Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Imgrandojji

Reminder: We beat the Chiefs this year.

Recommended Posts

We even sent them into a bit of a tail spin after we got to Mahomes a couple times and made him limp.

 

Granted they were missing Kareem Hunt, but it still happened.

 

I'm not sure if there's a point to this thread, other than to remember that it happened and that when we were playing as a unit and the injuries hadn't piled up on us yet, we managed to hand a rare L to the current Champs. 

 

I guess I just want to point this out as evidence that this team was better than its end of season record.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, #12. said:

yo10dynulme41.jpg

 

There's already a celebration thread for this at Reddit.

Even as a long time, die hard Colts fan, I find this hilarious.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reinforces the TRUTH that there is a very thin line between winning and losing in the NFL.  Ergo, things are not as dire as they may seem.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Mahomes is merely average from the pocket, his bad ankle limited his ability to create his typical backyard plays, so the offense was less effective.  Also Hill was not in the game, and since he is a real talent at the WR position, having a player like that creates spaces in the defense by which Mahomes' backyard plays can work.

 

Left with just Watkins, Kelce, and Williams, and a pocket-stuck Mahomes, they were not exceptionally tough to defend.

 

Also, we employed a proper offense.  We sought to play keep away....instead of trying to get chunk yards a lot of the time......by using a QB who was accurate with short passes.  We won, in part,  because his long ball inaccuracy wasn't even relevant.  Also, I think Chris Jones was either out of the game or on limited snaps because of injury.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

We even sent them into a bit of a tail spin after we got to Mahomes a couple times and made him limp.

 

Granted they were missing Kareem Hunt, but it still happened.

 

I'm not sure if there's a point to this thread, other than to remember that it happened and that when we were playing as a unit and the injuries hadn't piled up on us yet, we managed to hand a rare L to the current Champs. 

 

I guess I just want to point this out as evidence that this team was better than its end of season record.

 

 So they played well but we were the better team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were the better team that night.

 

People are acting like I'm trying to imply more than I am.  I simply wanted the reminder because it was interesting to think about in light of what the Chiefs managed to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Since Mahomes is merely average from the pocket, his bad ankle limited his ability to create his typical backyard plays, so the offense was less effective.  Also Hill was not in the game, and since he is a real talent at the WR position, having a player like that creates spaces in the defense by which Mahomes' backyard plays can work.

 

Left with just Watkins, Kelce, and Williams, and a pocket-stuck Mahomes, they were not exceptionally tough to defend.

 

Also, we employed a proper offense.  We sought to play keep away....instead of trying to get chunk yards a lot of the time......by using a QB who was accurate with short passes.  We won, in part,  because his long ball inaccuracy wasn't even relevant.  Also, I think Chris Jones was either out of the game or on limited snaps because of injury.

Yet no mention of all the injuries we had against us. Both starting safeties, Darius Leonard, Tyquan Lewis, and Parris Campbell all sat, and going into the game, TY, Mack, and Rock were each questionable. Injuries weren't the reason we won. We won despite injuries.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Since Mahomes is merely average from the pocket, his bad ankle limited his ability to create his typical backyard plays, so the offense was less effective.  Also Hill was not in the game, and since he is a real talent at the WR position, having a player like that creates spaces in the defense by which Mahomes' backyard plays can work.

 

Left with just Watkins, Kelce, and Williams, and a pocket-stuck Mahomes, they were not exceptionally tough to defend.

 

Also, we employed a proper offense.  We sought to play keep away....instead of trying to get chunk yards a lot of the time......by using a QB who was accurate with short passes.  We won, in part,  because his long ball inaccuracy wasn't even relevant.  Also, I think Chris Jones was either out of the game or on limited snaps because of injury.

 

Didn't Watkins also go down early in that game?

 

26 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Yet no mention of all the injuries we had against us. Both starting safeties, Darius Leonard, Tyquan Lewis, and Parris Campbell all sat, and going into the game, TY, Mack, and Rock were each questionable. Injuries weren't the reason we won. We won despite injuries.

 

I disagree with that.  Despite the fact that the Chiefs are a way better team overall the Colts are the more balanced team.

 

Chiefs live and die with the pass game.  Hobble the QB, take away the top 2 receivers and hurts them a lot more than those injuries hurt us.  So we did win because of injuries.

 

However that said and we all know injuries and football go hand in hand, it shows the reason that having a balanced team is important rather than just a super explosive passing attack.  The super explosive passing attack can be wreaked with a few injuries.  Taking Hill and Watkins out of the game hurt them way more than taking Leonard and Hooker out.  

 

So yes we won because of injuries but no they don't give Chief's fans a right to complain because that is the inherent risk of designing a team that lives and dies with it's explosive passing attack.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Yet no mention of all the injuries we had against us. Both starting safeties, Darius Leonard, Tyquan Lewis, and Parris Campbell all sat, and going into the game, TY, Mack, and Rock were each questionable. Injuries weren't the reason we won. We won despite injuries.

Because its not relevant.

 

You're playing a what if scenario.  You're comparing what you think would happen if we had all players that Ballard drafted and they play up to expectations that have never been achieved.

 

OTOH, KC missed players that have actually proven to do more than just contribute, but to be a valuable part of their success. 

 

Other than Leonard, nobody you mentioned for the Colts have ever shown they can make the team better than the team that played KC.   Therefore, you can't show that the absence of Lewis, Parris, whatever safety we have, and Rock, actually mattered.  I can show that KC missing Mahomes mobility, Hill, and possibly Jones actually mattered.

 

And this is not really about the Colts.  It just shows how important backyard ball is to KC.  Without it, they are average.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Didn't Watkins also go down early in that game?

 

 

 

I believe he did.  KC missed players who matter.  For the most part, we missed players that have never proven to matter.  That's why our injuries are irrelevant, but KCs injuries are relevant.

 

And we won also because we played keep away, like we should be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have defended the run very well against the best of teams under the last 2 years of Eberflus, hopefully the DL coach leaving is not a huge issue on that front. That allows you to force teams to pass more. 

 

So, the Chiefs, even if they could line up and run against us, they wouldn't have been able to. Patriots consumed 42 out of 60 minutes in the AFCCG vs the Chiefs, they did not try to go fancy and passing too much until they had to, when they were down 24-28, and Bob Sutton, their DC, couldn't figure out a way to get a stop vs Edelman and Gronk. But then, Brady is not Brissett, and Mahomes was not banged up, and both Hill and Kelce did not go over 50 yards, thanks to Belichick's wonderful game planning.

 

In our Chiefs game, we had the ball for 37 out of 60 minutes. They were down to Byron Pringle, Kelce and Damien Williams, I think, with both Watkins and Hill out. It was about maximizing strengths (run the ball, short passes to move the chains etc.) and minimizing weaknesses (airing it out with Brissett). Mahomes with a bum ankle, and no Tyreek Hill and Watkins, that team cannot run the ball with all those circumstances. Their pass, when its effectiveness is reduced, you can beat them as long as you can play keep away. You can't give Mahomes a full 30 minutes out of 60 and expect them not to eventually find a way to put up points.

 

While hoping for no Hill, no Watkins, and Mahomes with a bum ankle AGAIN is not a recipe for future success against them, we should take solace in the fact that when Turay was in the game, we were rushing the passer like we wanted to. The problem is we do not have depth with quality pass rushers. Hope Turay comes back the same guy this year.

 

Our run D and pass rush will be the key to keeping games close again this year, unless Brissett does a 180 and we see a ceiling we have not seen before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that game proved is that we really missed Turay after that game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I believe he did.  KC missed players who matter.  For the most part, we missed players that have never proven to matter.  That's why our injuries are irrelevant, but KCs injuries are relevant.

 

And we won also because we played keep away, like we should be doing.

 

I disagree, those players matter and Hooker is a good safety.

 

The difference is that the Colts still had all their OL and their RB which was their offensive strength.  The Chiefs where a 1 trick pony with their passing game but the injuries prevented them from doing that trick.  

 

Chiefs are a great team, deservedly world champs with their top receivers and a healthy QB.  But they are flat out terrible without them.  Texans beat them the very next week for the same reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I disagree, those players matter and Hooker is a good safety.

 

The difference is that the Colts still had all their OL and their RB which was their offensive strength.  The Chiefs where a 1 trick pony with their passing game but the injuries prevented them from doing that trick.  

 

Chiefs are a great team, deservedly world champs with their top receivers and a healthy QB.  But they are flat out terrible without them.  Texans beat them the very next week for the same reason.  

Odum did things in that game Hooker never would of. He caused the turnover by punching the ball out and came up and stopped Pringle one yard short on 3 and 28. I don’t think we missed a beat without hooker. I think we played some of our best defense without hooker.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I disagree, those players matter and Hooker is a good safety.

 

The difference is that the Colts still had all their OL and their RB which was their offensive strength.  The Chiefs where a 1 trick pony with their passing game but the injuries prevented them from doing that trick.  

 

Chiefs are a great team, deservedly world champs with their top receivers and a healthy QB.  But they are flat out terrible without them.  Texans beat them the very next week for the same reason.  

Injury to Lewis and Parris matter zero.  They have had as much positive impact on this team as a retired Edgerrin James.

 

Being able to control the ball with Mack being injured shows how little Mack himself means to the O.  If we lost Nelson for that game, that would have mattered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You're playing a what if scenario.

 

Aren't you also playing a what-if scenario talking about the outcome of the game being different depending on hypothetical injuries that would have been relevant or mattered zero?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Aren't you also playing a what-if scenario talking about the outcome of the game being different depending on hypothetical injuries that would have been relevant or mattered zero?

I think its pretty reasonable to assume that KC without Hill or Watkins and Mahomes on half a left leg has more impact on their team than us not having Lewis or Campbell, since we have no way of measuring how much impact either has when they are in an NFL game.  Same goes for most of our injured players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think its pretty reasonable to assume that KC without Hill or Watkins and Mahomes on half a left leg has more impact on their team than us not having Lewis or Campbell, since we have no way of measuring how much impact either has when they are in an NFL game.  Same goes for most of our injured players.

 

Just sayin.  You're calling someone elses' opinion irrelevant because they're playing a what-if scenario, when you're doing the same thing.

 

:pkb:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both teams were injured. We played a great game. The point isn't to anoint, but to observe that living in gloom is certainly a choice, albeit a choice from many options of how you see this team as a fan. 


Some tend to choose real and disappointed/depressed/angry....and I choose hopeful and excited. Make your choice and wallow in it. I make snow angels in my hopeful path. :hat:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Just sayin.  You're calling someone elses' opinion irrelevant because they're playing a what-if scenario, when you're doing the same thing.

 

:pkb:

Not remotely close.  

 

What I called out was another's opinion that Parris, Lewis, Rock, and Hooker have the same impact as Hill, Watkins, Jones, and a gimpy Mahomes.  

 

We had JAGS replace our starting JAGS.  They had JAGS replace probably the most impactful players KC has. KCs injuries mattered.  Ours didn't.

 

If we had lost Nelson, AC, Kelly, and Smith; that would have mattered, because about the only nonJAGS we have all play on the oline (which is why we were able to control the ball w/o a healthy Mack).

 

How many different ways do I have to say the same thing? 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not remotely close.  

 

What I called out was another's opinion that Parris, Lewis, Rock, and Hooker have the same impact as Hill, Watkins, Jones, and a gimpy Mahomes.  

 

We had JAGS replace our starting JAGS.  They had JAGS replace probably the most impactful players KC has. KCs injuries mattered.  Ours didn't.

 

If we had lost Nelson, AC, Kelly, and Smith; that would have mattered, because about the only nonJAGS we have all play on the oline (which is why we were able to control the ball w/o a healthy Mack).

 

How many different ways do I have to say the same thing? 

 

Your what-if scenario isn't any more relevant than another persons' what-if scenario.

 

It's all irrelevant.  Hypothetical impacts don't matter.  Colts won the game.  Period.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Your what-if scenario isn't any more relevant than another persons' what-if scenario.

 

It's all irrelevant.  Hypothetical impacts don't matter.  Colts won the game.  Period.

No, not all of it is irrelvant, just the parts I said were irrelevant are irrelevant.  The point's I made are the parts that are relevant.

 

Pointing out that KC did not have three of their top impactful players, and a gimpy Mahomes, is relevant.  Trying to minimizing that point by talking about Lewis, Campbell, Hooker etc. is the part that's irrelevant.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other interesting thing about all of this is, given the "excuse" of the KC injuries, look at how the now Champions were adversely affected by a receiver or two being out and a QB that is basically pocket stuck rather than being a magical improviser.

 

Ergo, is it any surprise that the Colts struggled with all the injury woes they were beset by for the 2nd half of the season?  Again, this just goes to say that things are not nearly as dire for the Colts and many like to say.  Thin line where just a few players can make a huge difference to the outcome of a game.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like people don't understand variance

 

If we played the Chiefs 15 times they'd probably win 14 and we'd win once.

 

Just because the once happened to occur this time around it doesn't mean anything more that shocks sometimes happen.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

It's like people don't understand variance

 

If we played the Chiefs 15 times they'd probably win 14 and we'd win once.

 

Just because the once happened to occur this time around it doesn't mean anything more that shocks sometimes happen.

 

I'd bet that it might happen more than once. Maybe 20% of the time, 3 out of 15 times, but I get your point. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No, not all of it is irrelvant, just the parts I said were irrelevant are irrelevant.  The point's I made are the parts that are relevant.

 

Pointing out that KC did not have three of their top impactful players, and a gimpy Mahomes, is relevant.  Trying to minimizing that point by talking about Lewis, Campbell, Hooker etc. is the part that's irrelevant.

 

Lol.  No, your point is just as irrelevant as any other hypothetical impact.

 

Someone could just as easily say that if both teams were 100% healthy, INCLUDING Andrew Luck, the outcome might have been the same.  Or that a 100% healthy Colts team INCLUDING Andrew Luck would have won the SB.

 

It doesn't matter.  What happened, happened.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Lol.  No, your point is just as irrelevant as any other hypothetical impact.

 

Someone could just as easily say that if both teams were 100% healthy, INCLUDING Andrew Luck, the outcome might have been the same.  Or that a 100% healthy Colts team INCLUDING Andrew Luck would have won the SB.

 

It doesn't matter.  What happened, happened.

Well, if you want to put it like that, what's the point of the thread?  We were 7 and 9 but beat the SB champions.  It was one win in a 7 win season.

 

I assume the thread was started to make some relevant point?  If its about personnel, my point was very good.

 

You can't look at that game and conclude that we are close.  KC didn't have their stars and we did, our oline.  They replaced their stars with JAGS, and we replaced our JAGS with JAGS.  Big difference.

 

That point is as relevant as the thread being started in the first place.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

We even sent them into a bit of a tail spin after we got to Mahomes a couple times and made him limp.

 

Granted they were missing Kareem Hunt, but it still happened.

 

I'm not sure if there's a point to this thread, other than to remember that it happened and that when we were playing as a unit and the injuries hadn't piled up on us yet, we managed to hand a rare L to the current Champs. 

 

I guess I just want to point this out as evidence that this team was better than its end of season record.

I mean, someone has beaten every SB champ in the regular season minus what? 2?

 

They missed Hunt all season, he was done in KC on Nov. 30 2018, it's not like he was missing just for our game vs them.

 

No, this team isn't better than 7-9 right now, they may have been before... depends how far back you wanna go.... if if's and but's were candy and nuts.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WarGhost21 said:

Yet no mention of all the injuries we had against us. Both starting safeties, Darius Leonard, Tyquan Lewis, and Parris Campbell all sat, and going into the game, TY, Mack, and Rock were each questionable. Injuries weren't the reason we won. We won despite injuries.

You mean both safeties who have been invisible all year and Lewis who is a net negative didn’t play? Campbell was invisible too. Yes we won but if we played a 10 game series Chiefs win 9-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have no idea why some are poo pooing this win using Chiefs injuries as an excuse. Mahomes played the whole game and was slingin it around in the 1st half healthy as could be. They still couldn't pull away from us and they had Kelce as well. He was hobbled in the 2nd half but still played so his presence was out there. That was our best win of the year by far. Vegas had us 11 point underdogs so apparently they overlooked the Chiefs other injuries. Why don't people chime in and say we would've beat the Steelers had JB not got injured and if TY would've played. JB and TY were both out vs the Dolphins as well. I can use the excuse game all day too for us and that was 2 critical losses we had.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no asterisks (or if's) in the NFL. It was game 5 of the season. Both teams put their best available team on the field and Colts were the better team. Colts are not a better team than the Chiefs, but they were that day.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Your what-if scenario isn't any more relevant than another persons' what-if scenario.

 

It's all irrelevant.  Hypothetical impacts don't matter.  Colts won the game.  Period.

 

24 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I really have no idea why some are poo pooing this win using Chiefs injuries as an excuse. Mahomes played the whole game and was slingin it around in the 1st half healthy as could be. They still couldn't pull away from us and they had Kelce as well. He was hobbled in the 2nd half but still played so his presence was out there. That was our best win of the year by far. Vegas had us 11 point underdogs so apparently they overlooked the Chiefs other injuries. Why don't people chime in and say we would've beat the Steelers had JB not got injured and if TY would've played. JB and TY were both out vs the Dolphins as well. I can use the excuse game all day too for us and that was 2 critical losses we had.

But muh narratives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I really have no idea why some are poo pooing this win using Chiefs injuries as an excuse. Mahomes played the whole game and was slingin it around in the 1st half healthy as could be. They still couldn't pull away from us and they had Kelce as well. He was hobbled in the 2nd half but still played so his presence was out there. That was our best win of the year by far. Vegas had us 11 point underdogs so apparently they overlooked the Chiefs other injuries. Why don't people chime in and say we would've beat the Steelers had JB not got injured and if TY would've played. JB and TY were both out vs the Dolphins as well. I can use the excuse game all day too for us and that was 2 critical losses we had.

Mahomes was already hobbled coming into the game (ankle), and wasn't 100% to start. Sure it got much worse later when aggravated but I wouldn't say he was running around perfectly early. And being without Hill to start, and Watkins getting knocked out early left him without his two best WRs. Kelce also had some poorly time drops early.

 

What was also huge was that they were without their starting LT to start, and also lost their LG later in the game (a good reason we sacked him 4 or so times). They were also missing from the start, or lost in-game, a few LBs and DTs too.  

 

While I agree both teams had injury, KC's "identity" was pretty much gone with Mahomes gimpy and without Hill and Watkins. The Colts injuries were mostly on D, yet the D was the reason IMO we won. Our O didn't really do all that much. Mack had a great game, and so did AV in what really became a game of keep away.

 

In short, it was a great win, but there certainly is context, and the fact we beat them in G5 really speaks little in the grand scheme of them winning the SB.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DougDew said:

Well, if you want to put it like that, what's the point of the thread?  We were 7 and 9 but beat the SB champions.  It was one win in a 7 win season.

 

I assume the thread was started to make some relevant point?  If its about personnel, my point was very good.

 

You can't look at that game and conclude that we are close.  KC didn't have their stars and we did, our oline.  They replaced their stars with JAGS, and we replaced our JAGS with JAGS.  Big difference.

 

That point is as relevant as the thread being started in the first place.


If I had to guess...the underlying point of this thread is to imply that because a JB-led Colts team beat the Super Bowl champs...a JB-led Colts team can win at the highest level.

 

And to guess a bit more...I bet the OP had a “JB = Jimmy G“ post geared to go when SF won...but SF lost...so this post was the backup.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shastamasta said:


If I had to guess...the underlying point of this thread is to imply that because a JB-led Colts team beat the Super Bowl champs...a JB-led Colts team can win at the highest level.

 

And to guess a bit more...I bet the OP had a “JB = Jimmy G“ post geared to go when SF won...but SF lost...so this post was the backup.

 

 

Right when this thread was made I already guessed several people would poo poo this win, and I guessed right. Some Colts fans can never be happy lmao .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Right when this thread was made I already guessed several people would poo poo this win, and I guessed right. Some Colts fans can never be happy lmao .

Colts fans can indeed be happy with the win, some just aren't blinded by it, or think it means anything about our QB situation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Colts fans can indeed be happy with the win, some just aren't blinded by it, or think it means anything about our QB situation. 

I honestly don't think anyone is blinded by it or thinks JB was the main reason why we won the game - he obviously wasn't. It just cracks me up that some Colts fans are making excuses for the Chiefs is to why we beat them. It would be 1 thing if Mahomes didn't play and we beat a back up QB but he did hobbled or not. He still played and they were 11 point favorites on top of it at home. It was a great win no matter how anyone wants to spin it and JB was the game winning QB, facts are facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...