PDA

View Full Version : Should the Colts make the playoffs next season,



pacercoltfan
01-13-2008, 08:17 PM
I hope we're the #3 or #4 seed. It just seems like we tend to lose our momentum after having a bye in the postseason. Thoughts?

Shade
01-13-2008, 08:32 PM
Agreed.

RWB
01-13-2008, 08:33 PM
Last year we had everyone healthy at the exact right time. This year it just caught up with us without having Dwight.

Isaac
01-13-2008, 08:38 PM
without having Dwight.

This was the key right here. This loss hurt a lot, and I mean a lot. I even cried after it was over. But while watching this game I realized that if we were lucky enough to get by San Diego, there was no way we'd beat New England without Dwight. Hopefully we draft well again next year, Gonzo and Addai continue to improve and Dwight is back fully healthy. We'll be right in the thick of it again next year, and have as good of a shot as anyone to win the Super Bowl. Plus we get to watch the games in the best football stadium in the world.


I also want to see Craphonso Thorpe as the full time return man.

Lord Helmet
01-13-2008, 08:45 PM
This was the key right here. This loss hurt a lot, and I mean a lot. I even cried after it was over. But while watching this game I realized that if we were lucky enough to get by San Diego, there was no way we'd beat New England without Dwight. Hopefully we draft well again next year, Gonzo and Addai continue to improve and Dwight is back fully healthy. We'll be right in the thick of it again next year, and have as good of a shot as anyone to win the Super Bowl. Plus we get to watch the games in the best football stadium in the world.


I also want to see Craphonso Thorpe as the full time return man.
Keep up the positive words, it makes me feel better.

Lord Helmet
01-13-2008, 08:47 PM
So you cried after the game?

Sollozzo
01-13-2008, 08:55 PM
Good point, Issac. It is important not to underestimate the importance of Freeney.

Suaveness
01-13-2008, 08:58 PM
I think drafting some good backup DEs is a good idea. Obviously, our lack of depth showed when Freeney went down.

SoupIsGood
01-13-2008, 09:24 PM
I realized that if we were lucky enough to get by San Diego, there was no way we'd beat New England without Dwight.

Yeah, this hit me about halfway through the first quarter.

We need to get Dwight back at 100%, and we need to draft/sign some extra passrushers. This defense falls apart without a passrush. Honestly, I blame Polian for not having at least one backup DE who could rush.

Slick Pinkham
01-13-2008, 10:41 PM
Personally, I think the message is, If you have a bye locked up, play game #16 to win it.

A game where you goof around, followed by a bye week, is a combination that doesn't seem to work.

Belichick of course has this philosophy, but I think it came from Parcells. One week of rest is a good break. Any more just makes the rust set in.

Young
01-13-2008, 10:56 PM
Personally, I think the message is, If you have a bye locked up, play game #16 to win it.

Agreed.

Do you think that if the Giants had not played to win against the Pats, and although they lost they played well, that they would have beaten the Cowboys today? I have some doubts.

idioteque
01-13-2008, 11:03 PM
What I don't understand is that we didn't play our starters in the waning games of the '05 campaign, either, and lost in the divisional game at home, wouldn't something be deduced simply from this?

Shade
01-13-2008, 11:53 PM
What I don't understand is that we didn't play our starters in the waning games of the '05 campaign, either, and lost in the divisional game at home, wouldn't something be deduced simply from this?

My only gripe about Dungy is that he tends to be too conservative. This is what you get with a conservative coach.

Of course, if he plays the starters in a "meaningless" game and someone gets hurt, then all of a sudden he's a fool. It's a no-win situation.

Eindar
01-14-2008, 12:18 AM
What I don't understand is that we didn't play our starters in the waning games of the '05 campaign, either, and lost in the divisional game at home, wouldn't something be deduced simply from this?

It's not just the Colts, really. I saw the Chiefs, back in their heyday, lose multiple times to teams they were better than, I believe in large part because they rested their starters in Week 17, and then had a first round bye. I've been following this trend since around 1998.

While I think this is one thing teams are beginning to wise up on a little bit (notice Dungy didn't sit the starters for the entire game as previous coaches have done), it's a lot like fouling with a three point lead in basketball. You're really in a no win situation, and if you don't make the "right" decision (meaning the one that nets a win), you'll be criticized regardless of what you did.

I just personally prefer to play the starters every quarter you can. Then again, I'm also a fan of getting rid of the first round bye altogether, if possible.

idioteque
01-14-2008, 12:21 AM
It's not just the Colts, really. I saw the Chiefs, back in their heyday, lose multiple times to teams they were better than, I believe in large part because they rested their starters in Week 17, and then had a first round bye. I've been following this trend since around 1998.



Remember that cold night in I think 1995 for the divisional game? No one gave the Colts a chance and we pulled out a close one. That's one of my favorite memories as a Colts fan. :dance:

BoomBaby31
01-14-2008, 12:48 AM
Agreed.

Do you think that if the Giants had not played to win against the Pats, and although they lost they played well, that they would have beaten the Cowboys today? I have some doubts.

Even though they lost that game, it was by far the most important game of their season. Eli's head is up, their whole sideline looks different. Everyone is confident now, I highly doubt they would be in the NFCCG if not had played that game.

Eindar
01-14-2008, 01:05 AM
Remember that cold night in I think 1995 for the divisional game? No one gave the Colts a chance and we pulled out a close one. That's one of my favorite memories as a Colts fan. :dance:

That's actually the prime example I was thinking of. If they played that game 10 times as a normal in-rhythm game, the Chiefs win that game 8 out of 10 times, maybe 9 out of 10. But you take into account the momentum the Colts got from winning the Wild Card game, and the accumulated rust the Chiefs had from not playing hard for about three weeks, and conditions become perfect for an upset.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 01:08 AM
Let's not also forget how having a week off and resting their starters in week 17 backfired for the Packers too...

Eindar
01-14-2008, 01:46 AM
Let's not also forget how having a week off and resting their starters in week 17 backfired for the Packers too...

It doesn't always backfire, and like I said, it's preference, just like fouling with a three point lead in the NBA. But if you want to get technical, and try to snipe your point across without actually posting any figures, you came up with one example of a team that may have benefited from resting starters, and I can think of one example of a team that suffered due to resting it's starters (Colts), and another two teams that benefited by not resting starters in week 17 (Pats, Giants).

Who's right? Probably nobody. But I didn't need sarcasm to try to make people feel stupid about their opinion to get my point across.

Bball
01-14-2008, 05:10 AM
If there's a knock to be made on Dungy, I don't think he's the most motivational of coaches. ...Especially in the sense of the short term. Sooooo let the team acquire some rust in ending weeks and bye week, don't properly motivate them in the playoff lead up or during the game itself, and go home with a loss.

I don't think that was entirely the problem here, but I don't discount it as a factor either.

I know some will argue these are professional athletes and they shouldn't need anyone to motivate them to do their jobs. Maybe in a perfect world that is true, but having a central figure who can galvanize everyone and get them to a perfect pitch, focused on a single goal, just can't be overlooked.

Also, count me among those that thinks there is no compromise if Dungy is serious about retirement. He shouldn't be talked into keeping one foot in coaching and the other in retirement.

-Bball

DisplacedKnick
01-14-2008, 06:39 AM
I don't think rust was a factor today. The Chargers being the better team and zero pass rush against a QB who's shown he can be rattled by a pass rush were the factors. Plus I wonder why the coaching staff didn't change things up and throw in some blitz packages in the 2nd half when they saw the pass rush wasn't happening.

That said, I've never agreed with giving healthy players game 16 off if you have the next week off. It just has never made sense to me. And I do think rust was a main reason for the Pitt loss 2 years ago.

If rust had been a problem the Colts A) wouldn't have looked so good on their 1st 2 drives yesterday and B) the defense wouldn't have played MUCH better in the 1st half than the second. But I still think they should play that last week. 1 week off is enough.

fwpacerfan
01-14-2008, 08:38 AM
The team wasn't prepared - period. Dungy's conservative nature hurts him in the playoffs. Before last year he was known as a coach who couldn't win the big game and a big reason is because he doesn't make adjustments before playoff games. The great coaches have a wrinkle, a small change they implement. Not Dungy. The Chargers made a few changes and the Colts didn't. Add to that the lack of execution by the defense and you had a horrible loss.

McClintic Sphere
01-14-2008, 09:12 AM
I thought the Colt's changed a lot of things yesterday, and to their detriment. For one, they had Sanders practically playing on the LOS on D all day and without a pass rush it left the back three defenders totally exposed. The Colts also went three wides a lot of the day, something they didn't do a lot of this year and it worked well BETWEEN THE 20'S. Getting inside the 35 four times and getting no points is a killer though. And how many times does the ball have to bounce of Kenton Keith's hands before they realize that he cannot catch it? The lack of D-line pressure absolutely killed us and Brock and Mathis didn't look like they made it all the way back from injuries. Special Teams did their job. In retrospect, It seems they should have just played Gonzo in Marvin's slot and waited until next year to bring # 88 back. And what happened to Utect? He had a nice catch on the first drive, but was not heard from since.
Somebody might have a better record of it, but between the Pacers and the Colt's our record as home favorites in the playoffs is terrible.

Unclebuck
01-14-2008, 09:16 AM
no, I think they need to rebuild, trade away their best players, get salary cap room and try to get into the lottery for a few seasons.

Oops, maybe I'm confused, Oh the Colts, oops.

Sollozzo
01-14-2008, 01:51 PM
If there's a knock to be made on Dungy, I don't think he's the most motivational of coaches. ...Especially in the sense of the short term. Sooooo let the team acquire some rust in ending weeks and bye week, don't properly motivate them in the playoff lead up or during the game itself, and go home with a loss.

I don't think that was entirely the problem here, but I don't discount it as a factor either.

I know some will argue these are professional athletes and they shouldn't need anyone to motivate them to do their jobs. Maybe in a perfect world that is true, but having a central figure who can galvanize everyone and get them to a perfect pitch, focused on a single goal, just can't be overlooked.

Also, count me among those that thinks there is no compromise if Dungy is serious about retirement. He shouldn't be talked into keeping one foot in coaching and the other in retirement.

-Bball

I couldn't agree more than this. Either you give it your all or you don't. Players are supposed to give it their all through the season, the same should be expected out of coaches. I don't fault Tony Dungy one bit if he only halfway wants to coach next season. He has achieved everything that a coach would want to achieve. But the team and fans shouldn't suffer because TD's heart is only halfway here.

And you're right, TD's motivational skills before big games needs to be questioned. How many times has this team come out completely flat in big games? You have the Steelers game in 05, the Pats and Bears games last season, and now this. We won the Pats and Bears games, but if we lose you have to blame it on us coming out flat---especially the NE game.

I appreciate everything that TD has done for the team and city. But it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if he decided to leave the sideline.

Say what you want about Belichick, but his teams are ready to play more often than not. And his play every game like its the end of the world strategy this year seems to be the way to go.

If you're injured-sit. If you can play, play the whole game.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 08:36 PM
It doesn't always backfire, and like I said, it's preference, just like fouling with a three point lead in the NBA. But if you want to get technical, and try to snipe your point across without actually posting any figures, you came up with one example of a team that may have benefited from resting starters, and I can think of one example of a team that suffered due to resting it's starters (Colts), and another two teams that benefited by not resting starters in week 17 (Pats, Giants).

Who's right? Probably nobody. But I didn't need sarcasm to try to make people feel stupid about their opinion to get my point across.
How do you know they benefited? No more than I know the Packers did. For all you know the teams that didn't rest only made it closer than it would have been, or the Packers 2 early TO's were due to rest.

Frankly the Colts were at their best to START the game, as in when the rust should have been there. And I'm not sure how playing the week before helped the Chargers with Gates hurt and then LT and Rivers added to that list.

I mean the Colts rested the starters the final week of the pre-season. Then they pounded the snot out of the Saints.

"Rust" is intangible, it's impossible to be sure if it's helped or hurt to play. Only one aspect is certain, you don't get injured if you don't play. Again, just ask LT or Rivers.

jeffg-body
01-14-2008, 10:33 PM
I can't believe all of the negative stuff so far. The Colts will be the Colt's next year, just like they were this year. We'll be getting Dwight Freeney, Booger, Morris back from IR and we'll be real good on D next year with our young guns getting this year as true experience. On offense our O line will be better with some more time to get continuity within the unit. Another year in the offense of Joe Addai, Tony Gonzales and Kenton Keith will show a big upgrade. We'll be ok, well not ok, really damn good. Some minor tweaks with special teams and possibly a heir apparent to Marvin, someone like James Hardy if he slips to the 2nd round. If not make a trade for a plethera of late picks.

Eindar
01-15-2008, 03:33 AM
How do you know they benefited? No more than I know the Packers did. For all you know the teams that didn't rest only made it closer than it would have been, or the Packers 2 early TO's were due to rest.

Frankly the Colts were at their best to START the game, as in when the rust should have been there. And I'm not sure how playing the week before helped the Chargers with Gates hurt and then LT and Rivers added to that list.

I mean the Colts rested the starters the final week of the pre-season. Then they pounded the snot out of the Saints.

"Rust" is intangible, it's impossible to be sure if it's helped or hurt to play. Only one aspect is certain, you don't get injured if you don't play. Again, just ask LT or Rivers.

Do I need to go into all the ways you can be injured by not playing? People get injured in practice all the time, and I've heard several reports over the years where players injure themselves simply by tripping over a coffee table and breaking a toe or something similar. At best, you can say that you reduce the likelihood of being injured by resting. Then again, you can reduce the likelihood of being rusty by playing.

Look, we can go all day back and forth on this. Let's agree to disagree. For the record, thank you for actually showing up to support your opinion.

Bball
01-15-2008, 04:59 AM
Do I need to go into all the ways you can be injured by not playing? People get injured in practice all the time, and I've heard several reports over the years where players injure themselves simply by tripping over a coffee table and breaking a toe or something similar.

Or a wife/girlfriend might stab you in the leg before a big game...

-Bball

Ownagedood
01-15-2008, 08:22 AM
Well, of course we will be in the playoffs. We will probably end up with the #2 seed again. But I agree with you that I rather not have that because we always seem to be a little slower after the bye weeks.

Freeney being out also hurt us.. And remember, we had the biggest guy on the team out the whole year.. Booger will be back next year.

Slick Pinkham
01-15-2008, 09:59 AM
Peter King talked about the rest/don't rest issue in his Monday Morning QB column:

Still think it's a good idea to rest your players for the playoffs in Weeks 16 and 17?

The Bucs and Colts went to a spa the last half of December and lost to underdogs at home in their first playoff games. That's the second time in three years it's happened to Indy.

The Packers barely rested their guys and looked like the '58 Colts in whipping the Seahawks.

New England, Green Bay and New York rested no one; they're 4-0 combined. The Giants, in fact, were badly slumping entering Week 17 with nothing to play for. Since then, they nearly knocked off the best team in the league and have won two road playoff games.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/01/13/divisional/index.html