CaptainHook Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Here's an idea........teach the All Mighty Manning to scramble once in a while!! 1276222[/snapback] Have you seen him run? It ain't pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gdawg Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Have you seen him run? It ain't pretty. 1276223[/snapback] Yeah, ya cant teach "stop being slow" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) First off, they were playing to stop the run. They were doing that exceedingly well. The problem is the Colts safeties are both strong safeties. Neither are very good in coverage. The Colts rely on pressure from their line to hide their deficiencies in the secondary. They only gave up 21 points. The Colts offense should score that many at home in their sleep. Defense played a hell of a game. Two turnovers. They kept giving the ball back to the offense when they needed it. And they did nothing with it. 1276206[/snapback] But you could say they only gave up 21 because the Colts only scored 18, 7 of which came straight off the bs non INT call. 15 of those points came in the 4th also. Edited January 19, 2006 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 But you could say they only gave up 21 because the Colts only scored 18, 7 of which came straight off the bs non INT call. 15 of those points came in the 4th also. 1276226[/snapback] what does that have to do with how the defense played? They held the Steelers to 2.7 yards per carry. They forced two turnovers. They allowed 21 points. Only 7 in the second half. They were not the problem Sunday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 what does that have to do with how the defense played? They held the Steelers to 2.7 yards per carry. They forced two turnovers. They allowed 21 points. Only 7 in the second half. They were not the problem Sunday. 1276249[/snapback] I'm saying the Steelers weren't playing from behind throughout the whole game so they were conservative and that equals a low score, unless it's the Jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheezhed Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Have you seen him run? It ain't pretty. 1276223[/snapback] Ever see Fred Flintstone when he is bowling, how he walks on his toes?? I'm pretty sure Peyton did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I'm saying the Steelers weren't playing from behind throughout the whole game so they were conservative and that equals a low score, unless it's the Jets. 1276261[/snapback] You don't think the Steelers would have liked to have scored more knowing what the Colts offense was capable of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 You don't think the Steelers would have liked to have scored more knowing what the Colts offense was capable of? 1276265[/snapback] Some teams don't run up the score when they are sure of their defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Some teams don't run up the score when they are sure of their defense. 1276270[/snapback] And it almost cost them the game. Seriously, anyone who blames the Colts D is out of their minds. This disaster falls squarely on the shoulders of the offense and Peyton Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheezhed Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Some teams don't run up the score when they are sure of their defense. 1276270[/snapback] that's what fans of teams that tried to run up the score but failed say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) Entertaining as always, Swerski. I especially like the part where you somehow bring the McGinest/Izzo thing into it, as if it has any relevance whatsoever. Good one! 1275899[/snapback] Actually it does, as I was referring to how teammates treat each other. But apparently you're not sharp enough to pick that up. One of the problems with the Colts is that there's a general lack of trust. The Colts soft secondary gives up 14 points in the first quarter and Manning begins to think, "Oh boy, here we go again!" And he panics and tries to throw the ball all over the place. That doesn't work against a defense like Pittsburgh's. After they finally got near PIT's goal line, they weren't able to run it in and had to settle for a FG. And then the run was abandoned after they went down 21-3. I'm also wondering if perhaps Manning chose not to run on 3rd-and-2 on that last drive because of Vanderjagt's history of missing clutch kicks (Week 1 last year, 2000 playoffs in Miami, the shank against TB in '03 that was called back because of the stupid "leaping" call on Simeon Rice). It's pretty much the only way that I could justify that call. IMO, Manning gets his share of the blame for making some poor throws in the first quarter, not running on 3rd-and-2 on that last drive, and being badly out-schemed by Dick LeBeau throughout the game. Maybe it's time to take away some of his play-calling perks at the line. And it's definitely time for him and Tom Moore to work harder on handling the 3-4. They've been awful against 3-4 teams recently. But there's so much blame to go around - the QB, the O-line, the secondary, the idiot kicker, the coaching staff - that it's crazy to pin it on one person. The Colts are a great collection of players, but they'll never win until they play well as a team. Edited January 19, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Seriously, anyone who blames the Colts D is out of their minds. 1276275[/snapback] I disagree with that. You can't give up to quick TDs in the first quarter and expect your team to win by playing from behind against a rock-solid defense like the Steelers. The Colts secondary was terrible on Sunday and they would've easily given up 17 (and maybe 21) in the first half if Marlin Jackson had been flagged for that blatant pass interference call on Randle El. Agreed that the offense was wretched and deserve most of the blame, but the defense did not play well either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) I disagree with that. You can't give up to quick TDs in the first quarter and expect your team to win by playing from behind against a rock-solid defense like the Steelers. The Colts secondary was terrible on Sunday and they would've easily given up 17 (and maybe 21) in the first half if Marlin Jackson had been flagged for that blatant pass interference call on Randle El. 1276518[/snapback] But that's not what happened. The D gave up a TD drive. The offense went 3 and out, putting the D in bad field position. The D forced a turnover. The offense went 3 and out again. A tired D gives up a second TD drive on some very nice plays, and only gives up one TD the rest of the way. Seriously, I thought they played very, very well. Edited January 19, 2006 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 And it almost cost them the game. Seriously, anyone who blames the Colts D is out of their minds. This disaster falls squarely on the shoulders of the offense and Peyton Manning. 1276275[/snapback] Give up - you can't win this argument. It is the same one I made when the Steelers lost to the Bengals. I said the D played well, but since the O kept turning the ball over and going 3-and-out, playing well did not necessarily mean keeping them from scoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordo Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 ... and only gives up one TD the rest of the way. Seriously, I thought they played very, very well. 1276524[/snapback] The Indy D can't go blameless here. Holding PITT to "one TD the rest of the way" does not tell the whole story. The Steelers had two killer non-scoring drives in the second half (one of 8 minutes-13 plays and another of 6 minutes-11 plays). The Indy O can't score sitting on the sidelines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) The Indy D can't go blameless here. Holding PITT to "one TD the rest of the way" does not tell the whole story. The Steelers had two killer non-scoring drives in the second half (one of 8 minutes-13 plays and another of 6 minutes-11 plays). The Indy O can't score sitting on the sidelines... 1277032[/snapback] How many chances did the Colts offense get to win the game? I saw two. The defense did its job. In fact, they almost scored themselves. Edited January 20, 2006 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantsfan Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) IMO the D wasn't dominant but come on guys this is THE best O in the NFL and they were at home. They should score 22 points before the opening kickoff so to give any more then maybe 2% of the blame to the D is really risiculous. Let me ask you this if before the game I said Pitt will score 21 points I think EVERY Colts fan would have said win no doubt. To me that is the proof that this game in no way is on the D. NO ONE would have said the Colts wouldn't score 22 points in the game. Edited January 20, 2006 by giantsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giants56 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 How many chances did the Colts offense get to win the game? I saw two. The defense did its job. In fact, they almost scored themselves. 1277073[/snapback] Captain Hook is so right here. Every year the Colts get eliminated and it's all on their defense. Well look at the games they've lost and show me the great offensive performance that was wasted by the defense. 21-18 to the Steelers, 24-14 to the Pats, 20-3 to the Pats, 19-16 to the Titans, 23-17 to Miami (throw out the 41-0 loss to the Jets - the whole team stunk in that one.). Any of those seem like the "great" offense shouldn't have been able to win the game?? I know there are other circumstances such as the other team controlling the ball but come on. If they are a great offense they can win those games. I'm sorry but that is a soft team - they sure can light up a scoreboard but punch them in the mouth and you'll have Marvin Harrison sulking on the bench and Peyton Manning throwing his O-Line to the wolves. And they simply forget that Edge is on the team in these games. With the talent on this offense they should be able to score 24-28 points against a good defense and win the game. Peyton Manning is a great QB, but a LEGENDARY quarterback would have won a few of those and until he does he falls short of the top echelon in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Actually it does, as I was referring to how teammates treat each other. But apparently you're not sharp enough to pick that up. One of the problems with the Colts is that there's a general lack of trust. The Colts soft secondary gives up 14 points in the first quarter and Manning begins to think, "Oh boy, here we go again!" And he panics and tries to throw the ball all over the place. That doesn't work against a defense like Pittsburgh's. After they finally got near PIT's goal line, they weren't able to run it in and had to settle for a FG. And then the run was abandoned after they went down 21-3. I'm also wondering if perhaps Manning chose not to run on 3rd-and-2 on that last drive because of Vanderjagt's history of missing clutch kicks (Week 1 last year, 2000 playoffs in Miami, the shank against TB in '03 that was called back because of the stupid "leaping" call on Simeon Rice). It's pretty much the only way that I could justify that call. IMO, Manning gets his share of the blame for making some poor throws in the first quarter, not running on 3rd-and-2 on that last drive, and being badly out-schemed by Dick LeBeau throughout the game. Maybe it's time to take away some of his play-calling perks at the line. And it's definitely time for him and Tom Moore to work harder on handling the 3-4. They've been awful against 3-4 teams recently. But there's so much blame to go around - the QB, the O-line, the secondary, the idiot kicker, the coaching staff - that it's crazy to pin it on one person. The Colts are a great collection of players, but they'll never win until they play well as a team. 1276506[/snapback] See, I wouldn't consider you such a troll if you could somehow manage not to disagree with someone without calling them stupid. Manning = Face of the Franchise calling out his line on tv McGinest = One of their players disagreeing directly with the person he's angry with in the heat of the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 How many chances did the Colts offense get to win the game? I saw two. The defense did its job. In fact, they almost scored themselves. 1277073[/snapback] I wouldn't call putting their team down by 14 points in the first quarter "doing their job." Agreed that they played well after the first quarter (especially with regard to the turnovers and the three-and-outs the offense put them in), but the damage had been done at that point. A defense CAN'T give up two quick TDs in the first quarter. Fourteen points is a lot to overcome in the playoffs... especially against a defense like PIT. Pittsburgh also played a lot more conservatively after going up 14-0 (PIT RBs combined for 37 carries) because they had already scored 78% of what they needed to win by then. If the Colts had scored more than a measley FG in the first half, I'm sure that the Steelers would've taken more shots down the field and tacked on more points. What PIT did to the Colts on Sunday was exactly what the Colts did to them earlier in the regular season: They went up by a couple scores quickly, put the opposing offense in a state of panic, pressured the QB, and shut them down. I agree that most of the blame goes on the offense (Howard Mudd and Tom Moore as well), but the defense was awful in the first quarter and took them out of their game plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 See, I wouldn't consider you such a troll if you could somehow manage not to disagree with someone without calling them stupid. 1277322[/snapback] In that case, perhaps you should refrain from baiting me... Entertaining as always, Swerski. I especially like the part where you somehow bring the McGinest/Izzo thing into it, as if it has any relevance whatsoever. Good one! 1275899[/snapback] If you want to legitimately debate an issue with me, I suggest you change your tone in the future. Manning = Face of the Franchise calling out his line on tvMcGinest = One of their players disagreeing directly with the person he's angry with in the heat of the game Oh, the "in the heat of the game" argument. I suppose that players are no longer angry at each other after the final whistle blows. They're both instances of how players treat each other and I don't see how that isn't obvious. Calling out one's co-worker for not doing his/her job is a hell of a lot more professoinal than trying to kick his/her ass in the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I wouldn't call putting their team down by 14 points in the first quarter "doing their job." Agreed that they played well after the first quarter (especially with regard to the turnovers and the three-and-outs the offense put them in), but the damage had been done at that point. A defense CAN'T give up two quick TDs in the first quarter. Fourteen points is a lot to overcome in the playoffs... especially against a defense like PIT. Pittsburgh also played a lot more conservatively after going up 14-0 (PIT RBs combined for 37 carries) because they had already scored 78% of what they needed to win by then. If the Colts had scored more than a measley FG in the first half, I'm sure that the Steelers would've taken more shots down the field and tacked on more points. 1277471[/snapback] I agree.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I agree.... 1278459[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 cant we all agree that jason whitlock summed it up best? Indy's offense self-destructed against Pittsburgh because its primary play caller, Manning, was out of breath and dazed by several of the hits he absorbed. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh's defensive play caller, Dick LeBeau, was never touched all afternoon. Peyton likes to be in charge -- but that's not always the best thing. Manning can't outthink a topflight defensive coordinator while trying to avoid Joey Porter. LeBeau's unit outsmarted Manning repeatedly. The Steelers consistently waited until the last possible second before deciding from which side to blitz. The Steelers waited for Manning to identify the strongside linebacker at the line of scrimmage, then decided whom to blitz. The Steelers had blitzers run free because Manning often kicked his protection in the wrong direction. Yes, the "good teammate" created some of his own pass-protection problems. No quarterback in the league is more bothered by pressure than Manning. His softness, combined with the pressure of calling plays at the line of scrimmage, caused Indy's offense to short-circuit. Had an offensive coordinator been in control of the Colts' offense, Edgerrin James would've received 25 carries. He certainly would've carried the ball late in the game with the Colts needing 2 yards to pick up a first down. The Colts should use their no-huddle offense 25 percent of the time and rely on their offensive coordinator to call plays the rest of the time, especially when Manning is afflicted with happy feet. Manning enjoys having the responsibility of running Indy's offense, but it's too much responsibility for any one man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 In that case, perhaps you should refrain from baiting me... If you want to legitimately debate an issue with me, I suggest you change your tone in the future. 1277489[/snapback] Yeah, you practice what you preach, Riiiiight. Calling out one's co-worker for not doing his/her job is a hell of a lot more professoinal than trying to kick his/her ass in the office. You know what I'm hoping your co-workers opt for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.