Casey D Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Yeah, I agree. Sorgi? Why not just use Travis Brown? He's got the skills on the team. Also, get rid of Harrison b/c the guy isn't worth the money either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD 207888[/snapback] I agree with your 1st sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD 207888[/snapback] Hilarious. Very witty, and thoroughly original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD 207888[/snapback] Even though their defense can't stop the run for sh--. Give me a break. If they re-tool their defense, the Colts can definitely compete for a Super Bowl. Sorgi over Manning? This is the dumbest post yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Even though their defense can't stop the run for sh--. Give me a break. If they re-tool their defense, the Colts can definitely compete for a Super Bowl. Sorgi over Manning? This is the dumbest post yet. 207896[/snapback] The Colts defense played pretty well. 0-6 against NE shows he can't win a big game. Cut Manning, add some beef to the defense, and the Colts might do something... CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 The Colts defense played pretty well. 0-6 against NE shows he can't win a big game. Cut Manning, add some beef to the defense, and the Colts might do something... CD 207932[/snapback] See Dillon's yards per carry? How many yards did Faulk have? How many three-and-outs did they hold NE to? How about turnovers? A good defense gets off the field and gives the ball to the offense. Indy just didn't do that today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 See Dillon's yards per carry? How many yards did Faulk have? How many three-and-outs did they hold NE to? How about turnovers? A good defense gets off the field and gives the ball to the offense. Indy just didn't do that today. 207960[/snapback] My post was tongue in cheek as JoeSixPack understood . But when a team spends all its money on one side of the ball--the offense accounts for almost 80% of the Colts payroll--you are supposed to win by outscoring the other team, not asking your defense to shut out NE. The Colts scored 3 points. I think blaming their defense is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Hilarious. Very witty, and thoroughly original. 207893[/snapback] Thank you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 My post was tongue in cheek as JoeSixPack understood . But when a team spends all its money on one side of the ball--the offense accounts for almost 80% of the Colts payroll--you are supposed to win by outscoring the other team, not asking your defense to shut out NE. The Colts scored 3 points. I think blaming their defense is silly. I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying the Bills would be foolish to get rid of Bledsoe, because the Pats made Manning and his offense, clearly a better offense than the Bills', look inept? Or are you just saying that the defense wasn't to blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying the Bills would be foolish to get rid of Bledsoe, because the Pats made Manning and his offense, clearly a better offense than the Bills', look inept? Or are you just saying that the defense wasn't to blame? 207995[/snapback] I was simply drawing the same conclusions, based on similar empirical evidence as between Bledsoe and Manning, that many people make vis Bledsoe. Even though the Bills finished 9-3 under Bledsoe, the need to can Bledsoe now is supported with arguments such as (1) he didn't win the big game against Pittsburgh, which proves he can't win big games, (2) he can't beat New England, (3) he can't lead the Bills to a Super Bowl win. All these arguments apply with equal force--perhaps greater-- to Manning, yet as RuntheDamnBall observed, the idea of cutting Manning is absurd. Yet he has shown he can't even be competitive against New England. 3 points? So the excuse is to get him a defense? Nice thought, but he, along with James and his receivers, get paid way too much for Indy to have a good defense--there is only so much money to go around. My post was simply to show the irony of some of the arguments made here--which are often sophistry upon examination. Whether we should start Bledsoe or Losman is up to the coaching staff in my opinion, I just want them to play the guy that gives us the best chance of winning in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I was simply drawing the same conclusions, based on similar empirical evidence as between Bledsoe and Manning, that many people make vis Bledsoe. Even though the Bills finished 9-3 under Bledsoe, the need to can Bledsoe now is supported with arguments such as (1) he didn't win the big game against Pittsburgh, which proves he can't win big games, (2) he can't beat New England, (3) he can't lead the Bills to a Super Bowl win. All these arguments apply with equal force--perhaps greater-- to Manning, yet as RuntheDamnBall observed, the idea of cutting Manning is absurd. Yet he has shown he can't even be competitive against New England. 3 points? So the excuse is to get him a defense? Nice thought, but he, along with James and his receivers, get paid way too much for Indy to have a good defense--there is only so much money to go around. My post was simply to show the irony of some of the arguments made here--which are often sophistry upon examination. Whether we should start Bledsoe or Losman is up to the coaching staff in my opinion, I just want them to play the guy that gives us the best chance of winning in 2005. That's what I thought you were trying to say, but the "get Manning a better defense" thing threw me off since I didn't think anyone would be blaming his defense for today's performance. So bravo on the post. But then again, I'd be interested to see what Manning COULD do with Brady's defense and coaches. That would be an awesome sight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seadog Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Maybe Payton should restucture his contract and let the team get some linebackers. Rob Morris is a joke. I thought that guy was in the booth with Trev Alberts years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 The reason Indy only scored 3 points was all those drops by their receivers. You can't go on 14 play drives if your receivers keep dropping balls. Nor can you get yardage in big chunks if your receivers can't get open deep. You put any QB in the situation Manning was in today, and he'll get beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 That's what I thought you were trying to say, but the "get Manning a better defense" thing threw me off since I didn't think anyone would be blaming his defense for today's performance. So bravo on the post. But then again, I'd be interested to see what Manning COULD do with Brady's defense and coaches. That would be an awesome sight! 208047[/snapback] Indy's defense played well in the first half, but they allowed some very long drives in the second half. They need some more beef in their front four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 That's what I thought you were trying to say, but the "get Manning a better defense" thing threw me off since I didn't think anyone would be blaming his defense for today's performance. So bravo on the post. But then again, I'd be interested to see what Manning COULD do with Brady's defense and coaches. That would be an awesome sight! 208047[/snapback] It's funny, but over on the Colts board, there actually is discussion about whether the Colts could get a first round pick for Manning because he is a choker. Most think no because of his cap figure. It really is true that fans everywhere tend to focus just on the QB when things go wrong--even when he is the league MVP-- and little else. Simplicity must give people comfort, I guess that's why Bush is president too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 It's obvious that the Colts will never win a Super Bowl with Manning. Given the amount of money he is paid, it's time for the Colts to move him and start Jim Sorgi. If they need an interim QB, I think Kurt Warner would work for them. But Manning is through...CD 207888[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 The reason Indy only scored 3 points was all those drops by their receivers. You can't go on 14 play drives if your receivers keep dropping balls. Nor can you get yardage in big chunks if your receivers can't get open deep. You put any QB in the situation Manning was in today, and he'll get beat. 208087[/snapback] sounds like a familiar scenario...where have I seen that before...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2pink1stink Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Colts should try and move Manning before the draft. SF needs a QB bad. Polian should trade him for this years #1 pick and a loaf of sourdough bread. That's sounds pretty fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 It really is true that fans everywhere tend to focus just on the QB when things go wrong--even when he is the league MVP-- and little else. Simplicity must give people comfort, I guess that's why Bush is president too. 208391[/snapback] Didn't you just do what you were mocking with your first post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts