Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Superman

Moderators
  • Posts

    44,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    571

Everything posted by Superman

  1. Different strokes... Some people buy season tickets already knowing that they intend to sell some of the games to offset the cost. And of course people can do as they wish. I think we'd all rather see only Colts fans in attendance, and not have the stadium taken over by fans of the opposing team. But I think for most cities, the obligation is on the team to be competitive and relevant, in which case you're more likely to have home team fans showing up. I'm in LA, where the Chargers (and the Rams to a lesser extent) have completely different issues with fan attendance, even if the team is good. But in more established fan cities, like Indy, if the Colts were real contenders, there probably wouldn't be an issue with Steelers fans taking over.
  2. Question about this. Do people usually do resale through an official site? In which case, you don't know who's buying the tickets. And what would it take to find someone who is a Colts fan to buy at resale value?
  3. It's not just about whether you're playing zone, or what kind of zone you're playing. Other factors include whether you're playing press or off coverage, how you're matching patterns, what you do against trips/bunch, etc. Also, despite the fact that every team plays zone most of the time, other teams still use different coverages and pressures with greater variety than the Colts, because they recognize that you have to adjust your defense situationally.
  4. What's wrong with that? It's not like we have a super talented defensive roster, or a whole lot invested into that side of the ball.
  5. Speaking for myself, the questions about our pass defense are specific to whether a team playing this kind of defense can hold up against good QBs and OLs. We played a bunch of QBs with bad OLs and got reasonably good pressure and a lot of sacks. Yesterday, we played a QB who is playing well, and an OL that kept him clean, and it didn't go so well. Then there's the issue of blown coverages, and missed tackles. And that's more about youth and personnel.
  6. Burn the tape is something for good teams that have an uncharacteristically bad game. I think the tape from this game will be something of a reality check.
  7. The questions about Hurts were about his ability to consistently make on time, accurate throws, within the rhythm of a pro style offense. Accuracy, footwork, throwing motion, etc. Not physical limitations. Hurts has improved significantly in all of these areas since he was drafted, but it's his ability to function in the passing game + his impact in the running game that has changed opinions. The guy who replaced Hurts in Alabama -- Tua -- was considered a potential franchise QB prospect when he was drafted, and he's more physically limited than Hurts in virtually every way. Those viewpoints have pretty much flip flopped. Neither player has changed physically. Have you seen anything from Ehlinger that makes him look like a capable NFL QB period? Game manager, franchise QB... even serviceable backup? In college or in the NFL? The evaluation of Ehlinger is based on the way he plays, not just his physical abilities.
  8. Okay, that's my point. Even if that's your main criteria, everyone else doesn't have to agree that game manager = physically limited QB. And if a person values different criteria than you, that doesn't make them a hypocrite or mean that they're stereotyping. And while I can see how a person could simplify the game manager designation down to strictly physical ability, I do not think that's ever been considered a serious definition for what makes a QB a game manager. It happens to be your preferred criteria. Why does whatever people said about Hurts coming out of college hold priority over what people think of him now? What if he's simply outplaying their expectations of him, and in recognition of that, they acknowledge him as something more than a game manager? And why can't the same be true of Purdy?
  9. I'm trying to help you see that this is a flawed analysis on your part. All game managers have physical limitations. (Let's accept this as fact for now.) Jalen Hurts has physical limitations. (Again, accepting as fact.) Does this make Jalen Hurts a game manager? Can you see that for other people, the game manager designation is not entirely based on a QB's perceived physical limitations?
  10. All birds have wings. Butterflies have wings. Doug, are butterflies birds?
  11. I think you're pretty isolated in your thinking that game manager = physically limited QB. There can be some overlap between those two things, but the difference between being a game manager and being a franchise QB is not solely about physical limitations. And maybe the reason some people are not referring to Brock Purdy as a game manager in present time is because they think that way a QB plays and produces is the primary factor to consider, and they believe that Purdy's recent play is proving that he's more than a game manager.
  12. So if you call Purdy a game manager, but not Hurts, it's either stereotyping or it's hypocrisy? How about if a person simply disagrees with your conclusion that game manager = QB with limited physical talent? What if a person's determination of game manager vs franchise QB is about how he plays and produces, and not strictly about his physical talent? What if they view Hurts and Purdy differently because they see differences in the way they play?
  13. My disagreement here is very narrow in scope. I can understand and logically follow why anyone would think that Ballard pursued the Colts job because of Luck. It's not an outrageous opinion to hold. What I'm saying is that this conclusion is based on rumor and supposition, not any reported fact. It's true that Ballard decided not to pursue previous opportunities, and was purposefully patient. That could be based on a variety of factors -- location, ownership, franchise history, personal history (did he want to be back in Chicago?), etc. But this discussion is boiling Ballard's pursuit of the Colts job down to just one factor -- the QB -- and doing the same with McDaniels' decision to back out of the Colts job down to that one, same factor. And I think that when a person presents these viewpoints, it should be done with appropriate respect for the fact that neither viewpoint is established fact. That might seem petty and pedantic to point out, but I think it's important to acknowledge. Careful what you ask for...
  14. So NCF says you're wrong about Hurts being a game manager, then you say that everyone who thinks Hurts isn't a game manager is wrong, and is stereotyping. And that's where I'm hopping in. My question is whether you think it's possible for a reasonable person to see Jalen Hurts as franchise QB without stereotyping. The bolded seems like your answer is no.
  15. Based on this, you seem to think that the only way a person could disagree with you about Hurts being a franchise QB is if they've simply stereotyped him to reach that conclusion. A reasonable person could not simply disagree with your conclusion because they see Hurts differently than you do?
  16. This is a conclusion not based on any reported facts. Ballard was asked about this at his intro presser, and he all but refuted it. The conclusion about McDaniels backing out because of uncertainty with Luck is also not based on any reported facts. And frankly, it attempts to provide cover for one of the most cowardly actions I can remember seeing from a HC candidate, so I'm personally inclined to reject it with prejudice.
  17. Do you not see a difference between disagreeing with a popular opinion, and accusing people who hold that popular opinion of wrong minded stereotyping? It's one thing to say 'I don't think Hurts is a franchise QB because of this.' It's very different to say 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and they're wrong because they're stereotyping.'
  18. You'd probably be better off saying that Hurts doesn't fit your specific prototype of a franchise QB, than arguing that everyone else is set in wrong minded stereotyping.
  19. I'm not necessarily swayed by the public opinion, and it makes sense for them to hedge based on lopsided action. But the line was posted before the MNF game. I certainly felt differently about the Bengals after that game. I already don't feel good enough about the Colts to think that they'll handle business against a team they should be able to beat. Now that opponent looks better than I expected. Still, the line doesn't usually move like this unless there's a big injury. Speaking of which, similar movement in Browns/Jags. Opened at Jags -3, and is now Jags +3, which close to 80% of the action on the Browns, obviously because Trevor Lawrence is hurt. My mind is blown by the possibility that he might play, but he practiced yesterday and Pederson said he'll probably be a game time decision, so we'll see.
  20. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of the Evans TD, but he didn't just get beat by a better receiver. He apparently blew his coverage altogether. It happens with rookies, but I think it's a relevant detail.
  21. So this is weird. At DraftKings, the line opened this week at Colts -2. As of today, it's moved to Bengals -2, a four point swing. They say 75% of bets are on the Bengals. The moneyline opened at Colts -130, Bengals +110, and is now Colts +110, Bengals -130, and they say 68% of bets are on the Bengals. The over/under opened at 40, and is now 44, with 71% of bets on the over. I guess this is just because Jake Browning was so good on MNF...
  22. I personally can't stand this place... 😁
×
×
  • Create New...