PDA

View Full Version : Colts tackle Ed Johnson busted in pot possession case



HC
09-10-2008, 02:18 PM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080910/SPORTS03/809100416


EDIT: Full article...

Colts tackle Ed Johnson busted in pot possession case
By Phil Richards
phil.richards@indystar.com

Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian announced today that defensive tackle Ed Johnson was arrested for speeding and possession of marijuana early this morning in Hamilton County.

"Those charges have been filed, it is my understanding, and we are in the process right now of determining what course of action to take with respect to discipline," Polian said. "There will be discipline, the question is what is it."

Johnson is a starter but coach Tony Dungy said he would not play Sunday when the Colts face Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Dungy said he was uncertain who would replace the second-year player from Penn State in the lineup.

Johnson was unavailable for comment.

31andonly
09-10-2008, 02:21 PM
Shouldn't this be in the Colts' section?

HC
09-10-2008, 02:22 PM
Shouldn't this be in the Colts' section?

Perhaps, if I had titled it Colts player caught with pot. Then again, half the threads in this section are out of area.

Matney33
09-10-2008, 02:30 PM
Yes this should be in the Colts section. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Pacers!

Shade
09-10-2008, 03:07 PM
The truth about the world is that a sizable population has smoked pot at least once.

(I'm not in that population, but I often find myself in the minority on things).

HC
09-10-2008, 03:08 PM
Yes this should be in the Colts section. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Pacers!

Please refer to the latter part of my original post......thanks

HC
09-10-2008, 03:09 PM
The truth about the world is that a sizable population has smoked pot at least once.

(I'm not in that population, but I often find myself in the minority on things).

I know, I know. It's just a joke.

ChicagoJ
09-10-2008, 03:32 PM
Perhaps, if I had titled it Colts player caught with pot. Then again, half the threads in this section are out of area.

Okay, I get your point. We'll do better job policing this - begining with watching your threads extra careful to make sure they end up in the right forum.

:D

Trader Joe
09-10-2008, 03:35 PM
Adrian Peterson is gonna go for 300+ yards against us.

Hicks
09-10-2008, 04:17 PM
Colts are thugs! Rah rah rah. Never seeing them again! etc.

Oh wait. No one will care.

DGPR
09-10-2008, 04:28 PM
The Colts knew the risk of taking a shady guy with a history.

HC
09-10-2008, 05:51 PM
Okay, I get your point. We'll do better job policing this - begining with watching your threads extra careful to make sure they end up in the right forum.

:D

Knock yourself out, by the way there are still a lot of pages in the pacers section that need moved.

Shade
09-10-2008, 05:51 PM
Colts are thugs! Rah rah rah. Never seeing them again! etc.

Oh wait. No one will care.

Not as long as they're winning, anyway.

Shade
09-10-2008, 05:52 PM
Knock yourself out

This was not a figure of speech, Jay. :-p

ChicagoJ
09-10-2008, 06:02 PM
Knock yourself out, by the way there are still a lot of pages in the pacers section that need moved.

Okay. Make a list for us, please. I'm sorry our "fix every one else's threads" performance doesn't measure up to your expectations.

I've really got better things to do with my time though.

Perhaps everyone else could spend an 5-8 extra seconds putting their new threads on the right board. And also the extra 5-8 seconds to not start a new thread when there is another thread covering the same topic that is on Page #1.

Fair?

HC
09-10-2008, 06:05 PM
Okay. Make a list for us, please. I'm sorry our "fix every one else's threads" performance doesn't measure up to your expectations.

I've really got better things to do with my time though.

Perhaps everyone else could spend an 5-8 extra seconds putting their new threads on the right board. And also the extra 5-8 seconds to not start a new thread when there is another thread covering the same topic that is on Page #1.

Fair?

No, don't get me wrong I'm really not trying to be an *** or anything. I am just saying I don't think it is right that you publicly call me out and move my thread when there are plenty of other threads over there just as irrelevant, yet no one complains about them.

HC
09-10-2008, 06:07 PM
Just like that. You have better things to do with your time, yet you took the time to personally address me and move my thread.

ChicagoJ
09-10-2008, 06:23 PM
Shouldn't this be in the Colts' section?
Perhaps, if I had titled it Colts player caught with pot. Then again, half the threads in this section are out of area.


Yes this should be in the Colts section. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Pacers!
Please refer to the latter part of my original post......thanks

You left me no choice. Note the original "big grin" smiley. I would venture to guess that the other threads are debatable. This one clearly belonged on the Colts board.

If you want to get p!ssy about it, I was only doing this in response to your "complaining" that we haven't cleaned up the Pacers board by moving only the thread in question.

Clearly the irony of all this and the "big grin" smiley aren't working. You're offended, and it was just supposed to be a playful response to your initial complaint. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll go knock myself out now...

Lord Helmet
09-10-2008, 06:27 PM
Not as long as they're winning, anyway.
Yeah, when they start losing consistantly like the Pacers and constantly have themselves in the news in a negative way, then people will probably start to change their tune.

I think the Colts have a while before that happens.

But anyway, as for the newest idiot, Mr. Ed Johnson, thanks for your help and your commitment to winning, having you stay at home this weekend will certainly help our chances against the Vikings excellent running game.

I'd like to suspend him for the Jaguars game, too, but I'm in the interest of actually winning that game, and we're probably going to need him.

Like others have said the Colts probably suspended him as soon as they could so they could hopefully have him available for the Jaguars game in 2 weeks.

In summary, this is not something you want to hear your players involved in, especially after such a disappointing loss from Week One. A loss so bad you question the effort and the intelligence of the team.

HC
09-10-2008, 06:31 PM
You left me no choice. Note the original "big grin" smiley. I would venture to guess that the other threads are debatable. This one clearly belonged on the Colts board.

If you want to get p!ssy about it, I was only doing this in response to your "complaining" that we haven't cleaned up the Pacers board by moving only the thread in question.

Clearly the irony of all this and the "big grin" smiley aren't working. You're offended, and it was just supposed to be a playful response to your initial complaint. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll go knock myself out now...

I wasn't getting p!ssy at all, sorry if it came across that way. Once again, please don't take me wrong I am sorry that I apparently took you wrong. My post that you quoted up there was really directed at 31andonly. I didn't mean for it to be an insult towards any of the mods.

MarionDeputy
09-10-2008, 06:57 PM
The Colts knew the risk of taking a shady guy with a history.

I was trying to remember, I know this guy kind of had a shady past at Penn State, which was why he went undrafted, but I don't recall hearing anything specific. Do you know what he did?

Overall extremely dissapointing, my own opinions on pot withheld, why a professional athlete on a Super Bowl contending team drives while smoking pot, or with it in plain view, makes no sense to me. Especially in Hamilton County where the cops actually have time to do pro-active traffic enforcement. The Colts were extremely weak on the defensive line stopping the run, and this guy was our best run stuffer.

idioteque
09-10-2008, 08:40 PM
He's cut.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080910/SPORTS03/80910053

Shade
09-10-2008, 09:20 PM
He's cut.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080910/SPORTS03/80910053

Wow, that was fast.

So, was this like a "last straw" kind of thing? Maybe Ed was up to these shenanigans before and was warned by TPTB?

Hicks
09-10-2008, 09:56 PM
I wish the Pacers were that free to cut people like that. Apples and oranges, I know.

Moses
09-10-2008, 10:12 PM
Glad I have Adrian Peterson on my fantasy team. He is going to shred the Colts this week. At least 200 yards.

PR07
09-10-2008, 10:56 PM
Johnson got into a lot of trouble at PSU, he was kicked off the team actually his senior year. The team took a chance on him, and it looked like it paid off...unfortunately,he didn't keep his nose clean.

I think our run stopping game is in a world of trouble.

Eindar
09-10-2008, 11:17 PM
I think the difference between the Pacers and Colts is the same as the difference between the NBA and the NFL. I know the player's union will fight it tooth and nail, but I think the NBA really needs to take a hard look at non-guaranteed contracts in the future. I'm not a big fan of how little the NFL players make who aren't famous and at skill positions, but the ability to cut guys who are acting up makes it so that you don't take the character hit when they do something stupid.

ChicagoJ
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
I wasn't getting p!ssy at all, sorry if it came across that way. Once again, please don't take me wrong I am sorry that I apparently took you wrong. My post that you quoted up there was really directed at 31andonly. I didn't mean for it to be an insult towards any of the mods.

No worries.

ChicagoJ
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
His base salary this year was $370k, and he was a starter. So this was a no-brainer even if management had to pay him the $370k (as an NBA team would have to do).

Somewhere between the NFL's nothing-is-guaranteed world and the NBA's everything-is-guaranteed world is a happy medium.

Slick Pinkham
09-10-2008, 11:40 PM
I was trying to remember, I know this guy kind of had a shady past at Penn State, which was why he went undrafted, but I don't recall hearing anything specific. Do you know what he did?


sexual misconduct, confinement of another student, and more recently he has apparently been confronted and has had many warnings, so his useage must have been strongly suspected.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=456307

It was apparently a bad gamble that other teams apparently wouldn't take, even as an undrafted FA pickup,

but props for cutting the ties despite his apparent on-field usefulness

Suaveness
09-11-2008, 12:29 AM
I'm not sure I'm going to have the stomach to watch Sunday...

SoupIsGood
09-11-2008, 05:19 AM
Crap. We are so screwed. We're going to have Britton Johnsen and Marcus Hailslip starting at DT.

This season is going to be pain.

robocop's cousin
09-11-2008, 05:53 AM
dumb...i liked ed too

Slick Pinkham
09-11-2008, 08:01 AM
I'm not in law enforcement, but to my ears "sexual misconduct" and confinment of someone against his/her will sounds (if they are related to the same incident) and awful lot like suspected rape, but perhaps without the full evidence or cooperation to make a heavy criminal charge stick. Victim cooperation might have been especially hard to get when the perp was a high profile college athlete.

I could tolerate a limited past of drug experimentation, but actions like that reveal a character less likely to ever "get it".

idioteque
09-11-2008, 10:38 AM
I don't understand any of our past thinking concerning the defensive line. IMHO Dawson should have been developed as an end like Mathis, he doesn't seem big enough to be a DT. The one thing I have never got about Polian is why is it so bad to have big DT's.

ChicagoJ
09-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Your defense doesn't stop the run and has never stopped the run. Your offense stops the run.

They do this by scoring quickly, taking a lead, and forcing the opposing offense to "think" they need to abandon the run to keep pace. So you've invested in a pass defense (thus, the undersized DLs who can penetrate so deep into the offensive backfield that they leave huge gaps at the line of scrimmage.)

You haven't been committed to balanced defense, you have been committed to a defense that compliments Manning. If you get a lead on Minnesota, it will be interesting to see if they abandon Peterson or not. They shouldn't. But you've faced a number of coaches in the past that have panicked and abandoned a running game that they should have stuck to.

Pittsburgh even did that during the MNF game a few years back (admittedly, Marvel Smith was hurt at that point in the season as he is the Steelers MIP on offense), which is why Cowher was determined to stick to running the ball down your throats in the playoff rematch (with a healthy Marvel Smith). Of course, we got an early lead in that game, so we don't know if even Cowher would have stuck with Bettis and Parker if the Steelers were behind. But he does harp on that point nearly every Sunday on CBS.

naptownmenace
09-11-2008, 11:10 AM
Crap. We are so screwed. We're going to have Britton Johnsen and Marcus Hailslip starting at DT.

This season is going to be pain.


LOL! :laugh:


Hopefully, they'll find someone on the waiver wire to replace him. Anybody know who might be available?

MarionDeputy
09-11-2008, 11:49 AM
I wish the Pacers were that free to cut people like that. Apples and oranges, I know.

Your right, and they should have the freedom to do it as well. Being cut from a team is not "taking away someones livelihood" which is usually the biggest reason you hear on why professional athletes shouldn't be cut, some other team can pick you and there are other professional leagues to join. The NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB are obviously the most lucrative to belong to but these athletes must recognize, that belonging to these leagues brings a scrutiny otherwise never seen and almost no tolerance for poor behavior. I am happy to see the Colts take such strong action.

MarionDeputy
09-11-2008, 12:01 PM
Your defense doesn't stop the run and has never stopped the run. Your offense stops the run.

They do this by scoring quickly, taking a lead, and forcing the opposing offense to "think" they need to abandon the run to keep pace. So you've invested in a pass defense (thus, the undersized DLs who can penetrate so deep into the offensive backfield that they leave huge gaps at the line of scrimmage.)

You haven't been committed to balanced defense, you have been committed to a defense that compliments Manning. If you get a lead on Minnesota, it will be interesting to see if they abandon Peterson or not. They shouldn't. But you've faced a number of coaches in the past that have panicked and abandoned a running game that they should have stuck to.

Pittsburgh even did that during the MNF game a few years back (admittedly, Marvel Smith was hurt at that point in the season as he is the Steelers MIP on offense), which is why Cowher was determined to stick to running the ball down your throats in the playoff rematch (with a healthy Marvel Smith). Of course, we got an early lead in that game, so we don't know if even Cowher would have stuck with Bettis and Parker if the Steelers were behind. But he does harp on that point nearly every Sunday on CBS.

Good anaysis, I hadn't thought about it like that before, but I believe your right, our guys are defintley slanted skillwise to stop the pass...

Unclebuck
09-11-2008, 02:31 PM
We all can extol the virtues of the indianapolis Colts for cutting this guy - a starter no less.

But I find it impossible to believe that the Colts would have cut a player like Freeney, or Sanders.

MarionDeputy
09-11-2008, 02:31 PM
Replacement found:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/SPORTS03/809110522

The Indianapolis Colts signed free agent defensive tackle (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/SPORTS03/809110522#) LaJuan Ramsey to take the spot of Ed Johnson, who was waived today after his Wednesday arrest on a charge of marijuana possession.
Ramsey, 24, was a sixth-round draft pick of the Philadelphia Eagles (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/SPORTS03/809110522#) in 2006 who played in 15 games for the Eagles. Philadelphia waived him this past June, and he was claimed by San Francisco. The 49ers cut him before the start of the regular season.
The 6-3, 300-pound Ramsey helped USC post a 48-4 record and win two national championships.
Coach Tony Dungy said this afternoon that Eric Foster, an undrafted rookie, will start alongside defensive tackle Keyunta Dawson when the Colts (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/SPORTS03/809110522#) meet the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday in Minneapolis.
Call Star reporter Mike Chappell at (317) 444-6830.

MarionDeputy
09-11-2008, 02:35 PM
We all can extol the virtues of the indianapolis Colts for cutting this guy - a starter no less.

But I find it impossible to believe that the Colts would have cut a player like Freeney, or Sanders.

Your right cutting a huge salary like would have all kinds of complications, but a guy who is paid the league minimum and is already on "triple top secret probation" has no room for error....

SoupIsGood
09-11-2008, 05:45 PM
Your defense doesn't stop the run and has never stopped the run. Your offense stops the run.

They do this by scoring quickly, taking a lead, and forcing the opposing offense to "think" they need to abandon the run to keep pace.

If I remember right, that didn't happen once during our Superbowl postseason run. We've occasionally figured out how to stop the run, and we'll need to again this season.

ChicagoJ
09-11-2008, 06:29 PM
What didn't happen? Everybody but New England got behind and gave up the running game. After that regular season ended, Cowher talked about that every week on the pregame show. Even the Patriots, with a big lead in the AFC Title game, kept passing the ball instead of running down the clock.

He showed everyone the formula the previous year and nobody else would even try it. If Ben & Company didn't have a motorcycle wreck and appendectomy to put then in a 2-6 hole that was too big to recover from, you know Bill was desperately wanting to do it again in the playoffs.

Your opponent's low rushing-yards-per-game was primarily because of a low rushing-attempts-per-game stat, not because of a low yards-per-carry stat.

imawhat
09-11-2008, 10:53 PM
What didn't happen? Everybody but New England got behind and gave up the running game. After that regular season ended, Cowher talked about that every week on the pregame show. Even the Patriots, with a big lead in the AFC Title game, kept passing the ball instead of running down the clock.

He showed everyone the formula the previous year and nobody else would even try it. If Ben & Company didn't have a motorcycle wreck and appendectomy to put then in a 2-6 hole that was too big to recover from, you know Bill was desperately wanting to do it again in the playoffs.

Your opponent's low rushing-yards-per-game was primarily because of a low rushing-attempts-per-game stat, not because of a low yards-per-carry stat.

I'd buy your first argument (and this) if that had actually happened, but it didn't.

The Colts STUFFED Kansas City...44 yards on 17 carries. The game was 16-8 going into the 4th quarter. KC didn't abandon the run game because the Colts jumped out to a big lead. They abandoned it because they got stuffed. Keep in mind they had the 2nd leading rusher in the NFL that year. No one was expecting it.

They won against Baltimore in a close game, holding the Ravens to 83 yards rushing. The Ravens had a 1100 yard rusher in Lewis and a mobile QB in McNair, so again, that is no small feat. Especially for a team that hadn't kept anyone under 100 yards all season. Another one that goes against your theory.

No comment on New England because it's true and I agree with you, and the Bears only ran 19 times because they had the ball for 21 minutes. Actually had a decent running game, even if you take away Jones' big run.

But overall, the Colts significantly improved their running game, and I'm pretty sure they came out of the postseason with the best run defense.

gilpdawg
09-11-2008, 11:35 PM
I'm not worried about Peterson honestly. After seeing how bad their passing game was against GB, we're going to put 8 in the box and make Jackson beat us downfield, and I don't think he can. Peterson will probably get his yards, but he's going to have to earn them.

ChicagoJ
09-11-2008, 11:59 PM
17 carries? Come on. That's not committed to the run. (They ran 28 passing plays including the four sacks.) You're proving my point. And Larry Johnson was wildly overrated that season.

The Chiefs ran 19 times on Pittsburgh that season and gained 38 yards total in a collossal blowout (45-7). In spite of Larry Johnson's impressive stats against the rest of the league, they didn't look like a running team to me.

Baltimore only ran the ball 20 times (31 passes) and NE came closest to "balance" with 24 rushes and 34 passes. Vs. Pittsburgh, Baltimore had 35 rushes and 27 passes in Baltimore in November and 33 rushes and 31 passes on Christmas Eve. They sure as hell didn't look to me like they were committed to the run against the Colts.

Contrast that to the year before, the Steelers ran the ball 42 times on the Colts in the playoffs (26 passing plays), only 25 carries in the loss on MNF (vs. 29 passing plays.)

I'm just saying, with a different perspective, I watch a team every Sunday that is 100% committed to winning the trenches each week to establish the run and shutting down the opponent's running game.

imawhat
09-12-2008, 02:15 AM
17 carries? Come on. That's not committed to the run. (They ran 28 passing plays including the four sacks.) You're proving my point. And Larry Johnson was wildly overrated that season.

The Chiefs ran 19 times on Pittsburgh that season and gained 38 yards total in a collossal blowout (45-7). In spite of Larry Johnson's impressive stats against the rest of the league, they didn't look like a running team to me.

So which is it? Larry Johnson and his 1789 yards are wildly overrated, or did the Chiefs not look like a running team to you? He's either one hell of a runner by getting 1789 yards on a team that wasn't a "running team" or he's overrated because he got 1789 yards, but was on a running team. I certainly don't see how it could be both.



Baltimore only ran the ball 20 times (31 passes) and NE came closest to "balance" with 24 rushes and 34 passes. Vs. Pittsburgh, Baltimore had 35 rushes and 27 passes in Baltimore in November and 33 rushes and 31 passes on Christmas Eve. They sure as hell didn't look to me like they were committed to the run against the Colts.

Contrast that to the year before, the Steelers ran the ball 42 times on the Colts in the playoffs (26 passing plays), only 25 carries in the loss on MNF (vs. 29 passing plays.)

I'm just saying, with a different perspective, I watch a team every Sunday that is 100% committed to winning the trenches each week to establish the run and shutting down the opponent's running game.

I thought you said the Colts defense had never stopped the run.

Your argument was that the Colts offense stops the run by gaining quick leads and forcing the opposing offense to abandon the run....which is not what happened in the 2006 playoffs.

Also, I think there's a difference between abandoning the run and abandoning the run because it doesn't work. Baltimore ran on 47.6% of their offensive plays in the regular season. The fact that that number slipped below 40%, in a close game, says to me that they weren't running for a reason, which was clear to me (in my opinion) while I was watching the game.

I just don't see how the final run defense stats from the playoffs suggests anything other than the Colts having the ability to stop the run.

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 11:55 AM
I said teams abandoned the run against the Colts, not that the Colts stopped it. Looking at the rushing attempts per game, I don't see how you can reach any conclusion on the actual quality of the run defense. There aren't enough attempts, the opposing offense was tilted strongly toward the passing game, not even balanced, and certainly not "committed to the run."

I have no idea how Larry Johnson piled up those yards. We'll need a Chiefs fan to tell us. I assume it was smoke and mirrors, and some "actual yards multiplied by three" calculation. I don't watch the Chiefs much, but every time I watched him that season he looked like a typical backup NFL RB, not a 1700 yard guy. Just my opinion. There was obviously some team out there that he racked up a bazillion yards against.

The Colts had a "good" run defense statistically because of their offensive game plan, speed, and the pressure they put on opposing offensive coordinators. Not because the defensive guys they put on the field were good at stuffing the run. And it worked well for them that season. They stopped the run with their offense, not thier defense. Its a gimmick like Hack-a-Shaq, but gimmicks work too.

Its going to be an issue for the Colts over the next 5-7 weeks while Manning goes through "training camp" and gets his timing down. As long as the Colts' offense looks rusty, the run defense won't look so good either.

Bball
09-12-2008, 12:15 PM
RE: Superbowl year

Actually, after the defense was exploited more and more as the year worn on I believe the team FINALLY made some changes for the playoffs. Freeney and Mathis weren't in 'attack the QB' mode EVERY play. All of a sudden the 'gimme' runs of just running to where those guys WERE disappeared. They still rushed the passer but more selectively and didn't totally sellout every play to do it. At least that required the opposing team to think about when they should run or not instead of knowing you could always run the little delayed handoffs and run thru the holes those guys were leaving.... spinning themselves right out of the play.

That and Bob Sanders return helped shore up the run defense. McFarland was also coming around to help solidify the middle as the season progressed (but he couldn't do it alone if the rest of the defense was a sieve for runs).

I think teams went away from the run in the playoffs because the old playbook (run-run-run) (at least for the teams in the playoffs) wasn't working.

I like Dungy and I'm glad he got a SB but he needs to move on. This should've been a year to see how his 'next in line' is going to handle matters on his own.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 12:43 PM
I was trying not to bring the Bob Sanders return into the mix.

Why?

When your safety returns from injury and that "fixes" your run defense, it proves just how bad the front seven are at run defense in the first place.

That's my ace-in-hole for this discussion.

Bball
09-12-2008, 12:56 PM
I was trying not to bring the Bob Sanders return into the mix.

Why?

When your safety returns from injury and that "fixes" your run defense, it proves just how bad the front seven are at run defense in the first place.

That's my ace-in-hole for this discussion.

Of course I didn't say Bob Sanders is what fixed the run defense....

-Bball

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 01:04 PM
No you didn't, but it was coming.

SoupIsGood
09-12-2008, 01:51 PM
Jay you are all over the place. Earlier you said that the Colts didn't force the other team to a low ypc number, but for two of those four postseason games the ypc number was pretty low. There wasn't a single touchdown scored in the Ravens game: there's no freaking way our offense made them abandon the run. What you're saying is true for a lot of Colts games, and so I'm not that interested in dragging this out. But some of what you're insisting is pretty far from the truth.

Also, the Colts win a lot of games not because the other team goes away from the run, but because the Colts offense at full steam was just flat-out better than the other offense, even with them absolutely searing our run defense. That's not really a good thing, but I'm just saying that the "your offense shuts down their run offense" thing doesn't happen all the time. Sometimes we just get killed vs the run and win anyway.


I was trying not to bring the Bob Sanders return into the mix.

Why?

When your safety returns from injury and that "fixes" your run defense, it proves just how bad the front seven are at run defense in the first place.

That's my ace-in-hole for this discussion.

Should we just ignore that he's the leader (or I guess co-leader w/ Brackett) of our defense? Several guys cited having his energy/enthusiasm back on the field as a plus. Maybe that's a minor thing, but as long as we're refuting stuff that hasn't been argued yet, I'll throw that out there.

Since86
09-12-2008, 02:01 PM
We don't play smashmouth football and that in itself makes our D inferior to a fan, like Jay, of a team that does.

I think Cedric Benson and him getting his knee "hurt" in the SB tells you all you need to know about the impact that Bob has on run defense. He routinely makes short gained stops, and even stops in the backfield. If he was helping the run defense because the carrier was getting 8-10 yds and he was the last stand, then you have a point. But that's not the case. He chases carriers down the line and makes stops where you'd expect your line backers too, or even your lineman.

When you have ends like Freeney that aren't too concerned about stopping the run, but to get to the QB as quickly as possible, it puts more pressure on the linebackers and DBs. Lead blockers are getting downfield to make their blocks and the Colts use their speed to get to the ball carrier as quickly as possible.

It's a philosophy discussion, and you just happen to think that Pitt has the right one. Both teams have won recent SBs, and thats the point isn't it? To win the title. Other than your opinion that the Steelers play the right way, there's not much more to the argument.

In Dungy's scheme, Bob fixed the run defense problem. His ability to get to the line and get stops is amazing. There's a reason why he was the Defensive Player of the Year, and it's not because of his pass coverage.

Sollozzo
09-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Jay you are all over the place. Earlier you said that the Colts didn't force the other team to a low ypc number, but for two of those four postseason games the ypc number was pretty low. There wasn't a single touchdown scored in the Ravens game: there's no freaking way our offense made them abandon the run. What you're saying is true for a lot of Colts games, and so I'm not that interested in dragging this out. But some of what you're insisting is pretty far from the truth.

Also, the Colts win a lot of games not because the other team goes away from the run, but because the Colts offense at full steam was just flat-out better than the other offense, even with them absolutely searing our run defense. That's not really a good thing, but I'm just saying that the "your offense shuts down their run offense" thing doesn't happen all the time. Sometimes we just get killed vs the run and win anyway.



Should we just ignore that he's the leader (or I guess co-leader w/ Brackett) of our defense? Several guys cited having his energy/enthusiasm back on the field as a plus. Maybe that's a minor thing, but as long as we're refuting stuff that hasn't been argued yet, I'll throw that out there.

Good post.

Perhaps the Chiefs abandoned the run because LJ was getting stuffed every time? Nah, that couldn't be it.

Why continue to run the ball when the Colts are stuffing you EVERY TIME? The reason they were passing the ball was because the running game was a complete failure for them. The Steelers game the year before was the complete opposite, that is, the running game actually worked.

Larry Johnson had a whopping 2.46 YPC average that game, compared with 4.3 on the season. He had plenty of chances, but was stuffed consistently.

Jay, you keep harping that the Colts defense can't stop anyone unless the offense has given them a comfortable lead. Most of the time that is the truth, but that couldn't be further from the truth as far as the 06 playoffs were concerned. Manning was awful in the Chiefs game, and they just had a 16-8 lead going into the 4th quarter (as has been mentioned). That's hardly a comfortable lead. The defense won that game.

Same with the Ravens game. We only won that game by 9 points, which means that you can logically infer that the offense never gave the defense a big lead at any portion in that game.

The defense won those 2 games, and they won them without ever having a big lead from the offense as a crush.

And Peyton Manning isn't going to take 3-5 weeks to look like an "NFL caliber quarterback" again. I've seen far worse games from Manning than the one other night. He had a good completion percentage (granted he threw a ton of short passes), and didn't throw any interceptions. Harrison and Wayne both failed to come up with catches that they should have made.

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 03:06 PM
If you want to keep on believing that your defense has been good at stopping the run, go right ahead.

Good luck with that.

Since86
09-12-2008, 03:21 PM
They're average against the run, I don't think you'll find anyone who say's the Colts are good.

They were 15th in the league last year, at 106yds per. Jacksonville always had the rep of being a hard run defense and they gave up 100yds per, or even NE that gave up 98yds a game.

Average yd per carry against the Colts 3.8, average yd per carry against Pitt 4.0.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teamrush&sort=ypg&pos=def&league=nfl&year=2007&season=2

Per carry, the Colts were better. Per game, Pitt is better. Longest run against Indy 32yds. Longest against Pitt 38yds.

Indy is good enough to post the longest streak of winning atleast 12 games a season, and they've won just as many SBs in the past 10yrs as Pitt, so where is your great argument for needing a smashmouth team like Pitt? We have better season success and just as much post season success.

Again, it's two different philosophies and you think yours is better.

EDIT: To continue with it...SD is supposed to be a good defensive team, yet they gave up just as many yards as the Colts, while having 38 less rushing attempts against them.

Only 3 teams gave up less yds per carry than the Colts. (Minn., Balt, and Washington who gave up .1 less)

Average on total per game, and right around the middle for per carry. 12 teams are within the 3.8 to 4.0 average.

Sollozzo
09-12-2008, 04:09 PM
If you want to keep on believing that your defense has been good at stopping the run, go right ahead.

Good luck with that.


Did we not win the Super bowl that year? That's the whole issue here: whether the run D was good(great) in that 06 playoff run. And the facts say it was. You can call it whatever the hell you want, but we won the Super Bowl and the defense played a huge role in it.

Just admit that your (extremely) biased towards how the Steelers play football. But like Since86 said, the Steelers formula in recent years has brought them no more success than the Colts.

SoupIsGood
09-12-2008, 04:43 PM
If you want to keep on believing that your defense has been good at stopping the run, go right ahead.

Good luck with that.

Who are you arguing with, Jay? No one is saying that. In fact earlier in this thread I think several people were talking how we're going to get reamed by AP. (Which we totally will.)

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 04:44 PM
I'll agree that the Colts "overall" have been succesful at stopping the run. I attribute a lot more of that success to the offensive philosophy than to defensive execution. For it to work, clearly there has to be some of both.

The point started to be, and remains the same: if your offense can't put pressure on the opposing offense in the upcoming weeks, your run defense is not going to look good.

There is a cause-and-effect relationship here. I'm just pointing it out.

- - - - - - - - - -

As for Smashmouth, the timing of your arguement is interesting, isn't it?

The Steelers have had three different starting QBs this decade, but still have the third-best cumulative record - not too far behind two teams that are concerned about rapidly achieving irrelevance if their star QB goes down with an injury. They are basically tied with the Eagles, and there is a big drop to #5 (the Packers). So that is three of the top-four QB consecutive starting streaks, along with two smashmouth teams.

With Favre's retirement/ subsequent trade, nobody is afraid of the Packers this season. With Brady's injury, nobody is afraid of the Patriots this season. The Steelers went 13-3, not that long ago, with feakin' Kordell Stewart at QB. I'd love to see the Patriots, Colts, or Packers pull that off.

SoupIsGood
09-12-2008, 04:49 PM
I think our run defense is going to look pretty bad either way. Maybe I'm just pulling a Shade, but I expect the Colts to get killed in the trenches this year and thus don't expect much more than a playoff appearance. :bananadea

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 04:57 PM
Who are you arguing with, Jay? No one is saying that. In fact earlier in this thread I think several people were talking how we're going to get reamed by AP. (Which we totally will.)

Would you let Adam and imawhat know that, then?

:D

Sollozzo
09-12-2008, 04:59 PM
As for Smashmouth, the timing of your arguement is interesting, isn't it?

The Steelers have had three different starting QBs this decade, but still have the third-best cumulative record - not too far behind two teams that are concerned about rapidly achieving irrelevance if their star QB goes down with an injury. They are basically tied with the Eagles, and there is a big drop to #5 (the Packers). So that is three of the top-four QB consecutive starting streaks, along with two smashmouth teams.

With Favre's retirement/ subsequent trade, nobody is afraid of the Packers this season. With Brady's injury, nobody is afraid of the Patriots this season. The Steelers went 13-3, not that long ago, with feakin' Kordell Stewart at QB. I'd love to see the Patriots, Colts, or Packers pull that off.


Good for the Steelers.

You've had your own unique formula for the past decade, and the Colts/Pats/Packers have had theirs. All have won Super Bowls.

I'd say the gamble of putting most of your eggs in one basket with Manning/Favre/Brady paid off well for those 3 franchises, wouldn't you?

Favre: About 16 straight years of starting every game for the Packers, a SB, and multiple division titles.

Manning: 10 straight years of starting, a SB, 2 MVP's, 5 straight division titles (6 overall), and 5 straight 12 win seasons.

Brady: Almost 7 years straight of starting every game, an MVP, 3 Superbowls, 5 straight division crowns.

I'd say those gambles paid off. Brady is the only one of the 3 to have a devastating injury. But he had 7 awesome years before it and will likely have 7 more after the injury. Furthermore, I would guess that everyone in New England thinks that it's a gamble that's well worth it. Hell, they might still have a decent team even without Brady.

If Manning goes down on Sunday against the Vikings than the gamble the Colts have made is still well worth it. It has worked for a decade and has produced a Superbowl and unparalleled regular season success. He hasn't gone down in 10 years, so I'll continue to take my chances with building a team around him and the offense.

You can play "what-if games" all day. If Duncan goes down then the Spurs suck. If Chris Paul goes down then the Hornets are back to the lotto.

You're biased to "smashmouth" football, we're biased to putting most of our eggs into a great quarterback basket. The two philosophies are even as far as results are concerned when comparing the Colts and Steelers.

Since86
09-12-2008, 05:02 PM
With Favre's retirement/ subsequent trade, nobody is afraid of the Packers this season. With Brady's injury, nobody is afraid of the Patriots this season. The Steelers went 13-3, not that long ago, with feakin' Kordell Stewart at QB. I'd love to see the Patriots, Colts, or Packers pull that off.

Just like what people say when the 61 win team is brought up, how many banners did that 13-3 season get you?

Tampa Bay won a superbowl with stinking Brad Johnson while still playing Dungy's Tampa Cover Two. Coincidently, Dungy was fired from Tampa not because of the defense, but because they were plain awful on offense.

The defensive scheme that Dungy uses actually does work in more places than Indy. Just because it's not YOUR choice of how to run a defense, doesn't mean it's a bad choice.

Again, Indy gave up less yardage per carry than Pitt, and had the ball ran on them more times a game, but yet Pitt is a super ultra run defense power house and the Colts are the lost ones?

I've said it before, you're an extremely logical person but when football comes up you become UB with Artest, or Peck with DD. You wear those Steeler glasses to the full extent.

Bball
09-12-2008, 05:28 PM
I think the Colts' run defense performed admirably in the 06 playoffs. People had to abandon the running game because it wasn't working. The Colt run D was very good for that fleeting moment in time. But several things converged to make that happen. High up on the list was it was obvious to even Dungy that this team would get killed in the playoffs if they didn't change things (and the Colts didn't need another 1 and done in the playoffs). (I take that back... maybe it was obvious to Irsay or Polian enough to wake Dungy up and tell him something had to change).

Also, Peyton managed the games in the playoffs very well. He kept moving the chains but not trying to change the game into a pinball game. He never really went for the hero ball (deep throw when something shorter or a running play would be better). So that also helped the Colts' defense (meaning they weren't asked to be on the field a silly amount of time).

As I said, I believe the Colts (out of necessity) made a fundamental change in the defense which totally changed everything for the playoffs. But Dungy/Polian/whomever cannot keep themselves from reverting back to being overly aggressive against the pass and trying to force teams to outscore them in the air. That is a flawed plan because it relies on the Colt offense to be perfect, which just isn't a realistic expectation... especially against playoff caliber defenses.

Also, it means fundamentally the Colts don't put an emphasis on the players they need to actually be run stuffers.

So I agree with J that overall the Dungy teams have been somewhere between marginal and outright sucking against the run... especially as the season has worn on and our undersized defense gotten worn down and nicked up.

But I don't agree that our run D wasn't very good in the 06 playoffs. We just didn't learn anything from what that showed us and reverted right back to the same old system and personnel types.

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 05:30 PM
Good for the Steelers.

You've had your own unique formula for the past decade, and the Colts/Pats/Packers have had theirs. All have won Super Bowls.

Decade? Are you kiddding me? You're just trying to make my head exploed, aren't you?

http://pweb.jps.net/~fos/nfl/post1969nfl.html

Our lead on Miami and Dallas isn't big, but that is something to be proud of for Steelers Nation.

Unique? Its the same formula the Eagles and Cowboys use. And Jacksonville. Hell, Jacksonville just out-smashmouthed us twice last season. Its what the Bears are trying to do, but thier OL and DL are both pretty weak.

We've played the same football since Chuck Noll arrived in 1970. Ask Dungy, he leared the misnamed "Tampa-2" from Noll when he played on the Steel Curtain's 4-3. We switched to the 3-4 in the 80s, and admittedely it took us a while to get good at it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Has the "gamble" worked around Favre, Brady and Manning worked? Yes, they've been this decade's version of the 49ers. It has worked well. Meanwhile, the 49ers have found thier way back to the cellar. You better find your "next Steve Young" in the next couple of seasons to follow up after "Montana, Jr."

And on the flip side, there are a number of high profile QBs that aren't getting the job done, either. So if you want to cherry pick the three teams that have been successful with the "we need a franchise QB", we should look no further than the previous Colts franchise QB, Mr. Jeff George himself. With this strategy, you win some and you lose some.

Play smashmouth for a few decades, like Pittsburgh and Dallas, and you are cumulative #1 and #3, with the top two points-against results and the top two point-differentials, and two of the top three for division, conference, and SuperBowl titles.

Looks like a no-brainer to me.

ChicagoJ
09-12-2008, 05:33 PM
I've said it before, you're an extremely logical person but when football comes up you become UB with Artest, or Peck with DD. You wear those Steeler glasses to the full extent.

Show me where Dale Davis and Artest have dominated for decades. I'll at least put on the rose colored glasses for the team with the best cumulative records in football since 1970. Not much to find fault with, is there?

Sollozzo
09-12-2008, 05:56 PM
Decade? Are you kiddding me? You're just trying to make my head exploed, aren't you?

http://pweb.jps.net/~fos/nfl/post1969nfl.html

Our lead on Miami and Dallas isn't big, but that is something to be proud of for Steelers Nation.

Unique? Its the same formula the Eagles and Cowboys use. And Jacksonville. Hell, Jacksonville just out-smashmouthed us twice last season. Its what the Bears are trying to do, but thier OL and DL are both pretty weak.

We've played the same football since Chuck Noll arrived in 1970. Ask Dungy, he leared the misnamed "Tampa-2" from Noll when he played on the Steel Curtain's 4-3. We switched to the 3-4 in the 80s, and admittedely it took us a while to get good at it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Has the "gamble" worked around Favre, Brady and Manning worked? Yes, they've been this decade's version of the 49ers. It has worked well. Meanwhile, the 49ers have found thier way back to the cellar. You better find your "next Steve Young" in the next couple of seasons to follow up after "Montana, Jr."

And on the flip side, there are a number of high profile QBs that aren't getting the job done, either. So if you want to cherry pick the three teams that have been successful with the "we need a franchise QB", we should look no further than the previous Colts franchise QB, Mr. Jeff George himself. With this strategy, you win some and you lose some.

Play smashmouth for a few decades, like Pittsburgh and Dallas, and you are cumulative #1 and #3, with the top two points-against results and the top two point-differentials, and two of the top three for division, conference, and SuperBowl titles.

Looks like a no-brainer to me.


Uh, I believe that you're the one who brought up the decade when you said in your earlier post:


The Steelers have had three different starting QBs this decade, but still have the third-best cumulative record - not too far behind two teams that are concerned about rapidly achieving irrelevance if their star QB goes down with an injury. They are basically tied with the Eagles, and there is a big drop to #5 (the Packers). So that is three of the top-four QB consecutive starting streaks, along with two smashmouth teams.


That line was the entirely what I based my response off of.

Everyone knows that the Steelers are the most successful franchise in NFL history. I don't need a history lesson to realize that. So don't get your feelings hurt that I stayed on topic with the last decade (which is the topic that you brought up). Why in the world would I talk about the 1970's when I am talking about Manning, Brady, and Favre (who were small children or weren't even born yet when the Steelers were winning those championships). Sorry that I thought that was irrelevant when responding to your point about the Steelers having the third best record of the *decade*.

And I didn't "cherry pick" Manning, Brady and Favre into this argument. They were the players that *you* brought up in that same paragraph when you said that its "3 of the top 4 quarterback streaks along with 2 smashmouth teams."

So again, I was just staying on a topic that you brought up. Manning, Brady, and Favre were the three players that led their teams to top 5 in terms of wins for the decade.

Certainly teams have failed with trying to build a team around annoited franchise quarterback. But teams have also failed when trying to replicate what the Steelers have done for decades. The Steelers have certainly done it far better than anyone else.

Gamble1
09-12-2008, 08:35 PM
I love people smarter than Bill Polian and people who live through there team.

jeffg-body
09-12-2008, 09:51 PM
They gave him a short leash and unfortunately he hung himself on it. Someone will step up like always.

D-BONE
09-13-2008, 07:19 AM
Dungy's Colts have never been a traditional run-stopping defense. They have had periods of decent performance against the run in no small part due to the entire team concept upon which they're constructed. The team is all about the O and we are all perfectly aware.

It has always amazed me the consistent bad luck they've had (injuries)/indifference they've shown the DT position. I get the fact Dungy's system values more athletic, quick, agile players even in the trenches, but this Sunday they're going to be running out two guys in the 250-270 range. I'm sorry. That's not gonna cut it regardless of you system. Warren Sapp, Chidi Ahanotu, and Booger McFarland weren't in the 250 lb. club in the heyday of Tampa's D. Hopefully, the Vikes passing game is as inept as it's purported to be so we can just tee off on stopping Peterson and Co.

Yes, it's just 0-1. Yes, the Colts could easily get back in a groove. Yet, I'm surprised there isn't at least some concern. This is the most uneasy I've felt about the team this early in a season in some time, particularly with the schedule we're facing.

Pacersfan46
09-13-2008, 06:54 PM
Wow, all these people thinking we're going to get smoked by Peterson, are you kidding me?

Not so much saying that he won't, but ..... do you really think Ed Johnson was going to be the difference? You've got to be kidding me. With or without Ed Johnson he was going to do whatever he does.

However look at Peterson's yardage totals by game. He was very hit or miss. He only played 14 games last year, and had SEVEN games with less than 70 yards. 4 of those games with less than 50 yards. Minus his 2 outbursts of 200+ yards, his season was very average. Minus those 2 games ... he ran for 800 yards in 12 games. Huge.

I'm not nearly as certain as you guys are that he's going to run wild on us. However I know Ed Johnson wasn't going to make or break us.

-- Steve --

Moses
09-13-2008, 10:03 PM
Wow, all these people thinking we're going to get smoked by Peterson, are you kidding me?

Not so much saying that he won't, but ..... do you really think Ed Johnson was going to be the difference? You've got to be kidding me. With or without Ed Johnson he was going to do whatever he does.

However look at Peterson's yardage totals by game. He was very hit or miss. He only played 14 games last year, and had SEVEN games with less than 70 yards. 4 of those games with less than 50 yards. Minus his 2 outbursts of 200+ yards, his season was very average. Minus those 2 games ... he ran for 800 yards in 12 games. Huge.

I'm not nearly as certain as you guys are that he's going to run wild on us. However I know Ed Johnson wasn't going to make or break us.

-- Steve --
He was a rookie with a horrible QB. I love when people try and take away peoples huge games and say that they have an average season. You do that to every RB in the league and they all become "average."

SoupIsGood
09-13-2008, 10:13 PM
It's not just that we lost Ed. It's that we lost our only decent DT coming off a game within which our run defense already looked like ****. Unless something major changes our run D is going to be pathetic.

Since86
09-15-2008, 12:45 PM
Show me where Dale Davis and Artest have dominated for decades. I'll at least put on the rose colored glasses for the team with the best cumulative records in football since 1970. Not much to find fault with, is there?

Jay, I'm not comparing the Steelers to Ron or even DD.

I'm comparing you to UB and Peck. When you start talking about the Steelers logic goes out the window, and the proof is with this post.

I don't care if they have the best cumulative record since the late 1800's. Ask ND how that's working out for them. Or ask Michigan and their best winning %.

ChicagoJ
09-15-2008, 03:32 PM
That's crazy. I'm completely logical. The Steelers are clearly God's gift to football fans and I'm just pointing out the truth. Call me a prophet, instead. With a team this good, its not my fault that it is easy to be supportive. Just like Lakers' fans, who think they are entitled to an NBA championship every couple of seasons. I just save you from the "lopsided trade proposals" because the Steelers roster is almost perfect, and besides, trades in the NFL are of almost no consequence.

:jester:

Your point would be closer to correct if you compared me to Dat Dude.

(PS, we were 6-10 at one point this decade, with the nearly-perfect Bill Cowher as coach. Things don't always work out as they "should." The team has a few minor flaws.)

Sollozzo
09-15-2008, 04:14 PM
If you call Bill Cowher "the greatest coach in professional sports" (as I've seen you say on here), then your logic is somewhat in question.

(Nothing against Cowher, but that's just an extremely homeristic statement).

The difference between the Lakers and Steelers is that the Lakers are actually a lot closer to averaging a title every couple of years. The drought from 1988-2000 was like an eternity for Lakers fans. The Steelers went what, like 26 years without winning one?

Pacersfan46
09-16-2008, 02:44 PM
He was a rookie with a horrible QB. I love when people try and take away peoples huge games and say that they have an average season. You do that to every RB in the league and they all become "average."

OK, so now he's a 2nd year player with a horrible QB .... how does that change anything I said?

Also, I get what you're saying but this is much different than the norm. The guy had 40% of his yards in two games. Find me another RB who was considered the "best RB" at that time that accounts for 40% of his yards in TWO games.

Honestly, if those games were say ... 150 yard games, nobody is even putting his name in the conversation for best RB in the league. Or calling him a hall of famer or whatever else. He's just an average RB in the NFL in his 2nd year. I think it's silly to enshrine someone in the HOF and call them the best when they only performed to that level in a couple games in their career.

-- Steve --

ChicagoJ
09-16-2008, 06:04 PM
And to further that...

How many times have seen a rookie make a big splash and then get "solved"? Regardless of the sport in question.

In a division not exactly known (currently) for stifling run defense, nonetheless.