Originally Posted by Pez (Post 13366)

I love the idea that we are under the radar and I have a large sense of optimism that we will win our division and a playoff game this year.

What I don't have is any sense whatsoever of persecution... What evidence does the press have to put the colts into the top half of the league, or that we will win our division? I see none... I see a team with massive holes, poor coaching and an culture that things saying "we have to get better" is ok.

As soon as they can PROVE otherwise by example, then I will feel like my team is being persecuted / underrated.

Originally Posted by Pez (Post 13376)

and fuck the pats

Originally Posted by sherck (Post 13357)

Two articles on NFL.com today:

First one ranks the top 15 offenses in the league....Colts are not even in the list other than at the end as an "honorable mention."

Second article listed the 2016 division winners in reverse order of whom is most "safe" to repeat and who is most vulnerable to getting beat out in 2017. HOU was listed as most vulnerable but TEN was identified as the team to do so with no mention of the Colts.

Keep swimming under the radar. Just keep swimming, swimming.....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Wyatt (Post 13539)

Originally Posted by HoosierinFL (Post 13248)

The criticism of Luck is pretty unfair. I saw something on ESPN yesterday where they were criticizing him for throwing too many INTs. Thing is, he doesn't really throw a lot of them!
Luck's first 5 years: 18, 9, 16, 12,13
Years 1, 3 and 4 (12 ints in limited play) were problematic, but year 1 is forgivable, and year 4 was a fucked up season.
But consider some of the numbers from those considered all time greats:

P. Manning: 28, 15, 15, 23, 19 (I mean wow, that's terrible!)
D. Marino: 6*, 17, 21, 23, 13, 23 (*first year was not a full season, so I included a 6th year)
J. Elway: 14, 15, 23, 13, 12 (overall comparable to Luck's numbers)
J. Montana: 9, 12, 11, 12, 10 (now those are some good numbers, but that west coast scheme was revolutionary back then)
T. Brady: 12, 14, 12, 14, 14 (and this is from a guy generally reputed to be safe with the ball, and was playing in a more conservative system in his first few years)
B. Favre: 13, 24, 14, 13, 13 (and who went on to have several more 20+ INT seasons later in his career)

So there's literally nothing unusually high about Luck's INT numbers. I didn't even bother factoring in things like TDs and attempts, so that the numbers could be seen more as an INT rate instead of raw numbers, but given how much we throw the ball, Luck's INT rate is surely low compared to these others QBs.

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13375)

How is a top 10 scoring offense that essentially returns all its key contributors not evidence of a top 15 offense?

Originally Posted by Pez (Post 13624)

I would start by saying 8-8.

Then I would probably try to get the witness to mention 3rd place in the AFC south.

I would probably close with the fact that the Texans more or less tried to give us the division late in the season and the colts, despite being a top ten scoring offense, could not execute.

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 13653)

This is as stupid as people who said Brady is better than Manning because Championships.

Yes, the defense sucked. What does that have to do with the fact that you will not find 15 better collections of offensive talent anywhere than what the Colts have?