Indianapolis Colts Lost The Super Bowl Because They Weren't Aggressive Enough
NFL

Well, Looks Like The Colts Should Have Gone For That Perfect Season, Doesn't It?

2/8/10 in NFL   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

said it before, and I'll say it again. The Colts should have tried for the perfect season. After all the talk about the unnecessary risk, the same problem that held them back from striving for perfection is the very same thing that cost them the Super Bowl.

The reason the Colts didn't try to go 19-0 is because they're the least aggressive, most risk averse team (in the words of Dan Shanoff) in the league.

The reason the Colts lost the Super Bowl is that they are the least aggressive, most risk averse team in the league.

Throughout the entire game, the Colts' game plan was about as conservative as we've ever seen in a Super Bowl. The only aggressive move they made in the entire game was when they went for it on 4th down... but it was obvious that it was Peyton Manning's decision, not coach Jim Caldwell.

Caldwell's entire mentality throughout the season has been a passive one. He has never coached to win a game, he has merely coached to not lose, and then he puts the game in Peyton Manning's hands, and hopes he can pull it off. As we've seen, more often than not, that's a successful game plan. But in the end, that's not how you become legendary, like the Saints did last night.

The Saints went for it on 4th down before halftime, when they could have settled for a field goal. In the end, they ended up getting the field goal after failing on the conversion and then stopping the Colts, but the aggressive move was made, and it was the right one.

At the beginning of the 2nd half, they kicked an onside kick, in one of the ballsiest moves in Super Bowl history. It paid off, and they took over the game, outscoring the Colts 31-7 after the 10-0 Colts run in the beginning of the game.

Maybe if the Colts were a bit more aggressive, and were able to really put the Saints away, instead of trying to just hold on, they might have won the game. And maybe if they were the kind of team who would have gone for a perfect season, maybe that aggression would have been there.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

2/9/10   |   Big_Country78   |   38 respect

Big_Country78 wrote:

the last time the could have and didn't they won the superbowl, so they are 50-50 in that regard.  I don't think this as anything to do with anything.

"if you aint in 1st you're last." just like the other 31 teams in the league. Peyton choked, something supposedly that you said Favre does in the big game and Manning does not, nice to see you still don't know what you are talking about. A pick in the end zone at the end of the game is bad (Peyton tried but the defender was out of bounds), but a pick 6 near the end of the 4th quarter in the super bowl is much worse. Yeah Peyton is sooo much better than Brett [SARCASM].

2/9/10   |   marcus_nyce   |   27082 respect

idahoproducer wrote:
Nobody is addressing it, so I will say it again..

To not recognize Garrett Hartley as the difference in the game,
considering everything we know about importence of kicking consistency,
is to basically say you didn't watch the game.

Hartley's execution allowed New Orleans to stay within
their game plan, to remain patient, and not make mistakes.

Hartley handled one of the most difficult, pressure filled
scenarios offered in the world of sports like the champion
he is today..
 
Saints Fans.. Hartley is why you're celebrating Victory.

I'm out of respect, but yes.

2/9/10   |   MIKA_06   |   39 respect

Pat wrote:
You don't think the lack of aggression, which was the underlying theme of their entire season, had an impact on the Super Bowl?

If they were the kind of aggressive team that would have gone for 16-0, then they would have been a more aggressive team in the Super Bowl, and that could have been the difference maker. Jim Caldwell coached like a pansy, while Sean Payton coached like he had the biggest balls in the world. And the difference was clear. Payton's a winner... Caldwell is just a clown.

I so agree with your comment I was watching the game and before the 1st half finish, I said the same thing to my friend that the Colts were playing too soft and too cautious, remember when they got the defensive stop at the goal line, took over and was moving down the field with 3rd and 2 they made a conservative play call for the run, they should have made Payton throw and continue to keep the ball for the end of the 1st half to definately take some of the momentum away from the NO SAINTS, but they didn,t go for a better play to make sure they kept the ball going in half time...now I definately CONGRATS to the SAINTS cuz they played with aggression and purpose for there city..and they kept to there style of play...P.S. Pierre Thomas was awesome,all year and he show why he is a starter all year long and he his very humble...P.S. he should have been talking on stage instead of Reggie Bush

2/9/10   |   fooltomery   |   21 respect

"It paid off, and they took over the game, outscoring the Saints 31-7 after the 10-0 Colts run in the beginning of the game."

Pat, I believe you meant to write "outscoring the Colts 31-7"...

2/8/10   |   SportzStar   |   102 respect

(Edited by SportzStar)

I am so tired of hearing every variation this. 16-0 or 14-2, the Colts got to the Super Bowl. How they finished the regular season has nothing to do with the playoff game after Baltimore and the Jets. They were 2-0 in the postseason, the regular season record is meaningless at this point. Whether you think they weren't aggressive enough or not, they still started 14-0. Obviously, the way they were going about things worked just fine to start the season, and their decision making was just fine after 14-0 because they still got to the Super Bowl. Not being aggressive enough has nothing to do with dropped passes by Manning's receivers, not getting a recovery on the surprise onside kick, a great interception return touchdown by Porter, or Brees going 29-32 to finish the game (when one of those incompletions was a dropped pass and another was a spike). The aggressiveness of the Colts and the idea that they lack aggressiveness for not going for 16-0 has nothing to do with these things that swung the game the Saints direction. For all we know, if the Colts were more "aggressive" and tried higher risk plays, they could have easily lost by more than 2 touchdowns. Taking high risk chances never guarantees high returns. They were winning at halftime so why would anyone feel the need to drastically change the gameplan? And remember, the Patriots were undefeated going into the Super Bowl and gasp, the "aggressive" team got outplayed and beat.

2/8/10   |   maddhatter6691   |   7918 respect

Over Confidence They Should Have Gone For The Perfect Season, They Will Most Likely Never Have This Chance Again. Great Job SAINTS

2/8/10   |   nortonsfury   |   130 respect

or maybe the Saints were the better team....

2/8/10   |   idahoproducer   |   130 respect

Nobody is addressing it, so I will say it again..

To not recognize Garrett Hartley as the difference in the game,
considering everything we know about importence of kicking consistency,
is to basically say you didn't watch the game.

Hartley's execution allowed New Orleans to stay within
their game plan, to remain patient, and not make mistakes.

Hartley handled one of the most difficult, pressure filled
scenarios offered in the world of sports like the champion
he is today..
 
Saints Fans.. Hartley is why you're celebrating Victory.

2/8/10   |   wcsportsfan   |   48 respect

I completely disagree with the premise of this post. It's a good example of second guess psycho babble. Peyton Manning failed to make the big play when he needed too, and the Saints made plays when they had to. Sean Payton had a terriffic gameplan, but if Peyton played like Brady, Montana or Aikman when he needed to, he would have multiple rings by now, scoot over Favre, you have company in the one ring wonders group.

2/8/10   |   Captain_Chaos   |   287 respect

mysterious3009 wrote:
HaHaHa  well lets see how than handle there 18 unrestricted free agents in the off season.  I seriously doubt they even make the playoffs.  As for we earned not to be called the aints,  did you play for them?

no - its called being a fan for a team, and dealing the ridicule of being called that for years. ive been a fan of NO for 27 years and never once backed away from them, of stopped supporting them. devoting so much to a team makes you feel like part of the family. as a Cowboys fan I kinda would have thought you would know where I was coming from in regards to that. sure your team has had Infinite mor success than mine, but seriously - do you not acknowlege that we (the team - since you seem to want me to differentiate) havent earned the right to be called the Saints instead of the Aints?

I think we have - and I think we will be ok - not even worried about next year - it will be what it is. for now, im savoring winning a Superbowl for the 1st time - and feeling damn proud to be a Who Dat Nation member.

care to make anymore snide remarks at NO expense?

2/8/10   |   mysterious3009   |   4 respect

HaHaHa  well lets see how than handle there 18 unrestricted free agents in the off season.  I seriously doubt they even make the playoffs.  As for we earned not to be called the aints,  did you play for them?

2/8/10   |   Captain_Chaos   |   287 respect

gdmjrcr wrote:
I lso think that they were not as agressive as the ain'ts on defense either as the ain'ts

you forgot to put the S in front of aints - we earned the ability to not be called that anymore.

2/8/10   |   WISAC1   |   6711 respect

here's a different perspective on the game. one good team beat  another good team. simple as that. it was fun to watch and maybe that's all that we should ask for.

2/8/10   |   Aceraison   |   183 respect

I can't agree with this one.  The lackadaisical attitude won them every game that they wanted to win this year (other than the last one).  I'm not sure why anybody would expect them to play different in last game.  High risk plays don't always work the way you want them to, that's why they're high risk.  It just happened to pay off for the Saints.  If they didn't get the onside kick everybody would be talking about how stupid the Saints are for trying it.

2/8/10   |   gdmjrcr   |   345 respect

I lso think that they were not as agressive as the ain'ts on defense either as the ain'ts

2/8/10   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

"The Colts didn't lose yesterday because they didn't go for perfection. They lost because they were coached scared, the same reason they didn't go for perfection."

And that's my point. I believe they should have gone for 16-0, but that's an entirely different animal. The real point is, they should have been the kind of team that WOULD go for 16-0. Because if they were a team like that, they might have won yesterday.

2/8/10   |   IlliniBob72   |   83 respect

Pat wrote:
You've missed my point.

I think I understand your point, but it isn't being made very well.

What you are saying is akin to saying that if I get passed over for a promotion because I didn't tell my boss I want to be considered, it is because I didn't have the stones to introduce myself to the hot chick at the bar over the weekend. It would be because I am too passive, the same reason why that hot chick went home with my loser buddy.

The Colts didn't lose yesterday because they didn't go for perfection. They lost because they were coached scared, the same reason they didn't go for perfection.

2/8/10   |   IlliniBob72   |   83 respect

To answer the question in the headline, the answer is "no". If the Colts had won two meaningless games to end the regular season, it would have meant absolutely nothing yesterday. The Saints lost their last three regular season games. They played nobody in their final game. Is that why they won yesterday? Not really. I fail to see what difference it would have made if the Colts had won those games over a month ago.

2/8/10   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

MrNFL wrote:
Are you fucking kidding me?  Resting starters had NOTHING to do with the fact that they were outplayed.  NOTHING.   Caldwell's conservatism in this game had NOTHING do to with resting starters.

You've missed my point.

2/8/10   |   heelfan811   |   15994 respect

I sorta agree with you Pat about the aggression factor.  Caldwell and the Colts were a bit passive in their approach to this game.  I think if the Colts would have matched the Saints aggression, the outcome would have been different.  Let's face it, Manning ALMOST won a superbowl with sub-par talent arround him...if Marvin Harrison (a healthy young like Marvin) and Dungy on the sideline...the Colts would have been the winners (in my opinion)...HOWEVER, we must give the Saints credit for a great season and a hell of a 2nd half of "smash-mouth" FOOTBALL!

2/8/10   |   MrNFL   |   175 respect

Are you fucking kidding me?  Resting starters had NOTHING to do with the fact that they were outplayed.  NOTHING.   Caldwell's conservatism in this game had NOTHING do to with resting starters.

2/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

 i also think that the Saints were the most prepared for the game as they went through a tough cardinals team and tougher vikings team, as the colts went through the bottom two seeds in the AFC in the ravens and jets. not saying they arent bad teams, but i think the saints learned a lot more from beating minnesota than the colts learned from beating the jets.

2/8/10   |   RunningDawg   |   248 respect

I would have liked the Colts to have been going fro a perfect season, but that is secondary to winning the Big Game.  That being said, I thought their play calling and demeanor on the field was more conservative, trying NOT to loose rather than trying to WIN.  That cost them, it was apparent they were not comfortable playing from behind.  At least in this game.

2/8/10   |   idahoproducer   |   130 respect

Whatever with all the "Maybe's".

If Baskett does not take his eyes off the ball,
and retrieves the onside, which to me, appeared
to be a good hop to him, then we could start with
all the other "Maybe's" and "What if" scenarios.

I din't see the Saints coming in with that aggresive
of a game plan. I didn't see them testing the secondary
of the Colts.. No flea flickers.. An end around that Bethea
stuffed for an 8 yard loss, but other than that, pretty standard
stuff. The Saints blitzed quite a bit, but the Colts picked it up.
I didn't see the Saints really go after Freeney, but he looked
for the most part average, despite that incredible one handed sack.

MVP of the game and star of the Saints is Garrett Hartley, who
set the SB record for 3 made outside of 40.. THOSE WERE HUGE!!!!
And most certainly gave the Saints what they needed to believe and
stay confident, and stay within their game plan. Criticize the Colts
for giving the Saints opportunity before the half.. Manning is supposed
to get a first down, and take a 10- 3 lead into the locker room.

A well fought game by both sides, decided by an ill advised
throw by the league MVP. In the IQ, if it's Favre who threw it,
then we get to hear about how he should go away, and that
he is terrible, and from some bloggers, a d-bag.

Each game is independent of each game. We can try and
predict what may or may not happen, but on any given Sunday,
a team can emerge, and shock the world.

Congratulations to the Saints and their Fans.. It seems odd to
me calling the Saints World Champs, but that is probably
because I grew up as a kid being an LA Rams fan, and to me, they
have always been the 'Aints.  Today, I gladly put that phrase to bed.

2/8/10   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

WhoDat12 wrote:
I hear what you're saying, but just a few years ago, the New England Patriots were aggressive and went for a 16-0 season. They finished 18-1.  Going 16-0 doesn't guarantee you anything. And we've seen teams play the season out and win it all and we've seen them play it out and lose. We've seen teams rest players and dial it down and win it all (Saints), and we've seen teams do the same and get put out in the first round. It's really no way to determine which is the better way because both work and dont work

No, it doesn't guarantee anything. And I'm not saying that anything would have been guaranteed. But I do think that their major flaw was in their complete lack of aggression. That manifested itself by their willingness to tank at the end of the season, and it also manifested itself in their uber-conservative play in the Super Bowl.

Maybe going for 16-0 wouldn't have changed anything, but if they were the kind of team that would have TRIED to go perfect, then they would have been the kind of team who could have beaten the Saints.

2/8/10   |   ary201   |   213 respect

Colts should have been aggressive within the confines of THIS game, at least. I thought when the Saints failed to get into the end zone on 4th down and Peyton Manning had nearly 2 mins and a couple time outs, he was going to come out throwing and at least go for a field goal and leave no time on the clock. Nope. three runs up the middle and a punt with 50 secs left. That's the type of decision that dooms a team in a big game. Could have been a 10 pt. swing in the Colts favor if he played like he would have against the Pats.

2/8/10   |   WhoDat12   |   2252 respect

I hear what you're saying, but just a few years ago, the New England Patriots were aggressive and went for a 16-0 season. They finished 18-1.  Going 16-0 doesn't guarantee you anything. And we've seen teams play the season out and win it all and we've seen them play it out and lose. We've seen teams rest players and dial it down and win it all (Saints), and we've seen teams do the same and get put out in the first round. It's really no way to determine which is the better way because both work and dont work

2/8/10   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

Big_Country78 wrote:

the last time the could have and didn't they won the superbowl, so they are 50-50 in that regard.  I don't think this as anything to do with anything.

You don't think the lack of aggression, which was the underlying theme of their entire season, had an impact on the Super Bowl?

If they were the kind of aggressive team that would have gone for 16-0, then they would have been a more aggressive team in the Super Bowl, and that could have been the difference maker. Jim Caldwell coached like a pansy, while Sean Payton coached like he had the biggest balls in the world. And the difference was clear. Payton's a winner... Caldwell is just a clown.

2/8/10   |   Big_Country78   |   38 respect

the last time the could have and didn't they won the superbowl, so they are 50-50 in that regard.  I don't think this as anything to do with anything.

2/8/10   |   Diablorain   |   4425 respect

i knew the Saints were going to win and i knew Brees was gonna get MVP WOOHOO!!!!! 2 FOR 2!!!!!

2/8/10   |   mrtriplesix   |   1160 respect

colts dont realy have a D. lots of bad tackling by both teams, but great game to watch. definitely kept me on my toes

2/8/10   |   elevenbravo138again   |   1163 respect

Sean Payton coached to win and Cladwell coached not to lose, I have loved Payton as a coach and the Giants still miss him though Gilbride is  good he is not the same leader of men or gambler that Payton is.

2/8/10   |   gdubose   |   6 respect

Yes I would have to say that the Saints showed their balls last night and the Colts lost theirs. I would have to say for a first time super bowl participant they looked as if they have always beloged their. Can you say repeat!!!!!! Now if the Saints can do it why cant the Lions!!!