Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Narcosys

  1. Going to be starting the league again here soon and looking to see who's interested in participating again this year.


    Once I get all the ins and outs, I'll start determining draft order.  If you are in, please provide some tentative weekends or  weekdays that you think would work for you.  Thanks and look forward to this season.




    @Lucky Colts Fan @Bluefire4  @WarGhost21 @BPindy @Btown_Colt @Matthew Gilbert @onebad150 

  2. On 5/16/2020 at 8:33 PM, John Hammonds said:

    What if our 2019 season repeated itself in 2020?

    What would that look like?


    Our top free agent breaks his clavicle in the first game and never plays another down for us again.

    Last year, that was Devin Funchess.  This year, that would be DeForest Buckner.


    Our 2nd round WR pick, for whom there was much anticipation, and everyone hoped would make a big splash his rookie year, fights through multiple injuries all season, and winds up not making much of a splash whatsoever.

    Last year, that was Parris Campbell.  This year, that would be Michael Pittman.


    Mere days before the regular season begins, our top QB suddenly announces he is retiring.

    Last year, that was Andrew Luck, and we went through the season with Jacoby Brissett at QB.  This year, that would be Philip Rivers, and we would go through the season with Jacob Brissett at QB.


    No, this is not me being a preemptive Debbie Downer.  I'm just putting perspective on the 2019 season, what happened then, and applying this year's names to last year's issues.  Obviously, I hope none of this happens!


    Dang it Donny!

  3. 18 hours ago, Malakai432 said:

    He’ll be fine, the guy was a track star, durable, smart, has just as much of a heart and work ethic as any RB in NCAA history.  I doubt he’s worried about his professional capabilities lol.....

    I hope he's great and everything we need him to be.  Just concerns. 

    • Like 1

  4. 13 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

    It’s pretty clear what kind of team Ballard is building and that’s ball control run it down your throat offense with a defense you can’t run on.  I could easily see them keeping Mack past this year but I could also see them letting him walk.  It also comes down to what the dollar figure is Mack wants.  Ballard isn’t going to way over pay him and not because he has Taylor (although that doesn’t hurt) but because that isn’t his style.  

    He paid TY and he paid Castonzo. So don't say it isn't his style. 

  5. 13 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

    Yeah. Mack will play the good soldier but he knows with the way RB’s are valued now, he’ll be looking elsewhere for a longer term deal.  We just drafted one of the greatest career statistical runners in NCAA history...

    Who fumbles a lot, and has a lot of miles already.  Let's pull back a little. 

  6. On 4/17/2020 at 11:50 PM, Blueblood23 said:

    Take the best player with your pick. Missing a player trading down is a lack of confidence. Trading down if it doesn’t work out then it’s not as big a mistake. Colts need difference makers not just volume



    20 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

    There is no way to have done any research in the minds of the Colts brass in knowing what players they would have selected had they stayed put



    Here is the disconnect between your positions:  In your first statement it is clear that it is of your opinion and your mindset that staying put is best and trading back is weak. 


    Then in your next statement you claim you can't say one way or another that staying put would have been better because you don't know the Colts brass mindset.  


    You are trying to argue one point by looking through opposing mindsets, that doesn't work. You need to take your approach that you believe to be better, and do your own research based on what you believed was the Colts need at the time and who you would have picked at their original positions.  


    Heck one pick is easy, we know the colts selected Leonard with a pick they already had, not one they received in a trade back. There's one answer for you already. You just need to figure out the other picks. Then do a critical evaluation as to whether you think your team structure would have been better than what we got. 


    Pretty simple, take ya maybe 30 minutes. 

  7. On 4/20/2020 at 6:29 AM, BornHoosier said:

    WOW, what a thought out post but what I can't rap my head around is what if CB and Staff trade back & miss out on real pro bowl talent that was there at 34/44?  In this draft, there are pro bowl talent at 34/44 but can not say the same after that as the later the pick the more questions there are.  It would be quite the gamble for this staff to trade back & still get the quality of picks.  Remember, this Colts Team is not rebuilding but just a few difference makers from representing the AFC so why GAMBLE?


    Every pick is a what if and gamble.  What if they didn't trade back and draft a bust? It was a gamble. 


    Your line of thinking follows a false assumption that at any given players draft ranking means they are better than those that follow. Which cannot be proven to be true or false.

  8. 1 minute ago, Blueblood23 said:

    There is no way to have done any research in the minds of the Colts brass in knowing what players they would have selected had they stayed put. No one on the planet would have had Leonard going that high. There are other players teams take that are not rated by the various services that are a head scratcher to the casual fan. The Bears took Kyle Long high years ago going from memory. We just don’t know who anyone takes during the draft as trades, anticipation, emotion or other factors occur during the process.

    But you seem to have all the answers here Mr. Armchair GM.  


    you want to state they should pick BPA, but you haven't gone back to do any research to suggest that the Colts would have been better off if they had stayed put in previous drafts. If you can prove that BPA is better than picks, then you might have some credibility. But sitting here and arguing that your position is right, or that your strategy would be better than a seasoned GM, without any weight behind it is pointless. 


    I'm merely challenging you to back up your statements. Now here you are back peddling and trying to find a scapegoat, while still defending your position. You can't have it both ways. Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

  9. 7 hours ago, BornHoosier said:

    If I'm CB and what he witnessed the last two yrs when it comes to this WR Corps, you darn right I would do everything to break this curse!!  It's so bad that I remember reading where CB didn't understand the fans/media fascination over the wr?  Well Sir, its because it cost you the last two yrs which has me flabbergasted a man of such caliber doesn't see it?  Then I remembered, EVERY GM in this game has their flaw or kryptonite that I like to call it.  Polians = LB, Grigson = OL, Ballard so far = WR.  If you suck at evaluating such positions, please rely on your Scouts for Saviors Sakes.

    It's not about evaluating positions, I don't think he personally evaluates any positions (he'll watch tape and make his own opinions), he relies on his scouts for that ultimately. His is evaluating the worth of each position against one another. He isn't prioritizing WR over other positions. Which an argument can be made that if you don't have a solid foundation of a team (front 7 on D, O-line, QB) then WRs are pointless.  


    He may also prioritize defense over offense first, as there is an argument for that as well.

  10. 13 hours ago, Blueblood23 said:

    You don’t know who the Colts would have selected had they stayed put.

    And you don't know if the BPA they did select would have panned out or not. How about you do some research to back up your claims and research the top 10 draft players we could have selected had we stayed put, and how well they panned out.


    Better yet, just do the top 5 for each.  One stipulation, don't go and say they would have picked someone 15-20 picks after that actually panned out, you have to be at least realistic for your results to be credible.


    If you don't want to put in the effort to back up your statements, then no one will take you seriously and you need to stop being so pompous.

  11. 9 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

    If you really believe that is going to happen very often then good luck. That pick was a fluke and when it was made it was highly questionable. 

    Fluke or not, questionable or not, the fact is we got him because we had the picks to draft him and other skilled players. Furthermore, do you think hitting on undrafted picks wouldn't be a fluke??





    Recap 2018 and all our trade backs:

    We got Quenton Nelson and Braden smith (Jets got Darnold), Turray, Lewis, and Wilkins from trading back (Philly picked Dallas Goedert), We got Cain and Fountain from trading back (Browns got Muarice Hurst).


    Seems like trading back benefited us more than if we would have stayed put.

  12. On 4/17/2020 at 11:50 PM, Blueblood23 said:

    Take the best player with your pick. Missing a player trading down is a lack of confidence. Trading down if it doesn’t work out then it’s not as big a mistake. Colts need difference makers not just volume. Ballard can get volume on undrafted  free agents.

    So you want volume from UNDRAFTED low skill players rather than getting volume in draft worthy players??




    Wasn't Leonard grabbed from an acquired pick?

  13. 18 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:


    Forget healthcare, these things worry me all round. I know it's a bit mad to say but we really don't take the long view as a species and this rock is finite in resource and space, so I think it's egregious in the long term that we're not pursuing sustaining habitation off Earth. 


    Well that escalated quickly

    • Haha 2

  14. 2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:


    I would agree it would be hard to change the system in the US, it's not so much the organisational changes, but equally the societal ones. 


    There are however flaws in both approaches. If there was a perfect model, it would be adopted worldwide. 


    I think the cultural aspects of places are the largest hurdles to mass changes. You have to be able to accept the Cons to go with the Pros of each. 

    State run: you have to accept higher taxes and more say on what you can or cannot do at times.

    Privatized: Higher costs which can result in not being able to have insurance at all. Ironically I fell the US could do more to force prices down...lookin at you big pharma...increased demand on Medicare and Medicaid affect the cost of health insurance. 


    However, population growth and aging population demand (baby boomers) are something that you just cant help. Plus like you said about populations being lazy and not staying healthy has increased the cost associated with healthcare due to increased chronic illnesses.

  15. 1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:


    What happens when you don't have insurance in the US...


    I disagree strongly with your interpretation of how the NHS works, it's just not true.

    Maybe a few reports on how this has happened to dozens of people does not apply to whole of how NHS is supposed to work. But the evidence is out there that it happens. The specialists in the hospitals are openly complaining that the NHS is too restrictive on what and when they allow doctors to perform procedures. 


    These restrictions lead to people not getting procedures they should and could otherwise get in non-state run healthcare systems. 


    and I very well could be associating malpractice by doctors with NHS policies. But some of the reports were clearly stating that the NHS restrictions denied people from getting procedures done until it became too severe to cope on a daily basis. When preventative care and procedures would likely have been best in the long run for the individual and cost to NHS.


    Idk if your so high up that your "echelons above reality" as some like to say, but this is what is happening, this is what people think of the NHS. The policies and procedures in black and white might not be saying exactly this, but how they are implemented is creating these situations.


    I just needed a simple blood draw and a fibro liver scan. It was over 3 months to get them scheduled, and it was a full day off of work to complete. In the states that's a walk in and a couple hours.  Top it off the cost was paid for by my insurance and no cost to NHS, course that doesn't matter if the system is just back logged.


    That speaks more towards your point about cuts to funding and lack of ability to hire more workers. Which is a highly unfortunate situation and wish you guys were more funded. But it's a zero sum game, the money has to come from somewhere. Either cut from someplace else, increase taxes, implement premiums, or expand co-pays.

    • Like 1

  16. 15 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:



    As for the statement taken in isolation, there is no compelling evidence to suggest state funded health systems provide worse care. Far from it. 


    No, they are just more likely to deny care, or put severe restrictions on when certain procedures, be it life saving or cosmetic, can be done. Which is the case in the UK and NHS. Which pointed out, that even degenerative issues are not being dealt with in the early stages because they do not meet the requirements. They wait until the individual is in worse shape before they are allowed to qualify. By then the persons quality life has significantly diminished, or in the example I gave, renders them unable to work before they can qualify.


    The customer of state run health systems is not the patient, its the government. That has, is, and will always be the case. Many, I wont say all because I haven't researched all, state run healthcare systems implement tight restrictions on when various surgeries or other procedures can or will be done. Long wait times for procedures are also an issue, scheduling for basic procedures can take months and even up to a year in some places. This is true of even the highly touted Norwegian healthcare system. 

    • Like 1

  17. 11 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:


    That's the catch 22, you need to have food shops open still as we're not geared up like a China to do state delivery of food... but then people haven't been sensible. It's a very weird feeling when you do go out. 

    For example, yesterday, went on my allowed one run a day. Traffic quiet, but saw lots of pedestrians, with every encounter being a weirdly polite establishment of separation. Just felt so odd as it was a lovely spring evening yet the world is kinda going to madness. 


    From what I saw, the memo allowed, most all food places to stay open if they wanted and many other department stores. There was very little that is actually forced to close down. Or I just read it wrong, more likely the latter. 

  18. 7 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:


    I'm angered by the amount of people still being pressured to work. Surely she is in a risk category and they are bordering on negligence by making her go to work?! Not sure of the legalities.


    There is a huge row here about construction sites, so far they are being kept open and workers told to go to site or lose your job.  


    I like how the PM said shut everything down, and then the memo that came out basically left most stuff open, including open air markets that sell groceries. Saturday downtown is still just as packed as it has been. 


    As far as the US base stuff goes. it's dependent on the commands, but the thought was that there would be less people around that you could maintain the social distance by just staying in your classroom. Bases here in the UK are allowing teachers to telework, at least the few around me.

  • Create New...