NFL VI

[Swordfish]

Kissing your quarterback never turns out well in the end. See the Kordell Stewart years.

[CelticBrennus]

Yeah, they were down some players, but it's not like any team could easily lose three starting OTs, 3 starting WRs and a defensive end and still play as if nothing happened.

Pats replaced three offensive linemen and virtually their entire defensive backfield, to the point where WR's were playing cornerback in the '03 playoffs and still won. I am a Patriots fan, dont tell me about losing starters and having to dig deep into the depth chart. As I mentioned, that team set a record in 03 with the highest number of different starters over the year, only to break it in 2004.

One of the greatest reasons the Pats have done so well over the years is that they have that depth, and they can lose dozens of starters and plug new guys in and have them perform at high levels. They currently have backups on the team who started in Superbowls FFS.

Their defense was insane.

Yes, it has been pretty good. But let us not discount the incredible craptasticness of the Chargers offense. I mean come on, the Colts stopped a Norv Turner led team from scoring. LT looks beaten down, and Rivers is simply aweful.

Overall, I think you are missing my point. Manning still had a probowl WR in Wayne, who is one of the top 10 in the league, he had a fantastic running back, and a O line that held on against a pretty ferocious pass rush.

Yes, the Colts were missing some guys. So freaking what? The majority of their team was still there, and really all they were missing was a tackle, and a couple pass catchers. That alone should not mean the difference between vintage Manning and the 2007 reincarnation of Ryan Leaf, except with worse judgment.

It is purely the organizations fault that they dont keep enough quality WR'ers on the roster

to deal with entirely predictable injuries. I mean, Marvin is 35, at some point he will break down. Clark is injury prone, its predictable he will get injured and miss time. Gonzoles hurt his hand, something that happens to football players. Why are the replacements unable to step up and play?

As I said, look at the Pats. Take out O linemen and they can plug in guys with serious playing time. Same at D back. Take two D linemen out and the same thing happens. Same with RB and WR. Thats my point. The Colts have gotten really lucky over the years by avoiding serious injuries to their skill players, and dont appear to have quality backups for them. Football is a physical game, and if a team doesnt have the ability to plug in new guys and keep going, they will eventually break down.

[Kalbear]

Pats replaced three offensive linemen and virtually their entire defensive backfield, to the point where WR's were playing cornerback in the '03 playoffs and still won.

Wasn't easy though, was it? And they didn't win all their games that year either...in fact, they shat the bed to a bad Miami team that year too.

One of the greatest reasons the Pats have done so well over the years is that they have that depth, and they can lose dozens of starters and plug new guys in and have them perform at high levels.

Which is why every year the Pats lose, we hear how it was because they lost people on injury.

Yes, the Colts were missing some guys. So freaking what? The majority of their team was still there, and really all they were missing was a tackle, and a couple pass catchers. That alone should not mean the difference between vintage Manning and the 2007 reincarnation of Ryan Leaf, except with worse judgment.

And that's where you're missing my point. This wasn't solely because of injury, though having your receivers not on the same page is a real recipe for losing. No, it was because Manning had a bad night. Brady has one of these every year too; remember when Brady gave up 4 ints to the 1-12 miami team on Monday night a few years back? It happens.

Most teams keep 6 WRs on the roster. The Colts lost 3. Most teams keep 5 OTs on the roster. The Colts lost 3. It happens. It's not a big sign of a lack of depth, and it's not like those players played bad. Manning had a really really bad game. It happens some times.

Put it this way: the Colts lost two more players than they did against the Pats. Do you think honestly that they were that different of a team between last night and last week? Clearly, not; the difference was having 5 INTs. And even then, they almost won. That's the thing people are missing; in spite of throwing a record number of ints for the Colts franchise, the Colt team almost won - and would have were it not for a kicking mistake. That's tremendous. And unlike last season when it was the Bears doing this, the Colts have one of the best QBs to ever play the game; it's almost insane to think he'll have another game like this any time soon.

I know the Pats are tremendous, but the Colts are playing phenomenal football on offense and defense. If they can get their special teams together, they would normally be one of the scariest teams ever. As it stands they're still the second-scariest team behind the Pats, who aren't of this world.

[Mr. Ibis]

Because he plays for the Colts. That is reason enough.

That's flawed and, pardon my saying so, stupid logic. I hate the Patriots. Hate them. But I don't dislike any of their players. Their coach seems like a jerk but I would still shake his hand and tell him he has a great football mind.

As I said, look at the Pats.

Is this an ESPN-sponsored message board?

Manning had a terrible game and the Colts have lost too many of their starters but the team still only lost because of a missed field goal. The Indy defense held the Chargers offense to 10 points even though they were given good to great field position time after time. Last week versus the Patriots, with Harrison and Ugoh missing, the only reason the Patriots won was because of two failed red zone attempts. One of those would have been good for 6 if Harrison was in because of the double coverage he would have drawn.

With a ton of injuries, the Colts still almost beat the Chargers and the Patriots and lost by less than a touchdown to each team. How does that make them suck?

[CelticBrennus]

Wasn't easy though, was it? And they didn't win all their games that year either...in fact, they shat the bed to a bad Miami team that year too.

They always lose one to Miami, thats pretty much a given.

Which is why every year the Pats lose, we hear how it was because they lost people on injury.

And when they dont win the superbowl, they will usually go at least a couple games into the playoffs. Such a terrible team

I know the Pats are tremendous, but the Colts are playing phenomenal football on offense and defense. If they can get their special teams together, they would normally be one of the scariest teams ever. As it stands they're still the second-scariest team behind the Pats, who aren't of this world.

And where have I disagreed? The Colts are playing great D, and their O is pretty good, as always. I thought this was pretty much a given, and I didnt need to say it every time. My only point is that the first time I see the Indy O missing some cogs, they became terrible for most of the game, far worse then I have virtually ever seen them. I mean, it usually takes Manning a couple playoff games to throw that many picks.

. The Indy defense held the Chargers offense to 10 points even though they were given good to great field position time after time.

As I pointed out earlier, the Chargers O is terrible this year, combined with a pretty good Colts D, means few Chargers offensive scores.

Last week versus the Patriots, with Harrison and Ugoh missing, the only reason the Patriots won was because of two failed red zone attempts. One of those would have been good for 6 if Harrison was in because of the double coverage he would have drawn.

Dont whine about injuries. The Patriots fans who dared to mention the devastating series of injuries the team suffered in the AFC Championship game have been roundly mocked and insulted by this board. Injuries are part of the game, and we have to deal with it.

[Rockroi]

Wasn't easy though, was it? And they didn't win all their games that year either...in fact, they shat the bed to a bad Miami team that year too.

No, but the Pats were utterly dominant that season, even with the loss to the Dolphins. The point is not that injuries do not hurt a team, the point is that some teams can adapt better than others.

Which is why every year the Pats lose, we hear how it was because they lost people on injury.

You certainly did not hear that last season. After the AFC Championship game, almost everyone universally stated the Colts were the better team and deserved to win. Period. Nobody on these boards pointed out the injuries and it really was not why we lost. However, since the Colts loss last week, we have been inundated with talk about the Colts would be a completely different team against the Pats had they had Harrison and Ugio. Okay, that's great. But if we are going to make "excuses" (for lack of a better term) for the Colts, we have to for the Pats' loss in the AFC Championship game. Its only fair.

I think what others are pointing out is that the Pats have dealt with injuries better than the Colts. To be fair, the Colts have NEVER been hit this bad with injuries. Also, its EASY to replace a Jabbar Gaffney if he goes down with an injury; virtually impossible to replace a Marvin Harrison.

On defense they are gelling better than ever before. On offese, older players are starting to wear down and there is nobody to fill their place. Part of this IS because their salary is so skewed to a few stars. At the same time, this does not explain Joseph Addai and his monumental impact on the team. I do not think the Colts are suffering from lack fo depth; I think they are just getting old at a few key possitions (and "old" does not necessarily mean "age").

I still think its Colts-Pats in the AFC Championship game.

[Kalbear]

No, but the Pats were utterly dominant that season, even with the loss to the Dolphins. The point is not that injuries do not hurt a team, the point is that some teams can adapt better than others.

Injuries _do_ hurt a team. My point is that injuries are not why the Colts lost last night, and one game is not a trend any more than Brady playing horrible against Miami was a trend.

If Manning has another horrible week next week against Jacksonville, then we'll talk about how fragile this team is. As it stands, they gave the Pats their closest game of the year and then almost won a game where their QB throws 5 meaningful INTs. That's not a team that is poorly constructed or has too many amazing players without depth; that's a team that can almost survive their QB having a historically bad game.

You certainly did not hear that last season. After the AFC Championship game, almost everyone universally stated the Colts were the better team and deserved to win. Period.

Except for Bill Simmons and CB.

On defense they are gelling better than ever before. On offese, older players are starting to wear down and there is nobody to fill their place. Part of this IS because their salary is so skewed to a few stars. At the same time, this does not explain Joseph Addai and his monumental impact on the team. I do not think the Colts are suffering from lack fo depth; I think they are just getting old at a few key possitions (and "old" does not necessarily mean "age").

The thing is, that's not what the Colts are about. The Colts don't get depth via free agency or mid-career players to sub. They do it via the draft (and here's the important point) and it is very, very successful. Ugoh is one example of this, where they had to scramble to replace Glenn. Their entire defense is another example of this. They have done a great job of being able to replace people on their line for the most part, and they do so via good drafted players and UDFA guys.

Their salary is no more skewed to a few stars than the Patriots is right now. The Colts have manning, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney. Those are the 4 players with big money, but that's not really restricting them keeping anyone. Sanders and Addai are both playing on their starting salary, Clark is not making a ton of money. Ugoh's a rookie. Gonzalez is a 2nd year being paid starting salary. Most of the defense is 2nd-3rd year players. They lost June, Harper and David - and of the three, only Harper is at all decent. But you don't talk about how much money is tied up in Ugoh, do you? Or Gonzalez or Clark? Those are the big hits. It's done this way not because they have to (they could invest a bunch of money keeping some of these people, they're under the cap right now), but because they are good at doing so. The Pats aren't as good at drafting guys top-to-bottom as they are bringing people in that will work in Belichick's system. The Colts aren't as good at bringing people in, but they're great at drafting. Both teams have phenomenal depth. And yet both teams occasionally fail when their QB has a really bad night.

I guess it comes down to whether you believe that Manning had a bad night because of all the injuries or whether he had a bad night because people occasionally do. I don't think there's enough evidence to point to the inuries being the primary thing, and I really don't think it's reasonable to say that losing people like that in one game is an indicator of bad depth.

[Mr. Ibis]

Dont whine about injuries. The Patriots fans who dared to mention the devastating series of injuries the team suffered in the AFC Championship game have been roundly mocked and insulted by this board. Injuries are part of the game, and we have to deal with it.

Who is whining? All I said was that with those injuries, the Colts dominated the Patriots for one half of a game and surely would have clenched a victory with Harrison in there to catch the ball or draw double coverage. With those injuries, the Colts still came back from a 23-point deficit and would have beat the Chargers were it not for a missed field goal. That is not whining, it is stating fact.

I realize I'm talking about "might have beens" but since when is that equal to whining?

When did the internet get so many Patriots fans? From my lurking days, I was led to believe this was an intelligent board. Kidding!

[BLU-RAY]

You clearly managed to avoid lurking in this thread and its predecessors...

[Swordfish]

turns out it wasn't his horrible squandering of the two time outs, or his offenses inability to really do anything in the second half that lost them the game, it was due to the officiating!!!!

[Jaime L]

turns out it wasn't his hporrible squandering of the two time outs, or his offenses inability to really do anything in the second half that lost them the game, it was due to the officiating!!!!

FO mentioned that Crennel called a timeout to decide whether to challenge a TD. Decided to challenge..lost the challenge and blew another timeout in the process. Did this actually happen?

[Swordfish]

FO mentioned that Crennel called a timeout to decide whether to challenge a TD. Decided to challenge..lost the challenge and blew another timeout in the process. Did this actually happen?

yes. And that isn't the half of it. The steelers were on about the two yard line, down four at the time(not counting the TD that was being challenged), and there was about 3:30 left in the game. So even if he WINS the challenge, we probably still score, and we probably run another minute off the clock.

It was the worst game management I've seen in quite some time.

[DanteGabriel]

For those who were asking about the O-line's role in the turn-around of the Browns, Football Outsiders investigates the Cleveland line:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/11/0...ay-counts/5730/

[Kalbear]

I'm happy because I actually asked the guy to write it and he did. That rocked.

Again, Derek Anderson had 0 sacks. And this was against Pittsburgh. I think Joe Thomas won that round too. How good is that guy?

[Kalbear]

BTW, this is taken shamelessly from the FO boards:

I decided to go to the NFL salary cap database that is on the USA Today site to try to quantify some of the assertions being made in this thread. The following is a admittedly a slap dash back of the envelope attempt at analysis made by a biased Patriots fan.

All data are for 2006.

Colts top 10 cap hits account for 61% of salary cap, Pats 59%.

Colts top 20 cap hits account for 80% of salary cap, Pats 77%.

Colts cap hits 23-32 account for 7.2%, Pats for 8.9%.

In terms of money invested, the teams are virtually identical. The Pats spend 2million less on their top 10 players, and 3 million less on their top 20. The Colts actually spend more money on their 33-54 guys than the Pats do.

[CelticBrennus]

Nevermind

It breaks down with Brady, Samuel, Seymour, and Colvin hitting at 6 or up, Moss, Vrabel, Thomas, Light and Faulk at 3 or 4, and then 19 at 1 or 2 million, and then the rest at less then 1 million.

[Kalbear]

They dont happen to break that down via O and D do they?

Nope, that's just the info I saw. The point is still pretty clear though, and it's not like the Colts are spending some ridiculous amount of money on the top 10 or even 5 players relative to the Pats. The argument was that the Colts are spending so much more on their high-end guys that they can't afford to pay mid-tier guys, but both the Colts and Pats pay about the same.

Now, whether they get the same quality for that money is another argument, but that's a bit subjective.

[CelticBrennus]

Here are some Colts #'s

1 Freeney, Dwight DL $9,541,142

2 Harrison, Marvin WR $8,400,000

3 Manning, Peyton QB $8,200,000

4 Glenn, Tarik OL $8,175,000

5 Simon, Corey DL $7,055,000

6 Wayne, Reggie WR $5,880,000

7 McFarland, Anthony DL $5,500,000

8 Diem, Ryan OL $5,500,000

9 Saturday, Jeff OL $4,584,666

10 Brock, Raheem DL $4,135,000

11 Mathis, Robert DL $3,990,000

Its a pretty steep drop after that.

[Kalbear]

And...so? Take the top 10 Patriots and see what their value is. I'm willing to bet that it's within $3 mil.

Heck, of that list Tarik Glenn isn't even on the team any more. Neither is Corey Simon.

I don't understand your argument, CB. The list above already said that 61% of the Colts money was in their top 10. That's 61 million, roughly. The Patriots spend 59 mil. This proves...what?

[CelticBrennus]

Whats your problem? I simply posted the numbers, and you can draw whatever conclusion you feel like.

Chill the fuck out.

You dont like the numbers I posted, do the math yourself.

http://www.coltscap.net/thoughts2.php

http://www.patscap.com/