Here's my 2 cents 2.0

[danlhart87]

Its the Catch 22 effect 

 

Colts can draft LT replacement to protect future or take QB and risk the protection being worse

[CurBeatElite]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I don't disagree at all.  But saying woulda shoulda happens to every team each year, that's how they land at their record.  

 

Its not the same team as a few years ago, but just like a few years ago, we have the ability to beat anybody, but to also lose to (nearly) anybody, and to look great, and to look horrible.  

 

Just comparing that to when we had real playoff roster with the PM years where we were consistently 11-5 or better.  We generally lost to only the other really good teams.  11-5 at our worst.  Now, we'd be 11-5 at our best. 

 

Not where want to be yet, and we've got some major holes to plug to stay where we're at.  Which we saw coming.

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

What are you talking about?

 

I simply said that we are the same team as back then, in that we have the ability to lose to nearly everybody, beat anybody, and lay some eggs.  Different paths and ways, but the same results. That is a point where we don't want to be and we still have work to do.

 

If you want to make a detailed presentation about the inherent talent levels of the rosters now and back then, both on the field and on IR, be my guest, but it has nothing to do with what I said. 

 

 

Pretty much every team in the league this far into the salary cap era has the ability to lose to nearly everybody, beat anybody and lay some eggs.  This year it seems like the only team that really can't beat anybody is the Jets and they are pretty horribly managed and still were within a  score in 2 of their losses.  Brady and the Bucs laid an absolute egg vs. New Orleans.  The Bengals without Burrows may have a very hard time beating anyone, but they've still won 2 games (one vs. the Titans) and 4 of their losses have been 1 score games (plus a 5th non-win which was a tie).  The Steelers haven't really had a challenging schedule and 5 of their wins were 1 score games.  

 

This is not the same team as back then, not even close.  We have a much better D and OL than Luck ever had.  I get that you don't like the shoulda, coulda, woulda game, and I don't think anybody does - fact is, other than last week we have had legitimate shots to win every game we've played -- we also beat the Titans by 17 just 2 games before that, so I have no reason to believe if we're healthy we wouldn't have a legit shot at beating them if we had to match up again later in the season.  

 

Luck was a once in a generation QB, very few QBs could carry teams like he could and basically single-handedly win games.  That said, a lot of comeback wins in the Luck era (I am pretty sure during his time he had the most comeback wins in the NFL) were comebacks because Luck made bone-headed plays early in games. which put us in a hole.  

 

Ballard saw a major flaw consistent with Grigs' era - it was that Luck didn't have a very solid team around him.  Ballard has said since day 1 he wanted to build a team that doesn't rely solely on elite QB play to win and he's given us that.  I like Jacoby, but honestly don't think he could have won 7 games last year on pretty much any other team which wound up with a losing record.  

 

Our major problem with talent right now is a depth problem.  That said, how many teams could be expected to have to replace  an all-pro (Buckner) and 2 pro-bowlers/borderline all-pro (AC & Kelly) in one game and not see significant drop offs?  Especially against a team like the Titans.... my bet would be not a single team.    

 

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Right, if we had Luck now with this defense, we would be 9 and 2.

 

If we had this defense with Luck back then, we'd be 9-2 also.  Same overall level of talent.  Dispersed differently.  Now we have the defense.  Then we had the QB.

 

Still not there.  Still missing critical pieces.  Like we were back then.  Just different ones.

 

We have no idea if we'd be 9-2 with Luck this year, or if Luck had this defense back then.  TBH, while the AFC South isn't that strong this year (Jax and HOU have dropped off), the AFC South used to be a joke aside from Indy through the Manning years and in the early Luck years.  We can't go back and compare this team to a team that played significantly different opponents back then.

 

Yes, we have some critical pieces missing.  We don't really have elite WRs like we did in the Peyton era or in Luck's first year or 2 (before Reggie got hurt and when TY was playing at a higher level than he is now).  We have a top 10 QB in the league in Rivers.  We had a top 5 QB with Luck.  Let's not forget, just like Rivers, Luck wasn't without his share of just bone-headed throws or mistakes which put us in holes in games.  

 

This current team lacks depth at several positions.  There is not a team in the entire league who would be expected not to see a decline in play when 2/5 of their OL is out (two pro-bowlers, mind you) and another is playing injured (our all-pro Q).  There are few other teams in the league who have an all-pro DT and they would not perform the same without them (e.g., the Rams without Aaron Donald are a different team, hands down -- there are few other starters in the NFL who could go fill in for Aaron Donald and be expected to perform at a similar level, Buckner is one of the few -- there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could go and perform at the same level as AD, just like there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could come in and replace Buckner without significant decline in performance.... especially vs. the best RB in the league, especially when another starting DL is out along with a starting LB and a starting S).  

 

Compared to the Luck era, this team is a much better overall team.  The Luck era was built on Luck and he took us as far as he could (AFC CHampionship) with the  talent he had.  This team, if we're healthy doesn't need an elite QB to win big games... we have a QB in Rivers, who if he doesn't throw dumb INTs, can win games vs. any other team on any given day so long as we are mostly healthy and if we are injured the injuries don't happen to be to pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players at 3 positions on the same day.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

The question is who will be our Mahomes 

 

Mahommes is an absolute freak show.  I know it's a small sample size, but he averages 307.4 yards per game over his career.  The 2nd best of all time (Drew Brees) is >27 yards behind him at 280.3 yards per game.  Mahommes is a once in a lifetime QB.  We'll likely never see a Mahommes here in Indy, and Ballard's building a team at a level where we won't need one.  We will need a  solid QB who can play within the system and not make mistakes to compete week in and week out with any team in the league.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, danlhart87 said:

Its the Catch 22 effect 

 

Colts can draft LT replacement to protect future or take QB and risk the protection being worse

I would take a LT and keep Rivers just 1 more year 2021. Than in 2022 draft another QB if Eason doesn't work out. I am not sold on Eason because of 2 things = I have never seen him take a snap in the NFL and his college career was less than stellar. His 2019 season at Washington was good but not great. he does have a cannon for an arm but so did Jeff George  .

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

 

Pretty much every team in the league this far into the salary cap era has the ability to lose to nearly everybody, beat anybody and lay some eggs.  This year it seems like the only team that really can't beat anybody is the Jets and they are pretty horribly managed and still were within a  score in 2 of their losses.  Brady and the Bucs laid an absolute egg vs. New Orleans.  The Bengals without Burrows may have a very hard time beating anyone, but they've still won 2 games (one vs. the Titans) and 4 of their losses have been 1 score games (plus a 5th non-win which was a tie).  The Steelers haven't really had a challenging schedule and 5 of their wins were 1 score games.  

 

This is not the same team as back then, not even close.  We have a much better D and OL than Luck ever had.  I get that you don't like the shoulda, coulda, woulda game, and I don't think anybody does - fact is, other than last week we have had legitimate shots to win every game we've played -- we also beat the Titans by 17 just 2 games before that, so I have no reason to believe if we're healthy we wouldn't have a legit shot at beating them if we had to match up again later in the season.  

 

Luck was a once in a generation QB, very few QBs could carry teams like he could and basically single-handedly win games.  That said, a lot of comeback wins in the Luck era (I am pretty sure during his time he had the most comeback wins in the NFL) were comebacks because Luck made bone-headed plays early in games. which put us in a hole.  

 

Ballard saw a major flaw consistent with Grigs' era - it was that Luck didn't have a very solid team around him.  Ballard has said since day 1 he wanted to build a team that doesn't rely solely on elite QB play to win and he's given us that.  I like Jacoby, but honestly don't think he could have won 7 games last year on pretty much any other team which wound up with a losing record.  

 

Our major problem with talent right now is a depth problem.  That said, how many teams could be expected to have to replace  an all-pro (Buckner) and 2 pro-bowlers/borderline all-pro (AC & Kelly) in one game and not see significant drop offs?  Especially against a team like the Titans.... my bet would be not a single team.    

 

 

We have no idea if we'd be 9-2 with Luck this year, or if Luck had this defense back then.  TBH, while the AFC South isn't that strong this year (Jax and HOU have dropped off), the AFC South used to be a joke aside from Indy through the Manning years and in the early Luck years.  We can't go back and compare this team to a team that played significantly different opponents back then.

 

Yes, we have some critical pieces missing.  We don't really have elite WRs like we did in the Peyton era or in Luck's first year or 2 (before Reggie got hurt and when TY was playing at a higher level than he is now).  We have a top 10 QB in the league in Rivers.  We had a top 5 QB with Luck.  Let's not forget, just like Rivers, Luck wasn't without his share of just bone-headed throws or mistakes which put us in holes in games.  

 

This current team lacks depth at several positions.  There is not a team in the entire league who would be expected not to see a decline in play when 2/5 of their OL is out (two pro-bowlers, mind you) and another is playing injured (our all-pro Q).  There are few other teams in the league who have an all-pro DT and they would not perform the same without them (e.g., the Rams without Aaron Donald are a different team, hands down -- there are few other starters in the NFL who could go fill in for Aaron Donald and be expected to perform at a similar level, Buckner is one of the few -- there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could go and perform at the same level as AD, just like there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could come in and replace Buckner without significant decline in performance.... especially vs. the best RB in the league, especially when another starting DL is out along with a starting LB and a starting S).  

 

Compared to the Luck era, this team is a much better overall team.  The Luck era was built on Luck and he took us as far as he could (AFC CHampionship) with the  talent he had.  This team, if we're healthy doesn't need an elite QB to win big games... we have a QB in Rivers, who if he doesn't throw dumb INTs, can win games vs. any other team on any given day so long as we are mostly healthy and if we are injured the injuries don't happen to be to pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players at 3 positions on the same day.

 

 

 

 

Mahommes is an absolute freak show.  I know it's a small sample size, but he averages 307.4 yards per game over his career.  The 2nd best of all time (Drew Brees) is >27 yards behind him at 280.3 yards per game.  Mahommes is a once in a lifetime QB.  We'll likely never see a Mahommes here in Indy, and Ballard's building a team at a level where we won't need one.  We will need a  solid QB who can play within the system and not make mistakes to compete week in and week out with any team in the league.

I think with Luck we would be 9-2 with the roster we have now so to me that is pretty accurate. With 2018 Rivers we would be too. Rivers is still capable of getting us 10 wins and keeping us respectable though.

[CurBeatElite]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think with Luck we would be 9-2 with the roster we have now so to me that is pretty accurate. With 2018 Rivers we would be too. Rivers is still capable of getting us 10 wins and keeping us respectable though.

 

Not really disagreeing with you, but it's impossible to say.  We are a few terrible plays (turnovers) away from being 9-2.  Part of my point is, Luck also made a lot of terrible plays.  The main things that were different (later in the season) when Luck was our QB and Reich was our coach was that Luck could (1) extend plays with his legs, and (2) he aired the ball out a lot more so we scored faster (whereas, Rivers doesn't throw the deep ball far as much and we have longer, methodical drives).  Still, no telling if we don't lose a couple games with this team and Luck as our QB as at least 2 of our losses were mainly the result of bad turnovers and Luck was no stranger to them.

[Arodgers12]

1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

Forgive us lol

We still love y’all. 

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

My top 3 are:

1. 2006

2. 2005

3. 2009

 

That is just the Indianapolis era. The 1995 team was really good as well. That team had a solid defense and Harbaugh played unreal that season, he was so clutch a lot like Luck was in 2012 with those comebacks.

 

2007 had  number 1 defense.  Choked against chargers

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

You guys disagree a lot 

No.  I wouldn't say a lot.    

 

I'd say only on days of the week that end in....     d-a-y!

 

Or only when the sun is up, or the sun is down.    

 

Other than that,  Doug and I are almost in total lockstep agreement!      

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

18 minutes ago, Stephen said:

2007 had  number 1 defense.  Choked against chargers

Dwight Freeney was out for the playoffs which really hurt though.

[csmopar]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I have been to around 50 games or so but I live here in Indy. Haven't been to one since the 2013 season though. We actually played the Texans that week and blew them out 25-3 led by Luck. Greatest game I ever attended was the Sunday night game when we beat the Pats 35-34 after being down big in 2009. That was unreal. I was also at the Cowboys game in 1999 when Harrison burned Deion Sanders. We won that game as well.

My last game was the 2014 home playoff game against the Bengals. 

7 hours ago, w87r said:

Sorry, I dont even drink and had the same thought.

See that’s the funny thing, I don’t either. I might have one drink a year. If that. I’m just too cheap to spend 40 bucks on a tiny bottle of water, sugar and corn.

7 hours ago, Arodgers12 said:

I think the 2006 Colts were better than the 2009 Colts. Would you agree?

No. The results were better obviously for that 06 team. I mean they won the Super Bowl. But statistically and record wise, the 09 team was miles better. Polish screwed us when he pulled the starters at 14-0. I honestly think that messed with our mojo and we ended up 14-2 and lost in the Super Bowl. I think we could have ran the table with that 09 team.

 

the 05 team was even better yet.

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Doug ...    I’ll put this as simply as I can...

 

The roster that Rivers has is better than the roster that Luck had.   You may disagree.  Maybe others here might agree with you.  But that’s my view. 

Otherwise,  We are so far apart, we’re going to have to agree to disagree and let it go at that.   Fair enough? 

I'm fine with that.  Not upset at all because we're not disagreeing.  You just continue to misunderstand what I'm talking about.  My original comment wasn't comparing the rosters without the QB.  It was comparing the talent of the team responsible for the play on the field, which includes the QB.  Overall its about the same.  We play well at times, and lay stinkers at times, but for different reasons.  Our defense was worse then, but we now don't give up as many short field interceptions as we did then.  We don't come back as well now as we did back then.  Now we score by probably taking more time off of the clock than we did back then.  Different paths, same results so far.  Neither team was complete, but for different reasons.  Back then, we had a lot of holes at less important positions.  Now we have fewer holes, but at more important positions.

 

My original comment gathered quite a few Likes.  Consider the possibility that you simply misunderstood what I was saying.

 

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

 

Pretty much every team in the league this far into the salary cap era has the ability to lose to nearly everybody, beat anybody and lay some eggs.  This year it seems like the only team that really can't beat anybody is the Jets and they are pretty horribly managed and still were within a  score in 2 of their losses.  Brady and the Bucs laid an absolute egg vs. New Orleans.  The Bengals without Burrows may have a very hard time beating anyone, but they've still won 2 games (one vs. the Titans) and 4 of their losses have been 1 score games (plus a 5th non-win which was a tie).  The Steelers haven't really had a challenging schedule and 5 of their wins were 1 score games.  

 

This is not the same team as back then, not even close.  We have a much better D and OL than Luck ever had.  I get that you don't like the shoulda, coulda, woulda game, and I don't think anybody does - fact is, other than last week we have had legitimate shots to win every game we've played -- we also beat the Titans by 17 just 2 games before that, so I have no reason to believe if we're healthy we wouldn't have a legit shot at beating them if we had to match up again later in the season.  

 

Luck was a once in a generation QB, very few QBs could carry teams like he could and basically single-handedly win games.  That said, a lot of comeback wins in the Luck era (I am pretty sure during his time he had the most comeback wins in the NFL) were comebacks because Luck made bone-headed plays early in games. which put us in a hole.  

 

Ballard saw a major flaw consistent with Grigs' era - it was that Luck didn't have a very solid team around him.  Ballard has said since day 1 he wanted to build a team that doesn't rely solely on elite QB play to win and he's given us that.  I like Jacoby, but honestly don't think he could have won 7 games last year on pretty much any other team which wound up with a losing record.  

 

Our major problem with talent right now is a depth problem.  That said, how many teams could be expected to have to replace  an all-pro (Buckner) and 2 pro-bowlers/borderline all-pro (AC & Kelly) in one game and not see significant drop offs?  Especially against a team like the Titans.... my bet would be not a single team.    

 

 

We have no idea if we'd be 9-2 with Luck this year, or if Luck had this defense back then.  TBH, while the AFC South isn't that strong this year (Jax and HOU have dropped off), the AFC South used to be a joke aside from Indy through the Manning years and in the early Luck years.  We can't go back and compare this team to a team that played significantly different opponents back then.

 

Yes, we have some critical pieces missing.  We don't really have elite WRs like we did in the Peyton era or in Luck's first year or 2 (before Reggie got hurt and when TY was playing at a higher level than he is now).  We have a top 10 QB in the league in Rivers.  We had a top 5 QB with Luck.  Let's not forget, just like Rivers, Luck wasn't without his share of just bone-headed throws or mistakes which put us in holes in games.  

 

This current team lacks depth at several positions.  There is not a team in the entire league who would be expected not to see a decline in play when 2/5 of their OL is out (two pro-bowlers, mind you) and another is playing injured (our all-pro Q).  There are few other teams in the league who have an all-pro DT and they would not perform the same without them (e.g., the Rams without Aaron Donald are a different team, hands down -- there are few other starters in the NFL who could go fill in for Aaron Donald and be expected to perform at a similar level, Buckner is one of the few -- there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could go and perform at the same level as AD, just like there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could come in and replace Buckner without significant decline in performance.... especially vs. the best RB in the league, especially when another starting DL is out along with a starting LB and a starting S).  

 

Compared to the Luck era, this team is a much better overall team.  The Luck era was built on Luck and he took us as far as he could (AFC CHampionship) with the  talent he had.  This team, if we're healthy doesn't need an elite QB to win big games... we have a QB in Rivers, who if he doesn't throw dumb INTs, can win games vs. any other team on any given day so long as we are mostly healthy and if we are injured the injuries don't happen to be to pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players at 3 positions on the same day.

 

 

 

 

 

Not really.

 

The overall talent level right now with Rivers and our IR'd skill players is about the overall same level as when he had a more talented QB, less talent on defense, and Donald Thomas and Gosder Cherilous on IR back then.

 

The main difference is that back then, we were maxed out at getting over the hump because we spent to the maximum Cap number just to get into the playoffs (but didn't mortgage the future), whereas now we still have room to maintain our talent level while adding more.

 

So we will resign the good players, and add more rookies who can (hopefully) play.  And then we'll be in position to win just like every other sports league team that wins and is pressed against the cap...they get rookies who are in their 2nd 3rd or 4th years to vastly contribute more to the team than the level of salary they are being compensated at in their rookie contracts.

 

Its either done that way (like SEA did when they got those young drafted defensive players and Wilson pre-big contract) or you simply load up on FAs to win now and mortgage the future (which doesn't seem to work out well in the NFL)

[shasta519]

10 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

We have no idea if we'd be 9-2 with Luck this year, or if Luck had this defense back then.  TBH, while the AFC South isn't that strong this year (Jax and HOU have dropped off), the AFC South used to be a joke aside from Indy through the Manning years and in the early Luck years.  We can't go back and compare this team to a team that played significantly different opponents back then.

 

Compared to the Luck era, this team is a much better overall team.  The Luck era was built on Luck and he took us as far as he could (AFC CHampionship) with the  talent he had.  This team, if we're healthy doesn't need an elite QB to win big games... we have a QB in Rivers, who if he doesn't throw dumb INTs, can win games vs. any other team on any given day so long as we are mostly healthy and if we are injured the injuries don't happen to be to pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players at 3 positions on the same day.

 

 

I have to somewhat disagree with that bolded sentence...or at least that it is definitive now. 

 

It is hard to compare teams, per se, but we can somewhat compare SOS (and quality of wins) and look at DVOA...which would help account for the difference in the AFCS and schedule.

 

Looking back on the 2013 and 2014 teams...even with a poor AFCS...the Colts still had a decent SOS in 2013 (17th) and 2014 (10th)...much stronger than this current season (28th).

 

That 2013 team beat a 13-win SEA team, a 12-win SF team, a 13-win DEN team and an 11-win KC team (twice). The only team they lost that had less than 8 wins...was a bizarre 38-6 blowout loss to a 7-win LAR team (which showed how they could lose to anybody...especially if Luck was bad).

 

That 2014 team didn't have quite the signature wins...but they made it to the AFC Championship. They didn't lose to a team with less than 10 wins. It was a gauntlet of a schedule...outside of the AFCS...and they still won 11 games.

 

During those two years...the Colts were 34-17 (including playoffs). Luck was the engine...but they were respectable in defense...17th (2013) and 11th (2014). Their overall team DVOA was 14th...in large part to an offense that was held back by the run game.

 

Not that it's the best measure...but that 2014 team had 7-8 Pro Bowlers as well.

 

If you put a top 5 defense on either of those 2013/2014 teams...I think they are easily a top 8 team in DVOA IMO...and very likely a 13-win team with the schedule they had.

 

This season...the Colts are currently 8th in team DVOA...driven by their defensive ranking (8th). But it still remains to be seen if this team can even win 10 games...with an easier schedule.

 

I think there are definitely more talented players on this current team...but the overall team level is about the same...because like DD said...the talent is just distributed differently.

 

 

[DontEverGiveUp]

The obsession with Luck and exaggerating his "eliteness" is amusing to me.  The truth is, nobody knows what the Colts record would be this year if Luck was still playing.

 

Would Luck somehow have prevented Minshew from going 19/20 and 3 TDs?  Would Luck have prevented JT's fumble 6?  Would Luck have prevented Henry from going off and the Titans scoring 5 TDs on their first 6 possessions?

 

Some of y'all act like Luck never played less than a perfect game and won all by himself.  What makes it even more ironic is that Luck threw INTs at the same rate Rivers does, and Luck actually threw more INTs than TDs in the playoffs.

 

I know the grass is always greener, but y'all gotta give it up at some point.

 

The current Colts team has some holes, but they can still right the ship by getting healthy and improving the play-calling/game planning on both sides of the ball.

[Four2itus]

I dont want to get in the middle of others discussion. I will say that I can see much more depth currently at quite a few positions, than we had with Luck. How would we do if we magically switched QB's? Impossible to assume. 

 

But as I have said, as others have alluded to, I would rather have adequate QB play along with a really good defense and depth offensively. I have been a fan for decades, and I truly love the way this team is being built. 

[CurBeatElite]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

Not really.

 

The overall talent level right now with Rivers and our IR'd skill players is about the overall same level as when he had a more talented QB, less talent on defense, and Donald Thomas and Gosder Cherilous on IR back then.

 

The main difference is that back then, we were maxed out at getting over the hump because we spent to the maximum Cap number just to get into the playoffs (but didn't mortgage the future), whereas now we still have room to maintain our talent level while adding more.

 

So we will resign the good players, and add more rookies who can (hopefully) play.  And then we'll be in position to win just like every other sports league team that wins and is pressed against the cap...they get rookies who are in their 2nd 3rd or 4th years to vastly contribute more to the team than the level of salary they are being compensated at in their rookie contracts.

 

Its either done that way (like SEA did when they got those young drafted defensive players and Wilson pre-big contract) or you simply load up on FAs to win now and mortgage the future (which doesn't seem to work out well in the NFL)

 

Donald Thomas was a back-up (I think he had 1 or 2 starts in NE) prior to coming to Indy and he got hurt in week 2.  He had 1 or 2 starts with Miami before being put on season ending IR and then missed an entire season with Detroit.  Not sure what the infatuation with him is, but he was a journeyman who was a backup or injured before he came here and he got injured 2 weeks into the season.  I don't think he's anywhere near comparable to AC or Kelly (or any of our starting OL for that matter).  

 

Grigs made Cherilus the highest paid RT in the NFL after signing him after his time in Detroit.  He had injury issues before he came here and was released 2 years into his 5 year deal due to the same injury concerns.  Not saying Cherilus was bad, but he was not a probowler and I don't know what Grigs was thinking making him the highest paid RT in the league (he never performed at or near the level of being the best RT in the league).  His absence from the team was nowhere near as significant as Kelly or Costanzo were last week.  BTW, Costanzo and Kelly are not IR'ed.  

 

Our IR'd players (Mack, Hooker and Campbell) are all solid players.  Without Hooker, our D was still performing at or near the highest level of any D in the NFL.  Missing Buckner (an all-pro), Autry and Oke last week was obvious - we had a totally different game against TN just two weeks prior and for the most part did a good job of limiting Henry. He ran all over us last week without 3 guys who have been crucial to our run defense.  None of those guys are IR'ed either.  

 

Our 2014 team had absolutely awful running backs (T-Rich, Herron, Michael Hill and Tipton).  Our WRs were similar, maybe slightly better then with a productive TY, a somewhat productive Reggie (coming off injury), and Moncrief  (who Luck made look better than he is) then we had Josh Cribbs, Whalen and Hicks (who was washed up).   Our OL was nowhere near this year's OL (aside from Castonzo, and maybe Mewhort who was a rookie, we are far better off now all the way across the line than we were then).  Our DL was Kerr, Art Jones, Chapman, Redding, RJF and Montori Hughes -- our backups on the DL now are better than almost all of them.  We had D'Qwell Jackson who was solid at LB and Walden who was OK, otherwise our LBs were a joke.  We had Mike Adams who was an overachieving vet late in his career and Vontae Davis who was very solid, otherwise aside from Darius Butler in the slot our DBs were quite awful (Landry was way overpaid and awful, Sergio Brown was overhyped with is Ric Flair locker room rant and Toler and the rest of the group stunk).  Vinatieri had a very good year (better than Hot Rod's current year, but Hot Rod's still having a good year) and McAfee was the best punter in the league (though Rigo isn't too bad this year).

 

Outside of QB, the only positions where we were clearly better then than we are now were K and P.  We were arguably better at WR (not by much) and way worse at every other position and it wasn't even close.  Our depth is better now as well.

[Four2itus]

23 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

 

Pretty much every team in the league this far into the salary cap era has the ability to lose to nearly everybody, beat anybody and lay some eggs.  This year it seems like the only team that really can't beat anybody is the Jets and they are pretty horribly managed and still were within a  score in 2 of their losses.  Brady and the Bucs laid an absolute egg vs. New Orleans.  The Bengals without Burrows may have a very hard time beating anyone, but they've still won 2 games (one vs. the Titans) and 4 of their losses have been 1 score games (plus a 5th non-win which was a tie).  The Steelers haven't really had a challenging schedule and 5 of their wins were 1 score games.  

 

This is not the same team as back then, not even close.  We have a much better D and OL than Luck ever had.  I get that you don't like the shoulda, coulda, woulda game, and I don't think anybody does - fact is, other than last week we have had legitimate shots to win every game we've played -- we also beat the Titans by 17 just 2 games before that, so I have no reason to believe if we're healthy we wouldn't have a legit shot at beating them if we had to match up again later in the season.  

 

Luck was a once in a generation QB, very few QBs could carry teams like he could and basically single-handedly win games.  That said, a lot of comeback wins in the Luck era (I am pretty sure during his time he had the most comeback wins in the NFL) were comebacks because Luck made bone-headed plays early in games. which put us in a hole.  

 

Ballard saw a major flaw consistent with Grigs' era - it was that Luck didn't have a very solid team around him.  Ballard has said since day 1 he wanted to build a team that doesn't rely solely on elite QB play to win and he's given us that.  I like Jacoby, but honestly don't think he could have won 7 games last year on pretty much any other team which wound up with a losing record.  

 

Our major problem with talent right now is a depth problem.  That said, how many teams could be expected to have to replace  an all-pro (Buckner) and 2 pro-bowlers/borderline all-pro (AC & Kelly) in one game and not see significant drop offs?  Especially against a team like the Titans.... my bet would be not a single team.    

 

 

We have no idea if we'd be 9-2 with Luck this year, or if Luck had this defense back then.  TBH, while the AFC South isn't that strong this year (Jax and HOU have dropped off), the AFC South used to be a joke aside from Indy through the Manning years and in the early Luck years.  We can't go back and compare this team to a team that played significantly different opponents back then.

 

Yes, we have some critical pieces missing.  We don't really have elite WRs like we did in the Peyton era or in Luck's first year or 2 (before Reggie got hurt and when TY was playing at a higher level than he is now).  We have a top 10 QB in the league in Rivers.  We had a top 5 QB with Luck.  Let's not forget, just like Rivers, Luck wasn't without his share of just bone-headed throws or mistakes which put us in holes in games.  

 

This current team lacks depth at several positions.  There is not a team in the entire league who would be expected not to see a decline in play when 2/5 of their OL is out (two pro-bowlers, mind you) and another is playing injured (our all-pro Q).  There are few other teams in the league who have an all-pro DT and they would not perform the same without them (e.g., the Rams without Aaron Donald are a different team, hands down -- there are few other starters in the NFL who could go fill in for Aaron Donald and be expected to perform at a similar level, Buckner is one of the few -- there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could go and perform at the same level as AD, just like there are NO back-ups in the NFL who could come in and replace Buckner without significant decline in performance.... especially vs. the best RB in the league, especially when another starting DL is out along with a starting LB and a starting S).  

 

Compared to the Luck era, this team is a much better overall team.  The Luck era was built on Luck and he took us as far as he could (AFC CHampionship) with the  talent he had.  This team, if we're healthy doesn't need an elite QB to win big games... we have a QB in Rivers, who if he doesn't throw dumb INTs, can win games vs. any other team on any given day so long as we are mostly healthy and if we are injured the injuries don't happen to be to pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players at 3 positions on the same day.

 

 

 

 

Mahommes is an absolute freak show.  I know it's a small sample size, but he averages 307.4 yards per game over his career.  The 2nd best of all time (Drew Brees) is >27 yards behind him at 280.3 yards per game.  Mahommes is a once in a lifetime QB.  We'll likely never see a Mahommes here in Indy, and Ballard's building a team at a level where we won't need one.  We will need a  solid QB who can play within the system and not make mistakes to compete week in and week out with any team in the league.

One of the most logical, and thought out posts in a while. Well done. You truly give in depth responses, and most fans won't take the time to read what you write, because of your in-depth replies. 

 

They should. 

 

I think for the most part, fans aren't really fans of a team, not the way it was when I grew up. They seem to get something, not sure what it is, but they receive something worthwhile by pointing a finger, and to them....identifying what they believe is the problem with their team. Thank god I don't live my fandom that way. I love believing, following, and supporting. The joy I get, every season, regardless of the record, is indescribable.

 

I....love....the Indianapolis Colts. Just like I loved the Baltimore Colts. Every season is a pearl, waiting to be opened. Why in hell would I choose to base my fandom joy....on their record? 

 

I love to see my team win. I love to see them exceed expectations. But....regardless of what transpires, I will enjoy each and every game. Simply, because I choose to. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

On 12/2/2020 at 6:29 AM, csmopar said:

My last game was the 2014 home playoff game against the Bengals. 

See that’s the funny thing, I don’t either. I might have one drink a year. If that. I’m just too cheap to spend 40 bucks on a tiny bottle of water, sugar and corn.

No. The results were better obviously for that 06 team. I mean they won the Super Bowl. But statistically and record wise, the 09 team was miles better. Polish screwed us when he pulled the starters at 14-0. I honestly think that messed with our mojo and we ended up 14-2 and lost in the Super Bowl. I think we could have ran the table with that 09 team.

 

the 05 team was even better yet.

You can almost flip a coin between 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2009 could've realistically went undefeated in the regular season but they did lose in the SB. That team didn't have Adam kicking - out because of injury, Marvin was retired so not on the roster, and Bob Sanders played 1 game. Talent wise they weren't as great as 2006. 2005 was clicking better than 2006 and had a tad more talent because Edge was on that team but in the playoffs they didn't finish. You have to finish. I would take 2006 because to me SP Teams is a big part in winning in the playoffs and we had Adam over Vanderjagt. 

[CurBeatElite]

On 12/3/2020 at 12:11 AM, Four2itus said:

One of the most logical, and thought out posts in a while. Well done. You truly give in depth responses, and most fans won't take the time to read what you write, because of your in-depth replies. 

 

They should. 

 

I think for the most part, fans aren't really fans of a team, not the way it was when I grew up. They seem to get something, not sure what it is, but they receive something worthwhile by pointing a finger, and to them....identifying what they believe is the problem with their team. Thank god I don't live my fandom that way. I love believing, following, and supporting. The joy I get, every season, regardless of the record, is indescribable.

 

I....love....the Indianapolis Colts. Just like I loved the Baltimore Colts. Every season is a pearl, waiting to be opened. Why in hell would I choose to base my fandom joy....on their record? 

 

I love to see my team win. I love to see them exceed expectations. But....regardless of what transpires, I will enjoy each and every game. Simply, because I choose to. 

 

Thanks, bud.  I know I write a lot.  I just finished my PhD dissertation in May and am doing some post-doc work now as a research scientist in a Wildlife/Fisheries program.  I have a graduate minor (next year will have a master's degree in statistics).  Outside of my work and family/personal things, the Colts keep me going.  I am happy to be a Colts' fan. A die-hard, for sure.  I was born in '86 so didn't get to see the Baltimore era, but fell in love with the '94-95 team ("Let 'er Rip"is what Marchibroda said to Harbaugh before every game).  I like reading a lot on this board, and I like to write and usually spend a lot of time on it (especially when I get into statistics, which I usually keep layman term) because it warms my brain up for my real job.  

 

On 12/3/2020 at 12:21 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You can almost flip a coin between 2005, 2006, and 2009. 2009 could've realistically went undefeated in the regular season but they did lose in the SB. That team didn't have Adam kicking - out because of injury, Marvin was retired so not on the roster, and Bob Sanders played 1 game. Talent wise they weren't as great as 2006. 2005 was clicking better than 2006 and had a tad more talent because Edge was on that team but in the playoffs they didn't finish. You have to finish. I would take 2006 because to me SP Teams is a big part in winning in the playoffs and we had Adam over Vanderjagt. 

 

Adam is the best kicker in NFL history and probably the most clutch of all time.  He's going to be a first ballot HOFer (I sincerely wish we clinch a playoff birth and he comes back and kicks his 600th  FG as a Colt).  

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Donald Thomas was a back-up (I think he had 1 or 2 starts in NE) prior to coming to Indy and he got hurt in week 2.  He had 1 or 2 starts with Miami before being put on season ending IR and then missed an entire season with Detroit.  Not sure what the infatuation with him is, but he was a journeyman who was a backup or injured before he came here and he got injured 2 weeks into the season.  I don't think he's anywhere near comparable to AC or Kelly (or any of our starting OL for that matter).  

 

Grigs made Cherilus the highest paid RT in the NFL after signing him after his time in Detroit.  He had injury issues before he came here and was released 2 years into his 5 year deal due to the same injury concerns.  Not saying Cherilus was bad, but he was not a probowler and I don't know what Grigs was thinking making him the highest paid RT in the league (he never performed at or near the level of being the best RT in the league).  His absence from the team was nowhere near as significant as Kelly or Costanzo were last week.  BTW, Costanzo and Kelly are not IR'ed.  

 

Our IR'd players (Mack, Hooker and Campbell) are all solid players.  Without Hooker, our D was still performing at or near the highest level of any D in the NFL.  Missing Buckner (an all-pro), Autry and Oke last week was obvious - we had a totally different game against TN just two weeks prior and for the most part did a good job of limiting Henry. He ran all over us last week without 3 guys who have been crucial to our run defense.  None of those guys are IR'ed either.  

 

Our 2014 team had absolutely awful running backs (T-Rich, Herron, Michael Hill and Tipton).  Our WRs were similar, maybe slightly better then with a productive TY, a somewhat productive Reggie (coming off injury), and Moncrief  (who Luck made look better than he is) then we had Josh Cribbs, Whalen and Hicks (who was washed up).   Our OL was nowhere near this year's OL (aside from Castonzo, and maybe Mewhort who was a rookie, we are far better off now all the way across the line than we were then).  Our DL was Kerr, Art Jones, Chapman, Redding, RJF and Montori Hughes -- our backups on the DL now are better than almost all of them.  We had D'Qwell Jackson who was solid at LB and Walden who was OK, otherwise our LBs were a joke.  We had Mike Adams who was an overachieving vet late in his career and Vontae Davis who was very solid, otherwise aside from Darius Butler in the slot our DBs were quite awful (Landry was way overpaid and awful, Sergio Brown was overhyped with is Ric Flair locker room rant and Toler and the rest of the group stunk).  Vinatieri had a very good year (better than Hot Rod's current year, but Hot Rod's still having a good year) and McAfee was the best punter in the league (though Rigo isn't too bad this year).

 

Outside of QB, the only positions where we were clearly better then than we are now were K and P.  We were arguably better at WR (not by much) and way worse at every other position and it wasn't even close.  Our depth is better now as well.

Doesn't matter.

 

Just like adding Rivers and Buckner this year turned us from a 6-10 team to a playoff contender, we had Luck, TY, AC, VD, and Robert Mathis making an impact and allowing us back then to be a playoff contender.  The division was an easier ride but we also won a few playoff games against nondivisonal opponents too.  You're talking about talent levels in positions that don't matter.

 

We lost a few players, but some of our best players last week, AC, Buckner, Kelly, (and maybe Autry) and stunk.  Obviously, the talent level of the rest of the team didn't matter....why...because eventhough TEN had players out too, it wasn't the players that mattered, like Tannehill, Henry, Simmons, and Brown.

 

Its the NFL.  A few highly talented players in ....hopefully for us someday....positions that matter, surrounded by others that float through the NFL during their career.  We need more talent in more positions that matter to get over the hump, just like we needed back then, just different positions now rather than then.

  

 

And as an aside, our best players are Rivers, Buckner, AC, Nelson, Leonard, Houston, Autry, Kelly, Smith, Rhodes and possibly TY (or should be).  For a team or fan base who supports the notion of our FO "building through the draft" it must be a bit disheartening to see that the vast majority of our best players are players who were originally drafted by someone not associated with our current FO.  Instead, by retaining or picking off players someone else originally brought into the NFL. 

 

Not sure about where we'll be in the future.

[Fluke_33]

2 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

The bolded statement almost makes me never want to take you credible again.  Adam is the best kicker in NFL history and probably the most clutch of all time.  He's going to be a first ballot HOFer (I sincerely wish we clinch a playoff birth and he comes back and kicks his 600th  FG as a Colt). 

I think you misread his post.  He’s saying that team was better bc we had vinatieri instead of having vanderjat 

[CurBeatElite]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

Doesn't matter.

 

Just like adding Rivers and Buckner this year turned us from a 6-10 team to a playoff contender, we had Luck, TY, AC, VD, and Robert Mathis making an impact and allowing us back then to be a playoff contender.  The division was an easier ride but we also won a few playoff games against nondivisonal opponents too.  You're talking about talent levels in positions that don't matter.

 

We lost a few players, but some of our best players last week, AC, Buckner, Kelly, (and maybe Autry) and stunk.  Obviously, the talent level of the rest of the team didn't matter....why...because eventhough TEN had players out too, it wasn't the players that mattered, like Tannehill, Henry, Simmons, and Brown.

 

Its the NFL.  A few highly talented players in ....hopefully for us someday....positions that matter, surrounded by others that float through the NFL during their career.  We need more talent in more positions that matter to get over the hump, just like we needed back then, just different positions now rather than then.

  

 

And as an aside, our best players are Rivers, Buckner, AC, Nelson, Leonard, Houston, Autry, Kelly, Smith, Rhodes and possibly TY (or should be).  For a team or fan base who supports the notion of our FO "building through the draft" it must be a bit disheartening to see that the vast majority of our best players are players who were originally drafted by someone not associated with our current FO.  Instead, by retaining or picking off players someone else originally brought into the NFL. 

 

Not sure about where we'll be in the future.

 

This is arguably the most ignorant post I have ever read on this board.  "You're talking about talent levels in positions that don't matter."  I was talking about talent levels of players at just about every single position on the team and every position matters.

 

What positions 'matter' to you? Just the QB? Or the QB, P and K?  The most important position on the defense in the scheme Ballard is building is the 3-T.  He got us an all-pro in Buckner. He doesn't matter?

 

No sense in continuing this, it's a waste of time.  Out of the players you list, Rivers is a stop-gap (we all knew that and with Luck's somewhat abrupt retirement, Ballard/Reich had us in playoff contention with Jacoby until week 16 last year -- Polian had us as a 2-14 team without Peyton and Grigs had us as an 8-8 and then 4-12 team (inherited by Ballard) with or without Luck -- chances are we are not going to be in position to draft a #1 QB while Ballard is in charge since we'll always be in the playoff hunt and won't be 'tanking'). Nelson, Leonard, Smith were all drafted by Ballard.  He signed Autry, traded for (essentially drafted) Buckner.  He signed Rhodes and Houston.  He retained AC and Kelly and let go most of the rest of the garbage that Grigs handed off to him.  TY is no longer our best WR, Pittman is and he was brought in by Ballard.  Our best RB in JT and he was brought in by Ballard.  Our best DB is probably Blackmon (not Rhodes) and he was drafted by Ballard.  I'll stop there, there's an old adage about not letting people you argue with drag you down to their level.

 

6 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

I think you misread his post.  He’s saying that team was better bc we had vinatieri instead of having vanderjat 

 

You are right, I read over the word 'over', sorry @2006Coltsbestever

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

This is arguably the most ignorant post I have ever read on this board.  "You're talking about talent levels in positions that don't matter."  I was talking about talent levels of players at just about every single position on the team and every position matters.

 

What positions 'matter' to you? Just the QB? Or the QB, P and K?  The most important position on the defense in the scheme Ballard is building is the 3-T.  He got us an all-pro in Buckner. He doesn't matter?

 

No sense in continuing this, it's a waste of time.  Out of the players you list, Rivers is a stop-gap (we all knew that and with Luck's somewhat abrupt retirement, Ballard/Reich had us in playoff contention with Jacoby until week 16 last year -- Polian had us as a 2-14 team without Peyton and Grigs had us as an 8-8 and then 4-12 team (inherited by Ballard) with or without Luck -- chances are we are not going to be in position to draft a #1 QB while Ballard is in charge since we'll always be in the playoff hunt and won't be 'tanking'). Nelson, Leonard, Smith were all drafted by Ballard.  He signed Autry, traded for (essentially drafted) Buckner.  He signed Rhodes and Houston.  He retained AC and Kelly and let go most of the rest of the garbage that Grigs handed off to him.  TY is no longer our best WR, Pittman is and he was brought in by Ballard.  Our best RB in JT and he was brought in by Ballard.  Our best DB is probably Blackmon (not Rhodes) and he was drafted by Ballard.  I'll stop there, there's an old adage about not letting people you argue with drag you down to their level.

 

 

You are right, I read over the word 'over', sorry @2006Coltsbestever

You went into a lot of detail about players who were added to the teams to be rotational players.  I was simply talking about positional value and the alignment of great talent into the positions you count on to make plays or play three downs.  Buckner is a great example.  He is a great 3T, where 3T is probably THE most important position on the defense.  

 

Which is equal to...not better than...having Robert Mathis as an all pro edge and NFL season sack leader playing in a 34, where the EDGE is probably the most important position in a 34....if not the press man corner who can match up against the number one receiver of the other team...in which we had a great player in that important position too Vontae.  Take your pick as which position is more important....we had them both staffed with a great player.

 

Back then, we had great players in positions of high value, but less talent in the lower valued positions.  A formula that got us to about 10-6/11-5 every year and either a playoff loss or some degree of advancement...when Luck was healthy.

 

Now, we have less talent in positions of high value than back then, but we have better talent in lower valued rotational players.  A formula that has gotten us likely to the same place to 10-6 and a playoff loss after we added talent to our important 3T position and shored up the QB spot from last year.

 

Same level of overall talent....disbursed differently.....resulting in the same result or forecasted result.

 

What is so objectionable or controversial about that? 

 

The point about the draft is that it is disappointing that the best players on our current team look to be rolling off within two years, making it more difficult to continue to have great talent in positions of high value.  At least back then, some of those great players gave us stability for 7 or more years.  I hope that we can replace them with young great players who can contribute for 7 or more years like they have.  Right now, we don't have a real future at QB, LT, #1WR, or at steady outside pass rush or #1CB, but we have a decent supporting cast of other players.   

[2006Coltsbestever]

On 12/3/2020 at 4:40 AM, CurBeatElite said:

 

Thanks, bud.  I know I write a lot.  I just finished my PhD dissertation in May and am doing some post-doc work now as a research scientist in a Wildlife/Fisheries program.  I have a graduate minor (next year will have a master's degree in statistics).  Outside of my work and family/personal things, the Colts keep me going.  I am happy to be a Colts' fan. A die-hard, for sure.  I was born in '86 so didn't get to see the Baltimore era, but fell in love with the '94-95 team ("Let 'er Rip"is what Marchibroda said to Harbaugh before every game).  I like reading a lot on this board, and I like to write and usually spend a lot of time on it (especially when I get into statistics, which I usually keep layman term) because it warms my brain up for my real job.  

 

 

The bolded statement almost makes me never want to take you credible again.  Adam is the best kicker in NFL history and probably the most clutch of all time.  He's going to be a first ballot HOFer (I sincerely wish we clinch a playoff birth and he comes back and kicks his 600th  FG as a Colt).  

@Four2itus and @Nadine, he misread my post, how I am not sure. I said 2006 was better because we had Adam over Vanderjagt. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

15 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

I think you misread his post.  He’s saying that team was better bc we had vinatieri instead of having vanderjat 

Correct, thanks.

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

This is arguably the most ignorant post I have ever read on this board.  "You're talking about talent levels in positions that don't matter."  I was talking about talent levels of players at just about every single position on the team and every position matters.

 

What positions 'matter' to you? Just the QB? Or the QB, P and K?  The most important position on the defense in the scheme Ballard is building is the 3-T.  He got us an all-pro in Buckner. He doesn't matter?

 

No sense in continuing this, it's a waste of time.  Out of the players you list, Rivers is a stop-gap (we all knew that and with Luck's somewhat abrupt retirement, Ballard/Reich had us in playoff contention with Jacoby until week 16 last year -- Polian had us as a 2-14 team without Peyton and Grigs had us as an 8-8 and then 4-12 team (inherited by Ballard) with or without Luck -- chances are we are not going to be in position to draft a #1 QB while Ballard is in charge since we'll always be in the playoff hunt and won't be 'tanking'). Nelson, Leonard, Smith were all drafted by Ballard.  He signed Autry, traded for (essentially drafted) Buckner.  He signed Rhodes and Houston.  He retained AC and Kelly and let go most of the rest of the garbage that Grigs handed off to him.  TY is no longer our best WR, Pittman is and he was brought in by Ballard.  Our best RB in JT and he was brought in by Ballard.  Our best DB is probably Blackmon (not Rhodes) and he was drafted by Ballard.  I'll stop there, there's an old adage about not letting people you argue with drag you down to their level.

 

 

You are right, I read over the word 'over', sorry @2006Coltsbestever

No biggy I have done that before too. I was like HUH?  , you even got 2 likes for it as well.