Was last years team the WORST colts team ever?

ruksak · August 11, 2012

If you dont think the fall off in talent from Peyton manning to Collins painter and orlovsky didn't play a major role in last season. I have a bridge to sell you.

That goes without saying.

Manning aside, we had experienced staff and several HoF/Pro-Bowl caliber players and MANY opportunities to win games early on.

I would like to add.....31 teams in the NFL don't have Peyton Manning, and that includes us.

JoKeR · August 11, 2012

Not the worst as far as talent goes, we were missing a competent QB, there was talent on O and D. I'm sure there were other Colts teams that had less talent.

Phil J · August 11, 2012

Last year we had Reggie Wayne, Robert Mathis and Dwight Freeney. Thats it.

Good job forgetting Bethea.

FireJimCaldwell · August 11, 2012

Yeah, I pretty much disagree with every single thing you've said. Talent level is talent level regardless of if/when it gets developed. It either exists or it doesn't. Using your rationale, Peyton Manning wasn't talented his rookie year.
You haven't demonstrated at all how there was superior talent in the areas that I questioned, not to mention your hypocrisy in saying that a 31 year old is past his prime (which he very well may have been. He's still infinitely more talented than the past his prime rb we started last year) but an injury riddled 32 year old is not. You can't have it both ways.
I was comparing Dickerson more to Brown, since those were the two that got the bulk of the carries in each specific year. Addai and Dickerson would be more of a push because neither of them were very good last year or Dickerson in 91.
We'll agree to disagree on this one.
Have a good day.

No, Peyton was more talented as a rookie than George ever thought about being. George had a big arm and that's about it. Peyton had more talent than George did when each was a rookie, and as each improved, Peyton widened the gap.

Clark is/was a better tight end last year and likely this year than Dickerson was a running back at that stage. Put them both in their prime then Dickerson was a better back than Clark was a tight end.. I wasn't trying to have it both ways...

In my opinion Verdin, was the only superior talent compared to the 2011 team and that was as a punt/kick returner. I addressed each segment of the team in my original post.

GoColts8818 · August 11, 2012

That goes without saying.
Manning aside, we had experienced staff and several HoF/Pro-Bowl caliber players and MANY opportunities to win games early on.
I would like to add.....31 teams in the NFL don't have Peyton Manning, and that includes us.

Yes we did, but there were cracks showing the year before that to show that the talent was already starting to slip. We weren't the same team that went to the Super Bowl two years before that in terms of talent and the record backed that up.

I would argue that we didn't have enough talent to win those games early in the season which is why we lost. Had we had Manning we probably would have won those games because we would have had more talent. So for someone to say talent wasn't an issue I would highly disagree with that.

Also 31 other teams don't have Peyton Manning but you know what those other 31 teams didn't build their teams around Peyton Manning like the Colts did either. If Brees went down in New Orleans I am guessing you would something similar happen to them like what you saw happened to us samething with the Packers and Rodgers. Yes I know the Pats over came losing Brady but they were not built around Brady when he went down which is why they were able to over come losing him. You can argue if you want that the Pats were smarter in how they build their team but that doesn't change the fact that the Colts elected to build around Manning with some very good results as a whole I might add.

Also frankly had talent not been an issue we wouldn't have gutted the team they would have just reloaded the team and came back for another run with Manning. Also wasn't the big argument people kept making that Polian needed to go was that he wasn't finding talent like he used too? People can't say that all season and then turn around later and say talent wasn't the issue. If talent wasn't the issue the GM didn't need to go.

That's not to say we had the best coaching in the world last season. We clearly didn't. It's possible and I think likely that both leadership and talent were issues last year which is why you saw changes in both departments this off-season.

ruksak · August 11, 2012

Yes we did, but there were cracks showing the year before that to show that the talent was already starting to slip. We weren't the same team that went to the Super Bowl two years before that in terms of talent and the record backed that up.
I would argue that we didn't have enough talent to win those games early in the season which is why we lost. Had we had Manning we probably would have won those games because we would have had more talent. So for someone to say talent wasn't an issue I would highly disagree with that.
Also 31 other teams don't have Peyton Manning but you know what those other 31 teams didn't build their teams around Peyton Manning like the Colts did either. If Brees went down in New Orleans I am guessing you would something similar happen to them like what you saw happened to us samething with the Packers and Rodgers. Yes I know the Pats over came losing Brady but they were not built around Brady when he went down which is why they were able to over come losing him. You can argue if you want that the Pats were smarter in how they build their team but that doesn't change the fact that the Colts elected to build around Manning with some very good results as a whole I might add.
Also frankly had talent not been an issue we wouldn't have gutted the team they would have just reloaded the team and came back for another run with Manning. Also wasn't the big argument people kept making that Polian needed to go was that he wasn't finding talent like he used too? People can't say that all season and then turn around later and say talent wasn't the issue. If talent wasn't the issue the GM didn't need to go.
That's not to say we had the best coaching in the world last season. We clearly didn't. It's possible and I think likely that both leadership and talent were issues last year which is why you saw changes in both departments this off-season.

I'm not saying talent wasn't an issue. I think we all know the 2011 team was far short of our 2006 and 2009 teams, much of the disparity coming from the loss of one particular individual.

I'm saying the talent on the 2011 squad was far and away better than these other squads of failures past (1991 for example).

Good job forgetting Bethea.

...and Clark....though his performance last year made me a very sad panda.

GoColts8818 · August 11, 2012

I'm not saying talent wasn't an issue. I think we all know the 2011 team was far short of our 2006 and 2009 teams, much of the disparity coming from the loss of one particular individual.
I'm saying the talent on the 2011 squad was far and away better than these other squads of failures past (1991 for example).
...and Clark....though his performance last year made me a very sad panda.

I don't disagree that the 91 team had less talent than last year I am just saying to say that last year was all about a lack leadership and not about a lack of talent which you said is not true. I'd say it was a combination of both. With that said I would agree the 1991 team had less talent than last year's team.

schwamm · August 11, 2012

Do your own homework.
If you can't back up what you say, keep your mouth shut.

Gotta say, whether I agree with you or not, you're kinda coming across as a jerk in this discussion. Maybe just ease off the frontal assault just a touch?

From my perspective, last year was a "wow, this losing stuff is new, different, and not so much fun" kind of painful, where '91 was more of a "how much more of this misery can we take, at least we found rock bottom" and "hide our faces in paper bags" kind of aweful.

Fans were far more prepared for the suckery in '91, so there was that.

Either way, I'd far rather have another decade of amazing followed by a year or two of worst ever than several decades of not being able to compete with high school squads. The football I watched in the 80s and 90s from the Colts amounted to hardest thing I've ever had to endure as a fan, in any sport.

schwamm · August 11, 2012

Gotta say, whether I agree with you or not, you're kinda coming across as a jerk in this discussion. Maybe just ease off the frontal assault just a touch?
From my perspective, last year was a "wow, this losing stuff is new, different, and not so much fun" kind of painful, where '91 was more of a "how much more of this misery can we take, at least we found rock bottom" and "hide our faces in paper bags" kind of aweful.
Fans were far more prepared for the suckery in '91, so there was that.
Either way, I'd far rather have another decade of amazing followed by a year or two of worst ever than several decades of not being able to compete with high school squads. The football I watched in the 80s and 90s from the Colts amounted to hardest thing I've ever had to endure as a fan, in any sport.

Then again, my dad is a lifelong IU football fan, so he's had it worse...

KarlKuffs · August 11, 2012

No, Peyton was more talented as a rookie than George ever thought about being. George had a big arm and that's about it. Peyton had more talent than George did when each was a rookie, and as each improved, Peyton widened the gap.
Clark is/was a better tight end last year and likely this year than Dickerson was a running back at that stage. Put them both in their prime then Dickerson was a better back than Clark was a tight end.. I wasn't trying to have it both ways...
In my opinion Verdin, was the only superior talent compared to the 2011 team and that was as a punt/kick returner. I addressed each segment of the team in my original post.

No he wasn't.

Clark was hampered by injuries all year, missed 5 games, and games he DID play he was practically invisible. And this year? lol.....there's a reason he barely got a sniff of interest by any team this offseason.

QB, RB, OL, LB, DB.....all positions at which the 1991 team was superior in talent to last years team.

FireJimCaldwell · August 11, 2012

No he wasn't.
Clark was hampered by injuries all year, missed 5 games, and games he DID play he was practically invisible. And this year? lol.....there's a reason he barely got a sniff of interest by any team this offseason.
QB, RB, OL, LB, DB.....all positions at which the 1991 team was superior in talent to last years team.

Far from it.

How does your logic explain Kurt Warner?

If the talent is always there..

Why did the Packers cut him?

KarlKuffs · August 11, 2012

Far from it.
How does your logic explain Kurt Warner?
If the talent is always there..
Why did the Packers cut him?

That's pretty easy question: because they misevaluated. Quite obviously. Misevaluations happen by all the time, by every team, every season. Unless your telling me he didn't become "talented" until 1998. So, it's the Packers fault that they didn't identify and develop that talent, cause the physical tools were there, like they are for anyone at that stage.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your statement that talent leads to production, yet Jeff George, who went on the throw for 27000 yards and 154 touchdowns, WASN'T talented in 1991 with a 73.8 qb rating, and yet Peyton Manning WAS talented in 1998 with a 71.2 qb rating.

FireJimCaldwell · August 11, 2012

That's pretty easy question: because they misevaluated. Quite obviously. Misevaluations happen by all the time, by every team, every season. Unless your telling me he didn't become "talented" until 1998. So, it's the Packers fault that they didn't identify and develop that talent, cause the physical tools were there, like they are for anyone at that stage.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around your statement that talent leads to production, yet Jeff George, who went on the throw for 27000 yards and 154 touchdowns, WASN'T talented in 1991 with a 73.8 qb rating, and yet Peyton Manning WAS talented in 1998 with a 71.2 qb rating.

Personally I don't think Warner was that talented back then. I remember reading an article quoting Holmgren saying he couldn't get call a play in the huddle or complete many passes. Maybe he was immature, maybe he worked hard to improve, maybe he d-e-v-e-l-o-p-e-d as many players do. Some don't. Ryan Leaf had talent. He couldn't utilize it. I went to high school with a kid that was one heck of an athlete. Run, jump, strong, fast, you name it. He couldn't play a single sport. He wasn't even good at Track. He was awesome at exercising, but he couldn't play a single sport. One could say he had talents, he just couldn't cultivate them into using them. Warner developed what talent he did have had an outstanding career for an undrafted free-agent.

Where did I say he wasn't talented? I didn't. I said he wasn't as talented as Manning, and he wasn't/isn't. I think you are looking at production. We are talking about talent remember? Manning had better touch, he was smarter, his mechanics were better. George was all arm and no touch. He developed a better touch over time, but was still inconsistent and inaccurate. Outside of that big arm what talents did Jeff George have? Fast? no. Smart? No, not really. He wasn't nearly as good as he thought and that was always a negative for him as well.

Tom Brady for example. He wasn't the quarterback he is today in his first couple of years. He d-e-v-l-o-p-e-d. He's a far better QB now. There have been plenty of guys come into this game with talent and fail for one reason or another. Just as there are guys with less talent that work hard and go on to have solid careers. It happens.

George was a better QB elsewhere than he was in Indy. Was it the teammates? coaching? scheme? Maybe he started working harder, maybe received better coaching, but in his first couple of years he was raw. Was there talent there? of course, was he very good? No, neither were the trio that played here last year, which I still put the majority of the struggles for Collins/Painter on Christensen and Caldwell for having them run an offense they had no business running. Collins at 38 in the right system would easily be more talented than a 2nd year Jeff George. The coaching staff failed this team and fan base last year.

Oh and cherry picking a couple of stats to try to say 91 George was better than 98 Manning is just a bit weak.

hawkeyes · August 11, 2012

No, not even close ... the record was not IMO anyway, a vey good indicator of the amount of talent the Colts team had last year! The 2011 talent was much better than many fo the past Colts squads.

Gavin · August 11, 2012

different question is what team and year was the worst you have ever seen?

FireJimCaldwell · August 11, 2012

different question is what team and year was the worst you have ever seen?

Good question Gavin... 86 or 91 would get my vote...

Gavin · August 11, 2012

Good question Gavin... 86 or 91 would get my vote...

I know its the Colts thread but I was also talking about every team in the NFL as well

throwing BBZ · August 11, 2012

Debate it, then.
Do a position by position analysis of last years regular starters vs 1991's regular starters, comparing talent level.
For instance, your telling me Curtis Painter is more talented than Jeff George? Joseph Addai is more talented than Eric Dickerson?
And you do realize who are regular starters were in defense last year in the defensive backfield, right?
Last year we had Reggie Wayne, Robert Mathis and Dwight Freeney. Thats it.
Good grief. It's not even close between the two teams.

What a blowhole. Bethea, Angerer, Saturday, Collie, Garcon, AND... Pro Bowlers Addai, Clark ( lmao )

FireJimCaldwell · August 11, 2012

I know its the Colts thread but I was also talking about every team in the NFL as well

That opens up new levels of suckitude.

GoColts8818 · August 11, 2012

I know its the Colts thread but I was also talking about every team in the NFL as well

The winless lions or bucs team probably the bucs team

KarlKuffs · August 11, 2012

What a blowhole. Bethea, Angerer, Saturday, Collie, Garcon, AND... Pro Bowlers Addai, Clark ( )

Yeah, Clark proved to be real talented without Peyton Manning throwing to him. Same with Austin Collie. Truth is, both of those guys are average players when they don't have the one of the greatest players in football history throwing the ball to them.

And Pat Angerer? lol.....'91 had 3 lb's that were better than him.

Not to mention Clark and Addai combined to miss 9 games and hundreds of minutes last year.......and I specifically stated this discussion was about people who actually PLAYED.....

And don't ever, in your life, insult me again. We can settle this in person if you PM me, and i'd be glad to meet up with you and break your f u c k i n g jaw.

haseo15 · August 11, 2012

Getting a little bit heated in here...

Fx Stryker · August 11, 2012

How many people do you think didn't even see the 2011 Colts? :stir:

schwamm · August 12, 2012

Yeah, Clark proved to be real talented without Peyton Manning throwing to him. Same with Austin Collie. Truth is, both of those guys are average players when they don't have the one of the greatest players in football history throwing the ball to them.
And Pat Angerer? lol.....'91 had 3 lb's that were better than him.
Not to mention Clark and Addai combined to miss 9 games and hundreds of minutes last year.......and I specifically stated this discussion was about people who actually PLAYED.....
And don't ever, in your life, insult me again. We can settle this in person if you PM me, and i'd be glad to meet up with you and break your f u c k i n g jaw.

Dude. Really. Chill out. I'm sure you'll get suspended for the language, but there really isn't any need to get belligerent. Even when people disagree with your opinion.

I knew a lot of the guys on the early 90's squads, well enough that they knew me by name (thru delivering pizzas to them and thru the liquor store), and I liked them... But your "facts" don't change my OPINION that last year's team was better than several in the 80s and 90s.

Jindrake · August 12, 2012

Glad to see some people can't discuss things civilly. :hide:

buccolts · August 12, 2012

A lot of anxiety building up in anticipation of tomorrows game, huh?

Never seen anyone so emotionally attached to the '91 squad.

Anyway, thread'll be closed soon enough, I'd guess.

StewieG · August 12, 2012

I don't really have an opinion on the 91 team as others do, I was only 1 year old lol.

But this has been a good discussion so far. And I have enjoyed reading the opinions.

I won't deny last years team did have SOME talent, but we sucked. And it was almost a struggle to watch us get our butts kicked almost every week. That Saints loss has to be one of the worst losses ever by any colts team. I have never seen a team literally throw in the towel midway thru the FIRST quarter.

FanFromtheWasteland · August 12, 2012

.
Where did I say he wasn't talented? I didn't. I said he wasn't as talented as Manning, and he wasn't/isn't. I think you are looking at production. We are talking about talent remember? Manning had better touch, he was smarter, his mechanics were better. George was all arm and no touch. He developed a better touch over time, but was still inconsistent and inaccurate. Outside of that big arm what talents did Jeff George have? Fast? no. Smart? No, not really. He wasn't nearly as good as he thought and that was always a negative for him as well.

A very loud mouth and over inflated ego comes to mind

FireJimCaldwell · August 12, 2012

A very loud mouth and over inflated ego comes to mind

Those are clear.

StewieG · August 12, 2012

Last years defense also broke the record for letting the opposing team complete 71% of their passes.

Highest for last year and highest ever allowed by any team in history. Bad.

Gavin · August 12, 2012

our defensive tackles were worse last year

our outside linebackers were worse last year

I dont know how many sacks we gave up in '91

I will take a '91 Jeff George over a 2011 Curtis Painter BUT I will take a 2011 Dan Orlovsky over a '91 Jeff George, I would take '91's outside linebackers over 2011's any day of the week

Corners I will take '91's

Safeties I will take 2011's

I would take Donald Brown over a 31 year old Dickerson in '91

I would take 2011's wide receivers

Fx Stryker · August 12, 2012

The '81 team was pretty bad. Probably in contention for worst. Went 2-14, only beating the 2-14 Patriots twice. Most points allowed by a defense, and second worse differential.

Kinda funky if you think about it. '81, '91, '01, and '11.

The Peytonator · August 12, 2012

Considering I was 1 year old in '91, I can't really take part in the debate. What I can argue for though is the fact that last year, the roster was not even close to as bad as the record showed. We've all said it before, but it bears repeating.....the coaching staff did our guys no favors. Their mantra might as well have been, 'When life is going hard for you, and you can't seem to do anything right, just keep doing it anyway.'

ColtStrong · August 12, 2012

I just played 14 games at whatifsports.com with the '11 colts vs the '91 colts. I chose balanced attack for both teams on a neutral field.

2011 colts 9-5

1991 colts 5-9

Also, go to pro football reference and do your homework if you think the '11 team was worse. I'm done with this. Go Colts!

StewieG · August 12, 2012

Considering I was 1 year old in '91, I can't really take part in the debate. What I can argue for though is the fact that last year, the roster was not even close to as bad as the record showed. We've all said it before, but it bears repeating.....the coaching staff did our guys no favors. Their mantra might as well have been, 'When life is going hard for you, and you can't seem to do anything right, just keep doing it anyway.'

Very true. The coaches really had no idea to do without Peyton out there.

StewieG · August 12, 2012

I just played 14 games at whatifsports.com with the '11 colts vs the '91 colts. I chose balanced attack for both teams on a neutral field.
2011 colts 9-5
1991 colts 5-9
Also, go to pro football reference and do your homework if you think the '11 team was worse. I'm done with this. Go Colts!

That site is very awesome. We were definitely better than a 2 win team, but it was staggering how bad we were.

John Dee · August 12, 2012

I don't think last years team was as bad as the 1991 team. But they were bad.

http://www.pro-footb...ms/clt/1991.htm

1991 was pre free agency... The Colts were NOT a good football team prior to Harbaugbh in 95. And my silly butt had season tickets straight through.

Manning took the NFL in Indiana to a whole different level. But 91 was a really bad team. I am a very optimistic fan and 91 will always stick out. In a bad way.

It was the whole Colts are cursed era... a lot of high picks that flopped. or got hurt. Bad LUCK

IMO trading Chris Chandler was a move that the Colts of yesterday never recovered from until Manning.

Chandler was a pretty good QB.

ColtStrong · August 12, 2012

We were definitely better than a 2 win team, but it was staggering how bad we were.

People forget that we should have beat Pitt, and played the Pats very tight. The '91 colts would have had NO chance in those games. Good night everyone.

John Dee · August 12, 2012

That site is very awesome. We were definitely better than a 2 win team, but it was staggering how bad we were.

yes.. I just posted the link to PFR.. and Indy scored less than 7 points .... 11 times!

Glad it is 20 years in the mirror.

John Dee · August 12, 2012

The '81 team was pretty bad. Probably in contention for worst. Went 2-14, only beating the 2-14 Patriots twice. Most points allowed by a defense, and second worse differential.
Kinda funky if you think about it. '81, '91, '01, and '11.

nice.. I like tin foil hat material..

Numbers are fun. And they have meaning.

Glad Luck is 12

Sign In

Was last years team the WORST colts team ever?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites