|
On November 19 2014 02:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote:On November 19 2014 00:44 AgentW wrote:On November 18 2014 20:19 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2014 11:09 AgentW wrote:
We are talking about a front office so adept they've managed to have two incredible QBs for all but one of the past 15+ seasons and have managed to make only two Super Bowls. Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. Oh come on. The reason they were so atrocious was because of their incompetence for all those years, relying so heavily on Manning. Once he was gone, it truly proved his value. He should have won MVP that year. EDIT: I know it's a different regime, but I still think they're super reliant on Luck, just as Polian and friends relied on Manning. Green Bay is super reliant on Aaron Rodgers. Denver on Manning. New England on Brady. The incompetance was not relying on Manning, it was trying to force a defensive system which didn't work. The defensive scheme has been entirely revamped. It really does not make much sense to compare the Manning/Luck regimes. Green Bay's front office hasn't been knocking it out of the park much recently either. Their offensive and defensive lines have been pretty lackluster since the 15-1 season, and the secondary has been shaky since Clay Matthews no longer just bumrushes the QB every play. The Broncos/Pats are both "reliant" on their QBs in the sense that they are elite teams with the QB, and mediocre without them. Both teams, if healthy, however would be ~ 8-9 wins without their QB, while the Pack/Colts would be ~5. Brady had to throw like 10 passes to beat the Colts. The Broncos are more "Manning reliant", but that is actually intentional because they leveraged the 2016/17 seasons to try and optimize this 3 year window. The Patriots did the same thing in 2007-2008, unfortunately for them Brady got hurt in year 2, and came back for the 09/10 "rebuilding" years.
You are cherry-picking. The Colts have looked pretty atrocious in their last 3 games. It is hardly baffling that one team currently in a slump (Colts) loses to a team currently on fire (NE). 4 weeks ago everyone in NE were on the hot seat due to an equally atrocious streak.
Spouting crap like:
On November 18 2014 11:01 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 10:27 Mindcrime wrote:2. Trent Richardson isn't the runner Rice is. If you were in Indianapolis' front office, would want to rely on a back who averages 3.4 yards per carry for the rest of the season, especially with the Colts trying to make a run at an AFC title? We didn't think so. Yeah, because what the Indy front office really wants is a back who will average 3. 1 yards per carry! Its possible. We are talking about the Colts front office here. They strive to find new ineptitudes every year.
Is just as laughable as people crying for BB and Brady to retire.
|
On November 19 2014 02:11 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote:On November 19 2014 01:10 QuanticHawk wrote:On November 18 2014 20:19 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2014 11:09 AgentW wrote:
We are talking about a front office so adept they've managed to have two incredible QBs for all but one of the past 15+ seasons and have managed to make only two Super Bowls. Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. I think the point that he is trying to make is that the 2-14 proves how dependent the colts are to having a generational talent under the helm. Brady always had a top notch supporting cast in all three facets. Aside from a few offensive weapons (who probably would have been elite players anywhere) Peyton did not have that good of a supporting cast usually. e: yeah I'm basically saying the same thing Agent is saying. The Colts are like a 5 win team without Luck. They're totally dependent on him because they're not that good otherwise. If you read very carefully you'll see that the point I'm making is not that the Colts didn't rely on Manning. The point I'm making is that it is idiotic to call a front office which turned a previous disaster into a winning team with an 8-9 record against .500 teams over 2.5 seasons for incompetent. If that is incompetence I would really like to know how you would describe Oakland... I agree fully that the Polian era didn't build a proper team around Manning, but I think that has a lot more to do with the philosophy than simply relying on your quarterback. Oakland wasn't bad enough to get the no. 1 pick. The Colts haven't done anything of note other than drafting Luck. They turned it around by drafting Luck and nothing else. Don't act like they made a series of moves that turned it around. It was 1 move and 1 move only, drafting Luck. And then they did the Trent Richardson trade...
Now you are just being ridiculous. They also did the V. Davies trade... In fact the ENTIRE defensive unit is new - that is quite a lot more than 1 move. Luck alone wouldn't have carried this team to a playoff victory last year. Again, pointing fingers at the current front-office based on previous mistakes is silly. The T. Richardson trade was a blunder of magnitude, but the remaining moves have been pretty damn solid - and the V. Davies move was brilliant.
Edit: My mind has actually been blown. The Colts went from having the lightest D in the league to one of the top 3 heaviest - did you think that all happened because they ate a lot of cake?
|
The Colts have looked bad because they're not all that good, not because they're cold. The defense gives up lots of points to competent teams. All their wins this year came against bad or mediocre teams. Hell they had a negative point differential in luck's first year. Everything overall points to them being a mediocre team propped up by a stud at qb. Not every team with a stud qb follows that
|
Well, we can end the Rice speculation. Ben Tate released by Cleveland.
|
The Colts have looked bad because they are a mediocre team currently with a defence on the slump. They are however also a rebuilding team which people tend to forget and consequently inflate their expectations of the team. Calling a front office which has done what the Colts 2.5 season old front office have incompetent is straight up laughable.
EDIT: They are 8-9 vs .500 teams since 2012 - but I guess .500 teams are all terrible teams. Just like say, Denver, San Francisco and Seahawks last year... Teams have good games and teams have bad games. Overall trends for the season is what you should judge a front office by - not single games.
EDIT2: I'm getting on a plane now, so please don't take it as a sign of disrespect if I'm not answering future posts any time soon.
|
On November 19 2014 02:25 QuanticHawk wrote:
The Colts have looked bad because they're not all that good, not because they're cold. The defense gives up lots of points to competent teams. All their wins this year came against bad or mediocre teams. Hell they had a negative point differential in luck's first year. Everything overall points to them being a mediocre team propped up by a stud at qb. Not every team with a stud qb follows that
Well QB and WR's Is all Colts ever had, luckly they punk around in a weak division so they can go to the playoffs.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 19 2014 02:33 AgentW wrote:
Well, we can end the Rice speculation. Ben Tate released by Cleveland.
Unleash the Gordon!
My receivers are now Cobb/Maclin/Gordon in my main league. Weehee.
|
On November 19 2014 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:
The Colts have looked bad because they are a mediocre team currently with a defence on the slump. They are however also a rebuilding team which people tend to forget and consequently inflate their expectations of the team. Calling a front office which has done what the Colts 2.5 season old front office have incompetent is straight up laughable.
EDIT: They are 8-9 vs .500 teams since 2012 - but I guess .500 teams are all terrible teams. Just like say, Denver, San Francisco and Seahawks last year... Teams have good games and teams have bad games. Overall trends for the season is what you should judge a front office by - not single games.
EDIT2: I'm getting on a plane now, so please don't take it as a sign of disrespect if I'm not answering future posts any time soon.
We're talking about overall seasons here. In the 14 or so years Peyton was there, the defense finished inside the top 15 for points and yards just four times. The team has been unable to field an above average runner since the wheels fell off Edge. Overall, management has continually struggled time and time again to find higher level talent outside of lucking into Luck and Peyton.
Outside of Hilton, what other recent homegrown, high-end talent have the colts produced in the last 5 years? Not even all-pros, just guys who are known as unquestionably good starters.
|
The colts have spent a decent amount of money on that secondary with mediocre results. Once they pay Luck and T.Y. they will have to sacrifice from somewhere. The colts are no longer rebuilding, as evidenced by the Richardson trade, because they did so well in the draft. They believe they can win playoff games now but they are getting back into that same area they were with manning, of good but not really good enough come the playoffs.
|
On November 19 2014 02:14 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 02:02 cLutZ wrote:On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote:On November 19 2014 00:44 AgentW wrote:On November 18 2014 20:19 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2014 11:09 AgentW wrote:
We are talking about a front office so adept they've managed to have two incredible QBs for all but one of the past 15+ seasons and have managed to make only two Super Bowls. Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. Oh come on. The reason they were so atrocious was because of their incompetence for all those years, relying so heavily on Manning. Once he was gone, it truly proved his value. He should have won MVP that year. EDIT: I know it's a different regime, but I still think they're super reliant on Luck, just as Polian and friends relied on Manning. Green Bay is super reliant on Aaron Rodgers. Denver on Manning. New England on Brady. The incompetance was not relying on Manning, it was trying to force a defensive system which didn't work. The defensive scheme has been entirely revamped. It really does not make much sense to compare the Manning/Luck regimes. Green Bay's front office hasn't been knocking it out of the park much recently either. Their offensive and defensive lines have been pretty lackluster since the 15-1 season, and the secondary has been shaky since Clay Matthews no longer just bumrushes the QB every play. The Broncos/Pats are both "reliant" on their QBs in the sense that they are elite teams with the QB, and mediocre without them. Both teams, if healthy, however would be ~ 8-9 wins without their QB, while the Pack/Colts would be ~5. Brady had to throw like 10 passes to beat the Colts. The Broncos are more "Manning reliant", but that is actually intentional because they leveraged the 2016/17 seasons to try and optimize this 3 year window. The Patriots did the same thing in 2007-2008, unfortunately for them Brady got hurt in year 2, and came back for the 09/10 "rebuilding" years. You are cherry-picking. The Colts have looked pretty atrocious in their last 3 games. It is hardly baffling that one team currently in a slump (Colts) loses to a team currently on fire (NE). 4 weeks ago everyone in NE were on the hot seat due to an equally atrocious streak. Spouting crap like: Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 11:01 cLutZ wrote:On November 18 2014 10:27 Mindcrime wrote:2. Trent Richardson isn't the runner Rice is. If you were in Indianapolis' front office, would want to rely on a back who averages 3.4 yards per carry for the rest of the season, especially with the Colts trying to make a run at an AFC title? We didn't think so. Yeah, because what the Indy front office really wants is a back who will average 3. 1 yards per carry! Its possible. We are talking about the Colts front office here. They strive to find new ineptitudes every year. Is just as laughable as people crying for BB and Brady to retire.
Except, its not close to being the same. Show me a colts team that would go 11-5 with Matt Cassel. Sure, this is a new front office but I still hate the defense in Indy and the majority of their high profile mines.
|
United States97276 Posts
Blount released after leaving the game early. I guess that still ranks among the less stupid of his bad decisions
|
It's amazing how many chances that dude has gotten and he's not even particularly good. How much of an idiot are you to pout about not getting a carry when the team has one of the top 3 or so backs in the league right now? Who also went off for over 200 that night? I would have to think between that and his other idiotic moves, he's probably done.
|
On November 19 2014 03:45 Shellshock wrote:
Blount released after leaving the game early. I guess that still ranks among the less stupid of his bad decisions
Another headcase who leaves new england and has his inability to think before he acts ruin what ever talent he might have. I'm starting to think that BB has a blackmail file on most of the leagues talented problem children in case he ever has a chance to get a couple of years of star caliber talent at back up caliber price.
|
On November 19 2014 02:18 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 02:11 andrewlt wrote:On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote:On November 19 2014 01:10 QuanticHawk wrote:On November 18 2014 20:19 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2014 11:09 AgentW wrote:
We are talking about a front office so adept they've managed to have two incredible QBs for all but one of the past 15+ seasons and have managed to make only two Super Bowls. Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. I think the point that he is trying to make is that the 2-14 proves how dependent the colts are to having a generational talent under the helm. Brady always had a top notch supporting cast in all three facets. Aside from a few offensive weapons (who probably would have been elite players anywhere) Peyton did not have that good of a supporting cast usually. e: yeah I'm basically saying the same thing Agent is saying. The Colts are like a 5 win team without Luck. They're totally dependent on him because they're not that good otherwise. If you read very carefully you'll see that the point I'm making is not that the Colts didn't rely on Manning. The point I'm making is that it is idiotic to call a front office which turned a previous disaster into a winning team with an 8-9 record against .500 teams over 2.5 seasons for incompetent. If that is incompetence I would really like to know how you would describe Oakland... I agree fully that the Polian era didn't build a proper team around Manning, but I think that has a lot more to do with the philosophy than simply relying on your quarterback. Oakland wasn't bad enough to get the no. 1 pick. The Colts haven't done anything of note other than drafting Luck. They turned it around by drafting Luck and nothing else. Don't act like they made a series of moves that turned it around. It was 1 move and 1 move only, drafting Luck. And then they did the Trent Richardson trade... Now you are just being ridiculous. They also did the V. Davies trade... In fact the ENTIRE defensive unit is new - that is quite a lot more than 1 move. Luck alone wouldn't have carried this team to a playoff victory last year. Again, pointing fingers at the current front-office based on previous mistakes is silly. The T. Richardson trade was a blunder of magnitude, but the remaining moves have been pretty damn solid - and the V. Davies move was brilliant. Edit: My mind has actually been blown. The Colts went from having the lightest D in the league to one of the top 3 heaviest - did you think that all happened because they ate a lot of cake?
They made a lot more than 1 move but how many of those moves can you say are good? How many have actually contributed to victories?
Football Outsiders' advanced stats has Luck as the second best QB this year behind Peyton Manning. The offense overall is ranked 7 while the defense is ranked 18. That points to a team that is being carried by 1 player. The current front office is trading their draft picks away, never a good sign of a long term thinking front office.
|
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball
|
It's interesting to note that they gave up the 1st rounder for an RB. Strangely, no RBs were taken in the 1st round in either the 2013 or 2014 drafts, meaning Trent Richardson is kind of sort of the last first round RB.
|
I honestly thought he'd be good in the NFL too.
Speaking of potential high draft pick rbs, poor Gurley 
|
On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball
Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same.
Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk.
|
United States97276 Posts
On November 19 2014 06:04 AgentW wrote:
It's interesting to note that they gave up the 1st rounder for an RB. Strangely, no RBs were taken in the 1st round in either the 2013 or 2014 drafts, meaning Trent Richardson is kind of sort of the last first round RB.
Between Trent, Doug Martin, and David Wilson (poor guy) that's turned out to be quite the rb class. Never forget the last 1st rounders
|
I must admit I was surprised they didn't use Blount last night. I mean why even have him on the team if you aren't going to use him to bruise out some clock time? Then again they probably didn't use him because he's a butthead and his hissy fit and not playing go hand in hand...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
