Was the 2011 Colt meltdown all about Peyton's injury?

[RecoveringCowboy]

Relevant since we play him this Sunday. For the record, I like him - just not as much as Brady.

To the topic: Colts were 10-6 in 2010 and maybe showing signs of decline. Peyton is injured in the playoffs to the Jets. Next year Peyton does not play and Colts post a league-worst 2-14.

So how much of that eight-game freefall was from Peyton's absence? I'd like to suggest half of it is Jim Caldwell lost the team....compare with Brady's absence in 2008 - NE still finished 12-4 and should have been in the playoffs if it were not for tiebreakers.

I see this less of whether Peyton or Brady is more indispensable and more about Caldwell vs Belichick deal with injury situations.

 

[ausbacker]

The Colts threw the season to gain the #1 pick. That pick was always going to be Andrew Luck.

 

[Froob]

A lot of it had to do with the colts starting a qb that wouldn't have started in the CFL for half the season before switching to an out of prime Collins then Orlansky or however its spelt.

 

[Marinlik]

I think that it's utterly ridiculous to say that the Colts threw the season. Jim Irsay may have wanted that. But neither the players, the coaches or front office had any reason to throw the season. For players throwing a season means less money and for many getting cut. The coaches and Bill Pollian got fired too.

 

[ausbacker]

I think that it's utterly ridiculous to say that the Colts threw the season. Jim Irsay may have wanted that. But neither the players, the coaches or front office had any reason to throw the season. For players throwing a season means less money and for many getting cut. The coaches and Bill Pollian got fired too.

You do realise how easy it is to orchestrate the "wrong" type of match-ups in games to help encourage a particular result? I acknowledge your point regarding the coaches and staff but I believe they knew they were out the door with Manning's legacy.

Brackett was on IR in September, Collins on IR in October and Powers in December. It's not as if the Colts were magically devoid of talent because they lost Peyton Manning.

The team had some very good players. Brown and Addai, whilst not spectacular individually, were OK as a tandem and Wayne and Garcon nearly topped 1,000 receiving yards each.

No, once Collins was put on IR for his 3rd concussion, they conceded the season with the spectre of Andrew Luck on the horizon. It was the perfecting case of opportunity meeting with timing for the Colts.

 

[AzorianPats]

Relevant since we play him this Sunday. For the record, I like him - just not as much as Brady.

To the topic: Colts were 10-6 in 2010 and maybe showing signs of decline. Peyton is injured in the playoffs to the Jets. Next year Peyton does not play and Colts post a league-worst 2-14.

So how much of that eight-game freefall was from Peyton's absence? I'd like to suggest half of it is Jim Caldwell lost the team....compare with Brady's absence in 2008 - NE still finished 12-4 and should have been in the playoffs if it were not for tiebreakers.

I see this less of whether Peyton or Brady is more indispensable and more about Caldwell vs Belichick deal with injury situations.

It was the difference in which BB built his team compared to Polian.

BB builds teams to deal with the full NFL season, he builds teams for depth. If you give him $20mil to spend, he won't spend it on 1 or 2 guys rather 3 or 4. So therefore if an injury happens to a starter, the second guy on the depth chart wont be such a drop off. Next man up mentality. It gets criticized a lot but its shown to work.

Those Colts teams were top heavy teams. The top of the depth charts were loaded. From Manning to Edgerian James, Clark, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Mathis, Bob Sanders, etc. but the team was always built for Manning. It was an offense built to score points, and a defense built to go after a QB that was throwing on every play because they were down 2-3 TD's. They were a front runner team, that's why they almost always lost close games, especially in the playoffs. So when Peyton went down with injury, combined with aging players, and a couple of years of not so good/bad drafts, that's when you get a team like the 2011 Colts.

Its the same exact scenario today with the Pats and Broncos, except I do think the Broncos are much better defensively then those Colts teams, but its still a front heavy team.

 

[bogengames]

Anybody who believes that the Colts didn't intentionally lose that year is delusional. No the players didn't "throw" games , but lets just say management allowed them to lose.

 

[Oswlek]

They were a front runner team

Exactly. That "the Patriots went 11-5 without Brady, the Colts fell to 2-14" is horribly misguided. The Colts built a team that absolutely needed excellence at QB to even be competent. Their drop off says more about roster composition than it does anything about Manning.

Add in that NE actually had a solid backup (as well as loads more talent elsewhere) whereas Indy may have had the absolute worse QB on any team in the entire league (as well as the fact that they had little motivation to actually win as the year went on) and you get the season they had.

 

[Gwedd]

You absolutely CAN tank a season, and the Colts did just that. Once Peyton went down, their sole goal was to get Andrew Luck, and there was only one way to do that, financially. Manning was going to be out the door after that injury. It was one of football's worst-kept secrets. He was kept around for a year to help soften the loss, but Irsay had made up his mind, so.......

But as to HOW to tank a season, there are so many ways to lose a game. Who you put on the 43 for gameday, the game plan, the matchups on the field, even the coin toss. That was Indy's plan once Manning went down, and anyone with the slightest bit of football sense knows it.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The Colts threw the season to gain the #1 pick. That pick was always going to be Andrew Luck.

At some point, they packed it in. But I don't think it was the day they found out Manning was out for the season.

They tried 3 different QBs, and if they were really all in to suck for Luck, why did they win 2 of their last 3 games? Had they won their last game of the season, they would have actually missed out on Luck so you could say they threw it against the Jaguars on the road. Except they outscored them 7-3 in the final quarter and lost by only 1 possession.

Speaking of which, was the 2010 team really in decline? Sure, the record looks obvious (14-2 vs. 10-6). But consider that the Colts played in a ton of close games over those two years, and the biggest difference was in one-possession games. In 2009, the Colts went an incredible 8-0 in one-possession games, while the 2010 Colts went 5-5. Having an elite QB can often push your one-possession game wins higher, but going 8-0 is a pretty lucky thing.

Meanwhile, the 2011 Colts went 1-7 in those types of games. The conspiracy theorists will claim that as proof they were throwing the season, but part of that has to be the natural drop-off from a first-ballot HOFer to Curtis Painter. The 1 win in a close game came late in the season when they should have been throwing games to guarantee Luck's pick. So if they really were trying to **** everything up, they did a great job, because they were even ****ing up ****ing up.

Yes, coaches can set up poor game plans and do all sorts of things to screw up a game. But players don't care about draft status; they play for their next contracts and rookies be damned. The more likely story is that the Colts were a top-heavy team with a mediocre coach and a lack of depth. They were able to cover it up most of the time with a HOF QB, and once they didn't have one, the rest showed.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

What did the colts get for giving up a premier QB with a little something left in the tank? I'm fairly certain BB would get something of value for losing a player like that.

 

[AzorianPats]

What did the colts get for giving up a premier QB with a little something left in the tank? I'm fairly certain BB would get something of value for losing a player like that.

Well I mean they basically gave up Manning for Luck.

With the contract and injury Manning had, no team was going to pony up anything.

 

[RayClay]

I think they were the 20-25th best team (or some number) not the worst, so i think they pulled a disgusting tank.

Having said that, Peyton teams are designed to have a quarterback who alway puts up 30 or so points. They have a pass rush and fast defenders and a good line and they dare you to run. If they allow you to patiently move the chains they are easily collapsed. That's why I think direct comparisons with other teams are ridiculous. They spend all their money on offensive weapons and two pass rushers and dare you to be patient, while they put up enough points to force you into being a one dimensional passing team playing catch up.

it's a high risk model. You have to give credit to Manning, he pulls it off.

 

[ausbacker]

At some point, they packed it in. But I don't think it was the day they found out Manning was out for the season.

They tried 3 different QBs, and if they were really all in to suck for Luck, why did they win 2 of their last 3 games? Had they won their last game of the season, they would have actually missed out on Luck so you could say they threw it against the Jaguars on the road. Except they outscored them 7-3 in the final quarter and lost by only 1 possession.

Speaking of which, was the 2010 team really in decline? Sure, the record looks obvious (14-2 vs. 10-6). But consider that the Colts played in a ton of close games over those two years, and the biggest difference was in one-possession games. In 2009, the Colts went an incredible 8-0 in one-possession games, while the 2010 Colts went 5-5. Having an elite QB can often push your one-possession game wins higher, but going 8-0 is a pretty lucky thing.

Meanwhile, the 2011 Colts went 1-7 in those types of games. The conspiracy theorists will claim that as proof they were throwing the season, but part of that has to be the natural drop-off from a first-ballot HOFer to Curtis Painter. The 1 win in a close game came late in the season when they should have been throwing games to guarantee Luck's pick. So if they really were trying to **** everything up, they did a great job, because they were even ****ing up ****ing up.

Yes, coaches can set up poor game plans and do all sorts of things to screw up a game. But players don't care about draft status; they play for their next contracts and rookies be damned. The more likely story is that the Colts were a top-heavy team with a mediocre coach and a lack of depth. They were able to cover it up most of the time with a HOF QB, and once they didn't have one, the rest showed.

Regarding the bolded comment, I agree. I believe the Colts believed Manning was going to be available at some point early in the season. When it become apparent he wasn't going to regain his health as quickly as they had hoped, in conjunction with a losing record, then the team was put on its path to Luck.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Speaking of which, was the 2010 team really in decline? Sure, the record looks obvious (14-2 vs. 10-6). But consider that the Colts played in a ton of close games over those two years, and the biggest difference was in one-possession games. In 2009, the Colts went an incredible 8-0 in one-possession games, while the 2010 Colts went 5-5. Having an elite QB can often push your one-possession game wins higher, but going 8-0 is a pretty lucky thing.

Yes they were. Increasing the number of close games and losing a higher percentage of those is the definition of declining.

Not to mention the two losses that season were the result of the Colts packing it in. Even if they dropped some of those close games they're likely still a team 13-14 win team.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Yes they were. Increasing the number of close games and losing a higher percentage of those is the definition of declining.

Not to mention the two losses that season were the result of the Colts packing it in. Even if they dropped some of those close games they're likely still a team 13-14 win team.

I don't think that logic is entirely sound. The 2005 Colts went 14-2 as well and went 5-1 (including play-offs) in one-possession games. The 2006 Colts went 12-4, played in more one-possession games (9-3), and lost a higher percentage, but that "regression" ended in a Super Bowl season.

We're talking about small sample sizes here, but if we are going to be 100% technical about it, then yes, there is some decline because the 2010 team wasn't as good as the 2009 team. But my point is that the decline wasn't the beginning of a significant drop off a cliff. If Manning were healthy, that Colts team wins double-digit games and make the play-offs as usual, which is what they did the following season after upgrading from Curtis Painter and company to Andrew Luck. The drop-off had more to do with the QB than any other factors of decline.

When your best QB was the primary starter for the only winless team in NFL history, you're going to have a bad time, especially the way the Colts were constructed. It was not a balanced defense, but one built to Manning's strengths of playing ahead. They bulked up on pass rushers figuring they'd be up in games and not needing to worry about the run as much. That entire franchise worked around having an elite QB, and when they didn't, it fell apart quickly.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I don't think that logic is entirely sound. The 2005 Colts went 14-2 as well and went 5-1 (including play-offs) in one-possession games. The 2006 Colts went 12-4, played in more one-possession games (9-3), and lost a higher percentage, but that "regression" ended in a Super Bowl season.

We're talking about small sample sizes here, but if we are going to be 100% technical about it, then yes, there is some decline because the 2010 team wasn't as good as the 2009 team. But my point is that the decline wasn't the beginning of a significant drop off a cliff. If Manning were healthy, that Colts team wins double-digit games and make the play-offs as usual, which is what they did the following season after upgrading from Curtis Painter and company to Andrew Luck. The drop-off had more to do with the QB than any other factors of decline.

When your best QB was the primary starter for the only winless team in NFL history, you're going to have a bad time, especially the way the Colts were constructed. It was not a balanced defense, but one built to Manning's strengths of playing ahead. They bulked up on pass rushers figuring they'd be up in games and not needing to worry about the run as much. That entire franchise worked around having an elite QB, and when they didn't, it fell apart quickly.

It is if you you're basing things on record. Good teams win more close games than bad teams.

 

[PATS16N0]

The Colts were on their way to becoming a crappy team. I don't think 2011 would of been a good year for them at all, even with Peyton

 

[convertedpatsfan]

It is if you you're basing things on record. Good teams win more close games than bad teams.

Sure, but you could also say good teams win more games than bad teams too. That's what makes them good teams. I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make here, perhaps you can clarify?

The close games indicator is just that luck plays a huge role in it, and it's rarely a sustainable thing. Teams that do well in it one year don't necessarily do well the next, and vice versa. The one thing that can help is having an elite QB. But you don't have to be dominant in the category to do well.

The Seahawks went 5-3 in close games last year and went 13-3 in the regular season. They would tack on two more close wins in the play-offs, but they were hardly a dominant team in close games before the play-offs started. Their division rival and NFCCG competitor, the 49ers, only went 3-2 in close games in the regular season.

All I'm trying to say is there wasn't a significant decline in the Colts in 2010; it had more to do with some bad luck in Manning's usual magic in close games. And there was certainly nothing there to indicate the 2011 team was going to decline so significantly. There was similar talent on that roster, just not at the most important position.

 

[Boogs]

That team was built around Manning for Manning. No run game, with a defense that can't stop the run but can pass rush when your in the lead. I think Manning had just signed a new contract and got paid 27 million that year. That kind of money would come in handy if your player is hurt. They Colts were screwed because all their eggs were in one basket. And that basket broke.