Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I'm more referring to how the Colts were a regular playoff team (and in 2009 went 14-2 and went to the Super Bowl) when Peyton Manning was playing and then just two years later went 2-14 when Manning was hurt. Did Manning cover up that many holes in the Colts roster or did the their roster just deteriorate that quickly?

Say Manning got hurt and wasn't able to play an entire season sometime between '05-'09 (years in which the Colts went 12-4 to 13-3 pretty much every season) would they have been a 4-12 type team those years as well without him (assuming they got the same kind of qb play they did during the 2011 season) or was their roster a lot stronger overall from '05 to '09 than it was in '11?

Probably not 4-12, more like 6-10/7-9 because they still had good receivers, a good offensive line and Polian/Tom Moore...but I wouldn't have much faith in the overrated Dungy to do much with that team without Manning.

The Colts really did play with fire back then by having cheap, unproven backups like Jim Sorgi and Curtis Painter

sheajets wrote:Probably not 4-12, more like 6-10/7-9 because they still had good receivers, a good offensive line and Polian/Tom Moore...but I wouldn't have much faith in the overrated Dungy to do much with that team without Manning.

The Colts really did play with fire back then by having cheap, unproven backups like Jim Sorgi and Curtis Painter

Talk about backup QBs always reminds me of Zeke Bratkowski coming in to replace an inured Bart Starr in the 1965 Packer-Colt Western Division playoff game. You have to credit Lombardi with being aware you need a backup who can come off the bench and win a big game.