Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!

Narcosys

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    6,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Narcosys


  1. 17 hours ago, Four2itus said:

    Not being a hard butt here, but how does getting cut, equate to "missing" games. Missing is a term usually used for injured players. I believe he was cut for a conduct clause in his contract. That was a violation of the teams rules. He apparently been punished further because of conduct issues with the league. 

     

    If a person breaks the law and is wanted for state and federal charges, does one office lighten up because of the other offices punishment? Perhaps a legal person should address this question. 

    Ever heard of credit for time served?


  2. People underestimate the browns. Had they won the games they lost by 3 points or less and their tie, they would have won their division. In the past 3 years they've had something like 15+ games lost by 3 points or less. They finally have a qb, a run game, threatening WRs, solid qb protection that allowed 25 sacks (8th best), and a defense that's intimidating. 

     

    They're winning their division this year.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1

  3. 13 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

    You ignore advanced stats, common sense logic, and KC's 2 OTs that are All Pro and Pro Bowl.

     

    Mahomes has always been a dancer in the pocket who tries to buy time for the big play.

     

    Since anything I write is dismissed, perhaps you will give more credence to what the Pro scouts said about him coming out of college (which is the exact same point I'm making). Here's his NFL Combine report.

     

    "Can be inconsistent in his approach. Needs to play inside the offense and show more discipline. Too eager to go big game hunting. Ravenous appetite for the explosive play can also bring unwanted trouble. Willingness to default to playground style appears to limit his ability to get into a consistent rhythm. Needs to improve anticipatory reads and learn to take what the defense gives him. Decision making can go from good to bad in a moment's notice. Operates from a narrow base and allows his upper body and arm to race ahead of his feet. Has a dip and wind-up in his standard release. Explosive delivery and follow-through causes some throws to sail. Needs better touch on intermediate and deep balls. Carries ball a little low in the pocket. Impatient. Will leave pocket prematurely rather than standing in and winning in rhythm. Better as a scrambler than pure runner. Looked a little less mobile in the open field this season.

     

    BOTTOM LINE

     Mahomes is a big, confident quarterback who brings a variety of physical tools to the party, but he's developed some bad habits and doesn't have a very repeatable process as a passer. Mahomes' ability to improvise and extend plays can lead to big plays for his offense, but he will have to prove he can operate with better anticipation and be willing to take what the defense gives him in order to win from the pocket. Mahomes will be a work in progress, but he's a high ceiling, low floor prospect."

     

     

    I'm sure you will dismiss the above too. I know, I get it. The sky is orange.

     

    So two people is his entire line? The pressures came from the middle. But let's ignore that.

     

    And if you say stuff that needs to be dismissed, then yes I will dismiss it. He's also had two years to play since coming out of college. 

     

    Nothing those scouts said have anything to do with the discussion about how his oline gave up 39 hits in a 5 week period. That his oline gave up tons of pressures, of which he was the best qb under pressure. 

     

    His play this season already proved some of those comments wrong such as leading with his foot, accuracy on intermediate and deep balls, standing in pocket, ball carrying. But let's not give credit to a qb that's had two years to develop. 


  4. 1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

    forget about runs stats comparison.

     

    when a QB gets the ball out quick, it makes things easier on the OL, and harder on the Ds to get pressures. let's forget that you were dead wrong saying Luck holds onto the ball too long. Luck's quick passing helps our OL look good. 

     

    Mahomes is slow to get the ball out, yet his OL is ranked very good (5th) in pass blocking. He's making it hard on his OL by taking longer, yet they still are top 5. that means his OL is working much harder than Indy's OL. And any QB holding the ball that long is going to get pressured and hit more. YET KC IS RANKED 5TH BEST in PASS PRO.

     

    PFF top 100 players at end of year 2018 listed Mitchell Schwartz (who was 2018 AP ALL PRO, as the 35 best player in the league. Quentin Nelson only ranked 86th. Eric Fisher, KC's other OT, was a 2018 Pro Bowl pick. So help me understand how both your tackles get awards like AP All Pro and Pro Bowl, and they're bad..... good grief. Indy only had one OL guy on those list (Q). 

     

     

     

    I didn't say he holds on to it too long, that was @Jared Cisneros

     

    But anyways, you first claim he holds onto it to long because he scrambles, and blaming the qb for that rather than the O Line that forces him to scramble. Now you say he holds to long which makes it harder on the OLine, and again blaming the qb. Two different arguments with different logical conclusions.

     

    And again, your keep claiming top 5 stat but your source ONLY uses sacks. That is not, in any way, feasible to use as the basis of your argument. 

     

    Fact is KC was bottom of the barrel for hits and pressures. No matter how much you try to put all the blame on Mahomes, it's just not factually accurate, his time to throw stat is skewed by the fact he is able to scramble and make throws, not that he just holds it while in the pocket. 

     

    He was the best QB under pressure, that's a fact too. 


  5. 2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

     

    Since we're just dealing in hypotheticals anyway, I pose this choice to you:

     

    Luck is going to win a SB this year, whether it's with the Colts or the Chiefs.  You have a one-time offer to trade Luck for Mahomes straight-up before the season starts.

     

    Would you trade Luck for Mahomes, knowing you are missing out on the SB this year and giving it to the Chiefs, in exchange for the larger window at a CHANCE to win one or more with Mahomes in the next decade?

    Mahomes. Won't have one this year, more chances in the future. That's without team being taken into account. Given the trajectory of the team, and the longevity of Mahomes (barring any unforseen career ending injuries), I believe we have a high chance of winning multiples. 

     

    I also believe with Luck, and the trajectory of the team, we will win at least one, at most two, superbowls. With Mahomes, it could be three or four. However this is clearly speculation.


  6. 7 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

     

    Keep spinning....

     

    Mahomes is not a run first QB (never said he was). He is a very frequent scrambler to avoid the sack and buy time. 

     

    He is ranked 8th in TT (Time to Throw - basically how long he holds onto the ball), which is a prime indicator for "scrambling" QBs.

     

    By the way, Luck is ranked 31st in TT (which means he is one of the best at getting the ball out fast). And this is what started this conversation (I said Luck did not hold onto the ball too long)

     

    The higher the TT, the higher the sacks typically. So, Mahomes holds onto the ball a lot longer than most, spend a lot of time outside the pocket which increases his risk of sacks, but KC's OL is bad. LOL. 

     

    And I communicated run stats to show you that the two OLs rated similar without any of the QB nonsense you're spinning. Looking at simple pass blocking rating (with the QB), as I said, both were top 5, but you don't want to acknowledge that either. So per the stats, in both pass blocking, and run blocking, the OLs are similar.

     

    Anyway..... By every meaningful stat, the OLs are very similar. GMs and Coaches, as well as all the talking heads use these same stats. So everyone in the business uses them. If you want to ignore clear data, that's on you dude. But you look pretty silly.

    To the bolded....Which means he isn't pressured, like I said. and that mahomes is pressured more, like I said.

     

    Why is Mahomes out of the pocket?  Because he is pressured out! But yet KC has a great Oline?  If Mahomes is so bad on time to throw and how long he holds on to the ball, and it is related to pressure, the pressure is allowed by the Oline. You are literally supporting my argument and then not even understanding what you are saying.

     

    Again, nobody in this discussion cares about the run stats when comparing QBs. This whole discussion is about QBs. You are bringing up things that have nothing to do with the conversation. You are saying top 5, by only looking at one stat (sacks), that doesn't even come close to actually communicating how good the Oline is in protecting the QB and allowing Time to Throw. 

     

    Show me pressures and show me hits, or you prove nothing that supports your argument. Your best support for your argument is Sacks and run blocking. Slow clap for you.


  7. 2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

     

    Then I guess I just don't see the point.

     

    In a vacuum, yeah you go with the younger player.

     

    But this discussion could go round and round.  Luck for Mayfield.  Brady for Mahomes.  Rodgers for Jackson.  What if we had Mahomes, but Luck won a SB with the Chiefs?  Would you feel better that we have Mahomes because he's younger and we'd have more chances at a SB?

    It was essentially in a vacuum, but with comparable QBs.  Luck over Mayfield, Mahomes over Brady, Rodgers over Jackson. I believe that I would, considering I feel quite sure about the future of our team.

     

    But you have no way of knowing if I am saying that facetiously or genuinely or not. But with Lucks age, and injury history, I would feel more comfortable with Mahomes than Luck, even if he had won a SB.


  8. 11 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

     

     

     

    Ok, so since we're talking about age, and it doesn't matter who the QB is...

     

    Then the logical option is to go with Luck until the end of his career, because by that time the Colts will have an opportunity to find another talented young franchise QB who is 6 years younger than Mahomes.

     

    The combined window of Luck and his replacement will be larger than the window for Mahomes.  On the flip side, the combined window for Mahomes and his replacement will be larger than the combined window of Luck and his replacement, but then there's the replacement of Lucks' replacement...  This is how actual NFL GMs run their actual teams.  That's why you don't see franchise QBs traded very often, even for other franchise QBs or boatloads of picks.

    Well of course that is true, but the discussion was focused in on the choice between Luck and Mahomes, not Luck and any unnamed future QB.

     

    The uncertainty of finding franchise QBs is why it gives validity to the discussion of Luck or Mahomes for the future of the Colts franchise. If we open the discussion to future QBs, then it essentially is moot.


  9. 17 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    Assuming an equal line, a scrambling QB that holds onto the ball longer will be hit much more than QB that does not, yes or no? More time with the ball, and more time with the ball outside the pocket will translate into more hits. 

     

    Let's subtract the QB from the conversation for a minute. The stat RBYards (yards per carry), PowerSuccess (success rate on 3rd or 4th down, when 2 yards or less is needed), and StuffRate (% of time a play was stuffed at or behind the line). KC ranked higher in 2 or 3. KC was also much better ranked (11th vs 22nd) in OpenYards (carry's of more than 10 yards), while IND was slightly better in 5-10 yard carries. 

     

    In short, both lines are very good. KC a bit better vs the run. Both are rated in the top 5 in pass blocking. Given Mahomes creates more risk of sack by his nature/style, the fact that KC is top 5 means they are pretty damn good.

     

    And on injuries.... Injuries are facts. Objective thinking takes facts into account. 

    But Mahomes isn't a scrambling QB, he only scrambles when forced. He's not like Cam Newton, RG3, or those other running QBs. He had more hits, therefore pressured even more than his hits. Yet he still threw for more yards, more TDs and ran for more yards and more yards per attempt.

     

    Why are you comparing run stats for an O-line when we're talking about QB protection. One has nothing to do with the other. If we were comparing RBs then you'd have a point, but we aren't.  That's why you had to subtract the QB from conversation, just so you could continue to argue that KC's line was just as good as the Colts. When it's just not true. Pull up stats for pressures and hits allowed for the lines, pull up scrambles and scramble yards (don't want to take into account QB run plays). Your pass blocking only takes into account sacks, which does not even come close to supporting your statement, when they allowed far more hits and pressures than the Colts. Their 39 hits ranked them 24th while Colts were tied for 2nd. You don't get hits unless you pressure the QB, but a pressure doesn't mean a hit. So it is safe to assume their pressures are even high than their hits.

     

    I have brought up the most relevant stat to the discussion, yet you continue to say KC has a similar Oline.

     

    Luck was not injured for season was he? He played all 16 games correct? He was practicing all offseason yes? Then you have no point there. You cannot measurably "give him a little break."


  10. 7 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    1) you obviously have zero clue about KC's line. See above, and check out FO advanced stats.

     

    2). The game Luck had under 250 yards. 

    Buffalo - #1 ranked passing D

    Jax - #2 ranked passing D

    Dallas - #7 in total D

    the other was in the first few games of the year with Luck coming off an injury year. I'll give him little break. 

    And that is something you cannot do when comparing objectively.  This is why it is impossible to debate with people who cannot objectively compare things. No I do have a clue...Colts had the better line yes? I still don't get your point. KC had the worse line of the two and Mahomes had to scramble more.

     

    Mahomes led the league in TDs when pressured, and 4th for YPA when pressured. Which your FO site does not take into account the amount of hits or pressures Mahomes had. I would like to find a site that shows how many times a QB was hit or pressured for drop backs (for the season) and compare exactly what we're talking about here.

     

    What I have found is that from week 9 to week 14 the Colts allowed 19 hits...in that same time span, KC allowed 39 hits, and you want to sit there and tell me that KC had the superior O-line? Hits will correlate with pressures, therefore Mahomes was unquestionably pressured more than Luck. Hence why I say his mobility is better than Lucks.

     

     


  11. 19 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    Mahomes (22) was sacked 4 more times than Luck (18) in the same amount of games.

     

    And I'm perfectly fine with Luck running less . Mahomes can go from hero to zero if he gets hurt running. And it's not like Luck was throwing it away a bunch. His completion % was still better than Mahomes last year.

    Number of sacks does not directly correlate with mobility. Luck had a better O-line. However, Mahomes had better scrambles than luck. Mahomes had 272 yards with a 4.5 average while Luck only had 148 for 3.2.  Mahomes had to scramble more, and was able to gain more yards than Luck when he had to scramble.

    You have to put your arguments in to context and weigh them proportionally.
     

     

    10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    I started by saying that age was the only thing that was not debatable. i never said i agreed that Mahomes was better. I laid out the impacts to both teams over the year, and also commented on supporting cast. 

     

    You then replied to my post which used the argument that Luck had a much worse supporting cast. A matter of fact, I closed with "give me a early round WR and a pass rush, and we'll beat KC" or something like that. 

     

    In short 1) i think it's too early to crown Mahomes after one year, and 2) i'm not sure Mahomes will remain durable. Mahomes has a new style that was hard to defend. Like all "new styles", Defenses adjust. Would Mahomes do as well without a A-List cast of WRs, and after the league has time to adjust to his style? To early to say for me.

     

    And you're acting like they were world beaters all year. The lost 3 out of their last 6 regular season games. Their 3 wins, one was in OT at home, and the other two were against the lowly Raiders in weeks 12 and 16. 

    And in one of his losses he had 478 yards and 6 TDs. Another loss was against a divisional opponent that held him to 243 yards (his  season lowest) and two TDs with 0 INT. At the same time Luck had 4 games under 243 yards. So Mahomes worst game was still better than a quarter of Lucks entire season. Games against the likes of the Redskins (2 TD, 2INT), the Eagles who were 9-7, and the Raiders (where he had only 239 yards while Mahomes had 285 and 291 against them).

    Nobody is crowning Mahomes anything.  The question is not whether he would do better without an A-List cast, it is would he do just as well as Luck on the Colts. I believe the answer is yes. This is because they are near even in skills that are not impacted by their team (Accuracy, Mobility, Arm Strength, Pocket Awareness).

    • Like 1

  12. 10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    the argument is that had Luck had the WR support that Mahomes had, it would have been a different story.

     

    you can't seriously be saying that Hilton (6)/Ebron (55) /Rogers (103), Pascal (NR) is better than Hill (4), Kelce (13), Watkins (45), Williams (74) - (the number is their YPG rank). KC had 2 top 15 guys, 3 top 50, 4 top 75. IND had 1 top 15, 2 top 75, an nobody else inside the top 100. 

    Dude, that wasn't the argument at all. You are going off a tangent. The debate was whether or not Mahomes could offer just as many or more chances to get to the SB than Luck.

    Which again, if they are even in skill, and Mahomes has six more years than Luck, then Mahomes gives us more chances.

    • Like 1

  13. 17 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    Age though is probably the only element that can't be argued.

     

    If you would have put Mahomes on the team last year, not sure he would have done any better.

    Think about the following.

    -Luck was coming back from injury

    -Our Oline was gelling

    -KC has two guys in in the top 15 (4 and 13) YPG catching the ball. They have another at 45, and another at 74. That's 4 guys inside the top 75. The Colts had only 1 inside the top 50, and only 2 inside the top 100. Aside from Hilton, WR 2 and 3 were by committee and Andrew was only 34 yards/game under Mahomes. Not to shabby. And from week 9 on, you could argue that Luck outplayed Mahomes. Luck was a top 5 weekly leader 3 out of 8 weeks, Mahomes only twice.

    -KC led the league in sacks, with Indy tied for 19. Even with that, we were rated higher than KC in the last half of the year on D.

     

    In the playoffs, we held them to 4 pts under their average/game. We held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, and zero passing TDs. Mahomes only had 8 yards rushing. IMO, while I hated giving up 4 rushing TDs, we really did enough on D. We even had more sacks then them (4 vs 3). We could have absolutely done better vs the run, and will be able to compete better if we add pass rushers this year. 

     

    So what was the problem if we did enough on D? Quite simply we couldn't score. They double covered Hilton (and to a lesser extent Ebron), and without a legit #2, we were shut down. We ended up down early and became one dimensional. Hilton was only 4/11 because of double coverage. Inman was 4/4 and Rogers was 5/6 (which is better than both performed all year from a catch rate perspective) and wide open at times. If anything, I blame Reich for not being more creative early with other WRs not named Hilton (or Ebron).

     

    Give me a true WR2 in the first two rounds, some pass rush, and a little improvement vs the run, and we'll beat KC with Mahomes.

     

    That is all contextual, if you swap Luck and Mahomes last year to their respective teams, then we could probably assume that their performance would be similar. You argue that we held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, however the Chiefs held Luck to 84 yards under his average. If you are going to make one point, you need to compare evenly.

     

    What you cannot argue is Mahomes abilities. As I mentioned above Mahomes has just as good mobility as Luck, if not better. Mahomes has better arm strength than Luck. He has similar pocket awareness and accuracy. That will translate over to the Colts.

     

    So with all things being considered, and Mahomes being the same as or slightly less in skill as Luck, Mahomes would be the better long play for the Colts to reach multiple SBs.

    • Like 1

  14. 17 hours ago, Aaron86 said:

    Logical? He had one great year on a team loaded with talent. Im not buying into your argument. Luck beat all the odds and was mentioned in the MVP  conversation and I still think he is. 

    I will take Luck blind emotion or not over Mahomes any day.

    This is not a debate over who is more talented over the other. All things considered, Luck probably has a slight edge over Mahomes currently (we'll see if he has a sophomore slump). Regardless though, that slight edge is not enough to push Luck over the top when it comes to how many chances we will get, considering Mahomes has 6 more years to play over Luck. If Ballard builds an actual balanced team, then Luck nor Mahomes would need a star studded team to play in the SB.

    You severely discount and underestimate Mahomes' ability as he has great pocket awareness, arm strength, accuracy, and mobility. This is not something that other people on the team affect when it comes to measuring his abilities.

    • Like 1

  15. 30 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

    It's not blind devotion. It's called being a fan. 

    And the point your trying to make is not proving anything. Change a few words around and you can make anything sound right.

     

    You know what fan is short for right? Are you a fan of luck or the team? A logical, non-emotional, decision would be to choose mahomes over luck if the option was available.

     

    There's no changing words or numbers, mahomes came in after and therefore, logically, he will leave the league after. Meaning we would have more chances with him. 

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1

  16. 1 hour ago, Aaron86 said:

    You just want to start an argument.

     

    What's the difference really with excpected or the what if sanerio. 

     

    Everybody counted luck out last I mean even the numbers said we wouldn't make it to the playoffs but look we made.

     

    No I'm proving a point that it is a valid argument and should not be dismissed based on your blind devotion to Luck.

    • Like 1

  17. 5 minutes ago, SanDiegoColt8 said:

    What if we trade our 2nd and 3rd to the Raiders for Antonio Brown then turn around and send AB to the Jets for Leveon Bell? 

    why not trade our 2nd and 3rd for bell then...?

     

    Also...we don't need a RB.


  18. 1 hour ago, Aaron86 said:

    Luck has more playoff experience then Mahomes. With way less help the also. 

     

    Saying Mahomes has 6 more years then luck to reach a Superbowl is a what if scenario. So yes let's work within know parameters.

    The "what if" is if he gets injured or retires before the normal time span of a QB.

     

    First round draft picks and pro-bowl QB's (of which they both are) average 9-12 years playing time. Mahomes just got into the league while Luck has been in since 2012. Looking at the average expectation of a professional QB, we can confidently assume that Luck will finish his career in 5 years (12 seasons) with 8 years at best if he plays to 15 seasons.  Meanwhile, Mahomes (with all things being equal) will finish his career 11-14 years under the same assumptions of average play time and max of 15 seasons.  This means Mahomes has 6 years more expected playing time than Luck.

     

    It is a bigger "what if" to believe that Luck will play longer than Mahomes, than it is to believe that Mahomes will play longer than Luck. Simply looking at the numbers, and common sense, proves this.

    • Like 1

  19. 1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

    Because he is not on the team at this point.

    Dang, when did that happen? Google his name and he's still listed as a Colts player. He's a free agent though and we didn't offer a contract extensions then? I thought he wanted to retire a Colt, maybe I heard wrong though. Why we would not offer a contract, he played great for us.


  20. On 3/10/2019 at 1:04 AM, Aaron86 said:

    Ballard is going to give Luck more shots at a Superbowl then Mahomes is going to get at in his entire career. I believe in Luck. And who's to say Mahomes has 6 more extra years to reach a Superbowl? I mean the injury bug can happen to anybody the team can fall apart anything can happen.

    It's just my opinion though.

    If Ballard can give luck those shots, he can give Mahomes those same ones as well. Currently Mahomes has had just as many as Luck as both have made it to the AFCCG once. 

     

    And you can't work off of what if scenarios, because you can do that for anyone. What if Luck dies tomorrow?

     

    Work within known parameters.


  21. On 3/6/2019 at 11:06 PM, Dacoltsboi said:

    Would you guys consider trading Luck to the raiders for Carr and two first round picks?

    I wouldn't take Carr, keep Brissett. It would take more than just two 1st rounders, and I would not stack the picks in a single draft.

     

    I've not made it a secret by any means that I would trade luck, but you gotta be smart about it. Two 1st and two 2nds at least, if not three 1st and a 2nd spread over two to three years.


  22. 7 hours ago, GoPats said:

     

    Then you don't read much. But don't let that stop you from being all Judge-y McJudge-rton. 

     

    If you can put a lid on the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou stuff for about a minute, and realize that we're having more of a legal discussion than a discussion about morals and values, maybe this would be worthwhile. 

     

    You're also stating options as fact. "It's not anywhere near the majority of them," you said. Really? You KNOW that? If you do, please share how, or a source, or whatever. 

     

    Did you miss this yesterday? 

     

    "But it appears Kraft was caught on camera getting services from two women who are not victims of human trafficking: the 45-year-old manager of the spa, Lei Wang, and 58-year-old spa employee Shen Mingbi, also believed to be an operator of the business — both licensed masseuses and Florida residents."

     

    https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/how-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-could-get-off-in-prostitution-case/

     

     

     

    I've said it at least twice, and I don't know how else to say it, so I'll just repeat it I guess? 

     

    If Kraft is guilty of the charges he's facing, then I've lost a lot of respect that I had for the man. I don't believe in condemning human beings for making mistakes like this one though. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't hurt anyone, he didn't steal from anyone. He took part in an illegal activity that also carries a heavy moral burden for a lot of people. This is a guy who has been very generous with a lot of charities and overall has done far more good than bad in this world.

     

    I have to wonder if you guys would even care if this was, say, the owner of the Browns, or Arthur Blank, or basically any other team! 

     

     

     

     

     

    https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm

     

    I read enough, but don't expect it from people here. 

     

    Legally, he paid for sex and could get off on technicality

×
×
  • Create New...