BigQungus
-
Posts
498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by BigQungus
-
-
21 hours ago, ColtsLegacy said:
Lol, I'm clearly not talking about JB. Apparently, you just didn't watch us on D.
Except you weren't clearly not talking about JB... you weren't clearly talking about anyone. Up to that post, the only clue you gave was that it was a Colts player. Which was......helpful...
-
44 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:
As do I. That’s the problem with inconsistent players. You never know when they’ll be great or be bad.
Ive never been accused of being warm and fuzzy, but services rendered can’t make you immune to criticism or the truth. All it does it give you an extra shot or two to fix what isn’t working. We do owe him that but how many is the question.
I agree, I think this is his last season. I think he knows it too. That chargers game may end up costing us more than we know when the end of the season comes.
Actually it's starting to look less and less important than when it first happened, because we're leading the South, and even if we weren't, the Chargers don't look like they're gonna challenge us for a Wild Card spot this year...
-
39 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:
Then you’re letting your emotions control you. I can’t help that. The point of my post is that he’s inconsistent this year and flossing over that because of his past isn’t beneficial to the team now.
Where did I ever say that I think we should get rid of him this year? In fact I very clearly stated there isn’t a better option than Adam for us.
It is not an emotional decision to choose Adam Vinatieri over Cody Parkey. That's absurd. It is, however, a knee-jerk emotional decision to choose Parkey over Vinny.
I never denied that he has become inconsistent. Nor did I state that you said we should get rid of him this year. But you did question whether we would be ok with this if he wasn't Vinatieri (I don't really know what this means actually, because we very clearly are not ok with this. If "ok with this" means not calling for his head, then yes I guess we are ok with this, but it also means that you do think we should cut him, since you answered your own question in the negative), and I answered your question. Other than quibbles over what exactly being "ok with this" means, I don't see how we disagree. We both think that we should keep Vinny until the end of the year. We both think that we should move on after the year. We both agree that Vinny has gotten a little inconsistent, you more than I, but this slight variation in takes doesn't impact our recommendations for what to do with him. So I don't see how I'm somehow letting my emotions control me and you're not, when we're saying the exact same thing
-
15 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:
I get the point you’re making but you can’t compare QBs to kickers. Apples and oranges. That’s why players aren’t compared to other positions within the team but against other teams at the same position.
The same question I always ask, if his name wasn’t Adam Vinatieri, would we still be ok with this? His career aside, this season, I don’t think so. Other teams would be looking elsewhere or look to see if something can be corrected. Unfortunately for Adam, it may be Father Time has caught up.
Except he is Adam Vinatieri and we know that 1. the clutchness and non-physical factors are completely there and 2. He can still boot it 55 yards. Everyone's ignoring that that's his longest since 2002.
I don't care that he's inconsistent, it's a no brainer to take Vinatieri over Cody Parkey or whoever his replacement would be.
-
2
-
-
58 minutes ago, csmopar said:
i don't think we have enough to say yes or no. 1 game at DE doesn't give us enough information
Ok, but at least for the time being
-
The coaching staff has been switching Banogu with a lot of positions. He may have found his permanent-ish position now as our DE for passing downs, which was the role of Turay before he got hurt. Should we keep him there and utilize him more now that we've found a good spot for him?
-
43 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:
When a WR1 gets 800 yards, he's probably overpromoted. Even though Carolina does live on the run game, the fact that that's the best Funchess could manage while given literally every chance speaks against him, IMHO, not for him.
Well he was more WR1 by default. I'm definitely not trying to insinuate he should be a WR1 on a good team, but I think he's a suitable WR2 or WR3, which is what we need him to be with the emergence of Pascal.
Also, being a WR1 also means that you get the top corner from the other team. And he was only a WR1 after the trade deadline since that was when Benjamin was traded, so don't try to use his stats from the season as a whole.
Benjamin was traded on October 31st. In the 8 games that followed, Funchess put up 483 yards. That's 966 yards for a full season. For comparison, that's coincidentally exactly how many yards T.Y. Hilton put up in 2017, Brissett's first year at QB with us. That's also 60 yards per game, which is also the exact number of yards per game that Hilton has put up for us so far this season.
And let's not forget that Funchess has the most success on the routes that we run the most on offense.
To say that the guy that did that can't possibly be our WR3 is absurd
-
4 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:
Exactly. We are contenders now. Time to start being contenders. And that means, contend. Shore up your weaknesses, spend assets to maximize your chances and GO. FOR. THE. GOLD.
If we fail we fail, but it's still better to go for it than to sit back. Our players will learn more in an abortive playoff run than they will by coasting on draft talent.
I think you're underrating Funchess a lot. He was Carolina's WR1 when they traded Kelvin Benjamin, and he was great in the first game. He could be what we need to help the WR corp.
He is definitely not a depth WR
-
1
-
-
Kinda hard to not quickly stare at your first option on a play if they're zero blitzing all the time......
I thought we needed more screens and more play action
-
5 hours ago, dynasty13 said:
I've always wondered why this 'fact' seems to hold so much weight...or any at all...for some people. What is so impressive about winning with two teams if it happened the way it did: being released, hand picking your next team, and then being Trent Dilfered and Brad Johnsoned to a championship.
Don't get me wrong, Brady and Peyton were 1A and 1B during this generation and the all time conversations will always be fun...I just don't understand why the 'he won with two teams while the others only won with one' sentiment even enters the debate. Is it supposed to somehow tip the scales more for a guy if he wins 2 titles with 2 teams than if he won 4 titles with 1 team or if he won 6 titles with 1 team? Brady hasn't even been on 2 teams...why should Peyton get credit for it?
You're right, it's just as dumb as the "team loyalty" argument
-
16 hours ago, EastStreet said:
He's not really being released. He's injured and being placed on IR which effectively ends his season (and contract with NE). NE only had one slot left for "IR-designated to return", and they're going to use that on their OT (so no room for Gordon).
Doesn't mean they can re-sign him next year. N'Keal Harry is due back next week from injury, so they're probably happy with Edleman/Sanu/Dorsett/Harry going forward.
From what I'm hearing, they're not gonna bring him back this offseason
-
-
1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:
I was til this season I dont feel like going through 30 pages of JB is gonna be the MVP or the popular let's trade Luck when he comes back topic. both are ignorant as hell. how would you even know when I'm in here you've been a member for what 5 months??
I made that conclusion based on the logic of your previous statements. I did not say that you are or aren't on here a lot.
-
2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
You mean Melvin Gordon the HB?
Melvin Ingram the DE played, but was injured during the game.
Oh shoot I thought that's what you said. I completely forgot Melvin Ingram existed
-
37 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
This might be kind of a taboo topic, but has anyone else noticed how many players on the opposite teams are getting injured when they play the Colts?
I understand injuries are part of every game, but it seems like these Colts are sidelining opponents every week. From Melvin Ingram in week 1, to Mahomes and Chris Jones in KC, to Will Fuller and Jonathan Joseph on the Texans this past week. There have been more along the way, I just can't remember them all.
This Colts team is playing a very intimidating and physically punishing brand of football. I'm not saying it's a good thing to injure your opponent, but if upcoming opponents notice that it's becoming a theme every week, it might be in the back of their head on gameday, giving the Colts a slight psychological advantage before the game even starts.
The "soft" Colts of yesteryear are gone. This Colts team is the new bully on the block.
Melvin Ingram held out, he wasn't injured
-
1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:
nope avoid it then too you either have everyone acting like the world is ending if we lose or you have people acting like JB is Tom Brady after a win both are annoying extremes that I can't stand. so it's easier to avoid it a couple days than have to face palm every 5 posts.
So basically you're never on this forum
1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:nope avoid it then too you either have everyone acting like the world is ending if we lose or you have people acting like JB is Tom Brady after a win both are annoying extremes that I can't stand. so it's easier to avoid it a couple days than have to face palm every 5 posts.
Also from the games I've watched Tom Brady hasn't been very good this year, and that's against the terrible teams
-
On 10/20/2019 at 10:02 PM, Colts_Fan12 said:
this is why I usually avoid the forum after wins this season
But you're fine with it after losses?
-
5 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:
Just saying the Jets aren't out of there minds suggesting it.
No, I think they are. The Luck injury exposed our organizational stupidity at the time, just like this is doing now.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, GOLFoholic said:
Guys, if you don't think a first round pick is worth it on a guard, just remember what Nelson has done to transform this offense! Having a superior offensive line is demoralizing to opponents.
Here's a few stats from the Texans game on Glow
6\25 RUN plays he was beat, missed his guy, held, fell down in the hole, or completely wiffed on the second level block (that's 24% of running plays)
15\44 PASS plays he was beat with a swim move, didnt pick up the stunt, held, or was powered straight thru (that's 34% of pass plays)
That's between A quarter and a third of our offense being affected by his play. Most of these misses had a direct affect of Brissett getting hit or hurried or the running game getting stuffed.
That's straight from the tape and has nothing to do with scheme. Straight up man assignments. A lot of the successful plays he was part of a double team, or the pass was so quick he didn't have time to fail.
Watch the tape
I think we have worse needs than a guard
-
1 hour ago, BProland85 said:
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually prefer Brissett, at least right now, over Luck at QB. Brissett seems to be the better leader, is more passionate about the game and his teammates, and is playing smart football by not turning the ball over. Something Luck would do on occasion.
Things would get interesting if Luck decided to come back next year, and we just came off a year where Brissett had very good stats and got us in the playoffs. I'd almost prefer considering getting a ransom for Luck at that point via trade.
If we get good trade value, I'm not against it.
The question is, is the drop-off in trade value between the 2 players worth the drop-off in talent between the 2 players?
-
1 hour ago, CanuckColtsFan said:
While I do agree with you lets not forget Andrew Luck played with this injury on his throwing shoulder for a solid portion of a season.
Yeah and how'd that turn out for us.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:
Raiders aren't really that bad, IMO.... they play tough/physical (sometimes dirty while Burfict was around anyway), and they are well coached with a very good QB. We didn't play our best against them (especially our start to the game), but I imagine the Raiders will be in the wildcard hunt near the end of the season. They're one of only 7 teams in the AFC with a .500 or greater record right now, and they don't have an overwhelming schedule coming up any time soon. I truly don't think they're as bad as everyone blames them for.
I agree, but my point still stands that we can lose to lesser teams, especially the way we played. Our defense was totally lost the entire game. Yes the Raiders aren't as bad as they're made out to be, but my point is that with an effort like that, we are not totally incapable of losing to the Broncos.
-
1
-
-
Take what the defense gives you. If they're stacking the box and forcing you to throw, then throw
-
1 hour ago, Hoose said:
I thought Mack looked a little indecisive yesterday and a step slow. Wilkins was running the ball very well. I’d have liked to see him have a few more carries.
It's just his patient running style. Doesn't work as well when the offensive line doesn't open up holes though. Then you need a Wilkins type runner
Well that was ugly
in Colts Football
Posted
Who skirted the language filter?