"If you're in in March, you need to be in for the entire season"

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Players are bigger and faster today. Physics tell you that hits are harder. I am honestly surprised that one could think differently. 

What you’re saying may be true...  it’s the law of physics. 
 

But the thing is the NFL has outlawed much of the violence out of the game.   There’s much less hard hitting today than even 19 years ago...  or 20 years ago...  or 30 years ago...   and certainly 40 years ago. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Defensive players from decades past tackled more and wrapped up ball carrier than trying to annihilate him.

Players still hit more than from the past, it just depends on how far you go back.

[jvan1973]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

What you’re saying may be true...  it’s the law of physics. 
 

But the thing is the NFL has outlawed much of the violence out of the game.   There’s much less hard hitting today than even 19 years ago...  or 20 years ago...  or 30 years ago...   and certainly 40 years ago. 

They have started penalizing it,  but big hits still happen every week.   

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

They have started penalizing it,  but big hits still happen every week.   

 

It's all relative.   The hits are fewer and farther between.  They're not nearly as big.   The penalties are big in ways they've never been before.   It's a much different game.

 

And there's very little violence compared to what the NFL used to have.   I'm talking back in the 70's, 80's and 90's with Montana and Bradshaw and Aikman and countless others....

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index7255.html?p=493

 

Here is a link that shows to 2006.  Most position groups are getting bigger.  I’m sure great teams can stand the test of time and compete and win against modern teams.  However, I still think athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than those of the 80s and 90s. Athletes now have much more access to better training and film study.  I won’t say who would win bc that’s just a guess but I think these guys now would be physically fine if not have a slight edge.   

Good post and as I posted above 1-53 as a whole are bigger, stronger, and faster in today's game. I think my point was, is I can field a starting 11 on both sides of the ball from the 80's/90's players that were just as athletic = just as big/strong/fast compared to today. Teams like the 90's Cowboys and even the 90's 49ers when they had Young at QB were loaded and I have no doubt those 2 teams would be just fine in today's game. 

[CurBeatElite]

On 2/18/2021 at 2:44 PM, Dogg63 said:

After seeing you post so many times with facts and figures to at least try to back up your opinions, I never expected you to resort to ad hominem attacks. You seem to be taking any Luck bashing extremely personally. I'm surprised and disappointed.

 

Probably could've used a different choice of words.  I don't take Luck bashing personal.  Moreso find it annoying when a forum fan makes claims that he would talk trash to the face of a 6'4" 250+ lbs. NFL caliber QB multiple times behind his computer screen.  

 

On 2/19/2021 at 8:08 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To compare any QB to Tom Brady or Peyton Manning just isn't fair IMO. I will say Joe Montana as well because he was the QB of the 80's. The 80's is when athlete's started to get really big and fast and defensive players were allowed to basically beat up QB's.

 

I mean those 3 QB's resume speaks for themselves:

Brady = 7 SB rings as a starter, 3 League MVP's, 5 SB MVP's. His film study is almost unmatched. Very smart QB and gets all of his WR's on the same page.

 

Peyton = 2 SB rings as a starter, 5 League MVP's, 1 SB MVP. His film study is like Brady's, pretty even. Peyton is the smartest QB I have ever seen with audible's into the right play. He and Brady both play chess while other QB's play checkers. Peyton was a coach on the field.

 

Montana = 4 SB rings as a starter, 2 League MVP's, 3 SB MVP's. He played in an era where QB's got brutalized lol. When I think of clutch, I think of him = 4-0 in SB's and in 4 SB's he threw no INT's. He was a step ahead of everyone when he played.

 

-We have had other QB's like Elway, Marino, Rodgers, Brees, and now Mahomes but not even those QB's have been better. Luck would've had to have a career with at least 3 SB wins, 3 League MVP's and at least 1 SB MVP to even be compared to any of the 3 QB's in Brady, Peyton, or Montana. Perhaps Mahomes will but that is not a given. 

 

If Luck had 3 SB wins he would have surpassed Peyton in that category.  If all 3 came in Indy, he would have 3x more SB wins than Peyton did as a Colt.  I would imagine many people would consider him the greatest Colts' QB of all time had he done that.. of course, it didn't happy so we probably don't need to spend time arguing it.  

 

As for Mahomes, he plays a style which has him relying heavily on his mobility, at least much moreso than Montana, Manning or Brady.  For that reason, I think he's suspect to injury.  Also, he has track stars on his team - I can't imagine a guy like Tyreek Hill is going to be as good/dominant at WR when he loses a step or two... and he has a great coach in Reid, who I can't imagine will be around for too much longer.  Brady had a HOF coach from day 1 through his first 19 years in the league.  Peyton had a HOF coach the vast majority of his career, as did Montana.  If Reid retires in a year or two, will Mahomes be able to dominate with a lesser quality coach?  Maybe, but my guess is if he plays a 20 year career that most of it will be without Reid.

 

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think rosters 1-53 as a whole today are bigger, stronger, and faster than compared to the 80's but there were a lot of 80's/90's players that were just as big, strong, and fast as todays players believe it or not. Here are a list of names that would dominate today that played back then:

1. Lawrence Taylor (LB) - Best defensive player ever

2. Derrick Thomas (LB) - Fastest LB I have ever seen by the way

3. Mike Singletary (LB)

4. Reggie White (DE) - just as big, strong, and fast as anyone today

5. Bruce Smith (DE) - Just as big, strong, and fast as anyone today

6. Deion Sanders (CB) - Faster than anyone today

7. Darrell Green (CB) - Faster than anyone today

8. Mike Haynes (CB) - Could cover anyone today

9. Ronnie Lott (SS) - Best Safety ever

10. William Perry (DT) - 300 pounds of brute

 

On Offense:

1. I could mention guys like Anthony Munoz (OL), Joe Jacoby (OL) Jerry Rice (WR), Walter Payton (RB), Barry Sanders (RB), Eric Dickerson (RB), and Emmitt Smith (RB) so it is comical to think athlete's now are better than they were back then. QB's back then like Montana, Young, Elway, Aikman, and Marino were unreal as well.

 

The whole Dallas Cowboys O.Line in 1995 averaged 320 pounds across the board. Nate Newton was at 335 lol. There are smaller O.Line's in today's game on average.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a Peyton's Places episode called 'Speed Kills' which mainly features Willie Gault (former Bears & Raiders WR) and Darrell Green.  Gault was an olympic level sprinter and  claims he ran a 4.06 forty (stop watch) coming out of U. Tennessee.  Green typically beat him in the NFL's fastest man contest, except one year Green was hurt another olympic sprinter, Ron Brown beat Gault.  

 

To keep it short, freak athletes have been in the NFL forever.  I just think today's game it is more common.  Also, as with all sports, athletes are getting better training, understanding more about nutrition and supplements, and seemingly more specialized.  There is better (and more) technology now, too, allowing players and coaches to analyze film better than they could in the past.  Finally, in the early days of NFL players made decent money but typically not great (e.g., Otto Graham made $7,500 per year in 1945 - equivalent to $109k today) and it wasn't uncommon for many of them to have second jobs or serve in the military, etc.  Today's NFL stars are compensated very well and while some of them may have side businesses and make extra $ doing commercials, etc, it is very easy for them to focus almost entirely on being a star football player 365 days of the year.  

 

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Your posts are too brash and bold for my tastes, but I'll support this portion. 

 

There was a distinct difference in how fast Peyton got rid of the ball and how slowly Luck did.  Of course PM had a different offensive style, part of which he took the lead in designing however.  Not sure Luck ever contributed that much to the design of the O.

 

I remember early PM used to say that he had a clock in his head.  After so many seconds passed, he figured he was going to get sacked and looked to dump off or get rid of the ball.  Not even a pressure thing, it was an elapsed time thing.

 

Luck didn't dump off.  Off course, his RBs were not really the dump off kind.  TRich and Gore were more power runners...after the Pep Hamilton influence impacted the team.... I think Ballard and Ahmed Bradshaw were better dump off RBs.  PM had Rhodes and Addai.

 

But I agree with your overall point, I think I know what it is.  As good as Luck was, he never seemed to evolve much over his career in the area of protecting himself.  If you equate that with football smarts, I'm not going to disagree.  Also, I think he seemed less interested in adapting the offense to take care of himself better.  He seemed to kinda go with whatever the coaching was.  PM would not do that.

 

PM also had Edgerrin James and Marshall Faulk early in his career -- two of the best receiving backs in NFL history.  

 

Undoubtedly, Peyton got rid of the ball quicker and took less physical abuse.  Peyton did get sacked quite a bit in his first 4-5 seasons in the league, not to the extent Luck did but it seemed like it wasn't until season 6 when Peyton's sack numbers dropped from >20 per year to the teens.  Peyton had the advantage of having one OC throughout his career and always had at least 1 HOF level WR on his team (Marv from day 1, Reggie a few years later).  I get what you're saying about Luck following his coaches, but to Luck's credit, he also had his entire offensive system change on him at least 3 separate occasions throughout his career (including between year 1 and year 2).   Peyton had the benefit of working along side his OC for most of his career (well, basically his entire career as a Colt) and making minor tweaks here and there - I doubt if a coach with an entirely different offensive system came in during Peyton's 2nd year that he would have had much say about not changing his offense.

 

Peyton and Marvin had probably the best timing of any QB-WR duo in NFL history, and often Peyton was throwing to a location where he expected his WR to be.  Luck's offense changed pretty drastically from year 1 to year 2 and then again a few years after that -- in year 1, the Arians 'no  risk it, no biscuit' O, Luck was required to extend plays to take deep shots down the field.  Luck had great chemistry with Wayne, but Wayne got hurt less than halfway through Luck's second season.  TY, while good, was never the caliber of Marvin and didn't have the precise route running like Marv (arguably the best route runner in NFL history and more likely than not the best route runner of his era).  Finally, Luck is built like a LBer and he played a different style of ball than Peyton (ultimately, it probably lead to his shortened career) - you could see if Peyton threw a pick, he wasn't going to try to make a huge tackle, whereas Luck laid some absolute licks on guys who picked him off... it wasn't really until Reich beat into Luck's brain that he had to protect himself when Luck actually started doing so... see this clip for example, starting at about 1:35:

 

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think QB's like Peyton and Brady would've been great in the 80's and 90's as well (Peyton was in 1999) simply because they have quick releases like Marino had. Marino was only sacked 10 times in 1984 because of his release. Back then hits like Burt gave Montana were routine though so it would've been interesting to see how Peyton or Brady would react with that happening a few times a season. That was brutal.

 

Yea, it'd be hard to tell.  Brady's performance seems to greatly decline when he is being hit, moreso than most QBs I have ever watched.  I think part of what made Brady so hard to hit during his Patriot days are 2 things: (1) he had a solid OL, (2) he was so good at dumping balls off to guys like Welker, Edelman, Amendola, etc. if a LB or DB blitzed... which is why I'm convinced NYG beat him 2x in the super bowl, because they were one of the few teams in the league who could hit him without rushing anyone aside from their DL, leaving all LBs and DBs in coverage to guard against the slot WR Brady was so good at finding in open spots.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Probably could've used a different choice of words.  I don't take Luck bashing personal.  Moreso find it annoying when a forum fan makes claims that he would talk trash to the face of a 6'4" 250+ lbs. NFL caliber QB multiple times behind his computer screen.  

 

 

If Luck had 3 SB wins he would have surpassed Peyton in that category.  If all 3 came in Indy, he would have 3x more SB wins than Peyton did as a Colt.  I would imagine many people would consider him the greatest Colts' QB of all time had he done that.. of course, it didn't happy so we probably don't need to spend time arguing it.  

 

As for Mahomes, he plays a style which has him relying heavily on his mobility, at least much moreso than Montana, Manning or Brady.  For that reason, I think he's suspect to injury.  Also, he has track stars on his team - I can't imagine a guy like Tyreek Hill is going to be as good/dominant at WR when he loses a step or two... and he has a great coach in Reid, who I can't imagine will be around for too much longer.  Brady had a HOF coach from day 1 through his first 19 years in the league.  Peyton had a HOF coach the vast majority of his career, as did Montana.  If Reid retires in a year or two, will Mahomes be able to dominate with a lesser quality coach?  Maybe, but my guess is if he plays a 20 year career that most of it will be without Reid.

 

 

There is a Peyton's Places episode called 'Speed Kills' which mainly features Willie Gault (former Bears & Raiders WR) and Darrell Green.  Gault was an olympic level sprinter and  claims he ran a 4.06 forty (stop watch) coming out of U. Tennessee.  Green typically beat him in the NFL's fastest man contest, except one year Green was hurt another olympic sprinter, Ron Brown beat Gault.  

 

To keep it short, freak athletes have been in the NFL forever.  I just think today's game it is more common.  Also, as with all sports, athletes are getting better training, understanding more about nutrition and supplements, and seemingly more specialized.  There is better (and more) technology now, too, allowing players and coaches to analyze film better than they could in the past.  Finally, in the early days of NFL players made decent money but typically not great (e.g., Otto Graham made $7,500 per year in 1945 - equivalent to $109k today) and it wasn't uncommon for many of them to have second jobs or serve in the military, etc.  Today's NFL stars are compensated very well and while some of them may have side businesses and make extra $ doing commercials, etc, it is very easy for them to focus almost entirely on being a star football player 365 days of the year.  

 

 

PM also had Edgerrin James and Marshall Faulk early in his career -- two of the best receiving backs in NFL history.  

 

Undoubtedly, Peyton got rid of the ball quicker and took less physical abuse.  Peyton did get sacked quite a bit in his first 4-5 seasons in the league, not to the extent Luck did but it seemed like it wasn't until season 6 when Peyton's sack numbers dropped from >20 per year to the teens.  Peyton had the advantage of having one OC throughout his career and always had at least 1 HOF level WR on his team (Marv from day 1, Reggie a few years later).  I get what you're saying about Luck following his coaches, but to Luck's credit, he also had his entire offensive system change on him at least 3 separate occasions throughout his career (including between year 1 and year 2).   Peyton had the benefit of working along side his OC for most of his career (well, basically his entire career as a Colt) and making minor tweaks here and there - I doubt if a coach with an entirely different offensive system came in during Peyton's 2nd year that he would have had much say about not changing his offense.

 

Peyton and Marvin had probably the best timing of any QB-WR duo in NFL history, and often Peyton was throwing to a location where he expected his WR to be.  Luck's offense changed pretty drastically from year 1 to year 2 and then again a few years after that -- in year 1, the Arians 'no  risk it, no biscuit' O, Luck was required to extend plays to take deep shots down the field.  Luck had great chemistry with Wayne, but Wayne got hurt less than halfway through Luck's second season.  TY, while good, was never the caliber of Marvin and didn't have the precise route running like Marv (arguably the best route runner in NFL history and more likely than not the best route runner of his era).  Finally, Luck is built like a LBer and he played a different style of ball than Peyton (ultimately, it probably lead to his shortened career) - you could see if Peyton threw a pick, he wasn't going to try to make a huge tackle, whereas Luck laid some absolute licks on guys who picked him off... it wasn't really until Reich beat into Luck's brain that he had to protect himself when Luck actually started doing so... see this clip for example, starting at about 1:35:

 

 

Yea, it'd be hard to tell.  Brady's performance seems to greatly decline when he is being hit, moreso than most QBs I have ever watched.  I think part of what made Brady so hard to hit during his Patriot days are 2 things: (1) he had a solid OL, (2) he was so good at dumping balls off to guys like Welker, Edelman, Amendola, etc. if a LB or DB blitzed... which is why I'm convinced NYG beat him 2x in the super bowl, because they were one of the few teams in the league who could hit him without rushing anyone aside from their DL, leaving all LBs and DBs in coverage to guard against the slot WR Brady was so good at finding in open spots.

I would like to see an all-time final 5 as in:

-Playin game = #4 vs #5

 

-#1 vs #4

-#2 vs #3

 

5 teams I would choose would be the 1995 Cowboys, 1989 49ers (Montana led), 1985 Bears, 2014 Patriots, and the 2006 Colts. The latter 2 teams had the best QB's of this generation and of course the modern day athlete and of course the other 3 teams are older generation and were loaded. That tournament would be interesting. I am a nerd when it comes to stuff like that - me watching that. Out of those 5 teams, I think it would be hard to predict who would win under new rules or old rules.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Had Luck won 3 SB's I agree, most here probably would've rated him better than Peyton but it would've took 3 IMO. Peyton won 5 League MVP's is why and brought the 1st SB win to Indy. Jury is out on Mahomes, will he have a career like Rodgers now where he just has the 1 SB win and great stats and a few League MVP's or will he win 3 or 4 SB's? He is very young but that SB loss a couple of weeks ago is concerning. When Wilson lost his SB in 2014, he hasn't been back since after winning in 2013. Rodgers and Brees only have won 1 SB as well.

[CurBeatElite]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

It's all relative.   The hits are fewer and farther between.  They're not nearly as big.   The penalties are big in ways they've never been before.   It's a much different game.

 

And there's very little violence compared to what the NFL used to have.   I'm talking back in the 70's, 80's and 90's with Montana and Bradshaw and Aikman and countless others....

 

 

Players are being taught to tackle differently today than they were in the past and it goes down to the Pop Warner level..  when all the studies about CTE and long-term concussion damage began, the NFL did a lot to put money into concussion prevention.  Part of that was engineering better helmets.  The other parts included funding studies to better understand concussions and CTE, creating a stricter concussion protocol, implementing rules to fine/penalize players for violent hits (especially to the head), and extending an outreach program to teach youth leagues tackling techniques which reduce concussion risk (the Heads Up Football program).

 

It wasn't long ago when coaches in youth football and HS were telling defensive players to 'ear hole' opponents on offense.  Now, tackling is taught at a young age to avoid helmet to helmet contact, not to lead with the crown of the helmet, etc.  

 

Additionally, not only are penalties big in ways they weren't before (a 15 yard penalty for targeting is huge and can change the outcome of a game), but players can also get kicked out of games, suspended and fined large chunks of money for violent hits.  

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Really? 

Cloths line hits are not allowed anymore.

Hits on what are perceived on defenseless players are not allowed.

Head slapping is not allowed. 

Chop blocking is not allowed.

Hitting a QB high OR low is not allowed. Even touching a QBs helmet is a penalty. 

The rule changes have made kick offs and punt returns a lot less physical. 

The players are bigger and stronger but the game itself is a lot less violent. 

 

 

I can tell by your response that you and I will not agree. All good. But I will say that there is hardly a comparison. Violence does not overtake physics. "Back in the day", when the game was more violent, a 225# LB met a 200# RB. Today, it can be a 245# LB meeting a 220# RB. The difference in the result of the impact is astoundingly greater. 

 

It has nothing to do with toughness. It has nothing to do with the rules. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger. The impacts are more powerful.

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

They're not nearly as big.

Absolutely wrong. 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

I can tell by your response that you and I will not agree. All good. But I will say that there is hardly a comparison. Violence does not overtake physics. "Back in the day", when the game was more violent, a 225# LB met a 200# RB. Today, it can be a 245# LB meeting a 220# RB. The difference in the result of the impact is astoundingly greater. 

 

It has nothing to do with toughness. It has nothing to do with the rules. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger. The impacts are more powerful.

Tackling technics have changed. 

Take a RB like Henry. Players are not hitting him straight on. Therefore the impact is not as hard. 

I understand what you are saying but violence does play a part in hits. The game of football is not near as violent as in the past. 

Go watch tapes of players like Dick Lane and get back to me. 

[Four2itus]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Go watch tapes of players like Dick Lane and get back to me. 

Ive been watching the NFL since 70. 

 

Learn physics, get back to me. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Tackling technics have changed. 

Take a RB like Henry. Players are not hitting him straight on. Therefore the impact is not as hard. 

I understand what you are saying but violence does play a part in hits. The game of football is not near as violent as in the past. 

Go watch tapes of players like Dick Lane and get back to me. 

How's about Dick Butkus, get hit by him you would be lucky to be alive and he played in the 60's  . He would step on people  

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Absolutely wrong. 

 

I'm sure you've seen and read stories from former NFL guys....

 

They all talk about the same thing.   How the league is changing and they don't think it's for the better.

 

They talk about how soon the league is going to be two-hand touch, or flag football.   All the hits are being taken out of the game.    I don't even know where you think the "wrong" part is?

 

I'm not saying players aren't being groomed to be Bigger, Faster, Stronger today....   of course they are.   But the game is much different than it used to be.    I didn't even think that's a disputable point?    It's not exactly a state secret.   

 

You don't even see NFL films advertising for the annual video of the greatest hits of the year.   They don't do that anymore.

 

It's not your father's NFL anymore.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

29 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

I can tell by your response that you and I will not agree. All good. But I will say that there is hardly a comparison. Violence does not overtake physics. "Back in the day", when the game was more violent, a 225# LB met a 200# RB. Today, it can be a 245# LB meeting a 220# RB. The difference in the result of the impact is astoundingly greater. 

 

It has nothing to do with toughness. It has nothing to do with the rules. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger. The impacts are more powerful.

There were plenty of RB's back from the 80's and 90's that could steam roll LB's today. Emmitt Smith for one could, he was 210 pounds of steel, Eric Dickerson was 6'3 225 pounds, and I would love to see a LB today try and tackle Earl Campbell  . That would be train hitting another train.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm sure you've seen and read stories from former NFL guys....

 

They all talk about the same thing.   How the league is changing and they don't think it's for the better.

 

They talk about how soon the league is going to be two-hand touch, or flag football.   All the hits are being taken out of the game.    I don't even know where you think the "wrong" part is?

 

I'm not saying players aren't being groomed to be Bigger, Faster, Stronger today....   of course they are.   But the game is much different than it used to be.    I didn't even think that's a disputable point?    It's not exactly a state secret.   

 

You don't even see NFL films advertising for the annual video of the greatest hits of the year.   They don't do that anymore.

 

It's not your father's NFL anymore.

 

If today's players did what players did in the past they would face huge fines and suspensions. 

Violence absolutely plays a part in the viciousness of impact hits. 

Just the changing of the rules about lowering your head and not using a helmet as a battering ram has slowed the impact hits down a bunch. 

[NewColtsFan]

34 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

I can tell by your response that you and I will not agree. All good. But I will say that there is hardly a comparison. Violence does not overtake physics. "Back in the day", when the game was more violent, a 225# LB met a 200# RB. Today, it can be a 245# LB meeting a 220# RB. The difference in the result of the impact is astoundingly greater. 

 

It has nothing to do with toughness. It has nothing to do with the rules. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger. The impacts are more powerful.

 

I think we're talking about two different things...

 

When you're talking about a 245# LB stuffing a 220# RB, of course you're right.   Players are bigger faster stronger.

 

But I'm talking about how the NFL now protects QB's and receivers.    By comparison,  you can't touch them anymore.  Not compared to what the league used to allow.    

 

Please see this post and my other to you.    I think it explains the difference in our two positions.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think we're talking about two different things...

 

When you're talking about a 245# LB stuffing a 220# RB, of course you're right.   Players are bigger faster stronger.

 

But I'm talking about how the NFL now protects QB's and receivers.    By comparison,  you can't touch them anymore.  Not compared to what the league used to allow.    

 

Please see this post and my other to you.    I think it explains the difference in our two positions.

This is true. Back in the 80's and 90's you could hit a defenseless WR and nothing was called.

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

This is true. Back in the 80's and 90's you could hit a defenseless WR and nothing was called.

Plus players can't hit a player that is not involved in a play thus the blind side hits are not seen like in the past.

I agree the players are bigger and faster today but the frequency of big hits are way down. 

For the Colts our biggest hits have come from a punter? 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Plus players can't hit a player that is not involved in a play thus the blind side hits are not seen like in the past.

I agree the players are bigger and faster today but the frequency of big hits are way down. 

For the Colts our biggest hits have come from a punter? 

Pat could've played LB 

[CurBeatElite]

23 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would like to see an all-time final 5 as in:

-Playin game = #4 vs #5

 

-#1 vs #4

-#2 vs #3

 

5 teams I would choose would be the 1995 Cowboys, 1989 49ers (Montana led), 1985 Bears, 2014 Patriots, and the 2006 Colts. The latter 2 teams had the best QB's of this generation and of course the modern day athlete and of course the other 3 teams are older generation and were loaded. That tournament would be interesting. I am a nerd when it comes to stuff like that - me watching that. Out of those 5 teams, I think it would be hard to predict who would win under new rules or old rules.

 

Yes, it'd be very hard to predict and I think a lot would depend on the venue and weather.  IMO, the Colts were somewhat similar to the Rams when they were the 'Greatest show on turf'.  We had a hard time winning in bad weather games in the playoffs and were much better on turf.  We struggled in the 'dog fight' type games for most of the Peyton era.. but if we could play on turf in Indy, that O was nearly unstoppable (yes, I know we won the SB that year in a rainy game against CHI, but their QB  was Rex Grossman for crying out loud).  

 

Oddly enough, though we didn't win the SB in 2009, I thought that team was a bit better than our 2006 team.  We didn't have as good of a head coach with Caldwell replacing Dungy and Marvin was not on the 2009 team, but that team likely could have gone 16-0 and that onside kick out of halftime really turned the tides in that game for the Saints.  Also, though the 2007 Pats lost the SB to the NYG, they did go 16-0 that year and I think were arguably a better team than the 2014 Pats.

 

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Had Luck won 3 SB's I agree, most here probably would've rated him better than Peyton but it would've took 3 IMO. Peyton won 5 League MVP's is why and brought the 1st SB win to Indy. Jury is out on Mahomes, will he have a career like Rodgers now where he just has the 1 SB win and great stats and a few League MVP's or will he win 3 or 4 SB's? He is very young but that SB loss a couple of weeks ago is concerning. When Wilson lost his SB in 2014, he hasn't been back since after winning in 2013. Rodgers and Brees only have won 1 SB as well.

 

Good points.. the thing with Mahomes is after Brady left the AFC it seems like he and Josh Allen are hands down the best 2 QBs in the AFC.  Maybe Herbert takes the leap there in a couple of years.  Maybe Joe Burrows and Trevor Lawrence get there over time.  Maybe Wentz returns to his near MVP form from a few years ago.... but otherwise I don't see a lot of QB competition in the AFC (Rivers is retired, Brady's in the NFC, Roethlisberger starting to have his age catching up to him, etc.).  

 

When Peyton was in the AFC, he almost always had challenges within the AFC from other future HOF QBs in Brady, Roethlisbeger, Rivers, Elway, and an all-time defensive juggernaut with Baltimore during the Lewis/Reed era.  During Brees' career he had all those guys stacked against him except Rivers in the AFC his first couple years and then when he moved to NFC he a group of HOFers he's been competing against like Favre, Rodgers, Eli Manning, Kurt Warner, Wilson (if he keeps it up), and potentially Matt Ryan.  Rodgers and Wilson have had to deal with pretty much all those guys.

 

If you go back to 1990 (so 30+ seasons), the only QBs who have won a SB and are not either HOFers or likely to be in the HOF are: Jeff Hostetler (1991 -- all-time great D), Mark Rypien (1992), Trent Dilfer (2001 - all-time great D), Brad Johnson (2003- all-time great D), Joe Flacco (2013- all-time great D), Nick Foles (2018)..... so that is 26 of last 32 SB champions who were QBed by a HOFer or future HOFer (>81% of the time). 

 

From the time Peyton entered the NFL in 1998 there have typically been at least numerous HOF caliber QBs in the AFC every season.  Right now, Mahomes' biggest competition at the QB position is Josh Allen in the AFC, then you have a declining Big Ben and some up-and-coming stars in Herbert, Burrows, likely Trevor L. who all play on pretty bad teams.  Then you have some a guy who are is very good and may put together HOF careers before it is all said and done in DeShaun Watson (who is part of an awful organization currently and maybe on his way out of the AFC), and a bunch of other QBs who are average NFL starters.  Mahomes also has a HOF head coach in Reid, a fantastic OC and a solid team which for the most part has age on its side.  I think that the loss of 2 OL really hurt KC this past SB and it was evident that TB was having an easy time getting past the backups.  That seemed to be a glaring weakness (along with penalties) and my guess is that they'll address that and KC should be a favorite to win the AFC West for a few more years with now the seemingly biggest challenge to them being Buffalo and then maybe us or TEN.

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Yes, it'd be very hard to predict and I think a lot would depend on the venue and weather.  IMO, the Colts were somewhat similar to the Rams when they were the 'Greatest show on turf'.  We had a hard time winning in bad weather games in the playoffs and were much better on turf.  We struggled in the 'dog fight' type games for most of the Peyton era.. but if we could play on turf in Indy, that O was nearly unstoppable (yes, I know we won the SB that year in a rainy game against CHI, but their QB  was Rex Grossman for crying out loud).  

 

Oddly enough, though we didn't win the SB in 2009, I thought that team was a bit better than our 2006 team.  We didn't have as good of a head coach with Caldwell replacing Dungy and Marvin was not on the 2009 team, but that team likely could have gone 16-0 and that onside kick out of halftime really turned the tides in that game for the Saints.  Also, though the 2007 Pats lost the SB to the NYG, they did go 16-0 that year and I think were arguably a better team than the 2014 Pats.

 

 

Good points.. the thing with Mahomes is after Brady left the AFC it seems like he and Josh Allen are hands down the best 2 QBs in the AFC.  Maybe Herbert takes the leap there in a couple of years.  Maybe Joe Burrows and Trevor Lawrence get there over time.  Maybe Wentz returns to his near MVP form from a few years ago.... but otherwise I don't see a lot of QB competition in the AFC (Rivers is retired, Brady's in the NFC, Roethlisberger starting to have his age catching up to him, etc.).  

 

When Peyton was in the AFC, he almost always had challenges within the AFC from other future HOF QBs in Brady, Roethlisbeger, Rivers, Elway, and an all-time defensive juggernaut with Baltimore during the Lewis/Reed era.  During Brees' career he had all those guys stacked against him except Rivers in the AFC his first couple years and then when he moved to NFC he a group of HOFers he's been competing against like Favre, Rodgers, Eli Manning, Kurt Warner, Wilson (if he keeps it up), and potentially Matt Ryan.  Rodgers and Wilson have had to deal with pretty much all those guys.

 

If you go back to 1990 (so 30+ seasons), the only QBs who have won a SB and are not either HOFers or likely to be in the HOF are: Jeff Hostetler (1991 -- all-time great D), Mark Rypien (1992), Trent Dilfer (2001 - all-time great D), Brad Johnson (2003- all-time great D), Joe Flacco (2013- all-time great D), Nick Foles (2018)..... so that is 26 of last 32 SB champions who were QBed by a HOFer or future HOFer (>81% of the time). 

 

From the time Peyton entered the NFL in 1998 there have typically been at least numerous HOF caliber QBs in the AFC every season.  Right now, Mahomes' biggest competition at the QB position is Josh Allen in the AFC, then you have a declining Big Ben and some up-and-coming stars in Herbert, Burrows, likely Trevor L. who all play on pretty bad teams.  Then you have some a guy who are is very good and may put together HOF careers before it is all said and done in DeShaun Watson (who is part of an awful organization currently and maybe on his way out of the AFC), and a bunch of other QBs who are average NFL starters.  Mahomes also has a HOF head coach in Reid, a fantastic OC and a solid team which for the most part has age on its side.  I think that the loss of 2 OL really hurt KC this past SB and it was evident that TB was having an easy time getting past the backups.  That seemed to be a glaring weakness (along with penalties) and my guess is that they'll address that and KC should be a favorite to win the AFC West for a few more years with now the seemingly biggest challenge to them being Buffalo and then maybe us or TEN.

 

 

 

 

Yeah the AFC was loaded when Peyton was in his prime, competition has to be factored in when ranking QB's all-time. Brady and Ben for the most part had great defenses as well, that was huge. Peyton's only big mess up was the 2009 SB with the pick 6 regarding post season play but it should've never came to that. We got outcoached and the onside kick turned the whole game around. Mahomes is far and away the best QB in the AFC and the Chiefs are loaded.

 

Regarding greatest teams, yeah only SB Champions can be listed because if you don't finish the deal it doesn't matter. Our 2005 Team may have been better than all of our teams but we didn't finish. Regarding HFA, if the 2006 Colts had HFA in that final 5 I mentioned I would give us a 50/50 shot and winning it all. We were 10-0 at home including the playoffs (undefeated) that year in that dome. That was a true HFA.

[Kdeming1230]

On 2/15/2021 at 1:28 PM, Mackrel829 said:

 

To be fair, I only know JMV by his initials. If someone was to say refer to him by his full name, I wouldn't know who they were talking about. I imagine it's the same for a lot of people. 

 

It's not like writing PM to save time. JMV is what he's always called, even when speaking.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there because using his full name in this case would actually have meant that fewer people knew who he was referring to.

 

Lol I’m a colts fan who lives in Berkeley CA. I don’t have the luxury of being able to listen to local sports radio personalities. I wish I did though. I’m an orioles fan (Baltimore) colts fan (used to be in Baltimore until the moved) and a kings fan (Sacramento, grew up during that 2000-2005 kings golden era of basketball and fell in love. I try my hardest to follow as many of those sports podcasts as I can but nothing beats local sports broadcasters early in the morning on your way to work talking about your favorite team. I’m going to assume that’s who JMV is. 

[Kdeming1230]

On 2/15/2021 at 2:51 PM, GoColts8818 said:

He’s the afternoon drive show host on the number one sports station in Indy.  He goes by JMV so that’s why he’s called JMV.  He has a track record of having good sources,  he’s the one who broke the Peyton had a second neck surgery story among others.

Right on. Thanks for the heads up. Im a colts fan who lives in Berkeley, CA so unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of listening to the local Indiana sports radio hosts. If he’s this popular though it sounds like someone I should follow. Colts fans around here seem to know him pretty well.

[NFLfan]

2 minutes ago, Kdeming1230 said:

Right on. Thanks for the heads up. Im a colts fan who lives in Berkeley, CA so unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of listening to the local Indiana sports radio hosts. If he’s this popular though it sounds like someone I should follow. Colts fans around here seem to know him pretty well.

 

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy!

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Kdeming1230 said:

Right on. Thanks for the heads up. Im a colts fan who lives in Berkeley, CA so unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of listening to the local Indiana sports radio hosts. If he’s this popular though it sounds like someone I should follow. Colts fans around here seem to know him pretty well.

Yeah he’s a good source for reliable Colts news when he gets it.  He’s an afternoon drive host though so just don’t confuse his opinion on things for news because he will give you both.