I want honest answers to this

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is the main problem. If our analysis of QBs is going to begin and end with the team's record, then what's the point? 

 

We've all seen great/outstanding QBing be undermined by poor line play, poor defense, and poor STs play. We've seen great team play be undermined by poor QBing. Why we continue to equate team record with QB performance is something that I don't understand, and I'm not going to co-sign it when it happens.

 

That's why I do have issue with someone saying Rivers has this team as the 4th seed. The offense is bringing up the rear on this team right now. We're fifth in scoring defense, which includes TDs scored by opposing teams' defenses (pick sixes, fumbles returned, etc.) We're 10th in scoring offense, which includes defensive and STs scores. Our really good defensive ranking is being dragged down by our offense, and our average offensive ranking is being bolstered by our defense.

 

Rivers is clearly the best QB on the roster, that's not up for debate. And he's doing the job we're asking him to do. 

 

We currently have 11 TO on offense.  This is only 2 more than the 3rd place team with 9. The offense is giving the D every opportunity to be successful by not turning the ball over.  Also, the punting has been good.  We have scored 4 non offenseive TDs.  3 by the D.  

 

How is the offense dragging down the defense?  Rivers gave up one pick 6.  Taylor had that fumble for a TD.  Are you sure you are not just walking further and further out on a plank here SUPE?

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I don't know if you are being disingenous or simply not looking at the numbers.  We have a good top third offense with very limited weapons all year long and one of the worst running games in NFL.

 

We currently sit 13 in total yards but are less than a 100 yds from being 7th.  That is basically a statistical tie.  

 

We are also currently 10th in the league in scoring offense which is pretty freaking good when you take into consideration the injuries and the PSquad players we've had.

 

So another way of saying it is, damn PR has done a pretty good job moving the ball and putting points on the board with limited weapons.  Or in other words, PR has us at 7-3.

 

I mean I get what you're saying, but come on dude.  Rivers is balling right now.  

 

Neither. Statistically speaking, we have an average offense. 

 

We're actually 15th in total yardage, and using your tortured logic, we're less than 100 yards from being 18th. But that's not a real statistical analysis...

 

Offensive stats:

Yards/game: 13th (not top third)

Points/game: 10th (top third, but with the benefit of 25 points scored by the defense, which most in the league; and seven points on STs returns, tied for most in the league; so a significant boost in points scored by the defense and STs)

Offensive points/drive: 18th

Total TDs: 16th

Red zone TD %: 25th

Third down conversion %: 29th

Fourth down conversion %: 12th

Turnovers: 10th (tied; yet tied for 4th in TO differential, another defensive boost)

 

We don't have a top third offense, I don't know how you get there. Part of the reason for that is subpar rushing, injuries to skill players, some struggles on the OL, etc. Part of it is some opportunities missed by the QB; again not assigning all the blame to Rivers, but we need to acknowledge that he's not single-handedly dragging this offense around. He has two multi-turnover games, he provides nothing as a scrambler, he laid an egg against Baltimore... 

 

You're making me complain about Rivers. I find Rivers to be satisfactory. He's doing a good enough job, so far. He needs to do better for us to be able to do anything in the playoffs; he probably needs to be better against our remaining schedule than he's been so far, just for us to make the playoffs. 

 

Again, I'm saying Rivers isn't the main catalyst for our success so far, and saying 'he has us at 7-3' is giving him undue credit. 

[crazycolt1]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

That's why I do have issue with someone saying Rivers has this team as the 4th seed. The offense is bringing up the rear on this team right now. We're fifth in scoring defense, which includes TDs scored by opposing teams' defenses (pick sixes, fumbles returned, etc.) We're 10th in scoring offense, which includes defensive and STs scores. Our really good defensive ranking is being dragged down by our offense, and our average offensive ranking is being bolstered by our defense.

What you bring up with these numbers is what every team in the NFL deals with. 

We all know you disliked the Rivers signing from your past comments. 

Maybe you are showing a little bias?  

He has already played better than you and a few others anticipated so either just admit it or continue to overlook it. 

 

 

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I don't believe any sentient being has ever uttered the words Rivers is better than Rodgers.  Really, you could probably insert just about any name in the place of Rivers in that clause.

 

Put Rodgers in KC.  What do you see?  Are they worse?  Put Mahomes in GB, are they better?  
I love Mahomes, but I think that ARodg would look pretty good in KC red too.

 

You seriously can't see that Rivers has this team at 7-3?  There should be no conroversy in that idea.  

 

CC1 said Rivers pretty much equaled Rodgers on Sunday. I said, as an aside, he was not as good as Rodgers.

 

This is immaterial.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

CC1 said Rivers pretty much equaled Rodgers on Sunday. I said, as an aside, he was not as good as Rodgers.

 

This is immaterial.

I said Rivers pretty much equaled Rogers for that game. Not that he was a better QB. 

Really? 

What you are doing is pitting the offense against the defense with a little special teams mixed but in reality is called teamwork. 

Like it or not Rivers and the offense is a huge part of the team and deserves getting their dues regardless of your feelings about Rivers. 

 

[Superman]

45 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Maybe I misread your meaning but that is what I took from your comments. 

I seem to be not the only one who took it that way either. 

The QB has always got the credit and the blame for how a team does. 

One thing is no matter how any team does it is the QB who leads the offense to score points. That is why the QB is the most important position on the field. 

Every since Rivers came here the underlying narrative has been when is he going to bust here? It's just a matter of time has often been said. 

When he threw a pick it was way over blown with the "I told you so" and "here it starts"  comments. 

Well IMO Rivers has earned the respect of every Colt fan by his play on the field.

 

 

I disagree with the merits of the bolded comment, and that's probably the crux of my taking issue with your statement. 

 

The QB is absolutely the most important position on the field, for basically every team (there are a few exceptions here and there on good teams). QB is the most important position in team sports.

 

Still, the way people talk about the QB position is way out of balance, and it's wrong. The QB gets too much credit at times, and too much blame at times. 

 

And in the case of the 2020 Colts, I'm objecting to the statement that 'Rivers has this team 4th' because it's too much credit to Rivers.

 

This is not out of context, either. I'm not just jumping on your statement because I don't like how you worded it. The implication was that, if the Colts are 4th in the AFC, Rivers must be playing well, he must be the primary reason we're winning games, and therefore he's above any criticism. In reality, Rivers play has been good enough, but not great, and he's not carrying the team to wins. 

 

The defense has been much better than the offense. If the defense had been average so far, and you kept Rivers' performance exactly the same, we'd probably be 3-7, not 7-3.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I said Rivers pretty much equaled Rogers for that game. Not that he was a better QB. 

 

 

He didn't equal Rodgers for that game. Rodgers was better than Rivers on Sunday. 

 

Again, this was a throwaway comment, and not relevant to the discussion.

 

Quote

 

Really? 

What you are doing is pitting the offense against the defense with a little special teams mixed but in reality is called teamwork. 

Like it or not Rivers and the offense is a huge part of the team and deserves getting their dues regardless of your feelings about Rivers. 

 

 

No I'm not. I'm talking about whether Rivers deserves the amount of credit you're giving him. I don't think he does.

 

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What you bring up with these numbers is what every team in the NFL deals with. 

We all know you disliked the Rivers signing from your past comments. 

Maybe you are showing a little bias?  

He has already played better than you and a few others anticipated so either just admit it or continue to overlook it. 

 

This is completely false. I did not dislike the Rivers signing. He's playing about as well as I anticipated he would. 

 

I feared Rivers would completely fall off, as a worst case scenario. My expectation was that he'd be better than JB, maybe better than he was in 2019 because of better OL play, but not suddenly be revived to his 2018 level of play. And I expected that with Rivers, we'd be good enough to compete for a playoff spot. 

 

I'll pull up the receipts if you want. 

 

(By the way, I'm tired of being misrepresented on this. On one hand, posters are accusing me of leading the charge to sign Rivers, and on the other you're accusing me of disliking the signing. Neither is true.)

 

And I'll say again, our offense needs to be better if we're going to do anything serious in December and January. 

 

Last thing, as a technicality, every team does not have a defense that leads the league in points scored. The Colts are getting an outsized boost from defensive scores this season, and that needs to be acknowledged specifically when we're talking about the overall offensive numbers.

[Nickster]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Neither. Statistically speaking, we have an average offense. 

 

We're actually 15th in total yardage, and using your tortured logic, we're less than 100 yards from being 18th. But that's not a real statistical analysis...

 

Offensive stats:

Yards/game: 13th (not top third)

Points/game: 10th (top third, but with the benefit of 25 points scored by the defense, which most in the league; and seven points on STs returns, tied for most in the league; so a significant boost in points scored by the defense and STs)

Offensive points/drive: 18th

Total TDs: 16th

Red zone TD %: 25th

Third down conversion %: 29th

Fourth down conversion %: 12th

Turnovers: 10th (tied; yet tied for 4th in TO differential, another defensive boost)

 

We don't have a top third offense, I don't know how you get there. Part of the reason for that is subpar rushing, injuries to skill players, some struggles on the OL, etc. Part of it is some opportunities missed by the QB; again not assigning all the blame to Rivers, but we need to acknowledge that he's not single-handedly dragging this offense around. He has two multi-turnover games, he provides nothing as a scrambler, he laid an egg against Baltimore... 

 

You're making me complain about Rivers. I find Rivers to be satisfactory. He's doing a good enough job, so far. He needs to do better for us to be able to do anything in the playoffs; he probably needs to be better against our remaining schedule than he's been so far, just for us to make the playoffs. 

 

Again, I'm saying Rivers isn't the main catalyst for our success so far, and saying 'he has us at 7-3' is giving him undue credit. 

We are less than 100 yds from being in the top 3rd.  You darn well know numbers well enough to know that there is no significant difference betwween 13 and 7th or 8th in that case.

 

According to ESPN, we average 373.4 per game for 13 in the league and ATL averages 381.9 per in 8th place.  That is a difference of 8.5 ypg on average, multiply that by 10 you get 85 TOTAL yds less than the 8th place team this year for all 10 games.  This is negligible.  We are not significantly worse than ATL.

 

Now if you are basically saying average is any where between 8th and what 25th we are average.  But that still is not what average even means.

 

 You are using a fallacy of simple arithmetical logic here.  You are actually talking about the median offense instead of the average offense in ypg.   There are 12 teams ahead of us and 19 teams below us.  You are seeming to imply median.  Even by this crude measure, we are quite obvioulsly better than average.

 

The NFL average is 356 ypg this year, and we above that.  

 

Anyway you slice it, your spin is disingenuos or misinformed.

 

We are  BETTER than average at not turning the ball over which is the primary way an offense affects the defense.  WE are above average at geting TOs to.  So the D might slightly help the O here, but it's pretty close to even.

 

I think the stats show that  we are not an elite offense but we are a top 10 type of offense if not de facto top 10 by median.  We are significantly better than average YPG, in other words we have a good offense.

 

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

We currently have 11 TO on offense.  This is only 2 more than the 3rd place team with 9. The offense is giving the D every opportunity to be successful by not turning the ball over.  Also, the punting has been good.  We have scored 4 non offenseive TDs.  3 by the D.  

 

How is the offense dragging down the defense?  Rivers gave up one pick 6.  Taylor had that fumble for a TD.  Are you sure you are not just walking further and further out on a plank here SUPE?

 

Uhh, it's simple. Remove points scored by the defense, and our points scored per game goes down. Remove points scored directly off offensive turnovers, and our points allowed per game goes down.

 

Ordinarily this is a statistical wash. But the 2020 Colts lead the league in non-offensive TDs. So points/game needs to be discussed with that in mind.

[Nickster]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

CC1 said Rivers pretty much equaled Rodgers on Sunday. I said, as an aside, he was not as good as Rodgers.

 

This is immaterial.

Why do you say that then?  There is nothing in the statistics to back up what you say there.  On Sunday, Rivers stood toe to toe with Rodgers.  The stats are virtually identical and WE WON THE GAME.

[crazycolt1]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't equal Rodgers for that game. Rodgers was better than Rivers on Sunday. 

 

Again, this was a throwaway comment, and not relevant to the discussion.

 

 

No I'm not. I'm talking about whether Rivers deserves the amount of credit you're giving him. I don't think he does.

 

Now you are nit picking about 40 yards or so?

Maybe the extra 40 yds came from Rogers having to throw more? How about Rogers weapons? 

Rivers and the offense controlled the game in the 2nd half. 

I will give Rivers credit as the leader of this team regardless of your need to discredit it. 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Uhh, it's simple. Remove points scored by the defense, and our points scored per game goes down. Remove points scored directly off offensive turnovers, and our points allowed per game goes down.

 

Ordinarily this is a statistical wash. But the 2020 Colts lead the league in non-offensive TDs. So points/game needs to be discussed with that in mind.

 

Come on SUPE.  

[shakedownstreet]

Who the hell stunk up the forum restroom without turning the fan on? 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Why do you say that then?  There is nothing in the statistics to back up what you say there.  On Sunday, Rivers stood toe to toe with Rodgers.  The stats are virtually identical and WE WON THE GAME.

 

Because I watched the game, and Rodgers played better. How many of our third and fourth downs was Rivers not even on the field for? 

 

Statistically it was pretty much equal. I think Rodgers had a better individual game.

 

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

your need to discredit it.

 

That's garbage. It's an intentional misrepresentation of my point. 

[shasta519]

As someone who advocated for Rivers before LAC even parted ways...I (personally) lean towards no. I could see him coming back for one more year though...but I also think it could go south very fast...so it would have be in a mentor role with a young QB ready to take over.

[PrincetonTiger]

Friendly reminder from TigerTown 

[Nickster]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Because I watched the game, and Rodgers played better. How many of our third and fourth downs was Rivers not even on the field for? 

 

Statistically it was pretty much equal. I think Rodgers had a better individual game.

 

 

That's garbage. It's an intentional misrepresentation of my point. 

You had me curious so I looked it up.  Rivers got a first down 7 times in 12 ops for 58% of 3rd and 4th downs WHEN HE WAS IN.  I did not count runs by backs.

 

Rodgers was 3 for 8 for 38%

 

I mean I know he throws funny and doens't cuss and looks like a * when he hollers stuff.  But Come on man.  Dude, give it up.  

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

We are less than 100 yds from being in the top 3rd.  You darn well know numbers well enough to know that there is no significant difference betwween 13 and 7th or 8th in that case.

 

According to ESPN, we average 373.4 per game for 13 in the league and ATL averages 381.9 per in 8th place.  That is a difference of 8.5 ypg on average, multiply that by 10 you get 85 TOTAL yds less than the 8th place team this year for all 10 games.  This is negligible.  We are not significantly worse than ATL.

 

Now if you are basically saying average is any where between 8th and what 25th we are average.  But that still is not what average even means.

 

 You are using a fallacy of simple arithmetical logic here.  You are actually talking about the median offense instead of the average offense in ypg.   There are 12 teams ahead of us and 19 teams below us.  You are seeming to imply median.  Even by this crude measure, we are quite obvioulsly better than average.

 

The NFL average is 356 ypg this year, and we above that.  

 

Anyway you slice it, your spin is disingenuos or misinformed.

 

We are  BETTER than average at not turning the ball over which is the primary way an offense affects the defense.  WE are above average at geting TOs to.  So the D might slightly help the O here, but it's pretty close to even.

 

I think the stats show that  we are not an elite offense but we are a top 10 type of offense if not de facto top 10 by median.  We are significantly better than average YPG, in other words we have a good offense.

 

Good heavens...

 

First, you know full well that yards/game is not a meaningful statistical analysis.

 

Second, "average" can refer to a statistical expression, or it can refer to the quality of an object. "He's an average RB" doesn't mean he's statistically league average, it means he does not stand out from the ordinary, positively or negatively.

 

Our offense is average. That does not mean are the statistical average in yards/game. It means our offense does not stand out from the ordinary.

 

And rather than debating the difference between average and mean as it relates to yardage (which is limited in a number of ways), why not acknowledge the broader sample of offensive stats presented earlier? And add in the fact that they're pretty good at not turning the ball over (still not great, tied for 10th). Does that overall observation of the Colts offense represent an offense that's better than average? 

 

The Colts are a top ten type of offense based on yards/game. They are not a top ten type of offense overall. The Colts offense is firmly average, overall.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

You had me curious so I looked it up.  Rivers got a first down 7 times in 12 ops for 58% of 3rd and 4th downs WHEN HE WAS IN.  I did not count runs by backs.

 

Rodgers was 3 for 8 for 38%

 

Dude, give it up.  

 

Fine. I will drop my meaningless objection to CC1's classification of Rivers being basically equal to Rodgers on Sunday.

 

Again, it was immaterial.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Good heavens...

 

First, you know full well that yards/game is not a meaningful statistical analysis.

 

Second, "average" can refer to a statistical expression, or it can refer to the quality of an object. "He's an average RB" doesn't mean he's statistically league average, it means he does not stand out from the ordinary, positively or negatively.

 

Our offense is average. That does not mean are the statistical average in yards/game. It means our offense does not stand out from the ordinary.

 

And rather than debating the difference between average and mean as it relates to yardage (which is limited in a number of ways), why not acknowledge the broader sample of offensive stats presented earlier? And add in the fact that they're pretty good at not turning the ball over (still not great, tied for 10th). Does that overall observation of the Colts offense represent an offense that's better than average? 

 

The Colts are a top ten type of offense based on yards/game. They are not a top ten type of offense overall. The Colts offense is firmly average, overall.

 

You are a big silly goose Supe.  We are above average in Points, we are only 2 turnovers more than the team in third so saying 10th is once again discussing MEDIAN (not mean) and saying average.

 

You are conistent though. 

[shasta519]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is completely false. I did not dislike the Rivers signing. He's playing about as well as I anticipated he would. 

 

I feared Rivers would completely fall off, as a worst case scenario. My expectation was that he'd be better than JB, maybe better than he was in 2019 because of better OL play, but not suddenly be revived to his 2018 level of play. And I expected that with Rivers, we'd be good enough to compete for a playoff spot. 

 

I'll pull up the receipts if you want. 

 

(By the way, I'm tired of being misrepresented on this. On one hand, posters are accusing me of leading the charge to sign Rivers, and on the other you're accusing me of disliking the signing. Neither is true.)

 

And I'll say again, our offense needs to be better if we're going to do anything serious in December and January. 

 

Last thing, as a technicality, every team does not have a defense that leads the league in points scored. The Colts are getting an outsized boost from defensive scores this season, and that needs to be acknowledged specifically when we're talking about the overall offensive numbers.

 

The offense will definitely have to be better...if they want to win anything. How are people arguing against this? A barely top 20 offense is not going to win in January.

 

 

[krunk]

Boy yall done made Supe put on his cape and red boots today. Lol!

[Arodgers12]

I have a question. What Colts team is the best team of all time? You guys think there was any teams better than the 2006 Colts?

[Superman]

1 minute ago, shasta519 said:

 

The offense will definitely have to be better...if they want to win anything. How are people arguing against this? A barely top 20 offense is not going to win in January.

 

 

 

Because we're 100 yards away from being 8th in total yardage. Don't know if you knew that...

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Fine. I will drop my meaningless objection to CC1's classification of Rivers being basically equal to Rodgers on Sunday.

 

Again, it was immaterial.

And dude it's not so much accuarcy of statistical analysis I'm interested in here.  Rivers has been really good for us.  Best option available IMO.

 

I don't even like dude.

 

But some of you so called stat guys act like you are being objective when you are not.  It's like a self righteous thing on the stats with a couple of you guys it seems.

 

I have been vehmently anti JT, but I can't deny what I saw with his running game Sunday.  He was darn good and for the first time I've been encouraged.  

 

Can you not see that PR has been pretty damn good the last 3 weeks?

[Nickster]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Because we're 100 yards away from being 8th in total yardage. Don't know if you knew that...

and also top 10 in points scored with very few turnovers by the offense.  Only 2 away from GB in third.

[shasta519]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Because we're 100 yards away from being 8th in total yardage. Don't know if you knew that...

 

Haha...there's probably like 10 teams that are 100-200 yards away from top 10. 

 

The vast majority of metrics point to a middle-ranked defense (somewhere in the 15-20) range. They have played one good defense in the past 5 weeks and scored 10 points at home. And you tend to pile up yards when you are playing catch up...like they were against CIN and TEN.

 

When was the last time we saw the offense come out and put up a huge lead early? Week 3 against the NYJ? 

 

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

And dude it's not so much accuarcy of statistical analysis I'm interested in here.  Rivers has been really good for us.  Best option available IMO.

 

I don't even like dude.

 

But some of you so called stat guys act like you are being objective when you are not.  It's like a self righteous thing on the stats with a couple of you guys it seems.

 

I have been vehmently anti JT, but I can't deny what I saw with his running game Sunday.  He was darn good and for the first time I've been encouraged.  

 

Can you not see that PR has been pretty damn good the last 3 weeks?

 

Referring to someone who wants to talk about stats as 'so called stat guys' is pretty self righteous, if you ask me. 

 

But let's talk about Rivers.

 

1) Best option for us? Probably. Of the veterans, he made the most sense. I have never argued that, and will not start now. 

2) He's been pretty good the last two weeks. He wasn't good against Baltimore. He was good against the Lions and the Bengals. 

 

When have I disputed any of that? You act like I'm complaining about Rivers. I'm not even being critical of him. 

 

I'm saying that the main catalyst for this team is the defense. And I object to anyone stating 'Rivers has us in 4th' because it's giving him more credit than he deserves. And this is not exclusive to Rivers. If someone said Big Ben has the Steelers in first place, I'd object, because it's giving him more credit than he deserves. Ben has been better than Rivers, statistically, but their defense is one of the few that's been better than ours. 

 

And if the Colts are going to really do something this season, Rivers and the offense will have to be better than they've been so far. The defense is going to be tested moving forward, and if we play any of the AFC heavyweights in the playoffs, what Rivers and the offense have done so far will not be good enough.

 

And in context to this thread/discussion, whether Rivers should come back in 2021, that matters. He's been good enough, so far. He'll have to be better moving forward, because we'll need more offensive production to finish the season strong.

 

I don't think any of that is remotely controversial. 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Referring to someone who wants to talk about stats as 'so called stat guys' is pretty self righteous, if you ask me. 

 

But let's talk about Rivers.

 

1) Best option for us? Probably. Of the veterans, he made the most sense. I have never argued that, and will not start now. 

2) He's been pretty good the last two weeks. He wasn't good against Baltimore. He was good against the Lions and the Bengals. 

 

When have I disputed any of that? You act like I'm complaining about Rivers. I'm not even being critical of him. 

 

I'm saying that the main catalyst for this team is the defense. And I object to anyone stating 'Rivers has us in 4th' because it's giving him more credit than he deserves. And this is not exclusive to Rivers. If someone said Big Ben has the Steelers in first place, I'd object, because it's giving him more credit than he deserves. Ben has been better than Rivers, statistically, but their defense is one of the few that's been better than ours. 

 

And if the Colts are going to really do something this season, Rivers and the offense will have to be better than they've been so far. The defense is going to be tested moving forward, and if we play any of the AFC heavyweights in the playoffs, what Rivers and the offense have done so far will not be good enough.

 

And in context to this thread/discussion, whether Rivers should come back in 2021, that matters. He's been good enough, so far. He'll have to be better moving forward, because we'll need more offensive production to finish the season strong.

 

I don't think any of that is remotely controversial. 

I agree.  To quote Cape Fear.  That was argmentative.

 

Fair enough on the rest of your post.  

 

I think Rivers has us in 4th or whatever, but I don't really think that means that much.  Just that he is our QB and we are in 4th. 

[PrincetonTiger]

17 minutes ago, krunk said:

Boy yall done made Supe put on his cape and red boots today. Lol!

[Chucklez]

On 11/23/2020 at 2:56 AM, danlhart87 said:

Several posters are so against bringing Rivers back for 1 more year. 

 

This is the 2nd time  (Bengals) he has led HUGE double digit comeback. 

 

Are you more open to another Rivers year cause I am.

 

We could very well be 5 - 5 without him 

To people who are so against having Rivers.... I point to last year's team and record with Jake Brisket under center. 

Rivers just gives us so much more potential, even if he does have the odd errant pass or bad game. Definitely a higher ceiling with him than without. 

[ColtStrong2013]

Until there is a more suitable option, he’s here to stay... and as he’s gotten better over the course of this season already, I can imagine he’ll be better with a full offseason under his belt here too. Guy still has a lot of football left to play, in my opinion. Awesome watching he and Rodgers duel in Indy Sunday. 

[shasta519]

4 minutes ago, Nickster said:

and also top 10 in points scored with very few turnovers by the offense.  Only 2 away from GB in third.

 

Not a lot of TOs? The Colts are tied for 3rd in TOs.

 

The offense is top 10 in points scared because they are #2 in average starting position...and that's because of the defense (TOs and forcing punts deep in the opponent's zone)...and STs (top 5 in lowest net yards per punt). 

 

They are bottom 4 in SOS...and I bet if you broke it down to offense vs. defense...the Colts are at least bottom 4.

 

With this...they are #14 in pts/drive and #18 in Drive Success Rate.

 

If this offense was actually good...this team would be scary good.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, shasta519 said:

 

Not a lot of TOs? The Colts are tied for 3rd in TOs.

 

The offense is top 10 in points scared because they are #2 in average starting position...and that's because of the defense (TOs and forcing punts deep in the opponent's zone)...and STs (top 5 in lowest net yards per punt). 

 

They are bottom 4 in SOS...and I bet if you broke it down to offense vs. defense...the Colts are at least bottom 4.

 

With this...they are #14 in pts/drive and #18 in Drive Success Rate.

 

If this offense was actually good...this team would be scary good.

 

You are reading the chart from the wrong end.

[shasta519]

7 minutes ago, Chucklez said:

To people who are so against having Rivers.... I point to last year's team and record with Jake Brisket under center. 

Rivers just gives us so much more potential, even if he does have the odd errant pass or bad game. Definitely a higher ceiling with him than without. 

 

Rivers is certainly better than JB...but it's more a higher floor than higher ceiling. And this is coming from someone that wanted Rivers this offseason.

 

I can see him coming back for one more year...but I don't think that stops Ballard from getting his QB this offseason (especially if it's a draft prospect). 

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Rivers is certainly better than JB...but it's more a higher floor than higher ceiling. And this is coming from someone that wanted Rivers this offseason.

 

I can see him coming back for one more year...but I don't think that stops Ballard from getting his QB this offseason (especially if it's a draft prospect). 

What do you think of bringing in Winston?  He is a guy we should totally go grab IMO, to back up Rivers if Rivers resigns.

 

If not, I'd still think he'd make sense.  He has had good years and Arians Offense can make QBs look bad.  

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

You are reading the chart from the wrong end.

 

Which chart I am reading wrong? The TOs are from Football Databse: https://www.footballdb.com/stats/turnovers.html?sort=taketot

The net yards per punt are from Team Rankings: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-net-yards-per-successful-punt

 

And the rest is straight from DVOA.

 

 

 I was wrong about one thing...they are 25th in offense SOS...not bottom 4...so about 4 spots difference.

[shasta519]

7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

You are reading the chart from the wrong end.

 

Oh you meant TOs FROM the offense. Yes...the Colts offense has been good about not turning over the ball.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I think Rivers has us in 4th or whatever, but I don't really think that means that much.  Just that he is our QB and we are in 4th. 

 

Like I said earlier, that's the crux of my disagreement. It suggests that team success is necessarily credited to the QB. And as much as that's the norm, I think it's wrong. It's an oversimplification of what it takes to win football games, and it's used to judge QB play without acknowledging the QB's role on the team.

 

This is "QB wins," and I will disagree with that concept for the rest of my natural life.

 

And I said the same thing last year when the team was 5-2. The prevailing argument was that JB must be pretty good because the team was winning. Not remotely.