Colin Cowherd 6/29 - Andrew Luck & Colts

[tikyle]

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

They are hardly the same at all.   Much easier to do in the NBA if you have an owner willing to spend extra.  Convincing 1 player to come to your team can be the difference.   The Warriors are an anomaly.  Drafting is much more important in the NFL.   

 

What?  They are the same.  I agree it's easier to pull of in the NBA but they are still the same.  How can you say the Warriors are an anomaly and then say drafting is more important in the NFL?  If the Warriors hadn't drafted their 3 stars they would be poo.  That is the only reason they were even in position to get Durant.

 

Man sometimes I don't get you guys.  If you would've used the 2010 Heat as an example you would have had a point.  But the Warriors are the worst example of drafting being more important in either sport.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, tikyle said:

 

I vehemently disagree with this statement.  Now if you want to say the Colts have a average shot at winning it all I may agree somewhat even though I give them close to no shot unless major injuries derail a few teams.  But honestly in the NFL if you don't have an above average QB or an all time historical defense you are not winning it all.  I believe you can prove that through data.  And every team can't have an above average QB or all time historic defense so it kills that point.

 

My point is the Colts aren't close right now.  Could they go on a crazy hot run and get to the Superbowl?  Of course.  Is that likely staring at the likes of NE, KC, PIT and OAK?  No.

 

The NFL changes drastically every year. There are too many "first to worst" and "worst to first" stories every season to count almost anyone out at the beginning of the year. If you had to bet whether all four of those teams you named make the playoffs, or whether the Colts win the division, the Colts would have better odds.

 

The only near certainty in the NFL right now is that the Patriots are winning their division, and the next closest certainty is that they'll be in the AFCCG. Other than that, practically anything can happen.

[tikyle]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

All true.    It's just that I like how the NFL does it because I love watching NFL games.   I think the franchise tags is a good way to level the playing field against free agents just jumping ship.   

 

So you are basically saying you don't like capitalism?  Gotcha.

[Jackie Daytona]

4 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

I vehemently disagree with this statement.  Now if you want to say the Colts have a average shot at winning it all I may agree somewhat even though I give them close to no shot unless major injuries derail a few teams.  But honestly in the NFL if you don't have an above average QB or an all time historical defense you are not winning it all.  I believe you can prove that through data.  And every team can't have an above average QB or all time historic defense so it kills that point.

 

My point is the Colts aren't close right now.  Could they go on a crazy hot run and get to the Superbowl?  Of course.  Is that likely staring at the likes of NE, KC, PIT and OAK?  No.

The simple fact that you only have to win ONCE to advance in the NFL playoffs means a less than superior team has a greater chance of going to the Superbowl than a less talented NBA team of going to the finals by default.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, tikyle said:

 

So you are basically saying you don't like capitalism?  Gotcha.

 

That's a really silly comment. The point of the salary cap is to level the playing field. 

[tikyle]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The NFL changes drastically every year. There are too many "first to worst" and "worst to first" stories every season to count almost anyone out at the beginning of the year. If you had to bet whether all four of those teams you named make the playoffs, or whether the Colts win the division, the Colts would have better odds.

 

The only near certainty in the NFL right now is that the Patriots are winning their division, and the next closest certainty is that they'll be in the AFCCG. Other than that, practically anything can happen.

 

I agree but that has more to do with injury than how the league is structured.  If the Panthers were totally healthy last year, the Falcons don't make the playoffs.  If Seattle was totally healthy last year, the Falcons don't make the Superbowl.  If, if, if.  That's why I say injuries to all four of those teams probably has to take place for us to reach the Superbowl.  We just don't have the talent yet.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Myles said:

All true.    It's just that I like how the NFL does it because I love watching NFL games.   I think the franchise tags is a good way to level the playing field against free agents just jumping ship.   

 

I'm torn on the franchise tag. I think it's inherently unfair to star players, and artificially limits their ability to earn max money in a free market.

 

But it's a positive for the league in general, in that it keeps spending in check, and it allows smaller market teams to keep the good players they draft and develop, giving teams like Green Bay, Indy, etc., the chance to compete against market giants like the teams in New York, LA, Dallas, or the independent billionaire owned teams like Seattle, etc. 

 

And I don't see the NFLPA making an issue of getting rid of the tag, since it affects such a small percentage of the players. Out of 2,000 players, less than 9 players a year are tagged on average since 2011, when the new CBA started. That's less than half of 1%. And those players are still getting a large chunk of guaranteed money, so it's hard to drum up too much sympathy for them. 

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's a really silly comment. The point of the salary cap is to level the playing field. 

 

Exactly.  So if you can't go where you can make the most money since it's all equal, which would be the next distinguishing factor for you to pick employment?  Corporate culture, structure, stability, etc.  And he expressed joy in not even wanting the players to have that freedom and be stuck somewhere just because that team drafted them even though their contract has been fulfilled.

 

If you had a terrible boss and were working on a contract and fulfilled it.  Would you want him to be able to "franchise" you and hold you "hostage" because it's best for the organization even though you successfully fulfilled your contractual obligation and now you want to go somewhere with better management?  I don't understand why people act like athletes aren't people as well.  Just because they are on a card or TV or your fantasy team doesn't mean they aren't real people.  Sheesh.  Imagine if Drew Brees never got to play under Sean Payton?  Just ponder that one for a minute.

[Myles]

12 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

So you are basically saying you don't like capitalism?  Gotcha.

Not in the NFL I don't.    I also like salary caps in sports.   I'd like to see MLB intall an min/max cap.   No way should a team spending $250 million be playing against a team spending $30 million.

[tikyle]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm torn on the franchise tag. I think it's inherently unfair to star players, and artificially limits their ability to earn max money in a free market.

 

But it's a positive for the league in general, in that it keeps spending in check, and it allows smaller market teams to keep the good players they draft and develop, giving teams like Green Bay, Indy, etc., the chance to compete against market giants like the teams in New York, LA, Dallas, or the independent billionaire owned teams like Seattle, etc. 

 

And I don't see the NFLPA making an issue of getting rid of the tag, since it affects such a small percentage of the players. Out of 2,000 players, less than 9 players a year are tagged on average since 2011, when the new CBA started. That's less than half of 1%. And those players are still getting a large chunk of guaranteed money, so it's hard to drum up too much sympathy for them. 

 

Why do you assume small market teams can't keep their guys.  You just accurately said the salary cap is what levels the playing field.  And also the franchise tag doesn't keep spending in check.  It actually causes you to pay a premium for a guy most of the time (see Cousins, Grimes, JPP, etc).  The franchise forces you to overpay for a guy for one season as a penalty for not signing them long term.

 

Boston was not a football city.  It's not a huge media market.  But they built something there and now people want to go.  The notion of guys only wanting to go to big cities is pretty much outdated.  Sure some guys will always want to gravitate to NY or LA or CHI or Texas.  But most guys want to go where they feel they will be used the best.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

Exactly.  So if you can't go where you can make the most money since it's all equal, which would be the next distinguishing factor for you to pick employment?  Corporate culture, structure, stability, etc.  And he expressed joy in not even wanting the players to have that freedom and be stuck somewhere just because that team drafted them even though their contract has been fulfilled.

 

If you had a terrible boss and were working on a contract and fulfilled it.  Would you want him to be able to "franchise" you and hold you "hostage" because it's best for the organization even though you successfully fulfilled your contractual obligation and now you want to go somewhere with better management?  I don't understand why people act like athletes aren't people as well.  Just because they are on a card or TV or your fantasy team doesn't mean they aren't real people.  Sheesh.  Imagine if Drew Brees never got to play under Sean Payton?  Just ponder that one for a minute.

 

We don't disagree on most of this, but the sports business is different from general economics. Saying a person hates capitalism just because they want all 32 teams in the league to have a chance to win is nonsense.

 

As for Brees/Payton, the Chargers moved on from Brees, so it's not exactly the best example for you to use. Because of the franchise tag, it's hard to remember any good starting QB -- which Brees was in San Diego -- changing teams in the prime of his career, especially in free agency.

[Myles]

10 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

 

 

If you had a terrible boss and were working on a contract and fulfilled it.  Would you want him to be able to "franchise" you and hold you "hostage" because it's best for the organization even though you successfully fulfilled your contractual obligation and now you want to go somewhere with better management? 

I couldn't do that within a company.   If I want to leave where I am and go work for another location in the same company, I could not unless both plants agreed.   They can leave and play for another league if they want.  

[tikyle]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

Not in the NFL I don't.    I also like salary caps in sports.   I'd like to see MLB intall an min/max cap.   No way should a team spending $250 million be playing against a team spending $30 million.

 

I'm fine with a cap if you want the sport to be "fair."  A floor like you said needs to be there as well so teams don't just under spend to make money.  But restricting player movement is not cool.  Why reward bad franchises with the ability to hold a guy they lucked upon drafting?  That is why Archie refused to let Eli play in San Diego and why Elway did the same.

[Myles]

27 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

I vehemently disagree with this statement.  Now if you want to say the Colts have a average shot at winning it all I may agree somewhat even though I give them close to no shot unless major injuries derail a few teams.  But honestly in the NFL if you don't have an above average QB or an all time historical defense you are not winning it all.  I believe you can prove that through data.  And every team can't have an above average QB or all time historic defense so it kills that point.

 

My point is the Colts aren't close right now.  Could they go on a crazy hot run and get to the Superbowl?  Of course.  Is that likely staring at the likes of NE, KC, PIT and OAK?  No.

So you agree with me that saying they "have zero chance to win the Superbowl" was wrong.   Sure injuries play a factor.   That is a big part of the NFL season.   If you can put together a solid team and go injury free, they can be a competitive playoff team.  

[tikyle]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I couldn't do that within a company.   If I want to leave where I am and go work for another location in the same company, I could not unless both plants agreed.   They can leave and play for another league if they want.  

 

No, the league isn't the company.  The teams are.  The league is more the field of business.  Because honestly there are no other leagues and you can't even do that if you are under contract.  Guys aren't even allowed to ride bikes or play pickup basketball sometimes.

 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

We don't disagree on most of this, but the sports business is different from general economics. Saying a person hates capitalism just because they want all 32 teams in the league to have a chance to win is nonsense.

 

As for Brees/Payton, the Chargers moved on from Brees, so it's not exactly the best example for you to use. Because of the franchise tag, it's hard to remember any good starting QB -- which Brees was in San Diego -- changing teams in the prime of his career, especially in free agency.

 

I said Brees because he wanted to go and we all know the only reason they let him go is they believed they had his replacement.  If they felt differently they would have forced him to stay.

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

So you agree with me that saying they "have zero chance to win the Superbowl" was wrong.   Sure injuries play a factor.   That is a big part of the NFL season.   If you can put together a solid team and go injury free, they can be a competitive playoff team.  

 

I do.  I feel as though the Colts are lacking in the talent to win it all.  But if the injury bug hits a few teams I could easily see us in the Superbowl.  And the thing is the guys only have to miss one game to be eliminated.  If Antonio Brown misses the wild card game vs the Colts.  If Brady misses the divisional game vs Oakland.  If Mack misses the AFCCG vs the Colts. Etc.  Doesn't even have to be season ending stuff.

[DougDew]

In the NBA, players whine and complain about being fouled...pretending to be a victim is common and, apparently, not a turn off for their fans.  Its become a big part of the game.  

 

In the NFL,  wide receivers tend to be the most "NBA" like in terms of whining about bad calls, and many of them are either loved or hated by fans, go figure.  

 

Cowherd doesn't get it.  He grew up in Oregon, is a media person, and has only lived in coastal states...and fancy's himself as being smarter than the people who don't listen to his show.  That's not a problem in itself, I'm only saying it because he has been living in a bubble his whole life surrounded by people who think like him.  He thinks that people like him are the smartest people on the planet. 

 

He often singles out Indiana, and implies midwesterners are stupid.  He can't figure why Luck, a worldly, cerebral, California guy from Stanford, would still want to be with the Indiana Colts.

 

Its smart to make money, so be like the NBA and simply whine as much as you can whenever you can, so you can take three steps on the next "athletic" play and the refs wont call it.  After all, the player, the team, and the league, will make more money this way.....and that's really smart.

 

 

[Malakai432]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I unfortunately do, why I have no idea  

 

Yeah same here even though it sucks!   I just watch the Pacers and to see the Cavs go down because I can't stand bandwagoning Cavs fans that just follow LBJ around.  I used to work with a lot of them.  

 

The NBA now is just filled with garbage.  You have mediocre players signed to ridiculous contracts, the ability to opt out, and go play with their buddies wheverver they want.  I keep reading about PG would possibly stay with the Cavs if LBJ resigns next year, he wants to play with Klay, blah blah blah.  Celtics trying to acquire Gordon and PG, Rockets trying to acquire Mellow, Griffin or PG after CP3.  I actually like the Warriors for drafting most of their players, yeah they brought in KD but that's it, albeit is a huge acquisition.  I still think they would've beat the Cavs without him.  

 

I really feel this couldn't happen in the NFL which is fan-freaking-tastic.  I don't like seeing these players try to get one year contracts though but the NFL seems to have better rules in place to keep players on their respective teams.  You really don't hear much bickering between two players like yeah let's go here or there.

[tikyle]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In the NBA, players whine and complain about being fouled...pretending to be a victim is common and, apparently, not a turn off for their fans.  Its become a big part of the game.  

 

In the NFL,  wide receivers tend to be the most "NBA" like in terms of whining about bad calls, and many of them are either loved or hated by fans, go figure.  

 

Cowherd doesn't get it.  He grew up in Oregon, is a media person, and has only lived in coastal states...and fancy's himself as being smarter than the people who don't listen to his show.  That's not a problem in itself, I'm only saying it because he has been living in a bubble his whole life surrounded by people who think like him.  He thinks that people like him are the smartest people on the planet. 

 

He often singles out Indiana, and implies midwesterners are stupid.  He can't figure why Luck, a worldly, cerebral, California guy from Stanford, would still want to be with the Indiana Colts.

 

Its smart to make money, so be like the NBA and simply whine as much as you can whenever you can, so you can take three steps on the next "athletic" play and the refs wont call it.  After all, the player, the team, and the league, will make more money this way.....and that's really smart.

 

 

 

C'mon Doug.  Let's not act like every QB isn't whining after every play about getting hit late or his WR being held or whatever.  Or every coach whining about a holding call not being called or their QB being hit late or their WRs being held.  This notion that whining and flopping is only in the NBA is totally overblown.  Just admit you like football better.  It's OK.  We all know you do because you fail to point out the same stuff you rail against the NBA for.  It's sort of like when a man can point out all the terrible things his ex did but ignore his current woman does the same thing but he likes her more so he overlooks it.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, tikyle said:

I said Brees because he wanted to go and we all know the only reason they let him go is they believed they had his replacement.  If they felt differently they would have forced him to stay.

 

They split amicably, but I don't think Brees was trying to leave. Them drafting Rivers influenced his desire to go. He would have been fine staying in SD otherwise. 

[tikyle]

3 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

I really feel this couldn't happen in the NFL which is fan-freaking-tastic.  I don't like seeing these players try to get one year contracts though but the NFL seems to have better rules in place to keep players on their respective teams.  You really don't hear much bickering between two players like yeah let's go here or there.

 

The only reason this doesn't happen in the NFL is because guys have so much uncertainty about how long they will be able to earn top dollar.  The inherant violence of the sport reduces the average length of their careers.  This actually goes on in college football all the time.  A bunch of guys all go play for say Alabama.  If NFL players knew they would have say 15 year careers you would see way more go and do it.  Revis did it.  Deion did it.  More players should do it so that it would cause organizations to actually try and improve how they are ran.  If everyone was teaming up to play for the Pacers because Larry Bird had built the perfect organization and drafted a superstar or two would you be mad at that?

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

I'm fine with a cap if you want the sport to be "fair."  A floor like you said needs to be there as well so teams don't just under spend to make money.  But restricting player movement is not cool.  Why reward bad franchises with the ability to hold a guy they lucked upon drafting?  That is why Archie refused to let Eli play in San Diego and why Elway did the same.

You are only seeing the players side of it (and me maybe only the owners).   Sometimes a team drafts a guy, develops him and needs to keep him for another year to see what they have.   Sometime it is because the player refuses to sign a deal with them.   I would have an issue with the franchise tag if the players didn't get such a high payment through it.

[tikyle]

Just now, Myles said:

You are only seeing the players side of it (and me maybe only the owners).   Sometimes a team drafts a guy, develops him and needs to keep him for another year to see what they have.   Sometime it is because the player refuses to sign a deal with them.   I would have an issue with the franchise tag if the players didn't get such a high payment through it.

 

OK so lets examine this.  You draft a guy and you have him for say what 3-4 years.  If you cannot make your evaluation in that time frame in whether or not you want him long term at the market value then let him go.  Because any guy you sign in FA you have no real idea how they will be in your organization.  All you can go buy is scouting and what he did if he actually played against you.  The second scenario, do you really want a guy who doesn't want to be on your club?  Do you think they will give it their all if you force them to stay?  Is it really worth overpayment?  To me the franchise tag should be an agreement to where you just want to extend the period you have to sign a guy long term.  If they guy refuses to sign the tag they are a FA.  If they sign the tag it is a guaranteed salary if the long term deal isn't put in place.

 

Guys will want to stay if you build a culture.  There's a reason Manning and Luck and Wayne and Harrison and on and on all wanted to stay.

 

"If you build it, they will come.........."

[Myles]

20 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

No, the league isn't the company.  The teams are.  The league is more the field of business.  Because honestly there are no other leagues and you can't even do that if you are under contract.  Guys aren't even allowed to ride bikes or play pickup basketball sometimes.

 

 

Yes, the league is the company and the teams are the plants or locations.  You were saying that the team has no right since their contract was fulfilled.   I work in an industry where there are only 3 companies to choose from if I chose to leave.   There is the CFL, Arena league and other options for them.   They choose to stay with the NFL, they should have to play by their rules and I am OK with it.   They are compensated well too.

[2006Coltsbestever]

15 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

Yeah same here even though it sucks!   I just watch the Pacers and to see the Cavs go down because I can't stand bandwagoning Cavs fans that just follow LBJ around.  I used to work with a lot of them.  

 

The NBA now is just filled with garbage.  You have mediocre players signed to ridiculous contracts, the ability to opt out, and go play with their buddies wheverver they want.  I keep reading about PG would possibly stay with the Cavs if LBJ resigns next year, he wants to play with Klay, blah blah blah.  Celtics trying to acquire Gordon and PG, Rockets trying to acquire Mellow, Griffin or PG after CP3.  I actually like the Warriors for drafting most of their players, yeah they brought in KD but that's it, albeit is a huge acquisition.  I still think they would've beat the Cavs without him.  

 

I really feel this couldn't happen in the NFL which is fan-freaking-tastic.  I don't like seeing these players try to get one year contracts though but the NFL seems to have better rules in place to keep players on their respective teams.  You really don't hear much bickering between two players like yeah let's go here or there.

Yeah I was really into it just to see if LeBron would lose, I admit that. Band Wagon fans are the worst so I was happy to see the Cavs get thrashed. Most people that love the Cavs, don't actually love them, they love LeBron. When he leaves that team will be an after thought. I have been a Cubs since 1984 and have gone through some awful years but I stuck with them and it paid off. IMO, there should be NO having 2 favorite teams in a sport. Pick one and stick with it - mine are Colts 1, Pacers 2, Cubs 3. Pacers are gonna suck for a while unfortunately after we trade PG.

[Superman]

Just now, Myles said:

Yes, the league is the company and the teams are the plants or locations.  You were saying that the team has no right since their contract was fulfilled.   I work in an industry where there are only 3 companies to choose from if I chose to leave.   There is the CFL, Arena league and other options for them.   They choose to stay with the NFL, they should have to play by their rules and I am OK with it.   They are compensated well too.

 

They do have to play by the NFL's rules. That doesn't mean there's no need for rules changes, and their only real way to produce change is through collective bargaining.

 

But when they get noisy in CBA negotiations, everyone calls the players greedy money grubbers who don't care about the fans... 

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

OK so lets examine this.  You draft a guy and you have him for say what 3-4 years.  If you cannot make your evaluation in that time frame in whether or not you want him long term at the market value then let him go.  Because any guy you sign in FA you have no real idea how they will be in your organization. 

The team would certainly have more of an idea than a typical free agent.   That's why they pay the average of the top 5 at that position.

[Myles]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

They do have to play by the NFL's rules. That doesn't mean there's no need for rules changes, and their only real way to produce change is through collective bargaining.

 

But when they get noisy in CBA negotiations, everyone calls the players greedy money grubbers who don't care about the fans... 

To be fair we say that about the owners too.

[IinD]

Colin Cowherd? That * is still around??

 

Just watch the games and don't watch or listen to these 'experts'...

 

I stopped around 10 years ago and what a smart move it was for my brain.

[Myles]

56 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

What?  They are the same.  I agree it's easier to pull of in the NBA but they are still the same.  How can you say the Warriors are an anomaly and then say drafting is more important in the NFL?  If the Warriors hadn't drafted their 3 stars they would be poo.  That is the only reason they were even in position to get Durant.

 

Man sometimes I don't get you guys.  If you would've used the 2010 Heat as an example you would have had a point.  But the Warriors are the worst example of drafting being more important in either sport.

I used the word anomaly - something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

He probably is but he's a sports talk show host and he also probably knew this topic would get people talking and that's his job.

 

His argument was absolutely sensationalized, and it absolutely ignored plenty of relevant facts. 

 

However, from a big picture perspective, he's saying NFL players don't typically even attempt to leverage themselves into better situations. Paul George forcing a trade is something that NFL players can't really do. If Luck had refused to re-sign with the Colts and demanded a trade, the Colts could have just tagged him and said 'deal with it.' The Pacers can't tag George, so their leverage is dramatically diminished, as is his trade value. 

 

But it does happen at times. Carson Palmer is a significant example. He threatened retirement, and appeared to be willing to walk away if the Bengals didn't move him. But that's not a typical situation, and you can't do it when you're coming up on free agency, because the dynamic is too different. 

 

Also, and this is where I get irritated, people acting like the Colts are a poorly run organization are just being dense. The Colts are actually one of the best run teams in sports, and have been for a long time. They probably haven't won as much as they should have (neither has GB, or Dallas, etc.), but winning titles in sports is hard, no matter what. That doesn't mean you're poorly run. They've hired good people -- even Grigson, despite his apparently rough personality and management style, he was a family man with a respected reputation throughout the league, he didn't have any scandals, he wasn't an alcoholic, etc. -- they don't have cheating accusations, and players aren't discontented with playing for the Colts. By all appearances, they are a model organization, even with the owner's eccentricities and shortcomings, and their one issue is that they haven't ever committed to having a championship caliber defense. 

 

To act like a QB should force his way off of a team because, in four years, he hasn't won a SB, is just stupid, and Cowherd (and everyone else with half a brain) knows it. He brought up Luck's shoulder injury -- which is unfortunate, but Luck's not the first QB to get hurt and he won't be the last -- as if that means that Luck has abused by his team, and that's also nonsense. 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, Myles said:

To be fair we say that about the owners too.

 

But the owners are the ones being asked to make the concessions, in most cases. The players' side is asking for more money, making them look like malcontents, and the owners are holding the checkbook. 

 

No one comes out looking good during CBA negotiations, but it's usually the players getting the majority of the ill will from the public. And their representatives -- players and ex-players talking in the media, and especially DeMaurice Smith -- don't do a good job winning over public opinion.

[Dudley Smith]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

 

Honestly, no disrespect (this is where I am about to disrespect you) but that is one of the dumbest most naive statements I have read in a long time.

 

1.  The NFL can have super teams.  It actually does have super teams.  Denver was one, Seattle was one and New England is one right now.  The difference is the window those teams have to dominate and the injury factor.  In the NFL once you win a championship and guys who are on way below value contracts they want their money.  NFL stands for Not For Long and their window to monetize their talents are so much shorter and non-guaranteed vs the NBA.  If the NFL had guaranteed contracts you'd see many more "superteams" last longer than a year or two.

 

2. Culture difference?  Cheap ring?  First off define a 'cheap ring.'  Becuase last I checked you have to actually play and beat everyone to win a ring.  I know this is where you mention a LeBron or Durant but that is a foolish notion.  And 2nd off if you made a great deal of money you would have more security in taking less in order to win.  Just the utterance of cheap ring is an insult.  Is Brady's ring cheap from this past year because he took less to have more talent around him?  Was Revis ring cheap because he went to NE and won?  Was Deion's ring cheap in SF?  Was Manning's ring cheap hand picking a stacked DEN team?  Man the notion of a 'cheap ring' is a slap in the face to any professional.  Disgusting.

 

Overreact much? Good grief. There is a way to have a discussion and disagree without the level of antagonism that is in your post. And if my post is one of the "most naive statements" you have read in awhile you must live under a rock.

 

[GoColts8818]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

His argument was absolutely sensationalized, and it absolutely ignored plenty of relevant facts. 

 

However, from a big picture perspective, he's saying NFL players don't typically even attempt to leverage themselves into better situations. Paul George forcing a trade is something that NFL players can't really do. If Luck had refused to re-sign with the Colts and demanded a trade, the Colts could have just tagged him and said 'deal with it.' The Pacers can't tag George, so their leverage is dramatically diminished, as is his trade value. 

 

But it does happen at times. Carson Palmer is a significant example. He threatened retirement, and appeared to be willing to walk away if the Bengals didn't move him. But that's not a typical situation, and you can't do it when you're coming up on free agency, because the dynamic is too different. 

 

Also, and this is where I get irritated, people acting like the Colts are a poorly run organization are just being dense. The Colts are actually one of the best run teams in sports, and have been for a long time. They probably haven't won as much as they should have (neither has GB, or Dallas, etc.), but winning titles in sports is hard, no matter what. That doesn't mean you're poorly run. They've hired good people -- even Grigson, despite his apparently rough personality and management style, he was a family man with a respected reputation throughout the league, he didn't have any scandals, he wasn't an alcoholic, etc. -- they don't have cheating accusations, and players aren't discontented with playing for the Colts. By all appearances, they are a model organization, even with the owner's eccentricities and shortcomings, and their one issue is that they haven't ever committed to having a championship caliber defense. 

 

To act like a QB should force his way off of a team because, in four years, he hasn't won a SB, is just stupid, and Cowherd (and everyone else with half a brain) knows it. He brought up Luck's shoulder injury -- which is unfortunate, but Luck's not the first QB to get hurt and he won't be the last -- as if that means that Luck has abused by his team, and that's also nonsense. 

I agree it's a dumb argument if you think about it for more than two seconds, as I said so myself earlier in this thread.

 

however, dumb or not, it is the type of thing that will get people talking on a radio show, especially during the "dead time" of year.  That's all I was pointing out.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

 

Boo hoo!  Why not demand your organization is run better.  It's not like those two always win or were always winners or are in locations that always gets the guy.  Ten years ago it was boo hoo the NBA is rigged the Lakers and Spurs always win.  Now it's two totally different franchises and it's still the boo hoo-ing.

 

These defeatist attitudes are silly.  I just don't understand why people don't do the same with the NFL?  The Colts sure aren't New England or Pittsburgh or Seattle.  Honestly the Colts have zero chance of winning the Superbowl in the next 2 years or so.  Why not give up too?

the two leagues are very different

 

first of all the colts have actually won a super bowl, and could get back there at some point

 

the pacers have never won an nba title, and only two small market teams have done it in the last 40 years.

 

only Cleveland has done it if you dont count SA as a small market, its kind of a grey area

[aaron11]

its kind of amazing the Milwaukee bucks won an nba title, but they had karrem

 

and  enough he left as soon as he could saying he didnt like the small market lol

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

its kind of amazing the Milwaukee bucks won an nba title, but they had karrem

 

and  enough he left as soon as he could saying he didnt like the small market lol

Yeah they got lucky because they had Kareem, small markets hardly ever win in the NBA.

[Dudley Smith]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the two leagues are very different

 

first of all the colts have actually won a super bowl, and could get back there at some point

 

the pacers have never won an nba title, and only two small market teams have done it in the last 40 years.

 

only Cleveland has done it if you dont count SA as a small market, its kind of a grey area

 

And it took Cleveland being the beneficiary of a perfect storm with LeBron being from the area and returning home for it to happen for them.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the two leagues are very different

 

first of all the colts have actually won a super bowl, and could get back there at some point

 

the pacers have never won an nba title, and only two small market teams have done it in the last 40 years.

 

only Cleveland has done it if you dont count SA as a small market, its kind of a grey area

I am out of LIKES but the Colts have been the 2nd best franchise as a whole over the last 15 seasons. Only the Pats have been better. If one just wanted to go by SB wins then the Steelers and Giants have us 2-1 over the last 15 seasons but we have won a ton more games than either and did win a SB.

[BR-549]