Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

COLT in J-ville

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    287

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by COLT in J-ville

    Trade value in Coby Fleener

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    If the line could actually hold a block for over two seconds, it would be a great formation.  We'll probably see alot of the two tight end sets, and with Allen back they'll have to cover both.  But not with three WRs.

     

    I hated the empty backfield in Lucks first year.  It was a license for the defense to blitz since there was no threat of a run. 

    That's a BIG if

    bad news for jimmy/Jim Irsay arrested (((merge)))

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    It seems my lack of communicative skills clouded my intent :)

    Allow me to start with a small thought experiment (credit to neuroscientist Sam Harris): Think of a movie. You're free to choose.

    1. I'm assuming you're a regular person who doesn't know the title of every movie ever created. Already here, you're limited in your ability to choose freely.

    2. Before you're able to actively pick a movie that you have stored in memory, thoughts appear. In this case, let's pretend the choices your subconscious creates are "Avatar", "Lawrence of Arabia" and "A Beautiful Mind".

    In all honesty: Did you control which thoughts entered your cognitive state?

    3. You now have the choice between these three movies. You pick Avatar: Why?

    Well, you just watched "Finding Nemo" yesterday. Finding Nemo is an animated movie and you liked it. This led you to pick Avatar. But the same argument - despite your liking of "Finding Nemo" may as well have led you to pick "A Beautiful Mind" - you're feeling adventerous and want to try a new experience. And you've already just watched an animated movie yesterday.

    My point is: All these thoughts you have, are not really yours. They're active ingredients of what appear in your subconscious. You may think you're making the decision based on "free will": But how could you?

    Onto what you wrote, and the implications of "my" philosophy:

    When I'm saying it has "nothing" to do with Jim Irsay, I simply mean that Jim Irsay is the sum of genetics + environmental factors that led us up to this very point. All those factors, actions and functions make up Jim Irsay, so it'd be foolish on my behalf to claim it having nothing to do with Jim Irsay, when in truth, it has everything to do with Jim Irsay.

    What I tried to relay in my post was the following:

    As I said, the action should be condemned. And even though Jim Irsay was as little to blame for everything that happened up until this very moment in time, which is true whether your name is Osama or Obama (yup, I just said that, and I'll defend those views avidly), it's irrational to 'judge' the person. Say you were born to be Osama: Basically you're following your natural impulses, regardless of how wrong they may be based on the standards of society. What I mean to say is: Don't throw bad feelings toward Jim Irsay, Osama or anyone else for that matter, as that - to me - is completely irrational and shows to some degree, ignorance.

    Let me ask you this: If someone close to you were attacked and killed by a lion, would it be rational to judge the lion with the feeling of hate? Isn't the lion just following its natural impulses? You might want to lock the lion up, or remove yourself from the threat of being attacked: But would you deem it rational to kill it as vengeance? To me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe the word "justice" should exist - rather I think the word "symmetry" or "balance" should replace it.

    Which brings me to the implications of my views: Does this mean that punishment, corrections etc. would be wrong, considering the person didn't really have a choice or not in the first place?

    ABSOLUTELY NOT. Let me make this abundantly clear: As a society, we both can, will, should and have to correct behavior detrimental to our ability to evolve (which seems to be the purpose of our existance). As such, we shouldn't allow killers or drunk drivers for that matter to roam freely. But what I'm advocating is: Don't hate what you don't understand. Dislike the behavior, because it's detrimental, but remember: In the end we're all reactions based on functions that came after the event we know as "The Big Bang". To me, we're nothing but extremely beautiful and extremely complicated physical processes. As such, I find hate to always be irrational, and the result of ignorance. Punishment should ONLY be used when it has a purpose in terms of correcting a problem detrimental to life being able to evolve (correcting and understanding the behavior of addicts, so they don't end up drunk driving etc.), but I do not believe that punishment, just for the sense of punishing someone to make yourself feel better can ever be rational. To me, that has severely limited - if any - foundation in logic.

    First of all, at number 3 I chose Lawrence of Arabia.. Yes I know it was just an example of a reason why SOMEONE would pick Avatar.. I just wanted to show that I do have some taste in movies ;)

     

    You have cleared up your initial statement as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for pointing out the disconnect between that statement and how I viewed it. I just didn't want others to view it that way if it was not what you intended.

     

    As far as the lion example- I think it would be completely rational to hate anything that kills a loved one, be it a lion, or cancer, or a mass-murderer. You can understand and accept that the lion was just acting upon its instincts, which allows for some kind of closure at least, but that doesn't mean your thoughts wouldn't naturally lean toward hating the lion. Did I just give you an argument for your supposed lack of free will by using the phrasing "naturally lean toward?" I'm not sure.. But if I did, it wouldn't necessarily follow in accordance with your argument, seeing that I was using that statement to show why I could rationally hate the lion. But that is a debate that I suppose could be eternally argued from both sides.

     

    Let me ask you this: What if that lion actually killed a hyena that was about to kill your loved one? Would it be irrational to love that lion? I don't think it would be. You would understand that it was acting on instinct to kill and eat some prey, and not that it was trying to exhibit altruism for humans.. But you could still love him for it, could you not? I mean, he did just save your daughter's life.

     

    You make some good points. I'm glad you didn't respond to me in a personally nasty or defensive manner. Most people on a message board would. I respect you for that.

     

    Oh I do feel I should point out again that I am not judging Jim Irsay, nor do I hate him for his addiction. It's not my position to judge. If I could invoke a Bible verse (don't worry people, I'm not making a religious argument here or anything like that.. so don't launch this in that direction please..I just feel the verse does have context here), "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

    Do we have the best receiving corps in the league?

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    The reality is that we don't know how good Nicks will be.  Can he be the guy that was dominant in the Giants last SB win or is he the injured WR of the past two years?  He had an awful QB this past season There's no question he was once a true #1.  He has good size and good hands - if he's healthy and motivated - he's what we need

    I won't disagree with that statement. I just don't think anyone could claim our receiving corps to be the best in the league, not with the things I've mentioned.

    bad news for jimmy/Jim Irsay arrested (((merge)))

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    "Although we can condemn the action because it's detrimental to society, that has nothing to do with Jim Irsay."

     

    NOTHING to do with Jim Irsay? I'm confused.. Are you saying that this action was not Jim's fault? Because free will is a delusion (as you say)? If so, then it is a complete and utter injustice that he was arrested. Agreed?

    If we (and we includes the law) condemn the action, but accept that it has "nothing to do" with the addicted individual that committed the action, then you have no choice but to agree. Or am I mising something?

     

    EDIT: Btw that isn't a Jim-bashing post. I hope he recovers. We all have our demons, myself included. What my post is about is a challenge to your philosophy, not an attack on Jim Irsay

    Is Tom Brady now a big-game loser?, Interesting read.

    in NFL General

    Posted

    Yes there is a common theme that has been floating around the last 3-4 years in which people, posters, writers, talk show hosts, love to cherry pick and start their clock, February 7, 2005, the day after SB 39 when they look at the analysis of how well Brady plays . . . given that there are only 3 QBs with 4 or more titles (Unitas did not play in 68, but you can make him a 4th if you will), is an indication that winning 4 is rare and not common . . . sometimes luck skill and number of things get in the way of winning 4th or 5th title . . . as luck would have it and certain bounces (Woodson getting to Brady too soon and Tryee's catch)  Brady's wins came early as opposed to spread out throughout the decade . . . which is not necessarily his fault or skill, just how the luck of the bounce fell . . .  

     

    And as such, this playoff accomplished are effected by things outside of his control . . . meaning if he won three in SB 39, 42, 46, these kind of articles are irrelevant . . . but it is timing issue as much as a talent issue . . . if we really wanted to eliminate the time issue, and therefore not worry about cherry picking or the bounce of the ball to decide at what time in a career a SB occurs . . . one can get a much better look at what has someone done outside of the three victories or three best years as the case may be . . . take them away and what has a QB done in the "off" years to get a gauge on the situation . . . this eliminates the cherry picking and ignores time in which one wins and focuses on the body of work one had done . . .  

     

    if we look at Brady and Manning as they are the subject of the author's attention and eliminate their three best years: for Brady it is 2001, 2003, 2004 (9-0) and for Manning it is 2006, 2009 and 2013 (8-1) what we are left with are the following:

     

    Brady is 9-8, two SB appearances, 5 AFCCG appearances, 1 divisional round appearance,  and 2 one and dones . . .

    Manning is 3-10, 0 SB appearances, 1 AFCCG appearance, 1 divisional round appearance, and 8 one and dones . . .

     

    So this is not cherry picking as it ignores the times in which one went all the way or best year and focuses on the times in one did not do well and lost . . . and as an addition to the above all of the three years removed from Brady's resume involved a SB where one of Manning's involves a SB loss and a pending game . . . and further to qualify the losses the two deep runs (SB 42 and 46) for Brady involved him leaving the field late in the game handing the ball over to his D to help bring in ring #4 and #5 . . .  

     

    But regardless of my last points if we just compare the results in the two careers outside of their three best years (which writers and the media want to do with the clock starting in 2005 for Brady) we see the body of work for Brady does not make him a big game choker when compared to his counter part . . . so contrary to the writers point, outside of their three greatest runs Brady is not the same as manning and should not be called out in the same manner . . . 9-8 is not the same as 3-10 . . .

     

    The trouble is that writers will want to ignore Brady's first three wins but yet include Manning's three best years as part of his entire body work and that is not the correct way to look at the two resumes . . .

     

    So if we step back and forget about timing and just look at the body of work as a whole and want to call a spade (Brady's entire body of work) a spade (Manning's entire body of work) fine, but we can not call an apple (Brady's work minus his three best years) and orange (All of Manning's years collectively) . . . calling a spade a spade is to look at the two through the same lens, be it the entire body of work, or that porting of their respective career outside of their three most successful . . . a spade is a spade but an apple is not an orange . . .  

     

    I don't think the guy was calling Brady a choker or disparaging him. I think he was being facetious about the Brady stuff to try and make a parallel to Manning's "choke-artist" criticisms. He is calling those criticisms bologna.

     

    At least this is what I think, which is why I liked his post.

     

    I don't think either are chokers. I think they have each played on winning and losing TEAMS. Brady, obviously, has played on more winning teams. To me, those are the only points to make in a Manning vs Brady discussion. Key words: TO ME.. I'm sure everyone else has an opinion on that. These are just my 2 cents.

×
×
  • Create New...