DougDew

Lamey's voice was kind of grating, IMO. It was an acquired taste. His enthusiasm for a home-team broadcast was a good match. I don't think he'd be popular in a national/objective sense.

Well, the first requirement for successful broadcasting is to have a pleasant voice. Radio voices are usually deep because they are less grating on the ears. Somehow, she missed that screening.

I've been estimating two 4ths since about page 10. LOL.

Welp, that sucked. MIA put up a 70 burger. They'll probably figure out that they have other RBs who can run fast through a hole. Has JT been traded for two 4th rounders yet?

I don't think AR knows where to go with the ball as much as Hurts does. Hurts really isn't as talented as what he his given credit for. He's a very good game manager, and AR is too raw to be that. I think JT just doesn't play the Sanders role as well as Moss.

I think people see the runs Moss has and just mentally replace him with JT, and JT would have broken some of them. But Moss was able to get those runs because he wasn't such a focus of the O, so its not just a simple replace one with the other.

Stroud was the best QB in the draft, IMO. And it looks that way through 3 games. He can throw accurately to give his receivers YAC. Him being able to throw is based upon other players doing their jobs, and in the NFL you expect others to do their jobs too.. AR can survive better than Stroud when its a jail break.

I think JT has to have a lot of plays run for him in order to get those few big plays we love to see. That just hogs plays away from the passing game. RBs like Moss provide the O better balance. I guess "better" is relative.

Sure he is. It shows. I'd rather have him as the starter over JT. He's the kind of RB that compliments a passing game by churning out the tough yards. Unlike JT, who has to be run up the gut continuously as a focus of the O...hoping he breaks a run. JT's plays hog plays that should be given to the passing game. The role of the NFL RB in the 2020s is not to be the focus of the offense, so Moss is a better RB for the NFL. Besides, Moss has always been talented, and it showed in the few times he ran the ball in BUF. Its been injury/availability holding him back. But we won yesterday because the centerpiece of the O was a QB that knows where to throw the ball, complemented by the right kind of RB.

No, I'm 100% right. Scripted plays for a running QB got us the lead vs HOU. Minshew actually pushed the ball downfield when it mattered. There were comments yesterday that dreamed how we would be smoking the Ravens if AR was playing. We'd probably have lost. And of course Moss helped a lot, who is obviously a better all-around RB than Taylor...he just doesn't have the home run speed like JT and won't make a big difference making run.

Minshew is responsible for both of our wins! Great pick up by SS.

The team with the better QB won.

That may give us a better chance at winning the game.

Biases perhaps in some places. Different sources of education too. I think there is not enough time to cover all of the important details, some of which actually matter. I didn't intend to go down the path of education, as much as the civil war is OT too. I just mentioned it because most of us get that education from school. Thanks for your comments.

No, not seriously. I think Scott is way passed being school age. It seemed like the statement and confusion could be the result of history getting summarized differently as time passes. I respected almost every school teacher my children had.

Well, opinions on the matter can get charged up, so its best to stick with facts. This is pretty much how I learned early American History from my public school in the 1970s Slavery was being abolished very early in the country's history...shortly after forming. In 1789..slave trading was made illegal everywhere. And slave ownership was being abolished. It just took until about 1860 to go to war with the Southern states over it, but the sentiment was there for a long time. There was a lot of progressive anti-slavery policies very early in the country's history. From WIKI: In the 1770s, blacks throughout New England began sending petitions to northern legislatures demanding freedom. At the Constitutional Convention many slavery issues were debated and for a time slavery was a major obstacle to passage of the new constitution. As a compromise the institution of slavery was acknowledged although never mentioned directly in the constitution. An example is the Fugitive Slave Clause. By 1789, five of the Northern states had policies that started to gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire and Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut and Rhode Island (1784). Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, while it was still independent. When it joined the United States as the 14th state in 1791, it was the first state to join that had no slavery. By 1804 all of the northern states had abolished slavery or had plans in place to gradually reduce it.[3] I think it would be honorable to wear a Union uniform. I think you are talking about racism. I'm not. I'm just talking about the uniform and what it stood for at the time. I'm glad Andy is having some fun with the caricature.

That would be a fairly awkward thing to do, IMO. The civil war may not be taught using facts anymore, but the blue uni was the side against slave ownership, which also represented most of the population at the time. I don't recall what uniform the original Captain Andrew Luck caricature wore, but Andy was smart to choose the blue one.

Honestly, I had forgotten about the Franchise Tag option for a coming off a rookie deal. Part of the reason I mentally discarded it is because I think this situation is a bit different. This JT issue seems to (uncoincidentally?) coincide with a change in HC/scheme. Just not convinced either side wants to work together that much. Whereas typically the FT displeasure is strictly a contract thing and the player and team have no issues meshing otherwise, I'm not sure SS wants JTs skills even at FT money. Is JT a franchise money RB for the passing game...and does JT want be that RB? ARs supposed weakness is the passing game. So while we can drool over the the prospects of a superior running game with those two together, I don't think that combo enhances the passing game or ARs development as a passer. I've always thought there is more to the root of this issue than money and contract structure, JMO.

Yes, and that would assume they would have to sign JT to a multi-year deal. They would have the three headed monster this year and at least two of them next year. I think Waddle might be a FA? The problem is, is that they would have to replace Waddle via draft, so I would want to keep that 1st round pick if I were them...a low second won't get me that player. I think the team that would give the Colts the most capital is MIA, but I don't think that it would be Waddle now OR their 2024 1st.

And CLE just signed Hunt for 1 yr $4M. It seems nobody wants JT at his and Irsay's price. Comp pick here we come.

Yeah, teams that are in SB-run phase don't give up players. They give up picks. Its called mortgaging the future. I know people here get that, so I'm amazed that there is this suggestion that MIA would give up Waddle.

At this point though (and earlier), his value to the Colts is not based on his talent. His value to the Colts is based upon what the Colts will get from the FA compensation pick formula that will be applied in about 4 months. Other teams know this and have been waiting Ballard out....and know that Irsay was just gassing air about compensation. Unless a team want JTs talents for a SB run this year, then they'd negotiate for what he brings them this season.

What would be the logic in Ballard not accepting that offer? Ballard can keep JT for 4 more months if he wants to. Two 4ths equals the 3rd round compensation pick JT would give us when JT signs a FA contract with another team this spring. And if that comp pick is only a 4th, accepting a 2nd 4th now would be a better deal. And, if Ballard signs FAs this spring, the total contracts we sign may offset the comp picks we get by formula...so getting a sure-thing two 4th rounders now may be even a better deal than the nada we would get under that scenario. It becomes moot if JT agrees to a new deal with the Colts. But if JT doesn't sign with the Colts but plays out his season to earn FA status, one of those above scenarios are highly likely....so getting 2 4ths now is probably Ballard's best deal. That's the way I would see it if I was a GM negotiating with Ballard, and wasn't going to entertain a bidding war for JT.

Duh. Because less than a first has always been his value. I'll ask again. Has JT been traded for two 4th rounders yet? LOL.

I agree. I also think the issue of finding a fit for the organization lies more with the person doing the hiring than the candidate...who wants a job. I assume the coach presents his philosophy, scheme, etc., and the GM accepts it. That's why its a two headed problem. I can't imagine any GM hiring a veteran coach with tape on his play calling and schemes, doesn't already know what those are before he offers the coach the job. And I'd assume that the GM and his FO staff studies the tapes of the college QBs and determines that the QBs skills fit the coaches schemes, and then also consults the coach. For someone to suggest that the GM and possibly owner didn't know what they were getting with a vet HC, I think it focusing the problem a bit narrowly. If the GM is intentionally blind or ignorant as to thinking about what succeeds in the NFL....the kind of scheme the HC wants and the kinds of players needed to fit the HCs scheme, and relies on the HC to tell him that, then what exactly is the GMs qualifications for running a team?