not a fan of brad wells, but...........

[CR91]

he finally wrote an article that i didnt want to burgh after reading

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2012/6/14/3085264/the-1998-colts-were-not-more-talented-than-this-2012-roster-is#storyjump

[GoColts8818]

he finally wrote an article that i didnt want to burgh after reading

http://www.stampedeb...er-is#storyjump

He can say what he wants but the 1998 roster had at least three Hall of Famers on it, one of which was just coming into the prime of his career in Faulk and the other two were just getting started in Peyton and Marvin. Add to that a future pro-bowlers in Glenn and Dilger and it's pretty hard to argue that the 1998 team wasn't a very good young roster. We might have three Hall of Famers on this roster right now in Wayne, Freeney, and AV but all three are past their prime or at the very end of it. So I don't know if this roster has more talent than the 1998 roster but this roster is not set up to have some major super stars just blossom like the 1998 roster was. That's not to say this roster might not have young super stars on it but I don't think they are all ready to take that step together in one season like the 1998 roster was. I think it'll take a few years for this group to take that step.

[ColtJ82]

Prior to all of the additions, I would have given 98 the nod. Post free agency and the draft, I definitely think the potential is there to say 2012 is more talented.

[Smonroe]

he finally wrote an article that i didnt want to burgh after reading

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2012/6/14/3085264/the-1998-colts-were-not-more-talented-than-this-2012-roster-is#storyjump

The point he's missing (which is normal for him) is that he's looking at the 98 team in retrospect. We may look back at this team in a few years and agree with him, or we may find out this team really stinks to high heaven.

This article can't be proven until we know how talented this team really is, right?

[GoColts8818]

The point he's missing (which is normal for him) is that he's looking at the 98 team in retrospect. We may look back at this team in a few years and agree with him, or we may find out this team really stinks to high heaven.

This article can't be proven until we know how talented this team really is, right?

Exactly, the great thing about the young 1998 team was that all the key players made the jump together. I am not sure we are going to see that happen this time. There is no clear cut guy to be the young number one WR like Marvin was to Peyton. The tightends are rookies unlike Dilger and Pollard who had a couple of years experience under their belt, there isn't a ground game in place that the rookie QB knows he can lean on. With that said the one thing that I do think this team has that the 98 team didn't is a better defense. I would agree there that the defense is in better shape now than it was in 1998 and maybe while the offense comes along we can lean on the defense a little bit.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I'll await for week 1 so a full apples to apples comparison can be done so that it is known who starts.

At first glance, the defense should be head and shoulders above the 98 group. Offensively the 14 around Luck to me as a whole would be greater than the 14 around Manning. I say 12-15, because I'm looking at from a 4 WR 3 TE 2 RB 5 OL.

As Go said, Faulk was just entering his prime and is the only one on the 98 weapons that in my opinion is clearly head and shoulders above any of the backs that are currently on the roster, but with that said, I see more of a running back committee approach, so I don't see Pagano/Arians asking one back to be RB1 95% of the time like Faulk and Edge were utilized for the most part.

Many look at Tarik Glenn, and Harrison as obvious upgrades over Castanzo and Wayne, but I'm not so sure that is the case. Those guys at their peak likely were, but neither were at their peak in 1998. As a whole, I think the OL has a potential to be better than 98, and as a whole the weapons to me would be an upgrade over the 98 crew.

To me this is a far more complete team.

[The Peytonator]

I've given my 2 cents about this before, but I'll do it again......

Our dismal season last year, was 100% due to terrible QB play, and almost just as bad coaching. It was not because of a lack of talent throughout the roster. If Peyton were the QB last year, we keep the status quo; 12-4 division title, and probably a premature exit in the playoffs. If Luck were the QB last year, we'd probably have won 6 or 7 games, and he'd have gotten valuable experience.

Fast forward to this year. Grigson seems to know what he's doing. You don't break the bank on Carl Nicks, you make a bunch of smaller contract, complimentary signings; Satele, McGlynn, Justice, Avery, Redding, McKinney, Zbikowski. Obviously not all of those guys will pan out, but when you consider what we lost versus what we gained, sans Peyton, I think we've come out ahead.

The Oline is getting bigger, nastier, and better. Castonzo will be a stud LT for many years. Marvin Harrison, while there's really no one better, was only one man. I'll take the combo of Reggie, Austin, and Avery, over one Marvin. I mean, who else was catching balls in '98? Jerome Pathon?

For once in my life, I agree with Brad Wells. This current roster has more talent than '98.

[Superman]

I'll await for week 1 so a full apples to apples comparison can be done so that it is known who starts.

At first glance, the defense should be head and shoulders above the 98 group. Offensively the 14 around Luck to me as a whole would be greater than the 14 around Manning. I say 12-15, because I'm looking at from a 4 WR 3 TE 2 RB 5 OL.

As Go said, Faulk was just entering his prime and is the only one on the 98 weapons that in my opinion is clearly head and shoulders above any of the backs that are currently on the roster, but with that said, I see more of a running back committee approach, so I don't see Pagano/Arians asking one back to be RB1 95% of the time like Faulk and Edge were utilized for the most part.

Many look at Tarik Glenn, and Harrison as obvious upgrades over Castanzo and Wayne, but I'm not so sure that is the case. Those guys at their peak likely were, but neither were at their peak in 1998. As a whole, I think the OL has a potential to be better than 98, and as a whole the weapons to me would be an upgrade over the 98 crew.

To me this is a far more complete team.

Great point. Marvin Harrison > Reggie Wayne, but I think 2012 Reggie Wayne > 1998 Marvin Harrison.

[CR91]

Exactly, the great thing about the young 1998 team was that all the key players made the jump together. I am not sure we are going to see that happen this time. There is no clear cut guy to be the young number one WR like Marvin was to Peyton. The tightends are rookies unlike Dilger and Pollard who had a couple of years experience under their belt, there isn't a ground game in place that the rookie QB knows he can lean on. With that said the one thing that I do think this team has that the 98 team didn't is a better defense. I would agree there that the defense is in better shape now than it was in 1998 and maybe while the offense comes along we can lean on the defense a little bit.

you can talk about faulk and marv, but then after them who did they have to lean on? was there a number 2 wr in 98? the depth imo is more talented then 98. we have a bunch of young wrs behind wayne and collie then in 98. i agree there was no one with the talent of faulk on this roster, but the day of one rb being the workhorse is over.

[schwamm]

Harrison was only starting his 3rd season. 64/836/8 ('96) and 73/866/6 ('97) were solid numbers, but compare that, for arguement sake, to Collie's first 2 years at 60/676/7 ('09) and 58/649/8 (injury shortened '10 season).

Collie's numbers dipped in '11 (54/514/1, with Collins/Painter/O at QB), but so did Harrison's (59/776/7, with Manning at QB).

Am I suggesting Collie is on a par with Harrison? NO. Not by a long shot. But heading into the '98 season, Harrison was just as much an unknown. We didn't celebrate his break out year until '99, after he and Manning had a year to develop chemistry.

I'm looking forward to seeing who develops chemistry with Luck, and which new Colts become the the stars and fan favorites of tomorrow.

[Superman]

you can talk about faulk and marv, but then after them who did they have to lean on? was there a number 2 wr in 98? the depth imo is more talented then 98. we have a bunch of young wrs behind wayne and collie then in 98. i agree there was no one with the talent of faulk on this roster, but the day of one rb being the workhorse is over.

Try this out: We didn't have a #1 receiver, not by the numbers. Harrison had 59 catches, Pathon had 50. Faulk would probably be the #1 receiver, with 86 catches.

Can you imagine if Reggie only catches 59 passes this season? I expect Austin Collie to have 60+.

[Restored]

I can't stand Brad Wells. You should see him try to talk NBA. He's hilarious to put it mildly and will proceed to block you on Twitter when you use nothing but facts to back up your points.

But my hate aside I do agree with him for once. This team overall is better than the 98' team.

[CR91]

Try this out: We didn't have a #1 receiver, not by the numbers. Harrison had 59 catches, Pathon had 50. Faulk would probably be the #1 receiver, with 86 catches.

Can you imagine if Reggie only catches 59 passes this season? I expect Austin Collie to have 60+.

thats a good point. marv wasnt marv in the three years prior to being in the league without peyton so no one really knew what we had in marv until peyton arrived

[Nobody]

That roster had so many HOFers and Pro Bowlers because of Peyton, with the exception of Faulk.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Collie's numbers dipped in '11 (54/514/1, with Collins/Painter/O at QB), but so did Harrison's (59/776/7, with Manning at QB).

Harrison's #'s dipped due to missing 4 games.

1996 64 836 13.1ypc 8td 52.3ypg
1997 73 866 11.9ypc 6td 54.1ypg
1998 59 776 13.2ypc 7td 64.7ypg

His actual per game production actually increased.

[schwamm]

Harrison's #'s dipped due to missing 4 games.

1996 64 836 13.1ypc 8td 52.3ypg
1997 73 866 11.9ypc 6td 54.1ypg
1998 59 776 13.2ypc 7td 64.7ypg

His actual per game production actually increased.

In fairness, you could do the same with Collie's numbers in '10, and make the difference between 2nd year numbers actually favor Collie.

Either way, my point stays the same. Any suggestion that we knew before the '98 season that Harrison was HOF material is patently false.

I'd even argue we're in worlds better shape with a twilight Reggie than anything we knew existed on our roster heading into '98.

My comment about Harrison's stats with PM in '98 was to suggest we shouldn't get too carried away hoping for some epic receiver breakout this year. IF it happens, it'll more likely happen next season.

[Boiler_Colt]

We also played in the AFC East in 1998, the current AFC South is not as strong top to bottom.

[FireJimCaldwell]

In fairness, you could do the same with Collie's numbers in '10, and make the difference between 2nd year numbers actually favor Collie.

Either way, my point stays the same. Any suggestion that we knew before the '98 season that Harrison was HOF material is patently false.

I'd even argue we're in worlds better shape with a twilight Reggie than anything we knew existed on our roster heading into '98.

My comment about Harrison's stats with PM in '98 was to suggest we shouldn't get too carried away hoping for some epic receiver breakout this year. IF it happens, it'll more likely happen next season.

I agree that Harrison wasn't the elite receiver that he became at that point, or that there was much if any potential of him becoming a hall of famer. I was just pointing out that he missed 4 games which was the reason his #'s dipped as opposed to playing with a rookie 18.

With Collie, I think the drop off in Quarterbacks was the key for the drop in production. If 18 had played, Collie would have exceeded his injury shortened 2010 #'s.

[schwamm]

I agree that Harrison wasn't the elite receiver that he became at that point, or that there was much if any potential of him becoming a hall of famer. I was just pointing out that he missed 4 games which was the reason his #'s dipped as opposed to playing with a rookie 18.

With Collie, I think the drop off in Quarterbacks was the key for the drop in production. If 18 had played, Collie would have exceeded his injury shortened 2010 #'s.

I agree. With both. I wasn't in any way knocking Manning, to be clear.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I agree. With both. I wasn't in any way knocking Manning, to be clear.

I didn't take it as such...

[WSO]

in hindsight the 98 roster is better but we wont know until we see how this current roster pans out

for all we know Wayne could have an awful season, maybe the scheme doesn't work out etc. or vice versa

[The Peytonator]

in hindsight the 98 roster is better but we wont know until we see how this current roster pans out

for all we know Wayne could have an awful season, maybe the scheme doesn't work out etc. or vice versa

I think we can safely assume that Reggie Wayne, will in fact be, Reggie Wayne.

Not to be that guy, but how would you even know anything about the '98 roster, considering you became a fan last year?

[braveheartcolt]

The comparison is pretty much irrelevant as it is pointless. Let's compare Jesse Owens with Usain Bolt....

[Restored]

The comparison is pretty much irrelevant as it is pointless. Let's compare Jesse Owens with Usain Bolt....

Not really. Everyone loves to make the Luck-Peyton comparison and one of the first measuring points for that would appear to be to compare their rookie seasons and subsequentially the teams they played on.

[schwamm]

Not really. Everyone loves to make the Luck-Peyton comparison and one of the first measuring points for that would appear to be to compare their rookie seasons and subsequentially the teams they played on.

I look at it less as a point against which to compare the two QBs, and more as an interesting historical mark which seems to bear remarkable similarity to the present situation (less in how we got here, but in where we are at this moment compared to 14 years ago... ie. the #1 overall draft pick, with second year O-linemen drafted early, a good group of promising, but hardly proven receivers, a whole host of big question marks, and a few select standouts, all playing for a new coach and a team coming off a terrible year.)

[Smonroe]

The comparison is pretty much irrelevant as it is pointless. Let's compare Jesse Owens with Usain Bolt....

That's not fair. Jesse would be about 100 by now.

[Superman]

I understand the comparison, and I also agree that the 2012 roster is better than the 1998 roster, at least from this vantage point. We're putting a lot of stock in some players that we expect to perform at a certain level, and they might not. It will be a better comparison in January.

But I think of greater relevance is the fact that the league is so much different. It's a pass-heavy league, with rules that make life easier on receivers and quarterbacks. Every quarterback in 2012 should be more productive than their counterparts in 1998. Now defenses have evolved as well: smarter, more athletic, etc. So, situationally, defenses are still able to clamp down and even control games. But overall, passing/receiving numbers are going through the roof, even for rookies. So, whether the roster is better now than it was then, or not, it's still reasonable to expect Luck to look more comfortable playing quarterback than Manning did as a rookie.

[Ohio Colt]

That's good that you're not a fan of Brad Wells. Because he's just like you and I, a guy who created a website who sits at a keyboard and gives opinons. You might find out something like Brad Wells lives in his mother's basement. Or Brad Wells farts in his bath tub and eats the bubbles. If you were a fan of him, at that point you would be let down.

He's just another fan blogging folks. Just a guy.

[Smonroe]

That's good that you're not a fan of Brad Wells. Because he's just like you and I, a guy who created a website who sits at a keyboard and gives opinons. You might find out something like Brad Wells lives in his mother's basement. Or Brad Wells farts in his bath tub and eats the bubbles. If you were a fan of him, at that point you would be let down.

He's just another fan blogging folks. Just a guy.

He's a guy who's head writer for a blog that sells advertising, so he's a professional writer. I'm not. You're probably not either.

But I think you and I (and a heck of a lot of others) prefer solid stories and honest opinions. Not something that reads like it came from a 9th grader who only wants to stir up controversy.

IMHO he's a guy who's really bad at his job.

[GoColts8818]

That's not fair. Jesse would be about 100 by now.

I think that's his point. Compareing the 98 team knowing what they ended up doing to this team who has yet to prove what they can do isn't fair

[GoColts8818]

He's a guy who's head writer for a blog that sells advertising, so he's a professional writer. I'm not. You're probably not either.

But I think you and I (and a heck of a lot of others) prefer solid stories and honest opinions. Not something that reads like it came from a 9th grader who only wants to stir up controversy.

IMHO he's a guy who's really bad at his job.

No he's professional blogger that is different from being a professional writer Peter king is an example of a professional writer. That's like saying the guy who started an Internet radio station and sell ads on the play lost he runs out his basement is as real of a radio station as say Q95. They arent held to the same standards same with professional bloggers and writers that's why we have the title of blogger was invented.

[Superman]

No he's professional blogger that is different from being a professional writer Peter king is an example of a professional writer. That's like saying the guy who started an Internet radio station and sell ads on the play lost he runs out his basement is as real of a radio station as say Q95. They arent held to the same standards same with professional bloggers and writers that's why we have the title of blogger was invented.

In recent years, the line has become very blurry with regard to the blogosphere. They get credentialed, they break stories, they are often a source for actual news, not just editorial content. In some respects, they should be held to certain journalistic standards. When it becomes a problem is when they (Wells in particular) pass their opinions off as news, deliberately playing on the fact that they have access as a way to legitimatize(?) their opinion as more than what it really is. This is where I get extra critical of bloggers. I can disagree with someone's opinion, and it's no big deal. But when you present your opinion as fact, insinuating that because you "know things" or you "hear things" that your opinion is weightier than others, it's a lack of integrity. When you make outlandish leaps in logic from actual news to passing off conjecture as fact, it's a lack of integrity. In some cases, it could even be considered libel.

There's a responsibility that comes with access. You should be held to a higher standard than any Joe with an Internet connection.

[GoColts8818]

In recent years, the line has become very blurry with regard to the blogosphere. They get credentialed, they break stories, they are often a source for actual news, not just editorial content. In some respects, they should be held to certain journalistic standards. When it becomes a problem is when they (Wells in particular) pass their opinions off as news, deliberately playing on the fact that they have access as a way to legitimatize(?) their opinion as more than what it really is. This is where I get extra critical of bloggers. I can disagree with someone's opinion, and it's no big deal. But when you present your opinion as fact, insinuating that because you "know things" or you "hear things" that your opinion is weightier than others, it's a lack of integrity. When you make outlandish leaps in logic from actual news to passing off conjecture as fact, it's a lack of integrity. In some cases, it could even be considered libel.

There's a responsibility that comes with access. You should be held to a higher standard than any Joe with an Internet connection.

I wouldn't argue they shouldn't be held to the same standards as writers. I agree with that point. That's not my point. My point is that they aren't held to the same standards as writers.

I'll admit I don't know much about this guy so who knows maybe he does hold himself to the same standard as a writer and if so good for him. I wasn't trying to take a shot at this specific guy. I just know there are several bloggers who act like they are writers but don't get held to the same standard as writers and are very irresponsible with it. Again I don't know if this guy fits that or not. I was just trying to make the point that all bloggers are not writers. Personally I would love it if bloggers did get held to the same standard as writers.

[WSO]

I think we can safely assume that Reggie Wayne, will in fact be, Reggie Wayne.

Not to be that guy, but how would you even know anything about the '98 roster, considering you became a fan last year?

I like the part where I stated I became a fan last year

[Smonroe]

I wouldn't argue they shouldn't be held to the same standards as writers. I agree with that point. That's not my point. My point is that they aren't held to the same standards as writers.

I'll admit I don't know much about this guy so who knows maybe he does hold himself to the same standard as a writer and if so good for him. I wasn't trying to take a shot at this specific guy. I just know there are several bloggers who act like they are writers but don't get held to the same standard as writers and are very irresponsible with it. Again I don't know if this guy fits that or not. I was just trying to make the point that all bloggers are not writers. Personally I would love it if bloggers did get held to the same standard as writers.

Blogger, writer, * artist... No matter what you call him, he's poor at it. I read Colts authority. You can call them bloggers, but I respect them as writers. They have talent. Wells is lacking talent and tact.

Sorry, don't mean to rant.

[Superman]

I wouldn't argue they shouldn't be held to the same standards as writers. I agree with that point. That's not my point. My point is that they aren't held to the same standards as writers.

I'll admit I don't know much about this guy so who knows maybe he does hold himself to the same standard as a writer and if so good for him. I wasn't trying to take a shot at this specific guy. I just know there are several bloggers who act like they are writers but don't get held to the same standard as writers and are very irresponsible with it. Again I don't know if this guy fits that or not. I was just trying to make the point that all bloggers are not writers. Personally I would love it if bloggers did get held to the same standard as writers.

Continue to avoid his stench, and you'll be alright. And I'm sure he's not the only one.

[Smitto]

This team is MUCH better than the 98 team... one key point is they are much more balanced on offense n defense.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

he finally wrote an article that...

...is spot on (wow). This team IS more talented than the 98 Colts. Granted we did have Faulk and Marvin. But nobody else from that team with the exception of Ellis Johnson is any better than anyone we have now. And this defense has way more talent on it than the 98 squad. IMO the talent on the Oline is better. Our WR corps is better. And to be honest with you...I think a rookie Andrew Luck is better than a rookie Peyton Manning.

Not saying we're playoff bound, but I am on the record in saying we could very well finish over .500.

[IndyTrav]

Can't say which ones better because one is nearly 15yrs old, the other has yet to even take the field.

98 had 3 HoF players. Faulk, Peyton, and maybe Marvin.

This team has zero at this point in time.

[CR91]

Can't say which ones better because one is nearly 15yrs old, the other has yet to even take the field.

98 had 3 HoF players. Faulk, Peyton, and maybe Marvin.

This team has zero at this point in time.

can you name the second wr? can you name anyone on the defense? you cant just stick to three players and think automatically their better then the all the guys have now. football is a team sport. we have way more depth then we did in 98. marv wasnt even marv until peyton arrived and faulk's hof years were with the rams not with us.