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I agree that they fell off some, and I agree that the Saints got robbed (although it's not like the Rams weren't in the game or didn't measure up to the challenge). I still think there was a gap between the Rams and the Colts.

 

I said for most of the second half of the season that the Colts weren't as good as other playoff teams, and I still believe that. I think they were overrated due to the win streak, the sack streak, the good defensive stats, etc. But that was mostly the product of a favorable schedule and good playcalling, not an indicator that the Colts had arrived as a true contender.

 

Meanwhile, in the second half of the season and in the playoffs, excluding the SB, the Rams went 7-3, averaged 32 points/game, and won two playoff games. Around the same time they were putting up an ugly game against the Bears, the Colts were getting shut out by the Jags. Gurley got hurt, Kupp was hurt, Goff started to struggle, etc. And they still went to the SB, with the defense playing a whale of a game. 

 

We'll see what happens next year. I'm excited for the Colts, but they still have a lot to prove.

To switch off topic just for 1 post, opening day will show me a lot where we stand. Playing at the Chargers will be tough. If we win that we will look real promising. If we lose that game it won't be the end of the world. I would still have us going 11-5 or so but winning a game at LAC would be impressive.

[Superman]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To switch off topic just for 1 post, opening day will show me a lot where we stand. Playing at the Chargers will be tough. If we win that we will look real promising. If we lose that game it won't be the end of the world. I would still have us going 11-5 or so but winning a game at LAC would be impressive.

 

I intend to go to that game. I hope it's a great opener. 

[VaAllDay757]

It didn't help that they kept running the same plays also they never switched their gameplan

[Peterk2011]

On 7/3/2019 at 1:43 AM, NewColtsFan said:

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.  

 

Not only Gurley, but they also missed Cooper Kupp, etc. So they were missing pieces.

 

Anyway, the Rams and the Colts were in a very-very different situation. The Rams actually had a pretty good core of a roster, and a freshly drafted young QB. The Colts had a depleted roster, and an elite QB coming back from a serious injury. What the Rams did is not sustainable. Bringing all those quote on quote star players in, is not a sustainable way of building a team. It can boost the team for 1-2 years, but then they need to pay their QB, and probably cut some of those veterans - and swallow a nice big DM -, because most likely a few of them will be on downhill in 1-2 years. But still, it made all sense for the Rams, because 1. they could patch all holes in their roster and immediately become contenders, 2. they have a tough decision to make soon regarding their franchise QB, because he does not seem to be in that "elite" category, who is a no brainer to resign. So they could build the team for the short term, and deal with the rest in 2-3 years.

 

The Colts in the other hand, had a roster of more holes than NFL caliber starters. But, they had a QB who - if healthy - they can expect an elite production from, for possibly, another decade. So it worth to build a team around him, for the long term. So, for the Colts, it didn't make any sense to go all-in in one year. It wouldn't have made them contenders in year 1, but could ruin their long term future regarding cap management .... and also regarding developing young players, who could not get on field if there's a veteran playing. For the Colts, it made more sense to build through the draft. That's the way to build a team - and keep it together - for the long term.

[ManningGM]

On 7/4/2019 at 6:57 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To switch off topic just for 1 post, opening day will show me a lot where we stand. Playing at the Chargers will be tough. If we win that we will look real promising. If we lose that game it won't be the end of the world. I would still have us going 11-5 or so but winning a game at LAC would be impressive.

Game of the week right there and possibly an AFCCG preview. 

 

Although I have us and New England battling it out when it's all said and done. 

[CoachLite]

With the Colts injuries against KC, it exposed our weakness - the performance difference between our starters and 2nd / 3rd string players. Even the starters that played were banged up and performance suffered. What seems to be different today is that there is more talent, potential and (hopefully) performance to be found in our depth players. Provided we don't over-play our starters day in and day out throughout the season, and develop our depth, this year should be different.

[pacolts56]

9 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

With the Colts injuries against KC, it exposed our weakness - the performance difference between our starters and 2nd / 3rd string players. Even the starters that played were banged up and performance suffered. What seems to be different today is that there is more talent, potential and (hopefully) performance to be found in our depth players. Provided we don't over-play our starters day in and day out throughout the season, and develop our depth, this year should be different.

Good observation.... and as Ballard continues to fortify the roster with players well suited and developed for Reich's and Eberflus' rotations and scheme diversity.... it should correct that weakness.

 

 

[Nesjan3]

The Rams didnt even belong in the SB, they lost to the Saints

[Introspect]

On 7/2/2019 at 9:50 AM, 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. 

 

You have good points...

Anaolgy: Your ex-wife was great at the time.... But when you get a new wife your ex was evil incarnate.. lol

 

Makes a person think... I thought Grigson and Pagano were garbage but I see your points!

[dpalinsk]

On 7/4/2019 at 11:34 AM, Superman said:

 

I intend to go to that game. I hope it's a great opener. 

We’re planning on going to the Colts/Charger game too!  Are you wearing Colts gear?  We wore our Colts gear to the Colts/Chargers playoff game at QualComm back in 2009 and that was a mistake.  Had no idea Charger fans were almost as bad as Raider fans!