Is Cashing In On A Few Chances Better Than Failing On More Chances?

[chad72]

I look at the Steelers. They win a SB in 2005. Then, they miss the playoffs a time or two, load up on the draft with guys like Santonio Holmes, Lamar Woodley etc. and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2008.

Then I look at the Giants. They win a SB in 2007. Then, they miss the playoffs more than they make it, they load up and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2011.

It is like playing any high stakes game. If you don't play, you don't win. The chance to play has to come first before the chance to win.

But then, with the Colts, we have had several chances to play and win but we still came up shorter than the Steelers and the Giants recently in terms of SB wins in the last decade.

So, what really matters? Would one rather not make the playoffs at all and go much farther when they do (OR) have a chance every year by making the playoffs even if they come up short more often?

If I had this conversation amongst teams that do not make the playoffs at all consistently, will the answer be considerably different?

[UndecidedFrog]

I thought the objective was to win the SB, not simply to make the playoffs every year.

So I consider the tradeoff of not making the playoffs for several years acceptable, if it gives me the opportunity to win the SB.

I consider making the playoffs every year, but assured of not winning the SB as an unacceptable tradeoff.

[chad72]

I consider making the playoffs every year, but assured of not winning the SB as an unacceptable tradeoff.

How do we know that going into the playoffs though? We can do that in hindsight better, don't you think?

[UndecidedFrog]

How do we know that going into the playoffs though? We can do that in hindsight better, don't you think?

Let's say, if we go to the playoffs for 3 straight years, but get one and done. I think it signals a clear message that big changes need to be made.

[GoDeep]

The objective IS to win the Super Bowl.

But, sports in general are entertainment. The whole season is entertainment.

I have enjoyed the last several years as a Colts fan, one reason is that we won so much and the SB was a possibility every year.

Falling short hurts, but I like having a winning tradition. This new Colts is really going to be interesting,

[chad72]

Let's say, if we go to the playoffs for 3 straight years, but get one and done. I think it signals a clear message that big changes need to be made.

I think that if we had not won the SB in 2006, Dungy might have been gone then.

Steelers stuck with Bill Cowher after tanking the No.1 seed advantage in 2004, he won the SB in 2005. Same thing with Dungy tanking the No.1 seed advantage in 2005, they won the SB in 2006. Wonder if the Chargers should have stuck with Marty? Who knows???

Playoff wins seem to be a roll of the dice, with a few bounces/mishaps here and there determining the outcome of games. 49ers and Ravens were better teams in the NFCCG and AFCCG, IMO but they both came up short. Such is playoff life.

But being a balanced team sure does not hurt when it comes to those high stakes situations, gives you a chance with alternate ways to win.

[UndecidedFrog]

I think that if we had not won the SB in 2006, Dungy might have been gone then.

Steelers stuck with Bill Cowher after tanking the No.1 seed advantage in 2004, he won the SB in 2005. Same thing with Dungy tanking the No.1 seed advantage in 2005, they won the SB in 2006. Wonder if the Chargers should have stuck with Marty? Who knows???

Playoff wins seem to be a roll of the dice, with a few bounces/mishaps here and there determining the outcome of games. 49ers and Ravens were better teams in the NFCCG and AFCCG, IMO but they both came up short. Such is playoff life.

But being a balanced team sure does not hurt when it comes to those high stakes situations, gives you a chance with alternate ways to win.

To borrow a quote, "such is life" indeed.

[atapcl]

The Steelers went for about 40 years of their early history without winning a SB but few people remember that. What people remember is the SBs they won. Winning SBs is the reason you play but you cant win the SB without getting into the playoffs. I want both the winning tradition and the SBs. Before Bob Irsay came the Colts had the winning tradition (Unitas won 2 World Championships and 1 SB). Jim Irsay has gotten us to 2 SBs though we only won one and Jim Harbaugh got us close to a third during the Irsay regime. Jim Irsay wants to win and Andrew Luck wants to win. Lets give them a shot. If Luck wins 3 SBs will he then be comparable to Elway who only won 2?

[oldunclemark]

I look at the Steelers. They win a SB in 2005. Then, they miss the playoffs a time or two, load up on the draft with guys like Santonio Holmes, Lamar Woodley etc. and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2008.

Then I look at the Giants. They win a SB in 2007. Then, they miss the playoffs more than they make it, they load up and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2011.

It is like playing any high stakes game. If you don't play, you don't win. The chance to play has to come first before the chance to win.

But then, with the Colts, we have had several chances to play and win but we still came up shorter than the Steelers and the Giants recently in terms of SB wins in the last decade.

So, what really matters? Would one rather not make the playoffs at all and go much farther when they do (OR) have a chance every year by making the playoffs even if they come up short more often?

If I had this conversation amongst teams that do not make the playoffs at all consistently, will the answer be considerably different?

No question...

.

I'd rather make the playoffs EVERY Year and come up short..

Than make it only twice and win twice in 10 years..

I dont consider losing in the Super Bowl or the AFC title game a bad thing..//That's still a good season.

..Losing doenst neceessarily propel you back upwards through the draft.

Just ask the raiders..or the Redskins

One and done is not losing.

Not making the playoffs is losing

[bahhummbug]

Let's say, if we go to the playoffs for 3 straight years, but get one and done. I think it signals a clear message that big changes need to be made.

I agree it should never of taken us so many trips to see our shortcomings and weaknesses to not change them.Why try the same thing over and over and over with same results???

[oldunclemark]

I agree it should never of taken us so many trips to see our shortcomings and weaknesses to not change them.Why try the same thing over and over and over with same results???

All teams have shortcomings..

Even the Super Bowl champs...like the NYGs

....It always better to make the playoffs.

Its better to have a chnace than to have no chance..

[dgambill]

We of course want the most Super Bowls as possible..but one thing is absolutely the truth...You CAN NOT WIN THE SUPER BOWL IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE PLAYOFFS. Every year you make the playoffs you have a chance to win the super bowl...every year you don't you have 0 chance. Every season it comes down to some bounces of the ball...a fumble at a key moment....an onside kick..a qb tripping a guy in the open field to save the game...we had several great great chances to get to more super bowls and win by being in the playoffs over the last 12 years than we did last year or in the next several years. Winning is the best entertainment and the best measure of success...and the Colts over that period along with the New England Patriots were the bench mark of success. A tuck rule....a kick off that went out of bounds....a long field goal...alot could have happened differently and the Pats wouldn't have had the dynasty...but they put themselves in the position for fortune to go their way and win...when you think of the 2000s you don't think of Pittsburg...you think of the Pats..and you think of the Colts. No two teams had more success and were the envy of more teams or fans.

[Coltsagent]

I see it as 2 completely different seasons: regular and playoff. I believe once you get to the dance anything can happen and more opporunties you have the better things will come your way. We were only a handful of plays from 2 SB's or for that matter you can make the argument that if Nick Harper runs down the sideline (or did not get stabbed in the leg the day before) we would have had 3 SB's.

[deedub75]

I look at the Steelers. They win a SB in 2005. Then, they miss the playoffs a time or two, load up on the draft with guys like Santonio Holmes, Lamar Woodley etc. and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2008.

Then I look at the Giants. They win a SB in 2007. Then, they miss the playoffs more than they make it, they load up and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2011.

It is like playing any high stakes game. If you don't play, you don't win. The chance to play has to come first before the chance to win.

But then, with the Colts, we have had several chances to play and win but we still came up shorter than the Steelers and the Giants recently in terms of SB wins in the last decade.

So, what really matters? Would one rather not make the playoffs at all and go much farther when they do (OR) have a chance every year by making the playoffs even if they come up short more often?

If I had this conversation amongst teams that do not make the playoffs at all consistently, will the answer be considerably different?

I don't think the Steelers or Giants did these things intentionally. With hindsight being 20/20, I would gladly have given up some playoff appearances if it meant more Super Bowls.

[MAC]

I've had this conversation many times. I always say:

Who would you have rather been a fan of, the Atlanta Braves - when they dominated their division for more than a decade but only won one World Series, or the Florida Marlins, who won TWICE as many titles, but were an utter abomination otherwise? Are you kidding me?

The objective of every team is obviously to win a title, but the objective of the fan is be entertained, to have as many games as possible "mean something", to follow talented players who at any moment of any game can make your heart soar with pleasure by doing something special. The Colts gave that to us for the better part of 12 years. It was an amazing ride the likes of which I have NEVER come even REMOTELY close to with any other team in my life.

If the question is would I rather have had 5-6 of those years be tedious and embarrassing nightmares (like last year) in which I had to force myself to watch a dysfunctional mess (or find something else to do with my Sunday afternoons) in trade for a couple of more titles, my answer is "are you freaking kidding me?".

I derive no pleasure from looking backwards and pounding my chest about how many titles a team has. I didn't accomplish anything, I just chose to root for them and then sat on my rear end in front of a tv. What matters is how many hours of entertainment the team provided me, and the joy and optimism for them that I carried with me for YEARS at a time. Looking back is just sad regardless of the outcome, sports is all about the joy of the moment, and the possibilities for the future. From the moment that Peyton was drafted through the date of his fusion therapy, the Colts provided little but boundless joy and infinite possibilities. Last year in contrast was just an unending nightmare with no hope of pleasure of any kind. Do I wish that we had had more years like that instead? Uhhh, no. Titles be darned.

If you just lived through this experience with me but you find yourself envious of another team (like the Steelers), I don't know what to tell you. You apparently have NO idea how special that was. Lets hope that you don't find out the hard way.

[FireJimCaldwell]

You can't dance the final dance if you don't go to the party to start with.

[Superman]

How do we know that going into the playoffs though? We can do that in hindsight better, don't you think?

Let's say, if we go to the playoffs for 3 straight years, but get one and done. I think it signals a clear message that big changes need to be made.

That seems like a really arbitrary designation. There's way too many variables to take into consideration. Losing a game -- even a playoff game -- doesn't necessarily mean that there's something wrong with your team or the way it's run.

Take the Chargers. They got tired of Marty Ball and first round losses, so they got rid of him. They still haven't even been to a Super Bowl, much less won one. They've won a couple of playoff games, but they've also experienced some bad seasons and a first round send off since then. Placing that amount of significance on one game, even three years in a row, is a mistake, if you ask me.

And then you have teams like the 2006 Colts, who were destined for a first round thumping. The Chiefs were gonna run all over us. The Ravens were going to pound us. But we win up winning the Super Bowl.

I don't think you can make determinations like this in a vacuum.

[coltsleafs]

I personally as a fan obviously would like to win the Super Bowl every year but i'd rather watch a team that makes the playoffs 10 years in a row and only wins one Super Bowl then a team that wins two Super Bowls in 10 years but only makes the playoffs twice. Last year as a fan was painful to watch unlike the last 10 seasons that I enjoyed watching every game. To me winning the Super Bowl isn't everything because even the year we lost to the Saints which was a painful game to watch I think that was my favorite Colts season ever.

[UndecidedFrog]

That seems like a really arbitrary designation. There's way too many variables to take into consideration. Losing a game -- even a playoff game -- doesn't necessarily mean that there's something wrong with your team or the way it's run.

Take the Chargers. They got tired of Marty Ball and first round losses, so they got rid of him. They still haven't even been to a Super Bowl, much less won one. They've won a couple of playoff games, but they've also experienced some bad seasons and a first round send off since then. Placing that amount of significance on one game, even three years in a row, is a mistake, if you ask me.

And then you have teams like the 2006 Colts, who were destined for a first round thumping. The Chiefs were gonna run all over us. The Ravens were going to pound us. But we win up winning the Super Bowl.

I don't think you can make determinations like this in a vacuum.

I don't recommend making decisions in vacuum.

However, I do recommend analyses into what is it that prevents a team from progressing beyond the first round in a playoff three straight times.

The team's task is then to correctly identify and modify what is necessary to remove the obstabcle(s).

Not coming to the correct identification of causes could lead to bad outcomes.

However, not doing the analyses can only guarantee failure again.

[schwamm]

No question for me. As a STH, I am paying (more than my wife would prefer) to see exciting games and (hopefully) wins. The more regular season wins, the better chance I'll have to (shell out more cash to) watch one or two more (playoff) home games each year. Obviously, I'd like each season to end up with a SB victory as often as possible, but I am grateful for what we've had.

Besides, I really think this discussion ignores just how hard it is to get to the SB, especially in the cap era, with the league trying to create as much parity as possible. To have the prolonged success the Colts had (despite late round draft picks every year, and despite playing at the very edge of the cap every year) is an amazing accomplishment in its own right.

I won't spell it all out again, but I lay out just how challenging getting to the SB is here (post #43). Suffice to say, only 5 teams in the entire league have faired better than the Colts in getting to or winning the SB since the institution of the salary cap.

[IndyTrav]

I've had this conversation many times. I always say:

Who would you have rather been a fan of, the Atlanta Braves - when they dominated their division for more than a decade but only won one World Series, or the Florida Marlins, who won TWICE as many titles, but were an utter abomination otherwise?

It's funny you mention the Braves because just the other day I was discussing with someone how over time, there streak has actually become a bad thing. A laughing stock, an embarrassment. Even to veteran MLB broadcasters and analyst. Unfortunately I think in 15/20 years the same will be said for the Colts. How pathetic it was to make 12straught appearances and only come away with 1. With arguably the greatest of all time at the helm.

[Keith L. Scott]

I look at the Steelers. They win a SB in 2005. Then, they miss the playoffs a time or two, load up on the draft with guys like Santonio Holmes, Lamar Woodley etc. and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2008.

Then I look at the Giants. They win a SB in 2007. Then, they miss the playoffs more than they make it, they load up and are back in the hunt again. Then they win the SB again in 2011.

It is like playing any high stakes game. If you don't play, you don't win. The chance to play has to come first before the chance to win.

But then, with the Colts, we have had several chances to play and win but we still came up shorter than the Steelers and the Giants recently in terms of SB wins in the last decade.

So, what really matters? Would one rather not make the playoffs at all and go much farther when they do (OR) have a chance every year by making the playoffs even if they come up short more often?

If I had this conversation amongst teams that do not make the playoffs at all consistently, will the answer be considerably different?

The thing about the Steelers is that they stay with the same formula... Defense and running the ball down your throat. They have had more passing than they have had in the past because they drafted such fast WR's that can outrun everyone.Steelers football is smash mouth and it has to be to be in the division with the Ravens and I feel weird saying it Browns and Bengals. The division is in my opinion the toughest hard nosed division in football. No finesse just knock it down your throat with a tough run game, burn you a couple times deep, dink and dunk to TE and screens to RB and play a tough defensive game.

It seem to me that we might be starting to implement that with our new coach but if that is what that are looking to do then Luck will never get the Peyton numbers that everyone is expecting out of him. Almost everyone wants him to be Peyton 2.0 and if he isn't (which in that type of offense he never will be), how long until the scrutiny becomes a virus that will hurt the team and the fan base?

[Superman]

I don't recommend making decisions in vacuum.

However, I do recommend analyses into what is it that prevents a team from progressing beyond the first round in a playoff three straight times.

The team's task is then to correctly identify and modify what is necessary to remove the obstabcle(s).

Not coming to the correct identification of causes could lead to bad outcomes.

However, not doing the analyses can only guarantee failure again.

Well, yeah. If you go 2-14, you need to figure out why, and fix it. And if you go one-and-done three years in a row, you need to figure out why, and fix it.

My caution is against the ever-prevalent idea that, if you're not winning Super Bowls, you're wasting your time. You might lose in the first round because your receiver fumbles inside the 5 yard line, or because you let a punt return out in overtime. It doesn't mean your team is crucially flawed, but there might be adjustments to be made. You just don't go hacking at your team's infrastructure with an axe.

I'm not a fan of Jim Caldwell, but I appreciated the changes he made in 2009 in getting rid of Ron Meeks and Russ Purnell. And I think those changes, particularly getting rid of Meeks, helped us win games and get to the Super Bowl.

Conversely, I think teams like the Ravens and Niners, both just a play away from the Super Bowl, can find ways to improve their teams right away. Both teams have deficiencies.

[chad72]

It seem to me that we might be starting to implement that with our new coach but if that is what that are looking to do then Luck will never get the Peyton numbers that everyone is expecting out of him. Almost everyone wants him to be Peyton 2.0 and if he isn't (which in that type of offense he never will be), how long until the scrutiny becomes a virus that will hurt the team and the fan base?

Not even a bit of a virus if the Colts are winning. Winning is the elixir that takes care of everything, IMO.

But smash mouth football against elite teams like the Pats, Ravens and Steelers more built to stop the run than being spread out to stop the pass may not work. Having a QB to put up points in passing O is still the key, IMO, to win games to get to the playoffs in the AFC. Heck, even our division rivals Texans and Jags stop the run pretty well.

Balance is imperative, ultimately. Pass the ball to set up the run (Peyton's latter years), or run the ball to set up the pass (Peyton's earlier years with the stretch play), however you accomplish the balance, get positive yardage and first downs out of whatever balance you introduce in your playcalling whether it is 60-40 pass to run, or 55-45 pass to run. The numbers the QB ends up with will be a factor of how much they are confident with putting on the arm of their QB eventually. Peyton did not call his own plays till a few years down the road, same will apply to Luck too, I am certain.

[Superman]

Not even a bit of a virus if the Colts are winning. Winning is the elixir that takes care of everything, IMO.

But smash mouth football against elite teams like the Pats, Ravens and Steelers more built to stop the run than being spread out to stop the pass, having a QB to put up points in passing O is still the key, IMO, to win games to get to the playoffs in the AFC. Heck, even our division rivals Texans and Jags stop the run pretty well.

Balance is imperative, ultimately. Pass the ball to set up the run (Peyton's latter years), or run the ball to set up the pass (Peyton's earlier years with the stretch play), however you accomplish the balance, get positive yardage and first downs out of whatever balance you introduce in your playcalling whether it is 60-40 pass to run, or 55-45 pass to run. The numbers the QB ends up with will be a factor of how much they are confident with putting on the arm of their QB eventually. Peyton did not call his own plays till a few years down the road, same will apply to Luck too, I am certain.

I'm more concerned with situational numbers than anything else. How well you run on 3rd and short, how well you run inside the 5 yard line, what percentage of your pass attempts go for first downs, etc. Those numbers keep you on the field and allow you to score points, whether you're run heavy or pass heavy.

And those numbers were well in our favor in 2009, which is why our overall lack of a run game didn't really hurt too much. Then you fail on 3rd and short in the Super Bowl, and it costs you points. You fail on 3rd and short against the Chargers in 2008, and it costs you a chance to run the clock out.

[Jules]

Looking back I felt the Colts were pretty fortunate they won it in 2006. It all came together health wise and with the team at the right time. Favorable opponents too.....only Brady was going to truly challenge us at QB and his weapons were poor that year. Rodney Harrison was out for the Pats and we tend to beat them when he was out.

The Polian era seemed to take great pride in making the playoffs every year and winning a lot of regular season games. They seemed very satisifed by it. Fans were put in the seats and people considered the Colts a contender every season.

Overall yes, I would rather build a team that I feel is more capable of winning a title or two then just win regular season games and put up big numbers to impress the masses.

[chad72]

Overall yes, I would rather build a team that I feel is more capable of winning a title or two then just win regular season games and put up big numbers to impress the masses.

You can do that if you have an established fan base like the Steelers and Giants. The Indianapolis Colts biggest generation fanbase, safe to say, would have its largest roots in the Peyton era when you look back 2 decades from now. A lot of people, across the country, were drawn to how a team could put up points and make it look easy. One could easily make a case for Tom Moore and Peyton being trend setters with the no huddle and heavy receiving TE usage before the league caught on. Heck, I used to talk to clients in California and a lot of them were drawn to Peyton and the Colts primarily due to the offensive prowess route to winning games. They could care less about the old fashioned smash mouth play D and run the ball teams. Peyton and the Colts were exciting to watch.

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Peyton are big tickets because of the passing game route that it takes to win games and I firmly believe that. Yeah, Joe Flacco might have won a lot of playoff games because his team was built to win in the playoffs, but that does not get the Ravens TV ratings quite the same way that the above 4 demand. Maybe it is the instant gratification generation, maybe it is the video game generation, who knows!!! That is how ratings roll and unfortunately, it is a bottom line business . Out of the above 4, only 1 has multiple SB rings. Just saying.

[HOFClipboardHolder]

I want the best of the worlds. I want a dynasty

[Jules]

You can do that if you have an established fan base like the Steelers and Giants. The Indianapolis Colts biggest generation fanbase, safe to say, would have its largest roots in the Peyton era when you look back 2 decades from now. A lot of people, across the country, were drawn to how a team could put up points and make it look easy. One could easily make a case for Tom Moore and Peyton being trend setters with the no huddle and heavy receiving TE usage before the league caught on. Heck, I used to talk to clients in California and a lot of them were drawn to Peyton and the Colts primarily due to the offensive prowess route to winning games. They could care less about the old fashioned smash mouth play D and run the ball teams. Peyton and the Colts were exciting to watch.

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Peyton are big tickets because of the passing game route that it takes to win games and I firmly believe that. Yeah, Joe Flacco might have won a lot of playoff games because his team was built to win in the playoffs, but that does not get the Ravens TV ratings quite the same way that the above 4 demand. Maybe it is the instant gratification generation, maybe it is the video game generation, who knows!!! That is how ratings roll and unfortunately, it is a bottom line business .

I don't like it then sometimes. And I guess our fanbase can be pretty sad at times too.

I don't know entirely what the new vision is for this new era but I have suspected that bringing in more balance is what they hope for. Not saying they can't still put up nice numbers on offense either but we don't have to be last years Packers or some of our various Colts teams over the years as well who just look good in the regular season before crumbling to stronger more balanced squads in the playoffs who looked shakier for the regular season. Just look at our SB winning 2006 team though......the run game to me is so underrated for that postseason.

Offense sells tickets. Defense wins championships.

[Jules]

I want the best of the worlds. I want a dynasty

I don't blame ya.

And keep in mind much of this depends on how much facial hair Luck grows at times for key games. ;)

It is possible to have it all.......it really is. Most seem to sometimes think what we had was the best we can maybe get. I don't believe this.

[chad72]

Just look at our SB winning 2006 team though......the run game to me is so underrated for that postseason.

Offense sells tickets. Defense wins championships.

Yep, true dat. The key was, however, when teams put 2 safeties deeper, and play the run with their front 7, we had not shown we could run it well. That SB run, we finally showed we could AT LEAST do that, run against a front 7. But the safeties being deep, would have never happened, if not for our history of passing being respected across the league. No one is playing 2 safeties deep for Flacco or Big Ben as often as they do for Rodgers, Brees, Brady or Peyton.

Heck, Rex Ryan didnt do that in his first Jets-Colts meeting and Peyton burned him. The next time, Rex Ryan played coverage and forced the Colts to run vs their front 7. Ding, ding, success!!!