A fair-minded look at Kravitz

18 to 88

January 5, 2009

A fair-minded look at Kravitz

31 Comments

Recommended (3) | Share

JMV of 1260 WNDE and Derek Schultz of XL 950 join us with their takes on Bob Kravitz's latest self-generated controversy. Full disclosure for those outside the market: Bob hosts a competing radio show in the same time slot as JMV. My thoughts on Bob's new show are well-documented. JMV and the boys from XL 950 were holding down the local sports-talk scene just fine before 1070 decided to crowd the market with the radio equivalent of Jar Jar and the Ewoks.

Here is JMV's perspective: "Where do I begin? I understand disappointment, but I think you also need to keep a level head about the entire thing. Calling for Dungy's job is about as ridiculous as it can get. I think recognizing that will help folks keep their sanity if you happen to browse that piece-of-crap article. Now mind you, I like Bob, always have, but this is nothing more than a tit-for-tat at the Colts and Bill Polian. It is actually more about taking a shot at Polian than it is about this team "needing a new voice".

Bob feels that the Colts don't play fair with the Indianapolis Star. Maybe not, but openly crying will never help. That's just the way the Colts work. I also believe that Colts fans should be upset about the many playoff "one and dones", but believing that this team is coddled and needs a new voice is a joke. I thought they underachieved in the divisional round last year. I felt they did the same in the 2005 divisional round against the Steelers, but this year I just never thought the Colts played as well as their record would indicate. Regardless of a nine game win streak. What did people expect from a team that couldn't run the football, couldn't do anything in short yardage, and could not get an offense off the field on third down? Three major contributors to their loss Saturday night.

I don't think anybody believes you stay the same for 2009, but most of this foolishness comes from those that have no idea what the Colts were like before this decade. You need to be very careful what you wish for..."

My response: See, that was fair-minded. I know radio and print guys need stuff to talk about and I respect that. Saturday night's loss certainly provided plenty of fodder. But I feel like Kravitz is outright lying to himself and his readers. You can be witty and entertaining without being an a-hole. At least I'm told it's possible.

Like JMV said, do we really want to go back to the old days? Younger Colts fans (and newer Colts fans for that matter) don't remember how truly horrible the team used to be. I remember Lindy Infante and his never-ending willingness to punt inside the opposing team's territory despite his team being 2-11. We went to those games.

This afternoon I caught JMV's show on the way home and I was impressed. He was bombarded by insane callers claiming that he was being soft on the Colts and motivated by his need preserve future interviews with Dungy/Polian. JMV stood by his guns. He didn't rip Kravitz, like I would have. In fact, he said he liked Kravitz as a person. But he made no bones about the fact that Kravitz is agenda-driven and dead wrong. I liked that.

Derek Schultz of XL 950 also chips in with his opinion: "You know the funny thing about it is that every time I go into the locker room, Kravitz is in there being chummy with everyone. He would never have the balls to call out Marvin or Peyton or Polian to their faces.

I can understand he's pissy towards Polian for concealing information that he (as a super-duper-important member of the Indianapolis' sports media) feels entitled to. But, I can't understand why he continues to go after Dungy. In the span of just seven years, the guy has completely changed the culture around this team. I arrived in Indiana in the last year of the Jim Mora era and I can count on one hand how many die-hard Colts' fans I knew. Now they're everywhere. Not only are people proud of a winning franchise and a QB like Peyton, they're also proud to be represented by a man like Dungy.

I compare it to IU basketball. Once Sampson ran a river of sh-- through Bloomington, everyone realized that it wasn't worth abandoning their morals for winning. IU fans cared more about upholding their pristine reputation rather than keeping Sampson and going for what could've been a long Tournament run last year - instead they ran Sampson out and the team tanked.

With Dungy there's no Spygate, no ridiculous press conference antics, and no profanity-laced tirades on live television for the nation to see. Sure, he may have fallen short of expectations a couple different times, but he brought this city their only professional championship (no, the ABA doesn't count), and that's something that nobody can ever take away.

Maybe it is time for Tony to go, but on his terms and not for the reasons that Kravitz listed. For the people like Kravitz and some of the fans that had the same reaction, they don't deserve a guy like Dungy."

My response: Schultz (who comments here often and has been a big encouragement to us) hits on a really key idea. Without turning this into a 'culture war', people in Indiana are more conservative in general and like to follow the rules. The whole Belichick is a cheater thing (which was sort of overblown-and our response at the time was appropriately measured) resonated strongly in Indiana. People want to win "the right way". Dungy carries himself in a way that people here approve of. Except for those who lost money on the Colts Saturday night (in which case you are an idiot who deserves what you got. I don't gamble at all, but that game had STAY AWAY written all over it), I doubt there are really that many fans all up in arms at Dungy. Certainly not any of the ones with half a brain. It angered and shamed the state to see IU accused of relatively minor violations (most of what Sampson did wasn't even against the rules except for that he was on probation for violations at Oklahoma), and he was in the middle of a GREAT, possibly championship season. People turn on cheaters faster than losers in Indiana.

Tony is neither.

Thank you gentlemen for your opinions.

And now I present The Secret Life of DZ and JC: This is totally off-topic, but I was checking the official 18to88.com gmail tonight and was surprised (and honestly a little frightened) by a little window that popped up in the bottom corner of my screen. The result was weird:

Jeremy: DZ?

me: It's Demond. What the hell is this? some kind of chat function?

Jeremy: yea man
get with it

me: Do you and DZ get on here and gay it up?

Jeremy: yea

me: WTF

Jeremy: most def

me: this is creepy

Jeremy: well yea to old people it's creepy
so i get that
my mom is the same way

me: you and DZ need to get a room

my wife knew what it was.

i saw her using something like this on facebook last night

Jeremy: dude

me: and pretty much the same conversation took place

Jeremy: facebook chat is awesome

me: lol

i have a bob kravitz related post to make

i'll ttyl

Jeremy: what an incindiary m------f------ he is

So there you have it folks. DZ and Jeremy "JC" Cohen get on something called a G-Chat and talk to each other all day long like a pair of chirpy school-girls. Total mind blower. What do these two talk about? One guy works with the poor in South America and the other guy sells white-collar drugs (and real estate) in South Florida. I love the internet.

DZ Responds: JC and I have perfectly civil conversations about once a week. I already said that he was a decent guy. We found common ground this season over my rooting for the Patriots (because I hate Brady) and our common assessment that the 2008 Colts weren't any good and Manning had to be the MVP. Geeze, the internet is pretty weird...

Links:
There is a Harrison press conference today with the Philly DA about last year's incident. Check it out here live.

Marvin is in the clear. That's life on the streets, Florio.

Banks and King debate OT. I agree with Banks. King's solution isn't awful, but I see no reason to change OT. The Colts had a chance to win. They forced third and long. Want to win? Make a freaking tackle. Then they forced another. Want to win? Don't grab the receiver. Did Indy have bad luck? Sure, they did. Bad luck happens in every game. We had a lot of good luck this year too. Unless your team is head and shoulders better than the opponent, luck will decide a great preponderance of football games. That's why sports is awesome. You never know for sure what will happen.

Tags: Indianapolis Colts, NFL

Discussion

31 Comments on "A fair-minded look at Kravitz"

Posted by Schultz, January 6, 2009 10:28 AM

Picturing Kravitz as Jar Jar Binks made my day.

Thanks for posting my take. JMV isn't a Colts hater or homer, so he's a good source and the guy has a great radio show.

Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh, January 6, 2009 11:11 AM

So what's the definition of the "right way"?

Getting defensive back rules changed (oh sorry, "emphasis" changed) because your sissy wide receivers can't stand a lil' contact?

Posted by Westide-Rob, January 6, 2009 11:28 AM

Yeah because rationally lobbying with the other coaches and owners on the rules committee about correctly enforcing the rules that were ALREADY on the books is totally equivalent to Video Taping sideline sigals... nice rational argument.

Posted by shake n bake in reply to comment from patsfaninpittsburgh, January 6, 2009 11:46 AM

He got a majority vote in the competition committee and among the owners for a "point of emphasis". All that is, is a memo to the refs basically saying, "read the rule again, enforce it like it's written."

What a cheater.

Posted by coltsfanawalt, January 6, 2009 11:56 AM

There are commenters and contributors, and then there are instigators. Those have no intent on adding anything of value, but only intend to rile others up. They are best left ignored.

This is true of Kravitz and the pathetic Pats fan above. Just feel sorry for them both and be thankful that you are neither.

Posted by JC, January 6, 2009 12:08 PM

You got the point of emphasis enforced and Marvin still acts a bitch when the chips are down.

Guess that wasn't the problem. Maybe he just has no heart.

And I don't remember reading your reaction to the spygate penalty. He'll have a harder time getting into the Hall of Fame??

Posted by Deshawn Zombie, January 6, 2009 12:23 PM

That was the talk at the time. Several voters said they would have to think long and hard about it. Once the whole thing died down, and it was shown there was nothing worse in the tapes than what we all knew, people moved on, as they should have.

The 'unknown' hurt BB at the time. Once the full truth was out, everyone was comfortable with the punishment as given. Neither the NFL nor BB himself did anyone any favors by appearing to cover things up. They didn't, but it sure looked like they did.

It's beside the fact. The punishment was fair when it was given. It's over. My point wasn't to bring it back up as an issue, but to show that people in Indiana care about cheating more than winning. It's not that way everywhere.

And asking the officials to please call rules as written isn't worth of scorn. Troll.

Posted by stan, January 6, 2009 12:41 PM

Wow. The Dr. Jason and Mr. Whitlock character has let the evil twin loose on this one. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9033410/NFL-Truths:-Peyton's-a-choker,-LT-is-done-in-S.D.

I made the mistake of doing some googling this morning. I read a Colt fan who can't understand how a "talent rich" team loaded with stars like the Colts can underachieve in the playoffs. He writes that Saturday is the best center in the NFL and Marvin is a hall of famer, etc., etc., etc. Talent rich?! Loaded with stars?!

Do the networks broadcast parallel versions of NFL games? Seriously. Am I watching different games from the ones other people watch?

Are there really that many people who think a QB sux when 3 defenders swarm over him within 2 seconds of the snap? I seem to remember some playoff games with the Chargers and Steelers where that was a very regular occurence. And I remember a playoff game when the Patriots got 3 sacks while bringing only 3 pass rushers. Our six couldn't block their 3. I guess I just failed to appreciate how talented those 6 Colt star players really were.

Do these people even watch the games? Do they watch the regular season? Ask Vic, brain-dead as usual, writes that Peyton choked because his job is to win and he didn't win. Brilliant! That kind of insightful analytical ability just takes my breath away.

Grrrrrrrrr!

[I guess I just need to remember -- The stupid, the ignorant and the insane will be with us all the days of our lives..... They can't help it, they were born that way ..... They should be pitied, not scorned ...... Stupid people need love, too. .... Bless them, they know not what they do .........]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr,

Stupid dumbasses.

Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh, January 6, 2009 3:54 PM

Now the latest excuse for this year's debacle is that overtime is now unfair. Poor Peyton didn't get the ball in O/T.

So when is Polian going to whine about the defensive penalties on the last drive? How about letting play? No way that was interference.

There is nothing wrong with the Dolt defense. Maybe if the Dolts trade for Cassel, they can get a clutch QB.

After six "one and done"'s, the defense deserves an offense that can come through in the clutch. Manning and Harrison sure can't.

#10

Posted by Demond Sanders, January 6, 2009 4:12 PM

Whatever else happens, can DZ please promise us he won't become secret friends with PATSFANINPITTSBURGH?

#11

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from patsfaninpittsburgh, January 6, 2009 5:07 PM

Dude, you are hilarious. You love to kill the strawmen there, don't ya'?

The OT rule is fine and fair. I hate college OT.

The Colts defense played fine. Well enough to win.

The offensive line wasn't good enough all year, but especially not on a day when Indy started 5 drives inside the 10.

If Manning was such a choker how come everyone in that stadium freaked out when the Chargers won the toss.

They knew it was their only chance to win.

If you watched or knew anything about football, you'd know that.

And, for the record JC for all his a-holishness and honestly frightening comments about drunk driving, is at least an honest enough observer of football to understand the truth about the 2008 Colts. They weren't any good, and Manning made the look a whole lot better than they were.

All we ask around here is that people 1. be honest and 2. be prepared to bring it if they disagree.

#12

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Deshawn Zombie, January 6, 2009 5:31 PM

At least he didn't toss in the whole "Colts have been getting all the calls for years and only won the super bowl because of a bad call" argument that is so common everywhere else. People listen to Phil Simms and other morons or cite the current rule book about Face Guarding and say the call against Hobbs was wrong. In fact, it was the correct call, and the rule was changed afterwards! (Yes, after a Colts-Patriots AFCCG, a rule was changed... one that would've benefited the Patriots.) It's funny that they think that that was what won the game for the Colts... it was on a 2nd down inside the red zone while they were moving the ball easily and it tied it at 21. Morons.

I think Freeney was dumb to mouth off to Michael Silver about the refs, but anyone who doesn't understand his frustration, given how many blatant holds on him are missed every game, is an idiot.

#13

Posted by Cass, January 6, 2009 5:40 PM

I know it's bad to speculate...but if we had won the toss (tails never fails), do you think we would have won in overtime? With a kickoff coming up, not a punt, I think Peyton could have done it. What do you think?

Oh, and PATSFANINPITTSBURGH, all three of the defensive penalties on the overtime drive were legit. I had no problem with the officiating in the game. They knew coming in that Ron Winter's crew calls the most penalties of any officiating crew. They were pretty consistent in calling anything close.

Overtime isn't unfair. You want the ball? Force a punt. There are times when your offense can get the ball first and never give it to the other offense. We haven't complained about overtime. Polian isn't complaining about this officiating. We complain about the 2003 AFC Championship game. That was bad officiating. We complain about the first Jaguars game this year, where Rasheen Mathis mugged Marvin right in front of the official. We are not complaining about this game. It is your arrogance coming onto this site and ASSUMING these things that makes us hate the Pats so much. For the most part, it's not the team. It is their idiot, arrogant, and insulting fans.

#14

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Willy Duer, January 6, 2009 5:49 PM

Faceguarding was not the reason for the call (and it was legal to faceguard at the time).

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/01/28/nfl_hobbs_call_was_correct/

#15

Posted by JC in reply to comment from Willy Duer, January 6, 2009 6:37 PM

That was a bullshit call. A handout to a team in desperate need of a break.

And who was that punk ass TE that caught like 12 balls in the 4th quarter? UTEP....University of Texas El Passo??

#16

Posted by JC, January 6, 2009 6:47 PM

Did Leyritz get off yet?

#17

Posted by Bob M, January 6, 2009 7:40 PM

I am bored at work and avoiding actual NFL reading, so I did some poking around for info on refs, flags, etc.

http://refchat.blogspot.com/2009/01/ron-winter-in-colts-chargers-wild-card.html

It's random and not the reason we lost, but still, it is quite damning. Mainly the 6 penalty disparity between teams (Keep in mind two called against the Colts were declined, for an 8-flag disparity, but the general data only includes accepted penalties, so we can't count those.) All season, only 12 out of 256 games had such a disparity for the home team. And only 17 games out of 256 in which the home team had only 25% of the accepted penalties. (There may be some overlap there.)

Weirdly, home teams win 63% of the time with this officiating crew and the NFL average is about 57%. (lesson: get them at home! Like the Pack did.) Small sample size warning.

So it SEEMS, that for whatever reason (he doesn't like to hear booing?), Winter's crew favors the home teams. I am sure the NFL parses the data on these crews, but at first blush, this seems... inappropriate, to say the least.

#18

Posted by Bob M in reply to comment from stan, January 6, 2009 7:47 PM

Thanks, Stan, for reminding me how our 5 or 6 could not block their 3. It's like psychoanalysis opening an old wound you had successfully repressed. Do I owe you $200 for 50 minutes for that treat?

BTW, folks, on 2nd and 3rd viewing of the Dobbins sack on Manning, it was a great defensive play IMO. Yes, Robinson missed the block, but I'd like to see the TE that makes it. At the snap, Dobbins was walking to his left, hidden behind the DL, and looked as if he was going out to the flat or wasn't even paying attention. I had to rewatch a few times to see where he came from--the answer is nowhere. 18 missed him "hiding" behind the DL, Gijon probably did as well.

Now a hold or something once he realized Dobby was a threat.... ah, never mind. If 18 had seen him pre-snap, he would have spiked it or dumped it off or at least looked in that direction, not looked downfield with a double-pump. Maybe he missed one at the wrong time, maybe he assumed Gijon had him, I don't know.

#19

Posted by buzz, January 6, 2009 7:51 PM

Looks like football outsiders put up there DVOA info for this last weeks game and as expected the Colts did outplay the chargers 5% to 2%. And also as expected the offense blew away the chargers offense 21% to 6%. The defense also won their side of the ball 6% to 21% but got destroyed 17% to -10% in special teams. Also a note on the offensive VOA 21%, while slightly lower than their year to date 25%, sure doesnt sound like a whole lot of choking to me. In fact their offensive VOA was the highest of the weekend narrowly outdueling the ravens and cards.

#20

Posted by buzz, January 6, 2009 9:04 PM

I think i must have stepped into a whole new sub universe or something when I read this quote on cold hard football facts "We’ve piled on Peyton Manning in the past for his obviously sub-par performances in the playoffs. But maybe we’re being a little unfair. As one poster in the CHFF Forum noted this weekend, it’s hard to look like an all-star when your top battery-mate fails to show up year after year.

In fact, given Harrison’s disappearing act in the playoffs, maybe Manning has gone above and beyond the call of duty, winning seven of 15 playoff games while playing with just 10 men on offense."

This is in regards to Harrison's consistent under performance in the playoff games...one that I can actually blame as choking in the playoffs, if there is such a thing. Maybe they are finally catching on for the first time ever.

#21

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Deshawn Zombie, January 6, 2009 10:40 PM

I must be getting old. My memory of that play and the aftermath is completely wrong. What the hell?

Bob, that's the site I found before the game to learn that Winter led the league in flags (before Michaels told us all, which was good reporting by him). I discounted the 64% vs 57% because it's only a stat for 2008, which means the sample size sucks, and it's only a one game variation. In fact, I don't think points scored in his games really matter either. And if you're trying to judge how flag happy a crew is it's dumb to ignore the declined penalties.

That said, I'm glad they posted about it. My only problem with the crew was that they seemed to switch between flag happy and silent a few times, when consistency is important, especially in a playoff game. If you're going to be the crew that calls the most penalties, call the most penalties the whole game. There were plenty more they could've called.

#22

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Bob M, January 6, 2009 10:56 PM

One thing to note is that Manning was smart to take that sack. A spike or incomplete pass would've stopped the clock and given them 30 more seconds and a free timeout. No way he spikes that.

For the record I love the OT rules. Sure there's a chance you don't see the ball, but if your D steps up and gets a 3 and out, you get the ball back in great field position on their punt (less likely in that game, of course) and you only need a couple of first downs to win it with a field goal. If the D makes a stand it's actually less work for the offense to win it.

#23

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from Willy Duer, January 7, 2009 7:10 AM

He didn't have a choice. He didn't see Dobbins coming. It wasn't that great a defensive play, Robinson didn't know the snap count. Saturday's comments after the game were pretty revealing. He said that on the last play, "Not all of us understood what was going on, and some guys got confused". If Robinson has the experience in the system to know what count to go on, he at least gets a hand on his man. As it is, he came in unblocked (but NOT unaccounted for) and that's death for the QB. The QB has to be ready for a blitzer, but if he has the blitzer accounted for, he should be able to trust his line to at least touch the man and give him half a freaking chance.

#24

Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh, January 7, 2009 9:00 AM

#11

Huh?

Like the massive 3 points Manning and Co. put up in Cleveland. A game won by the defense with a 4th qtr touchdown.

How about 2 late interceptions in Pittsburgh?

Without your defense being clutch this year, your team would be lucky to be 8-8.

Now comes the offseason and another round of rule changing design to try to help "3rd and 2" get beyond the first round of the playoffs.

#25

Posted by Deshawn Zombie, January 7, 2009 9:24 AM

I'm sorry. I forgot that Peyton Manning is the first quarter back in history to have a bad game in bad weather and need his defense to win one. That never happened to Tom Brady against the Jets in the year they went 18-1...oh wait.

Yes, Freeney and Mathis helped the Colts get to 12-4. But without Manning and with them, the team goes 4-12 or 3-13. Without Freeney and with Manning...we already saw that story last year.

If your point is that teams win and lose football games, not individuals, then we agree. TEAMS win games, not QBs. Since the days of Sammy Freaking Baugh, QBs have had to sit on the sidelines while their teammates made plays on defense to help or hurt.

Don't tell me about the Colts defense. I thought it played it well. Very well in some games, tolerable in most, awful in one or two. It wasn't a dominant D, like Pittsburgh or Baltimore. But it was certainly an average one with a penchant for big plays.

I guess you are trying to blame Manning for the "3rd and 2" play by calling him "3rd and 2". That's cute. No QB in football would have converted that play with his TE forgetting to block. Most QBs wouldn't have had to. They would have had the running game to do run the ball there. If the Colts had had a running game or a valid offensive line in 2008, both the defense and the passing game would have played even better than they did. Unfortunately, they couldn't run block or pass protect.

So you keep calling him "3rd and 2". It only makes you look clownish.

This is it for you. If your next post doesn't contain a real point, a real argument, or some semblance of cogent thought other than just silly name calling and rehashing the same nonsense you've already been bitch slapped for, you'll be screened out. You aren't interesting enough to keep around, and you aren't funny enough (even in a trained-monkey kind of way) to waste any more time on.

You are boring us. If we wanted to read nonsense like what you write, we'd hang out on the foxsports.com message boards.

#26

Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh, January 7, 2009 2:15 PM

Zombie

It's hard to believe but you are getting somewhere. Now it's time to figure out "where is".

Here is what you should acknowledge:

Your defense played well enough to win. The two TD drives were on short fields because "3rd and 2" couldn't get it done in his own end zone against the 31st ranked pass defense.

Imagine if "3rd and 2" made a few first downs.

Imagine if "3rd and 2" completes a 3 yard pass.

Imagine if "3rd and 2" had some pocket awareness and did something. Imagine if Dolt fans actually accepted reality and realized "3rd and 2" was negligent because he never realized he was being blitzed?

Your defense made big plays this year to decide games. let me list (again):

Pittsburgh
Jacksonville
Cleveland
New England

Is Indy a 4-12 without Manning? Maybe. However, Manning is a 6-10 to 8-8 QB without your defense making game changing plays.

Polian whined about defensive pass interference after the 2003 AFCCG. The sissy NFL gave into him. Now Freeney wants to whine about the calls?

Notice all the talk now about "unfair" O/T rules? Why is that? Can you guess?

Even without a running game, how can the greatest quarterback the universe has ever hoped to produce not get it done against the 31st ranked pass defense?

#27

Posted by Deshawn Zombie in reply to comment from patsfaninpittsburgh, January 7, 2009 2:35 PM

I'm going to let this one go, because I sense the almost birth of a new argument. You aren't smart enough to quite make it, but it's something that bears commenting on.

First, I don't know how many more times I can say the defense played well enough to win. I said it after the game. I've said it constantly.

Manning knew he was getting blitzed. He had a man assigned to pick up the blitzer. That man forgot the snap count, and never laid a hand on the blitzer. Any QB would have gotten killed in that situation, except maybe a rookie QB who is so insecure and bad at football that he would stare at the blitzer the whole time, crap his pants and throw a pick 6. If QB has a blitzer accounted for in protection, his best bet is trust his line and make the throw. I'm guessing you aren't as dumb as you sound, and already know that though.

The 'new' issue you raise is the oft quoted "San Diego had the 31st ranked pass D stat". Any defense, even a bad one, is better when A. They have a team pinned inside the 10 yard line consistently, B. The the offense has NO running threat and C. The offense has a terrible O line. Manning threw for 300 yards. He had a passer rating over 90. By almost every measure he had the best or second best day of a QB last weekend. The Colts had three drives that combined for more yardage than ALL the Chargers scoring drives. They moved the ball fine. It's just hard to go 90, 95 yards every time. Still, Manning had TD drives of 81 (86 after a false start) and 91 yards. That's amazing for a team that couldn't run or pass block.

It burns you up that Manning played great on Saturday. That's ok. You live in a simple world where QBs are responsible for everything. It's ok to just watch the ball and listen to Terry Bradshaw talk and think you know something. So if you really are so stupid to believe what you write, then God bless you.

If you want to keep posting:

1. Stop mentioning the defense making plays argument. It's wrong; it's boring; it's been refuted. A Brady fan has NO business ripping a QB for having a defense that made plays. Any winning QB in history has had a defense that helped win games. It's a team sport. Unless you are claiming the Colts had a top 1-2 defense in football this year and they single handedly won 12 games by holding teams under 10 points, you need to shut up. No one buys it.

2. Stop the rules changing crap. Neither the Colts nor anyone on this site has advocated at any time any rules changes. In 2003, Polian asked the officials to call the rule as it was written. No rule was changed (but you know that). This year, we don't want OT changed. I personally don't want the playoffs changed (although you might since your team didn't qualify), though I know some of our readers (and my brother) favor seeding by record.

Them's the rules. Stop repeating yourself. Have something new to say. Or stay away. These are your choices. We endure you, because it's my policy to let anyone talk who has something to say.

#28

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Deshawn Zombie, January 7, 2009 6:40 PM

That's a hell of a post, DZ.

I'm sick of people citing the Cleveland game as some fucking triumph of the defense and terrible game for Peyton. It was just one of those games. Bad conditions, a solid game plan by a fired up team, some bad luck, and only a little bit of poor play.

Cleveland had the ball that entire goddamn game. Their offense was just good enough to move 4 yards a play and stay out there but just bad enough to never score any points (they are the Browns, after all). They had TWENTY third downs. It's almost as if every first down they gained took 3 attempts. Tons of plays, tons of clock running, thus no time for the offense. Throw in a rookie center against a monster DT - Cleveland's only good player at that point - and a bit of wind, and honestly it's a surprise that there weren't more turnovers. Manning played pretty well, all things considered, going 16-21 in the wind. 2 of the 5 incompletions were picks, one of which was a hail mary. His only awful play was the other pick, and that was a pretty good throw - just a bad decision. Honestly, he played a lot worse in a few other games where the offense did score points. Chicago and Green Bay being the first two that come to mind. In fact, he was +35 in DYAR that game, good for the 11th best performance of the week. The biggest problem, I thought, was the failure of the running game (Peyton included) to score from the 1 on that one drive. If they punch it in there, the Browns cave, since they were basically playing scared, and who knows, the O could've played great from then on.

That's not to say that the big play by the D didn't win it. It obviously did. That game isn't one we cite when listing his qualifications for MVP. But it wasn't his worst effort of the season either. That game was just... weird.

#29

Posted by Willy Duer in reply to comment from Willy Duer, January 7, 2009 6:57 PM

Evidence for my point about Cleveland not being that bad: It was actually the 4th worst game in terms of DYAR this year, and it's easy to argue that the Bears game DYAR is inflated due to so many attempts.

Here's the season game by game totals, though for some reason both TEN games are omitted:

91 SD

? TEN
260 JAX
134 DET
180 CIN
35 CLE
89 SD
167 HOU
157 PIT
156 NE
? TEN
3 GB
189 BAL
56 HOU
-5 JAX
-2 MIN
68 CHI

Pretty soundly defeats the idea that "he sucked against Pittsburgh" and "the defense won that one", given that he was the most effective QB in the league that week. The Jags game that "the defense won" (by sucking all game except for one play) is in the running for highest DYAR of all time.

#30

Posted by anonguy in reply to comment from Willy Duer, January 7, 2009 9:58 PM

Reggie dropped a freaking TD pass that he thought the defender wouldn't try and rip it out of his hands. McDonald's INT was like Cromartie's one hander in the rainout game in SD, a freaky athletic move that will never be repeated if you redid the play a hundred times.

#31

Posted by Chip Bennett, January 8, 2009 12:02 AM

Why is that douche still here?

He seems to love to call Manning "third and 2"

Well, by that same argument, our defense could have been called "third and long" - for basically the entire season.

Our defense thrived on the big plays: sacks and turnovers; however, they dug themselves way too many holes by not being able to get off the field, due to their inability to stop opposing offenses on third and long.

It happened again in the SD game - especially in overtime.

But, I'm glad to know that he thinks Manning should be playing TE as well as QB.