Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Superman

  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."
  15. Understood. The player and representation would probably file a grievance at the mere suggestion, given how brazenly it violates the CBA. That kind of stipulation would be completely unprecedented; a player retiring suddenly, close to the start of the season, is not unprecedented. There are no grounds for that kind of stipulation. To be clear, I don't think Luck is ever coming back. If Luck did express a desire to come back, I'd be skeptical about bringing him back and relying on him as a critical part of the team. If the Colts were to accept him back, I would assume they know certain things about his decision to retire, and what has changed since he made that decision. And they would be confident that those circumstances were resolved entirely. But this is a waste of data, because it's not happening.
  16. Riiiiiigggghhhhttttt....
  17. I would have been fine with McLaughlin, without a position battle. So unless he looks shaky in camp, I figure he's the guy.
  18. ^^^ Isn't it amazing what can be achieved when one actually reads another poster's comments? That's not my stance. Earlier in this thread: Another thread: I don't see Rivers as a solution to any of our problems. Another thread: If we sign him, I'm on board. Just skeptical. Another thread: He's a good fit. I can see this working well. But I have some concern about his ability to play at a high level, given his age and recent history. Anyone acting like I've been out here cheerleading for Rivers is severely mistaken.
  19. Sprinkle in some 'Cam Newton is better than everybody the Colts have had" and I think that's probably it. But it feels like there are better ways to approach that argument.
  20. So. What. The question about Rivers is whether he can regain the balance of efficiency and production he played with in 2018. You keep muddying the waters with nonsense.
  21. I love the "independent thinker" fallacy, the whole 'I don't need other people to tell me who's good, unlike you' angle. Apparently, you also don't need current information. To the bolded, I didn't directly address a lot of the things you said because they're entirely irrelevant. 1) Cam winning a national championship in college is irrelevant. 2) Cam winning MVP five years ago is irrelevant. 3) The Panthers going to the SB five years ago is irrelevant. 4) Luck's career is irrelevant. (We're talking about Cam and Rivers, right?) Cam brute-forced the league in his first few seasons, then added some efficiency in 2015 and had a really good year. Since then, his team has been .500 in games he's started, with no playoff wins. I don't blame that on him entirely, because QBs don't win or lose games on their own, but when you have to go back at least five years to support a player having a "winning pedigree," it's time to acknowledge that this so-called pedigree has no bearing on his present ability to play the game. Since 2015, Cam has been slightly above average as a passer. The last two seasons, he's been less than that, partly due to injury. And throughout his career, Cam has been a limited passer because of fundamental issues -- poor footwork, inconsistent accuracy, tendency to hold the ball too long, lack of ability to anticipate throws, and so on. Not sure why Mahomes and Jackson are brought into the discussion... you have a habit of throwing out red herrings. But both are athletic, mobile QBs with strong arms, who rely on their physical gifts to make great plays. Similar to Cam. Jackson has some work to do as a pro level passer. Mahomes is already twice the pro passer that Cam has ever been, because of accuracy, footwork, and anticipation. He's also better at avoiding contact because he doesn't play like a battering ram, and his production through two years as a starter has already dwarfed anything Cam has ever done. So to be clear, the way Mahomes plays isn't very much like the way Cam plays, at all. And I'll say again, anyone who watches them play -- and understands what they're watching -- knows this to be true. And that comparison has nothing to do with Cam or Rivers as it pertains to the Colts. Also, this is not and never has been a defense of Rivers. I have significant questions about his ability to play well for us. I stated those when the rumors about him coming to the Colts first started, and I haven't wavered there. My feelings about Rivers have little to do with my opinion of Cam. I wouldn't have minded signing Cam (and I said that months ago as well). But that would have meant a major adjustment to Reich's offense, because Cam is a different kind of QB, with different strengths and weaknesses, and some injury concerns. Ultimately, I would have had just as many questions about Cam as I do about Rivers, just different questions. But the flimsy foundation of your argument is obvious when it centers around Cam's college career and a really good season five years ago. It's 2020. Adrian Peterson is no longer a 1,500 yard RB. Alex Smith is no longer holding the Chiefs back. Gary Kubiak has retired, and un-retired. The Chargers are no longer in San Diego, the Rams are no longer in St Louis, Jim Tomsula didn't last in San Francisco, the Bengals finally fired Marvin Lewis, the Bills even made the playoffs! A lot has changed in the NFL in the last five years. One of those things: Cam Newton has not been a dominant QB since 2015.
  22. You said maybe they should be paid more. I was just making the case for Brady specifically having multiple suitors who might have been willing to pay him more. I don't think he went around looking for the most money, he just wanted to find a good fit.
  23. Weak. First, the Panthers went to the SB five years ago. You know who else got MVP votes that year? Carson Palmer. Cam having a good year five years ago is irrelevant. Second, Cam's efficiency and ability to get wins in 2015 was pretty much an outlier year. Because QBs being physically similar is all that matters when it comes to in game performance... Cam and Luck had a lot of similarities in the way they played QB. Also a lot of differences. Anyone who watched them play knows this. I'm not sure what this comparison has to do with Rivers. I also don't know why you're not acknowledging the clear issues that Cam has with playing QB in the NFL. Instead, you're acting like "MVP! #1 pick! Went to the SB!" means that there are no issues with the way he plays the position.
  • Create New...