Forget playing consistent 4 quarters, I wanna see consistency all season...If we lose to a better team , so be it.... Of course every QB cant fumble twice in the 1st quarter and BS like that, so only thing Im looking for is production out of this group ...By week 10, I'll be able to judge if I'm gonna picket Reliant Stadium or not...
But let's give this team a chance to prove their mettle before we lambast them for NOT being consistent. Like I pointed out earlier, if Ben Tate hadn't fumbled the football (or was it Schaub's interception?) that caused a turnover near the red zone, they were poised to put up at least another field goal. If the score had been 41-7 instead of 34-7, would you still be clamoring for "consistency"? This team put together one of the most dominant halves in franchise history; I think they earned the right to lay off a little bit and coast. The Colts were not going to come back on us, and everybody in the building knew that. It's a long season, and by giving the Dolphins only one half of game film to prepare with, we might have given ourselves a bit of an advantage. Again, I just don't understand where the contention comes from that this team only played one half of good football....THAT'S ALL WE NEEDED!
Plus with the injury bugs pummeling the league, I applaud Kubiak for his approach in the 2nd half.. It was a rivalry game (maybe one-sided)but still... If we started piling on points, then the intensity of the game would have problably caused alot of personal fouls, dirty shots, and such actions as that... If a guy took a cheap shot against Andre or Schaub, then everyone here complaining would have been complaining about Kubiak(which I said before isnt a bad thing)
But Indianapolis never posed a threat. Never, ever. Their offense and defense mounted almost no resistance. You can't say that about the other games, none of which, btw (even the completely irrelevant Buffalo playoff game), involved a 34-point halftime lead. But I'm curious what would have placated you Sunday? They scored in bunches in between some ghastly turnovers; I think people are simply overreacting to timing. If we mix in the TOs and spread out the onslaught, would that have somehow been better? 34 points in 4Qs is better than 34 points in 2Qs? In that context, does it not ring a little hollow?
I would be more placated if Collins hadn't spotted us two possessions in the first quarter. That totally changes the complexion of the game. We fire up, they get tight. Our playbook gets opened up, they have to go into a high risk, catch up mode. Their (albeit shtty) running game gets set aside. The snowball got rolling downhill fast and early.
Ok then, I'll ask you - what in Sunday's game indicated that, TO or no TO, the Texans were going to have trouble moving the football? TOs are great and are absolutely a huge momentum shifter... but not as much in non-competitive games. And Sunday's game was most assuredly not competitive.
I am responding to you Meh, Im sure you know your math didnt add up right, so no need to go into that, so ill respond to your previous post Yes the turnovers did help, but it really would not of mattered. As you can see in my first reply to you, We did not Punt in the 1st half of play, Meaning we were moving the ball pretty well, scoring off each possession except for the first possesion of the game Also, the closest the Colts got to our goaline in the 1st half was the Hou49 Meaning that even if we didnt get those two fumbles, the Colts drive would of likely ended in a Punt, which also would of had a probability of getting ran back by Jacoby. drummer spoke of the second half because you threw in the fact that we did not score for the rest of the game (which would include the second half)
what the hell is so hard about the difference between "of" and "have"? when the hell did "of" become a verb? //sorryforthedoublerant
Collins didn't spot us anything though. His first fumble came off a big hit by Antonio Smith, who gave him no time to react to the sack. The second fumble came off a bad exchange from the center, but you have to believe our constant pressure had him rattled at that point. Again, by saying that the fumbles were gifts, you're basically disregarding everything the defense did. It's annoying that after 10 years of this fan base WANTING a performance like this, the fans STILL have to find something to complain about. The Colts were down 17-0 at the end of the first quarter. They were then outscored again (without your so-called "spotted" possessions) 17-0 in the second quarter. Are you saying that the second quarter only happened because the Colts completely abandoned their game plan?? Come on, give me a break. In games like these, you're supposed to just sit back, and enjoy the beatdown.
Agree, Andre would be the first to tell you...he should have caught it even if it was not an accurate pass.
The original post I responded to claimed the Texans would've still blown the Colts away even with healthy Manning. I disputed that, and a major reason I laid out was that their 2 redzone TOs made a lot of difference in the score discrepancy. I can't believe people are disputing this fact. It would be like claiming a Rockets game where Hakeem sits out, the Rox lose by 10, and stating that if Hakeem was in the game healthy, the Rox would still lose by 10.
I dont think anyone here is claiming that with or without Manning, we'd have a 34-0 lead at the half. However, what I believe, and Im guessing most believe, is that we would have won the game because our offense completely steamrolled their defense.
This. I don't understand why people are making the point that the game wouldn't have been the same with Manning in there. I feel we would have won, would it have been 34-0 at half time? No, probably not. But either way, Manning doesn't play defense....and our offense was rolling. You can't stop that bootleg.
It wouldn't have been a blowout had Manning been in the game. Well yeah, but we still would have won. Manning can't stop the bootleg! That wasn't the point. Just that it would have been closer. blah, blah, blah Who the frick cares? You guys sound like Congressmen handwringing over whether the tax hike will be 0.00659% or 0.00658795%.
