Colin Cowherd 6/29 - Andrew Luck & Colts

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

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.

Agreed.   And the NFL is drifting into NBA territory, its getting to have its annoying characteristics too. Whining and trying to sway the officials....by the players not just the coaches...has been going on in the NBA for decades.  IMO, if the whining by NFL players became as visible part of the game as the NBA, NFL popularity would drop.  Maybe because there are only five players, and you can see their faces, but the NBA has a much more star quality atmosphere to the whole game...the approach to the whole sport.  Its a more superficial sport than NFL football, IMO, and so is the marketing of it.

 

Take the NBA draft.  The key to the draft is to be a top 5 team.  That's it.  Not much analysis there. OTOH, the NFL draft is interesting through the 4th round. The big media goes superficial but the "off" channels go deeper.  A much bigger tent to serve a much broader fan base.

 

There is more to the NFL game and culture than simply concentrating its stars into the big markets and have the attraction of big market teams beating on the rest of the league, and the rules being enforced with a focus on highlights, with maybe a hope that a David will knock off a Goliath once every 10 years.

[TheOptimist88]

It's the coaching during the upbringing of Basketball stars and players, some are used to getting their way and making their own decisions on the court. Football upbringing is completely different it's deeply rooted in playing as a unit especially in defense and on the offensive line, your team is your family from almost Day 1. In basketball the teammates come and go, you don't build the chemistry that you do in football.

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, TheOptimist88 said:

It's the coaching during the upbringing of Basketball stars and players, some are used to getting their way and making their own decisions on the court. Football upbringing is completely different it's deeply rooted in playing as a unit especially in defense and on the offensive line, your team is your family from almost Day 1. In basketball the teammates come and go, you don't build the chemistry that you do in football.

Love your avatar, I am glad Russ won MVP.

[southwest1]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 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. 

This paragraph is very well written & pinpoint accurate Superman like you customarily always are. I wish more sports analysts would admit publicly exactly what you wrote. We are a well run organization that is usually in the mix late in the yr consistently for the most part & even though I play around with Jimmy's "and umm's" patterns once in awhile; I do respect Jimmy's steady hand. He doesn't panic or make rash decisions. He's not afraid to spend money to improve the team. He is committed to winning Championships & when coaching regimes have run their course--He's not afraid to shake things up. 

 

No, I'm not referring to the Pagano era specifically BTW. That's Irsay's call not mine since he cuts the checks. Jimmy knows what he's doing. Anyway, I appreciate what you said & how you said it. 

[The Fish]

I just wanted to say that Cowherd is one of these "all sports go through LA and NY" guys. That **** get's old. 

I try and avoid him. He moralizes and preaches like he was talking about something more important than games.

 

(oh and here he is now on a promo on FSR.. sigh)

[NannyMcafee]

23 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

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.

 

Can you imagine playoff games only lasting say 20 minutes, and then adding more games? 

[NannyMcafee]

23 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

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.

 

There is no acting involved here. QBs don't whine about blown calls every play. Throwing your hands up in the air is far from whining. We must be watching a different NFL. 

[Superman]

On 6/30/2017 at 11:00 AM, tikyle said:

 

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.

 

Small market teams are at a disadvantage because they generally produce less revenue than big market teams, and without a salary cap, they'd generally be outbid big market teams. This is exactly what happens in baseball. The Patriots are able to sign free agents without being outbid by bigger market teams because of the salary cap. They've put together a great program over the years, and that matters, but free agents in their prime mostly go to the team offering the most money. As I said, the cap levels the playing field across the board.

 

And the tag absolutely does not force teams to pay higher premiums for great players. Kirk Cousins is tagged for just under $24m in 2017; Derek Carr, a lesser accomplished player, just signed for $25m/year, and Cousins would probably get more than that if he were a free agent. JPP got tagged for $17m in 2017, then signed a long term deal for $15.5m/year; Olivier Vernon, a lesser accomplished player, signed for $17m/year, last season, by the same team. Josh Norman got tagged last year for just under $14m; the Panthers rescinded the tag, and Norman signed for $15m/year on the open market, and will make a total of $37m in the first two years of his deal ($18.5m average per year). The tag artificially lowers what star players make because it keeps them off of the open market. 

[Valpo2004]

On 6/29/2017 at 5:00 PM, Dudley Smith said:

Did anyone catch Colin Cowherd's show today? A big part of his show today was about NBA free agents needing to get out of bad situations with teams that weren't doing enough to help them win now. One of the players that was discussed as needing to get the hell out of dodge was Paul George. After discussing this, Cowherd segued into a discussion of the NFL. He asked the question to the audience of why NFL players (specifically QBs) aren't following suit with NBA stars in demanding trades and/or not showing blind loyalty to the franchise that drafted them.

 

The question posed was general, however, Cowherd quickly made this segment specifically about Andrew Luck and the Colts. He stated that as far as he could tell, Andrew Luck's situation was the same as Paul George on the Pacers. Both on teams that weren't doing anything to help their respective star and both stuck in Indianapolis -- a city that doesn't attract any free agents. He said that Luck (and Aaron Rodgers -- who was sort of looped into the discussion) should be on the phone with his agent and looking around at other teams to go to.

 

I actually generally like Cowherd, but I thought this comparison to Paul George and the Pacers was very apples to oranges. For one, in the NFL, you really can't form "Superteams" like you can in the NBA these days. For one, the biggest stars are the QBs, and Luck, Rogers, and Brady aren't going to all play for the Patriots to win a ring because there is only one of them that can be a starter. In the NBA the players are much more interchangeable. Sure, you have five different positions, but the line between each of these is becoming more and more blurred in today's NBA. This is a huge difference from the NFL where you have 11 guys on each side of the ball that all are specialists in what they do. It makes it really hard to have the "best" at each position on the same team because there is so much ground to cover.

 

I also think there is a clear "culture" difference between the NBA and the NFL. I don't think players are looking for a cheap ring in the NFL like they are in the NBA. I also think this is part of the reason why the NBA ratings are taking a hit -- people are somewhat turned off by this "if you can't beat em join em" mentality in the NBA right now.

 

Just my two cents.

 

The reason for this is very simple.  Injuries and financial security.

 

A football player is more likely to face a career ending injury then a basketball player.  (Career ending meaning either they can never play again or an injury which is bad enough that they will never be able to play on the same level again.)  Furthermore injuries even if they are not career ending can hurt their value significantly because it's an extra risk.

 

So when you've got one year left on your contract and your team comes across with a big contract that will give you financial security, it's a lot harder to not take the contract knowing that fact.

 

A player's #1 priority has to be to make sure he can take care of himself and his family after football.

 

Also with football there is 22 other starters and a 53 man team.  Basketball has 5 starters and I believe a 12 man team.  

 

It's a lot easier to create a "super-team" in basketball.  

 

Plus football players fall out of their prime much faster then basketball players.  And injuries are more likely to derail a great team's season in football then basketball.

 

 

[Valpo2004]

On 6/30/2017 at 1:15 PM, 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.

 

Issue with #1. . . most of those super teams where achieved via some good drafting.  They might have gotten some of the pieces in place via free agency but they where good beforehand due to drafting.  

 

For example Manning went to Denver because he saw a team there around the QB that kept Tim Tebow in games that he otherwise would have had no business in winning.  

 

Seattle's amazing defense was almost all the product of drafting, not big free agency deals. 

 

I'm not much of an NBA fan but it seems to me that NBA super teams are achieved via free agency.   

[tikyle]

On 7/5/2017 at 0:27 PM, Valpo2004 said:

 

Issue with #1. . . most of those super teams where achieved via some good drafting.  They might have gotten some of the pieces in place via free agency but they where good beforehand due to drafting.  

 

For example Manning went to Denver because he saw a team there around the QB that kept Tim Tebow in games that he otherwise would have had no business in winning.  

 

Seattle's amazing defense was almost all the product of drafting, not big free agency deals. 

 

I'm not much of an NBA fan but it seems to me that NBA super teams are achieved via free agency.   

The 80's Lakers drafted (Magic, Worthy, Cooper), 80's Celtics (drafted Bird, McHale, Ainge).  The 90's Bulls (drafted MJ, Pippen, Grant & Kukoc). The 10's Warriors (drafted Curry, Klay & Green).  Most super teams added one or two FAs but mostly built in the draft.  The only team to not fit that category was the Miami Heat of a few years ago.

 

On 6/30/2017 at 3:16 PM, 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

Honestly, do you think the Pacers are run even half as well as the Colts?

 

On 6/30/2017 at 3:48 PM, DougDew said:

Agreed.   And the NFL is drifting into NBA territory, its getting to have its annoying characteristics too. Whining and trying to sway the officials....by the players not just the coaches...has been going on in the NBA for decades.  IMO, if the whining by NFL players became as visible part of the game as the NBA, NFL popularity would drop.  Maybe because there are only five players, and you can see their faces, but the NBA has a much more star quality atmosphere to the whole game...the approach to the whole sport.  Its a more superficial sport than NFL football, IMO, and so is the marketing of it.

 

Take the NBA draft.  The key to the draft is to be a top 5 team.  That's it.  Not much analysis there. OTOH, the NFL draft is interesting through the 4th round. The big media goes superficial but the "off" channels go deeper.  A much bigger tent to serve a much broader fan base.

 

There is more to the NFL game and culture than simply concentrating its stars into the big markets and have the attraction of big market teams beating on the rest of the league, and the rules being enforced with a focus on highlights, with maybe a hope that a David will knock off a Goliath once every 10 years.

The NFL does concentrate on stars if teams have them.  The problem with the NFL and stars is most people don't know what the guys look like.  Imagine if every play you could clearly see everyone's face?  That is a big reason why it is not more star driven.  That and the fact that some guys even if stars can be taken out of the game.  Like if a WR doesn't get the ball or if a team avoids a corner.  Outside of QB, RB and DL other 'stars' can be game planned out and not get any airtime from game to game.

 

On 7/1/2017 at 1:18 PM, NannyMcafee said:

 

There is no acting involved here. QBs don't whine about blown calls every play. Throwing your hands up in the air is far from whining. We must be watching a different NFL. 

You must not watch many Packers or Patriots or Saints games.  The leagues best QBs argue almost every negative play.  And the same goes for the coaches and even the skill position players on both sides of the ball.  When a DB gets beat he almost always argues for an illegal push or jersey hold or offensive PI and same goes for a WR when they don't make a play.  The small difference is the ref usually isn't as close to the player in the NFL vs NBA so it seems less like he's showing the official up.

 

On 7/2/2017 at 3:14 AM, Superman said:

 

Small market teams are at a disadvantage because they generally produce less revenue than big market teams, and without a salary cap, they'd generally be outbid big market teams. This is exactly what happens in baseball. The Patriots are able to sign free agents without being outbid by bigger market teams because of the salary cap. They've put together a great program over the years, and that matters, but free agents in their prime mostly go to the team offering the most money. As I said, the cap levels the playing field across the board.

 

And the tag absolutely does not force teams to pay higher premiums for great players. Kirk Cousins is tagged for just under $24m in 2017; Derek Carr, a lesser accomplished player, just signed for $25m/year, and Cousins would probably get more than that if he were a free agent. JPP got tagged for $17m in 2017, then signed a long term deal for $15.5m/year; Olivier Vernon, a lesser accomplished player, signed for $17m/year, last season, by the same team. Josh Norman got tagged last year for just under $14m; the Panthers rescinded the tag, and Norman signed for $15m/year on the open market, and will make a total of $37m in the first two years of his deal ($18.5m average per year). The tag artificially lowers what star players make because it keeps them off of the open market. 

Baseball is the only major US sports league w/o a cap and even there they have revenue  redistribution for teams who go over an imaginary spending line.  Also in what world is Kirk Cousins more accomplished than Derek Carr?  I disagree on the tag part.  The tag guarantees a guy the average of the top 3 salaries at his position.  The tag only limits the top of top guys.  It boosts guys who aren't the best at their position.  Now you can argue that it keeps silly GMs from overpaying certain guys on the open market.  That may be true from time to time but it also boosts guys who wouldn't demand as much either.  If Kirk Cousins would've signed a long term deal when he was originally a FA he would not make $24M average (or I should say he was not valued at that number but anyone can overpay for a guy).

[Restored]

I think the biggest logical fallacy here is that while NFL players do indeed try to get cheap rings by joining an already great team, it rarely works. There's too many other variables that come into play (coaches, other players, one game playoffs, etc.) that simply make it too tough for players to just leave their respective franchises and form a "super team" and walk into a championship. Meanwhile in the NBA, the fact that the rosters are so small and that teams play a best of seven series usually all but assures that the best team(s) are playing for the championship each year (see Cavs and Warriors).

 

Additionally, in the NFL, teams can be quickly turned around, even if they are a small-market team. A solid draft and a few changes can have a team go from 8-8/9-7 to being in the Super Bowl. Meanwhile in the NBA, if a team is a small-market team and is in the bottom tier or in mediocrity, it takes a very high level of drafting and carefully planned free agent signings to really become a contender, especially in the western conference.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, tikyle said:

Baseball is the only major US sports league w/o a cap and even there they have revenue  redistribution for teams who go over an imaginary spending line. 

 

The teams that win in MLB are almost always the teams with payroll flexibility, not the shoestring budget teams. And even when a team like the Marlins goes all in for a season, they then have to immediately tear down and go into obscurity again. MLB's revenue sharing and luxury tax are also pretty meager in comparison to the NBA and NFL. 

 

Quote

Also in what world is Kirk Cousins more accomplished than Derek Carr? 

 

This world. He's actually been to the playoffs and played reasonably well, and he's statistically superior over the last two seasons. Not knocking Carr at all, and even if you don't agree, there's no argument that Carr is more accomplished than Cousins. Carr getting $25m a year from free agency is a testament to Cousins' market and ability to get at least that much on the open market.

 

Quote

I disagree on the tag part.  The tag guarantees a guy the average of the top 3 salaries at his position.

 

It's actually the top five salaries at the position, not three.

 

Quote

The tag only limits the top of top guys. It boosts guys who aren't the best at their position.  Now you can argue that it keeps silly GMs from overpaying certain guys on the open market.  That may be true from time to time but it also boosts guys who wouldn't demand as much either. 

 

I gave three examples of players whose market was or clearly would have been limited by the franchise tag, including one player who was tagged, then wound up switching teams. Any time you take a big name free agent off the open market -- regardless whether he's the best at his position or not -- you are artificially limiting his earning power. And that's before we even talk about the long term earning potential vs a one year deal, and the allocation of risk.

 

To the bolded, a player's market is defined by what he can pull as a free agent. When Josh Norman gets $15m/year -- late in the offseason, by the way -- that defines his market. Just because I don't think he's that good or worth that much doesn't mean he isn't; the fact that he has a contract that will pay him that much says my opinion doesn't matter all that much.

 

Quote

If Kirk Cousins would've signed a long term deal when he was originally a FA he would not make $24M average (or I should say he was not valued at that number but anyone can overpay for a guy).

 

Cousins originally received the non-exclusive tag, which paid him just under $20m. This is in the same offseason that Brock Osweiler got paid $18m/year ($37m guaranteed). If you don't think Cousins would have received a long term contract worth at least $20m/year as an unrestricted free agent, you're grossly misinformed.

 

This year, Cousins will make about $24m on the exclusive tag. That's $44m over two seasons. Carr just got $25m/year, and will make $47.5m in the first two years of his contract. If you don't think Cousins would receive a similar contract as a free agent, you are again grossly misinformed.

 

Generally, teams will allow a good but not great player to leave as a free agent rather than tag him, and they'll watch another team pay him premium money. Teams aren't in the business of franchise tagging a player they don't think is worth at least what they'll pay him on the tag. 

[MackAttack]

There was another guy on the show talking about how oh we fired grigson and turns out the o line actually wasn't that bad why fire him then?? Like um because it took him 5 years to finally get those o line pieces and never figured out how to form a defense or a locker room. It was pretty weird 

[Myles]

I like the franchise tag.   It's better than a long drawn out contract negotiation that limits playing time.  

[tikyle]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

I like the franchise tag.   It's better than a long drawn out contract negotiation that limits playing time.  

 

If you setup a system where a guy could go on the open market and his original team had a short window of time to match the best contract he could get, that would eliminate the need for the franchise tag and allow players to get the long term deals they covet.

[tikyle]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

This world. He's actually been to the playoffs and played reasonably well, and he's statistically superior over the last two seasons. Not knocking Carr at all, and even if you don't agree, there's no argument that Carr is more accomplished than Cousins. Carr getting $25m a year from free agency is a testament to Cousins' market and ability to get at least that much on the open market.

First off Carr for the last two years is statistically superior to Cousins.  More TDs, less INT, more Ws and double the 4th quarter comebacks.  Cousins has more yards and a higher completions %.  Carr made the playoffs as well.  Obviously he didn't play in the game but his team did go 12-4 with him as QB in a tough division.  Cousins has yet to have a 10 win season and only one season of 9 wins.  Also Cousins has never had a season close to what Carr had last year.

 

They are comparable but I just don't see how you say Cousins is more accomplished or better?

 

17 hours ago, Superman said:

Cousins originally received the non-exclusive tag, which paid him just under $20m. This is in the same offseason that Brock Osweiler got paid $18m/year ($37m guaranteed). If you don't think Cousins would have received a long term contract worth at least $20m/year as an unrestricted free agent, you're grossly misinformed.

My point with Cousins was if the Redskins would've signed him originally 2 years ago to a long term deal it would have been for around $20-22M range and not the $24M he made last year or the $25M average Carr got this off season.  That was a mistake by WSH if they choose to keep him past this season.

 

17 hours ago, Superman said:

Generally, teams will allow a good but not great player to leave as a free agent rather than tag him, and they'll watch another team pay him premium money. Teams aren't in the business of franchise tagging a player they don't think is worth at least what they'll pay him on the tag. 

I don't know.  Teams seem to now be using the tag to see if a guy is as good as he appears when they want to see him have another career year after his contract year.

[Myles]

6 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

If you setup a system where a guy could go on the open market and his original team had a short window of time to match the best contract he could get, that would eliminate the need for the franchise tag and allow players to get the long term deals they covet.

That would certainly benefit the player.  I prefer it to benefit the team.

[Superman]

7 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

If you setup a system where a guy could go on the open market and his original team had a short window of time to match the best contract he could get, that would eliminate the need for the franchise tag and allow players to get the long term deals they covet.

 

That's the non exclusive tag. There's also another version, the transition tag.

[Superman]

6 hours ago, tikyle said:

First off Carr for the last two years is statistically superior to Cousins.  More TDs, less INT, more Ws and double the 4th quarter comebacks.  Cousins has more yards and a higher completions %.  Carr made the playoffs as well.  Obviously he didn't play in the game but his team did go 12-4 with him as QB in a tough division.  Cousins has yet to have a 10 win season and only one season of 9 wins.  Also Cousins has never had a season close to what Carr had last year.

 

They are comparable but I just don't see how you say Cousins is more accomplished or better?

 

I really don't agree. Carr's team did better last year, that doesn't mean he accomplished more than Cousins. 

 

Quote

My point with Cousins was if the Redskins would've signed him originally 2 years ago to a long term deal it would have been for around $20-22M range and not the $24M he made last year or the $25M average Carr got this off season.  That was a mistake by WSH if they choose to keep him past this season.

 

If you agree that they would have signed him to a long term deal for $20-22m during the 2016 offseason, if not for the tag, then how do you not see that the franchise tag limited his earning? Would you prefer a year by year situation (which has Cousins at $44m through two years), or a five year, $110m contract that's guaranteed for ~$40m at signing?
 

Quote

I don't know.  Teams seem to now be using the tag to see if a guy is as good as he appears when they want to see him have another career year after his contract year.

 

Sometimes. That doesn't mean it's not limiting their earning. 

[Synthetic]

On 6/29/2017 at 4:33 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Here is a question for everyone, ever since Deflategate happened can you guys show me 1 link or state anything good or positive that 1 person has said about the Colts on Fox, ESPN, and NFL Channel? If there is one I haven't seen it. The hate from the media toward Indianapolis since Deflatgate smells like rotten skunk if you ask me!

 

I don't know what you expect from them. Are they supposed to brag and hype up an 8-8 team? 

 

The Saints have been 7-9 now for 3 years in a row, same situation with no one in the media hyping us up and we don't deserve to be hyped up whatsoever. You are what your record says you are. Has nothing to do with Deflategate. Until they post a winning record again, no one in the media is going to hype up a team that barely makes it to 8-8 playing in the AFC South that is still the worst division in football. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Synthetic said:

 

I don't know what you expect from them. Are they supposed to brag and hype up an 8-8 team? 

 

The Saints have been 7-9 now for 3 years in a row, same situation with no one in the media hyping us up and we don't deserve to be hyped up whatsoever. You are what your record says you are. Has nothing to do with Deflategate. Until they post a winning record again, no one in the media is going to hype up a team that barely makes it to 8-8 playing in the AFC South that is still the worst division in football. 

This is a tell all season to me regarding Pagano. We got rid of Grigson (which was much needed) and Ballard has came in and on paper has improved the Defense. If the Colts win on opening day and Andrew plays well and looks healthy it could be promising. We will see. I do think the Division is winnable.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, Synthetic said:

 

I don't know what you expect from them. Are they supposed to brag and hype up an 8-8 team? 

 

The Saints have been 7-9 now for 3 years in a row, same situation with no one in the media hyping us up and we don't deserve to be hyped up whatsoever. You are what your record says you are. Has nothing to do with Deflategate. Until they post a winning record again, no one in the media is going to hype up a team that barely makes it to 8-8 playing in the AFC South that is still the worst division in football. 

its not the worst divison

 

colts, titans and texans were all decent last year

 

i wont rank them all, but there was only one good team in the afc north last year, same with the nfc west

[aaron11]

On 7/12/2017 at 0:13 AM, Zalazar Elijahh said:

There was another guy on the show talking about how oh we fired grigson and turns out the o line actually wasn't that bad why fire him then?? Like um because it took him 5 years to finally get those o line pieces and never figured out how to form a defense or a locker room. It was pretty weird 

i doubt most analysts actually watch this team.  they all kind of repeat the same stuff and only watch the patriots, cowboys and giants

[aaron11]

On 7/11/2017 at 9:41 AM, tikyle said:

Honestly, do you think the Pacers are run even half as well as the Colts?

 

i think the pacers have been horribly ran these past two years

 

look at the teams that have won championships though, going back as far as you like

 

almost all of them were lead by players that were picked high in the draft, and few small markets have been able to do it.  the only market smaller than indy thats done it since the merger were the bucks in 1971

[GoColts8818]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, tikyle said:

Honestly, do you think the Pacers are run even half as well as the Colts?

 

The have been an NBA playoff level teams since pretty much the mid-90s.  That's pretty impressive for a midmarket team.  I'd say they are run pretty well.  No they haven't had Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck level players but they have also not had the number overall pick twice in that time period either, in fact their highest pick over that time is something like 10th.  That's not bad.