Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    485

Superman last won the day on May 5

Superman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

36,857 Hall of Famer

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    .

Recent Profile Visitors

54,760 profile views
  1. Yup. I get that the league doesn't want young players stashed on the PS if another team would be willing to activate them, or even play them on Sunday. But the fact that teams can sign players off the PS only if they're placed on the active roster for at least three weeks kind of nullifies that concern. I just think it would be better for player development if young players didn't have to go through waivers to go to the PS. Don't want them to sit there indefinitely without a chance to play, but if they stay on one team for their first year at least, they'll be more likely to get on the field. IMO
  2. It actually says "As long as he isn’t subject to waivers on this new protected practice squad, putting Eason there is a no brainer." Still wrong, in all likelihood.
  3. That article says IF he can be stashed without being waived... I've been looking around for something that suggests players can be signed to the practice squad without clearing waivers, but have not found anything. So I believe waivers is still the process. I wonder if I'm missing something.
  4. I'm not talking about him because he has a lot to prove, primarily his ability to stay on the field all year long. Gotta keep the Porsche on the road, like Reich said. But I really liked him before the draft, I'm glad we have him, and I'm excited to see him get back to work.
  5. I don't think the waiver provision has changed, which is still a big issue. I think that makes it very unlikely that Eason goes to the PS this year; it makes little sense to spend a 4th on a guy and then expose him to waivers, unless you don't think he's working out. If Eason looks at least decent in camp, I doubt they waive him. If I had to project right now, it would be Kelly that gets waived, with the intention of signing him back to the PS. (Followed by more unreasonable but totally predictable outcry from the three Chad Kelly stans on this board.) Part of this goes back to the hard-coded resistance some have to carrying more than two QBs on the active roster. That's great if you have an entrenched starter who never misses games, in his prime. But over half the league typically carries 3 QBs. If you have a shaky starter, an injury-questionable starter, an old starter, or any questions at QB2, it's logical to have 3 QBs on the active roster. In the Colts case, we have an old starter, on a new team, and our backup shouldn't be considered a potential franchise level starter. So having a developmental guy on the active roster is not only defensible, it's preferable. Btw, I hate that first year players have to go through waivers to be put on the PS. If that rule were changed, I think some of these young players that bounce around for three years and then wind up out of the league might have a better chance at sticking somewhere.
  6. NBA is going pretty well so far. But they have a pretty tight operation, and no fans. If every NFL team did what the Saints are doing -- basically creating their own bubble -- then maybe it would stop any outbreaks. But I get the feeling that around the middle of September, there's going to be a bunch of positive cases, and it's going to require a play stoppage.
  7. The other part of it is I'm fully prepared for an outbreak to shut down the season, so it might not matter anyway...
  8. As a fan, if a player that I think will really help the team opts out, it's disappointing. From a human standpoint, I get it.
  9. Not to go diving too far down this particular rabbit hole... but the bolded is a major point of variance for people. What doesn't make sense to one might be completely understandable to another. And some people will latch onto something that they don't immediately understand, and rather than trying to understand it they will assume their lack of understanding means that it fundamentally 'doesn't make sense,' and therefore something else must be up. So a person's baseline understanding of certain issues, couple with how quickly that person can go from trusting to skeptical has a lot to do with whether they entertain alternative possibilities, and to what extent.
  10. That's specific to marijuana. The PED policy was made more strict than it already was. First positive test for anabolic steroids is a six game suspension now; was previously four games. I believe HGH is treated as an anabolic steroid by the PED policy. And teams cannot suspend players for drug violations, only the league can. A team can suspend a player for conduct detrimental, but if that's related to a drug violation, it will be challenged and the team will (most likely) lose.
  11. At the time of the retirement, he had been dealing with that weird ankle/calf issue for at least two months, and it wasn't going away. He could have felt like he would have to use painkillers to make it through the season. Or with the uncertainty of what it was, maybe he was considering surgery, but knew that would come with significant pain during recovery. A year or two later, the leg issue could be gone entirely. So the immediate conflict related to managing pain is no longer there. I agree with you though, it would be naive to assume that any NFL player could play without experiencing serious pain. However, in March of 2020, the NFL's testing policy for marijuana changed dramatically, to the extent that it's now basically a viable option for pain management. If a player isn't already in the drug testing program due to previous positive tests, he basically only has to worry about being randomly tested during a small window at the start of training camp. And the penalties for a positive test no longer includes a suspension. So if that were a player's preferred method of pain management, the new policy makes it a lot easier to get by.
  12. Just sayin. Earlier someone was asking why any team would trade for Luck when he retired on the Colts two weeks before the season. Again, the trade would be conditional.
  13. Your theories are usually not up my alley. This one is something I've wondered myself, minus the "temporary" part, because I don't think Luck is coming back. Disclaimer: The following is just a product of my imagination, nothing I'm suggesting actually happened in reality. Just a what-if. But I wondered if maybe he was having issues with painkillers back in 2016-17, especially when he left the team for a few weeks in 2017 and no one would say where he was. Then it turns out he's in Europe. It was all so secretive and under wraps. Once he retired, I wondered if he had been doing rehab for opioid addiction. When he came back in 2018, he talked about having been in a bad place mentally and emotionally. Then a year later, he retired abruptly, after dealing with what seemed like a relatively minor injury that seemed to come out of nowhere. They couldn't pinpoint exactly what was wrong, and if he didn't want to have another operation because he didn't want to deal with painkillers again -- and as an NFL player, he couldn't use more homeopathic pain management methods -- then some options were off the table for him. Again, all just a theory that came from my head. I'm not entertaining the thought of Luck coming back. He's not coming back.
  14. Any trade would be conditional. Sorry to be "that guy."
×
×
  • Create New...