daquixers_is_back Posted October 5, 2006 Author Posted October 5, 2006 That record was with a raw unprepared rookie QB (Kyle Orton) under center. So it was basically all done with Defense. This season we have an Offense that is at least adequate - big improvement over last season. So with that same Defense we become much more competitive. The one win against the AFC was Baltimore, who are 4-0 this year and the pride of the AFC. We "caught Carolina at a bad time?" What about Tampa? Or Atlanta? The NFC South was tough last season and we swept them. But it doesn't really matter does it. No matter what I bring up, it'll be that da Bears only look good because they play in the weak NFC North or they're in the weaker conference or yaddayaddayadda... But we're scheduled to play the entire AFC East this season. I suppose if we wind up sweeping your division, it'll be because the Bills are rebuilding, Miami and the Jets are just no good anyway and we caught New England when Brady was having a bad hair day... And you guys B word about the Bills not getting any respect... 796522[/snapback] Baltimore is the pride of the AFC? I think the best team in the league ... aka the Colts ... might have something to say about that. And im sure if the Bills beat the Bears it will be because it was a "trap" game or because of the referee or something. The NFC has been weaker than the AFC for many years now.
crackur Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 The one win against the AFC was Baltimore, who are 4-0 this year and the pride of the AFC. 796522[/snapback] dude, they didnt even have a qb then lol seriously, calm down it shouldnt suprise you that when you come to a board bitching about how good you are and so on......others will pull yuh b1tch card
Dennis Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 How convinient to leave out the 5-11 record of Lovie Smith the previous year....If it was not ok for the previous poster to ignore Grossmans one game against Detroit (where he scored 1/2 his total TDs), how is it ok for you to leave out the worst season record for Smith from your argument.......Lovie SMith is 24-16 in his tenure with the Bears.....It is a pretty good winning percentage, but you cannot compare it to the 80% of the Colts for THREE years....Your winning % for the same THREE years is 60% not 79%..... 796500[/snapback] Well, this is Tony Dungy's SIXTH year as HC of the Colts, not his THIRD. And in Dungy's first year the Colts (2001) went 6-10. The first season a coach runs a team is spent changing personnel around and installing a playbook, you can't expect to win a lot of games. If you want to include Lovie's entire career as Head Coach, then include Dungy's as well. It's 106-58 (64.6%). So Lovie's close to Dungy again... The original point was about a STREAK - how a team plays over time. Da Bears current streak (all the 2005 regular season and the first four games of this season) is 19-5. Which is how da Bears are playing NOW.
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 That record was with a raw unprepared rookie QB (Kyle Orton) under center. So it was basically all done with Defense. This season we have an Offense that is at least adequate - big improvement over last season. So with that same Defense we become much more competitive. I don't disagree that your offense was pathetic last season. It remains to be seen if Grossman is actually better over any term. The one win against the AFC was Baltimore, who are 4-0 this year and the pride of the AFC. Ludicrous. Are you honestly comparing this season's Ravens with the injury-ravaged, Anthony Wright QB'd team you beat last season? We "caught Carolina at a bad time?" What about Tampa? Or Atlanta? The NFC South was tough last season and we swept them. Uh, Tampa started basically a rookie QB against you and their kicker missed a TWENTY NINE YARD field goal late. Congrats on beating a mirror image of your team by 3 points. As far as Atlanta goes, I wouldn't put an 8-8 team on a pedestal when trying to prove how good my team is. Really? I never thought I'd hearBut it doesn't really matter does it. No matter what I bring up, it'll be that da Bears only look good because they play in the weak NFC North or they're in the weaker conference or yaddayaddayadda... You brought up last season. Ignoring the stars lining up for your team is not my problem, it's yours. The Bears were a very flawed team and it was proven in their own house in the playoffs. It remains to be seen if that has changed. But we're scheduled to play the entire AFC East this season. I suppose if we wind up sweeping your division, it'll be because the Bills are rebuilding, Miami and the Jets are just no good anyway and we caught New England when Brady was having a bad hair day... 796522[/snapback] The Bears should sweep the East this season. It's definitely a down year. That said, they probably won't.
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 Well, this is Tony Dungy's SIXTH year as HC of the Colts, not his THIRD. And in Dungy's first year the Colts (2001) went 6-10. The first season a coach runs a team is spent changing personnel around and installing a playbook, you can't expect to win a lot of games. If you want to include Lovie's entire career as Head Coach, then include Dungy's as well. It's 106-58 (64.6%). So Lovie's close to Dungy again... The original point was about a STREAK - how a team plays over time. Da Bears current streak (all the 2005 regular season and the first four games of this season) is 19-5. Which is how da Bears are playing NOW. 796552[/snapback] Uh, wrong. Dungy's first season with the Colts was 2002. The team went 10-6. Thanks, though.
apuszczalowski Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 I think he's talking about last season (12-4 regular season, 0-1 in the playoffs, plus the 4 wins this year). 796494[/snapback] That would still only make them 16-5, not 19-5
ganesh Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 Well, this is Tony Dungy's SIXTH year as HC of the Colts, not his THIRD. And in Dungy's first year the Colts (2001) went 6-10. The first season a coach runs a team is spent changing personnel around and installing a playbook, you can't expect to win a lot of games. If you want to include Lovie's entire career as Head Coach, then include Dungy's as well. It's 106-58 (64.6%). So Lovie's close to Dungy again... The original point was about a STREAK - how a team plays over time. Da Bears current streak (all the 2005 regular season and the first four games of this season) is 19-5. Which is how da Bears are playing NOW. 796552[/snapback] I did not write about the winning percentage. You did. I just pointed out the inconsistency with your argument or use of statistics. Also, you have to compare Apples to Apples...LS has been the coach for the bears for 3 years...so use the last 3 years as the comparison base....BTW, just to nitpick, Tony Dungy is in his 5th season as HC of the Colts and he finished 10-6 in his 1st year....Here is the link to the official Colts Webpage. His colts record is 48-16 in regular season (winning % = 75%). Tony Dungy, HC of the Indianapolis Colts
Chilly Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 Baltimore is the pride of the AFC? I think the best team in the league ... aka the Colts ... might have something to say about that. And im sure if the Bills beat the Bears it will be because it was a "trap" game or because of the referee or something. The NFC has been weaker than the AFC for many years now. 796529[/snapback] I think the Colts will show that they aren't the best team in the league after their bye week, when they play WSH, @DEN, @NE, BUF, @Dallas, Philadelphia, @Tennessee, @Jacksonville, Cincy. Pretty tough stretch there. The name to the game of beating Indy is to stop their passing game on defense, and move the ball against them on offense. You can run on the Colts. Houston put up over 100 yards with a craptastic offensive line, The Giants put up 186, Jacksonville put up 191, and the Jets put up 135. They'll be in every game because of their offense, but they'll be beat by a team which plays ball control offense, strong defense, and limits turnovers. Denver, New England, Buffalo, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati can all do this. If Jacksonville plays better special teams, they win that first game vs Indy. The Colts are good, but I still don't think they are good enough to win a superbowl.
Dennis Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 BTW, if the AFC is the superior Conference , then why are AFC teams 5-6 against the NFC so far this season? That means that NFC teams are 6-5 against AFC teams...
syhuang Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 BTW, if the AFC is the superior Conference , then why are AFC teams 5-6 against the NFC so far this season? That means that NFC teams are 6-5 against AFC teams... 796675[/snapback] Because four of the six NFC wins are against weak AFC teams, including two wins against Houston (1-3), one against Tennessee (0-4), and one against Cleveland (1-3). The combined record of these AFC teams is 7-16, 30.4% winning percentage. In other words, these AFC teams' combined conference record is only 7-10 (41%) Although AFC also beat some weak NFC teams, the combined record of the NFC teams losing to AFC is 6-11, or 35.3%. These NFC teams' combined conference record is 6-6 (50%).
BuffOrange Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 I think the Colts will show that they aren't the best team in the league after their bye week, when they play WSH, @DEN, @NE, BUF, @Dallas, Philadelphia, @Tennessee, @Jacksonville, Cincy. Pretty tough stretch there. The name to the game of beating Indy is to stop their passing game on defense, and move the ball against them on offense. You can run on the Colts. Houston put up over 100 yards with a craptastic offensive line, The Giants put up 186, Jacksonville put up 191, and the Jets put up 135. They'll be in every game because of their offense, but they'll be beat by a team which plays ball control offense, strong defense, and limits turnovers. Denver, New England, Buffalo, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati can all do this. If Jacksonville plays better special teams, they win that first game vs Indy. The Colts are good, but I still don't think they are good enough to win a superbowl. 796635[/snapback] Totally agree. Manning is hands down the MVP right now in part because the Colts just aren't as good as everyone thinks (they'd be 1-3 with an average QB). Not many teams have gone far in the playoffs without being able to run or stop the run.
Dibs Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 I'm not saying Rex is a lock for the HOF either. In fact, I am still a huge supporter of Kyle Orton (the rookie QB we won with last year). But Grossman's stats are nothing special? For this season he's 78 of 125 (62.4%) for 1061 yards. If he keeps up this pace, he'll throw for over 4,000 yards this season. He's got 8 TDs and only 3 INTs. That gives him a QB rating so far this season of 136.9. He's #5 in the NFL for both passer rating and yards passing. His per game stats are: [*]Minnesota: 23 of 41 (56.1%) for 278 yds, 1 TD, 2 INTs, Passer rating = 64.9 796072[/snapback] Actually he has a QB rating of 100.8 Losman [*]Minnesota: 23 of 32 (71.9%) for 222 yds, 1 TD, 0 INTs, Passer rating = 101.3 Just comparing some Granny Smiths with your Pink Lady
daquixers_is_back Posted October 6, 2006 Author Posted October 6, 2006 I think the Colts will show that they aren't the best team in the league after their bye week, when they play WSH, @DEN, @NE, BUF, @Dallas, Philadelphia, @Tennessee, @Jacksonville, Cincy. Pretty tough stretch there. The name to the game of beating Indy is to stop their passing game on defense, and move the ball against them on offense. You can run on the Colts. Houston put up over 100 yards with a craptastic offensive line, The Giants put up 186, Jacksonville put up 191, and the Jets put up 135. They'll be in every game because of their offense, but they'll be beat by a team which plays ball control offense, strong defense, and limits turnovers. Denver, New England, Buffalo, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati can all do this. If Jacksonville plays better special teams, they win that first game vs Indy. The Colts are good, but I still don't think they are good enough to win a superbowl. 796635[/snapback] Totally agree. Manning is hands down the MVP right now in part because the Colts just aren't as good as everyone thinks (they'd be 1-3 with an average QB). Not many teams have gone far in the playoffs without being able to run or stop the run. 796693[/snapback] I dont agree. I cant think of a team that is better than the Colts. I think the Colts will beat Denver, New England, Buffalo (sad I know), Dallas, and Jacksonville and may lose to Cinci because Cinci can move the ball ... but I see Indi going 14-2 (like last season) or maybe even 15-1. For some odd reason I really see them going all the way this year. I think the only teams who can comepete with them is Cinci, and NE. Cinci because of their high scoring offense and NE because of Belechick ... but I dont think the Ravens can score enough to outscore Peyton and Co.
Chilly Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 I dont agree. I cant think of a team that is better than the Colts. I think the Colts will beat Denver, New England, Buffalo (sad I know), Dallas, and Jacksonville and may lose to Cinci because Cinci can move the ball ... but I see Indi going 14-2 (like last season) or maybe even 15-1. For some odd reason I really see them going all the way this year. I think the only teams who can comepete with them is Cinci, and NE. Cinci because of their high scoring offense and NE because of Belechick ... but I dont think the Ravens can score enough to outscore Peyton and Co. 796817[/snapback] How about teams with a run defense being better then the Colts? And a running game? Someone like, you know, Chicago? Indy isn't a complete team. They've already shown earlier this year that they aren't. If you aren't good running the ball and stopping the run, you aren't going to go the distance.
apuszczalowski Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 Indy is not any better then they were last season, after losing Edge they are alot more one dimensional because they don't have a RB that teams fear anymore (yet). I can't see them making it any further then they did last season this year. They are still a good team, don't get me wrong, just not the elite AFC team the were last year
daquixers_is_back Posted October 6, 2006 Author Posted October 6, 2006 How about teams with a run defense being better then the Colts? And a running game? Someone like, you know, Chicago? Indy isn't a complete team. They've already shown earlier this year that they aren't. If you aren't good running the ball and stopping the run, you aren't going to go the distance. 797004[/snapback] Indy is not any better then they were last season, after losing Edge they are alot more one dimensional because they don't have a RB that teams fear anymore (yet). I can't see them making it any further then they did last season this year. They are still a good team, don't get me wrong, just not the elite AFC team the were last year 797067[/snapback] Im not saying that they are any better than last year. But I think other teams are not as good as last year. Pittsburgh has fallen mightily. New England has shown flashes of good play, but also bad play, Cinci lost to NE, and Denver has shown glaring holes. Maybe we can put a small bet on it? But I see Indianapolis going to the SB this year. As far as the running game goes? May I remind you that the Patriots won a SB with Antowain Smith at RB ... woohee. Well anyway if you look then you will see that the Colts running game last year WITH Edgerrin James has only 18 more yards through 4 games than the Colts have this year. So I dont really think that whole 18 yards is going to kill anyone considering thats around 4 yards a game difference. Joseph Addai is actually doing quite well with an average of 4.5 yards a carry. Also. What is your definition of Elite? If they go 14-2 are you still going to be calling them "good" but not "elite" ??? They have the 11th ranked defense in the AFC and shutdown Jacksonville's offensive attack that led to a record 12-4 last season. Not to mention that 5 of the 10 defenses above them dont look like they will make the playoffs at this point in the season (although things can change) KC, Miami, Oak, Pitt, and Buffalo. So going into the playoffs they will probably be in the top 5 of defenses. So you want to talk about Chicago's running game do you? Well put it this way ... the Colts (who you made fun of their running game and praised Chicago's) have more rushing yards than Chicago and their great running back Thomas Jones is averaging 3.3 yards a carry this year. Wait to this Chicago team meets Baltimore or San Diego who are giving up 2.6 and 3.3 yards per carry. Way to put your foot in your mouth. Personally I think that calling a Chicago team that couldnt win even with having an extra week to prepare and being at home in the playoffs last year, and who is off to a 4-0 start against VERY weak opponents better than the Colts team who has gone something like 42-10 or something in the past 3 years is somewhat ignorant. But thats just me. Lets just make a little bet here. No need to be bitter. But I bet that they go to the SB .... although I dont know if they win it
BuffOrange Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 Daqix - you have a couple fair points but much of that is ridiculous. You're ripping the Bears for losing a home playoff game after a week off while pimping the Colts? Seriously? 11th ranked in a 16 team conference is good? Jacksonville's offense is good? I know it's tempting to like the Colts, since they're generally competing with foes who are easier to hate as a Bills fan. But objectively, it's hard to not see the parallels with Marino's constantly overrated media-darling Dolphins.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 6, 2006 Author Posted October 6, 2006 Daqix - you have a couple fair points but much of that is ridiculous. You're ripping the Bears for losing a home playoff game after a week off while pimping the Colts? Seriously? 11th ranked in a 16 team conference is good? Jacksonville's offense is good? I know it's tempting to like the Colts, since they're generally competing with foes who are easier to hate as a Bills fan. But objectively, it's hard to not see the parallels with Marino's constantly overrated media-darling Dolphins. 797141[/snapback] No im not saying 11/16 is good ... im saying that considering HALF of the teams above them probably wont be in the playoffs, then there defense will be in the top 5 then ... see what im saying? maybe im not articulating it right. And yes I do see some equivalance to Dan Marino (although it looks like Manning will break his records) ... But Dan Marino's team was around 8-8, 9-7 and some seasons 10-6 or 11-5 ... in fact his best 3 years with Miami was a record of 31-17 ... In the past 4 1/4 years Manning is 50-16 .... Marino never got close to that. Say whatever you want about teams, but Manning's team has a much better chance of taking them to the SB. I think Jacksonville's offense is pretty good ... there the 6th ranked offense in the AFC ... not amazing but at least good. So I think the Colts defense is kind-off a 'bend but dont break' defense. They beat the 2nd ranked offense in the entire NFL (NYG) ... then they beat the 4th ranked AFC offense (NYJ) ... so I dont think there defense is that bad. Now lets talk playoffs. Out of the top 10 offenses in the league right now, only about 3 of them figure to make the AFC playoffs. And considering that the Colts will have a first round bye, there is a chance that their defense may not even see a top 10 offense in all of the playoffs.
marauderswr80 Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 any team can beat any team any given sunday! We dont play the games within the media we play them on the football field. Any great team has a bad game. I compare this game to the Cincy game last year....we all thought Buffalo was in serious trouble with the likes of Palmer, Johnson & Johnson, TJ H-14.......what happen that game? Buffalo made them look silly that Sunday! Terrence Mcgee beat them..... Point being, anything can happen!
BuffOrange Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 No im not saying 11/16 is good ... im saying that considering HALF of the teams above them probably wont be in the playoffs, then there defense will be in the top 5 then ... see what im saying? maybe im not articulating it right. 797211[/snapback] yeah I still don't get it. Looking at likely playoff teams from the AFC: San Diego, Denver, NE, Baltimore, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville...obv. 2 of these teams won't make it but where would you rank the Colts defense in this group? Along with Cincy they're clearly the worst IMO; and that's not even counting the NFC so there's no way their defense will be one of the 5 best in the playoffs.
Recommended Posts