YOUR GM
-
Posts
1,983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by YOUR GM
-
-
I felt the time to bring in a proven, veteran guard was during free agency. It was obvious DT had serious red flags, as does Lance Louis and even Joe Reitz, as much as I like him. This team doesn't seem to believe in legit competition amongst the line, as they've already penciled in inexperienced players as the starters and have failed to surround them with backups even worthy of being in the conversation to start ahead of them. And now Pagano is coming out saying he's worried about the inexperience of the interior line? Just seems to me that these guys eitherÂ
Â
A) Aren't all on the same page, or
Â
B) Don't really have a clue as to what they're trying to accomplish Â
-
I don't understand the point in heckling him. I mean, he's here now, can't take it back. Also, he didn't ask to get traded. If anyone needs to be heckled, it's the guy who gave up a 1st rounder for him
-
I was never one of the people who suggested we've been overcautious during camp, so don't lump me in with that group. Also, Grigson was very guarded about answering questions about Thomas' progress just a few months ago. The vibe of it was not very encouraging. Even you are on record as saying as much about Grigson's comments regarding him.Until someone produces the voodoo doll collection, I don't know what else makes any sense.
I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that the staff is getting bad info. Injuries progress. It's laughable that all us message board doctors could be better informed about Donald Thomas' status than the coaching and training staff. Just because we didn't think he'd be ready doesn't mean the team made a mistake in clearing him. That's very, very specious, at best.
And again, it's a no-win for the staff. People have been complaining for a week about the seeming over-abundance of caution with Richardson, Davis and Landry. Then when Thomas gets hurt again, it's about how we rushed him back.
It was obvious he was at a higher risk of getting re-injured yet they rushed him back anyways. This is why I said we should've signed a quality veteran along the interior line during free agency, because it was more than plausible to expect this to happen -- and now it did. But I'm sure you and others will be right there with more excuses when this line struggles for a 3rd straight year because our GM wants to be cute and try to make lemons into lemonade, or heavily rely on young unproven talent
-
That job description doesn't exist.
Thomas was coming back from a severe injury. Ballard, too. The odds were always against them having strong years. I'm surprised Thomas was cleared for the start of camp. It sucks that they're hurt again, but it's no one's fault. Also, there are a ton of other players hurt already, not just the two you mentioned. People get hurt playing football. That will never change.
At the very least, we can say with certainty that our staff is getting bad info regarding the progress of our guys coming off serious injury. Just a few months ago, it was up in the air if Thomas would even be ready by the start of the season. To go from that to being fully cleared in a little over a month is unrealistic. I think it's reasonable to say his (pretty serious) injury wasn't managed, ideally.
I'm pretty much over it. Something has to give. We do suffer more injuries than most teams consistently every year. So much so, to the point that chalking it up merely to bad luck just isn't feasible to me anymore
-
Sounds like a opportunity for a zone blitz can be very hard to do a pre snap read on it.
A zone blitz can beat you regardless of if you have an extra man in the backfield or not. The extra blocker might help, but you can just as easily leave a TE inline to help protect or motion him to the backfield to help chip, if need be
-
Any time you go to an empty backfield in such a scenario.... you will have an RB who simply goes into motion and line up out wide as we saw with Donald Brown several times last year.
If a defense sees an offense cone in the field with no back... they will immediately bring out their dime back.
You may not be able to run a traditional run out of said formation, but some trickery could be used easily. Jet sweeps with TY, fake option jet sweeps where Luck could keep it, etc. Of course this wouldn't be a bread and butter play call, but I'm just showing that there is still the capability to run the ball out of this formation, even without a back on the field. That would honestly make it easier to get a good chunk of yardage because they wouldn't be expecting a run at all with an empty backfield
-
You're right, they may never use it in a game. I was listening to the NFL Channel on Sirius and guys were talking about how they used some sets in camp that never made it to a preseason game.
I'm sure we'll go empty backfield at some point in the red zone. I hate that formation any other time, it's a license to blitz.
If Rogers makes the team, that's another option for the end zone jump ball. Got to be quick on the release to make it work.
It may be a license to blitz, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Against the wrong QB, that could spell disaster. Teams rarely blitz Manning/Brady/Brees, despite the fact that all of them use the empty set often, because of their prowess at the pre-snap read. If Andrew has progressed more in the cerebral aspect of his game, bring on the blitzes. Those are quicker to turn into TD's than any other look the defense can throw at him
-
We disagree. And I've said my piece on this at least a thousand times, so, moving on...
At least we agree about Hughes, so you get to be right about something today. ;)
Or you're just "wrong" with me. All just opinions ;)
-
You're choosing to ignore the fact that Shipley isn't good. Which is pretty evident at this point.
And on the other end of the spectrum, you're using Hughes' performance as proof that we shouldn't have traded him (which I agree with).
On the whole, I don't have a problem with the Shipley trade. I don't think he was that good for us, and he hasn't been good for Baltimore. I have a problem with keeping Satele in the lineup last year, but I don't think Shipley would have solved our issues (because, again, I don't think he was that good to begin with). I have no hang-up on Shipley; I'm not the one complaining about it a
year later.
I said Shipley isn't good. I just fail to see how that now validates Grigson trading him? He was better than Satele then, just as Hughes was our only other capable pass rusher outside of Mathis at the time we traded him. Both trades didn't make sense to me. That's not me ignoring anything, that's just my opinion. I think you're the one ignoring his effectiveness when he was here.
Not anything to get worked up over, but just because he wasn't a top shelf center doesn't negate the fact that it was a pointless trade that didn't make us any better, and arguably made us worse by virtue that Satele was handed the job for the '13 season without much comp, and is gone now anyways. Should've just started Holmes last year, if that were the case. He couldn't have been much worse than what Satele was
-
Not really. Shipley wasn't considerably better than Satele, IMO, despite popular opinion. And Satele was hurt in 2012, so the expectation was that he would play better in 2013. And the money difference was negligible.
Also, either we're going to judge these deals in hindsight or we're not. Can't just pick and choose based on what's convenient. In hindsight, Shipley sucks about as much as Satele does.
Who's picking and choosing? I was against both trades then and i still am now. And I feel like your opinions on Shipley are just your hang up. He obviously played better than Satele in 2012 and the numbers even support that sentiment. The protection, in particular was noticeably better when Shipley was in the game. Whether Satele was injured or not is irrelevant. He wasn't showing anything even when he was healthy that year. You can argue Shipley wasn't that much of an upgrade, as long as you acknowledge he WAS an upgrade over Satele. Based strictly off that, even if for just monetary purposes, the smart move would've been to part with Satele. His best days were clearly behind him by the time we signed him.
Also, Shipley was horrible for Baltimore as a guard, in much the same way McGlynn was for us when he was here. They both were obvious options as upgrades over Satele at center
-
Difference is that Shipley went to Baltimore and sucked. In a way, that validates Grigson trading him.
Hughes went to Buffalo and played well.
But he played better than Satele when he was with us and cost less than him. Ultimately Satele ended up gone anyways so we basically wasted money by keeping Satele on good faith when Shipley was at least as good as him, for a fraction of the price. The trade was still poor in hindsight
-
Running lanes are non existent so far in run game.
It's ok, we addressed that by getting Luck more receivers and rolling the dice with a pair of rookie linemen
-
Grigson shouldn't be allowed trade for awhile. The guy has a horrible track record so far. The only significant trade where we at least got fair value in return was the Vontae trade. And even that could've been a mistake had we not been able to re-sign him this off-season
-
I'm so tired of the injuries!
-
Don't want Harvey at LB, he's horrible
I'm hoping him & Sheppard are cut or traded this year
Grigson's trading rights have been revoked for 2 seasons. Even as bad Sheppard is, I'm still not even entirely confident that Grigson could win a trade shipping him out. He'd somehow find a way for us to still lose draft picks
-
The sabbath is on Saturday. Just sayin
-
Let me guess, America wasn't country founded on mass genocide? America killed far more Natives (and Africans considering the death tolls of slavery is in the millions) than the Third Reich could have even dreamed of murdering. And they did it so rich oligarchies could establish a country on their land.
The "norm" Anglo-Saxon's from Europe that founded your country hold the record when it comes to mass genocide numbers. Nazi's were not the only white people that tried to wipe out an entire race.
You're preaching to the choir, guy. Don't know why you think you're objecting to anything I've been saying. Lol
-
That is entirely irrelevant to my point. I never said the Holocaust was not the plight of the Jews. I said that gays were also sent to the concentration camps and gas chambers by the German Government, which directly refutes your point that they've never been:
a few more (very recent) notes:
In 2013, a law was reinstated in India making it illegal to engage in any kind of homosexual act. Performing any "same sex act" could result in 10 years in prison.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/india-supreme-court-reinstates-gay-sex-ban
Men in Jamaica have been attacked with sticks and machetes just for being perceived as being gay
http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/11/15/jamaica-police-violence-fuels-aids-epidemic
Last February, the Ugandan Parliament gave serious consideration to making homosexuality punishable by DEATH. Even without this bill, Uganda still punishes homosexuals with 14 years to life in prison.
As recently as 2007, homosexuality was punishable by death (death by stoning) in Nigeria. I don't know if this law has been overturned.
The problem is you chimed and are now trying to re-define my comment, without regard for the original intent behind it. We were speaking about oppressed groups in this country. The US government has never done any of those things to the homosexual community. No one is disputing that there are still awful laws in place all over the world from corrupt governments. But don't try to say what homosexuals face in this country is anything close to true oppression. It's not. It's almost more damning to ones character to be considered a Christian in this country than it is to be considered gay. Anything that anyone says that might have even the tiniest ounce of non-support towards the homosexual community turns into an all out witch hunt. This thread is proof of that. Dungy didn't even say anything about Sam's sexual orientation as being the reason he wouldn't want to deal with him. He said the distraction attached to it would be his biggest turnoff. Yet you have people in here with pitchforks calling him a homophobe. It's ridiculous
-
Do both of those communities not protest, and act oppressed by the government?
Not to mention that, depending on your school of thought, those are choices and skin color and homosexuality aren't.
Again. Think things through before touching your keyboard
And therein lies the problem with your argument. You have no way of proving the bolded. It's your opinion that it's not a choice for every homosexual. Maybe in the case of some it's not a choice. I understand genetic predisposition. But you can't tell me that every homosexual in this world was born as one. That's just not true. There's not a person in this world that can choose what race they are
Also, just because a group protests doesn't mean their cause is legitimate. There are people in this country that want to marry inanimate objects but are "oppressed" by their government from doing so. Me comparing those individuals to the struggles the homosexual community have had to overcome is in the same vein as you comparing the gay rights movement to the oppress faced by blacks in this country and Jews during the holocaust
-
Do you think that would still be the case if homosexuals were born with some sort of noticeable birthmark that conclusively identified them as gay? Slavery was much different, I'll give you that, because african americans are easily identifiable in appearance. If all homosexuals were that easily identifiable just by appearance then I guarantee the historical atrocities would be much worse.
However, your point is still not entirely correct. Gays were also sent to concentration camps and gas chambers during the holocaust, and there are multiple countries where right now, TODAY, if a person living in that country was identified as homosexual they would or could be murdered on the spot. In most cases, the law of that country simply looks the other way but in a few cases, it's actually the law.
You shouldn't tell others not to speak on what they have no perspective on when you don't really have the clearest perspective yourself.
There were blacks in the Nazi concentration camps as well, but you don't hear the African-American community claiming the holocaust as a part of their plight, do you? The Nazis were a hate group. They hated anything and anyone that wasn't Anglo-Saxton and socially "norm." Of course homosexuals were lumped into that hate, just as all minority groups were. Still doesn't change the fact that by and large, the group most affected by it were the Jews, and it was THEIR plight
-
So oppression to absolutely reprehensible extremes are the only ones worth getting upset about? Noted. I'll keep that in mind.
Should those of Jewish faith tell African Americans to quit complaining because they didn't have it as bad ? Native Americans too ?
Yet again my annoyance for those who can't compose well thought arguments arises.
You're right. Marajuana smokers are an oppressed group in this country as well in many states. As are those who enjoy alchoholic beverages but can't purchase them on Sunday's (in some states)
Oh, the humanity! You should be outraged
-
This is the most absurd analogy in this thread. Homosexuals are not oppressed. They can't get legally married in some states. Get back to me when they're any of the following: Segregated, systematically terrorized by their own government, bought and sold, pushed to the brink of extinction due to genocide.And you think it was different during the civil rights movement?
But good. I prefer people quietly deal with their prejudices, than enact laws and legislation oppressing them.
I don't like clowns, but you don't see me oppressing them.
I believe in equal rights for all, but it's insulting to the communities that actually were oppressed to compare what the homosexual community has gone through to anything they went through. You're out of touch with reality, and likely haven't faced anything close to oppression in your lifetime. Don't speak on matters you don't have perspective on
-
Is that you Grigs?
Yes
-
Maybe someone is dumb enough to trade for Sheppard. To be so big and athletic...and be out of position 7 out of 10 times is beyond my mathematical comprehension
Unfortunately, one of those people is our current GM
News on Stanley Havili?
in Colts Football
Posted
Wow, I bet you're just an absolute hit at kid birthday parties....