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


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Narcosys

  1. 15 hours ago, GoPats said:


    You basically made my point for me here by taking "solicitation" and turning it into "human trafficking." 


    Also, Irsay's offense wasn't using drugs, it was operating a vehicle while he was severely impaired. 


    Although I am apparently "willfully ignorant" in your own words... I'm simply trying to make a point in a civil manner. No, it is not "disingenuous" to assume that Kraft did not know the status of any of the women working at this spa. In fact, it's irresponsible to assume anything. 


    Do you really think a guy like Kraft would risk his fortune, status, and - most importantly -- his reputation by knowingly soliciting sex slaves? I don't. 



    Nobody is happy about it, or blowing it off. It's an embarrassment to the organization. My view on Kraft is certainly forever changed. 


    The only thing I've taken exception to is how many people here have stretched the actual charges Kraft faces into something much worse. What if, after Irsay's arrest, someone had said, "Well he was found with almost $30K in cash, so he MUST be selling drugs to school children!" You guys would be pretty upset with something like that. 


    If evidence comes to light that he knew these girls were victims of human trafficking then I'll be the first to further condemn his actions. But it's not fair to take a misdemeanor and turn it into a completely reprehensible act like many have done.  



    For the love of all that is holy, NO VIDEO! OMG, lol... I concur Gramz. No one needs to see that! 



    His crime is solicitation, but all solicitation abet human trafficking. It is illegal to pay for sex for that reason.


    Just like buying illegal drugs abet its trafficking. 


    Sorry, but you just don't do it.


    So no rich person has ever risked their fortunes doing illegal stuff? Come on now, be the smart person you say you are and not the willfully ignorant one you're portraying. 


    He didn't have to be explicitly told they are sex slaves, it comes with the territory of solicitation and prostitution and even more so with Asians engaged in this.


    Do you have to be explicitly told as an adult that boiling water is hot? No because you know the processes behind it that cause water to boil. 


    He knew what he was doing is illegal, you simply have to think it through to its logical conclusion. Solicitation and prostitution is the result of human trafficking.

  2. 1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

    The missing children category is much more horrible that missing children? :scratch:

    I think he means that the category itself entails more than just "missing children."  Kids in under developed countries disappear all the time and are sold into sex trafficking.

  3. 14 hours ago, GoPats said:


    This is disappointing and, on a personal level, pretty disgusting, but I think a lot of people are making a bit of a leap here insinuating that Kraft would be aware of the status of any of these women. Soliciting, versus being involved in human trafficking, are two very, very different things. Plus if you're going to apply the moral compass to Kraft how can you ignore some of the things Irsay has done? Seriously? That's the ultimate case of hypocrisy if you want to go there, but whatever.


    I'm not happy. I don't condone it. But let's not make this more than it really is because, itself, it's bad enough. 










    Are you seriously comparing drug use/addiction to prostitution and being complicit in human trafficking.


    You say he isn't aware of the status of these girls...? Do you know many prostitutes who are there of their own free will and can leave whenever they want? 


    Even though its stereotypical, the asian community is known for having woman stuck in sexual servitude, being promised transportation and a life in a new place and then having their passports taken and making them "work off" their contracts. It is prevalent with Taiwanese, Filipinos, and other Asian girls that work in prostitution. Yes I know this because I lived in South Korea for a year and was made very clear to stay away from any girls working in juicy bars and other such less reputable businesses that are everywhere in many South Korean cities. The same happens in US, as many girls are sent all over the world, not just South Korea


    So to say he had no clue is disingenuous, at best was being wilfully ignorant (seemingly like yourself). 


    Give me a break here. 

    • Like 1

  4. 9 hours ago, chad72 said:

    A very practical trade back would be to swap our #34 pick with the Eagles picks #53 and #57, thus giving us three second rounders at #53, #57 and #58. Eagles are typically trade trigger happy and will move up if a player they really want is still out there at #34, IMO. I would be very much fine with that trade. 


    Another trade possibility is if the Redskins do not want to reach for a QB at No. 15, draft someone else and want to move back into Round 1 for a QB like Daniel Jones or even Kyler Murray, if they are available at No.26 and offer a future 1st, plus current 2nd and 3rd for the same.

    I think the talent level we can get at pick #34 is too much to trade out of.

  5. 7 hours ago, Tombstone said:

    Will you be disappointed if this was the case and we go receiver in the first round.  He is aware that the Colts fan are looking for a number 2 Wide out and he did say in that interview the fans say that this is a need.  This is going to be interesting what happens but in Chris I trust

    He also said he doesn't care what the fans think and is going to do whats best for the team.   So I don't expect our first to be a WR.  It will most likely be a DB, DT/DE/Rush LB.

  6. 6 hours ago, esmort said:


    I might be tempted to take "the over" on that.

    ok, I'd give you three and that's a risky three. Giants, Jags, and Broncos are in the market for a QB.  If one of those signs a QB or trades for one (Like Jacoby) then you may only see two get drafted. Duke's QB may not make it into the first round, Patriots might go for him though.  But none of them are worthy of a top 10 pick by skill, only by supply and demand.

  7. 13 hours ago, shastamasta said:


    Yeah...I think people need to accept that WR might just be the play, considering where they are drafting.


    Something tells me that they probably won't be drafting at #26. I sense either an agressive move up if someone slips or a trade back to try to have get some more draft assets.

    We're straying a bit off topic (My fault), but I think we should definitely nab one of those safeties honestly, or even Corner if the DEs/rush LBs available aren't as highly rated. Since DBs and DEs feed off of each other, either will work.

  8. 9 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

    He will be looking for pass rushers. That can from any position on the D-line or linebacker. He feels that is our biggest need.


    Players that most likely will be there for us at 26 and 34.


    Byron Murphy cb,
    Deionte Thompson safety, 
    Johnathan Abram, safety
    A.j Brown, WR
    N'keal Harry, WR
    D.K. Metcalf, WR
    Jerry Tillery, DT

    Brian Burns DE
    Dre'mont Jones DE/DT
    Mack Wilson, LB

  9. 40 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:





    Ballard has been crystal clear in all of his dealings w the media and fans. He has not misled anyone. He has said things and then stuck by it. If anything, I have seen numerous Colts articles where writers basically say "Ballard said he was going to do this" or "Ballard basically said he was not going to do that" in reference to fans being upset that we did or did not do something in player acquisition.


    This is why any fans upset that we don't chase Bell or A.Brown, etc are just not listening. Listen now and you would know we are not going after those guys.


    Ballard has said repeatedly he will build through the lines on both sides of the ball. He has also said he thinks the OL needs to be 10 deep.


    I think the one thing that would prevent us from taking a first round offensive lineman is the fact that this class is so good and so deep on the defensive line. There might be a DL at 26 that is usually a top-15 talent in other years. That will necessitate us taking that DL.


    But if the DL talent is not there for whatever reason, I would 100% not put it beyond Ballard taking an OL there for now and the future.

    Those DL that are so good are the ones going top 15, only because there is nothing else good coming out in this draft. There are maybe 2 QBs that will be drafted in the first round, but neither are first round quality, let alone the top 10 in which they will be drafted. Our first pick will not be DL, based solely on the fact that 8 DL will go top 15, leaving good quality players at other positions available. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  10. 7 hours ago, LockeDown said:

    Ballard believes we haven’t seen the best of Luck yet.  So He thinks in 4 years that Luck will be even better.  

    In 4 years luck will be 11 years into his career. He'll have maybe 4 left after that. Hopefully we get something from those last 4.

    2 hours ago, Roger said:

    Brissett is not better than those three. He would be a backup on any of those teams.  He is like Matt Cassell.


    Not sure how you can say that but ok.

  11. 2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

    Sure anything can happen, look at what happened to Oladipo for the Pacers the other night. It is a risk as a GM that I would be willing to take. Luck's talent is just too great to give up on him. Other than Mahomes and Rodgers no QB's are more talented at this moment IMO. Just saying based on talent.


    Won't disagree with that.

    • Like 1

  12. Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

    After watching this season I am less worried about Luck's shoulder now. I hve to admit every time he did get hit this season I flinched LOL. He seems to be 100% and I haven't heard from any sources he isn't. 

    For now, age and time will still wear him down and that shoulder. You can't believe that after just one season you trust he won't re-injure it, especially since he took the fewest hits in the league. He's a risk, no other way to look at it. I worry in 4 years his shoulder is going to be bothering him as the wear and tear catches up. 

  13. 6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

    Regarding Luck, the only QB's that are arguably better as of now,

    Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes. I guess maybe Wilson but I think Luck is definitely better than him as of now. Notice how Wilson can not win in the Playoffs without that great Defense he had or without Lynch. I would take Luck over Big Ben or Rivers as well. Brady and Brees are getting old though. Rodgers really had an off year too. Mahomes is scary good and young!


    Back on topic

    I would keep Jacoby for another season, he is on a cheap contract and a solid backup just in case Luck gets concussed or something and has to miss a game or come out of a game.

    I worry too much about his injury, its too much of a risk to me to just overlook it due to his skill.

  14. 40 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

    Hypothetically, would you trade Luck for all three of the Raiders 1st round picks this year straight up?

    No, too many picks in one year. Looking at future draft classes, I'd want to spread the picks out over the next 3 years. This way we can better grow brissett and better evaluate our needs as our draftees develop. 


    Not smart to stack all in one draft. 

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1

  15. 5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

    The QB's you mentioned are outliers and Bortles will never win a SB. Brisett is definitely not better than Joe Flacco when he was in his prime. Yeah out of 53 SB's played there have been probably 5 or 6 that have won a SB that aren't in that very good or great level. Most of them have been. Luck is just entering his prime and had a career season. Brissett isn't even close to his level. Brissett is a solid backup and I like him but come on. Luck has the potential to become a Top 5 - 10 QB of all-time. We do not even sniff 10 wins without Luck this season. You think Brissett throws 39 TD's and 4500 Yards? We would've been around 6-10 without Luck. 

    I disagree, I think people are severely underestimating Brissett's skill.


    If we can get 3-4 picks for the next 2-3 years off of Luck, I'd rather slightly lose skill at the QB position and greatly raise the skill around the entire team. We'd be more well rounded and not relying on one person to win games.

    • Sad 1

  16. 1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

    I hope you are kidding. I can not tell. Having an Elite QB is very important, we aren't winning a SB with Brissett. 

    Tell that to the cardinals with Dilfer, the Ravens with Flacco, or the Jags last year with Bortles who choked away a sure win.


    Brissett is better than all three of those QBs, we can win without Luck. We very likely would have won 10 games with Brissett at QB this year. I don't see why we don't cash in on a QB who's likely halfway through his career and an injury that is always at risk of coming back easily and getting worse over time, and keep a younger, stronger, and nearly just as skilled QB.


    Makes sense to me. What I don't get is why some people are so hard stuck on Luck when his future is just as unknown as Brissett's is.

    • Haha 1
    • Confused 2
  • Create New...