Turf Toe 1-2

[Crunked]

http://www.pigskinheaven.com/gallery/files/7/Turf-Toe.gif This one will make you mad....
Opening salvo's:
Maybe I am eating the wrong colored cucumbers but does defense really win Championships? Careful how you answer, because to say yes, the Colts have a good defense is calling a defense that finished 23rd overall and 32 against the run, a good defense....say no and you must then define what makes a champion



I offer this summation, "Champions need to be able to run, and stop the run...."

They said it....
"All year they dogged our defense and said we couldn't win a championship, we got D now don't we?"~Dwight Freeney

Okay, will the game go down as the "Soggy Bowl"?

Breaking fabrication:
League owners are now re-evaluating the City selection process, they are looking for the cities to host future Super Bowl's to be the best defenses they can find, ya know so they can win Championships.......otherwise future SB must end in a tie by league rule

Ban-able phrases:
"I take my hat of to them"
"Defense Wins Championships"

Heart of the Matter:
My drive to stamp out stupidy continues.....If Defense wins Championships, how did the 32nd ranked run defense get crowned? Wait...wait, let me guess, they miraculously turned into the number #1 NFL defense over night? Is that what I am hearing?

But no one makes the "defense wins championships" statement after the fact, boys and girls....they use it as a qualifier as to why a team WON'T win, or why a certain team WILL win...so own up you can't have it both ways tell me right now, it comes down to this...Either the ranking system for NFL defense has it all wrong (and they could) its 2007 and Tackles still are not an "official" stat....or the statement "defense wins Championships" is all wrong (and it could be look at the Colts)...but all those defense wins championships people cannot, I will not accept them, simply cannot stand there and say well the Colts played better defense so the theory is still valid...

Your theory then by your own admission, means nothing in the regular season......................nothing.... whatsoever, because a statistically bad team may play great at any time (that is what you are saying if you defend this).......you can't use it against them before they play....remember you want to use this as hindsight analysis now....in fact that means that saying can only be used once a year, ............you may use it right after the Super Bowl to explain why team A beat Team B....because by definition, by logic you have to admit, if that saying applies to this year...then you have to admit that at any time the leagues worst defense can play like the best....at any time.

So are you so ready to give up your beloved saying?, ........shelve it only to dust it off and use once a year? You better be, because your theory, your catch phrase just became obsolete....I encourage you now to jump on my bandwagon, or be rolled under the spoked wheels of progress...

(SIDE BAR) If defense wins championships what are all those points doing on the board? I mean I love Manning's explaination, "Our job as an offense is to outscore them", ......so he feels OFFENSE has something to do with the outcome, will this catch on and become a trend?, teams trying to outscore each other for victory?? Imagine a league where the team with the most total points at the end of the contest won the game?....yeah you are right, too difficult ........................to difficult to fathom, as you were......

Crunked Says:
If defense wins Championships why did we crown the #32 run defense?......

The best-the worst-the ugliest of the week

Best
Watching the leagues 23rd ranked defense out play a top defense

Worst
This weeks worst, is the ugly, ugly rain drops at the Super Bowl, and why the heck did the dome team become the team to handle it better, settling down after a wild first quarter? Me thinks ... we must have had the air conditioning to our backs....
Ugliest
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/5825/toebulletiz0.gif I gotta do it, sorry...the worst by far has been talk radio and its callers out of the New England area.....The Friday before the SuperBowl, local talk shows were still whining about the officiating in the AFCC game, and that the "officials" cost the Pats the game. Callers from the area were echoing their sentiments...of course I am biased on this position, but I do recall those same talk shows being some of the most vocal in the shut up and quit whining Seattle circles last year.....Does anyone that is NOT a Pat fan think that game was officiated poorly? If they do I have yet to hear it, my personal take was that there were two bad calls in that game, one went for the Pats, one against, which to me is a rub...but I must of watched a different game.

[Blackmallard]

Another thing that is overlooked when judging a defense is the impact that the offense and special teams have. Take the Ravens game, in which the defense supposedly won the game. They were of course aided in that effort by the offense. The Ravens began in Colt's territory only once all game. It is a lot easier to keep points off the board when you get four or five chances to stop a team than when one first down puts them in fieldgoal range.

There were two drives in particular that took a lot of pressure off the defense and helped them keep the score down. After they got the goalline turnover Baltimore was still in a position to put points on the board. If the Colts do not get two first downs, or if they turn the ball over, the Ravens would be right back in scoring position. Instead Indianapolis went all the way across the field and kicked a fieldgoal.

The other drive that showed how sometimes the best defense is a good offense was in the fourth quarter. The Colts got the ball up by only one score with about seven and a half minutes left. Seven and a half minutes is enough time for Baltimore to try to score at least twice particularly with three timeouts. Instead, the defense never had to make another stop since Baltimore did not get the ball untill it was too late for them to do anything.

Then take the New England game. The same defense took the field in that game that did in the others, but allowed many more points. It had a lot to do with New England's beginning field position. They started in Indy territory multiple times, mostly due to poor kick coverage.

I'd also like to note that every "great" defensive performance can also be called a "lousy" offensive performance by the other team. Plenty of people actually did attribute each Colt's victory to offensive miscues by every team they faced.

Finally there's the Bears game. The defense did very well, they shut down Chicago other than one big running play that led to a TD. That didn't stop Chicago from getting 17 points. Indianapolis's offense had to find a way to get points up against a Bear's defense that does not always surrender them. The Bears have held loads of teams under 17. Yes the game was sealed on an INT return for a TD, but if Indianapolis had not taken the lead already by scoring on offense do you really think that pass would have been thrown?

[Crunked]

What you are saying is true, and kind of my point....I have never agreed with the defense wins championship statement because I felt it was more all 3 phases in synch...and that is the argument I am trying to make with those who believe the mantra, I either want them to convert, or to show me how only defenses have won every SB ever, because I just don't believe it...just like your observation about a good defensive performance = a poor offensive one, you are so right and the reverse is true too I have heard that a defense hasnt played bad, that the offense was off the hook carving them up.... just more proof that that saying is far too subjective to be taken seriously, and understand I am a defensive loving guy

[jjflr]

What happened this year with the Colts, though, has never happened in the history of pro football (as far back as I can remember).............this defense looked like the '85 Bears during the playoffs after looking like the 2006 Colts in the regular season..............

it's impossible to make sense of what just occurred over the past month with the Colts..............

fact of the matter, the Colts would NOT have hoisted that trophy if their defense had played like it did in the regular season...............they transformed between week 17 and their first playoff game into the Baltimore Ravens defense and THAT is what won them a championship..............so defense DOES win championships...............in this case, however, the Colts put 2 different defenses on the field...........one in the regular season and one in the playoffs............and the one in the regular season was good enough to get them in the playoffs but wouldn't have won a championship.........the one that appeared in the playoffs carried them to a SB victory............

[Blackmallard]

What you are saying is true, and kind of my point....I have never agreed with the defense wins championship statement because I felt it was more all 3 phases in synch...and that is the argument I am trying to make with those who believe the mantra, I either want them to convert, or to show me how only defenses have won every SB ever, because I just don't believe it...just like your observation about a good defensive performance = a poor offensive one, you are so right and the reverse is true too I have heard that a defense hasnt played bad, that the offense was off the hook carving them up.... just more proof that that saying is far too subjective to be taken seriously, and understand I am a defensive loving guy

You can never "disprove" the defense wins championships thing since unless special teams wins a game on its own SOMEONE'S defense is going to play a key role. If you go into a game with the mantra "offense wins championships" you could look at the outcome of the game in those terms and always be right as well. Look at this year's playoffs the better offense won every game the Colts played. It's too bad that the Bears were 5th in defensive ranking this year or we could throw out the old "Top three D meets Top three O in the Superbowl" thing. It was really disproven when the Colts faced the Ravens in Baltimore, but now we'll hear it again if it ever happens.

I certainly do not want to take anything away from the Colt's D, but they did not carry the team on their back through a single game in the postseason. It was a two pronged effort, with special teams doing their best to make things "interesting".

The D probably could have carried the Colts through the Chief's game basically on its own, but the offense was marching up and down the field all day as well.

I think we have staved off anyone saying "special teams wins championships" for the forseeable future, which is too bad since special teams are already under-rated as it is. Special teams has cost the Colts several games over the last few years, and made several more really interesting. If the special teams improve it will help the Colts a lot to get back to a division title even if they lose some free agents.

[Crunked]

ahhhh, but it doesnt have to be "TOTALLY" disproven, my aim is to show that is flawed, some might even say "FATALLY" flawed and thus cannot be used as a "LOGICAL" assertion between two teams...its like the skeptic, that doesnt aim to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial life, just that UFO's are not real... therefore saying THere are no UFO's doesnt prove little green men don't exsist just that they haven't been here......(Crunked logic Disclaimer: objects in mirror are closer than they appear)

[Soel v25]

.
Crunkmeister:Does anyone that is NOT a Pat fan think that game was officiated poorly? If they do I have yet to hear it, my personal take was that there were two bad calls in that game, one went for the Pats, one against, which to me is a rub...but I must of watched a different game'


Crunky,Crunky,Crunky, how do I set you straight? Other than the 1 or 2 questionable call(s) in that game, nobody has a legitimate gripe. There has never been, nor will there ever be a perfectly officiated game. That being said, the Pats let it go, not the refs. The reason that I very seldom (unlike some members here) listen to those talk radio shows, is because many if not most of them, are flooded with the know-it-all, whiny types. While I reached the very hieghts and depths of emotions during that game, never once or since, did I, or anyone I know, think that the game was lost due to officiating. NO WAY - NO HOW! Please don't take that sampling as an indication of the Pats or their fans true feelings regarding that game.

[Crunked]

Soelman,
(Crunked attempts lawyerese)
I do not, nor did I think anyone here was amongst that group...and I don't take it as representative of the Pats fans as a whole whom I have the utmost respect for, however, it was a large contingent of callers and carried on far to long, both of which I felt were disappointing and worthy of noting.

Don't get me wrong there are idiots that support every team under the sun, this was noteworthy to me only because I had never really heard this from Pat fans before, it seemed unusual....I struggled with even mentioning it, but I was just shocked that a fraction of the fan base that has had a strong stance against blaming officials for failure would go on so long about how they were robbed, ...I dunno if that makes sense it just seemed like the opposite of all I have ever heard out of Patriot fans...it was not intended to be representative of all Pat fans, because I dont believe that to be true....and like I said, I know there are idiots who support every team, I could direct you to the Colts official message board for proof ;) anyhoo, just wanted to bring it to light................

[Blackmallard]

this was noteworthy to me only because I had never really heard this from Pat fans before, it seemed unusual....I struggled with even mentioning it, but I was just shocked that a fraction of the fan base that has had a strong stance against blaming officials for failure would go on so long about how they were robbed

Crunked, think about the last six years. The Pats had only lost ONE playoff game in that time. You can't get robbed out of making the playoffs by the ref, and what is there to complain about when you win? If you go back to that Broncos game, there even were rumblings about a P.I. call and about Champ's fumble. So while it is true this is the most I've heard from Pats fans about the refs, they haven't had the same opportunity as most other fans. Every fan has it in them to complain about refs.

[Crunked]

Well I guess that makes sense and would account for why it was so foreign to me, never really thought about it like that, because I was looking terms that they have lost games in the regular season

[Sascha]

Listen guys, the Defense wins Championships adage is still very much alive and well.

In 40 previous Super Bowls, ten times did a top 3 NFL offense face a top 3 NFL defense in the Super Bowl. Ten times, the defense won the game.

The Colts put the first dent in said adage, but until the offenses have won, say, 6 of the next 8 matchups, this is still pretty much intact.

[Blackmallard]

Listen guys, the Defense wins Championships adage is still very much alive and well.

In 40 previous Super Bowls, ten times did a top 3 NFL offense face a top 3 NFL defense in the Super Bowl. Ten times, the defense won the game.

The Colts put the first dent in said adage, but until the offenses have won, say, 6 of the next 8 matchups, this is still pretty much intact.

So, I guess that little stat only applies to the actual Superbowl, not any other games since the Colts knocked off the Ravens, the number one defense, on their way to the big game. I'll look around for other playoff matchups of top defenses vs. top offenses, I bet there's more.

If the number one ranked defense can't beat the number 3 ranked offense at home, why should we believe that the Superbowl would be any different?

Heck, the number 2, 3, and 4 ranked defenses did't even make the playoffs this year. It will be pretty hard for the offenses to start covering all that ground if those rascally defenses keep not even showing up to the playoffs to be beat in the first place. The Colts personally beat the number 1, 5 and 6 ranked defenses in the playoffs. The top five offenses all at least made it to the post season, and four out of the five made it to the divisional round.

So, if the number 3 ranked defense (Oakland) had faced the number one ranked offense (New Orleans) in the Superbowl the smart money is on Oakland?:confused:

There was a similar stat about how dome teams couldn't win outdoors in the playoffs, do you still believe in that one too?

[Blackmallard]

Since 2003 a top three offense has only faced a top three defense in the playoffs twice that I could find and the offense won both. Indy @ Baltimore in 2006 and Seattle vs. Carolina in 2005.

[Crunked]

Hmmm 4 more to go R5d3 and your theory must be pronounced dead upon arrival...the search continues :) thanks BlackMallard

Btw, my point was not that it doesn't "SOMETIMES" apply, I am disputing the way it is used as an absolute, most all things are true eventually, but what I am saying is if you use it, it has no more clout than saying we have horseshoes on our helmets so that makes us luckier......its just a falacy not fact ...man I love football :)

[Sascha]

So, I guess that little stat only applies to the actual Superbowl, not any other games since the Colts knocked off the Ravens, the number one defense, on their way to the big game. I'll look around for other playoff matchups of top defenses vs. top offenses, I bet there's more.

Yes, the stat only applies to the Super Bowl games, which is where you generally decide a championship :D

And in actuality, this game pitted the league's #3 offense against the league's #5 defense, so it wouldn't even fit the above criteria. Rankings are based on NFL rankings, which ranks teams in yardage, not my favorite criteria, just going with it here. Only once in Super Bowl history did the game match up #1 vs. #1, and well, 5 interceptions and 3 defensive TD's later, the Raiders were history.

But while we're on this sort of debate, I'd be interested in how many times a vastly superior quarterback lost a Super Bowl against an inferior signal-caller. I'm guessing, not many.

[Crunked]

Yes, the stat only applies to the Super Bowl games, which is where you generally decide a championship :D

And in actuality, this game pitted the league's #3 offense against the league's #5 defense, so it wouldn't even fit the above criteria. Rankings are based on NFL rankings, which ranks teams in yardage, not my favorite criteria, just going with it here. Only once in Super Bowl history did the game match up #1 vs. #1, and well, 5 interceptions and 3 defensive TD's later, the Raiders were history.

But while we're on this sort of debate, I'd be interested in how many times a vastly superior quarterback lost a Super Bowl against an inferior signal-caller. I'm guessing, not many.

Although I hear what you are saying, that phrase was not EVER reserved for #1 vs #1 believe me as a Colt fan I have heard it for 5 years, and I am not sure we have ever had the #1 offense, we have always been 5 but I can't recall us ever being #1, even if we were once, it never stopped people from throwing that phrase around, in every round of the playoffs or when it suited them...so I would agree that if it were only used in Super Bowls when the #1 O played the #1 D I wouldn't have a problem with it, heck I may have never even heard it before, but the fact is ppl throw it around any time they want to say Defense (A) will beat Offense (B) so I cannot agree that it is seldom and specifically used, I would not have a problem with that, I have a problem with how its thrown around as Biblical fact at the drop of a hat.

[Blackmallard]

Yes, the stat only applies to the Super Bowl games, which is where you generally decide a championship :D

And in actuality, this game pitted the league's #3 offense against the league's #5 defense, so it wouldn't even fit the above criteria. Rankings are based on NFL rankings, which ranks teams in yardage, not my favorite criteria, just going with it here. Only once in Super Bowl history did the game match up #1 vs. #1, and well, 5 interceptions and 3 defensive TD's later, the Raiders were history.

I feel like that is cherry picking data to create a trend rather than observing one objectively. If there were really something to it wouldn't it work in other playoff games too not just the Superbowl? If it ONLY works in the Superbowl, what is the difference between that game and the others that makes your ranking a factor all of a sudden?

You may not like yardage as the ranking used to rank defense and offense, but its what produced the 10-0 when a top three offense meets a top three defense stat in the first place. Why not go back and see who the REAL top three offenses and defenses are and see how they did when they faced each other? I have no idea how it would come out.

Why does having a top three defense guarantee you a Supebowl win against a top three offense, but not give you a particularly good chance of making the playoffs?

What you are telling me is that a measure of defense and offense that you don't even believe in produced a trend that only exists in Superbowl games, not in any other context, and yet is somehow is a valid predictor that supports "defense wins championships"? Couldn't it just be a coincidence?

[Blackmallard]

But while we're on this sort of debate, I'd be interested in how many times a vastly superior quarterback lost a Super Bowl against an inferior signal-caller. I'm guessing, not many.

Well, the thing about that is that winning a Superbowl goes a LONG way to giving you rep as a QB. So if it happened then the guy who did it would not necessarily be remembered as vastly inferior in retrospect. Rex Grossman may still have an above average career for all we know.

For example, if Gannon had not had an absolute crap game he would be remembered as a much, much better QB than Brad Johnson. Gannon was the MVP of the league that year people would have started talking about the Hall of Fame for him if he had been the Superbowl MVP. Brad Johnson would have been seen as a scrub. Since that didn't happen Gannon is not remembered as vastly superior to Johnson, the result of the game made it come out that way though.

I can't remember a Superbowl where the QB's were such a mismatch as Manning vs. Grossman. When has a QB who is already a Hall of Fame lock and still in the prime of his career ever faced a first year starter with a rep for blowing games single handedly before?

It would be like if instead of Elway Favre had faced Chris Weinke in the Superbowl.

[Sascha]

Lol, I really didn't have Gannon-Johnson in mind there. While Johnson will never be considered Hall of Fame, he was deadly accurate and a very good game manager. Gannon did flourish for a few years starting with Gruden's leadership, but I don't think he'd have been a Hall of Famer, wether he won that game or not.

I'm thinking more of a matchup like John Elway vs. Chris Chandler, Steve Young vs. Stan Humphries, Theisman vs. Woodley, and so on. There's really not a lot of those matchups, but it looks like the established QB generally won.

[Blackmallard]

Lol, I really didn't have Gannon-Johnson in mind there. While Johnson will never be considered Hall of Fame, he was deadly accurate and a very good game manager. Gannon did flourish for a few years starting with Gruden's leadership, but I don't think he'd have been a Hall of Famer, wether he won that game or not.

I don't know if Gannon would have made it, it would have been heavily discussed that next year though. Lets also pretend he doesn't break his neck the season after his career year and the wheels don't fall off the Raiders plunging them into a dark black hole. Brad Johnson's known as a great game manager precisely because he won that Superbowl. He wasn't even good enough to keep a starting job after he won the big game, just think if he'd lost!


I'm thinking more of a matchup like John Elway vs. Chris Chandler, Steve Young vs. Stan Humphries, Theisman vs. Woodley, and so on. There's really not a lot of those matchups, but it looks like the established QB generally won.

See I think those guys would have been remembered as much better QB's if they had won those games somehow. You are talking about guys who's main claim to fame was that they got their butt kicked in the Superbowl. Didn't Shula bench Woodley in that game?

Will Manning vs. Grossman go down as the biggest QB disparity in Superbowl history?

[TexecutedInTampa]

http://www.pigskinheaven.com/gallery/files/7/Turf-Toe.gif This one will make you mad....
Opening salvo's:
Maybe I am eating the wrong colored cucumbers but does defense really win Championships? Careful how you answer, because to say yes, the Colts have a good defense is calling a defense that finished 23rd overall and 32 against the run, a good defense....say no and you must then define what makes a champion



I offer this summation, "Champions need to be able to run, and stop the run...."

They said it....
"All year they dogged our defense and said we couldn't win a championship, we got D now don't we?"~Dwight Freeney

Okay, will the game go down as the "Soggy Bowl"?

Breaking fabrication:
League owners are now re-evaluating the City selection process, they are looking for the cities to host future Super Bowl's to be the best defenses they can find, ya know so they can win Championships.......otherwise future SB must end in a tie by league rule

Ban-able phrases:
"I take my hat of to them"
"Defense Wins Championships"

Heart of the Matter:
My drive to stamp out stupidy continues.....If Defense wins Championships, how did the 32nd ranked run defense get crowned? Wait...wait, let me guess, they miraculously turned into the number #1 NFL defense over night? Is that what I am hearing?

But no one makes the "defense wins championships" statement after the fact, boys and girls....they use it as a qualifier as to why a team WON'T win, or why a certain team WILL win...so own up you can't have it both ways tell me right now, it comes down to this...Either the ranking system for NFL defense has it all wrong (and they could) its 2007 and Tackles still are not an "official" stat....or the statement "defense wins Championships" is all wrong (and it could be look at the Colts)...but all those defense wins championships people cannot, I will not accept them, simply cannot stand there and say well the Colts played better defense so the theory is still valid...

Your theory then by your own admission, means nothing in the regular season......................nothing.... whatsoever, because a statistically bad team may play great at any time (that is what you are saying if you defend this).......you can't use it against them before they play....remember you want to use this as hindsight analysis now....in fact that means that saying can only be used once a year, ............you may use it right after the Super Bowl to explain why team A beat Team B....because by definition, by logic you have to admit, if that saying applies to this year...then you have to admit that at any time the leagues worst defense can play like the best....at any time.

So are you so ready to give up your beloved saying?, ........shelve it only to dust it off and use once a year? You better be, because your theory, your catch phrase just became obsolete....I encourage you now to jump on my bandwagon, or be rolled under the spoked wheels of progress...

(SIDE BAR) If defense wins championships what are all those points doing on the board? I mean I love Manning's explaination, "Our job as an offense is to outscore them", ......so he feels OFFENSE has something to do with the outcome, will this catch on and become a trend?, teams trying to outscore each other for victory?? Imagine a league where the team with the most total points at the end of the contest won the game?....yeah you are right, too difficult ........................to difficult to fathom, as you were......

Crunked Says:
If defense wins Championships why did we crown the #32 run defense?......

The best-the worst-the ugliest of the week

Best
Watching the leagues 23rd ranked defense out play a top defense

Worst
This weeks worst, is the ugly, ugly rain drops at the Super Bowl, and why the heck did the dome team become the team to handle it better, settling down after a wild first quarter? Me thinks ... we must have had the air conditioning to our backs....
Ugliest
http://img462.imageshack.us/img462/5825/toebulletiz0.gif I gotta do it, sorry...the worst by far has been talk radio and its callers out of the New England area.....The Friday before the SuperBowl, local talk shows were still whining about the officiating in the AFCC game, and that the "officials" cost the Pats the game. Callers from the area were echoing their sentiments...of course I am biased on this position, but I do recall those same talk shows being some of the most vocal in the shut up and quit whining Seattle circles last year.....Does anyone that is NOT a Pat fan think that game was officiated poorly? If they do I have yet to hear it, my personal take was that there were two bad calls in that game, one went for the Pats, one against, which to me is a rub...but I must of watched a different game.


"Defense wins championships"...it's a good Rule of Thumb. Now, the 2006 Colts proved it, but not strictly by the book. The Colts won the Wild Card and Divisional games on D....they scored very few points themselves (for the Colts), so you have to give it to their D. I do, anyway.

Against New England in the AFCCG, Indy went back to the offense. They beat NE, no doubt, but they gave up 27 offensive points. That is not a defensive masterpiece, OK? And yet this is what I find impressive....while Indy was honking up more points to NE than to any other team they faced in the post - they ALSO scored more against NE than to any other..etc. They swung when they had to, you have to give them props for that. Manning and Co did not quit, they found what would work. As a NE fan, I have to admire and that. Jeez, that was one hell of a comeback. (Damn it:)) Our first AFCC loss....

In the end? The Colts Run D in the regular season sucked and we all know that. But they overcame that in the playoffs. I doubt many teams have done that.

Back to this thread. IMO - you have to play D to win in the playoffs.

While I WILL say the Colts D choked against my Pats....they did enough in the post to win, they earned the SB and I offer my congrats. They needed a balance, and they came up with it!

Is Tony Dungy retiring:)?

[Crunked]

Sorry Tony wont be retiring just yet.....but it could happen at any time...we are busy cloning him as we speak though, this being competetive is just too much fun, we arent ready to quit it just yet :)

[Blackmallard]

"Defense wins championships"...it's a good Rule of Thumb. Now, the 2006 Colts proved it, but not strictly by the book. The Colts won the Wild Card and Divisional games on D....they scored very few points themselves (for the Colts), so you have to give it to their D. I do, anyway.

Did they really score less in the playoffs than they normally do? They played the number one, two, three, and twelve scoring defenses so you would expect them to have a lower scoring average than they did in the regular season. They did have a lower scoring average, by .5 points per game. Thats right, regular season average 26.7, post season average 26.2 while playing the top three defenses in points allowed.

They also averaged 395 yards per game in the playoffs against three of the top ten defenses in yardage (two were top five) allowed, and the Chiefs. Their regular season average was 379 yards per game.

The idea that the Colt's offense struggled in the playoffs is not really true. They played much stiffer competition than average, three of their four games were against top D's in the league, arguably the three best defenses in the league. The offense faced the toughest defensive lineup they possibly could have and produced the same amount of yards and points that it had all year.

The only area they did poorly in over that span in relation to normal was turnovers. The Colts only really had one bad game in the playoffs turnover wise, the game against the Chiefs. Apparently Manning can't resist throwing at least two picks Ty Law's way if he gets the chance. Two turnovers against Baltimore is not great, but its what you have to expect they got forty takeaways in the regular season. They only had one against New England. In the Bears game it was pouring rain, and it was the Bears so unsuprisingly there were some fumbles.

The defense performed great, they were basically tops in the playoffs, although they drew easier assignments than the real best defenses which were Chicago, New England, and Baltimore. You realize that those three faced Indianapolis twice, New Orleans, and San Diego? Thats a pretty tough lineup to shut down. So, the defense was great, much improved, they wouldn't have won without the improvement, but it did not carry the offense to a championship.