Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    36,991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    475

Everything posted by Superman

  1. You're talking about a lot of different things, some of which I agree with. Colts fans do tend to have an inferiority complex, they do tend to have trouble acknowledging good and keeping perspective when things are bad, and there are some -- SOME -- who will always compare current players to previous HOF level players. But we don't need a control to evaluate players, including QBs. Discussing aspects of JB's play that need to improve is not only done in comparison with the players that came before him. What's annoying to me personally is that you and others continue to push this angle, as if anyone who offers evaluation of JB's play is either incapable of being fair to him, only cares about having a great QB even at the expense of the rest of the team, or just wants to dump on the team. This turns into these extreme arguments -- this thread being an example -- where no one will acknowledge that saying JB needs to be better is not the same as being pessimistic. And forgive me for not being impressed by the Browns fanbase. They've been miserable for 25 years, it doesn't take much to get them excited. And let's see how they would react if they had a team ready to contend, but took a gut punch two weeks before the season started like we did.
  2. "Discussed the things he wasn't doing well" is not the same as "picked him apart." By the way, Colts fans had just watched some of the absolute worst QBing in franchise history for an entire season. Luck was automatically an upgrade from the terrible QBs we had in 2011. But he wasn't perfect, and acknowledging that he needed to improve in certain areas was legitimate discussion. And let's not aspire to be the Browns. Lastly, it isn't all about passing yards, it's about his play at QB. We can watch him play and see what he does well and what he struggles with.
  3. I have no problem with people talking about whether the Colts can beat the Pats. I'm a firm believer in "any given Sunday," within reason. I jumped in because I think people are being dismissive of how good the Pats really are. I assume that's a rationalization of some kind.
  4. That's not it. Plenty of fans on this same site discussed the things Luck wasn't doing well even as a rookie in 2012, and that theme remained throughout his career. The difference is that people weren't so rabidly defensive of Luck as they are of JB right now, which is a special irony. And despite Luck having issues throughout his time with the Colts, what really set him apart from JB was his ability to make big, game changing plays, even when he wasn't having a very good game. Luck was a special playmaker. I roll my eyes at this, because I don't see anyone saying 'PFF says JB isn't good, we need to trade up for a QB in 2020.' Aren't the so-called "detractors" acknowledging that JB has talent, but needs to improve in certain areas?
  5. The point though is that just because a team has a winning record doesn't mean they have good QB play. I can give historical examples of this paradox, but I don't think I need to. By the way, I think the team as a whole is playing "okay." The KC game was excellent, especially on defense, but I remember the defense being shredded by the Raiders in the first half, by the Falcons in the second half, and by the Chargers for solid stretches. I remember the run game being off schedule against the Raiders, and the offense going 5/14 on third down against the Chiefs.
  6. This definitely qualifies as posting extremes.
  7. Fawning = acknowledging that the Patriots are a really good team. Got it.
  8. No, you're conflating a team win with good QB play. Whether JB deserves or has received credit for the KC win or not isn't at issue. The point is that the team winning doesn't mean the QB played well. I didn't say anything about Luck, JB or CK, and I didn't mean anything about them, either. I'm talking about people mistaking having a great QB as a reason for not having a complete roster. How about your insinuating that the idea that a college QB that you've never heard of could be better than JB is unreasonable?
  9. One could argue that, just like one could argue that you have to choose between having a great breakfast or a great dinner. But one would be wrong. Yes, you have to make decisions because of the cap, but the impact of having a highly paid QB is overstated.
  10. It’s way simpler, actually. I don’t think their schedule matters, they’re the best team in the NFL and it’s pretty obvious. Are there really any other candidates at this point?
  11. Why don’t we stop acting like “winning” and “QB play” are the same thing? And why don’t we stop acting like there’s something wrong with having a great QB? And why don’t we have a discussion about QBing and Jacoby Brissett without resorting to extremes?
  12. Exactly, so why not try to get the best players you can, across the board? I don't do well with black/white, either/or propositions, especially when I don't think the two choices are mutually exclusive.
  13. Everyone talking about how the Patriots haven't played anyone yet, please answer this. Who is the best team in the NFL right now?
  14. I was being facetious, glad you recognized that. It's been kind of serious around here lately... But remember, this streak by the Pats defense started last year in the SB, against the Rams. Pretty good passing team... And that defense was good most of last season. I think it's easily the strength of their team.
  15. You mean the 5-0 Patriots who haven't given up a passing touchdown since the AFCCG? Yeah, they're no good...
  16. I don't know if people realize how special Sproles was/is. It's a very lofty aspiration to have "a player like Sproles." That said, I've seen Sproles-like things from Hines in recent weeks, and I'm hoping to see his role continue to adjust to take advantage of his strengths. He got a few high-fives from his teammates...
  17. The Chiefs are not one dimensional. They played a bad game, we played a good game, but we didn't expose some fatal flaw in their offense. It was just our day.
  18. The only reasons there weren't chunk plays early in the season, from my understanding, is that Luck was playing his way back into a rhythm, and the OL was beat up. But I don't think it was ever the intention to significantly reduce chunk plays. The intention was to scheme more efficient plays into the passing game and get the ball out quicker, not to avoid going downfield. The ball did come out quicker, on average. In 2016, Luck's average time to throw was 2.88 seconds, in 2018 it went down to 2.63. There were a few games where it was a little higher than they probably wanted, like the Jags shutout. But the passing game stressed efficiency from Week 1 to the end of the season.
  19. The offense evolved over the course of the season, but it wasn't anything like how it was before Reich.
  20. True. Part of the evaluation of any player is acknowledging his teammates, his coaches, the opposition, and pretty much any other information you have access to. This is why there's a difference between watching Internet cut-ups and "scouting."
  21. That's good perspective, and for the most part I agree with it. When the Colts lost to the Jets in the 2010 playoffs, I was super upset. That season was really up and down, and then losing in that manner -- get the lead, bad kickoff coverage, bad timeout, bad pass defense, game-ending FG, all in our building -- it was bad. About 10 minutes after the game ended, I got a phone call. My brother in law had just died of a heart attack. I suddenly didn't care about the outcome of the game. It kind of snapped me back to reality. And while there's not anything necessarily wrong with being upset when your team loses, especially in the playoffs, there's still real life going on, and this is still a game, meant for enjoyment and entertainment. So that's all super dramatic and everything, and it's not meant to say that fans can't be up and down with the team. Just saying that it helps me take a step back at times. That said -- I am not really taking issue with people who are overly dramatic (IMO) in response to wins and losses. That's what fans do. But it's unfair to act like being down on your team or disagreeing with something the team does means you're not a real fan. My fandom is different from your fandom, which is different from the next person's fandom. And it's not our place to judge the quality of each other's fandom based on some arbitrary test of loyalty. And of course, all this is my opinion, as a fan.
  22. We don't win without him making his kicks on Sunday, that's obvious. But the idea is that when the team gets the kicker in position for a makeable kick, it's supposed to be a given that you're getting points. That's why teams don't go for it 4th down more often, because you're either trying to protect field position or take the points when they're available. So in the Chargers game, the team got the kicker in position to make kicks, and the kicker failed. The major 95% of the job was done, and the last guy didn't show up. (I don't subscribe to the whole 'just add those points and we win the game line of thinking,' unless it's one kick at the end of the game; I think if you add points in the first half, it changes the game in the second half. JMO) Against the Chiefs, he did show up. But it would be wrong to say he was the sole reason for the win. The team had to get him out on the field. I did think he was done. He looked and sounded defeated after the Titans game. And the speculation led me to believe that he was going to hang it up, even though that speculation proved to be way off base. I'm still concerned, but I've been concerned about him for a while because of his age. I know that one day, he's just not going to be able to kick anymore. I hope that he goes out on a good note, but sometimes the greats fall apart right in front of us. Hopefully that's not happening now, but I'm definitely in wait and see mode. And I think the team should prepare to move on after the season.
  23. That's all very fair. I've seen plenty of fair evaluation met with derision here over the last few weeks, though. Not necessarily by you, I suppose.
  24. I find the two bolded statements laughable, but whatever. I don't have a problem with the purpose of this thread, or its execution. Most have been good sports about it, which is easier when your team wins. (I can't imagine an "I told you we sucked, we just lost to the Raiders at home, where are all you fanboys who said we were going to win?" thread going over as well.) I spoke up when the fandom test stuff started coming up again. Measuring other people's fandom doesn't go well, and that's what I was responding to. And you've been around long enough to know that just like I address this topic head-on, I confront the overly negative posters directly, probably moreso.
×
×
  • Create New...