Comments for Inexcusably Lazy at http://18to88.com , comment 1 to 29 out of 20 comments http://18to88.com Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:06:25 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1466 My reaction when I saw his article was: "Playoffs? Playoffs? Why are we talking about playoffs?" It's week 4!!! - Picky Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:22:23 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1465 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. - Bob M Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:10:34 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1464 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. - DemondSanders Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:46:48 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1463 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. - J.C. Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:32:15 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1462 Good point...the larger article I'll eventually write will reflect that. I was just giving a quick overview summary of the games here. - DZ Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:26:09 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1460 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. - Dave_H Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:52:51 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1459 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. - JGH Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:52:24 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1457 @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. - DZ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:59:08 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1456 Cass, you crack me up. A good laugh. Thanks. - coltsfanawalt Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:20:54 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1455 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 (7-8) 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. - Kevin A Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:17:09 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1454 The link below is to an ESPN article about Tenn's struggles this year. http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/8998/titans-issues-no-gains-and-losses-second-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 shit? 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. - Bob M Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:42:04 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1453 playoff game in 2008) That was a good year. I think the sunglasses are what eventually lost us that game. - Cass Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:26:03 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1452 the problem is that the Colts have made the post season in some years when they weren't that good (2003 and 2008). 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. - DZ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:00:53 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1451 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. - DZ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:55:59 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1450 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. - Monkey Business Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:51:44 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1449 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. - Kevin A Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:41:06 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1448 I wrote about four different responses to P4P (each with its own string of profanity) before finally deciding that Peyton should be president. - DemondSanders Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:18:13 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1447 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. - Bob M Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:15:04 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1446 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.... - Bob M Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:11:12 +0100 http://18to88.com/2009-archives/september/inexcusably-lazy.html#comment-1445 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. - DZ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:08:31 +0100