Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

692 Starter


  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not a lot of them. The obvious ones like Watson and Wilson and Mahomes and Rodgers and Brady. Garoppolo is basically a better version of Brissett, no contest there. Mayfield used to be a slam dunk, not so much anymore. Before this year I might have also said Rosen but he's seriously damaged goods now. I'm in the minority that think Josh Allen is a good QB in the making, even if he is also a bit of a meathead, I'd take him over Brissett on a team that favors a rushing attack and has a solid OL, we're actually really well built for a 2 way QB right now. So yeah, add Allen to the list. Beyond that there's a few guys I don't know well enough to judge, Bridgewater looks really good but he's had some serious injury problems. You could make some kind of argument for Cousins, but that's a weird one. Darnold has potential but hasn't even come close to realizing it. there's a few more like that.
  2. Sorce: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27874077/source-jets-dispute-extent-guard-kelechi-osemele-shoulder-injury Kinda left wondering how many times this happens over the course of any given year on any given team and it doesn't come to light because the player doesn't complain. personally suspect Osemele is making a business decision. His body doesn't have many years left as an OL, and he'd rather be cut by the Jets and get the repairs he needs than ruin whatever he's got left in the future by playing for a loser.
  3. I agree, as far as Colts worst plays go, but throwing away our last chance at another Superbowl is right up there.
  4. He's not the problem this year, but the thing with that style of football is that it isn't a problem until the very moment that it suddenly is. When he gambles at a key moment in the regular season and drops a game, it's just one game. When he gambles and a key moment in the playoffs and drops a game, that's their season. And he doesn't seem to be capable of recognizing the difference. He's always going to be a gambler who looks to throw downfield, and that's always going to be a high risk style of play, whether the Falcons are winning or losing at the moment.
  5. I would take Jacoby over Matt Ryan. Quite frankly, Matt Ryan is a modern incarnation of Drew Bledsoe, and Bledsoe never won anything either. Both Ryan and Bledsoe are/were risk takers. They play for the big shot down field. Sooner or later when you try for those big plays downfield it blows up in your face. The problem with this kind of gambling mindset is that when those gambles fail, it hurts you badly. In the regular season that's not bad, you can recover if a few risks go wrong in any given game. But in the playoffs one mistake can end your whole run and there often is no coming back Ultimately I'd much rather have a QB who takes care of the football than that kind of gunslinging/gambling QB. We see in Atlanta this year what can happen when a gunslinger isn't on his game, and I don't want to have to play that style of football.
  6. I kind of agree, context matters and there was no context to Pagano's Brainfart. It didn't cost the Colts a game, they were already training, Pagano was trying to drive down the field and did something stupid in a situation where there wasn't very much to lose anyway. When it comes to the worst play in NFL history I think it starts with Matt Ryan dropping back and getting sacked out of field goal range in SB51 and kind of goes from there. That one has it all, terrible idea, bizarre execution and terrible consequences, since it basically gave the game away.
  7. I still cringe a bit when that play comes up in replay compilations.
  8. Other than 1 possession in Q1, Mahomes didn't really give us very much trouble. We got a lot of pressure on him and slowed him down with an ankle injury. That whole game was a great piece of defensive football.
  9. Ya-sin's looked alright recently. It could be a lot worse.
  10. I think we've reached the point that neither of us are going to convince the other. I'm good to be done too
  11. And if the same standard of evidence had been used in both investigations, I'm not convinced the verdicts would have been very different. But I'm talking to someone who seems not to really understand just how much decisions at the NFL office are driven by the internal politics of the Board of Governors, so this will probably make no sense to you. Let's just say that Jim Irsay holds a lot of power on the Board, and has a lot of friends. He's gotten several rules changes and personnel changes at the NFL office over the years as a result of the considerable power he holds. Robert Kraft has been a bit of an outsider on the board, especially because his franchise has embarrassed most of the others on the field over the years. There's some bad blood there, especially with Irsay and the Rooneys, two of the most powerful faction leaders in the Board of Governors. When Jerry Jones also weighed in against the Patriots it was game over, the investigation was going to ome back with punishments whether there was any actual evidence or not. That's how politics works in an oligarchy, and the NFL is an oligarchy. Irsay can make problems at the NFL office go away in a way that Kraft really can't. To me, that's really what's going on in the difference between the two investigations. In one case, the owner could pull strings and bury an investigation. In the other, the accumulated bad blood between Robert Kraft and the other owners spilled over and no one was willing to help him protect his guy.
  12. Ehh... sort of. Manning was investigated and the investigators reported they had no direct evidence of wrongdoing. They also apparently had a heck of a time getting third party witnesses to cooperate and thus couldn't really build any evidence one way or another. Since nearly everyone involved in Deflategate was an NFL employee they could be alot more aggressive in factfinding than they could in trying to corroborate Manning's issues. most of the people who knew the most about Manning's thing had no reason to talk to the NFL and potential consequences if they did. https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/07/25/peyton-manning-nfl-hgh-investigation-al-jazeera
  13. Perhaps. As I've mentioned several times, I admire Brady.
  14. I don't have a problem with the punishment assigned too the team. At least one the Wells Report became the foundational evidence on which it was assigned. League offices have to make their decision based on something after all It never struck me that they had the evidence to suspend Brady as well.
  15. Again, you could make a pretty good case that the Patriots cheated. You could punish the organization pretty fairly based on the information we have. If the decision was to suspend Bill Belichick, fine Robert Kraft, or remove a pick from the Patriots franchise, based on the idea that franchise leadership had a moral/legal obligation to prevent cheating, I wouldn't have as big of a problem. It's the fact that effort was made to single out specifically Brady that has never made sense to me. Deflated footballs has always struck me as a franchise issue, not an individual player issue. Equipment managers who won't stand up to players who want illegal things to happen is a team infrastructure problem first and foremost. Go after the team collectively, the owner or the HC individually, fine. Singling out individual players is something you do when you have direct evidence that they were involved. If what you have is circumstantial evidence that they might have been involved, then you have to punish the team, the owner or the coach.
  • Create New...