BigQungus
-
Posts
498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by BigQungus
-
-
8 minutes ago, Stephen said:
I'm not writing off the Steelers or the Broncos. The broncos stomped the chargers without chubb. We haven't beat the steelers since the manning era.
These Steelers are very different now. None of the BBBs are currently playing for them. And I don't remember any recent game against the Steelers... I believe we faced them in 2016 but that was when Luck was out with a concussion
-
10 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:
You're probably right, but at the same time, a player who just retired usually isn't hanging around for multiple weeks in the clubhouse and locker room. It sounds to me like Luck still feels the call a bit.
Andrew is different. He retired in his prime right before the season, but not because of problems with the team, coach, or organization. It's also a transition, being that he was expected by the team and by himself to be the QB of this team for the season, and then suddenly had doubts about a month away from the season. You can't just mentally cut yourself off from the team after building that kind of mental bond and expectation with the team. We anyways knew he maintains regular communication with a few Colts players. Plus, he still lives in Indy, so that makes it very easy to stop by the Colts building every once in a while.
Perhaps he does get a bit of nostalgia and wants to return in his heart, he's too competitive and loves the game too much not to, but I don't think he'll actually bring himself to do it after committing to settling down with his wife.
-
4 hours ago, will426 said:
i used to think we’d beat the pats those times too and what’s our record vs them since manning left? we can always See our team winning vs them but it hasn’t happened that being said we have to beat them in order to actually make this a rivalry again 
I'm not saying it is a rivalry, or even that I know we can compete with them, I'm just saying I always give us a chance against everybody. We sometimes competed with them (the painful Pagano 4th and 2 game comes to mind), and this team is way different and way better than all the past years.
I use the past for reference, but I'm not one of those people who doesn't believe in anything until it actually happens
-
1
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Jdubu said:
I can’t imagine the team would have paid JB the kind of money they did if they weren’t fully committed to being without Luck, at least for this year. Then factor in what they paid the mentor guy to be here. I just absolutely don’t see Luck stepping back into a Colt uniform again. Maybe after the season they could entertain bringing him back, especially if the team falters at QB through the year.
I take it as Luck coming in to chat with his old friends, congratulating them on the big win and just being a happy go lucky retired millionaire.
24 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:Brissett's extension is a sunk cost that only comes into play next year anyway.
If the opportunity comes to upgrade from Brissett to Luck you don't care about that extension any more than you would if a golden opportunity to add any other elite QB fell into your lap.
Worst case scenario you could probably find a trade partner (Jets, Steelers, Bears, Phins, Skins) for Brissett if you had to, and run with Luck and Hoyer or Kelly.
Might even get a decent return, back in the day the Patriots traded a very similar QB (Matt Cassell) for 2 seconds. Imagine taking 2 second rounders off the Steelers, as dire as their situation has become ... sounds pretty tasty to me
While yes, we should be loyal to Brissett, and you ALL ought to know I'm one of the biggest Brissett fans on this forum, that only matters up to a point, and the chance to add Luck to the rest of this roster is WAY beyond that point.
This is even more true of Luck than it would be for a generic elite QB, because Luck is already familiar with the team and wouldn't be as difficult to bring up to speed. The risk is lower, so the premium is higher.
It definitely is just Luck coming to chat with old friends, but yes of course hypothetically if we could get Luck back we should. It's ridiculous to even talk of such stuff though, as if we should get our hopes up for anything just cause Luck wanted to hang out with the team
-
2 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:
Hopefully we will with how bad the teams we play are. The Steelers are still competing so that one could be close. We will see if the broncos get their crap together. We needed to convert a couple of those field goals into TD against the chiefs. We should of won by two TD. But as bad as the chiefs defense is they have been pretty good in the red zone.
The Steelers are going nowhere. I called it before the season, they're not good at all.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Superman said:
You mean the 5-0 Patriots who haven't given up a passing touchdown since the AFCCG? Yeah, they're no good...
I acknowledge the humor, and I'm not at all saying their passing D isn't good, but stats without context can lead to false conclusions. Yes, they haven't given up a passing touchdown, but other than the Bills, who didn't have Josh Allen for much of the day, they've only faced teams who have been in the bottom 6 in passing yards per game.
-
2 hours ago, DougDew said:
You've been arguing with me for many posts. My posts all fit together, within the theme of the topic of the thread "Takeaways from the KC game" not "why we won". There are many reasons why we won and they lost. One of them is injuries to their side of the ball....which factors into the "takeaways from the game" theme of the conversation that their backups did not play as well as our backups, when matched up together in whatever scheme or gameplan they had. Yes. If Hill, Watkins, and Shady were on the field, I am certain they would have scored more points. I am certain that Hill (and all of them) is harder to cover in man coverage than whomever they played in his role...or Reid may have even eliminated the play-calls altogether because nobody else could run them as well.
Obviously, its possible that if Hill were playing, (or any other starter) he would drop every pass, fumble every hand off, trip over his own feet, and KC would not have scored more points. But I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation, not just a conversation.
For gosh sakes, I'm not trying to be politically correct or anything, but stop saying we were playing the backup Chiefs!! That's partly why you've received negative feedback for that comment, because it implies as if we weren't really facing the real thing, as if this was just some sort of meaningless preseason game that has no implication on whether we could actually beat the Chiefs.
No one is arguing that they may have scored more points without their injuries, and if we didn't get our injured players back. The problems arises when you say something like there is no alternative reason for the Chiefs offense scoring only 13 points, the lowest in Mahomes career. That's simply ignorant
-
1
-
-
In general, I think Colts fans overrate New England way too much cause of the Manning years and cause of how they've been able to handily whoops us in the toothless Luck years. But we're past that. I can see this team beating anyone.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:
It would take a miracle. The pats are a veteran team that has decades of experience in the playstyle we're only just now getting acclimated to. nearly every facet of the game they beat us straight up on experience, and Belichick is one of the few head coaches I don't trust Reich to be able to outmaneuver.
We have a big advantage in OL. It's the one area I can definitely say we're better than them. But the Patriots are like 6 deep in quality pass rushers. It's gonna be war in the trenches between our OL and their DL, and their secondary is second to none right now. Scoring points on that team is legit tough no matter how you try to do it.
And the Patriots have a pretty solid rushing attack too, about a match for ours. Mack is better than Michel, but James White is basically the player Hines hopes to become someday and I'll give Burkhead a large edge over Wilkins, so their depth blows the doors off ours. And we're not nearly as good at containing the run so far than they are.
As for the passing game I'll be charitable and leave that at "LOL!"
Bottom line, the Patriots completely outclass us. Never say never, Brady does have the occasional bad day at the office just like anyone else, but the Patriots are a class above even KC IMHO. That defense is incredible.
They're not a class above KC. Not that it's their fault, but they've done nothing but beat the Josh Allen-less Bills and beat other easy teams. Everyone knows that they can beat easy teams, cause they're well coached. But the Brady passing attack has declined a little bit without AB, and honestly I don't put it past us to beat them. If we can beat the Chiefs, we can beat anyone
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:
I'm pretty sure NE secondary is way better than the Falcons. Our WRs will be blanketed all day.
Reich will scheme them open
-
23 hours ago, DougDew said:
I said that our backups beat their backups, an obvious generalization knowing full well we're talking about maybe 3 to 4 players on each side of the ball. That would be injuries on BOTH teams, primarily KCs offense and our defense, so how can anybody make any assertion that without the injuries that KCs offense wouldn't have looked like it did last year in however many possessions they would have gotten the ball, considering that our defense is (supposedly) worse without Hooker, Geathers, and Leonard. (all things equal, KC would have had fewer possessions than last year because we executed a ball control offense better with last year's backup QB than our starting QB as of six weeks ago.)
We held them to 13 points with Hooker, Geathers, and Leonard not playing. How do you twist that into saying that I'm blaming the win (solely) on KCs injuries?
If anything, if KCs injuries on offense had nothing to do with it and it was about our defense, then a logical person might conclude that we won because of OUR injuries, that our backups are better than our starters in certain positions. But I never said that either.
I'm lost as to your argument.
Sorry, but if you don't understand, me repeating it again probably won't help.
You need to check which comment I'm responding to before you write this long speech. I was responding to this comment, not our previous discussion.
On 10/7/2019 at 4:09 PM, DougDew said:Presenting what as fact? That if Shady and Hill were on the field at the same time they would have gotten the ball in space and KC would have scored more points?
And what's the alternative reason for them scoring only 13 points, the lowest in Mahomes career?
Because our defense is so stout without Leonard and Hooker? I may buy half of that.
And anyways here you clearly say that if Shady and Hill were on the field at the same time they would've scored more points, and that there's clearly no alternative reason for us holding Mahomes to only 13 points. And then you say that I'm twisting your position into saying that you're blaming the win on KC's injuries, when you said just a little bit ago that there's clearly no alternative reason for us holding Mahomes to only 13 points.
-
On 10/7/2019 at 5:25 PM, ColtsLegacy said:
A run up the middle is never going to lose you 8 yards and they had not stopped it all night. It was ill-advised , regardless of the outcome.
Seahawks/Pats Super Bowl bad.
Oh come on. It's not that bad. It's ok to zag if people expect you to zig. Not if you have Marshawn Lynch at the 1 yard line, but still. As the post above said, look at the Pascal reverse.
-
5 minutes ago, DougDew said:
You're still talking about this?
Is there a reason I shouldn't?
What kind of person engages in a conversation, and then says "You're still talking about this?" when the other person replies?
-
On 10/7/2019 at 4:09 PM, DougDew said:
Presenting what as fact? That if Shady and Hill were on the field at the same time they would have gotten the ball in space and KC would have scored more points?
And what's the alternative reason for them scoring only 13 points, the lowest in Mahomes career?
Because our defense is so stout without Leonard and Hooker? I may buy half of that.
Did you not watch the game???????
This is the type of stuff that people say when they don't watch the game and can't believe that something happened. In this case, you want to blame the win (what a weird concept) on KC injuries cause it's soooo unfathomable that our defense could hold that offense to 13 points, but if you actually watched the game, you wouldn't have to guess and make up baseless theories, you'd already know why cause you saw it with your own eyes.
-
On 10/7/2019 at 1:40 PM, DougDew said:
That's because your point was derailing my original point.
Saying that our backups beat their backups is a decent generalization, along with what looked like backup officials. I'm happy about it.
I'd have to think that if Hill and Shady are on the field at the same time, they score more than 13 points. And I'm not sure what our O could have done to score more than 16 points (KCs gimmie on 4th down) without opening us up to more of their pass rush, if Jones was there.
I'm not derailing your point, I'm debating it.
Shady is a scrub. Why are you putting so much stock in him? He's the one that we forced a fumble on anyways. And yes, Hill was out, but that didn't stop them from going 4-0, and it certainly didn't stop us from making doomsday predictions. I think the addition of Darius Leonard and Malik Hooker outweighs the addition of Hill and Chris Jones for the Chiefs.
But to get to the main point, no, it's not a decent generalization. If you consider playing a team with a few key players being out as playing their backups, then we play backups every week. That's football. There will always be injuries. But you sound like a Chiefs fan scrounging for excuses if you say they were playing with backups.
-
1 hour ago, csmopar said:
https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=325676
This game day thread was hilarious to read. I thought we had some overracting fans, but they even have fans hoping our players die. Incredible readGoodness gracious.......
-
54 minutes ago, DougDew said:
How can you say what I can say or not say?
Nevermind.
Nice way to throw an equivocation and try to derail my point
-
Highest PFF game grade for a guard since 2012!!
Baldy's gonna go crazy
-
8
-
-
1 minute ago, DougDew said:
My comments in this thread is not about whether or not we have a good team. I simply said that our backups can beat their backups. And, I think the players they didn't have had more impact for their team than the players we didn't have for ours.
We had Leonard last year and the KC O moved the ball at will on the D. I don't see much difference other than who wasn't playing for KC.
Look, you cannot say that just because they were missing Hill, Watkins, Chris Jones, and Anthony Hitchens, we were playing backups. You also can't say that if we were both fully healthy, the same outcome wouldn't occur
-
14 minutes ago, DougDew said:
I mentioned the Turay injury in the paragraph about the potential next meeting, in that missing him in that game won't be a facotr when comparing players coming back for KC and us next time. I wasn't mentioning Turay in any response to your comment.
I'm not looking for an excuse to take credit away from the win. I don't invest heavily in shallow-formed opinions then look for ways to validate them later.
How much impact did the injuries on the KC side of the ball have on this game?
As has been said. We pretty much dominated the game, but it still came down to KCs last possession.
I'm thinking Tyreek Hill would make a few plays during the game, and Kelce would've gotten open more because of the threat of Hill, or a screen pass to Shady.
We can all play what ifs. But sometimes we're wrong. We all pretty much unanimously said the Colts would get a whuppin. And we were wrong. All my point is, is... who knows?
-
1
-
-
-
11 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, and I don’t have the time to read through every little detail of every post.
I was thinking about this last night though. Washington is 0-5, they just fired Gruden, and they’re probably going to play a rookie QB sooner than later. Long story short, they’ll likely be picking in the top 5, if not higher.
It will end up being very close to an extra first round pick for us.
Said this back when the trade happened. We knew Washington was gonna be a train wreck, and I'm happy about that
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, SC-Coltsfan said:
When we are gashing them up the middle and have a second and 2 inside the 5-yard line please don't try to be cute again and run a silly play when you don't have to. Especially on 2nd down. I understand they thought it was going to work and we're probably surprised it didn't, but why even take the chance the way we were dominating up front.
I don't think it was a terrible play call. Especially because we were running up the middle so much, we would've thought that they would think we were gonna do it again. But yes, I'm aware it blew up spectacularly. Just a little nitpicky knock on an otherwise flawless coaching game
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DougDew said:
He got stepped on by his crappy LT who got pushed into him. We had a pass rush at LAC, who also has a crappy LT.
The Turay injury was a non factor for us. So if we meet in the playoffs, we'll have Funchess, Hooker, and Leonard back. They'll have Hill, Watkins, Shady, and Jones; assuming a healthy Mahommes. I think their returning players mean more to them than ours do to us.
Is your reading comprehension really that bad? Where did I mention the Turay injury at all? And I never said we'll beat them 10/10 times. I don't think we'll beat even some bad teams 10/10. But that's not an excuse to take away credit for the win. Yes, we were helped by injuries, but our injuries definitely offset that more than enough to not use that as an excuse to not give us credit. Yes, I realize there's a lot of negatives in that statement which makes it hard to read.
Also, I consider Mahomes' injury to be cause by our pass rush, so you can't really use that as an excuse
i used to think we’d beat the pats those times too and what’s our record vs them since manning left? we can always See our team winning vs them but it hasn’t happened that being said we have to beat them in order to actually make this a rivalry again 
Colin Cowherd on Colts-Chiefs
in Colts Football
Posted
Josh Allen got knocked out of the game early on