Lucky Colts Fan
-
Posts
5,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Lucky Colts Fan
-
-
-
Just now, SteelCityColt said:
Yep, funny how the naysaying dampens down. A fan's curse is to be too biased by outcomes. That's not how football works.
Thank you!
Some of these fans don't realize a football game is like a chess match. You're not going to "win" every play, but you analyze what your opponent does and set them up for later moves.
"WhY hAvEn'T tHeY pUt ThEm iN cHeCkMaTe, yEt? It'S bEeN 3 mOvEs!"
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
Big GROVE!
-
4 hours ago, richard pallo said:
Bottom line we know we need a better QB which is why we will sign one in FA and we need better receivers which is why we will sign one in FA and draft one as well.
I know it's semantics, but we need better play from our QBs and receivers. That doesn't necessarily mean we need different QBs and receivers.
I'm not sure what word I wanna use to describe the disconnect between our QB and receivers last year. The first word that comes to mind is "trust", as in a trust-issue with Brissett either not trusting his guys to make contested catches, or not trusting what he's seeing when trying to read the defense.
But it might be more of a risk-averse thing with Brissett. He's just not as willing to make riskier throws where his receivers would have to make a contested catch. When you look at the QBs for those top-10 receivers on the list from @EastStreet, there's kind of a theme: QBs willing to make riskier throws because they trust their receiver to make the catch, regardless of separation. Brees, Mahomes, Rivers, Stafford, Mayfield, and even Fitzmagic all have a little gunslinger in 'em.
I know Colts fans probably don't wanna hear Brissett and gunslinger in the same sentence, but if he made more risky throws, trusting his receivers to make the catch, we might be pleasantly surprised.
-
2
-
-
-
Happy Birthday to former Colt and future HoFer Dwight Freeney!
To honor his 40th birthday, NFL.com posted this video of Freeney's famous spin-move sacks throughout his career.
-
3
-
-
He is good at checkers.
But that doesn't help in a chess tournament.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, DougDew said:
No, not all of it is irrelvant, just the parts I said were irrelevant are irrelevant. The point's I made are the parts that are relevant.
Pointing out that KC did not have three of their top impactful players, and a gimpy Mahomes, is relevant. Trying to minimizing that point by talking about Lewis, Campbell, Hooker etc. is the part that's irrelevant.
Lol. No, your point is just as irrelevant as any other hypothetical impact.
Someone could just as easily say that if both teams were 100% healthy, INCLUDING Andrew Luck, the outcome might have been the same. Or that a 100% healthy Colts team INCLUDING Andrew Luck would have won the SB.
It doesn't matter. What happened, happened.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:
Not remotely close.
What I called out was another's opinion that Parris, Lewis, Rock, and Hooker have the same impact as Hill, Watkins, Jones, and a gimpy Mahomes.
We had JAGS replace our starting JAGS. They had JAGS replace probably the most impactful players KC has. KCs injuries mattered. Ours didn't.
If we had lost Nelson, AC, Kelly, and Smith; that would have mattered, because about the only nonJAGS we have all play on the oline (which is why we were able to control the ball w/o a healthy Mack).
How many different ways do I have to say the same thing?
Your what-if scenario isn't any more relevant than another persons' what-if scenario.
It's all irrelevant. Hypothetical impacts don't matter. Colts won the game. Period.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:
I think its pretty reasonable to assume that KC without Hill or Watkins and Mahomes on half a left leg has more impact on their team than us not having Lewis or Campbell, since we have no way of measuring how much impact either has when they are in an NFL game. Same goes for most of our injured players.
Just sayin. You're calling someone elses' opinion irrelevant because they're playing a what-if scenario, when you're doing the same thing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, DougDew said:
You're playing a what if scenario.
Aren't you also playing a what-if scenario talking about the outcome of the game being different depending on hypothetical injuries that would have been relevant or mattered zero?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, chad72 said:
Just a QB doesn’t get it done, yes it starts there no doubt. Patriots got so many defensive players in free agency, including Gilmore.
You have to get a QB and get help in free agency/trades.
This. I think if Luck had stayed, Ballard would be making a splash in FA this year the way KC and SF did this past season. But he'll probably use this next season to get the QB situation locked down, then go big in FA the following year.
Keep building the core through the draft, find your QB, then hit FA hard. Hopefully he can do all that sooner rather than later.
I don't wanna wait 50 years like KC had to! 
-
19 minutes ago, EastStreet said:
Was cheering for SF because of ND players, but glad to see the AFC get a win, and Andy get a trophy.
Same.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, JPFolks said:
(If you haven't seen our home/away schedule I had to have us win all 3 home division games and Cincy just to find 4 home wins and 4 road wins was no easy feat either).
If we go 7-9 or worse with anything other than a promising rookie I think Ballard will be on the hottest of seats and in listening to this interview I think he knows it. He has to roll the dice on a rookie. He has the luxury of sitting him behind Brissett for a year and that buys him another year to debut and succeed against FAR easier competition the next year.
There are so many factors and unknowns that can happen before next season, it's impossible to know which teams are going to be good next year, much less two years from now. Perfect examples are the up-and-down last few seasons of the Colts, 49ers, Steelers, Browns, Bears, Chargers, Packers, etc.
It seems like every year there are teams that go from worst-to-first in their division or vice-versa. You have no idea who is going to be "FAR easier" competition two years from now.
16 hours ago, JPFolks said:We are a Ballard solution/pick from becoming a basketball city again.
This is laughably false.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Flash7 said:
1. I usually find that it's better if I don't form an argument with "what ifs". For example, if Mahomes and the Chiefs offense were healthy against the Colts, it's possible we lose that game. Or if Watt stayed healthy, it's possible that the Texans win more games. Or if Tannehill started at the beginning of the season for the Titans, it's possible that they win more games.
Fair enough. I'm just saying we're not that far off.
Better QB play and better pass rush would put us in the mix.
That's a far cry from what Doug and a lot of other people are saying.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, DougDew said:
That explains a lot about why we have been slow to achieve.
Slow to achieve? We just went 7-9 without our franchise QB. The 49ers went 4-12 without their franchise QB...
It's entirely possible that if our DLine (Turay) stayed healthy, we might have won an extra game here or there and made the playoffs, then won the AFCCG with our QB only having to throw the ball 8 times thanks to a strong running game (#5) and defense. We already beat KC once this year (in KC), we could have done it again.
19 minutes ago, DougDew said:Why getting personal, did I ruin some ongoing narrative you have convinced yourself of?
I think you're using this thread to add to your ongoing narrative you've convinced yourself of about Ballards' 1st-round picks.
-
2
-
-
Lucks' rookie season really was special.
The Reggie Reach TD against Green Bay.
The Vick Ballard spinning torpedo TD.
The comeback in Detroit.
The beginning of the Luck-to-TY longball.
That was an exciting time to be a Colts fan!
-
1
-
-
We beat the Titans in week 17 last year to get into the playoffs, then the Texans in the playoffs.
Those two teams got into the playoffs and won their Wild Card games this year.
The AFC South is a pretty darn good division.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:
So except for a couple you don’t even need the one or two pick to get a star QB. Only one was drafted in the top 2. You can almost say the 1st and 2nd picks have a high rate of being a bust.
The other day you were saying this organization was "falling apart" because we weren't picking in the top 10 and were going to miss out on the star QBs...
33 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:It really is about the organization and the talent they surround a QB with. Then add coaching that can develop a young QB. No way so many high draft picks are failures because they were bad. So much of it is a bad organization and not getting them the talent.
Andrew Luck did pretty good considering the situation he was thrust into with a poor team and Grigson/Pagano as his GM/HC. On the flip-side, Mariota didn't do as well on a team with a good running game and defense.
You're like a human yo-yo, making a generalization one day, then making the complete opposite generalization the next day... it's like you're always dealing in absolutes, but you go from one stance to the opposite one based on what tweets you happen to read that day...
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
When your drafting late in the first your not going to get stars right away. They are going to need time to develop.
That's not true. Some teams are drafting at the end of the first round EVERY year (Pats, Steelers, Ravens, etc.) and still manage to remain good year-in and year-out, getting production from good rookies.
You're not going to get the generational talents like Luck, Saquan, etc. but you can find stars all throughout the draft, not just the top-10 picks. There are just as many top-10 picks that turn out to be busts as there are guys picked in rounds 2-7 that turn into stars within their first year or two.
-
2
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, DougDew said:
Not sure if Luck ever did.
He did.
7 hours ago, DougDew said:Certain things just struck me as Love having a more "casual" approach to things than some of his peers.
Like what? You have yet to provide anything other than him playing football on Merlin Olsen Field (by the way, look him up before bashing Utah State as some sort of football purgatory).
3 hours ago, DougDew said:Again: After reading the reviews, listening to the reviews, reading some background, the thought struck me that he might be a weed risk.
There is no "again" because you never provided any of this a first time. What reviews? What background did you read? Please provide links, or just tell us what/when/where you "saw and heard".
7 hours ago, DougDew said:I'll explain it another way.
Please don't. Just explain it the direct way. Provide evidence to support your claim that it's "not surprising" he was charged with possession of marijuana. Where did you get the information that led to your suspicions? Stop making generalizations about other football players, or job interviews, or hypothetical outlier behavior, or drinking beer and eating cheetos.
What's with all the smoke-and-mirrors? Do you not want us to pull back the curtain and see that you're not the Great And Powerful Oz, that you're just an average joe with the same access to the same information as the rest of us?
-
3
-
-
48 minutes ago, DougDew said:
In NFL terms, "high motor" personalities...or Type A's...TEND to find sitting around getting a buzz to be an unproductive waste of time.
Ok... how would you explain Peyton Manning (probably the most "type A" ever) sitting around listening to country music while drinking budweiser when he was at Tennessee?
This feels like yet another thread where you make an off-the-wall comment, then try to be mysteriously vague by making a bunch of generalizations instead of just answering questions in a straight-forward way...
"based upon the way I see things"
"decades of the cover-up type of education you've likely received"
"probably not in a way that you could comprehend"
"I can't explain it, but the thought strikes me"
... Doug, this is beyond ridiculous. You can't honestly believe that any of us take you seriously when you post this sort of tripe.
-
3
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:
So I'd wonder why such a physical guy 6.4 235 with a deadly accurate arm is playing at Utah State. I'm sure there are reasons...um excuses.... all over the net to explain it, but since the reason does not seem to be physical, it must be personality related.
So the fact that he plays at Utah State is what you "saw and heard"? There wasn't anything else you "saw and heard" that led to your assumption about his personality?
Did you have the same assumption about Patrick Mahomes playing at Texas Tech?
-
1
-
I don't wanna wait 50 years like KC had to! 
Ravens @ Colts, November 7, 2020, 1pm ET
in Colts Game Day
Posted
Yeah, why doesn't he have eyes in the back of his helmet so he can see those shoe-string-tackles coming from behind him?
/s