With Marvin Harrison gone, where do the Colts stand in terms of the salary cap
Colts Cap hasn't updated their page yet, but regardless I'm going to try and figure out how much cap space the Colts have (despite my remedial skills with math; a coked up monkey can add and subtract better than I can).
With Marvin (and his $13.5 million dollar cap hit in 2009), the Colts were roughly $3.7 million over the cap. Cutting Marvin replaces the $13.5 million dollar hit with a $7 million dollar hit (roughly). This leaves the Colts with a little more than $2 million in cap space. Subtract Hunter Smith and it is $3 million. Factor in that all NFL teams got an extra $4 million in cap space, and the Colts right now have about $8 million (roughly).
Now, factor in Kelvin Hayden's contract for next year, and the Colts are looking at about $4 million in cap space. Not bad.
Now, before everyone starts freaking out and screaming ONLY $4 MILLION, especially when they compare our cap situation to Tampa Bay's or KC's, I will remind you that many of the players we have signed are actually REALLY GOOD players. The reason teams like KC have tons of cap space is because they suck! No offense to Chiefs fans, but the "Chefs" have been an irrelevant franchise for a while now. Scott Pioli will indeed turn that around quick, but the reason Pioli is there in the first place is because the Chiefs have been so bad for so long.
Meanwhile, teams like Tampa Bay are starting over... again. They just cut their starting QB, their leading rusher, their leading receiver, and their defensive captain. They have a new head coach, and they have (groan) Jim Bates as their defensive coordinator, which means the Tampa-2 is getting chucked in favor of Bates' "two fatties in the middle, throw all over me" defense. Ask Denver fans how well that defense went for them.
Meanwhile, the Colts have Peyton Manning, Dallas Clark, Bob Sanders, Gary Brackett, Kelvin Hayden, Dwight Freeney, and Robert Mathis locked up. Reggie Wayne still has two more years on his contract. Guys like Corey Simon are mercifully off the books, and we don't have an albatross (like Vince Young, or something) dragging our roster down the toilet.
So, knowing all this, it is unlikely the Colts will pursue any of these newly released players. Joey Galloway is intriguing, I agree. But not Bill Polian's style. The Colts will draft a WR this year, likely in the first round. That might not be popular around here, but it is how Polian works. And while Derrick Brooks can still play, the fact is the Colts do not shell out money for LBers. MIKE backer Gary Brackett is the only one they have locked up. WILL and SAM have been musical chairs for the past 8 years.
Again, it is fun to speculate "Can this guy play for Indy?" I just don't want too many of you to get your hopes up. This off-season, there will be a lot of player movement. The economy and the salary cap in two years (or lack there of, at this point) is motivating these moves. This will likely shift the balance of power in the NFL.
Take comfort in the fact that most of Indy's vets are locked up and secure. The key now is the draft, and rookie free agency.
[UPDATE] Colts Cap says the Colts have roughly $10 million in cap space. See comments.
0 recs |
57 comments
|
Comments
Dallas Clark restructured his contract in order for the Hayden deal to happen. If that was in your math I missed it.
by bamock on Feb 26, 2009 9:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
I considered Dallas’ cap hit via Colts Cap. Don’t know if it is the restructured number or not.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dallas
Dallas restructured from a 13.383 cap hit to a 6.823 hit, or a 6.56 million reduction. Not sure if someone put it up, I got distracted typing this.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Couple of things
First, I think Kelvin Hayden’s cap hit for this year is going to be more than $4MM. Probably something like 6-7MM.
Second, I would love for someone to explain to me a) whether or not Manning has been offered a contract extension which would lower his killer 21MM cap hit b) If yes, how are those negotiations coming c) if no, why not? There is absolutely no reason to have that sort of cap hit on the books. I don’t mind Harrison being gone, I won’t miss him personally, but the could could have upwards of $15 million free if Manning were to do a new deal plus the 4 million extra added to the cap. That’s enough to add a DT, a LB, a guard or tackle, a #2 or #3 WR, its enough to add one or two GOOD pieces. On top of that, it would get off his $15MM hits the next two years, and it should ensure that Manning would be a Colt for the remainder of his career, all good things, imo.
Third, if Saturday keeps up this, ‘boy, i’d be a PUNTER If it meant I could put on Steelers’ colors!’ routine, he’s gonna earn GTFO LOSER status really quick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded
by Nideak on Feb 26, 2009 10:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
His $8.2 million roster bonus has been restructured to hit the cap over the life of his contract by making it a signing bonus. Accordingly, we should save an additional $6 million, I believe, against this year’s cap.
by bamock on Feb 26, 2009 10:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The guy who runs Colts Cap posted this
On a message board:
Well, I’m estimating the numbers right now and we’re roughly at $10mil under in cap space.
Subtract $2.2mil (est.) for rookies under the rule of 51.
Subtract $2.8mil (est.) for a cap cushion for replacing injured players.
Subtract $1mil for minimum salary benefit contracts.
Subtract $1.5mil – $2.2mil for Keiaho’s tender.
That’s $8mil off the $10mil putting us at $2mil under. If we needed to, we could hedge a bit on Keiaho’s offer, min. sal. benefit contracts, and our cap cushion to get under the cap, but that’s going to take up some room if we don’t want to.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 10:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really know much about the cap situation, or who restructed, who didn’t, how this affects what. To be honest, I really don’t care, it’s not worth the headache trying to figure it out. What I do know is, they have more cap space now than they did a week ago. “like duh obviously KR, u r a frekkin genius.” Yes, yes I know.
I want to comment on a few things in the following quote, well because, it just annoys me:
So, knowing all this, it is unlikely the Colts will pursue any of these newly released players. Joey Galloway is intriguing, I agree. But not Bill Polian’s style. The Colts will draft a WR this year, likely in the first round. That might not be popular around here, but it is how Polian works. And while Derrick Brooks can still play, the fact is the Colts do not shell out money for LBers. MIKE backer Gary Brackett is the only one they have locked up. WILL and SAM have been musical chairs for the past 8 years.
What exactly is so intriguing about Joey Galloway? The only thing in his arsenal is the deep pass, which he hasn’t even done very well as of late. He’s a one trick pony, and his stats reflect this.
I agree that the Colts probably will succumb to the temptation of drafting a WR, but it won’t be in the first round. Everyone knows this draft is stacked with WR talent, so really, at pick 27, unless one of the 5 premiere WRs are left, it would be a wasted pick. It just disturbs me that Polian would be so interested in drafting yet another receiver while Gonzo is locked, cocked, and ready to rock in Marvin’s stead. Peyton also has Reggie Wayne on the opposite side of the field. Clark playing in the slot sometimes and off of the line on others. That’s 3 very dangerous weapons at Peyton’s disposal. If you want to toss Addai into the mix as another receiving threat out of the backfield (something the Colts are idiots for not doing more of), then that’s 4 freakin receiving weapons Manning can use at any given time. The only thing drafting a receiver in the first or second round is going to solve is the bench warmer position that will be vacated by either Hall or Garcon since Gonzo is moving into a starter role. Everyone knows the Colts groom receivers for a couple years before they even sniff the starting line-up (2007 being the exception). Roy Hall has been on the team for 3 years now, Garcon for one. They already have a huge edge over anyone the Colts draft, and to be quite honest, I want to see what the hell these guys are capable of.
Like I said before, I do believe Polian is going to draft another receiver, it’s just going to be in the later rounds, and I’m fine with that. I think he’s going to concentrate on linebacker and o-line, with running back in third place.
The other thing I want to address is your statement about how the OLB’s on the defense have been playing musical chairs, and I agree with that, and I also have a major problem with it. I’m basing this off of something yellowsnow told me last night on the phone; Polian’s draft philosophy has been great for years, we’ve all seen what the Colts have accomplished, but for the love of god man, draft some guys who you would be willing to have for the long-term, ala Derrick Brooks. I’m getting tired of seeing a new linebacking corps, a new db corps, a new this, a new that, every 3 freakin years. There’s a cliche quote, that while I hate hearing it because it’s so annoying, is so true and I think Polian should take heed to:
In order to win championships, you have be able to run the ball, and stop the run.
Is there any coincidence that the year the Colts won they did both of these phenominally well? I think not. Peyton has proved that he can pass at will on just about anyone, with just about anyone. So where does everyone continue to get the idea that “When you have a qb like Peyton Manning, you need to get him as many weapons as possible, blah freakedy blah.” There’s only one other team right now with as many offensive weapons as the Colts, and that’s the Patriots. Ironically because they ripped off the Colts offensive philosophy, but that’s an entirely different argument altogether. I can only imagine the time of havoc the Colts would wreak if they had a dominant defense. Their pass defense has always been above average, their run defense, not so much. In fact, it’s been shit for years. Granted there are many variables as to why this is, but still, with the revolving door at DT and LB, it’s no wonder the defense has struggled against the run all these years. Let’s not even get into the RB back situation right now. We’ve been over that ad nauseam. But the fact still remains, the Colts are catered more towards the passing game than any other, and in my opinion, that’s a big mistake going into the future.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Stopping the run
is over-rated. It is important, but not more important than rushing the passer. A defense that holds a team to under 100 yards rushing but can’t generate pressure on a QB is a BAD defense.
And throwing is more important than running the ball. Just like stopping the run, teams that run the ball (but can’t throw) rarely succeed.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it gets important
when you want to prevent the 15 play 2hr drives that the colts invariably give up every week. They have to be able to stop the run on short distances.
And they really need to improve their overall run game, atleast get up to 4.2ish yards per carry. And while I know they had a good short yardage success according to FO, they lost their smashmouth ability that they had picked up in the 06 season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded
by Nideak on Feb 26, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet
The Colts won 12 games last year with that problem.
Meanwhile, a team like the Bears surrendered only 93 rushing yards a game (3.4 a carry) and had a losing season. Why did they lose? Because their passing game was crap. No WRs. No ability to get the ball downfield.
And as far as running the ball goes, look no further than the Giants. They ran the ball very well against Philly in the playoffs… and lost at home. Why? Because they had trouble throwing the ball.
Throw to win. Pressure the QB to win. Running the ball and stopping the run is secondary to those two.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More on stopping the run
Indy utterly stoned San Diego’s running game in the 2007 playoffs, and still lost. Why? No pressure on the QB.
NY Jets averaged 4.7 a carry in 2008, but crumbled down the stretch. Why? Shotty QB play.
Time and time again, if you are able to pressure the other team’s QB and throw the ball effectively, 8 out 10 are wins.
Now, to win it all, it must all come together. That is my point. But in terms of priority, I don’t care how good your running game or run defense is, if you cannot pressure the QB and throw the ball- 6 wins. Max.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm slowly coming around to this line of thinking
Look at the numbers. Adjusted Net Passing Yards / Attempt takes into account everything in the passing game. If the offense goes over the league average (5 / att), and the defense holds opponent under league average, they win 89% of the time (since 1996).
The worst team in the league, the Lions, still won 73% of the time when they did this. The numbers don’t lie.
NFC North and NFC South writer for SB Nation's NFL Draft blog: Mocking the Draft
by mgrex03 on Feb 26, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a flaw with only using those numbers
Unless you’re including teams rush attempts in ratio to pass attempts, YPC, and how many passes came off playaction. I promise you the teams with close to a 50/50 split with a decent YPC and percentage of pass attempts coming from playaction are the ones that have the decent numbers. Otherwise Philly should be right at the top. Since Reid has been there, the pass attempts have been ridiculously high. Over 60% and close to 70% if I remember correctly. And San Diego has had a decent winning record since LT has been there and made the playoffs around the beginning of that stat compilation. And so did the Ravens and a few other teams.
The run sets up playaction. Playaction is the reason why the Colts need to be able to run. It’s not a coincidence that Peyton is known for being one of the best QBs selling the playaction. But if NOBODY believes you, it doesn’t matter if you were a magician and made an illusion of a ball appear in the RBs hands, they don’t care. Predictability is the worse possible thing that can happen to an offense.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what?
why would a pass heavy O always come out on top in a per attempt stat? If anything they’d be struggling with diminishing returns and/because of the lack of effective play action.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 26, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no "decent numbers" in here
The worst record in the league still wins 3/4 of their games. The Patriots are 64-1.
I’ll look up the stats and get back to on run/pass ratio and YPC (which I’ll do a full write up on eventually), and see how the correlate.
And there is nothing that is untrue that you said about playaction passing. It obviously helps the passing game when there is a credible rushing attack. I’m just saying the numbers are so overwhelming, it’s hard not to believe them at face value.
NFC North and NFC South writer for SB Nation's NFL Draft blog: Mocking the Draft
by mgrex03 on Feb 26, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the run/pass ratio
There were 1717 total games where offense was above average, and defense held opponent below average:
In total, the ratio (pass atts + sacks) / rush atts is 1.0706.
In the 1522 wins, the ratio was 1.0044, which is almost exactly 50/50. You were correct on this.
In the 195 losses, the ratio was 1.5854.
Here’s why though…When you are losing, you throw more. Teams that are winning, especially in the 4th quarter, run the ball, evening out their ratios. This means even the winning teams threw more to get the lead, then ran the clock out towards the end.
NFC North and NFC South writer for SB Nation's NFL Draft blog: Mocking the Draft
by mgrex03 on Feb 26, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's Yards / Carry
For all games (6512), yards/carry was 3.9958.
In the 1717 games where offense was above average, and defense held opponent below average, yards / carry was 3.9738.
In the 1522 wins, yards / carry was 3.9864.
In the 195 losses, yards / carry was 3.8716.
There is vitually no difference in any of these numbers. Yards / Carry doesn’t matter at all in this discussion. Like I said, I’ll have a full writeup on it eventually, to look at it on its own. But right now they are all pretty much the same.
NFC North and NFC South writer for SB Nation's NFL Draft blog: Mocking the Draft
by mgrex03 on Feb 26, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Woah woah woah
You’re picking certain games? You omitted games in your analysis? Come on man, you know you can’t do that. Any manipulation of stats from an analytical standpoing is introducing bias, no matter how small. And the difference in ratio from the above statement is rationalization. Which is also bias. You have to include poor games for that to actually be considered valued input. You do YPC for all games, then only break it down for games where offense was above average and defense held the opponent below average. How can you consider that a valid point?
Looking at what you just showed, you said the average for every game is 3.9958, but it’s less when a team performs above average? That didn’t stand out to you? Teams are performing better in rushing when they perform average or below average? I mean if that’s true, then yeah, your case makes complete sense. I don’t think that’s true though.
What are you using for your calculations? Excel? I’d like to look at what you’re using. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure he was just trying to sort out the good teams
since that’s really what we are talking about here.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 26, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Negative
The fact that he’s leaving out teams leaves out pertinent information relating to how teams with a lower ypc, even if their split is 50/50, effects the outcome of the game. The alteration of the sample size clearly skews the argument. Especially considering that the difference between games won to games lost in the example given is 195/1522. It also reduces the overall sample size from 6512 to 1717.
Just for an example, look at the Chiefs. I’m assuming he included them in his analysis since they ranked 7th? And you’re using 13 seasons? Well there was a severe variation between the Chiefs around 2005 to how they’re performing now. But choosing games in which their offense played above average and the teams held the opposing team below average? What was the opposing teams ypc and splits during those games?
The samples are only from teams that performed above average in the passing game. Where is the information as it relates to teams performing above average in the running game? To have a comparison you can’t only show one side and omit the other. The foundation of that argument is that the only way to win is to pass.
For example, the Giants Panthers game this year. The analysis would have left that game out of the calculations, would it not? Delhomme passed for 4 yards more than Eli (185 to 181) so it would not have met the criteria for a team to be playing above average in the passing game. So you omit that game, but you’re also omitting 301 yards rushing by the Giants. It would also be omitting 207 yards and 6.3 ypc against the Ravens since Eli only threw for 153 yards. Do you see where I’m going? You grouped together ALL teams, including ones with strong running games in your original number and took your YPC from that. But then you only took teams with strong passing games and used that as an example for the run game. That’s biased.
Some teams win by passing and some teams win by running. It’s that simple. There are always exceptions to the rule, Colts couldn’t run, Oakland couldn’t pass. You can just look at this year and see the numbers don’t confer with the argument.
Top 10 passing teams/rank against the run/rank against the pass
New Orleans – 8-8/17/23
Arizona – 9-7/16/22 (playoffs)
Denver – 8-8/27/26
Houston – 8-8/23/17
Indianapolis – 12-4/24/6 (playoffs)
Philadelphia – 9-6-1/4/3 (playoffs; more due to defense)
San Diego – 8-8/11/31 (playoffs)
Green Bay – 6-10/26/12
Dallas – 9-7/12/5
Miami – 11-5/10/25 (playoffs)
Record – 88-71-1; 2 teams with over 10 wins
The only teams to make the playoffs in this list were the Colts (who had to come from behind while losing in almost half their games) Arizona (who’s run defense was better than their passing defense), SD (still made playoffs while being 31st in pass D), Miami (run defense significantly higher than pass defense).
Top 10 rushing teams/rank against the run/rank against the pass
NYG – 12-4/9/8 (playoffs)
Atlanta – 11-5/25/21 (playoffs)
Carolina – 12-4/20/16 (playoffs)
Baltimore – 11-5/3/2 (playoffs)
Minnesota – 10-6/1/18 (playoffs)
New England – 11-5/15/11 (best record to just miss)
Tennessee – 13-3/6/9 (playoffs)
Washington – 8-8/8/7 (playoff team until run game declined)
NYJ – 9-7/7/29 (playoff team until run game declined)
Oakland – 5-11/31/10
Record – 102-58; 7 10 win teams, including top 7
Washington and New York also had the majority of their wins and yards the beginning of the season before Portis got hurt and the Jets stopped running the ball because for some reason, Mangini thought the league had caught up to the scheme and decided to change it. Their numbers directly dropped relative to the drop in their rushing attack.
What stands out to you? What stands out to me is that, aside from the Colts (who had to come back numerous times losing in the 4th), generally speaking the top passing teams didn’t have great seasons. There is a direct tie to how poor the running defense was to the impact on the team’s record. Even the teams that had poor passing defenses still faired better than their counterparts as long as their running defense could compensate.
Now look at the teams with good running games. Even the teams with poor defenses were still able to put together decent seasons. There are several teams that had better years because their running games were strong as opposed to the teams with strong passing games. The only exception being Oakland. Who had a good pass defense and the best CB in the league. The Jets passing defense wasn’t good the entire year. However, when they stopped running the ball, the allowed teams to expose it. Would that have been the case if they had kept running? I’m almost positive it wouldn’t have been and their record would have reflected such.
Just saying.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not even going to attempt reading that until tomorrow
(see me cluttering up the Saturday’s back thread with semi-personal bitching).
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 26, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Let’s call a truce. I was writing this up and somebody beat ME to a transaction update of that magnitude. I’m extremely disappointed with myself.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we were arguing 2 different things
Shoot me an email, and I can send you an Excel file from this season.
NFC North and NFC South writer for SB Nation's NFL Draft blog: Mocking the Draft
by mgrex03 on Feb 26, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm picking the games we are discussing
Namely, where offense is above 5 / att (Adjusted Net Yards Passing / Attempt), and defense holds other offense below average. This is nominally having a good passing game and a good pass defense (including a good pass rush). I said (originally) that when teams did this, they won 88.6% of the time (1522-195).
I’m not just picking certain games, I’m picking those games (1717 of them) I was arguing about. I wasn’t arguing for every game, and made it perfectly clear in my first post what my parameters were.
And the difference in ratio from the above statement is rationalization. Which is also bias.
Is what I said untrue? Maybe it doesn’t account for all of it, but what I said is most certainly true.
I only included the average of every game for yds/carry because it was virtually identical to those games I was arguing about. Again, I was never arguing about every game. It was a point of reference.
you said the average for every game is 3.9958, but it’s less when a team performs above average? That didn’t stand out to you?
It was 0.02 yards less per carry, in those games I was arguing about. Of course it didn’t stand out, because they are virtually equal. Please make an argument that over the course of thousands of games, 0.02 yards/carry difference is a big deal. Remember, above average does not refer to yards / carry, it refers to Adjusted Net Passing Yards / Attempt.
What I’m saying is that when a teams offense is better than 5 /attempt in Adjusted Net Passing Yards / Att, and the defense holds the opponent below 5 / attempt, the offense’s yards/carry has zero relevance to these teams winning 88.6% of the time.
One could argue that the pass/run ratio does play a part in these specific games, but a more in-depth analysis would be needed to figure out how much of what I said above plays into it, as it most certainly does.
NFC North and NFC South writer for SB Nation's NFL Draft blog: Mocking the Draft
by mgrex03 on Feb 26, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Colts won 12 games last year with that problem.
Pretty weak argument imo. The Colts had no business winning that game in Houston. It was the closest thing to a miracle as any of us will ever see. There were far too many wins that the Colts pulled out of their ass as opposed to just out playing the other team for 60 minutes.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
...and then lost in the first game of the playoffs
Stop the run!!
by TRDean on Feb 26, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you consider last year a success?
I’ve said this about 5 times this off season: The colts have more problems than most fans are either willing or able to realize/admit to, but Peyton Manning continues to cover up those problems with stellar regular seasons and then, in the post season, when he is merely ‘really good’ not ‘super human’, all of their weaknesses come to pass.
12-4, 0-1 in the playoffs, and a team that needs OL, DL, WR, and LB help and drafting in the late 20s isn’t successful, imo.
If all you care about is piling up regular season wins, continue down this path. If you want more super bowls, get back to the being able to play smashmouth on both sides of the ball when its called for.
PS – Last year I think they put a nail in the ‘colts being a quick strike offense’ coffin. They are either going to have to retool to get back to that, or take the steps necessary to become a normal grind it out offense, but with last years personnel, they aren’t quick strike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded
by Nideak on Feb 26, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it's not a success
but you can do everything right and not succeed. The Colts have had more success than 29 other franchises (same or more SB and more regular season wins over the last decade than every franchise but PIT and NE). They are clearly doing a ton of things right.
In that spot you can either recognize that even if what you are doing is the best way it won’t always work and sometimes you’ll lose out to people who are doing a similar thing, similarly well or someone less competent just got lucky. Or you can tear down a system that’s worked very well, lose short term success, and hope what you rebuild will be better.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 26, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh.
I’m of the opinion that they can/are doing a lot of little things wrong but one person has the ability to cover up those errors. Look, I’m not saying the colts stink. I’ve never said that. But I don’t approach everything through blue covered glasses. I’ve always tried to present my arguments even-keeled. I think there’s a lot of room for improvement and I think that its possible to field a team thats significantly better and it won’t take a lot of work. I think letting Marvin go was a good first step. Now I hope they are able to continue on the path of fixing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGdAPjcgaM&eurl=http://www.only17points.com/&feature=player_embedded
by Nideak on Feb 26, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Careful with that line of thinking...
I have been roasted on here for expressing the exact same sentiments!!
by TRDean on Feb 26, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stopping the run...
Stopping the run and stopping the pass are both important. However, considering we have a “strike fast” offense stopping the run is more important because it prevents teams from shortening the game.
by MasterRWayne on Feb 26, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think you are getting my point here. My point was, we have the elite pass rushers, we have the elite QB and a plethora of weapons at his disposal. It’s time the Colts started dedicating a little more time and effort in shoring up their weaknesses.
The problem with your argument is that there has never been a playoff game, aside from the Denver games, that both the Colts offense and defense decided to show up. Too many times has the offense stalled, and too many times has the defense given up too many yards, and allowed other teams to just hang around. It’s just annoying to see this occur year in and out, especially on the offensive side of the ball where it’s most important that they perform well.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
King
Every team has those “two areas” that always hold them back. How many times has Baltimore’s offense held them back? How many times has Pittsburgh’s o-line held them back? How many times has Seattle’s running game held them back? How many times has Chicago’s passing game held them back? How many times…
You get the point. In the playoffs, teams scrape and claw their way to wins. The last two playoff loses could have just as easily been playoff wins. If Marvin doesn’t fumble… If Dwight doesn’t get hurt… If the ref hadn’t thrown the bogus flag against Jennings in OT… If Addai had run the right away and converted the 3rd and 2… it all comes down to a couple of plays; the bounce of the ball.
Expecting the offense to go out there and score 30 points in a playoff game is silly. Playoff games are won 20-17, 23-20, or sometimes 14-10. Look at the Colts wins against KC and Baltimore in 2006 playoffs as an example.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s look at some constants dating back to the Ravens’ Super Bowl:
Ravens: Dominant defense (arguably one of the best defenses ever), above average running game
Patriots:
Patriots: Improving defense, above average running game
Bucs: Dominant defense, dominant running game
Pats back to back championships: Dominant defenses, above average running game, with a little Tom Brady and cheating sprinkled in
Steelers: Dominant defense, above average running game
Colts: Dominant defense up until the AFCCG, above average running game up into the AFCCG because the Colts had to basically ditch the run to win the game
Giants: Dominant defense during the playoffs, dominant running game
Steelers: Dominant defense, hit or miss on the strength of their running game
I see a trend here boys.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
I AGREE with you that in order to win A SUPER BOWL you need to have a strong running game and run defense. However, go back through your list and you will see:
Ravens: Mediocre QB play, great pass rush
Bucs: Mediocre QB play, great pass rush
Pats: Great QB play, great pass rush
Steelers: Good QB play, great pass rush
Colts: Great QB play, great pass rush
Giants: Great QB play, great pass rush
Steelers: Great QB play, great pass rush
Five out of the seven have good-great QB play and great pass rushing. Not since the Bucs in 2002 (which was 8 years ago) has a mediocre passing game won a Super Bowl.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 26, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Perfect Equation
Success rushing the passer w/out blitzing: Check – (Freeny, Mathis)
Success at having a good passing attack: Check – (Manning, Wayne, Clarke, Gonzo)
Do the Colts have the top two priorities taken care of?: Check
Success at stopping the run: No (bottom half in the league)
Success at running the ball: No (last in the league)
What problems should be taken care of?: stopping the run and running the ball
What positions need fixing/adjustments?: DT, OL, RB
With those admustments, what does that equal?: The perfect team = Super Bowl = Indianapolis Colts
by ColtsFanNChiTown on Feb 26, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they suck at running the ball, but rushing yards per game is a bad measure
it doesn’t include the one thing they are good at and two they are mediocre in. They don’t fumble, and they are sub-par, but not terrible in short yardage runs and being consistent over boom/bust.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 26, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what your measuring stick is
But I wouldn’t associate the term “Great” with Roethlisberger or Eli. Granted, Ben had the one drive at the end of the game that made it look “Great”, but overall, he was “Good” at best and had the benefit of being behind a great line. In the SB prior to that, “Terrible” or “Absolute Crap” would be a better way to describe his performance. Eli was “Good” at best, and helped out be a crazy catch. In fact, when Peyton was merely “Good” is when they won the Super Bowl. The games in which you could consider him “Great” post Super Bowl, they lost.
2000:
Trent Dilfer – 153 yards, 1 TD 0 INT 80.9 rating (153 rushing)
Kerry Collins – 112 yards, 0 TD 4 INT 7.1 rating (66 rushing)
2001:
Tom Brady – 145 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 86.2 rating (133 rushing)
Kurt Warner – 365 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 78.3 rating (90 rushing)
2002:
Brad Johnson – 215 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT 79.9 rating (150 rushing)
Rich Gannon – 272 yards, 2 TD, 5 INT 48.9 rating (19 rushing)
2003:
Tom Brady – 354 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT, 100.5 rating (127 rushing)
Jake Delhomme – 323 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT 113.6 rating, (92 rushing)
2004:
Tom Brady – 236 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT, 110.2 rating (112 rushing)
Donovan McNabb – 357 yards, 3 TD, 3 INT 75.4 rating (45 rushing)
2005:
Roethlisberger – 123 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 22.6 rating (181 rushing)
Hasselbeck – 273 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 67.8 rating (137 rushing)
2006:
Peyton – 247 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 81.8 rating (190 rushing)
Grossman – 165 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 68.3 rating (111 rushing)
2007:
Eli – 255 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 87.3 rating (91 rushing)
Brady – 266 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT 82.5 rating
2008:
Roethlisberger – 256 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 84.8 rating (58 rushing)
Warner – 377 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT, 96.9 rating (33 rushing)
I actually don’t think there’s a point in a summary at this point. It’s pretty clear.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
both have a point
BigBlueShoe, you speak about very specific plays and thats what really matters in the playoffs, i you can or cannot convert key plays.
However, I agree that the Colts should try to improve their weakness, how can we have an elite passing game (or elite offense if you prefer) elite pass rushing game and we cant stop the run? And when the runnind defense does well, the passing defense or pass rushing has a problem so we need some consistency and balance in it.
by Piojocuau on Feb 26, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's way to general of a statement man
It depends on more factors than just stopping the run or running the ball. The Tampa 2 is great for teams that score fast and forces teams to play from behind. However, it’s well known weakness is against the run. With the struggles on offense, and the inability to sustain drives and work off on playaction because nobody bites on our playaction, Manning had to essentially replicate a running game by shortening his passes. People couldn’t drop into deep coverage when we had a run game because they had to respect it or get burned. Peyton’s one of the few QBs who can get away by simulating a run game by passing. You have to have extremely high accuracy and the ability to read defenses exceptionally well. But while it can help control ToP and sustain drives, no matter how good the QB, it inevitably still stalls during incompletions. Dropped balls, holding calls, bumping receivers on the line because they know the passes aren’t deep are all possible outcomes that we all saw. So even though we’re going up and down the field with short passes, we’re chewing up clock and being predictable.
On the defensive side of the ball, they were designed specifically to rush the passer. Which is fine, and is actually how our defense should be designed to reflect how our offense used to, and should be if we’re healthy, should be designed. However, our passing numbers look great this year but there’s a significant difference between those numbers and 2005. In 2005 we stopped both the run and the pass and our number was 30 yards under per game what we gaev up this year passing wise. We also gave up more passing TDs, but that was a result stemming from garbage time TDs and people having to play from behind constantly. But the T2 did exactly what it was intended. Until our offense stalled against Pittsburgh and they dominated the ToP. We almost came from behind and won, but we didn’t. They stopped our run game, we did well against theirs but they still converted 1st downs, and Peyton couldn’t get on the field.
Same thing happened numerous times this year. The fact that Peyton had some ridiculous comebacks (6 or 7 I believe) doesn’t change the fact that those games easily could have gone the other way. The reason we won some of those games is because the defense went into lockdown and the offenses we were playing became predictable. We knew they were going to run, we sold out on the run, and with Peyton staring at them on the sidelines made them too intimidated to stray from run run run. When they did try to, we had the Rosencopter incident. Because we ARE extremely dangerous when people try to pass.
We stopped their run when we had to, or at least limited it and gave Peyton at least a chance to win those games. A chance that, even for Peyton, he was lucky to have and did even better than even I thought he could. Some of his comebacks left me shocked. But we easily could have been 10-6 or even worse.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who are you replying to?
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BBS
I’m actually on your side on this one. Shocking, I know.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
heh I just couldn’t tell because it was indented so far and below a bunch of other posts.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Well I started writing it about 3 replies in and you guys sort of added a few. I’m at work so I can’t type too loud or people might get wise. Seriously brings down my WPM.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Feb 26, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the up button next to the reply button brings you to the post that post is replying to
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 26, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I knew that…I was testing you.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 26, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I basically agree, i think that if the Colts pick a WR, it would be in the 4th-7th round but we have to see if guys like Garcon and Hall can really step up and see if they have learned a thing or two.
And about the running game (O and D), absolutely right. Our D needs to improve against the run and the Offense has to improve the running game, we cant depend on Peyton all the time…
by Piojocuau on Feb 26, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
keeping Peyton surrounded by quality receivers
BP will either draft a WR in the first round, or sign TJ. IMO. Peyton is 32, and it takes 2-4 years to get a young receiver (see R. Wayne) up to speed.
It makes sense to sign TJ and have a ready-made quality third receiver that Peyton really likes (see recent Pro Bowls), and use the 1st rounder on a DT or possibly RB.
Bottom line. . .don’t let a single season pass by without giving the NFL’s best QB the absolute BEST WR corps humanly possible.
If that means Richards or Justice is your Center instead of Jeff, so be it. That’s the way it’ll be eventually, anyway.
by oldecoltsfan on Feb 26, 2009 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
While I understand concerns that Peyton will only be around for so long and that, as a result, we should do our best to immediately keep our “receiving weapons cache” stocked. In my opinion, the team is STACKED with receiving threats even without Marvin. We don’t NEED an additional receiver that is not already on the team for Peyton to put up HUGE numbers, stats and points, and for our team to be highly successful.
If there was a “cornerstone” to our offensive success that has not yet been retained, his name is Jeff Saturday. Grabbing TJ sounds epic, and maybe it would be, but the proven facet of our team which has had a significant impact on Peyton staying upright, the offensive line staying cohesive, and allowing our fast paced no-huddle offense to be successful, Jeff Saturday is your man.
That being said… if we have the cap space, I still doubt that we do, and Jeff Saturday cannot be retained, I am all for signing TJ. I’m just not sure we have the “luxury” and I would put the Saturday re-signing situation above a “luxury” classification.
by bamock on Feb 26, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind
That ANY WR drafted will max out at 30 Recs and 450 yards. He could be Larry Fitzgerald’s secret little brother taken in the 1st or Craphonso Thorpe’s love-child taken in the 6th. For 1-2 years all young Colts WRs have a definite ceiling. That includes Reggie and Gonzo who came into this same system as 1st rounders. One is now a pro-bowler and the other is on his way.
Polian doesn’t draft for a 1-2 year window. But anybody thinking that a WR will secure us a SB in the next couple years is probably not on the right track. That doesn’t mean one won’t be picked…. they certainly have that tendency, especially if you include 1st rounder Dallas Clark in the mix as a pass catcher.
I do not know of the DT depth in the draft class, but assume we’ll break trend and pick a DT if an appropriate body is there at #27. If not, but they like the guys who will be there at #50-#80 okay, they may just go for w RB/WR in the 1st, and grab DTs in the 2nd and/or 3rd rounds. Or trade down out of the 1st round entirely to pick up an extra 2nd rounder this year and next, or extra 2nd and 3rd rounders this year. I’d be cool with that if they didn’t have anybody appropriate to pick at #27. Remember the year they traded out of the 1st round and picked Sanders in the 2nd? What were those amateurs thinking?
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Feb 26, 2009 2:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I may eat my words on a rookie WR production
And if I do, I’d happily do so. It’s just that Marvin was our last rookie who had a “good” season statistically in 1996, and that was a few coaching regimes ago. And of course he’s a HOFer. If we DO pick a HOF worthy WR at #27, I guess I’d be okay with that, too….
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Feb 26, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We won't make any big free agent splashes
It’s really as simple as that.
I just hope we don’t take that WR in the 1st, but I don’t have high hopes….
Visit FanIQ.com for sports news, bloggings, polls, and more!
by MrNFL on Feb 26, 2009 2:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well looks like the Colts should have just enough money to
Re-sing either Tyjaun Haggler or Freddie Kiaho (most likely Kiaho since he is an RFA) and their rookies.
But it would be nice to see Sean Rogers in A Colts uniform.
Go Colts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kudos to Polian!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by PatsR18*andDONEwithoutCHEATING on Feb 27, 2009 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
No, it wouldn’t be nice to see actually.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 27, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
who is Sean Rodgers?
is he a DT that isn’t tremendously overweight and not playing as a 3-4 NT right now?
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 27, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















