Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Colts Vs. Broncos Thursday Night Football Game Thread
By
LucasOilStadium, in Colts Game Day
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
-
By NewColtsFan · Posted
You live your life like the Coyote chasing the Road Runner.... and you keep running into the mountain side, or running off the cliff.... OK.... you're not going to change.... So, I'll take apart your nonsense --- again. This will be the longest post I've ever made, trying to answer all your nonsense. Doubt you'll read it. But here it comes.... Of course we know if Luck's injury, whatever it is, ISN'T minor. What minor injury do you know lasts four months? He barely participated in any off-season program. Does that sound like a minor injury? The Colts have NEVER, EVER called it minor. Not once. The only thing they've said is he hopes to be back by certain deadlines, and he's missed almost every one. Does that sound like a minor injury? This paragraph may confuse you. It's full of common sense and logic. I don't know how you got the nerve to try to argue that no one knows. Unbelieveable! Nope. No Tantrum from me. Just pointing ot what should be obvious, but apparently the obvious isn't obvious to you. By the way, while you were giving me a sad on my post to my friend CBE, do you know who was giving me a "like"? CBE. I criticized his post and he still gave me a like. He know while we may not agree, he knows I'm not trying to pound him. I'm trying to be as honest and factual as I can. No wonder you can't see for yourself. What triggered me, was your latest attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about. You judged Willis on half of the first pre-season game. That's all you've got. That's it. Doesn't even occur to you that that is..... NOTHING! Hello? And you present it like it should be taken seriously, when it should be laughed at. Goodness gracious, you want to go back to the media draft comparison? I was hoping for your sake that you wouldn't. But since you insist. Did you ever really look at that poll? Seriously, did you look at the four category breakdown? Did you see what was actually involved? If you did, you shouldn't have been crowing about it. First, what I care about from guys like Kiper and McShay and Jeremiah and others isn't just the first round. My momma can do a decent job on the first round, and she's been dead for nearly 30 years! I care about their view on ALL ROUNDS. And your survey was only about the first round. That's it. There were four categories. In three of them, the leader got no more than 50%. That's it. The best person in three of the four categories scored no more than 50 percent. When the top guy is scoring no more than 50 percent and everyone else is close behind, then no one really knows anything. And the one category that the winner did well in --- one category --- he scored in the 90's. And everyone else was right behind him. So, most everyone did well in ONE OUT OF THE FOUR categories. Big stinking deal. I tried to tell you this silly survey didn't support what you believed but you wouldn't listen. No surprise there. All you cared about the results. The fatal flaw. Finally, without a single fact, you offered this opinion in that post. I remember it like it was yesterday, that your new age guys were doing a better job than the more traditional scouts. Based on one poll. One poll of one round. And you said the older guys like Kiper and company were resting on their laurels and not working as hard. Nope, the old guys were covering all seven rounds. Most of your guys, covering one round. You have no facts to support that, but that's your view. When logic and common sense would tell you that the guys I prefer make a ton more money and have their reputation at stake. They have more to lose. There's no way they're resting on anything. But you'll say ANYTHING to try and prove a point. There's no argument you won't twist to try to win an argument, no matter how foolish the argument is. I've told you publicly and privately, you're not interested in honest debate. You're the least honest poster here. You're only interested in winning and you'll do anything, say anything to do that. As to the WR study. You got crushed. I'm talking about a bank safe fell on you and your response was to talk about cherry picking stats. Either English is a second language or you don't know the meaning of the words. I made two links for you. One was almost identical to yours. Yours covered 25 years dating back to a time when passing rules were dramatically different so comparing a receiver from 1990 to one from 2018 was silly. We're playig a different game now. My first link covered 20 years from 1995 to 2014 . There was great over-lap in the two studies. But the conclusions were entirely different. The only reason I used it was your post said roughly 60% percent of 1st Round WR's were successes. Mine said roughly 40%. Guess which one you preferred? Surprise! Then the second link was one of my own making. I listed every 1st round WR since Luck came into the league in 2012. That's 7 years. The last 7 years. I put into bold each 1st Round WR who was clearly a success. It came to 41%. It also showed how few WR's have been taken in the last few drafts. That's the NFL talking, in case you weren't paying attention. You didn't dispute one WR. Not one. But you called it cherry picking. Clearly you don't know how to use that expression correctly. And now you throw out a list of criteria as if you're making the rules here. Here's another free tip. You're not. Never have. I'm not surprised you don't recognize the facts I put into posts. You don't use them. You're all about the opinion. Most posters here are. Because that means every single poster can simply say..... "I'm entitled to my opinion." Yes, they are. Everyone is, even you, who has no need for facts. But what you're not entitled to is your own facts. Just like you stated Funchess was a terrible signing based on your facts, and it never even occured to you that Ballard and Reich had other facts that showed DF could be useful to us. You actually thought you knew more than they did?!? Again, unbelieveable. You had no facts to support your nonsense about Reich being a poor play caller. You had one game. And I called you on it. You've been doing a very bad back-peddle ever since, but that's your view, with no facts to support it. In fact all the facts support the exact opposite view. Yet, you still try to claim victory. It's so intellectually dishonest that it's nauseating. And so I observed, that with almost nothing to base it on, you thought Willis has inconsistancies. Thanks, Capt. Obvious. Tomorrow will likely be sunny during the day, turning to widely scattered darkness at night. Anymore obvious insights? Funny, how you now publicly call for me to ignore your posts, when a few days ago, in a thread I was barely even in, you took a completely uncalled for shot at me. Or does the phrase "legend in his own mind" not mean anything to you? Bottom line.... you can dish it out, especially when you think no one is looking..... but you can't take it. Glass ego. I call a fraud a fraud. -
By WoolMagnet · Posted
During the Browns game, Venturi said S was one our strongest positions. Not saying i agree, but i dont lose sleep over it either. -
“...when he gets the locker room strong enough”. That still means drafting lots of high character guys. That’s our default. -
A backup to Castonzo who is his eventual replacement.
-
-
Members
-
