You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
The defense was statistically similiar from previous years. The only thing that changed on the offense was who was taking snaps.
Last edited by CreekShow; 03-08-2012 at 03:36 PM.
I Bleed Blue
Total points scored against the Colts..
2011 - 430
2010 - 388
2009 - 307
2008 - 298
Call me crazy but I think something is trending there. Manning can cover up some losses but this team is older more injury prone and less talented on the defensive side of the ball IMO.
Peyton was my idol growing up, and it's because of him I wanted to play football myself growing up. The thing is, despite his coming back, we weren't going to win this year the way Peyton wants to win. It's for the best. Peyton wants and deserves to have a chance to win a Super Bowl NOW, and I think we can all agree we aren't talented enough to get to the Super Bowl for at least a couple seasons, probably more. This team is in need of a philosophy change in a big way, and I really hope they do a better job of building around Luck than they did Peyton. When a big chunk of your starters are undersized defensive players, or weren't drafted to begin, you're just not going to be successful, no matter who the QB is. As hard as it is, it is for the best for both sides, IMO.
But let's look at something.
In 2007 the Colts were 13-3. They were 3rd it total defensive yards at 279.7. In 2010 the Colts were 14-2. They were 18th in total defensive yards at 339.2.
So they gave up 60 more yards per game, and yet managed to win more.
And when you consider that you score in multiples of 3 or 6/7 in the NFL, it's going to cause a little bit bigger gaps when using just raw point totals.
The difference between giving up 430 total points and 388 total points is all of 2 pts per game. In 2010 they gave up 24.3 pts per game, and in 2011 they gave up 26.9. Not much of a difference.
EDIT: And this still doesn't take into account that the defensive units were practically the same.
Last edited by Since86; 03-09-2012 at 09:56 AM.
One of Polian's biggest blunders was obviously not having an adequate backup quarterback. But hindsight is always 20-20. This is Peyton Manning we're talking about here. This is the guy who missed one play to injury from 1998-2010. He threw for more yards and completions in 2010 than any year of his career. Was there any reason for Polian to seriously doubt that Peyton wouldn't be ready to go last year? And how much contact were the Colts even able to have with him due to the lockout? I think the Colts were as blindsided as everyone else when Peyton had to undergo another surgery in early September.
Since makes good points. 2009 was a case of the Colts catching practically every break imaginable and thus starting out 14-0. 2010 was a case of far more things going wrong than they ever had in the past and hence the 10-6 record. The truth is somewhere in the middle and that is about 12 wins, which is what we usually seemed to get from 03-09.
If you watched all of the games last year and saw how we had a chance to win several of them despite our garbage QBs, then I don't see how anyone could believe that we wouldn't have gone at least 11-5 with Peyton.
Everyone keeps saying "well, he doesn't have the best chance to win a SB here". So? It's not like he did last year either when he signed the contract.
If Manning is healthy next year and if we would have kept him and Wayne then I think we would have had a GREAT shot to win the division. Look at the 8 easy home games we have. We win 7 of those with Peyton. GB is the only questionable one.
GB, Minn, Hou, Tenn, Jax, Mia, Buff, Cleve. That is CAKE outside of GB.
Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-09-2012 at 10:07 AM.
Not sure I necessarily agree with Polian's "big blunder" of not having a real backup QB. Not having one got us the most hyped QB since the guy he's replacing.
I agree. The backup QB thing has been overblown. There are very few teams that have elite QBs with backups good enough to carry them if/when they go down. And if you do have a good backup, he's not there for long. Matt Flynn at GB is an example. He sits, gets a little time when Rodgers goes down, and suddenly he's out the door.
Not fixing the defense and hinging it around the offense putting up more points is the major blunder.
IMHO no team that threatens to go 0-16 and manages a 2-14 is going to be one player away from a threat to win the SB. That's just unrealistic. Even if the players were exactly the same players, and they weren't, there's also the issue of age and also the rest of the league doesn't stand still and refuse to improve around you.
And because the defense had added pressure on them this season it exposed them as being a major weakspot in the team overall (a fact many had pointed to but that Polian had downplayed as the opinions of 'non football people').
Brady went down for a season and the Pats went 11-5.... The Texans were down to their 3rd string QB and still made the playoffs and were competitive there. The Colts lost Manning for a season and barely managed 2-14. Those are facts and they are the facts that Irsay had to deal with.
The Colts now have to know they need a philosophy revamp and a personnel revamp. From FO, to coaches, to players. And on both sides of the ball.
If Manning was 30 years old it might change things but he's pushing 36, coming off 4 neck procedures, isn't healthy yet, still has question marks, and has an onerous contract that would thwart or hamstring many of the needed upcoming changes.
If Polian could've built a team that could've managed, what... one more win?? Then we're not in this position and would probably have taken the gamble with Manning.
If the team could've managed .500 ball without Manning (like it should've been expected to if constructed properly in any season IMO) then you take BPA that fits the team, hope Manning comes back strong next season and move forward.
The gorilla in the room is how bad the team was without Manning. Probably if Polian hadn't cut DanO in the preseason instead of stubbornly sticking with Painter then we might've had a couple more wins because he was clearly better than Painter. Of course that doesn't account for the Collins debacle. But the problem is the defense was SO bad that that isn't a guarantee. They did (easily I might add) have a few leads they gave up.
Also, the team players should've been able to at least focus on the idea of winning for Peyton and not allowing the team to be fall into this position. So even as the losing was getting out of hand there should've been some motivation to grab onto.
I hope Luck is at least half as good as Manning and I hope Irsay in particular has learned a lesson about surrounding his QB with a balanced team. You have to be able to get a team off the field and you can't allow the opponent to control the clock. And most importantly, you can't be a team that goes 2-14 with the main reason being the loss of one player.
Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
The Pats or Green Bay are a good example of how bad that stat is. They can be dead last is yards per game yet be middle of the road in points scored. The bend and don't break defenses let opponents gain more net yards but teams like the Pats stiffen in the red zone.
This notion of the Colts defense was on the field more and thats why the defense was worse is also wrong. They saw more plays in 2009 than in 2010 or in 2011 but allowed less than 123 points when compared to 2011.
Let me say that again. The Colts defense was on the field more in 2009 than in 2011 and allowed ALOT less points.
I agree Manning wins you a lot of games but the COlts defense took a step back last year and to say 42 or a 123 points doesn't affect the win loss column is just wrong. THat large of a gap affects the point differential and can be the difference between going 2-14 or 8-8.
The Colts defense was on the field longer this season than 2009. By about 2 1/2mins per game.
In 2011 they gave up 343 first downs.
In 2009 they gave up 320 first downs. (That's 1.5 extra per game)
In 2011 they gave up an average of 4.3 yds per rushing attempt.
In 2009 they gave up an average of 4.3 yds per rushing attempt.
In 2011 they gave up an average of 5.5 yds per play.
In 2009 they gave up an average of 5.0 yds per play.
In 2011 they gave up an average of 7.8 yds per passing attempt.
In 2009 they gave up an average of 6.2 yds per passing attempt.
In 2011 they had 1062 plays ran against them.
In 2009 they had 1084 plays ran against them.
There's not much statistical difference between the two years.
In 2009 the Colts were +2 in the TO battle. Last season they were -12.
2009 saw 14 fumbles and 16 INTs, for a total of 30 takeaways on the year.
2011 saw 14 fumbles and 8 INTs, for a total of 22 takeaways on the year.
There's where the difference comes in for scoring.
Last edited by Since86; 03-09-2012 at 12:09 PM.
So all TOs result in 7 points? Sorry if I don't buy that.
If I had time to look it up I would but I bet the colts red zone defense was worse on average. Instead of holding opponents to field goals we let them score TDs.
I am sure giving up the TO battle is factored in there but I don't think it makes up 120 point diff.
Last edited by Gamble1; 03-09-2012 at 01:05 PM.
I didn't mean to say it was responsible for all.
Once I started to see the possibility of getting the first pick (thus Andrew Luck) I thought the best thing for the franchise is to release Peyton. I hate to say that and hated to think that. Even knowing that the Colts have a wonderful opportunity to endure another great era around a star QB it is hard to be excited right now even though there is plenty to be excited about.
Knowing that the Colts made the right move to release Peyton there is still a large part of me that wishes they were keeping him. Actually there is no part of me that was "wishing" he was going to be released...I just understood why he would be released. However if you could ever justify putting a single player first over the good of the franchise it would have been Peyton Manning. Granted I have doubts that Peyton wanted to come back after all the changes but lets say he wanted to come back you could justify pulling out all the stops to keep him and put the best team together possible...for Peyton...the guy who transformed a franchise, a city, and state in a sport where one player shouldn't have THAT much of an impact. Peyton did. He earned the right to do whatever he pleases even if its putting himself before the franchise.
Thanks for the memories Peyton.