Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

esmort

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    3,054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,518 Pro Bowler

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,720 profile views
  1. All that writing and you still somehow managed to miss the point I don't know if I can make it any more simple. No where did I say (or imply) 50% of the league did something equal to what Kelly had done or are "the same as this guy". I thought the original point was pretty straight forward, but let's try it a different way. IF you set the "punishment bar" at banishment for what Kelly is being punished for than 50% of the league would be getting punished in some way for something (meaning even things much less severe than what Kelly has done), because by setting the bar that high even minor offenses would receive stiff penalties (whether that be some sort of probation, 1 game suspension, or a season/s suspensions (Kelly got banishment: so Kelly =/= to 50% of the league)). So players who did only small things by comparison would pay the price (a punishment, but not likely banishment) because you set a bad precedent by over-punishing Kelly. You appear to be stuck on the 50% number when the exact number was not central to the point. Call it a "large percentage" instead of 50% if you want, the point remains the same. Also you seem to have taken issue with the word "transgressions" for some weird reason. The reason I wrote transgressions over specific incident is because I couldn't remember at the time without researching where the bar fight and the football game brawl fell in the timeline of him being drafted (i.e. would they be a consideration is his punishment). But, if you want to include everything a player did all through college (especially those that ended as only misdemeanors (bar fight) or no charges (football game)) I think a lot of players would be in trouble. In response to your related responses: If you don't think at least 50% of the league is violating NFL drug policies (smoking marijuana and/or doing PEDS) you are watching a different NFL than me. So what if part of the reason he got extra chances is because of who he knows or what his last name is ... welcome to how the world works ... cronyism and nepotism always have and always will play a role in every industry. Also having the famous last name can be a double edged sword while he may get more chances, he is also under more of a spotlight and likely much more pressure (which may be part of his issues). I don't know why you (and a couple others) are so worked up about a project on the back end of the roster. He definitely has his issues , but is not nearly as bad as you are making it seem. He is on the shortest leash; if he takes a wrong step, under performs, or a better player comes available he's gone. In the meantime he is a camp arm (which we have to have anyway), and if he turns out to have figured things out and have the talent than we have a good cheap back up. It's a win-win for the Colts.
  2. I have nothing to walk back because you are missing the point. IF the penalty for Kelly's relatively minor arrests/convictions (some of which happened prior to entering the NFL) is permanent banishment from the league, than 1/2 the league doesn't have to be "ACTUAL criminals" to receive suspensions; because you are going to be handing out multi-game and season long suspensions for minor infractions due to where the bar is now set. You will be giving out 1 game suspensions for speeding tickets. Marijuana use/possession & PEDS will become a 1st offense season ban (I would wager at least 1/2 the league uses marijuana/PEDS even if they haven't been caught). Pat McAfee's swim in the canal would have been a season long ban. The point is however much you may not like him and regardless of how many chances he has had you can't impose such a harsh punishment for what in the scheme of things are relatively minor transgressions without it affecting every punishment the NFL hands out.
  3. How do you justify banishment when there are so many players in the league still playing who have done so much worse? By that logic; If Kelly's transgressions = banishment than half the league would be on some sort of suspension/probation.
  4. I can't believe people are actually making a big deal out of this. Kelly is a camp body/lottery ticket that cost us almost nothing. If Ballard and Reich want to try to reclaim someone on the backend of the 90 man roster who cares. If he figures it out and manages to make the roster/PS we win. He steps slightly out of line or performs poorly he gets cut...and it cost us a bag of peanuts. How this signing somehow got related to Kap is even more mind blowing; those two players/situations are only comparable in the Twilight Zone.
  5. Better to err on the side of caution, fully investigate, and not getting swept up in the angry mob. It's not like the season starts tomorrow.
  6. ^^^ This.. It's getting to the point that the media and the public has anointed itself judge, jury, and executioner. Even if you feel there is no doubt that a person is guilty letting the media and public opinion influence guilt and punishment without an assumption of innocence is a bad road to go down; a slippery slope that may one day infringe on everyone's rights.
  7. The way I read it teams have a limited budget for all udfa "signing bonuses" combined ~$100,000 ... But... They can guarantee as much of the salary as they want effectively giving them a bigger "bonus" https://heavy.com/sports/2019/04/nfl-draft-undrafted-free-agents-salaries-contracts/
  8. I heard one of the draft commentators (don't remember who) said the word was that Darnell Savage Jr. -S was who the Colts wanted and one of the last 1st rnd talents on their board, and GB suspected that and that's why they traded up to get him when they did.
  9. Exactly my point! The post you responded to was my response to the hypothetical presented by another poster of "would you trade the #34 pick this year for the Browns 2020 1st rnd pick". It was not a comment about last night's trade down; which I am assuming is what you thought the post was about.
  10. Maybe I am missing your point??? So you would be in favor of trading #34 pick for the Browns 2020 1st Rnd pick?
  11. No way to ever know for sure, but that doesn't seem like Ballard's personality to me. He seems like he means what he says and owns his mistakes.
  12. The Colts need to actually use the picks to draft players and get them on the team and develop them, especially since CB hasn't been a big player in FA. I am almost always in favor of trading down and acquiring more picks (current and future), and feel that the trade back tonight was probably a good move by Ballard, since I believe he really didn't see a drop off in talent between who was available to us at #26 and who would be available throughout the 2nd round (and the players he was targeting were still on the board). However, unless the we were getting WAY over-compensated (or some other rare circumstance) I am usually not in favor of just straight up giving up an early current pick for a future pick(versus trading back).
  13. I don't think I do it. #34 is basically a late 1st and I don't think the Browns are going to be terrible, so say we are trading #34 this year for ~#15 next year. I don't think the value is there.
  14. So far Ballard has been a pretty straight shooter; he could have just said everyone he had a 1st round grade on was gone so he traded back. He didn't have to even mention the original 8; I think he was likely telling the truth.
  15. Why?... They are a contender in the AFC and an obstacle for the Colts. I hope it blows up in their face.
×
×
  • Create New...