YOUR GM
-
Posts
1,983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by YOUR GM
-
-
-
Pretty much agree, but think corner is actually kind of a wash
Yeah, as is WR and K, in my opinion
-
Coaching
Line play, LBers and secondary. Anyone disagree?
I thought we had better wrs and even better running backs. Special teams. I'll give Brady the edge @ qb, but not substantial
The Pats are men, the Colts are boys. Mental fortitude is the biggest advantage they have on the Colts... at every position. They're in the Colts heads, and until we get some players who are bullies themselves, that won't back down, the Pats will continue to win these match ups. It's more psychological than anything
-
At this point, the best way to fix our inability to stop the run for next season is to go all in on the offensive line. Best way to keep the other team's ground game in check is to dominate with our own, and control the TOP. Look at what Dallas did this year, with Murray and that offensive line, and how much it had a positive impact on their defense. We have a bunch of holes on both sides of the ball. Let's focus on turning one of those units into a strength next year, rather than try to fix it all in one off-season and settle for overpaying players who are only marginally better than the players they replaced.
Fix the o-line and control the time of possession, which will in turn help the defense
-
I personally feel that Grigson's biggest problem is that he looks for players that fit the mold of what he was when he played (blue collar, hard working, max effort but with limited physical ability) so much to the point that he overthinks it a little. That's why we don't have that many game changers or elite level athletes drafted outside of Luck and TY. He needs to start looking for potential studs, not just overachieving role players
I also think the coaching staff needs some significant shaking up done in the off-season. Gilbert and Manuskey are becoming liabilities, at this point. I would be thrilled to see them both replaced
-
Everyone struggles with New England. The problem is getting blown out of the stadium four times in a row. I don't think our defense lacks for toughness, in general, but that front sure does play like gummy bears against the Pats.
There has to be a "tell" in either our personnel or scheme that they've figured out how to exploit, extensively. The thing that annoys me most is that the players don't even seem all that angry about New England smacking them around every game we play each other. I'm not suggesting to resort to dirty play, but I wouldn't be mad if the D had decided to just tee off on Brady with an all out blitz when he was still in the game tossing it around late in the 4th quarter. They don't respect us at all, nor should they as long as we let them continue to bully us every time we meet
-
We'll struggle with New England as long as Bellichek is the coach. He's just so much smarter than most coaches -- ours included
-
Your first sentence is contradictory. You say that you do not believe that the owners are in cahoots, but that they are a brotherhood that looks out for their own. I don't see the difference.
I'm not going to get into a sociology debate with anyone on a football forum, but I'll just say that you should step back and realize what you are saying in the rest of your post. You are enabling the common thought process that allows people to make broad unsupported assumptions based upon the knowledge of specific incidences when they happen. The only possible conclusion anyone can reasonably make is that racism existed in those specific incidences. Using those incidents to cast a larger assumption of racism on the general body...who are not involved in the specific incidents..... is both incendiary and slanderous. Yet, that type of thinking is commonplace.
You understood what I was saying in the first sentence. You're arguing semantics to deflect from addressing the actual point in the sentence. You accused me of saying all NFL teams are working together when hiring candidates. I never made that claim, and that's what the ''cahoots' comment was referring to. I do, however, believe that owners and GM's have friends whom they are more willing to hire than candidates that they don't know, regardless if that candidate is more or less qualified. Those are 2 independent thoughts, not meant to be lumped together. If they come across contradictory, it is because you're being willfully ignorant, as you don't want to acknowledge that networking is a greater factor in deciding whom hires who than the Rooney rule is.
The rest of your post is pure idealism, and not based in reality. This is the world we live in and there will always be those who feel the need to discriminate and have prejudices because they have to feel superior to someone else. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with your view of the world, but it is true
-
I think the point of the responses is that you can't draw any conclusions about the hiring practices of "the NFL" by observing the most recent round of hirings.
And to a broader point...each team acts independently. The owners don't meet in a room and decide as a collective who gets interviewed and who doesn't. For example, you can't assign a racist charge to the owners of the Bears for hiring Fox because the owners of the Raiders also hired Del Rio..or because that Pep didn't get hired by anybody. However, assumptions like that are very much commonplace in our society thanks, in part, to our education system and the personal opinions of journalists. Stop the slander please.
And to the other point about denials of opportunities....No company has sufficient time to interview everybody. If the last qualified white person on the list gets dropped off in favor of complying with a law that requires the company to interview a minority, then yes, that last qualified white guy got denied his opportunity to interview for that specific position offered by that specific company because of his race. That's racism.
I never suggested that the NFL as a whole is in cahoots. You're in serious denial, however, if you don't believe there is a brotherhood within the NFL that looks out for their guys in particular. If you're wanting a level playing field, take all bias factors into consideration, not just the Rooney rule because the topic of inequality or racism is what makes you most uncomfortable
As to your point about companies not having enough time to interview everybody, what's different from a minority candidate getting the last interview because he's the most qualified minority in comparison to a less qualified white candidate who happens to be friends with the employer? Or worse, what if the employer just flat out hates minorities?
Unfortunately we can't read minds, so there has to be rules and mandates to keep employers somewhat honest. It's easy to criticize when you haven't experienced prejudice to that magnitude first-hand. And maybe you have experienced it, but in my experience with those who HAVE experienced discrimination in the work force at some point in their lives, they tend to show a little more empathy towards those victimized by that topic.
There seems to be this new-age sentiment going around now that we live in a Utopia where institutionalize racism no longer exists, all because Obama was elected president. I don't understand it
-
You all missed the point of my OP, entirely. I'm not arguing that race was the motivating factor behind the hires of the coaches I listed. I'm saying that the rationale that being required to interview black candidates is somehow causing more "qualified" candidates to miss out on coaching jobs because of the Rooney rule, is flawed. In fact, one can argue (which I am doing right now) that politics wins out in the end, and the Rooney rule isn't preventing any white candidates from coaching interviews at all. The same old coaches are being recycled, and the inner network of coaching trees/friends of "royalty" in football is still running strong.
It just annoys me that everytime Pep Hamilton's (or any other young black coach) name is brought up as a candidate for a head coaching position, people automatically resort to attacking the Rooney rule. The fact that some can't phathom a young black coach getting interviews on his own merit, is more telling of character of those that perpetuate that sentiment than it is of anything else
EDIT: And yes I realize that's what some of you think the Rooney Rule does itself. I strongly disagree, however. The Rooney doesn't s guarantee anyone anything. All it does is put someone different in a GM/owner's face for an interview that they might not have considered before, simply because they're not familiar with the guy (maybe) If a owner still wants a particular guy, the Rooney rule isn't stopping him from hiring that guy. The rule is not without flaw, but the spirit of it is very necessary, as the statistics throughout the history of the game (even still) show that not enough minorities are being looked at for those positions.
Also, racism still exists. Stop acting like it doesn't. Just look at the nonsense that's went on in the NBA with their owners in the last year. You're telling me that couldn't happen in the NFL?
-
To all you anti-Rooney rule posters on here, I'd like to hear your opinions on why proven mediocre coaches are being recycled into head coaching positions not long after being fired?
Kubiak is a leading candidate for the Denver job (friend of the org), Jack "fricken" Del Rio just got a job in Oakland, for crying out loud. John Fox is fired by Denver and lands in Chicago. Rex Ryan to Buffalo, and the list goes on. So how exactly has the Rooney rule kept "more qualified" coaches from getting jobs? If anything, I see plenty of "good ole boy" connections being the main culprit in preventing up and coming coaches from getting their fair shot, yet I don't see near the same amount of outcry over it, despite the fact that many of the "old guard" are proven losers and keep getting 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances.
THAT, in my opinion, is why the Rooney rule, and others like it, still very much have their place in today's NFL. Just my two cents
-
They are not going to do. Simply will not happen. Davis will be lined up wide on the defensive right and take whoever comes out to him. They will have a different plan for Gronk.
I actually saw Vontae work a handful of plays in the slot during the 2nd half yesterday. You never know, we might have a few new wrinkles in the game plan next week
-
Mods, you can merge this with the "Cribbs play" thread. I didn't see it at first. My bad
-
This guy is horrible. His explanation on the Cribbs "fumble" play was absolutely laughable. I'm glad he no longer has any influence over any of the games. I find myself consistently disagreeing with his explanations of official rulings, and he tends to be incorrect on his predictions more times than not, anyways
-
We have to play p****d off and with a chip on our shoulders. This team disrespected and embarrassed you in your own house. Take it personal and bring the fight to them
-
No but your snide and condescending remarks are awesome... which is why I will enjoy seeing the Colts lose because of people like you.. if they win, I'll privately congratulate a few decent people on these forums, but people like you I will bask in the glory of the defeat
I was directly responding to someone who said that Landry was playing well because the Colts thought the Bengals would run more... they knew they would run more because their 2 biggest weapons on offense were out of the game..
But don't let me stop you from being completely rude, obnoxious, snide and condescending.. all great qualities!
You forfeited your right to be indignant the moment you stepped into this thread and started baiting, guy
-
Who gives a flying # what they got out of the pick. We traded our valuable first round pick for a turd. Just because they lost as well (assuming Johnny Football busts) does not mean we won. I was hoping you were joking but clearly you are not. Your logic is pretty awful.
Wow, I didn't even read your post before I posted. Too funny lol
-
Sit there and + and whine and * and moan till you use up all the oxygen left in our atmosphere.
Richardson is better than manziel.
We have been better off with Richardson than they have with manziel.
THERE is your touted value.
We've gotten more VALUE out of the pick that changed hands than they have.
Who cares who's better between a booger and a turd? We still picked the mystery box with a big fat turd inside when there were multiple other boxes to choose from. Cleveland essentially traded their turd in a box for a mystery box full of boogers
Everybody lost. No need to brag
-
I hate the Cowboys now. I hope they get destroyed next week if they win
-
Expect a flag if they don't convert this here
-
What a bogus call. The fix must be in
-
Just make it so that each division winner has to finish the season above .500 in order to get an automatic bid. If they don't, the team(s) with the best record of the remaining wildcard contenders gets their spot(s) in the playoffs
Problem solved, NFL. Is it really that difficult?
-
Why is there so many Pats fans in our board?
Because some of them live vicariously through their team, and need an outlet to feel better about their own lives.... Thus, they come here to troll Colts fans
-
If TODAYS team shows up next week, Colts will win!
I certainly hope today's team DOES NOT show up next week. We will NOT win if it does. Drops, turnovers and penalties is not a recipe for beating the Broncos. If the Bengals had any life on offense, we could've lost this game, easily
When I compare our talent w/ NE, I give them the edge in these categories
in Colts Football
Posted
I'll just say that you're in total denial if you don't believe the Pats are in the Colts heads at this point. The last matchup was the embodiment of a team mentally defeated. The Pats should not be that many points better than us consistently