Week 4 Random thoughts

[Chrisaaron1023]

I no longer feel bad about week 1..

The Cowboys have come back to earth since last year.

London keeps getting our "best" product.

And Dalton loves playing the Browns. 

The Jet and Jags are about the tie.

The Patriots are a Tom Brady miracle from being 1-3

The Texans have a QB..darn it. 

And a Defense.. darn it..

 

Feel free to add your takes

 

 

[IndyScribe]

Bills are the best team in the AFC. Cowboys overachieved last year. 3 way tie in the AFC. Jets are ruining their tank. Pats need a defense badly. Rams surprised and proved that they are not as bad as everyone thinks. 

[dgambill]

Sam Darnold may not even have to pack for his first job...Chargers may end up taking him first not the Jets. I love Rivers heart but he could be playing his final games for the Chargers. He has one more season after this but I get the feeling he might just retire after this.

[19colt]

17 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Sam Darnold may not even have to pack for his first job...Chargers may end up taking him first not the Jets. I love Rivers heart but he could be playing his final games for the Chargers. He has one more season after this but I get the feeling he might just retire after this.

Elway will give him a call if Siemian doesn't win a playoff game. 

[King Colt]

The Ravens, Browns  and Chargers stink

The Pats are weak but should get stronger

Lions are for real.... SO ARE THE TEXANS

Seattle is an also ran.

Rams Surprising everyone

The Colts are hanging in  their which is what they need.

[BloodyChamp]

The Cowboys aren't this bad team that people are wishing them to be so that they can go around saying DoWn To EaRtH DoWn To EaRtH DoWn To EaRtH...they'll probably go 9-7. That's not bad for a 2nd year bunch. It's actually typical for teams that end up being great.

 

The Texans have had a bunch or serviceable QBs. O'Chinian will screw this 1 up to don't worry. 

 

The Jets aren't all that bad. I think they beat another pretty good team today aka the Jags aren't that bad either. 

 

Now here's a stinger - the Colts are beating the Seahawks up and down the field right now. They're putting guys on the butts playing confidently...but they still might lose. I hope not and all but the Seahawks are talented enough to win games when they're not at their best. We've seen it before.

[dgambill]

15 hours ago, 19colt said:

Elway will give him a call if Siemian doesn't win a playoff game. 

He could...but at this point would Phillip want to move his family out there?? He is riding a luxury RV to practice everyday as it is....I think he just hangs them up...maybe he plays out the final year to mentor a young qb but he has accomplished enough...and without a SB in sight I think he just rides off.

[dgambill]

13 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

The Cowboys aren't this bad team that people are wishing them to be so that they can go around saying DoWn To EaRtH DoWn To EaRtH DoWn To EaRtH...they'll probably go 9-7. That's not bad for a 2nd year bunch. It's actually typical for teams that end up being great.

 

The Texans have had a bunch or serviceable QBs. O'Chinian will screw this 1 up to don't worry. 

 

The Jets aren't all that bad. I think they beat another pretty good team today aka the Jags aren't that bad either. 

 

Now here's a stinger - the Colts are beating the Seahawks up and down the field right now. They're putting guys on the butts playing confidently...but they still might lose. I hope not and all but the Seahawks are talented enough to win games when they're not at their best. We've seen it before.

Colts struggle to play 60 minutes...is that players...coaches...hmm....I'll let others answer that. We've seen this for years. Cowboys offense is fine...they are a good team and will do well....but that secondary is very very suspect. Good qbs will pick them apart...which is what they will see in the playoffs....likely Atlanta, Green Bay. Heck even Washington and Detroit might give them fits...but I think they are a 10-6 team...they will have to grow through some adversity. The Jets are bad....really they are...but I think they got a coach that will fire em up...they just a need a passing game.

[BloodyChamp]

The Jags and Jets are meeting their potential imo. Their potential just isn't the SB. The Jags are good enough to win atleast 9 games. The Jets might not be but if they win 6 games and the team doesn't quit, it might be unwise to make any wholesale changes.

 

The Colts fell to pieces as soon as I posted. I thought they would lose it at the very end but then...well you saw it. They really did win that game on a physical level for almost 3 Qtrs though. To bad.

[Chrisaaron1023]

11 minutes ago, BloodyChamp said:

The Jags and Jets are meeting their potential imo. Their potential just isn't the SB. The Jags are good enough to win atleast 9 games. The Jets might not be but if they win 6 games and the team doesn't quit, it might be unwise to make any wholesale changes.

 

The Colts fell to pieces as soon as I posted. I thought they would lose it at the very end but then...well you saw it. They really did win that game on a physical level for almost 3 Qtrs though. To bad.

Considering it was 18-18 with 2:25 in the 3rd. And turned out 46.. 40 freaking 6.. is sickening. No words left to say.

[mikey287]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

Colts struggle to play 60 minutes...is that players...coaches...hmm

 

Requires proper talent evaluation, as coaching evaluation is difficult to ascertain from the cheap seats. Start with players. The longer a game goes or the more games that are played, the less chance that the lesser talent wins.

 

By way of example...if I played Michael Jordan in basketball 1 on 1 in a game where the first shot wins, that's a very short game. There is about a 1 in 100,000 chance that I start the game with the ball (I guess by way of a coin toss, because at 5'9", it's unlikely I'm going to get a tip-off) and just chuck a miracle shot down and have it go in and win 1-0. However, if we were to play 1-on-1 for 48 minutes or play to 21 or whatever, where the game extends and talent as more time to shine through, I am gonna get absolutely boat raced by MJ, right?

 

So you look at the Colts and you go, "hey look, we're in the first half of most games, but..." the game drags on past 30 minutes and we turn into a pumpkin...

 

Now, in my uneducated opinion, it's both...we have no talent and we're probably poorly coached. I can't speak as readily to the coaching as I don't understand the game well enough to comment on coaching strategies...most people are not in a position to make that call but it doesn't stop them...but while I feel confident speaking about certain aspects of the game, but to say over-archingly that the team is poorly coached is above my paygrade. I can kind of spot talent or at least juxtapose talent to other talent around the league and we look pretty untalented. Both sides of the line and linebackers seem particularly bad. I think our secondary has actually been pretty good. I think Biscuit has been fine.

 

More on coaching: I have been a hockey coach for years. Sometimes you need to be all up in there, propping a team up, cover up weaknesses, etc. Other times, you need just to massage talent (to put it simply) and let the talent win you games. The Colts look like they're coached with the latter in mind. Which is unfortunate, because we aren't talented. So it's probably just a bad match from that point of view. Again, I'm just spitballing...not even on the right board either...but the main board confuses me

[dgambill]

44 minutes ago, mikey287 said:

 

Requires proper talent evaluation, as coaching evaluation is difficult to ascertain from the cheap seats. Start with players. The longer a game goes or the more games that are played, the less chance that the lesser talent wins.

 

By way of example...if I played Michael Jordan in basketball 1 on 1 in a game where the first shot wins, that's a very short game. There is about a 1 in 100,000 chance that I start the game with the ball (I guess by way of a coin toss, because at 5'9", it's unlikely I'm going to get a tip-off) and just chuck a miracle shot down and have it go in and win 1-0. However, if we were to play 1-on-1 for 48 minutes or play to 21 or whatever, where the game extends and talent as more time to shine through, I am gonna get absolutely boat raced by MJ, right?

 

So you look at the Colts and you go, "hey look, we're in the first half of most games, but..." the game drags on past 30 minutes and we turn into a pumpkin...

 

Now, in my uneducated opinion, it's both...we have no talent and we're probably poorly coached. I can't speak as readily to the coaching as I don't understand the game well enough to comment on coaching strategies...most people are not in a position to make that call but it doesn't stop them...but while I feel confident speaking about certain aspects of the game, but to say over-archingly that the team is poorly coached is above my paygrade. I can kind of spot talent or at least juxtapose talent to other talent around the league and we look pretty untalented. Both sides of the line and linebackers seem particularly bad. I think our secondary has actually been pretty good. I think Biscuit has been fine.

 

More on coaching: I have been a hockey coach for years. Sometimes you need to be all up in there, propping a team up, cover up weaknesses, etc. Other times, you need just to massage talent (to put it simply) and let the talent win you games. The Colts look like they're coached with the latter in mind. Which is unfortunate, because we aren't talented. So it's probably just a bad match from that point of view. Again, I'm just spitballing...not even on the right board either...but the main board confuses me

Yeah...I agree we weren't as talented as Seattle or many other teams so obviously over 60 minutes that should play out but we have just seen it over and over...either starting very slow or fast but basically not playing a consistent 60 minutes. Like either we are ill prepared or we don't make adjustments during the game. Kinda feels like we aren't flexible or can't identify what is working or not as the game plays out. A team comes out of half time and adjusts to what we are doing...takes things away and we just don't make counter adjustments. I think last night was more we were outclassed and made way too many mistakes...you can't give up 14 pts to the defense like that and feed the momentum. Just too much to overcome when like you said you may have an inferior team. That said you have to win your share of games where your the underdog and I think a lot here are frustrated we just don't seem to be able to raise our level of play when necessary. Arizona for example I don't think was a superior team than us..and we let them back in the game and beat us. There was a fine line we had to walk last night and I agree...we just got out classed.

[dgambill]

18 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

The Jags and Jets are meeting their potential imo. Their potential just isn't the SB. The Jags are good enough to win atleast 9 games. The Jets might not be but if they win 6 games and the team doesn't quit, it might be unwise to make any wholesale changes.

 

The Colts fell to pieces as soon as I posted. I thought they would lose it at the very end but then...well you saw it. They really did win that game on a physical level for almost 3 Qtrs though. To bad.

I think the Colts without Andrew...just really doesn't have the confidence to turn the tide of momentum back when things start going wrong. I think with Luck at qb we should hopefully see the look of encouragement and belief in the team that hey...things will go wrong...but he can bring us back. I think the team likes Jacoby...plays hard with him...but doesn't necessarily think he is going to carry them if they will just jump on his back. If we could just have a couple more guys step up and say ride with me...it would be nice (and no I'm not talking TY who conveniently does it before playing the worst team in the league). Andrew is going to have to play himself back into game shape and knock off a TON of rust....he can't be expected to be the old Andrew from snap 1.