Btown_Colt
-
Posts
1,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Btown_Colt
-
-
1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:
Ok.. no it's not a guarantee. Neither is kicking the 3 BUT in the long-term you will win more games going for it in that situation. That's not opinion, that's math.
I’m not talking about math, or other games. I’m talking about this game and the way it’s going.
They wouldnt of of been in FG range if not for Jax d. They wouldn’t of been at the goal line if not for Jax d. You have to consider how the game is going. I’m usually a big fan of being aggressive....in this game, at that point you kick the FG.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, SteelCityColt said:
If you want to play for the win surely you go for the play that in the long-term will win you more games?
There is no guarantee to win more games because they went for it on 4 th down.
You play to to win the game, you take the points there, so that you know, you actually take the lead.
-
I mean the way the offense has been playing...kick the dang FG
-
Take the points
-
Lol Jax D is our best offense
-
1
-
-
Haeg is so good. Glad we got him back....
-
Shouldn’t that be more than just catch interference?
-
That was funny, but the Jim Irsay part was the best, imo. Especially with Manning on the tv in the background celebrating the super bowl. Well done
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, stitches said:
I apologize to the people who don't like PFF in advance
What? How did Luck not grade higher than Hilton? Luck played two positions. I didn’t see Hilton throwing any passes. And where is Chester Rodgers, he caught a pass or two, he should be up there. PFF is garbage. I like my grading system better. Sorry
-
40 minutes ago, DougDew said:
Out of context. He's a receiver who has no material role in the NFL unless paired with a TE in a two TE set. That's my opinion and it could change as I am open to it if he shows otherwise. OTOH, Doyle has a role in either system.
"Meh, its not that amazing of a signing. Other guys could probably put up good or similar numbers including Swoope" (who can run 15 yards to a wide open space just as quickly).
People not letting that go and quoting me is why we're still here bro.
Why isn’t Swoope putting up the numbers then?
-
1 minute ago, DougDew said:
I think I have. What I haven't done so far is claim what a talent he is or what a great "diamond in the rough" find he was, because I don't have a lot of info to believe it.
Sure you do. Did he perform like this in any of his previous years? Did Detroit never try to throw him the ball? He has always had the talent, he just never put it all together. Sure scheme helps, having Luck instead of Stanford probably helps to.
It’s a great signing because a) his production exceeds his contract, b) he has been a huge part of the Colts success this year and c) because Ballard/Reich realized the talent and how it could be utilized on their team.
-
Just now, DougDew said:
Nevermind. That's not his real name. Safe to say he has a lot of posts where he quotes a lot of people, not just me, to basically insinuate how dumb they are, but ironically, often uses no more than one 5 word sentence to do it.
I know, I was joking. Like your doing with this whole Ebron is a WR thing. I’ve seen your posts...you know more than your letting on.
You keep claiming that anybody can do what Ebron is doing, but yet you can’t provide any of the names. And the thing is, your basic premise, isn't wrong necessarily....he is a receiving TE. Just admit that he is having a hell of a good season catching footballs and scoring TD’s, as a receiving TE, and people would leave you alone.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, DougDew said:
People have been trolling me. Many of the posts out of the blue I've challenged. There have been others in other threads that go out of their way to use the word "amazing" that I've simply let go.
Member X says 15 things to me. Member Y says 15 things to me. Member Z says 15 things to me. All the same thing. I respond with 45 comments and statistically speaking, I have 3 times as many argumentative comments as anybody else. I get it, and don't care really.
I simply said that Ebron is not amazing to my eye, he was not an amazing signing by Ballard, and pointed out my reasoning....and people troll me by claiming I'm saying that because I love Grigson.
That's not trolling? Are you kidding me? And the worst troll on this forum is JackVan1973.
I haven’t posted here as long as you, so I may be wrong, but I’ve never seen a JackVan1973 post here.
-
19 hours ago, DougDew said:
But others would be better than they are if they went against a LB or an in the box Safety. Not sure how much he does that, but I assume that's why they call him a TE.
Lol so other teams believe he is TE, since they are putting LB’s and safety’s on him? I mean, they could put a corner in him if they wanted, no?
-
1
-
-
Yea, that is a pretty bad excuse for a bad play call. Surely folks aren't actually buying that.
-
I thought it was cool. The play worked, teams have to respect it now. I liked the call last week as well.
I think if it gives the Colts a chance to win, or convert a 1st down, they should do it again. When they start sending Luck on slants across the middle, then I'll object.
-
12 hours ago, Superman said:
But the game really boils down to pitcher vs batter.
This is what I was contesting originally. I thought that was being overly simplistic...but the more I have thought about it, I guess I can't deny that it does come down to pitcher vs batter.
12 hours ago, Superman said:Because of the more one-on-one nature of baseball, it's easier to embrace -- or at least understand -- the shift toward analytics in baseball. The stats stand out more distinctly, the sample sizes are greater, etc. I wasn't saying that this difference makes either sport better or worse.
To the bolded, I never thought you were trying to say that. To the rest of the paragraph, I agree with all of it.
I have thought about this more the last couple of days then I have in a long time and I have changed my opinion...football is proably the ultimate team sport - that was hard to say.
I still maintain that the baseball is the harder sport that requires more skill and no I don't want to debate it with you either!
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Superman said:
It's an in-depth topic, my opinion on which was boiled down to a sentence. There are a ton of angles from which it can be analyzed, my comment was simplistic because it was off topic, not because I haven't actually thought it out
Fair enough. I didn't mean to derail the thread.
55 minutes ago, Superman said:Aren't the bolded parts accounted for when I said "the entire team needs to perform well to have success"?
Sure. But you also said baseball is a "one-on-one sport masquerading as a team sport..." which contradicts the need for the team to perform well in order to have success comment, no?
1 hour ago, Superman said:But, the pitcher doesn't rely on his teammates when he's delivering the ball; the QB can't deliver the ball unless the OL blocks. The batter doesn't rely on his teammates when he's at the plate; the receiver can't catch the ball unless the QB throws it. Sure, a pitcher relies on his teammates to field the ball and get outs, and a batter relies on his teammates to bring him home, but I'm talking about the individual player's ability to execute when he's on the field.
I am not sure why it matters when a person has to rely on their teammate. It is the fact that they do indeed rely on their teammates that makes both sports a team sport.
You're good. I had long responses to each of your points, but it was getting redundant and you have me second guessing myself for the moment. I am considering this topic in ways I haven't before. I like both sports, but baseball was always my best sport, so I may be a little biased.
Last thing, just so I am sure, is your stance that it's easier to achieve better individual stats in baseball than it is football, therefore football is more of a team sport?
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
There's nothing inherently better or worse about a team sport vs an individual sport. That wasn't meant as a shot against baseball. I can see why it came across that way, but it's not.
I agree and I didn't really take it as a shot, although it could come across that way, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter if you like the sport or not, I just think your being overly simplistic.
1 hour ago, Superman said:I can revise: Baseball relies more on individual performance than on team-based performance, even though the entire team needs to perform well to have success.
Nope, still not true. 1st batter hits a double. Next three strike out. That double does 0 for the team unless his team mates get hits, or at least move him around the bases. The pitcher throws the ball, the hitter hits the ball, if the fielder doesn't field the ball, it doesn't matter how good the pitcher is. Your acting like it is one hitter vs one pitcher, which is just not correct. Yes it's one hitter at a time, one pitch at a time. The goal of the pitcher is to get the batter to hit a ground ball or pop fly, that can be played by the defense, to get the batter out. The best pitcher in the world can not get every single batter out by himself. The best batter in the world can not get on base even 50% of the time.
1 hour ago, Superman said:Also, while Luck was obviously the main catalyst to the success of the 2014 Colts, it's inaccurate to say that he did it on his own, especially in the playoffs. The defense was excellent against the Bengals and the Broncos, and Luck was only sacked once in those two games; John Fox's defensive game plan was incredibly conservative. And of course, the complete failure of anyone on offense being able to make a play highlights dramatically just how much a QB needs a decent team around him to win big games. The QB isn't even on the field for 45-50% of the game. We've seen tons of games, especially in the playoffs, where QBs stand idly by and watch the defense give up the lead the offense just secured. The 2016 opener against the Lions is a perfect example
OK, but I never said football wasn't a team sport. I said it is driven more by individual performance than baseball. Take Luck off the Colts, are they 11-5 Luck's first 3 years? Put Luck on the Browns, are they now better than the Colts?
The best pitcher in the game helps for what? 5 or 6 innings every 3 or 4 days? The best hitter in the game helps every 1 out of 9 at bats? And lets not forget that the players have to play both offense and defense.
And there is no taking a knee and running out the clock. You have to throw the batters until you get 3 outs.
1 hour ago, Superman said:So let's not pretend that just because QB is the most important position in team sports that it makes football any less of a team sport.
I sure didn't mean to make it sound that way. I never once said it wasn't a team sport. I just believe that having an elite player at that position contributes more to a teams success more so than having an elite pitcher or an elite hitter.
All team sports are going to have a position that is consider more important to the team than other position. All I am saying is over the course of a season, having an elite QB effects team success more than having an elite pitcher/hitter.
In the end this discussion doesn't matter. They are both team sports, which is the only point I was truly trying to make, and the debate on which is the ultimate team sport is an opinion that we will probably never agree on.
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
It's a one-on-one sport masquerading as a team sport (at best it's a one-on-nine sport)
Not a big baseball fan I take it? I agree with you on why analytics are easier for baseball, but not a team sport....c’mon.
Take the best QB to ever play the game and put him on the Browns then take whoever you consider to be the best baseball player of all time, regardless of position, and put him on the Reds or Orioles...who makes the bigger impact?
Both are team sports but let’s not pretend that football isn’t more individual specific than baseball. Let’s not pretend that excellent QB play can’t take teams with horrible offensive lines and sub par defenses to the AFCCG in 2014.
-
4 minutes ago, chad72 said:
Not if the Steelers, who have the benefit of a tie instead of a 3rd loss on their record take down New England at home.
That would mean we would open at New England.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Sevenfeet said:
Greetings from Nashville.
First, not one is saying here that the Titans are Super Bowl contenders but they did knock off both Super Bowl teams (Eagles, Pats) this year for whatever that's worth.
Not much considering neither team looks anything like they did last year, imo. Brady was definitely off against the Titans. Sure, some of that was the defense, but I think more of it had to do with him just being off his game. I’m not trying to take anything away from the Titans, the Colts didn’t beat either of them, I’m just saying the fact they were both in the super bowl last year isn’t relevant to this year.
It should be a good game this Sunday but hopefully Luck can keep his streak alive.
-
2 hours ago, GoColtsWin said:
@WoolMagnetAh, a joke. Got you. Not just a typical low shot(politcally) by a butthurt individual. And I would appreciate you not “Tugging”, as you put it, on anything political because last time I checked the forum rule, it’s not allowed.
-
Lewis has not get off. Bortles is throwing before Lewis takes off
Colts @ Jaguars Game Day Thread
in Colts Game Day
Posted
I assure you that is has nothing to do with you watching the game.
sit back, try to enjoy it.