My nickname for Andrew Luck is "The Architect"
My nickname for Andrew Luck is "The Architect"
Try hard-er or Die hard-er. In this to win it.
19 - 0.
Calling it now.
"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca
"What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014
Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel
Is there really such a thing as a Peyton apologist?
Peyton also had to throw the ball 40+ times a game in the post season because the non existent running game and playing from behind.... Peyton was crap in the post-season? What the **** man? For his entire playoff career he completed 63% of his passes, threw 29 TDs against 19 INTs, and threw for well over 5,000 yards. If you look at from 2003 on, when Peyton really started to hit his stride he completed 67% of his passes, threw for 28 TDs against 17 INTs, over 4800 yards (hell the year the Colts won the SB he threw for over 1,000 yards), and his rating was a 96.3.
That is not playing like crap in the post season. You don't need to put down other QBs to make Luck seem good. You've done it with RG3 and Peyton. There is no need to. Luck will be great regardless of what those two play like.
The only year we won the Super Bowl was when we changed our offensive strategy. I had even posted this strategy about a year or two beforehand -- and I got absolutely blasted by everyone on the Colts forums for it. The premise was this:
1) We had an amazing offense, capable of imposing our will on any defense, meaning we could play *any* way we wanted.
2) We had a small, cheap defense, meaning most of our money (65%) was tied up in the offense, so we had young cheap guys. In order for that to work, we needed to get the lead in every game. That way we could play 1 specific way on defense --- rush the passer like all get-out. This prevented them from being able to pass easily, and thus locked us up a win in *most* situations.
3) As an offense, we would either go home run or 3-and-out. Was horrible. But it racked up tons of yards and scores --- without taking any time off the clock.
4) A few teams started to figure out that to stay with us, they need not panic, and just stick to pounding the ball, because eventually if they controlled the clock, our defense would begin to crack and they could sneak a win in the 4th quarter.
This created a problem. Our most dominant side of the ball (offense) spent less time on the field than our weak side of the ball (defense). Yes, it was impressive we could score a touchdown in 2 minutes, but then our defense had to come back out after only a short break, and then the opposing offense could pin their ears back and have these draining 6-8 minute, clock-eating drives that just wore our defense out and eventually they could start scoring on them. So you had a bunch of shoot-outs at the end of the game, and we had a worn-out defense every time. Every time. And then we'd kick and scream, as fans, that our defense sucked so bad. It was our offense's fault! And our defense was on the field forever, because face it, they weren't that good. They weren't going to be when only 35% of your payroll was dedicated to defense. We were forcing our defense on the field for 35-40 mins a game, expecting them to keep teams' in check with 35% of our teams' salary, and when they did'nt (obviously), we railed them into the ground for sucking.
So I posted that our offense should change their philosophy, without changing their personnel. Our offense was capable of playing any way it wanted, and we needed to keep our offense on the field more than our defense. Therefore, we needed to use our weapons in a ball-control way, slow things down, move the chains and just pound defenses into the ground repeatedly. We need to control the clock, use short passes, short runs, and produce these huge clock-eating drives that would just wear out opposing defenses. We had a consistent, decent 1-2 punch at running back that we hadn't had in awhile -- Addai and Rhodes. It was precisely the type of offense that New England used in the early 2000s when they were winning Super Bowls (ironically, NE changed to more of a Manning-esque Colts offense around 2005 and coincidentally, stopped winning Super Bowls). They would conduct their obnoxious, 8 minute, 3-yards per play drives that would just bore you to death and frustrate the crap out of you as they completed 3rd down after 3rd down, but the end result was the controlled the clock AND kept their killer defense fresh.
Well Indy, for whatever reason, did exactly that in 2006. I recognized it in the first 2-3 games, and that's when I started to smell a deep playoff run for us. Manning was handing off a lot more... he was doing short passes... they started mastering 3rd down conversions.... They were starting to control the clock and win time of possession. And then our defense started getting hit with huge injuries... but we still were able to hold serve until the playoffs with a 12-4 record. And I kept hoping that our defensive guys would start to trickle back from injuries, which is exactly what started to happen. Right when the playoffs hit, we were mostly healthy. Bob came back finally fresh and just stampeded us through the playoffs defensively.
We won that Super Bowl playing the entire season in a very Patriot-esque way, ironically.... and then Indy and NE reverted back to the Indy-style of offense from that point on and just never won another SB. But I got universally railed when I proposed that strategy... almost unanimously. Nobody thought it was on-point at all. Cracks me up. Won a SB doing that. Not saying I had any part in it, but just funny that they spent years trying to do it a certain way with bad results in the playoffs, and then the year they switch to a system that I had been railed for proposing, they win the SB. Our defense was never set up to be great, it was hilarious that our fans reamed the defense and blamed them defense --- our offense was the one that needed to change.
Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-23-2012 at 04:09 PM.
There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.
Lol we "owned" those teams, but we don't anymore. The team we used to have gave Baltimore and Houston problems, but we don't have that team at all anymore. Houston's loss of Mario Williams will hurt, BUT they are still much better than the colts. Baltimore was one drop in the endzone away from making the superbowl last year. They are still much better than the Colts. Two halfs in the preseason doesn't change these facts at all.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we somehow made the playoffs (see ATL Matt Ryan's rookie yr, etc) but AFC title game? That's almost delusional following a 2-14 year.
The dink-and-dunk and ground-and-pound attack was very effective during the SB run. If anything, it took pressure off peyton.
lmfao dude. You had the NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00? Where was he from 01 on? Why did Peyton have to throw the ball 40 times a game? Because the entire team was dependent on him. Why did the Colts win 10 games and go to the playoffs in 2010 and then in 2011 when Peyton misses the entire season they become the worst team in the league? Because the entire team was dependent on Peyton.
I'm not even a Colts fan. I'm just a guy who has watched a lot of football. To say Peyton was crap in the postseason is a ****ing joke.
Lets go back to 2000 and look at the Colts playoff game against Miami. So did the defense keep the Colts in the game as they let Lamar Smith run for over 200 yards? Defense did a great job that game. What about that 38-31 win against the Chiefs back in the 03 season? Peyton going 22/30 for 304 yards and 3 TDs certainly wasn't why the Colts won. It was definitely the defense allowing nearly 200 rushing yards again. It was certainly James' 63 rushing yards in the 04 playoffs against the Broncos that lead the 49-24 win. Peyton throwing for 457 yards and 4 TDs was a crap game. The defense holding Jake Plummer to about 300 yards was a pretty good performance too. And the next week against NE it was Peyton who played like crap, not James who ran for a BLAZING 39 yards! Or the defense who gave up 200+ rushing yards. The NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00 really came through against Pittsburgh the next season where he torched them for 56 yards! But it was Peyton who had nearly 300 yards, a touchdown, no turnovers and put up 15 points in the 4th who played like crap.
And when the Colts finally beat the Patriots it was clear that the NFL's top rusher in 99 and 00 was the reason. Wait a second, he wasn't even on the team! Surely it was the defense who gave up 34 points. Manning who had 350 yards that game had a terrible game.
I could go on. The Colts didn't have a strong running game when Peyton was at his best. James was not the same player in 03 as he was in 99 and 00. The defense was never the strength of the Colts. The Colts were always super dependent on Peyton. These are not the words of a "Manning apologist" This is the truth.
I could use countless number of stats to dispell the whole "peyton played like crap in the post-season".
Peyton started only 15 drives in the opponents territory (19 career playoff games)
The fact that he had the WORST STARTING FIELD POSITION OF ANY QB IN THE PLAYOFFS SINCE 1980.
He has only had one touchdown drive under 40 yards in his playoff career.
See this http://18to88.com/Articles/manningbrady.htm
Or this: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=8700
The fact of the matter was that Peyton wasn't putting up the same types of numbers in the playoffs that he did during the regular season. He had some tough games, and some untimely INT's, but he also faced unfavorable field position, weak running game, etc.
Was he great? NO. But he certainly wasn't crap. His numbers, outside of his record, rival any other "great" QB's playoff numbers.
Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 08-23-2012 at 04:52 PM.
In 17 games, pretty much 1 season's worth of games, in the playoffs Peyton's stats are .....
4,808 yards, 27 TD's, 17 INT's, 62% completion
In the playoffs you aren't playing the Detroit Lions anymore. He played similarly to the regular season but he didn't succeed as often because there weren't any push overs in the playoffs, everyone can play obviously or they wouldn't be there.
Manning was not a "choker" in the playoffs, but he certainly was not as great of a postseason quarterback as he was regular season quarterback. That's just the truth. He really needed that Super Bowl that we lost against the Saints.