2006Coltsbestever

I am not just saying this because I am a Colts fan but LOS is immaculate. It is clean, the seating is good, plenty of bathrooms, and history throughout the stadium. If anyone says that is a dump, they belong in a straight jacket and must hate everything .

I would rather pay a WR that is great compared to a RB that is great as well if both are in their primes with the way the game is today. That has never been my debate. Not a 30 year old WR though compared to a 25 year old RB regarding that. What great WR's do the Giants have or do we have is the key question? I can answer that, it is none. Both teams have a couple of good WR's, Pittman is good but not great. So taking that into account, if a RB is your best player and in his prime (not old) and is a playmaker, one would think your FO would pay him for at least 3 years on nice deal. That is just my thinking. RB by committee is marvelous if you have a great QB and at least 1 great WR. Giants or the Colts have either.

That is a gamble your FO has to decide on because Barkley played in 16 games last year and was real durable. JT was injured last season but it wasn't a career threatening injury and really playing him injured would have made no sense anyway after we fell to 4-8-1. The season was over at that point. In 2021, JT was actually mentioned by many in the media as possibly being the MVP when we were 9-6. Mcaffrey is making 16 Mill a year and in 2020 he only played in 3 games, in 2021 he only played in 7 games. Barkley has been more durable than he is as a whole. It is funny how nobody seems to have a problem with Mcaffrey making 16 mill though but if Barkley or Taylor wanted 14 mill a year, they would think it was insane. Being durable in football is tough to begin with. How durable has Hopkins been the last 2 years, not at all but should he get a pass for just signing a nice deal worth 13 Mill a year at the age of 31 because he is a WR?

Nothing like a good stinky ball park

If he is looking for 13 Mill a year by your guess, that is reasonable. He has played 5 seasons and has had 1 season where he suffered a year ending injury, that was in year 2. The other 2 years you speak of where he did miss games, he still played in 13 games so it wasn't like he wasn't durable. All I know is this, if Taylor doesn't get re-signed because he only wants a couple of more Mill than what we are offering, I will look at our FO as a joke and really start wondering if we want to win or not. If I was a Giants fan right now I would be livid.

If he got paid 14 mill a year, he wouldn't be re-setting the market though. McCaffrey is making 16 mill a year over 4 years with 38 Mill guaranteed. Unless I am missing something, I have never heard Barkley say he wanted to be the highest paid back in the league. He just wants a contract that is reasonably great, what he feels he is worth. 10 Mill a year on a franchise tag is an insult but that is my opinion. By the way Barkley played in 16 games last year and was healthy to end the season. He had over 1300 yards with 10 TD's. Another thing is and I didn't even realize he was this great at pass catching but I looked up his stats and he caught 91 balls his rookie season and 57 last year. Despite being a great runner, the guy is capable of being a great receiver too. Catching 91 passes for a back is beyond great for 1 season. 57 is very good.

IMO, it is just my opinion (some may disagree) but Taylor's contract is something we need to take care of this season sometime. Otherwise it is going to be a huge distraction. Look out how the RB's are acting now to what happened to Barkley. Chubb isn't happy either. Get Taylor signed to something like a 3 year deal for 42 million = 14 a year million with 30 million guaranteed and call it a day. I think that is reasonable and I doubt Taylor could really complain about that. That would have to make him feel like he is wanted and important. I have to be honest, if I was Barkley I would sit out all year or until the Giants pay him what he deserves. I am sure he has enough money in the bank where he isn't eating McDonalds every day - If Barkley doesn't play it will also prove how mediocre the Giants actually are. I can't see them winning more than 7 games without Barkley. It is a passing league I get it, but there are outliers, Barkley and Taylor are 2 of them.

If certain teams are built to run quite a bit, I say quite a bit, then I see 0 reason why that RB should not get at least a 2nd contract. RB's that have been great don't start to fall off until there late 20's on average. That are RB's that have been great. That is going by the 45 years I have watched football. Had the Giants signed Barkley to a 3 yr deal for example, that only takes him upto 28 years old. I really hope with everything going on that it doesn't affect Taylor's way of thinking and he gives it his all/100% in 2023. His contract will be up after 2023, that is going to be interesting.

Brewers fans are the worse IMO. I go by reading their chat over at ESPN and CBS. They have never won a damn thing and put the Cubs and Cards on a daily basis. It is jealousy. Some of my family are Reds fans, I have an uncle and an aunt that love the Reds. I have never had anything against the Reds. My uncle was young but grew up watching the Big Red Machine in 1975 and 1976 (he was around 11 or 12 when the Reds won it all then), so he knows great baseball. He can name every player on the 1990 team that won it all. Most Cards fans I have encountered have been pretty cool. Of course because of our rivalry with them, I can't root for the team but when they do well I don't act childish about it or act jealous. It is what it is to me. I respect them for the history they have. At my work and people I have came across, I can honestly say there has only been 1 Cards fan I couldn't stand. He flat out hated the Cubs and was rooting for them to lose so badly in 2016, he was losing sleep over it. This dude in my book was simply a jealous comical hater in my book. When the Indians were up 3-1 in the WS, he would say things like 3-1 Indians, 109 years now, etc.. Blah blah. When the Cubs came back, I let that guy have it not only for days but for years. He wanted no part of me after that. I even put up a banner of the 2016 World Championship, saying Cubs 2016 World Champions in my office to let him know who was boss - screw with me, you get the horns

That is why Myles Post through for me for a loop. I have heard different things about Wrigley but never heard it called a dump. Hey if someone thinks it is a dump that is their opinion, but a rare one because I have been a Cubs fan since 1984 and I have never heard anyone say that. I have actually heard Busch Stadium in St louis is nice. It looks nice on TV but according to Kris Bryant it sucks . I think when some people just hate teams, they will down the city or where they play no matter what. It is pretty much sour grapes. That would be like any Colts fan saying Gillette sucks and is a dump. Only reason why they would say that is because they hate the Pats, JMO. I can see right through most things.

A dump? Wow, that is the first person I have ever heard say that. Many on sports radio that host shows (sports broadcasters) and fans that call in at CBS and Fox say that is one of the best venues to attend in Baseball. I have never been to a game at Wrigley Field but I have a cousin that lives close to the stadium, her and her husband have been to many games over the last 20 years or so and they tell me that the stadium is really nice and is nostalgic when it comes to baseball. Everyone is different, of course Kris Bryant said the whole city of St Louis was a dump and that playing in Wrigley field was much better than playing in St Louis. I value his opinion as he has been to that city 100's of times and played there. Bottomline with me, I have no opinion on what stadiums or cities are dumps. It is a matter of opinion. I know when I went to see the Colts at Bears back in 2004, Soldier Field was beautiful and had great football tradition.

All Right! Cubs win and take 3 of 4 from the Cards. Brewers lost today so it has been a great day. We gained a game on them. NL Central Standings as of July 23rd look like this: 1. Brewers 55-45 2. Reds 55-46 (.5 out) 3. Cubs 48-51 (6.5 out) 4. Cards 44-56 (11 out) - 44% winnings 5. Pirates 43-55 (11 out) -43.9% winnings, in the cellar by .01. Cubs are only 6.5 games out with 61 games to go. This is doable. I can hear Joe Buck now since the Cubs are reasonably good again for the moment. Joe - The Cubs should sell, get rid of Bellinger who is the hottest player in Baseball, trade him to the Cards . Sorry media people, that crap isn't happening again where we just get rid of our main core like we did in 2021 with players that won the WS in 2016. Sorry about your luck Cubs haters! Bellinger, Swanson, Nick H, Steele, Stroman and Hendricks the old Dog aren't going anywhere. - Hey Buck, do you have a light for the rivalry?

Cubs up a Touchdown already. 7-0 over the Cards after 3. Winning 3 out of 4 in this series is surprising if the Cubs hang on. It is pretty huge too. We are once again creeping toward the .500 mark. A win would put us at 48-51. I need the Brewers to start losing

Brewers are a bunch of pests lol. Cubs beat the Cards again today 8-6. Cubs are still 7.5 games out of 1st place in the NL Central behind the Brewers. Reds look good right now in 2nd place.

Pretty good scale so I gave you a LIKE. My scale is: Great Very good Good Above average Average Below average Bad I have Matt Stafford at the very good level for his career. Cousins on the good level. Great would be Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Big Ben. Very good would be Lamar Jackson, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning for a few examples. Someone that is above average for his career is a QB like Ryan Tannehill. Not quite good but can win you some games and be good at times. Kirk Cousins is good but not quite very good, jmo.

I seen the highlights. Cubs had to hang on to win 4-3. I predicted a split, so far it is par for the course. Cubs are at 46-51 still hanging around in the possible playoff talk. I don't think they will be a playoff team but you never know.

I have to get some sleep, work here in a while but right now it is 1-1 Bottom of the 3rd. Cubs need this one but I don't feel real confident about it.

Talking about RB's. Just for craps and giggles, If I had a team and switched things around as in give my RB's all the money and not pay my WR's top dollar I would still be hard to beat even without a great defense or a Top 5 QB, or a Top 5 WR. Give me just a good defense, they have to be good and a defense that creates Turnovers, give me a Top 10 QB, he has to be Top 10 = Lamar Jackson for example. I could even win the SB. I will just take Pittman and Pierce our WR's and a TE like Andrews so my passing game would still be a threat, give me Barkley and JT in a 2 back offense with Lamar at QB. There is not 1 team that could stop that offense. Opposing teams heads would be spinning and not know what way I am running or who is running it between the 2 backs and even Lamar. They can't play 8 men in the box either because Andrews would eat them alive, or Pittman would have easy slant plays all day for 7 or 8 yards. Hell Pierce would probably have the occasional bomb to him. With at least an above average Line and that running game, I could control the clock (TOP) and wear defenses out by the 4th Qtr.

Yeah that was an ugly game by the Cubs. Cards on fire right now, we caught them at a bad time.

If I have the best QB in the league, obviously I am all for RB by committee and spending my money in other places. Having a Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Pat Mahomes, etc.. Of course that is obvious to anyone as they would do the same. Those QB's are arguably the best that has ever played this game. Without a top 5 RB, I will believe it when I see it as in Burrow, Hurts, or Allen ever winning a SB. Hurts came close last year but had a career year. I am talking about winning it all, not 13-3 every year then losing in the playoffs. Even Brady depended heavily on Dillon in 2004 before he was really Tom Brady that was dominant from 2007-2020. Imagine if Andrew Luck would have had a top 5 RB from 2012-2014? My God, we would have dominated. We had no run game at all during these years and still won 11 games every season.

I get it but lets see if any teams now become Dynasty's. Chiefs perhaps, 1 team out of 32 without having an elite Top 5 RB. Mahomes is like Brady and Peyton is the only reason why they may win 3 or 4 SB's. If the Bengals had a Top 5 RB, don't you think they would have won the SB over the last 2 years? Same for the Bills? I get it, you just think the RB position is expendable or not important. Of course, every team would love to have a top 5 QB in the league, top 10 at worse. That is the most important position on the field. Not having a top RB to go along with it makes things tough to become a dynasty. If the 2000's Colts from 2003-2009 could've kept Edge James, I have no doubt we would have at least won 2 SB's or maybe a Back to Back in 2006 then in 2007. By your logic and some others in here, why not just get rid of the RB position all together? Lets just have 5 Offensive Lineman, 1 TE, and 4 WR's to go with QB . Colts all-time team: QB - Peyton Manning in the RB slot - TY Hilton WR1 - Marv WR2 - Reggie WR3 - Raymond Berry TE - John Mackey Then the 5 O.Lineman. Who needs to run it? We could always let TY run a sweep occasionally.

Every Dynasty in the SB era since the 70's had a top 5 RB in the league/top 5 paid RB on their team. My definition of Dynasty = winning 3 or more SB's or at least a team that goes Back to Back. The 70's Steelers - won in 1974/75/78/79, they had Franco Harris. The 70's Dolphins - won in 1972/73 = Back to Back, they had Csonka and Morris. Went undefeated in 1972 and Csonka and Morris both rushed for 1000 yards. Csonka was their main Bell Cow. The 80's 49ers - won in 1981/84/88/89, they had Roger Craig for 3 of those - 84/88/89. Craig was the 1st RB in history to have 1000 Yards rushing and 1000 yards receiving which happened in 1985. The 90's Cowboys - won in 1992/93/95, they had Emmitt Smith. The 90's Broncos - won in 1997/98 = Back to Back, they had Terrell Davis. The 2000's Patriots - won in 2001/03/04. That was their first run and the last team to win a Back to Back. Corey Dillon was arguably the best RB in football in 2004 with 1635 yards and 12 TD's. He even made the Patriots all 2000's team for the decade. He also made the Patriots all Dynasty team. *Chiefs aren't a Dynasty yet, they need to win 1 more or Back to Back. They are on their way though. Every Dynasty had 1 thing in common, they had a Top 5 RB on their team that was a Bell Cow.

There again, I can say QB's like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Big Ben and Pat Mahomes didn't need a top 5 RB (top 5 paid RB to win a SB). They have accounted for 15 SB wins since 2001, so one RB in 22 years is misleading when 15 times teams had a QB that could just take over a game. Most teams would benefit bigtime with having a top 5 RB/top 5 paid RB because they don't have a Top 5 QB like the guys I mentioned above. Imagine Josh Allen with JT? Bills would probably be unstoppable. I seriously doubt the Bills ever win a SB with Allen because they have very little run game. If I was them, I would go after Cook and pay him big for a couple of years. I would bet my life savings that Daniel Jones never wins a SB without a top 5/top 5 paid RB. Without Barkley, they won't even make the playoffs.

Yeah but my main point is, they didn't win anything without Lynch. Wilson has always been a good QB. I don't think anyone would think otherwise. When I said "after thought", that basically meant = a QB that was good but never won a SB. Seattle won a SB because of Lynch and the D as much as it was Wilson.

I meant to say Wilson hasn't won a game that involves a Championship Game or SB without Lynch before someone corrects me. They have won a couple of WildCard games.