Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Elite Coach, Elite QB and/or Elite D


TrueBlue4ever
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:


Yeah, these are very good points. Finding an elite QB is a challenge, but building and keeping an elite defense is equally as big a challenge.

It's an important argument to make when sometimes it seems like it's assumed that Ballard is going to build this defensive monster and be able to sustain it. First, we still need some stud DL/pass rush, which are gonna be hard enough to find in their own right (especially if we're drafting in the in the mid 1st round or later), our young guys have to develop which isn't automatic, we have to stay healthy, and then lastly...arguably the hardest part...Ballard has to keep them together.

 

And to the bolded, you just can't. That's the point of free agency and the salary cap. And it's not just on defense, it applies to a great OL, it applies to a WR corps, etc. And even without the cap, this same challenge applies to a great coaching staff. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, coltsva said:

Speaking of Kermit the Frog, have you seen those Seahawks uniforms tonight?

Yes I think that is actually what made me say that. 

 

14 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Same with Flacco on his run -- but his D carried him there and it makes it a lot easier to play well at QB in high pressure games when you aren't carrying the team by yourself (e.g., Manning threw several forced INTs in big games, knowing he basically had to put points on the board every drive due to our D not being able to stop the opponent... Peyton also had a hard time in big games for the early part of his career, so maybe something about Foles' and Flacco's calm demeanors helped them as well, but undoubtedly going into a game as a QB knowing you've got a good supporting cast in all 3 phases helps). 

 

 

See above response, and you're right -- that Flacco playoff/SB run was one of the best in NFL history (I think he threw 11 TDs and 0 INTs in that span).  He did have a somewhat lucky deep ball against Denver to get past the Broncos at the end of the game, but otherwise he played very well.  I would argue, as above, it is a lot easier to play with composure and relaxation though when you know you've got a full team around you to back you up and you don't have to force things -- both Foles and Flacco were in that situation (as was Peyton when he won with the Broncos as basically a gimp, as was Dilfer when he won with Baltimore, etc. etc.).

 

As far as the Giants go, there were only 2 teams in the NFL in the year they won the first SB who could disrupt Brady without blitzing (the Colts except Freeney went down in week 17, and the Giants).  With Strahan, Justin Tuck and Osi Umeniyora they at least had an elite DL and they had the formula to beat Brady (i.e., hit him with your front 4 and keep everyone else in coverage -- they did just that and they were excellent in the post-season even though they got off to a slow start early in the year).  Their second SB over the Pats they had Tuck, Umeniyora and JPP, again probably one of the best DLs in football and a DL built to hit Brady without blitzing.

I think you could even make the case that the 2006 Colts defense was elite, when healthy. With a healthy Bob Sanders along with Freeney & Mathis, they played lights out. In the 06 run, if you eliminate the Pat's game, they only gave up 24 points in the other 3 games, combined. Including the Pats game (They scored 27 on offense and got a defensive TD), they still only gave up 51 in 4 games. 

 

Our defense carried us to that title. Manning didnt play very well outside of the 2nd half of the AFCC. 

 

There is a difference between the regular season and the playoffs, and defense is the best way to win, in the post season. QBs are great, but too many things have to be in synch for them to operate at peak efficiency. And that only gets harder in the playoffs. You have to play great defense, even with an elite QB, to win. Because at some point, they will be held in check, and you're gonna have to win defensively anyway.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

Yes -- I think us going 2-14 without Peyton (when experts were predicting us to be SB contenders winning 12+ games) is a perfect example....

 

Same with Luck missing a full year, we went 4-12 and were exposed as a very bad football team

 

Just to speak to this, the reason we didn't win a respectable amount of games without Peyton and Luck is because the rest of the roster wasn't good. And if you look at the 2008-2010 drafts, or the 2013-2016 drafts, it becomes obvious why the roster wasn't good.

 

And then when you ask why those teams couldn't beat good teams in the playoffs, while acknowledging that we had good QBs carrying subpar rosters, it should become obvious how important it is to draft well consistently. With or without a highly paid QB, you have to stack good drafts to build a good, balanced roster.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Superman said:

And to the bolded, you just can't. That's the point of free agency and the salary cap. And it's not just on defense, it applies to a great OL, it applies to a WR corps, etc. And even without the cap, this same challenge applies to a great coaching staff. 

 

True.  I've noticed that BB continually lets any player/coach go in FA to play for other teams (except Brady, but I think Brady is afraid to play for anyone but BB).  He seems to try and hang on to his best DBs, while he seems to let his best pass rusher leave every year, and still keeps his defenses in the top-10...

 

Maybe the QB/Defense argument is a wash, and the real key is having that Elite HC that can put it all together and make it work year-in and year-out.  I mean, I have yet to see anyone choose Elite QB and Elite Defense.  :thinking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

I mean, I have yet to see anyone choose Elite QB and Elite Defense.  :thinking:

 i cant think of many times that its happened.  maybe the 49ers, elite QB and very good defense.  patriots could be in the discussion but they had the coach too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

But look at the Ravens and Steelers.  They continually invest highly in their defenses and have had winning D for years, going on decades.

the ravens won a single super bowl with an elite D.  the steelers did it more, but that was the 70s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Bradshaw + Steel Curtain

Aikman + Cowboys defense with Deion Sanders

Brady + BB defenses

Manning + Broncos defense with Von Miller

i would argue most of  those dont quite fit the bill.  bradshaw wasnt that great

 

cowboys had a good defense.  manning wasnt elite when denver won

 

you could make a case for the patriots, would have to look at every year they won since they change a lot

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The Ravens and Steelers have each done it twice in the last 20 years...

but not with elite defenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

True.  I've noticed that BB continually lets any player/coach go in FA to play for other teams (except Brady, but I think Brady is afraid to play for anyone but BB).  He seems to try and hang on to his best DBs, while he seems to let his best pass rusher leave every year, and still keeps his defenses in the top-10...

 

Maybe the QB/Defense argument is a wash, and the real key is having that Elite HC that can put it all together and make it work year-in and year-out.  I mean, I have yet to see anyone choose Elite QB and Elite Defense.  :thinking:

 

Truth is, it takes a good balance of the three. Without drawing a hard line on "elite," we have to go back a long way to find a SB team that didn't feature good QBing in the playoffs, good defense in the playoffs, and good coaching. The last 'meh' QB to win a SB is Flacco, but he was outstanding in the playoffs.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

but not with elite defenses

 

Those were absolutely elite defenses.

 

The Ravens and Steelers have been known for their elite defenses for the last 20 years with players like Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Troy Polumalu, James Harrison, etc. while leading most significant defensive statistical categories on a yearly basis...

 

How are you defining "elite"?

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

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

Truth is, it takes a good balance of the three. Without drawing a hard line on "elite," we have to go back a long way to find a SB team that didn't feature good QBing in the playoffs, good defense in the playoffs, and good coaching. The last 'meh' QB to win a SB is Flacco, but he was outstanding in the playoffs.  

 

Yeah, I pointed out in a previous thread a long time ago that usually a HOF QB had a HOF HC.

 

But the ol saying that defense wins championships still holds water, so no HOF SB-winning QB/HC would have their rings/gold jackets without their defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

 i cant think of many times that its happened.  maybe the 49ers, elite QB and very good defense.  patriots could be in the discussion but they had the coach too

 

Before the salary cap era...it was definitely possible if you had a team that raked in cash and were willing to reinvest it back into the team.

 

But not now. You have to pay them...and no one drafts well enough to bring 3-4 components of an elite D or O every year...just not possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

But not now. You have to pay them...and no one drafts well enough to bring 3-4 components of an elite D or O every year...just not possible.

 

It is possible, it just takes a lot of home cookin.  Which comes back to elite coaching.

 

Gotta have late-round picks and UDFAs get coached up and turn into studs.

 

Nobody just walks in as a rookie and makes their unit elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aaron11 said:

defenses get old fast, look at seattle now.  they are still a good team but the super bowl winning D is long gone.  

I feel like they probably aged at the same rate as everyone else. 

 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Just to speak to this, the reason we didn't win a respectable amount of games without Peyton and Luck is because the rest of the roster wasn't good. And if you look at the 2008-2010 drafts, or the 2013-2016 drafts, it becomes obvious why the roster wasn't good.

 

And then when you ask why those teams couldn't beat good teams in the playoffs, while acknowledging that we had good QBs carrying subpar rosters, it should become obvious how important it is to draft well consistently. With or without a highly paid QB, you have to stack good drafts to build a good, balanced roster.

 

I feel like the OP was more about general philosophy tho. Which one is superior? Like how do you go about building it? The ultimate goal is the same regardless, to build that perfect team. But, if you have an elite QB already, you are more likely to value a WR in round 1, where as a defensive minded org is more likely to take the CB. That type of thing. It makes it much, much harder to build that defense once you get the franchise QB. The teams that manage to do both typically build the defense first and then target a game manager type of QB to develop and bring along slowly. Wilson, Roethlisberger, Brady......then they develop and you have it all. Tampa found Brad Johnson. Baltimore found Dilfer, then Flacco.

 

For example, I feel like the Colts roster being in the shape it was in, was clearly related to that offensive minded philosophy, and that penchant for valuing skill guys over defensive players that couldnt rush the passer. The misses like Tony Ugoh (huge reach), Anthony Gonzalez (when we had the best WR duo in the league already), Donald Brown (we had a good starter in Joseph Addai, and RBs are easy to find) Jerry Hughes (we had the best DE tandem in the league at the time).......basically, they screwed up taking "BPA" picks and ignored their needs. And every single pick was made with Manning in mind.

 

The thing all those picks have in common was that they all tied into our overall philosophy of relying on Manning to score early and often, and then frontrun our way to victory, relying solely on our pass rush to help us maintain a hypothetical lead we didnt always have. We never wanted to build a great defense that could excel in every situatio .

 

If we built Peyton that great defense instead, which we were so close to anyways as we already had the pass rush, he wins many more titles, IMO. He would've maximized the talent on offense and allowed us to get away with mid round picks at the skill positions, much easier than he would've ever carried us with 1st round picks at those same positions. We put it all on him, which is why he failed so often. It was never his fault, it was a flaw in our philosophy. He shouldn't have had to put up 30+ for us to have a chance and the offense should have been ran with objectives like winning the TOP in mind, instead of "we have to score, and score often". That's too much to ask of one guy. Which is why I dont like the one man show approach. It's a shortcut that doesnt really exist, in reality at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Give me Peyton for 15 years and I will take my chances. I will win at least 1 or 2 SB's as proven and win 75% of my games to keep everyone happy.

 

Not sure Brady would win more than a couple of SB's without BB. I give him 2 with a good coach. BB is the GOAT.

He wouldn't win any.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I feel like the OP was more about general philosophy tho. Which one is superior? Like how do you go about building it? The ultimate goal is the same regardless, to build that perfect team. But, if you have an elite QB already, you are more likely to value a WR in round 1, where as a defensive minded org is more likely to take the CB. That type of thing. It makes it much, much harder to build that defense once you get the franchise QB. The teams that manage to do both typically build the defense first and then target a game manager type of QB to develop and bring along slowly. Wilson, Roethlisberger, Brady......then they develop and you have it all. Tampa found Brad Johnson. Baltimore found Dilfer, then Flacco.

 

For example, I feel like the Colts roster being in the shape it was in, was clearly related to that offensive minded philosophy, and that penchant for valuing skill guys over defensive players that couldnt rush the passer. The misses like Tony Ugoh (huge reach), Anthony Gonzalez (when we had the best WR duo in the league already), Donald Brown (we had a good starter in Joseph Addai, and RBs are easy to find) Jerry Hughes (we had the best DE tandem in the league at the time).......basically, they screwed up taking "BPA" picks and ignored their needs. And every single pick was made with Manning in mind.

 

The thing all those picks have in common was that they all tied into our overall philosophy of relying on Manning to score early and often, and then frontrun our way to victory, relying solely on our pass rush to help us maintain a hypothetical lead we didnt always have. We never wanted to build a great defense that could excel in every situatio .

 

If we built Peyton that great defense instead, which we were so close to anyways as we already had the pass rush, he wins many more titles, IMO. He would've maximized the talent on offense and allowed us to get away with mid round picks at the skill positions, much easier than he would've ever carried us with 1st round picks at those same positions. We put it all on him, which is why he failed so often. It was never his fault, it was a flaw in our philosophy. He shouldn't have had to put up 30+ for us to have a chance and the offense should have been ran with objectives like winning the TOP in mind, instead of "we have to score, and score often". That's too much to ask of one guy. Which is why I dont like the one man show approach. It's a shortcut that doesnt really exist, in reality at least. 

 

I'm not endorsing the strategy that was employed by Polian. I don't think BPA was the problem, I think a failure to value certain positions (MLB, DT) and a failure to properly evaluate others (OL) was more of the problem. Polian placed a lot of value on players who scored TDs, sacked the QB, and took the ball away. He also struggled to draft OL. 

 

None of this means that the Colts were hamstrung by having a highly paid QB. If they restricted themselves to drafting WRs and RBs rather than DT and OL in the first round, that's a bad strategy. It's not something that was forced upon them because they had PM.

 

And I don't think there's anything that prevents a team with a good QB from drafting well on both sides of the ball, and building a balanced roster. Once you add in Luck's dead money, the Colts are top three in QB spending in 2019. We have more cap space than any other team in the league, and will have $100m next year. Having a highly paid QB isn't preventing us from having a good roster. Drafting poorly for five years in a row, then switching defensive schemes and purging incompatible players in 2018 are more legitimate reasons we don't have a good roster.

 

You're equating having an elite QB with running a one man show, and I don't think that's the right way to look at it. I understand why you and others tend to latch on to that viewpoint, because for a long time the Colts had a high touted QB and a roster that struggled to keep up. It's obvious that the more you pay one player, the less you have for the rest of the roster, but when you look at the way the Colts constructed their rosters with PM and with Luck, and when you look at their draft misses in consecutive years, it's also obvious that they had flaws in several areas. With more money to the QB, you have a smaller margin for error, but the real issue is that you have to draft well, you have to develop well, and you have to keep the right guys.

 

Having a highly paid QB doesn't prevent a team from doing any of those things, nor is it a mandate that you draft skill players in the first round.

 

By the way, in three years, Ballard has only drafted one offensive skill player in the first two days of the draft -- Parris Campbell, at the end of the second round. The other skill players are two 4th round RBs and a couple other late round WRs. In the same span, he's drafted four DL, two OL, and two LBs. He was drafting for a team with Andrew Luck at QB, and he now has an offensive-minded HC. Yet, he has not felt compelled to draft a bunch of offensive playmakers. He's building from the inside out. We'll see if he's doing a good job over time, but he obviously doesn't believe that if you have a highly paid QB that it's required that you draft WRs instead of defensive players. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not endorsing the strategy that was employed by Polian. I don't think BPA was the problem, I think a failure to value certain positions (MLB, DT) and a failure to properly evaluate others (OL) was more of the problem. Polian placed a lot of value on players who scored TDs, sacked the QB, and took the ball away. He also struggled to draft OL. 

 

None of this means that the Colts were hamstrung by having a highly paid QB. If they restricted themselves to drafting WRs and RBs rather than DT and OL in the first round, that's a bad strategy. It's not something that was forced upon them because they had PM.

 

And I don't think there's anything that prevents a team with a good QB from drafting well on both sides of the ball, and building a balanced roster. Once you add in Luck's dead money, the Colts are top three in QB spending in 2019. We have more cap space than any other team in the league, and will have $100m next year. Having a highly paid QB isn't preventing us from having a good roster. Drafting poorly for five years in a row, then switching defensive schemes and purging incompatible players in 2018 are more legitimate reasons we don't have a good roster.

 

You're equating having an elite QB with running a one man show, and I don't think that's the right way to look at it. I understand why you and others tend to latch on to that viewpoint, because for a long time the Colts had a high touted QB and a roster that struggled to keep up. It's obvious that the more you pay one player, the less you have for the rest of the roster, but when you look at the way the Colts constructed their rosters with PM and with Luck, and when you look at their draft misses in consecutive years, it's also obvious that they had flaws in several areas. With more money to the QB, you have a smaller margin for error, but the real issue is that you have to draft well, you have to develop well, and you have to keep the right guys.

 

Having a highly paid QB doesn't prevent a team from doing any of those things, nor is it a mandate that you draft skill players in the first round.

 

By the way, in three years, Ballard has only drafted one offensive skill player in the first two days of the draft -- Parris Campbell, at the end of the second round. The other skill players are two 4th round RBs and a couple other late round WRs. In the same span, he's drafted four DL, two OL, and two LBs. He was drafting for a team with Andrew Luck at QB, and he now has an offensive-minded HC. Yet, he has not felt compelled to draft a bunch of offensive playmakers. He's building from the inside out. We'll see if he's doing a good job over time, but he obviously doesn't believe that if you have a highly paid QB that it's required that you draft WRs instead of defensive players. 

I agree on Ballard, I love his approach so far. And I hope he continues that philosphy.

 

I just think it's easier to find skill guys who can be specialists in the NFL and produce for you than it is defenders. It's much easier to find a great slot receiver , great TE, or a good RB in round 5 than it is a starting LB or corner. So I agree with his approach wholeheartedly.

 

I am fascinated to see how Ballard approaches the offseason next year. Does he make a move for a QB he likes to replace Brissett? Does he seem satisfied with Jacoby and continue to try and build the defense? Does he go after a QB to compete with Brissett? Does he start valuing elite skill guys more to try and maximize whatever QB he goes with, since it's not likely to be an elite guy like Luck? How does Lucks retirement affect his approach?

 

If you're anything like I am, I almost enjoy the early part of the off season as much as the season itself. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Yes -- I think us going 2-14 without Peyton (when experts were predicting us to be SB contenders winning 12+ games) is a perfect example.... it's getting hard to argue with Brady being the GOAT after his 6th ring, but I always bring up the point that they still went 11-5 the year he was out with a QB (Cassell) who never played a snap in college (behind Mark Sanchez and Matt Barkley). ... Peyton did so much more (IMO) to mask problems with our team than Brady ever has had to, and it showed without Peyton we were the laughing stock of the NFL.  Same with Luck missing a full year, we went 4-12 and were exposed as a very bad football team.  There is a reason why Peyton (and Luck) had a hard time getting over the hump in the playoffs -- because in the playoffs the whole team needs to show up to beat other  elite teams and in most years we simply didn't have the supporting cast or depth across the roster (especially on D) to get past some very difficult AFC foes.  Another factor in the playoffs which isn't as big in the regular season is weather -- chances are (if Indy doesn't get homefield advantage and their dome) there will be games played in January in NE, Pittsburgh, Baltimore (heck this year maybe Buffalo or Cleveland).... the weather there is typically nasty at that point in time -- I don't know off the top of my head, but I remember several playoff games which were in very cold weather (where Peyton seemed to always struggle) and sometimes winter storms which does a number on limiting the QB/passing game... without a very good D and the balanced O to run the ball, it's almost an impossible task for a QB to go into that type of environment and be expected to win with a high percentage.

 

 

Good post and I agree with it.

Peyton was able to mask allot of flaws.   But once you get to the playoffs, you are playing the best teams in the league who spend more time planning for the game.  Even a great QB is going to see his record drop.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

@Superman why do you think Brady continually takes less $ to re-sign with NE?  He could (should) easily be the highest paid QB/player in NFL history.

 

Because he doesn't want to play against BB. That's partly tongue-in-cheek. Only partly, though.

 

The real reason is that he came of age as a part of an organization that was well run and winning SBs. He knew that if he stayed, he'd always be in the mix for rings. And the couple times that they had somewhat protracted contract negotiations, he did get paid well (2005, he was made a top five paid QB; 2010, he was made the highest paid QB). Over time, he's really shown that he values being part of a great organization more than getting more money. 

 

It would be a different story if the Patriots didn't know what they were doing around him. People compare Brady's contracts with other QBs, but other QBs haven't been supported by BB. Brady's decision making process is influenced by playing for the greatest coach of all time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Superman said:

It's easier to sustain the coach and the QB. That's two people.

 

An elite defense requires six or seven high level starters at the right positions, plus solid depth. So you're looking at 10-12 players. And if they're pieces to a great defense, they'll want to be paid, so you'll have to replace foundational players regularly. Plus, if you have an elite defense, the DC is going to get HC opportunities. 

 

It's hard to even build an elite defense. I think Colts fans should know that. Sustaining an elite defense for more than a couple years is nearly impossible, and that's without big injuries to critical players. 

 

But if you told me I could sustain an elite defense for several years, I'd prefer an elite defense + elite offensive minded head coach, who will get enough production out of an above average coach (I don't want Ryan Tannehill, I still need a capable QB). I think you can win SBs with that formula.

 

This.

 

Your best chance of wining a SB is having the longest SB window.  Short windows, no matter how promising can be ended via injuries which always happen.

 

The elite coach and elite QB are the easiest to sustain the longest because they are two people.  Also coaches don't usually get injured and if they do it doesn't prevent them from doing their job unless it's like a Chuck Pagano situation.

 

Since modern free agency started no team has ever one more than one Superbowl on the back of an elite defense.  Meanwhile several teams have won multiple SB's with the right coach/QB combo.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Those were absolutely elite defenses.

 

The Ravens and Steelers have been known for their elite defenses for the last 20 years with players like Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Troy Polumalu, James Harrison, etc. while leading most significant defensive statistical categories on a yearly basis...

 

How are you defining "elite"?

i guess im holding elite to a higher standard than you are.  i would say there has not been an elite D since the one in seattle broke up.  the bucs had an elite D when they won 

 

the ravens defense with flacco was good but not what i would call elite.  that was Rays last year he wasnt playing like a hall of famer then 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoatBeard said:

 

If we built Peyton that great defense instead, which we were so close to anyways as we already had the pass rush, he wins many more titles, IMO. He would've maximized the talent on offense and allowed us to get away with mid round picks at the skill positions, much easier than he would've ever carried us with 1st round picks at those same positions. We put it all on him, which is why he failed so often. It was never his fault, it was a flaw in our philosophy. He shouldn't have had to put up 30+ for us to have a chance and the offense should have been ran with objectives like winning the TOP in mind, instead of "we have to score, and score often". That's too much to ask of one guy. Which is why I dont like the one man show approach. It's a shortcut that doesnt really exist, in reality at least. 

 

I don’t know if I necessarily subscribe to this theory about Peyton being held back by the defense in the playoffs. More often than not it was the offense that held back the team in the playoffs. I can’t think of hardly any examples where the Colts defense was the main reason they lost a playoff game. In fact, Peyton was 8-1 when in the playoffs when the team scored 20+. 

 

Sure...maybe they win a couple more games where the offense didn’t show up (like 2006)...but with lesser talent on offense...maybe they don’t win some of the shootouts.

 

And of course the Colts still had to best SD and NE...who Manning struggled against for most of his Colts career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I don’t know if I necessarily subscribe to this theory about Peyton being held back by the defense in the playoffs. More often than not it was the offense that held back the team in the playoffs. I can’t think of hardly any examples where the Colts defense was the main reason they lost a playoff game. In fact, Peyton was 8-1 when in the playoffs when the team scored 20+. 

 

Sure...maybe they win a couple more games where the offense didn’t show up (like 2006)...but with lesser talent on offense...maybe they don’t win some of the shootouts.

 

And of course the Colts still had to best SD and NE...who Manning struggled against for most of his Colts career.

Well they dont become shootouts with the defense, they more likely become blowouts. At least, that's my theory.

 

I essentially think just it put way too much pressure on him and that led to some if his subpar performances. I think he plays better knowing that defense has his back.

 

And the messed up thing is, we had a great offense despite blowing those picks on additional offensive talent. So we likely still have the elite offense, regardless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Just to speak to this, the reason we didn't win a respectable amount of games without Peyton and Luck is because the rest of the roster wasn't good. And if you look at the 2008-2010 drafts, or the 2013-2016 drafts, it becomes obvious why the roster wasn't good.

 

And then when you ask why those teams couldn't beat good teams in the playoffs, while acknowledging that we had good QBs carrying subpar rosters, it should become obvious how important it is to draft well consistently. With or without a highly paid QB, you have to stack good drafts to build a good, balanced roster.

 

I agree whole-heartedly... but our team wasn't all that different than the team Luck carried to the AFCC Game just a couple years prior.... or in the case of Peyton the team which won the AFC South the year before and was predicted by many to do the same again.

 

Our drafts late in the Polian era (and into the Chris Polian era) and with Grigs (outside of 2012) were pretty atrocious.  I don't think either Pagano or Caldwell were elite coaches by any means, but Luck and Peyton both demonstrated that an elite QB could carry a team to the playoffs and mask a lot of flaws on a team as a whole... unfortunately, they didn't have a good enough team around them for most of their careers to get over the hump of being a 'playoff team' to a 'superbowl team.'  A lot of great QBs had that issue over their careers (Marino, Elway until very late in his career, Aaron Rogers most of his career, etc. etc. etc.).... the bottom line is, when playoff football starts, it is almost impossible for a QB to simply carry his team through the playoffs to the superbowl on his back... just about every SB Championship team in NFL history has seen a balanced team with a good/very good/elite D, while a lot have had good/very good/elite QBs, I think the odds of winning are better with a good QB along with very good coaching and D than an average D with an elite QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

I agree whole-heartedly... but our team wasn't all that different than the team Luck carried to the AFCC Game just a couple years prior.... or in the case of Peyton the team which won the AFC South the year before and was predicted by many to do the same again.

 

Our drafts late in the Polian era (and into the Chris Polian era) and with Grigs (outside of 2012) were pretty atrocious.  I don't think either Pagano or Caldwell were elite coaches by any means, but Luck and Peyton both demonstrated that an elite QB could carry a team to the playoffs and mask a lot of flaws on a team as a whole... unfortunately, they didn't have a good enough team around them for most of their careers to get over the hump of being a 'playoff team' to a 'superbowl team.'  A lot of great QBs had that issue over their careers (Marino, Elway until very late in his career, Aaron Rogers most of his career, etc. etc. etc.).... the bottom line is, when playoff football starts, it is almost impossible for a QB to simply carry his team through the playoffs to the superbowl on his back... just about every SB Championship team in NFL history has seen a balanced team with a good/very good/elite D, while a lot have had good/very good/elite QBs, I think the odds of winning are better with a good QB along with very good coaching and D than an average D with an elite QB.

 

The Luck team in 2014 was pretty different from the non-Luck team in 2017. Major staff changes, major player changes, the team was older, etc... But the big point is that the 2014 team wasn't all that good. We didn't have a tough playoff road -- Bengals, beat up Broncos -- and got destroyed by the Pats. Looking back, that roster wasn't very strong.

 

The PM team in 2010 wasn't very strong, either. The OL had completely fallen apart, we only won 10 games that year, PM had that bad three game stretch, and then they lost an ugly game to the Jets, primarily because of awful kick coverage, bad defense, and worse coaching (Caldwell's timeout). That team was bad. Then you take PM away and the whole thing falls apart, which isn't surprising. 

 

And I agree with the bolded, but I think we sometimes assume that not having a good defense is a reflection of a philosophical approach by the team. In reality, I think it's just hard to build a good defense. You can't luck your way into it, it's not a random occurrence, you can't just draft a hotshot at the top of the draft, etc. It takes several years of good drafting, the right coaches, a good free agent signing or two, and you have to stay healthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

Well they dont become shootouts with the defense, they more likely become blowouts. At least, that's my theory.

 

I essentially think just it put way too much pressure on him and that led to some if his subpar performances. I think he plays better knowing that defense has his back.

 

And the messed up thing is, we had a great offense despite blowing those picks on additional offensive talent. So we likely still have the elite offense, regardless 

 

Could be. For whatever reason, it took Peyton a few playoff performances to start playing well enough for a team to advance...so we can throw out those early years and we are really only looking at a window of 2003-2010 where they were actual Super Bowl contenders. And by that time, the AFC had NE (doing their "thing"), PIT (with Big Ben) and SD (with Rivers).

 

It's definitely disappointing they didn't win more...but they should have won in 2009. And I think 2 rings in that legit 8 year span would feel so much better in retrospect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shastamasta said:

It's definitely disappointing they didn't win more...but they should have won in 2009. And I think 2 rings in that legit 8 year span would feel so much better in retrospect.

 

 

2005 was weird, they were banged up in 2007, 2008 the AFC was wide open... Could have been a really strong run, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

So here’s an interesting Question for Colt’s Nation. So assuming you need 2 of the 3 listed above to win a Super Bowl, which 2 will we get to first and how many years does it take us to get there?

 

Definition of Elite

 

A select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities

There are too many dummies using the word 'elite' these days...it seems that every jerk on  TV is using the term to the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Luck team in 2014 was pretty different from the non-Luck team in 2017. Major staff changes, major player changes, the team was older, etc... But the big point is that the 2014 team wasn't all that good. We didn't have a tough playoff road -- Bengals, beat up Broncos -- and got destroyed by the Pats. Looking back, that roster wasn't very strong.

 

The PM team in 2010 wasn't very strong, either. The OL had completely fallen apart, we only won 10 games that year, PM had that bad three game stretch, and then they lost an ugly game to the Jets, primarily because of awful kick coverage, bad defense, and worse coaching (Caldwell's timeout). That team was bad. Then you take PM away and the whole thing falls apart, which isn't surprising. 

 

And I agree with the bolded, but I think we sometimes assume that not having a good defense is a reflection of a philosophical approach by the team. In reality, I think it's just hard to build a good defense. You can't luck your way into it, it's not a random occurrence, you can't just draft a hotshot at the top of the draft, etc. It takes several years of good drafting, the right coaches, a good free agent signing or two, and you have to stay healthy. 

 

I agree with you here, for the most part.... I think we have a very good GM in Ballard (better than Polian late in his career and way better than Chris Polian or Grigson).  The fact that our teams were so exposed after losing Manning and Luck may be a blessing in disguise for Ballard (though he did say since day 1 that he didn't expect Andrew to win SBs in this league without a solid team around him and sort of pointed out that he was essentially being treated like a 1 man show with Grigs at the helm).

 

I agree, building through the draft and having consistency is critical and very difficult in the NFL (e.g., even though many on this board are calling for 'Flus' head this year, let's not forget there were many who thought we'd lose him to a HC position after his success last year).  One of the main reasons is the salary cap.  Grigson came in right away and overpaid for multiple FAs who really didn't do much of anything for us and he screwed up our cap to some extent (e.g., RJF, Landry, Arthur Jones, DHB, etc. etc.).  

 

I know a lot of people have gotten on Ballard for not spending a lot of cap money in FA the past couple off-seasons, but we've not got more cap than any other team in the league.  Things are different without Andrew Luck around, but if the core guys Ballard is drafting stay healthy, we're going to have to be dishing out some hefty $ to retain them and let them continue to grow together (Hooker, Leonard, hopefully some guys from this year's class come to mind on D -- then you've got Nelson, Mack and others on the O side of the ball).  I think that's what Ballard's plan has been and he's said similar things in the past (i.e., we're going to build through the draft and we're going to bring in players that we coach and develop into the players we want them to be)... we went back to the playoffs last year and won a game.  I wouldn't be shocked if Ballard sees the big picture and doesn't think we're in position to beat KC/NE yet -- but he didn't go out and break the bank for the sake of breaking the bank -- he went out and signed a few veterans to decent terms in positions of need, but we should be in position to use the cap he's saving to retain our own for years to come.

 

Grigson certainly came in with a 'win now, at all costs' attitude and a 'what have you done for me lately' mentality.  Ballard seems a lot more level headed and is focusing on building a team which grows together over several years.  I'm not behind closed doors, but it seems like Irsay is much less outspoken with Ballard than he was with Grigson (in some senses, I think Irsay may have sobered up compared to his Grigson days, but in a lot of senses, I think Ballard's keeping him in check and telling him to just trust the process -- whereas, it seemed like Grigs was constantly hyping him up 'Hey, go tweet that we're signing stone hands DHB.... or washed up Andre Johnson... or some B-league rugby player from Africa... etc. etc..'

 

From everything I've seen and heard from Ballard, I trust he's going to turn this team into a perennial contender by building a balanced team and keeping core pieces in place for a long time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Superman said:

 

2005 was weird, they were banged up in 2007, 2008 the AFC was wide open... Could have been a really strong run, to be honest.

 

2005 was weird...but it's not like defense lost them that game. They only gave up 21 points...and the offense only had 3 points heading into the 4th quarter. The defense actually came up with a stop to get Peyton back the ball with a couple mins left...and the Colts turned it over on downs at their own 2. The defense actually then forced a fumble at the end that could have won the game (or at least sent it to OT). 

 

2008 was the Cassel year...so it was a bit more open without NE...but PIT was the top defense and the Colts would have had to beat them on the road (for the 2nd time that season) to get the Super Bowl. And again...it wasn't the defense that really cost them in that SD game either. Manning only put up 17 points against mid-tier SD defense and that game went to OT.

 

2007 was the undefeated NE team...I highly doubt the Colts beat that team. 

 

They actually got a bit lucky in 2006 too...with NE (in somewhat of a down year)...knocking off SD...whom the Colts would have to beat on the road. And the NFC was not very good that year.

 

It's impossible to know what could have happened with different players...but I am just not sure I see a path to more Super Bowl rings with a different philosophy or even a better defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

2005 was weird...but it's not like defense lost them that game. They only gave up 21 points...and the offense only had 3 points heading into the 4th quarter. The defense actually came up with a stop to get Peyton back the ball with a couple mins left...and the Colts turned it over on downs at their own 2. The defense actually then forced a fumble at the end that could have won the game (or at least sent it to OT). 

 

2008 was the Cassel year...so it was a bit more open without NE...but PIT was the top defense and the Colts would have had to beat them on the road (for the 2nd time that season) to get the Super Bowl. And again...it wasn't the defense that really cost them in that SD game either. Manning only put up 17 points against mid-tier SD defense and that game went to OT.

 

2007 was the undefeated NE team...I highly doubt the Colts beat that team. 

 

They actually got a bit lucky in 2006 too...with NE (in somewhat of a down year)...knocking off SD...whom the Colts would have to beat on the road. And the NFC was not very good that year.

 

It's impossible to know what could have happened with different players...but I am just not sure I see a path to more Super Bowl rings with a different philosophy or even a better defense.

 

My comment wasn't specifically about the approach or the defense, just that we had some legit chances and couldn't make it happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:

There are too many dummies using the word 'elite' these days...it seems that every jerk on  TV is using the term to the extreme.

Your a funny guy, I guess you are too smart for this thread. Can’t wait to see some more of your Einstein like posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

Let's look at SB champs from 2001 on:

 

2001 -- Baltimore Ravens (QB - Trent Dilfer -- elite D, very good coach, below average QB)

2002 -- NE Patriots (QB - Brady, elite coach, emerging QB, very good D)

2003 -- Tampa Bay Bucs (QB -- Brad Johnson, elite D, average QB, above average coach)

2004 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite coach, very good D, very good QB -- Brady wasn't 'elite' at this point, IMO)

2005 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite coach, very good D, very good/elite QB)

2006 -- Pittsburgh Steelers (QB -- Big Ben, very good coach, elite/very good D, very good QB)

2007 -- Indianapolis Colts (QB -- Peyton, elite QB, HOF coach, good/average D)

2008 -- NY Giants (QB -- Eli, good QB, very good coach, elite D)

2009 -- Pittsburgh Steelers (QB - Big Ben, very good QB, very good coach, elite/very good D)

2010 -- NO Saints (QB -- Brees, elite QB, very good/elite coach, very good D)

2011 -- Green Bay (QB -- Rogers, elite QB, very good D, very good coach)

2012 -- NY Giants (QB -- Eli, good QB, elite D, very good coach)

2013 -- Baltimore Ravens (QB -- Flacco, good QB, elite D, very good coach)

2014 -- Seattle Seahawks (QB -- Wilson, very good QB, elite D, very good coach)

2015 -- NE Patriots  (QB -- Brady, elite QB, very good D, elite coach)

2016 -- Denver Broncos (QB -- Peyton, elite D, good coach, average QB -- at this point in his career, Peyton was a game manager)

2017 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite QB, very good D, elite coach)

2018 -- Philly Eagles (QB -- Foles, good QB, very good, good coach)

2019 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite QB, very good D, elite coach)

 

If we remove the Pats, who have an elite coach and a very good D and I put Brady as an elite QB in 3-4 of his 6 SBs (I don't think he was 'elite' his first 2 SBs).  we have 13 champs in the past 19 years.

 

Every single one of those teams had at least a very good D, except the 2006/7 Colts who allowed over 5.3 yards per carry rushing (one of the worst run defenses of all time).  We had an elite QB and  HOF coach along with 2 HOF WRs (assuming Reggie gets in).... we had the most efficient offense in the league and a few things broke our way after Hester's opening KR for TD.

 

Of those 13 SBs (non-Pats), we see Dilfer, Flacco, Foles, a washed up Peyton (Peyton was not elite on that Broncos' SB team, he was a game manager at the time with a bad arm/neck), and Brad Johnson with titles (that is 5 QBs who range from below average to slightly above average in 13 wins).  Then we see Eli with 2 titles (he IMO is above average, but certainly not elite) -- that makes 7 titles with QBs who I think are less than 'very good' (I think you can argue that Big Ben x2 and Wilson are closer to 'very good' than 'elite'.  which would make 10 of the last 13 (non-Pats titles) going to teams with very good/elite Ds and very good/elite coaches without an elite QB.  

 

The Pats are an anomaly in Sports History (not just NFL), and I don't think there's any doubt that Belichek (although he may cheat) is the best coach of all-time.  They have at least a 'very good D' every year, and Brady has developed into an elite QB.   Of the last 19 teams winning a SB (including Pats), the 2007 Colts are the only team that didn't have at least a 'very good D'.  

 

IMO, an elite coach and an elite D usually trumps an elite QB without a D.  I don't think Foles is much (if any) better than Brissett... with proper coaching and a little more O balance our O should be very good and should be able to put points up week in and week out.  If we had an elite D, I have very little doubt Brissett is just as good as several of the QBs who have won SBs in the past 20 years who had an elite D and very good/elite coaching... 

 

 

 

 

Love your post it is worth noting the Colts defense in the 2006 SB run during the playoffs were playing well above average and did great. Which just proves your point even more. Defense wins championships. 

  • 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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...