Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Raycolts12

Have any of you changed your minds?

157 posts in this topic

WE HAVE A WALKER! KILL IT IN THE BRAIN!

the tempering of expectations is funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doogan back from dead? I wonder if Jaric will make an appearance?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been more happy to be wrong. I couldn't have imagined us winning five games let alone six. (By week 9 no less!) Taking great pride in the long strides this team has made.

Regardless of where the season winds up, the light over the horizon is closer than I thought.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my statement, so have the Colts

Good lord, did you mark this on your calendar or something? My comment was a response to the "talent alone" portion of your comment. Hey, I am glad the Colts are exceeding expectations. Luck has progressed faster than anyone could have imagined. The defense is playing relatively well for the number of injuries they have sustained.

Anyway, please PM your address so I can get your Trophy in the mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I stand where I stood 3 months ago.....9 or 10 wins and a playoff berth.

Mad props to the winner of this thread.....and it ain't even close. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record:

I was against trading Peyton or cutting him. I was wrong.

I was for trading the pick. I was wrong.

I believed our defense would struggle mightily. I was wrong.

I thought a revamp of the entire staff meant a high draft pick again. I was wrong.

I have rarely been so wrong and I could not be happier that I was.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record:

I was against trading Peyton or cutting him. I was wrong.

I was for trading the pick. I was wrong.

I believed our defense would struggle mightily. I was wrong.

I thought a revamp of the entire staff meant a high draft pick again. I was wrong.

I have rarely been so wrong and I could not be happier that I was.

I respect your candor Warhorse. For the record, admitting one's mistakes is a sign of strength and wisdom not shortcomings & weakness WH. I really respect your courage here. Kudos to you sir. :hat::thanks:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record:

I was against trading Peyton or cutting him. I was wrong.

I was for trading the pick. I was wrong.

I believed our defense would struggle mightily. I was wrong.

I thought a revamp of the entire staff meant a high draft pick again. I was wrong.

I have rarely been so wrong and I could not be happier that I was.

Look at it this way Warhorse...2 negatives make a positive, so if you consider those 4 wrongs, you were right 2 times... :D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I predicted 5-6 wins at best. Glad to know I'm most likely wrong.

7-2 would still be pretty awesome right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went for .500, and I think we may go one better. Either way, this has been a very good start to the rebuilding programme, and although we have a raft of things to improve on, we are most definitely on the right track. Doogan thinking Luck will go backwards next season due to some 'selective' examples is as surprising as Zbikowski missing on a tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • before the jags win, collinsworthless said we were the worst 5-3 team in the league. now after the jags game, I'm sure he feels we are the worst 6-3 team based on what he said we looked like vs. the jags. sometimes teams have an ugly win, Jags game probably fits that description, dropped balls, several throws that should have been picked, a terrible opponent, few sacks, bad 3rd down percentage, penalties ad-nausem, etc. Look, this team took on a whole new complexion when their leader went down. Who hasn't changed their minds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • before the jags win, collinsworthless said we were the worst 5-3 team in the league. now after the jags game, I'm sure he feels we are the worst 6-3 team based on what he said we looked like vs. the jags. sometimes teams have an ugly win, Jags game probably fits that description, dropped balls, several throws that should have been picked, a terrible opponent, few sacks, bad 3rd down percentage, penalties ad-nausem, etc. Look, this team took on a whole new complexion when their leader went down. Who hasn't changed their minds?

I Hope that is sarcasm, because if I recall we were leading 24-3 going into the 4th quarter, and that is all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, did you mark this on your calendar or something? My comment was a response to the "talent alone" portion of your comment. Hey, I am glad the Colts are exceeding expectations. Luck has progressed faster than anyone could have imagined. The defense is playing relatively well for the number of injuries they have sustained.

Anyway, please PM your address so I can get your Trophy in the mail.

Sorry to step on your toes, wasnt singling you out J82. But since you bring it up I dont see anywhere in your post about talent- or heart -or coaching. Just a blunt "not with this years schedule" which ironically is totally opposite from the truth since you want to be nasty about it. I just thought at the time the Colts had the right ingredients of enough talent plus heart and good coaching and humbly speaking I just surprised myself by seeing that is all I was saying.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to step on your toes, wasnt singling you out J82. But since you bring it up I dont see anywhere in your post about talent- or heart -or coaching. Just a blunt "not with this years schedule" which ironically is totally opposite from the truth since you want to be nasty about it. I just thought at the time the Colts had the right ingredients of enough talent plus heart and good coaching and humbly speaking I just surprised myself by seeing that is all I was saying.

My fault on this. There was never any ill intent on my part. My response wasn't meant to be nasty, but I did a bad job of adding inflection. It was late last night and I was in a lot of pain. I was honestly saying in it my head as I was typing with the inflection of "Goood Looord man!!" So let me try to portray what I really meant.

Good lord, did you mark this on your calendar or something :woah: ? My comment was a response to the "talent alone" portion of your comment. Hey, I am glad the Colts are exceeding expectations. Luck has progressed faster than anyone could have imagined. The defense is playing relatively well for the number of injuries they have sustained.

Anyway, please PM your address so I can get your Trophy in the mail. :thmup::lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we aren't Prisco. A national writer who predicts we win 1 game. He has since begged forgiveness for his sins :)

If all of us can be wrong about Luck and this year's team, then why can't we be wrong about Luck having a sophmore jinx. He just seems a little too "special" for that to happen. Uh oh, I just made a prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we aren't Prisco. A national writer who predicts we win 1 game. He has since begged forgiveness for his sins :)

If all of us can be wrong about Luck and this year's team, then why can't we be wrong about Luck having a sophmore jinx. He just seems a little too "special" for that to happen. Uh oh, I just made a prediction.

Yea , i remember that Prisco dude, he guessed a little low. there's a few people who think we are going to lose out so I don't know, they say that Luck throws would be interceptions every single game and it will catch up to him, say that he is lucky, say that the rest of the team is not that good, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea , i remember that Prisco dude, he guessed a little low. there's a few people who think we are going to lose out so I don't know, they say that Luck throws would be interceptions every single game and it will catch up to him, say that he is lucky, say that the rest of the team is not that good, etc, etc.

Not sure why the pundits keep saying that the long pass to Avery should have been an INT. From what I saw the defender got fooled on the rout, the pass was placed high which the defender wasn't even close to tipping with his high jump, was placed where only Avery could catch it. I would say it was a great play not a lucky one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the pundits keep saying that the long pass to Avery should have been an INT. From what I saw the defender got fooled on the rout, the pass was placed high which the defender wasn't even close to tipping with his high jump, was placed where only Avery could catch it. I would say it was a great play not a lucky one.

I call it one of the best plays I have seen this year. That same throw from our previous QB and it is called brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call it one of the best plays I have seen this year. That same throw from our previous QB and it is called brilliant.

Was thinking the very same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the pundits keep saying that the long pass to Avery should have been an INT. From what I saw the defender got fooled on the rout, the pass was placed high which the defender wasn't even close to tipping with his high jump, was placed where only Avery could catch it. I would say it was a great play not a lucky one.

I think you mean Hilton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record:

I was against trading Peyton or cutting him. I was wrong.

I was for trading the pick. I was wrong.

I believed our defense would struggle mightily. I was wrong.

I thought a revamp of the entire staff meant a high draft pick again. I was wrong.

I have rarely been so wrong and I could not be happier that I was.

Change is hard to deal with. I've wanted change for years and we are finally going in the right direction. Glad you came around ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record:

I was against trading Peyton or cutting him. I was wrong.

I was for trading the pick. I was wrong.

I believed our defense would struggle mightily. I was wrong.

I thought a revamp of the entire staff meant a high draft pick again. I was wrong.

I have rarely been so wrong and I could not be happier that I was.

That's why you're not the GM. (thank god)

And what it tells me that predictions and opinions mean nothing. But I'm glad you're OK eating crow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change is hard to deal with. I've wanted change for years and we are finally going in the right direction. Glad you came around ;)

And for some people, it was SO hard to deal with, they left. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, let my foot do it for you.

ar120285936373661.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why you're not the GM. (thank god)

And what it tells me that predictions and opinions mean nothing. But I'm glad you're OK eating crow.

Hmmm, I was answering the thread question. Did you answer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change is hard to deal with. I've wanted change for years and we are finally going in the right direction. Glad you came around ;)

Never had any issue with change, I just thought those were the best choices. I would probably have to be ok with change having followed this team since 70'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I was answering the thread question. Did you answer it?

No I didn't, and it wasn't my intention to. I just responded to your post. Sorry you took it in a bad way. Consider my response with a wink, OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never had any issue with change, I just thought those were the best choices. I would probably have to be ok with change having followed this team since 70'.

Btw, I'm '72 here, but I guess we just have differences as fans and that's ok. Some are more vocal than others. But in a "real life" game, few are more vocal than me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean Hilton.

The play i am thinking of is the one that was over the middle of the field towards the right

hash marks and was downed at around the about the 6 yard line. Really thought it was

Avery but could very well be mistaken

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never had any issue with change, I just thought those were the best choices. I would probably have to be ok with change having followed this team since 70'.

sorry, was talking in general about the change comment. not towards you. was quoting mainly to say glad you came around :) since 70? old geezer :) only since about 92 myself. relocated from our west and figured would be nice to root for my home team.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record:

I was against trading Peyton or cutting him. I was wrong.

I was for trading the pick. I was wrong.

I believed our defense would struggle mightily. I was wrong.

I thought a revamp of the entire staff meant a high draft pick again. I was wrong.

I have rarely been so wrong and I could not be happier that I was.

I don't think you were wrong about all of that, aside from the high draft pick thing. That doesn't seem to be happening.

But we could have kept Manning, traded the #1, made some other roster moves and retooled for another run with #18, and I think we'd be as good as we are right now, if not better. Keeping Manning probably would have meant getting rid of Freeney, but if you go with a new defensive configuration, that's okay.

I think the bigger thing is when people assumed the Colts management had made a mistake by moving on from the Manning era. I get that, and I didn't want us to release Manning either. But I always thought the decision to move on could be a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The play i am thinking of is the one that was over the middle of the field towards the right

hash marks and was downed at around the about the 6 yard line. Really thought it was

Avery but could very well be mistaken

It was Avery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went for .500

I went for .500 too.

One Sergio Brown missed tackle away from challenging for the AFC South??? Never thought that would be the case in my wildest dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you were wrong about all of that, aside from the high draft pick thing. That doesn't seem to be happening.

But we could have kept Manning, traded the #1, made some other roster moves and retooled for another run with #18, and I think we'd be as good as we are right now, if not better. Keeping Manning probably would have meant getting rid of Freeney, but if you go with a new defensive configuration, that's okay.

I think the bigger thing is when people assumed the Colts management had made a mistake by moving on from the Manning era. I get that, and I didn't want us to release Manning either. But I always thought the decision to move on could be a positive.

True. Just for clarification, I have always been positive about my Colts when posting. As many here know, I was not very confrontational or negative about any of that change. I am merely admitting what I was feeling in my heart. Most wouldn't have known because I didn't do much battling on those choices.

However, even though trading the pick and fortifying the team could have rendered results that we will not know how successful they might have been, I have seen a special quality in Andrew that tells me that no other scenario would have been better.....succesful...but not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt we could be a 9-7 team. i just was not sure that would be enough to get in the Tournament. but it looks like it just may get us in. We all saw what not having a good QB could do to a team which is why i felt with Luck we could win 7-9 games cause he is that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The play i am thinking of is the one that was over the middle of the field towards the right

hash marks and was downed at around the about the 6 yard line. Really thought it was

Avery but could very well be mistaken

that was avery, where he reached out and barely caught it with two defenders on him. don't know that he was 6 yards from end-zone but yea, pretty sure you are talking about avery on that last description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For whatever reason, my last few films have been controversial ones. I didn't plan it that way. It just sort of happened, but I will admit that I have always been drawn to provocative subjects ever since I can remember. My latest review called "Confirmation" a 2016 political drama directed by Rick Famuyiwa slides right into that hot button territory as well. I promise to behave myself here & only establish broad brush strokes that the director portrays in this 1 hour & 50 minute piece of cinema, but it will be extremely difficult to restrain my true feelings since I graduated from high school in 1991 & remember very well the US Senate Hearings on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on TV & the sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill, a former subordinate under Thomas's supervision at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.]   In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna be honest with my audience & say that I believed Miss Hill's testimony back then & I never thought Mr. Thomas should have been confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall either & the director has this same slant or bias in this production too. Watching this flick took me right back to 1991 during the George H.W. Bush Administration who submitted Thomas's name for consideration to the highest judicial office in the land. It was almost bizarre to see younger versions of anchormen Tom Brokaw & Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, & footage of Peter Jennings & Tim Russert, former host of "Meet The Press" both deceased now. The picture does a nice job of blending fictional testimony scenes from Hill & Thomas with archival news footage from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN. It's odd to see the primitive nature of TVs & computers back then long before iPhones & iMacs were present in every office in America.    In a nutshell, the movie is divided between 2 sides: Those who believed that Clarence Thomas is being railroaded by groups like NOW [Natl. Organization Of Women] simply because he leans toward the Conservative side on issues & Those on the Progressive side who believed that Anita Hill was sexually harassed by her boss who made several unwanted advances & lewd sexual references toward her based solely on her appearance & physical attractiveness as he saw it refusing to change his behavior after numerous requests to do so.    Plotline: The year is 1991 & Clarence Thomas [Wendell Pierce] has been nominated to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The chairmen of these Senate Hearing is Joe Biden [Greg Kinnear] from Delaware. The process appears to going along smoothly for Thomas until a current professor of law at The University of Oklahoma named Anita Hill [Kerry Washington] decides to reluctantly testify before Congress in the Senate. I won't bore my audience with Congressional names or the staffers who work on their behalf on both sides of the DC aisle other then to say this: The bulk of this film focuses on the testimony of Hill & how Thomas reacts to the allegations leveled against him.    Clarence Thomas's supporters somehow convince Biden to deliver his testimony first & while giving his opening remarks Thomas claims that these sexual harassment allegations are false, unfounded, & that he treated all his female employees with respect. When Anita Hill is allowed to testify before the Senate, she tells the body assembled there in a long, prepared, typed statement that Mr. Thomas constantly tried to ask her out socially, bragged about the size of his organ, talked about several adult films he had seen despite making her feel very uneasy, & that on 1 occasion he made a deplorable joke about hair from a private region of his body being found on the aluminum can itself. As you listen to Hill say these words out loud, it dawns on you that all the members in these judiciary hearings are men with zero women in elected office at this point. Think about that reality for a second.    Despite the fact that Anita Hill is well educated, well read, articulate, a credible witness, & very bright; the following doubts & allegations are brought against her testimony: Why did it take her so long to bring these sexual harassment charges forward? Why did she continue to have contact with Thomas? Why didn't she just talk about misconduct sooner & bring formal charges against him? Is she just looking for simple fame, fortune, & publicity? Was she secretly attracted to him & Thomas declined her advances so therefore she wants revenge now? Did she get some of her crazy harassment allegations from books like "The Exorcist?" Did she develop a secret, sexual crush on Thomas known as erotomania like she's some sort of mental deviant?    As you watch the absurd theories cast against Miss Hill by senators who believe this is an unfair witch hunt against Clarence Thomas, it makes you upset or it made me furious rather than none of these male Congressmen ever considered the possibility that men in positions of authority could use their stature & influence to manipulate the situation to their advantage thru unwanted advances or even intercourse because they write evaluations on their subordinates that they oversee, they determine a women's future thru promotions or recommendations; they can blackball or prevent females from working at other law firms or any law firm rather ever again. Could a women studying law really saw no to her boss's advances back in 1991 with the 'boys will be boys' mentality? Sadly no, not really. Not if you wanna advance or climb up the legal ladder anyway. In addition, this really ticked me off. Anita Hill's claims of harassment weren't taken seriously in the Senate chamber because she was a black woman instead of a white woman stating these allegations against Thomas. What?!! That's absurd! Why should the color of the woman's skin even matter. That's freaking ridiculous & very insulting.    You wanna know how Clarence Thomas refutes these unsettlingly serious allegations? He calls the whole backlash situation against him a "high tech lynching." Excuse me? You have got to be joking. So let me get this straight, a former employee under your supervision who happen to be black just like you has committed a vile act of racist cruelty against Thomas simply because he was asked several times to stop engaging in lewd conversations about her appearance & Clarence claims that what Anita did to him by testifying is the equivalent to a hate crime? I'm about ready to smack you sir. And the worst part is that nobody in the Senate challenges Thomas on such ludicrous remarks at all. Unbelievable.    Hill even agrees to take a lie detector test to prove that she is telling the truth. However, many who oppose her assertions claim that the results are meaningless because testers can make anybody pass polygraphs if they want. Ah no, first you establish a base line with false responses & then you monitor a person's heart rate & breathing patterns for erratic fluctuations. The only individuals who can pass a polygraph are psychopaths & serial killers with no appreciation for right or wrong & no impulse control. Lie detector tests are almost impossible to fake as long as the professional examiner knows what the hades they are doing.    The picture ends with Miss Hill returning back to Oklahoma. She is tired of fighting against unfounded innuendo about her reputation & character assassination tactics. Once back teaching, she takes comfort & solace in all the letters she receives from women who thank her for opening their eyes against sexual harassment. Clarence Thomas becomes a Supreme Court Justice as we all know.    This film does make think twice about what you say to your female colleagues in the workplace as it should. Can you say some looks nice today without it coming across as inappropriate? I guess it depends on a person's tone, sincerity, & maintaining eye contact without visually wondering to other sections of a co-workers anatomy I guess. Lets roll with a B- on "Confirmation" because Hill & Thomas's performances were quite good & we never see Clarence believe he ever did anything wrong, even though he claims that he can't look his son in the eye anymore while undergoing the confirmation process anyway.    If I ever said anything that made a woman feel uncomfortable about her appearance or attractiveness, I'm sorry.        "Who's to say what's for me to say...be...do
      Cause a big nothing it'll be for me
      The land of opportunity
      The golden chance for me
      My future looks so bright
      Now I think I've seen the light"  
    • He has enough money if he has that big of a problem with this country he can fund a ticket to any country of his choice that he cares enough to stand up for. I am sure he has a passport so it's just a matter of taking care of his finances and get on a jet and fly the hades out of here.
    • You pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. It's hard for me to comprehend why he chose this way to made his voice be heard.
    • I believe they have amended the rules to 'touching the passer'......
  • Welcome New Members

    • Hi And Welcome! You can create a thread after you have 10 approved posts.  When you first join, you can post 5 replies per 24 hours so, it takes 48 hours at minimum before you can post.   Apologies for the inconvenience but it keeps our drive by trouble making to a minimum.
    • Hello Colts Nation   I am a long time reader of this forum but never really participated in comments but hope to join in this season.   Been a Colts fan since the 'move' when i lived in Carmel.  Actually liked the Colts before that when i was younger but it was the uniform that appealed to me.    I am wondering how do I start a topic in a forum?  Do I have to have so many replies before approved?  I tried to find the rules topic on this but no luck.   Thanks   Edit: I finally found the section on the rules to posting.  :-)
  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.