Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dustin

Unpopular Opinion thread

Recommended Posts

Who do you think he will cover on the Pats?

Whoever is on the right side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever is on the right side.

Even if they line Gronk out there? The Pats mix formations like crazy with guys lining up all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they line Gronk out there? The Pats mix formations like crazy with guys lining up all over the place.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they line Gronk out there? The Pats mix formations like crazy with guys lining up all over the place.

Manusky....for as well as our defense has played in spurts this year (Though much of it has to do with inferior offenses like the Jags, Bengals without there top 2 wr's, Texans with Fitzpatrick at QB) is no stranger to putting some of his players in situations that they just cant win 9 out of 10 times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright now I'm just confused. No one was being defensive... being defensive is when you react to something that is probably true. You said Brady had a "sophomore slump" in 2002, which is just not correct. I have no idea what you're talking about with 2008.

This is the "Around the NFL" section. If you post something about Brady, Pats fans will show up. If you post something about Brees, Bogie will show up. If you post something about the Texans, Qwizboy and Houston fans will show up. Especially if what you post is flat-out wrong. So you can accuse us of being defensive (can't tell you how ironic that is coming from a fan base that is, collectively, very insecure about how your players are viewed) but whatevs, my man!

:thmup:

Have you guys really blocked out that the Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 without Brady? I know ya'll block out the 4 game losing streak in 2002, and other small potatoes but 2008??? Really???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys really blocked out that the Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 without Brady? I know ya'll block out the 4 game losing streak in 2002, and other small potatoes but 2008??? Really???

What exactly is your point about 2008? The team went 16-0 the year prior with Brady with a murderous schedule full of above .500 teams and then dropped 5 games the next year and no playoffs when Brady wasn't there against one of the softest schedules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.

Why would they do that? You can't have him on Gronk. Cannot he not play anywhere else but a certain spot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny Manziel was a bust from day 1 and will never amount to anything in the NFL other than maybe one 2012 RGIII-like season if he ever starts. The Browns should trade him and look at getting another young QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add I think Megatron is overrated. Most of his accomplishments are strictly because of his physical aspects (size and speed). He's like DeSean Jackson, except he has speed and size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well heres another, I guess is unpopular to say the Pats should win 4 of their next 6.

unpopular to pats fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add I think Megatron is overrated. Most of his accomplishments are strictly because of his physical aspects (size and speed). He's like DeSean Jackson, except he has speed and size.

I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny Manziel was a bust from day 1 and will never amount to anything in the NFL other than maybe one 2012 RGIII-like season if he ever starts. The Browns should trade him and look at getting another young QB.

He hasn't played yet. Definitely doesn't fit "bust" criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Ingram is better right now then Trent will ever be and ever has been at the college level and NFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Ingram is better right now then Trent will ever be and ever has been at the college level and NFL

how long did it take for him to start producing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how long did it take for him to start producing?

Behind Thomas, Sproles? Are you serious? Which very good Back do you want to take out for an unknown? Its not always do to the fact that a guy like Ingram wasn't/isn't good enough, Sometimes a coach just like a prospect or something about a player more so they stick with him, Ingram is the harder runner, way more acceleration and better vision and is more shifty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behind Thomas, Sproles? Are you serious? Which very good Back do you want to take out for an unknown? Its not always do to the fact that a guy like Ingram wasn't/isn't good enough, Sometimes a coach just like a prospect or something about a player more so they stick with him, Ingram is the harder runner, way more acceleration and better vision and is more shifty

He was drafted in the first round to be the feature back. He never could stay healthy or start producing until last year. Even then he has missed multiple games the last two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was drafted in the first round to be the feature back. He never could stay healthy or start producing until last year. Even then he has missed multiple games the last two years.

Good point about his health, I still think talent wise in terms of pure running back Ingram is better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Ingram is better right now then Trent will ever be and ever has been at the college level and NFL

Trent was way better in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add I think Megatron is overrated. Most of his accomplishments are strictly because of his physical aspects (size and speed). He's like DeSean Jackson, except he has speed and size.

So... He's overrated because he's that good.

 

You do realize he is literally the perfect physical WR, right? Of course his measurables are going to help him.

 

It's not like he's a slouch at route running and the technical aspects of being a WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trent was way better in college.

Not by my eye test, Besides even if one perceives he was I still like more shiftiness in my running backs then Trent has shown, He seems to prefer Power Cuts and lunge cuts.....Except he has short legs and is not very affective with it....does not lower his pads either nearly enough.....He nees to learn to use the speed cut in my opinion http://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/breaking-down-the-cutting-actions-of-rbs-part-2/

 

 

Great article that I think holds a lot of merit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... He's overrated because he's that good.

 

You do realize he is literally the perfect physical WR, right? Of course his measurables are going to help him.

 

It's not like he's a slouch at route running and the technical aspects of being a WR.

Yeah he has good hands and stuff, but he isn't a Marvin Harrison, Michael Irvin, etc...Most of his amazing catches are catching it with 3 defenders around them. If Harrison was 6'4" with that speed, we'd be talking about him as the GOAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys really blocked out that the Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 without Brady? I know ya'll block out the 4 game losing streak in 2002, and other small potatoes but 2008??? Really???

 

 

So in your mind the Pats didn't go 11-5 in 2008...they went 16-0 the year prior to 2008, in 2008. That's my point.

 

 

Honestly dude, still not getting you here. Who is blocking anything out? What, exactly, are you trying to get across? Does the team's performance without Brady somehow downgrade him in your mind? If so, great. That's your opinion and that's up to you. 

 

The Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 without Brady, yes. Is that your entire point/argument?Just because they didn't fold up like a cheap tent when their Hall of Fame QB went down (like some other teams out there, cough-cough), Brady is somehow just an interchangeable piece of the puzzle? 

 

There were several factors in 2008 (still had a decent D, soft schedule, and Cassel played quite well actually) that made the Patriots 11-5 without Brady. 

 

If your opinion at this stage of his career is that he's a run-of-the-mill QB, I probably can't help you. Because that's blatantly un-objective, hater-fueled nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah he has good hands and stuff, but he isn't a Marvin Harrison, Michael Irvin, etc...Most of his amazing catches are catching it with 3 defenders around them. If Harrison was 6'4" with that speed, we'd be talking about him as the GOAT

 

Yep, if all WRs were the same weight, height and speed, it'd be easier to compare them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, if all WRs were the same weight, height and speed, it'd be easier to compare them.

?

What I'm saying is that most people with those measurable would dominate. Its just he's a genetic freak. Most guys who are 6'5" aren't as fast as him, and thus can't create separation. Then there's alot of guys who have his speed but aren't 6'5". Not that it hampers them, but it'd be a huge bonus.

Do you think if he was like 6'1" and only ran like a 4.5, he'd dominate? That's my point. He doesn't have alot about his game that is elite outside of his measurables. That's why most of the time you hear analysts talk about him they all say the same thing " Man the thing about Calvin is that he's so big, and so fast". I'm not saying he's not good, but people should give more praise to the Antonio Browns, Josh Gordan, and Reggie Waynes in the NFL. I just don't think he's that good of a "pure" receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly dude, still not getting you here. Who is blocking anything out? What, exactly, are you trying to get across? Does the team's performance without Brady somehow downgrade him in your mind? If so, great. That's your opinion and that's up to you.

The Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 without Brady, yes. Is that your entire point/argument?Just because they didn't fold up like a cheap tent when their Hall of Fame QB went down (like some other teams out there, cough-cough), Brady is somehow just an interchangeable piece of the puzzle?

There were several factors in 2008 (still had a decent D, soft schedule, and Cassel played quite well actually) that made the Patriots 11-5 without Brady.

If your opinion at this stage of his career is that he's a run-of-the-mill QB, I probably can't help you. Because that's blatantly un-objective, hater-fueled nonsense.

I know you're still not getting me here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly dude, still not getting you here...

 

 

I know you're still not getting me here.

 

 

Hey well THAT we agree on!  :thmup:

 

It's no big deal, I'm just not really seeing your point. I don't think any Pats fan ignores 2008 or pretends it didn't happen. It was a lost season for us, despite being 11-5, because it was basically the undefeated 2007 team with an easier schedule. That was supposed to be a redemption season for 18-1, but losing Brady 10 minutes into it sort of doomed them. Then there was a lot of turnover before 2009, and it took Brady a little time to get back into things. 

 

I think, up here, we appreciate the job that Cassel did, and especially Belichick, in making that team competitive. They were fun to watch and did a good job of staying in it right up until the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that most people with those measurable would dominate. Its just he's a genetic freak. Most guys who are 6'5" aren't as fast as him, and thus can't create separation. Then there's alot of guys who have his speed but aren't 6'5". Not that it hampers them, but it'd be a huge bonus.

Do you think if he was like 6'1" and only ran like a 4.5, he'd dominate? That's my point. He doesn't have alot about his game that is elite outside of his measurables. That's why most of the time you hear analysts talk about him they all say the same thing " Man the thing about Calvin is that he's so big, and so fast". I'm not saying he's not good, but people should give more praise to the Antonio Browns, Josh Gordan, and Reggie Waynes in the NFL. I just don't think he's that good of a "pure" receiver.

Lol....Josh Gordon is very gifted physically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol....Josh Gordon is very gifted physically.

 

Yes he is, but not to the degree of Megatron. Plus his highlight reels aren't just him catching jump balls over 2 guys who look like pop warner players compared to him. He's actually a very good pure WR. He has way more technique than Calvin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he is, but not to the degree of Megatron. Plus his highlight reels aren't just him catching jump balls over 2 guys who look like pop warner players compared to him. He's actually a very good pure WR. He has way more technique than Calvin.

I haven't watched enough of either one of them to make a firm opinion on it, but I feel like physical size and speed aren't the only thing propelling Calvin Johnson to the elite level.

 

It'll be interesting to see him age and whether or not his production will stay high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that most people with those measurable would dominate. Its just he's a genetic freak. Most guys who are 6'5" aren't as fast as him, and thus can't create separation. Then there's alot of guys who have his speed but aren't 6'5". Not that it hampers them, but it'd be a huge bonus.

Do you think if he was like 6'1" and only ran like a 4.5, he'd dominate? That's my point. He doesn't have alot about his game that is elite outside of his measurables. That's why most of the time you hear analysts talk about him they all say the same thing " Man the thing about Calvin is that he's so big, and so fast". I'm not saying he's not good, but people should give more praise to the Antonio Browns, Josh Gordan, and Reggie Waynes in the NFL. I just don't think he's that good of a "pure" receiver.

 

He's a pretty agile, and athletic guy for his size. If you shrunk him down, would he be more agile? Who knows. Hard to say, Hard to compare. They are what they are, and if you change them, other skills change with it.

 

I thought the same of Shaq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bill Belichick hadn't hit on a lotto ticket named Tom Brady he would be considered a poor man's Marty Shottenheimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that most people with those measurable would dominate. Its just he's a genetic freak. Most guys who are 6'5" aren't as fast as him, and thus can't create separation. Then there's alot of guys who have his speed but aren't 6'5". Not that it hampers them, but it'd be a huge bonus.

Do you think if he was like 6'1" and only ran like a 4.5, he'd dominate? That's my point. He doesn't have alot about his game that is elite outside of his measurables. That's why most of the time you hear analysts talk about him they all say the same thing " Man the thing about Calvin is that he's so big, and so fast". I'm not saying he's not good, but people should give more praise to the Antonio Browns, Josh Gordan, and Reggie Waynes in the NFL. I just don't think he's that good of a "pure" receiver.

 

There is an inherent problem with noting that a player would not be as good except for their insane physical ability.  On top of not being able to prove it, you'd have to establish a baseline for physical ability.

 

But yes Calvin Johnson dominates in huge part to his freakish physical abilities.  However it's the NFL, most every dominate player has freakish physical abilities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point about his health, I still think talent wise in terms of pure running back Ingram is better

 

Easy to say that now, but for 3 years Ingram looked to be the same bust that Trent has looked.  

 

Trent is underrated though because he was drafted too high and got the bust label applied to him.  I think his main problem is finding the hole, but in the open field he's pretty elusive.  

 

If the draft where re-done I would take him in the 4th round.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they do that? You can't have him on Gronk. Cannot he not play anywhere else but a certain spot?

 

Vontae can handle Gronk, especially on the outside. The only place where it would be a problem would be on the goal line with a fade route, but Vontae is still going to be our best bet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vontae can handle Gronk, especially on the outside. The only place where it would be a problem would be on the goal line with a fade route, but Vontae is still going to be our best bet. 

I was talking about Toler only lining up on the right side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about Toler only lining up on the right side.

Ah, I was thinking defensive right. Didn't go back further for context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I was thinking defensive right. Didn't go back further for context.

If Toler will only play right then I can see the Pats lining Gronk up against him. Will the Colts switch him off if the Pats do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Toler will only play right then I can see the Pats lining Gronk up against him. Will the Colts switch him off if the Pats do that?

 

Yes, we'll put safeties and backers out there on him from time to time, but I don't think Gronk is uncoverable by corners. I've rewatched a couple of Pats games this week, and plenty of corners get Gronk in primary coverage and hold him in check. Kyle Wilson, Tim Jennings, Leodis McKelvin, etc. all have done just fine against him. It's only really an issue on the goal line. 

 

The Pats want teams to move linebackers and bad cover safeties out there with him. He's generally ignored when a corner is on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...