Inexcusably Lazy

I woke up this morning not planning on doing a major post. I was up late working on 18 Plays. I have 'real job' responsibilities to tend to. I just didn't have the time.

Most importantly, there was nothing to say. The Colts played great. The schedule looks sound. There are injured players, but no real concerns. When there is no real angle on a day, I try to keep my mouth shut. Coming up with stories is hard work. I refuse to just write garbage to fill this slot each morning.

Not everyone works so hard. Some columnists are so incredibly lazy that they'll just write whatever so long as they can fill a page of print.

Apparently, that's who Bob Kravitz is.

Kravitz wrote a column today saying the Colts will lose in the first round of the playoffs. That's no crime, per sea, and there could be valid reasons for holding that opinion. I can think of lots of reasons this season might not work out: teams clamp down on Wayne/Clark, the run game vanishes at the wrong time, injuries on defense mount instead of recede, Caldwell goes conservative in a big game, ect. I'm not saying those are probable, but they are reasonable and it is possible to make a sound argument around some of them. It would take some work, creative thinking, and sound research. But, if one is going to say the Colts aren't for real, you'd had better give some reasons for it.

Bob doesn't give any. Instead, his argument is more simplistic:

After Sunday night's game in Glendale, Ariz., Wayne joked with me in the locker room.

"Hey, you picked us to lose," he said, smiling. "What's up with that?"

"Yeah, I picked you to lose," I told him. "Every year in the playoffs I pick you to win, and where does that get me?"

Until further notice, these are still the Atlanta Braves of the NFL. What they are doing, what they have done, is absolutely startling. What's this now? Twelve straight regular-season victories? The remarkable has become commonplace. Parity, it seems, is for everybody else.

And yet, without winning in January, it doesn't seem to matter quite as much.

So Bob has no reason for ripping the Colts other than irrelevant games that happened 5 years ago. The truth is this column is lazy. Bob had nothing to write today, and he's been pretty easy on the Horse recently, so for no reason at all, he turned his pen on them. No analysis. No logic. Just emotion and recrimination.

He does quote one stat about the Colts' points production in the playoffs. Of course that goes back to 1999 and there's only two players from that offense still around (Manning and Saturday). Hell, it goes back to the 41-0 game after the 2002 season, and the only guys on offense still here from that game are Manning, Wayne, and Saturday.

He kills the Colts for losing in San Diego, but that was because he was too stupid to see the flaws in that team and wrote a big column about how they were sure to win when anyone with eyes knew it was going to be a tough game to come away with.

There's no analysis in his piece. There's no explanations, true or false. He doesn't provide any reasons why the Colts lost those games that might be applicable to this season. If anything, the entire story line on the Colts has been CHANGE for the past 6 months. It would seem logical to assume things would be different this year. Bob, however, focuses on the one thing that is the same: 18. His only 'logic' is that he subtly insinuates that it's because Peyton Manning is a choker:

For all the regular-season greatness, for all the gaudy numbers, the bottom line is that the Colts are 7-8 in the playoffs during the Manning era. In those eight losses, the Colts have averaged a meager 13.6 points per game, despite the widely held perception it's the defense that holds the Colts back.

I've seen this movie before.

So have you.

Go ahead and have Super Bowl dreams, but do so at your own peril.

Ah, so that's the Colts' problem? Manning? His 90+ rating in the last three losses are the reasons the Colts didn't win? Did he even watch those games? He wanted Dungy fired for the playoff losses, and now Tony is gone, but Kravitz STILL wants to pile on.

It must be Manning. He clearly blames Manning for everything that has gone wrong...every bad call, every injury, every tough break in the past decade.

I'm not going to go through the normal litany of reasons why this kind of thinking is stupid. I've done it scores of times. At this point, if you can't accept that the NFL playoffs have become a royal crap shoot every January, there's not much more that I can do to convince you.

But surely, SURELY after what we've seen Manning do already this year, we can elevate the discussion of the Colts beyond the level of "Manning is a choker". Even Bill Simmons can see that's not true.

All the rest of us can.

Bob Kravitz can't.

He's lazy. Not because of what he said.

Because of how he said it.

Comments (29) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by DemondSanders, September 30, 2009

Such a pointless column to write in week 4 of the season.

...not near enough credit
written by Doug England, September 30, 2009

The Colts current streak of winning 12 or more games is a record that I think is greatly under appreciated.

And the fact that they got there last year is amazing. Instead of looking at it like the Colts lost in the first round of the playoffs again, a more reasonable way to look at it is that when the Colts were 3-4 they basically won 8 playoff games in a row, because if they had lost any of those games, they would not have even qualified.

Discounting that the Colts win in the regular season, makes it sound like anyone could do that. But the NFL is only sixteen games, not the 162 of Major League Baseball or the 82 games of the NBA. Except for perhaps the last game of the season when everything has been decided, every game is important. You can't take a game off in the NFL. And winning at least 75% of your games for six straight years is other worldly.

...
written by sb, September 30, 2009

What's weird is that there are a host of reasons why the Colts may struggle against the best teams in the league, but 18 isn't one of them. If he wants to write a story that says don't get too excited about the 3-0 start, he's got enough material to post stories for two weeks.

The Colts struggled mightily in the first two games. One good game against a Cardinal team that made a lot of mistakes is not a good reason to start dreaming big. But with all the possible juicy targets, he decides to fire at 18?!

Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."

...
written by DZ, September 30, 2009

Exactly. That would be a better angle to take.

Lots of reasons to doubt.

One reason to believe. Number 18.

Confusing them at this point should be impossible.

...
written by A.J., September 30, 2009

That's what Kravitz is: He's an instigator. He's a button pusher. He's all that instead of being a good columnist. Yes, it's possible to instigate and push buttons and at the same time still be a good columnist, but Kravitz is not that. Which is why I stopped reading his drivel. He mistakes agitation for good writing and therefore eschews deep analysis in favor of instigation. He composes risable columns on purpose in order to get reactions out of people while leaning on lazy conventions instead of working to gain genuine insight. After all, what is it he's writing today that Massachusetts writers cheerleading for the Patriots haven't said in years past? What does that tell you? Kravitz is not only not original, he's not even up to date. And for some odd reason, he and too many others who read and apologize for him think this is the mark of a good columnist.

There's a difference between "honest" and "relentlessly negative". Honest is based on analysis; his work is based on surface impressions only. If it weren't, he wouldn't couch his columns in superficial generalities like he does. I don't want him to be relentlessly positive either - that just turns work into agitprop - but my point is that instead of working towards gaining insight, he simply falls back on the crutch of the "controversial". And (*yawn*) he knows controversy like Hollywood knows Catholicism: In clichés and painfully flat, stereotypical cariacatures. Rather than work, he tries to push buttons. And all that comes out of what you said: He's lazy.

It is not a badge of honor to be a "love to hate" writer. Yet, he wears it that way, like an ignorant student wearing his dunce cap with pride. That's why I don't read him. Chappie and the two Phils are better writers at that paper, even after you account for the difference between an opinion writer and a reporter. Their work is worth reading. Columnists for other sources, like Peter King for SI are worth reading. Kravitz is not. I've lost nothing by avoiding him. In fact, you can say I gained something: I no longer am distracted by the miasm of superficial reasoning mired in poor insight. And I can spend that attention on rewarding the writers at the Star who are worth their salt.

...
written by Ross C, September 30, 2009

as im in the uk, this was brilliant, the long bomb td down the right side, we knew it was going to be a touchdown,
as on our coverage, our color analyst, Mike Carlson, said touchdown and manning was in the process of letting ball go, we hadnt got back to al michaels and cris collinsworth. brilliant,

also loved reggie's thing after his td, where he put the ball in the air as if to say, oi ref, touchdown please, i caught the damn thing.

btw i went with eli over peyton in a survivor league this week, im going to be saving peyton for st louis me feels.

I also think, we have won the afc south already, tennessee are too far behind already to catch us, jacksonville and tennessee are too inconsistent to do anything as i was saying 2 my mate b4 the season started.

also we have to play baltimore, the jets, and the broncos, (all 3-0) right now. i'd say as manning in recent years as owned baltimore, we would sweep all three games,

All I need to know, and that Bob should know
written by dmstorm22, September 30, 2009

is that we have Manning. If you look back at last year, we won the Minny game, the Pitt game, the San Diego game, the second Jags game for one reason: 18. He makes me feel that we can win every game. There is honestly not a team that I feel we can't beat.

Yet, that does not mean no one can beat us. This is the NFL.

ripping kravitz
written by peyton4prez, September 30, 2009

Here you go ripping another writer for something you wish you would of done. This site is about negativity towards the team and most of the stuff Kravitz has done is usually negative. He beat you to it this time so stop crying like a baby

-2

...
written by peyton4prez, September 30, 2009

And by the way Deshawn Zombie atleast Kravitz has the gonads to do an article like that under his real name. Deshawn Zombie what a fake

-1

...
written by DZ, September 30, 2009

The problem isn't that Kravitz wrote a negative column. It's that he used no facts, logic, data, or arguments. He just said, "They'll lose because they always lose".

You are the only person on earth that thinks this site is negative about the Colts.

As for my real name, it's not hard to find. I use a pen name as a messed up way of honoring Bob Sanders. My real name and bio is on the site. Take two minutes and find it.

History
written by Bob M, September 30, 2009

Mister Kravitz KNOWS that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In fact, history is all that matters to him. I'll go one further--historical events without context.

So for his benefit, I have emptied his 401(k) and otrher retirement accounts and invested all proceeds in Enron and Worldcom, two high-flying stocks that positively soared a few years ago.

Enjoy flipping burgers when you're 95, Mister K.

Yeah, Deshawn Zombie, why are you hiding? Are you a criminal or something... why won't you ever tell us who you are? Oh, wait....

Maybe it's that Demond Sanders guy... what a stupid, phony, made-up name. Nobody could ever have a name like tha...? Huhn? Um, n-no #21, I w-was just kidding, really....

oh, and peyton4prez
written by Bob M, September 30, 2009

The phrase is "would HAVE done" not "would of done" regardless of how it sounds when said. "Of" has no place in a verb.

Sorry for being an ass--it's a pet peeve.

...
written by DemondSanders, September 30, 2009

I wrote about four different responses to P4P (each with its own string of profanity) before finally deciding that Peyton should be president.

thanks for pointing out the elephant
written by Kevin A, September 30, 2009

When national pundits were predicting the Colts demise, they were saying, without saying, that we have seen the best of 18. The Colts have been a team full of warts that Peyton has been able to cover and help bring to 12 wins every year. I am not a fanboi, I am not a cheerleader for the Indianapolis Manning's - I am only stating fact. Look at Football Outsiders. middle of the pack on D, below middle on special teams, below middle on run, top of the heap on the pass game. Make the pass game middle of the pack and you have a middle of the pack to below middle team.

Now, there are three or 4 ways for the Colts to get better. 1.) Manning play better with no other phases changing. (through 3 games, he has performed a tad above expectations on key stats like YPA) 2.) Manning to play the same with other phases getting better 3.) Manning to play worse with the other phases getting exponentially better. 4 and the super bowl possibility of 4.) Manning to play better with other phases like run game, special teams, run defense play better.

In order to get worse, it would require 1) rest of team stays the same, Manning declines 2.) rest of the team gets much worse, Manning stays the same (or decline of the rest of the team cannot overcome Manning upside. 3.) Manning declines, the rest of the team declines.

When they talk about the decline of the Colts, they talked about the loss of Marvin and coaches would make them worse - inferring that it was the passing game that would take a step back. When that happened, their other deficiencies would not be able to be covered. So, they were claiming that the decline would be Manning induced.

Only 3 games in and challenges still abound for the team. I don't think that Manning will end the season at 10 YPA and 68% completion percentage - which means that even if he finishes at 8.0 and 66%, it would mean 7.5 and 64% for the rest of the season. They won two games on the final possession and it is probably safe to say that anything less from Manning and they lose the Miami game. So, if he regresses to the mean (his mean, which is a high mean), the only way the team makes the leap to SB favorite this year is if they get healthy on D and the run game shows more of what they did against Arizona.

Kravitz is calling out Manning as the reason. He conveniently forgets the multiple starts inside the 10. He forgets the missed block by Robinson last year. He forgets the missed block by Ugoh on Merriman that caused the terrible forced throw on the last drive. He forgets that Vanderjact missed a FG against Miami that would have won a playoff game, and alas, Vandy wouldn't have had to call out Manning for not winning a playoff game. He says things like Rhodes was the "real" MVP in SB 41 and forgets that the reason that there was room to run was because safetys were off of the screen in fear of a deep pass and he was choosing the right play to run against a 7 man front.

I personally don't think that the Colts have the juice to get it done this year. They still cannot get off the field against good, accurate QB's. They still cannot get push to finish out games on the ground in the end. They still have just enough weaknesses to allow games to be close enough for bad things to happen at then end. And heaven help us if Freeney does not come back 100%

However, if the do not win this year, #18 will be at the very bottom of the list of reasons and not the top at Kravitz insinuates.

...
written by Monkey Business, September 30, 2009

Just gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a second, and say that Kravitz does have a point, even if he expressed it in his traditional ham-handed fashion.

Specifically, this quote:
"The remarkable has become commonplace. Parity, it seems, is for everybody else. And yet, without winning in January, it doesn't seem to matter quite as much."

I think we can all agree that we'd gladly sacrifice those 12 plus win seasons if they meant Super Bowl titles at the end. Ultimately, winning in the regular season gets you to the postseason, and for all of the Colts' regular season success, EVEN IF IT'S NOT ALWAYS THEIR FAULT (see NE 2004, SD 2008, etc.) because of "external circumstances", i.e. uncalled defensive pass interference bordering on mugging or a punter playing the game of his life, the Colts are merely average in the post-season. Consistent, but average, with a win column buoyed by the 4 wins en route to the Super Bowl in 2006.

Yes, winning the playoffs is hard, and winning the Super Bowl is ridiculously hard (probably the hardest title to win in pro sports). But, it still doesn't whitewash the fact that the Colts, minus the SB run, are 4-8 since Manning's arrival.

For Colts fans, we EXPECT 12 wins. It's in January that we don't know what to expect. The team that wins 12 games, or the team that loses 4 games.

Great thoughts
written by DZ, September 30, 2009

Very well said.

Here's the thing (and I wrote this to Kravitz), we KNOW that just relying on Manning can't be enough. He played amazing in 07 (and really in 05 and 08 too), and we still lost.

If just Manning being incredible was all it took, we'd have won the San Diego game in 2007. It takes more.

If everyone is healthy on D come January 1, I think we have have enough to get it done.

In a few weeks, I'm going to write the definitive "why we lost each playoff game post". In brief it will look like this:
1999: no run game
2000: D collapsed, horrible coaching, Vandy
2002: D collapsed
2003: Manning played bad
2004: No run game, D collapsed (it did.)
2005: O line collapsed, Vandy did too
2007: D collapsed
2008: No run game.

Now, I'll go into more detail about that, but essentially only one game was Manning's fault.

...
written by DZ, September 30, 2009

the problem is that the Colts have made the post season in some years when they weren't that good (2003 and 200 smilies/cool.gif

. So as a fan you have to ask yourself:

Would I rather make the playoffs and overperform but lose in the first round in some painful way,

or

would I rather just finish 7-9 like a normal team and feel good about bouncing back the next year.

The playoff losses hurt, but not as bad as staying home would. I look back at that list and don't see any one thing that cost us those games. There are some factors that showed up multiple times, but mostly it's been a mixed bag. There's no one global answer to the question of why the team came up short, but there's one thing I KNOW isn't the answer:

Peyton Manning.

Yeah, I remember that
written by Cass, September 30, 2009

playoff game in 200 smilies/cool.gif

That was a good year. I think the sunglasses are what eventually lost us that game.

This is worth a look
written by Bob M, September 30, 2009

The link below is to an ESPN article about Tenn's struggles this year.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnat...cond-down

The hidden message for Colts fans is, hey, we're not so far off the death spiral. Okay, perhaps I exaggerate, but Donald Brown is a league "leader" in rushes for 0 or negative yards (in terms of percentage of carries). No s**t? Spin that, Addai haters. (He's in decent company--W Parker, F Gore, D Ward, C Johnson, L Johnson, but still, whew. The think I loved about Edge was his consistency--no zeroes and a lot of 2-5 yard gainers.)

While the Titans' average 2nd down yardage to go is the league's 4th highest at 8.69 yds, Indy's is close and ranked 7th at 8.55 yds. I'm not feeling so well all of a sudden. We average 1.45 yards on every 1st down? Sounds crappy to me. I know it includes a lot of incompletions for 0, but it also includes Clark's 80 yd TD.

Finally, I can't quite believe this, but Indy's average TOP is NOT the worst despite 15 minutes in Miami? How is that possible? Ball control Tenn is 3rd worst at 26:33, behind Oak and Buf.

If we manage to work these things up to the middle third of the league, the O will truly be imposing.

...
written by Kevin A, September 30, 2009

One thing that Manning does not get enough credit for is that he exploits teams that he is supposed to exploit.

Since his "leap" in 2003 from top rung current QB to all-time great:
The Colts have played 99 games
Even if we assume that the 3 wins this year came against teams that will finish with a losing record at the end of the year, it looks like this:
Against "winning teams" >.500 at the end of the season:

39 games (25-14)
21.1 completions per game
32.8 attempts
64.2%
251.9 yards
7.7 YPA
1.7 TD/G
0.8 Int/G
94.674 passer rating
1.4 sacks per game

In games with less than 9 wins:
60 games (53-7)
19.0 completions per game
28.0 attempts
67.1%
230.8 yards
8.2 YPA
2.0 TD/G
0.5 Int/G
108.049 passer rating
0.7 sacks per game

Manning's playoff stats (7- smilies/cool.gif

23.2 completions per game
37.7 attempts
61.6%
280.5 yards
7.4 YPA
1.47 TD/G
1.13 Int/G
84.9 passer rating
1.1 sacks per game

but wait, what about playoff games after the leap year in 2003 - to compare apples to apples
Manning's playoff stats post 2003 (7-5)
24.8 completions per game
38.3 attempts
64.9%
304.1 yards
7.95 YPA
1.75 TD/G
1.25 Int/G
90.945 passer rating
1.2 sacks per game

So, in reality, as much as everyone really wants to say that Manning is a different QB in the post season, When you compare him to his game against teams with 9+ wins (the large majority which ended as playoff teams), it actually looks very, very similar. The difference is the int per game (9 of the 15 picks came in 3 games).

In the regular season, Manning is 53-7 against .500 or worse teams but 25-14 against 9-7 or better teams (.641). Post 2003, he is 7-5 against these teams in the playoffs (.583). One win substituted for a loss (i.e SD with a 1st down at the end) it is 8-4 (.667).

I know that it dispells myths and that makes the haters angry, but the Manning in the playoffs is basically the same Manning as he is against winning teams in the regular season. The problem has been the TD/Int ratio - 5 additonal picks than what his regular season against winning teams would suggest. KC '06, NE '03. They got away with one against KC. He crapped the bed (addmittingly) against New England.

It could be seen as a criticism - growing the overall resume against weaker competition. But, I see it as a badge of honor. Manning exploits weaknesses better than most and that reflects in the stat book. Poor teams have more weakneeses to exploit. In the world of up & down week to week any given Sunday NFL, the fact that the Colts are 53-7 against losing teams (.883) winning percentage tells me that 18 doesn't take a week off from the play book or preparation.

You would think that CHFF would see this. They are the ones that trumpet "quality wins" Even if his performance against quality teams is worse than his performance against lesser teams, it is still at all-time great level. However, sometimes it just isn't enough in January - especially on the road when the other portions of the offense (i.e. run game) aren't working.

...
written by coltsfanawalt, September 30, 2009

Cass, you crack me up. A good laugh. Thanks.

...
written by DZ, September 30, 2009

@Kevin and Bob...

I love running a blog where I get the kind of readers who do interesting research and that kind of good thinking. I spend time every day running around the internet looking for people writing the kind of stuff you guys just posted in the comments here.

Great stuff. Thanks so much.

PS Bob: Just got The Brothers K delivered to me. I'm greatly looking forward to my vacation in November so I can read it. Thanks for the recommendation.

misinterpreting the stats?
written by JGH, September 30, 2009

Bob M wrote: "While the Titans' average 2nd down yardage to go is the league's 4th highest at 8.69 yds, Indy's is close and ranked 7th at 8.55 yds. I'm not feeling so well all of a sudden. We average 1.45 yards on every 1st down? Sounds crappy to me. I know it includes a lot of incompletions for 0, but it also includes Clark's 80 yd TD."

The stat is "average 2nd down yardage to go", not average 1st down yardage gained. If they gained 12 yds on first down 5 straight times, then gained 1 yd the next time, the average 2nd down yardage to go would be 9 yds. The average yds gained on 1st down would be just over 10 yds.

About those losses
written by Dave_H, September 30, 2009

Blaming the defense by itself is incorrect. Blaming Manning by himself is also wrong. A good share of the blame lies up front on both sides of the ball.
In those eight playoff losses the Colts allowed an average of 167 yards on the ground, while rushing for a mere 67 yards per game.
I'm not Vince Lombardi or anything but when a team gets out rushed by a hundred yards a game it seems fair to say they lost the battle on the lines in those games.

...
written by DZ, October 01, 2009

Good point...the larger article I'll eventually write will reflect that. I was just giving a quick overview summary of the games here.

...
written by J.C., October 01, 2009

I went a little nuts last night (because I have nuts) and traded Rivers, Michael Turner, his backup and the Giants DST for:

Brees
Addai
Coffee (Gore's backup - to see bulk of carries for short while)
Chargers DST
Favre

My cousin Joe is holding on to Donald Brown like the Trinity Killer held on to that bitch in the bathtub Sunday night.......so if Addai doesn't score touchdowns and be he typical productive self out of the back field - I got slayed in that deal.

Please tell me he's going to be a serviceable #2 guy.

And also......it's been my experience that Colts are excellent Fantasy Playoff guys. Consider the wonderful irony.

...
written by DemondSanders, October 01, 2009

Getting Addai right now is a smart move. He's starting to get things going. I don't see any way Brown takes his spot this year.

Return of Edge
written by Bob M, October 01, 2009

I love hearing Manning talk about Edge this way, on IFR yesterday.

http://indyfootballreport.com/index.php/archives/3807

JGH, Thanks SO MUCH for clearing that up--That was a boneheaded interpretation on my part. Avg 2nd to go is NOT the inverse of avg 1st down gained. I had it right there in my comment--Clark's 80-yarder TD did NOT result in a 2nd down. Ugh. Sol, while Avg 2nd down to go is important, it has to be evaluated in conjunction with the avg 1st down gain to have any real meaning. (My guess is that Tenn's avg 1st down gain is a LOT less than ours. whew. I'm happy again.)

DZ, enjoy Brother's K. I am damned if I can't find my copy.... been looking for it off and on for a couple years. Never let your wife organize your books. As a bachelor I had the 19th C Novel section, the physical science section, the nature section, mysteries, contemp fiction, etc. She did it mostly by author's last name. Looking at the bookshelf next to my desk I see Richard Adams (Watership Down) next to Aeschylus (some plays I barely remember) next to Jane Austen (Emma, Pride...) Frustrating.

So last year, after the Colts started off 2-2, my Seahawks season-ticket-holding sister-in-law came over for dinner on a Sunday night after a Hawks game. She asked point blank "Why do the Colts suck so much this year?" I never rubbed it in (it seems that their seasons went in different directions after that), but am considering it this weekend, oh, around 1 pm local time. Bwa-ha-ha-ha.