SB Nation User Blog: FWColts

What About #88?

FWColts — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:32:23 -0000

Now that the season is (Unfortunately) over, we can start looking at the future.

Now, Marvin Harrison is one of the greatest wide receivers in history, one part of the greatest WR-QB combo ever, and a surefire 1st ballot for Canton-and if he gets Cris Cartered, the place should be shut down.

But Harrison is slowing down-His numbers are down, and it maybe his injury, or his age catching up to him-Who knows? Now, it seems to me that a lot of people, including those on this site, are basically concluding that Marvin's done, he won't be playing in Indy next year. I'm not sure, so I came up with a few possible scenarios.

1-Marvin Stays. This is possible, but only if he reworks his contract to clear up cap space. Bill Polian will probably sit Harrison(or his agent) down at some point, and have a talk with him about his deal. If Harrison agrees, and returns to his old form, the Colts have cleared up cap space, and managed to keep a hold of a HoF player. If not, he's a good #2 or even #3 receiver.

2-Marvin Gets Cut/Retires. This seems like the most probable option right now. If Marvin won't rework his deal, and can't/won't be able to return to top form, Polian will probably cut him-Or give him the option of retiring before he has to cut him. This means that Marvin Harrison and Tony Dungy will go into Canton on the same day in 2014; and it will also clear up cap space.

3-Marvin Is Traded. This is the least likeliest scenario, but it could happen. There are several organizations that would like a receiver of Harrison's caliber, the one springing to mind is Philadelphia. Since McNabb is staying, and Philly is not only Harrison's hometown, but also a pretty consistent playoff contender, this could be a trade possibility. Other franchises that might be interested-Minnesota, Seattle and Tampa Bay (I have no idea what these clubs cap situations are, they just seemed like attractive choices). Harrison would probably be worth a second-rounder(At best) or a couple of low round choices(At worst). If he returns to a high level, we'll look pretty stupid; or if he stays as he is, he can retire on his own terms, and the Colts will get a few extra draft picks out of it.

Your thoughts and comments?

The NFL Coaching Situation

FWColts — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:52:14 -0000

This isn't really Colts related, but I've been seeing a lot of this, especially from the media, but also from the fans this season, and I had to speak out.

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT BILL COWHER COMING BACK TO COACHING.

Now, Cowher's not the entire reason I'm saying this. It's the utter idiocy of people wanting guys like Cowher and Mike Holmgren to come resurrect their teams after a sucky season. I understand that Cowher and Holmgren get noticed because they won Super Bowl rings, and were generally successful, but they are done with football. Cowher looks happy in the studio, and Holmgren looks like he needs a year or two off before coaching again, so he probably won't be available immediately.

I do have a point here, and not just a rant. So, here's the point-Media, please look elsewhere for the savior of a franchise.

Look at the Atlanta Falcons. Rookie QB, GM and head coach, and they are in the playoffs! (And I will probably have to rethink my "Matt Ryan is overrated," position, but that's another post entirely). Mike Singletary has done an excellent job trying to turn things around in San Francisco, and Tony Sparano's Dolphins deserve an award of some kind for that turnaround.

My point here-Look for other people to run your franchise. Guys like the defensive coordinators for the Colts, Giants, and Titans-Ron Meeks, Steve Spagnuolo and Jim Schwartz-all deserve consideration for Head Coaching positions, in places like Detroit, Cleveland(Who also needs to lose it's GM) and Kansas City.

Cowher and Holmgren have done good work, but the media needs to let them go, and start looking for new blood.

Parity?

FWColts — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:57:15 -0000

The media, which usually has it's collecitve head stuck up it's ass, loves to talk about parity, where all of the NFL teams are equal thanks to the draft and free agency, and anyone team has a chance to triumph.

I regard this as a big fat lie. Here's why:

Good teams function together, and are capable of continued dominance over a period of time(The Colts and Patriots). Bad teams have only a short period of dominance, then suck for a long time(The Raiders, Lions and Rams). There are other examples, of course.

Now, the Colts and Patriots were able to maintain this dominance for so long because they both have pretty good front offices, excellent coaches, Hall of Fame quarterbacks, and good supporting players and staff. . They draft really well, and if they do go into free agency, they get their money's worth. And, because they win, they have enthusiastic fanbases, because those fans know that their teams have a good chance of winning.

Other teams, like the Raiders, overspend on players, and are generally a disfunctional mess. This is more the fault of Al Davis than anybody-He's so controlling and crazy that he's running a once-proud franchise into the ground. The Lions are another good example of a crappy team-The Fords get a good deal of blame for this one, as Matt Millen sucked for awhile, and how they couldn't see that was beyond me.

So, I generally regarded "Parity" as a myth. But htis season has made me think differently.

The Patriots and Colts, long the top dogs in their divisions, are struggling-This can be attributed to the injuries to Brady and Manning, of course. But other teams are facing the same issues.

The Chargers, who a lot of people thought would be Super Bowl contenders, are 2-3, thanks to a gimmick play from Miami(Miami!), and the blown whistle of Ed Hochuli makes the Denver Broncos the class of the AFC West. Green Bay, a step away from the Super Bowl, looked good, then got beaten by Tampa Bay, and fried by...the Atlanta Falcons, and Captain Prettyboy. Chicago looks to have gotten back some of it's Super Bowl swagger, and Minnesota isn't as dominant as it could be.

And the NFC East. I'm convinced that the NFC Champion for Tampa will come out of this division. From the unbeaten Champion New York Giants, to the rising Redskins, to talented Dallas, even to Philly, which will likely occupy the bottom rung of the ladder-The fight for a division crown will be bloody.

The Titans are 5-0, a scenario which seemed impossible in the preseason, and it was achieved by removing their supposed franchise quarterback, and replacing him with a veteran journeyman, and having a powerful defense. The Steelers are getting the crap beat out of them, and the Bengals suck really bad; the Bills are nearly undefeated and the New Jersey Bretts seem to have found a rhythm. And the Cardinals could be the NFC West champs, after the utter collapse of Seattle. All of these things seem to be a pretty good argument for parity.

I'm still not sure parity exists. The Colts and Patriots are still pretty good teams, and there is still a lot of football to be played-Anyone of these teams could suffer a catastrophic meltdown. But, if parity exists, this will be the year we see it.

Is Moving Franchises Okay?

FWColts — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:10:45 -0000

This was brought on by something that happened yesterday. A bunch of my friends and I were out getting a bite to eat, and moaning about our season so far. An older guy at the restaurant happened to overhear us, and sat down to talk football.

The guy was from Baltimore, and gave us some good-natured grief about how the Colts were stolen from Baltimore, and how good the Ravens were now. But we also had a really interesting conversation about the old Colts against the new ones(Side note:He got to shake Johnny Unitas' hand and watch him play, which is just extremely cool). He said that he was hurt when Bob Irsay moved the Colts out, but not outraged-He understood that it was a business decision. The same with the Browns moving to Baltimore and becoming the Ravens-It was business. The one thing he did disagree with was the name being moved-The Colts name should have stayed in Baltimore.

Now, I understand that the NFL is a high-profile corporation, and it needs to protect it's interests. But it also has an emotional investment from the cities it has clubs in, and that needs to be weighed as well. So, for example, if the Jags were to be sold, and moved to LA, should the Jaguars name stay in Jacksonville? The Rams-another team likely to be sold-are a different story. They were from Los Angeles at one time, and I think would be okay going back with that name.

What do you think? Do teams belong to the owner, meaning he/she can take the team name with them if they move? Or does it belong to the community, and if the team is moved its name should stay?

Why Colts Fans hate the New England Patriots.

FWColts — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:51:57 -0000

There have always been rivalries for the ages in the NFL:Redskins-Cowboys; Steelers-Browns; Packers-Bears. And right now, we have a new one-The Indianapolis Colts against the New England Patriots.

And we loathe them. Here are my reasons why. (And I'm going to get flamed on this).

#1.This wasn't supposed to happen. The New England Patriots were not supposed to be the dominant team in the NFL, the so-called "model franchise"-We were!

Bill Belichick wasn't supposed to be mentioned as a Genius, or be considered a Hall of Famer-He sucked as a Head Coach in Cleveland, and I think that whatever success he might have had in his assistant coaching and coordinating days was due to the fact that he worked under Bill Parcells. And whatever goodwill he may have built up in New England has been utterly squandered with this Spygate thing.

Tom Brady is another big reason-He was a nobody. The 199th pick of the Draft is not supposed to beat the #1 overall, is not supposed to be mentioned as a Hall of Famer, is not supposed to be called the Greatest of His Generation or the next Joe Montana, and is not supposed to be dating supermodels. He's supposed to be a journeyman quarterback at best, or cut at worst.
(It would be only slightly more tolerable if Drew Bledsoe were still the QB. I actually liked Drew, and as he was a #1 pick as well, there wouldn't be the unfair aspect).

#2.The media is biased toward the Patriots.

It's not even funny. Tom Brady still gets a Esquire cover piece about how great he is, and he lost! If that had happened to Peyton on the verge of the perfect season? He would have been called a choker, still can't win the big game. Brady slides out of it slick as can be. The Boston press-in fact, the entire New England area press-is so deep in the tank for Brady and the Patriots they will either drown in there, or won't ever sober up.

#3.The Patriots consistently beat us.

And this is the real root of it all-They win, so we must hate them. They beat us in 2003, and we were that close ot the Super Bowl. They absolutely fried us in 2005, and in 2007, we were the defending Super Bowl champions, with a perfect record. And all anyone could talk about was the Patriots, with another perfect record, which was especially hard after we lost. (Of course, I wouldn't trade that perfect record for what happened in SB42, but still...).

Now, of course, rivalries like this are a good thing-They help sell tickets and merchandise, and encourage interest in the games. And I will admit one thing-It is really and truly fun to watch the two of them go at it, and I was looking forward to watching them go at it in the new Lucas Oil Stadium, which is impossible now. (And I really hope that Brady heals okay).

But in the end, it comes down to this-The Patriots suck, and nobody will convince me otherwise. Our coach is better(And a whole lot classier), our quarterback is better(And his little brother isn't bad either), and in fact, our whole team is better.

And that is why we hate the New England Patriots.