Skip to main content

Enough about the Colts already...

For the record, I have nothing against the Indianapolis Colts. When they reached the Super Bowl with Peyton Manning as quarterback, I was pulling for them to win. Even this year, with the unfortunate health troubles hitting head coach Chuck Pagano, I was rooting for the Colts to have a better-than-expected season. However, having said all that, I'm getting a little tired of hearing ESPN commentators drool and orgasm over this team and rookie quarterback Andrew Luck in particular. I think in the long-term, Luck is going to be one of the better quarterbacks in the league, but the guy is not there yet - not even close.

The Colts finished 11-5 on the season, but are they really an "11-5" football team?

Out of 32 teams, the Colts rank 22nd in rushing yards, 21st in opponents passing yards 29th in opponents rushing yards, and 7th in passing yards - largely due to the fact they pass the football more than just about anyone.

In the team's 11 wins, their opponents went a combined 71-105 (.403). Only three of these wins were against teams with above .500 records and two of those came at the very start of the season. In these 11 games, Indy outscored their opposition 269-201 (average of 24.5 - 18.3). These included: A 4-point win against Cleveland (5-11) at home, a 6-point win at Tennessee (6-10) in overtime, a 3-point win against Miami (7-9) at home, a 7-point win against Buffalo (6-10) at home, a 2-point win at Detroit (4-12), a 4-point win against Tennessee (6-10) at home, and a 7-point win at Kansas City (2-14). Seven of Indy's eleven wins came against teams with a combined record of 36-76 (.321) by a total of 33 points (4.7 point average).

The Colts' five losses were against teams with a combined record of 42-38 (.525) by a combined score of 186-88 (average of 37.2 - 17.6). This included a 26-point loss in New York against the Jets (6-10) and a 5-point loss to Jacksonville at home (2-14).

Overall, this 11-5 team was actually outscored by 30 points on the season - 387 to 357. Their opponents combined record was 113-143 (.441).

Also, look at the main difference between the games the Colts won and lost. They averaged to score 6.9 more points in their wins than their losses. On the other side of the field, however, their defense allowed an average of 18.9 more points in their losses than their wins. The biggest difference between the Colts' wins and losses this season wasn't their offense guided by Andrew Luck; it was their defense.

Andrew Luck finished the season ranked 26th in quarterback rating (out of 32) at 76.5, only ahead of: Ryan Tannehill, Jake Locker, Brandon Weeden, Chad Henne, Mark Sanchez, and Matt Cassel. He finished ranked 31st (out of 32) in completion percentage at 54.1, only 0.2 ahead of Jacksonville's Chad Henne. Lastly, he was tied for 3rd in the league with the Jets' Mark Sanchez in throwing 18 interceptions, just one behind co-leaders Drew Brees and Tony Romo.

It's hard for me to not pull for the Colts this year, but they remind of the Denver Broncos from a year ago, where the media seemed to fall madly in love with them, to the point where like a song that's been overplayed on the radio, it's resulted in me changing the channel when hearing these personalities discussing the team. Like the Broncos from last year, who played and defeated a beaten up Pittsburgh Steelers team in the first round of the playoffs, Indy could see a similar fate, as they take on a Baltimore team that has lost four of their last five games. However, that's the furthest they'll go this year. If they do win against the Ravens today, they'll face Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos and the Broncos, unlike last year when Tim Tebow was behind center, can actually score and score in the bunches this year. That's not a good match-up for a defense that's ranked 21st in passing yards and 29th in rushing yards.


http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ind/indianapolis-colts

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/interceptions/seasontype/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"