We spoke with Demond and Deshawn from the blog 18 to 88 back in October before the earlier meeting between these two teams. They are back again and they are not optimistic for the Ravens!
Here are my answers for them.
Are you disappointed to see the Pats out of the playoffs? what concerns do you have after watching the Ravens wild card game?
I’m only disappointed the Pats are done because I thought they would push the Chargers. I’ve been convinced the Jets were the biggest frauds in football for months. I honestly believe the Chargers will roll them by 30 points. I expected the Chargers to beat the Pats, but thought maybe it would be a closer game. Other than that, I’m thrilled the Pats are done. I hate them.
As for concerns, I wanted to play the Jets rather than the Ravens because I’m convinced the Jets are awful. The Ravens aren’t a bad matchup for the Colts, because they won’t be able to run and hide from Indy. Let’s take the worst case scenario for a Colts’ fan: Ravens jump off to a big lead like they did last week. The Colts have an offensive gear the Pats don’t without Welker, and would be able to come back (whereas NE just rolled over). Since 2005, no team has beaten any two of the Big Four in the same post season (Indy, NE, Pitt, and San Diego). That doesn’t bode well for the Ravens.
So, are you worried that the Indianapolis Football Club will be rusty?
No, no, no. A thousand times no. The rust angle is far and away the dumbest, most overplayed issue in the NFL. It’s something invented by sports writers who are too lazy to watch game film to figure out the real reason a team struggled. Indy was crazy banged up at the end of the year. I expect them to come out sharp and fast. It will be one of the few times this entire season the actually starting lineup will all be together in the same game. Watch out.
The ‘rust’ issue springs from one game: 2005 verses the Steelers. The Colts shut down WAAAY early that season, playing the offense only four series in the last two games. On top of that, Dungy’s son committed suicide, and the Steelers came out with a brilliant game plan for blitzing Manning. The second two factors had much more to do with the loss than rust did. This season, the Colts starters actually played a lot against the Jets and Bills, much more than in 2005. The offense looked good and had touchdown drives in both games, posting 23 points in just under a full game of work against good defenses (they only scored 3 points in those games in 2005).
Baltimore could win on Saturday night, but don’t look for rust to save you. It won’t be a factor. That’s just for radio hacks and newspaper clowns.
A few weeks back in Baltimore, Indy squeaked by to keep their streak alive. Looking back, was the lack of offensive production due to the defense of B’more or the struggles of #18?
It had more to do with Tom Santi fumbling at the goal line. Santi is the third string TE. If he just goes down after catching the ball, he picks up the first down, and the Colts probably score 24 points in that game and this isn’t a discussion. At the time, I wondered if Manning was hurt going into that game because the interception to Ed Reed was an awful throw that had he put in the right spot (over Wayne’s left shoulder to the outside instead of having the ball drift inside where Reed was), Reed couldn’t have come close to it and would have been a TD. Manning’s numbers were solid that game other than that really bad pick. I wouldn’t say the Baltimore defense was particularly good that day.
Talk about the Colts Defense-Ravens Offense matchups. Where do you see the biggest advantage for disadvantage for the Colts?
The big problem in the first game was Mark Clayton, but at the time, #1 CB Kelvin Hayden was hurt. Clayton abused the fourth string corner Tim Jennings. Jennings won’t be on the field Saturday night, so I’m not worried at all about a repeat of that game. Obviously Ray Rice is the key. He’s an incredible player, easily the most underrated player in the NFL right now. 2000 yards from scrimmage, 72 catches…sick numbers. The Colts have to keep him from making big plays. As for the Colts biggest advantage, it’s always Freeney and Mathis. The two haven’t been healthy at the same time since well, before the Ravens game.
Give me your game prediction….
Indy 24 Baltimore 10.
The Colts D is much better than it was the last time these two teams played because it’s finally healthier. This time, Santi doesn’t fumble, and the Colts get to 24 points. I can’t see the Ravens scoring if they can’t throw, and I don’t see Manning making the kind of mistakes that Brady made last week (holding the ball too long start with).
Yeah but did Demond and Deshawn read this?
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/colts…
INDIANAPOLIS—At his weekly press conference Monday, Colts head coach Jim Caldwell announced that he will rest key starters during the divisional round of the AFC playoffs to keep his players fresh for a Super Bowl run. "You can't win the Super Bowl if you don't get there with all your players healthy," said Caldwell, who added that next Saturday quarterback Peyton Manning would probably get the first two series, which will mostly be comprised of running plays. "Dwight [Freeney] and Dallas [Clark] will get about a quarter in the AFC Championship game. But honestly, even if we make it to the Super Bowl, I can't see playing these guys the whole game. The 2010 season is closer than you think." Throughout the entire press conference Manning could be seen in full uniform, stalking and pacing in the back of the room.
I appreciate the guys at 18to88 giving us their thoughts on the game this weekend, but I have to call them out on a couple of things. I get that they are Indy fans they have come to expect a certain level of play from certain players. But saying that if Manning had made a better throw or if Santi had not fumbled they would have scored more points, is like me as a Ravens fan saying if the D had gotten to Manniing more or if the secondary had covered Clark on the oepening TD the Ravens would have only allowed 10 points. It also discounts the playmakers on the Ravens. There is a reason Tom Santi fumbled the ball in the red zone. He didn't trip and drop the ball. And Ed Reed was in great position to make a play on that ball. Was it the best throw Manning has ever made, no. But Ed Reed has made a career of baiting QB's into thinking certain receivers are open and then jumping routes.
My point was two fold: 1. While Reed made a nice play on the pick, Manning threw a bad ball. A good pass goes for a TD, a bad pass was picked. Do you want to bet that Manning will make a good throw or a bad one most of the time? It makes logical sense to assume he'll make the good throw more often than not.
The point on Santi's fumble is that he was a third string TE playing because the second stringer was hurt and out for the game. Now he's on IR. It was a nice play to make him fumble, but he was also not a regular player and not used to that kind of action. You can't count on that type of player playing in this game because the Colts are healthy.
Ed Reed is typically in the right place for bad throws though. It's a combination of the two.
And Manning had 15 other picks this season and probably 3 times as many bad throws, if not more. All that is to say, there are probably 15 to 20 plays in a game that could have turned out differently if X,Y & Z had happened. Sure Manning makes that throw more times than not, but you cannot assume he will make it the next time. My point is the same as ZackasaurusRex's, the Ravens had plenty to do with Indy scoring only 17 points. If you think otherwise, I am going to start believeing you are a closet Pats fan.
Actually about half of Manning's picks were on tipped balls this year.
That Reed play was special, because the throw was so bad it made all of us wonder if Manning was hurt or if there was a gust of win. It was easily one of his three worst 'throws' of the season. If you watch the play, you see how wide open Wayne was, but how the throw sailed on Manning. Watch Wayne's route, how he has to drift back to the inside to follow the ball (that's where Reed was). I've not seen a healthy Manning miss that throw in just that way very often in his entire career.
The announcers made a stink about what a great play it was by Reed, but missed how crappy the throw was. A good throw is a TD every time, and Reed couldn't have done anything to stop it.
So if you want to assume your D will hold Indy to 17 points, go ahead. I think much of the performance in November was due to a bad fumble by a third string player who won't be playing and one of the single worst throws of the season by a guy who only makes about 3-5 truly bad throws a year. We'll find out soon enough.
I think the rust thing is overplayed. That being said, I don't see this team jumping out really strong. I still think the Colts are the stronger team, and as such, the Ravens will have to build a substantial lead to hold Manning and the boys off.
I am an Indy fan and a regular reader of 18to88. But I have to agree that the "If Santi hadn't fumbled on the goal line" argument doesn't really mean a lot. First, before that fumble, Santi had played very well and made some pretty crucial catches. So we can't really just dismiss that play as if to say "He shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with." Second, If Flacco hadn't been picked off by Brackett in the red zone then Baltimore may have won the game. If Ryan Moats hadn't fumbled on the goal line, Indy would have likely lost to the Texans. I think the score and the stats are an accurate representation of the way the last Indy-Bal meeting was played. I also think Baltimore is going to need a miracle this weekend, even if they are a worthy opponent.
I understood all of your points until you said that Baltimore is going to need a miracle. Why will they need a miracle this weekend? Haven't they proved themselves as a worthy opponent?
I guess I'll add on to the Zach parade in here. I'm a Colts fan, regular to 18to88 as well. Someone made the point that you can always point to a couple of plays that would have "changed the game," but it's usually not a valid way to look at it. A good example of that is the Ryan Moats fumble, which I believe happened in the first half of the game agains the Texans. There's no way to look forward to the second half and say that everything would have played out the same way..that's absurd. BUT…
Zach 3, thanks for stopping by Baltimore Sports Report. I think you were referring to my post, but don;t misquote me. I never said that is certain plays went differently the outcome of the game would have changed. Deshawn was saying that if Manning had made a better throw and if Santi had not fumbled the score would have been more lopsided. My point was that I can do the same thing from a Ravens perspective and say that if certain things had happened on certain plays the outcome of the play would be different. You could do this in any game of football. Ultimately, this is pointless to do because it discounts the influence of he other team on the play, and the plays happaned the way they did and that is why the score was what it was.
If you look at the stats from the game the 2 point margin is really not deceiving. Statistically, the game was close and just like Indy failed to make plays that would have netted them more points, so did the Ravens. I am not going to stand here and say the Ravens failures had nothing to do with the Colts and the way they played. I think objective Indy fans should make the same admission.
My whole thing with the Santi/Manning turnovers is that I've been hearing all week, "If Flacco doesn't throw that red zone pick, the Ravens would have won". To me, that red zone pick was the result of a young QB getting duped by a great play by one of the best coverage LBs in football. In other words, it's exactly the kind of mistake one would expect from Joe Flacco. Manning's pick was the combination of one his worst throws of the year AND a great play by Reed. That's probably not repeatable. Santi's turnover was super fluky because he rarely plays and is now on IR, so the Ravens can't hope to make him cough up the ball again.
The question is were the key plays in the game indicative of the team or aberrations. I think the Colts mistakes were aberrant, where as the Ravens were repeatable. Your point is well taken though. It does little good to say, "without this play or that play we win" or "without this play or that play we win bigger". I was just pointing out that there was some fluky stuff happening in the Ravens favor that day.
Pingback: Opposing Perspective | Indianapolis Colts Blog