Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Steamboat_Shaun

The new colts.com is SLICK!!!/Questions and problems (merge)

Recommended Posts

This is been years in the making but I know a lot of work went into rebuilding all the pages these past few months.  Pretty smooth launch. Props to Daron!

 

Right now, the forum isn't connected.  We just have a temporary template until Invision Power can figure out how to connect us to colts.com

 

Then we share their header and formatting

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nadine said:

This is been years in the making but I know a lot of work went into rebuilding all the pages these past few months.  Pretty smooth launch. Props to Daron!

 

Right now, the forum isn't connected.  We just have a temporary template until Invision Power can figure out how to connect us to colts.com

 

Then we share their header and formatting

I was wondering about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nadine said:

This is been years in the making but I know a lot of work went into rebuilding all the pages these past few months.  Pretty smooth launch. Props to Daron!

 

Right now, the forum isn't connected.  We just have a temporary template until Invision Power can figure out how to connect us to colts.com

 

Then we share their header and formatting

 

I noticed over in the right sidebars for "Popular Now," "Thread of the Week," etc, that the avis are squished. I did a quick inspect, and if I remove the "max-width:100%;" value, they go back to normal. Not sure how much of a priority it is to the team right now, but it'd be a quick easy fix.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

I noticed over in the right sidebars for "Popular Now," "Thread of the Week," etc, that the avis are squished. I did a quick inspect, and if I remove the "max-width:100%;" value, they go back to normal. Not sure how much of a priority it is to the team right now, but it'd be a quick easy fix.

Awesome to have some expertise right here! I'll pass it on!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Awesome to have some expertise right here! I'll pass it on!

 

No problemo! It's actually doing the same thing in the notifications dropdown, but that same fix worked there as well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah pretty cool, I haven't been on since Tuesday and I was like what happened LOL. At first I couldn't find our message board and had thought we lost everything. Anyway I like this, good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad that feature that brought up info on the thread when you dragged your cursor over it and stayed their for 5 seconds is gone. like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely has a new look and easy to use tabs. I really liked the way they now have full, in depth bio's on the coaches and staff.

 

They also updated the roster with current positions and height and weights......here are a few notable changes:

 

Anthony Johnson is listed as a DE and down to 275 (down from 308)

 

Tomasi Laulile is listed at 6'3" and 300 lbs and still ran a 4.77 40....

 

Hassan Ridgeway is down to 305 lbs - no doubt to try to win that UT spot

 

Skai Moore is now listed at 6'2" and 230 lbs.....if so that would be huge for him to make the team at MIKE

 

Anthony Walker is still listed at 241 lbs, so no real change in weight, perhaps it's more lean muscle this year?

 

Ross Travis is now listed at 6'6" and 248 lbs, which bodes well for him as he continues his transition from PF to TE - especially with Swoope still not practicing.

 

T.Y. is FINALLY listed at the 5'10" that he was listed at the combine/pro day. Trivial I know.....

 

Chester Rogers lost the extra inch they gave him and he is an even 6'0" now....lol

 

Outside of Grant, the rest of the receivers (10) are all listed at 6'2" or taller - holy land of the giants in that meeting room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Font is horrible, hard to read.

I was just about to say that. Go back to the calibri font. This one makes me feel like I need to squint like my eyes aren't focusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Font is horrible, hard to read.

 

5 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

I was just about to say that. Go back to the calibri font. This one makes me feel like I need to squint like my eyes aren't focusing.

Put your glasses on. :thmup:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Font is horrible, hard to read.

Hi, This is a temporary skin for us but, I will see what I can do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Hi, This is a temporary skin for us but, I will see what I can do

 

I like the font. It is easier to read, as the lettering is darker (bold).

 

I am accessing the site on my phone; so, I don't see the other format changes. I will log in from my computer later so that I could see the changes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a negative nancy but I think the new Colts.com website is visually confusing and unappealing. It looks like they put all their efforts into making the website look good when viewing on mobile devices only. Looking at the website on my Mac, information is laid out kinda confusing. The slider has no fixed width and gets bigger when making the browser bigger which results in poor picture quality of the slider. Same with the header. The picture of the 4 Colts players and the Indianapolis Colts text graphic gets smashed or stretched depending on how big the browser is. The top Nav bar (Schedule, News, Audio, Etc) disappears when your scrolled all the way up. Under the slider, all of the information is left justified and there's lots of open white area to the right. The news articles that are across the screen look good, though. Uses the space nicely. The Fan Forum graphic on the front page is HUGE. lol.  It just seems like the focus on the website is mainly for viewing on your phone rather than on a computer. It needs some work to get the information flowing and using the space on the page a lot better. I'd go back to the drawing board on desktop computer viewing and try to tweak it a bit to flow the information better. I am a designer for a graphic arts company and have a bachelors in graphic design so I just notice this stuff a little bit more. Hopefully it helps somewhat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah pretty cool, I haven't been on since Tuesday and I was like what happened LOL. At first I couldn't find our message board and had thought we lost everything. Anyway I like this, good job.

Yeah, I was panicking a little bit trying to figure out how to get here.  But I like the new digs quite a bit!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

Not to be a negative nancy but I think the new Colts.com website is visually confusing and unappealing. It looks like they put all their efforts into making the website look good when viewing on mobile devices only. Looking at the website on my Mac, information is laid out kinda confusing. The slider has no fixed width and gets bigger when making the browser bigger which results in poor picture quality of the slider. Same with the header. The picture of the 4 Colts players and the Indianapolis Colts text graphic gets smashed or stretched depending on how big the browser is. The top Nav bar (Schedule, News, Audio, Etc) disappears when your scrolled all the way up. Under the slider, all of the information is left justified and there's lots of open white area to the right. The news articles that are across the screen look good, though. Uses the space nicely. The Fan Forum graphic on the front page is HUGE. lol.  It just seems like the focus on the website is mainly for viewing on your phone rather than on a computer. It needs some work to get the information flowing and using the space on the page a lot better. I'd go back to the drawing board on desktop computer viewing and try to tweak it a bit to flow the information better. I am a designer for a graphic arts company and have a bachelors in graphic design so I just notice this stuff a little bit more. Hopefully it helps somewhat.

We have a winner.  More things that are bad.  Top Menus used be a quick link to the Message Boards.  No longer.  Now you need to hit the 3 dots, Fans, and wait on a page to load and then Message Boards or scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.  I will give it this.  It uses the new modern basic look like all newer web pages.  I hate it.  Looks like a 3 year old designed it because they couldn't think of a better way.  More clicks to do the same task, bulky design where the Home page seems to scroll forever until you reach the bottom.  Looks awful, but then again I hate all new sites designed for Mobile.  I think they all look awful.  Sorry, but Colts.com is no exception.  It is plane and ugly.  Font is ugly all over the place.  Sorry.  It does not appeal to me.  The previous site was nice.  This is not, but it is what it is.  It's the new style and I hate it but I cannot control it.  So I will live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hooksalot said:

We have a winner.  More things that are bad.  Top Menus used be a quick link to the Message Boards.  No longer.  Now you need to hit the 3 dots, Fans, and wait on a page to load and then Message Boards or scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.  I will give it this.  It uses the new modern basic look like all newer web pages.  I hate it.  Looks like a 3 year old designed it because they couldn't think of a better way.  More clicks to do the same task, bulky design where the Home page seems to scroll forever until you reach the bottom.  Looks awful, but then again I hate all new sites designed for Mobile.  I think they all look awful.  Sorry, but Colts.com is no exception.  It is plane and ugly.  Font is ugly all over the place.  Sorry.  It does not appeal to me.  The previous site was nice.  This is not, but it is what it is.  It's the new style and I hate it but I cannot control it.  So I will live with it.

I honestly have had no problems with this new look. I am on a Laptop and not a phone. My Zoom is even at 125% and everything looks great to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

Not to be a negative nancy but I think the new Colts.com website is visually confusing and unappealing. It looks like they put all their efforts into making the website look good when viewing on mobile devices only. Looking at the website on my Mac, information is laid out kinda confusing. The slider has no fixed width and gets bigger when making the browser bigger which results in poor picture quality of the slider. Same with the header. The picture of the 4 Colts players and the Indianapolis Colts text graphic gets smashed or stretched depending on how big the browser is. The top Nav bar (Schedule, News, Audio, Etc) disappears when your scrolled all the way up. Under the slider, all of the information is left justified and there's lots of open white area to the right. The news articles that are across the screen look good, though. Uses the space nicely. The Fan Forum graphic on the front page is HUGE. lol.  It just seems like the focus on the website is mainly for viewing on your phone rather than on a computer. It needs some work to get the information flowing and using the space on the page a lot better. I'd go back to the drawing board on desktop computer viewing and try to tweak it a bit to flow the information better. I am a designer for a graphic arts company and have a bachelors in graphic design so I just notice this stuff a little bit more. Hopefully it helps somewhat.

 

From what I understood from Amber Derrow's AMA on Reddit the other day, this is league-owned, & will be the template that all NFL teams will use pretty soon, and a few were already using this theme prior to the Colts switching over to it (49ers, Seahawks, Raiders, Jags, & Redskins).

 

Having said that, it makes sense that the site is built for mobile first, then designed outward for desktop. And I'm not seeing some of the things you're seeing on your machine. I'm on a Mac as well, with retina display, and the images are crystal clear for me, everything's at 16:9, and they all scale down seamlessly. And the main nav doesn't disappear, it just drops below the players graphic.

 

If I have one criticism right now, it'd be that the home opponents component could probably be moved below the main slider & news block. Either that, or it could be streamlined a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary objected with the new website is that it be responsive ie that the pages render well on a variety of devices.  It's very exciting to have a responsive website.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nadine said:

The primary objected with the new website is that it be responsive ie that the pages render well on a variety of devices.  It's very exciting to have a responsive website.

 

Couldn't agree more. It's light years better than the old site, which is pretty much immediately obvious.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Couldn't agree more. It's light years better than the old site, which is pretty much immediately obvious.

the forum has been responsive for a couple of years.  :)

I know a lot of people loved the way web pages used to be but, it's just not practical anymore.  Lots of people look at these sites on a bunch of different devices.  We need to move with the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

From what I understood from Amber Derrow's AMA on Reddit the other day, this is league-owned, & will be the template that all NFL teams will use pretty soon, and a few were already using this theme prior to the Colts switching over to it (49ers, Seahawks, Raiders, Jags, & Redskins).

 

Having said that, it makes sense that the site is built for mobile first, then designed outward for desktop. And I'm not seeing some of the things you're seeing on your machine. I'm on a Mac as well, with retina display, and the images are crystal clear for me, everything's at 16:9, and they all scale down seamlessly. And the main nav doesn't disappear, it just drops below the players graphic.

 

If I have one criticism right now, it'd be that the home opponents component could probably be moved below the main slider & news block. Either that, or it could be streamlined a bit.

 

1 hour ago, Nadine said:

The primary objected with the new website is that it be responsive ie that the pages render well on a variety of devices.  It's very exciting to have a responsive website.

 

46 minutes ago, Nadine said:

the forum has been responsive for a couple of years.  :)

I know a lot of people loved the way web pages used to be but, it's just not practical anymore.  Lots of people look at these sites on a bunch of different devices.  We need to move with the times.

 

Please click my link to show the points that I am making.  https://ibb.co/gPe2YJ

 

I agree, 100% that websites should be more responsive and more navigatable on mobile devices. I don't think you guys understand the points I'm trying to make on how the desktop website could look much more visually appealing. (Please click the link above so I can show you). For the record, the website looks amazing on my phone. However, the desktop version needs tweaked in my opinion.  @Steamboat_Shaun, they fixed the top nav bar so we're good there. Before, the Nav Bar would completely disappear when scrolled all the way to the top. I'm convinced that the layout their using for the desktop version is actually a copy to the mobile theme with exception to the header and nav bar for the most part. You can see this in my link above. When the browser is scaled down significantly you can see how much better the website looks. Hopefully this helps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

 

 

 

Please click my link to show the points that I am making.  https://ibb.co/gPe2YJ

 

I agree, 100% that websites should be more responsive and more navigatable on mobile devices. I don't think you guys understand the points I'm trying to make on how the desktop website could look much more visually appealing. (Please click the link above so I can show you). For the record, the website looks amazing on my phone. However, the desktop version needs tweaked in my opinion.  @Steamboat_Shaun, they fixed the top nav bar so we're good there. Before, the Nav Bar would completely disappear when scrolled all the way to the top. I'm convinced that the layout their using for the desktop version is actually a copy to the mobile theme with exception to the header and nav bar for the most part. You can see this in my link above. When the browser is scaled down significantly you can see how much better the website looks. Hopefully this helps.

 

thanks for the pic.  Weird because I'm on a mac and that is not what I see in firefox, chrome or safari

 

I'll send your image on in.  Thanks again!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nadine said:

thanks for the pic.  Weird because I'm on a mac and that is not what I see in firefox, chrome or safari

 

I'll send your image on in.  Thanks again!

 

Yeah, it's weird. I just checked Chrome and it looks perfect. But when viewing in Safari, it appears to be a mess. That's why when I first checked it out, I'm like, there's no way that an official NFL webpage can look this dumb... lol

 

302832663_ScreenShot2018-06-01at3_07_31PM.thumb.png.b71baf9cad214516c6d6b566ee8ef3cd.png 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nadine said:

thanks for the pic.  Weird because I'm on a mac and that is not what I see in firefox, chrome or safari

 

I'll send your image on in.  Thanks again!

 

Yeah, I don't see any problems with Safari on Mac either. And it is NOT because I think Safari is the best thing ever, believe me. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a little glitchy and slow.  I use the mouse-over, thread pop-up feature a lot just to know if I have an interest in clicking on a thread, as many of the titles are misleading or inadequate.  That function seems slow.

 

Maybe it will be worked out over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

 

 

 

Please click my link to show the points that I am making.  https://ibb.co/gPe2YJ

 

I agree, 100% that websites should be more responsive and more navigatable on mobile devices. I don't think you guys understand the points I'm trying to make on how the desktop website could look much more visually appealing. (Please click the link above so I can show you). For the record, the website looks amazing on my phone. However, the desktop version needs tweaked in my opinion.  @Steamboat_Shaun, they fixed the top nav bar so we're good there. Before, the Nav Bar would completely disappear when scrolled all the way to the top. I'm convinced that the layout their using for the desktop version is actually a copy to the mobile theme with exception to the header and nav bar for the most part. You can see this in my link above. When the browser is scaled down significantly you can see how much better the website looks. Hopefully this helps.

 

 

Not sure what your browser setting is, but that is not what the desktop site looks like. This is what I see...

 

 

The_Official_Website_of_the_Indianapolis_Colts.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

 

 

 

Please click my link to show the points that I am making.  https://ibb.co/gPe2YJ

 

I agree, 100% that websites should be more responsive and more navigatable on mobile devices. I don't think you guys understand the points I'm trying to make on how the desktop website could look much more visually appealing. (Please click the link above so I can show you). For the record, the website looks amazing on my phone. However, the desktop version needs tweaked in my opinion.  @Steamboat_Shaun, they fixed the top nav bar so we're good there. Before, the Nav Bar would completely disappear when scrolled all the way to the top. I'm convinced that the layout their using for the desktop version is actually a copy to the mobile theme with exception to the header and nav bar for the most part. You can see this in my link above. When the browser is scaled down significantly you can see how much better the website looks. Hopefully this helps.

 

 

Here's a full page screen grab saved as a PDF, we're definitely seeing 2 different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Here's a full page screen grab saved as a PDF, we're definitely seeing 2 different things.

 

Thanks for the PDF. That explains my previous posts above. I didn't think to check Chrome or Firefox. I'll try to delete my cache/cookies and see if it changes things. I was really wondering why others weren't seeing what I was seeing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Thanks for the PDF. That explains my previous posts above. I didn't think to check Chrome or Firefox. I'll try to delete my cache/cookies and see if it changes things. I was really wondering why others weren't seeing what I was seeing. 

 

Yeah my first thought was that you were cached big time, either that or you were looking at it in IE6 LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Yeah my first thought was that you were cached big time, either that or you were looking at it in IE6 LOL.

 

Ha! No, viewing it in Safari. I deleted my cache and it looks the same. Oh well. Not a huge deal. I was just questioning the layout thinking that's how it actually looks. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Yeah my first thought was that you were cached big time, either that or you were looking at it in IE6 LOL.

 

LOL, I wonder how the site would look in Netscape! haha

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Yes, I know it probably wouldn't even load the most basic html stuff in Netscape)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Yeah, it's weird. I just checked Chrome and it looks perfect. But when viewing in Safari, it appears to be a mess. That's why when I first checked it out, I'm like, there's no way that an official NFL webpage can look this dumb... lol

 

302832663_ScreenShot2018-06-01at3_07_31PM.thumb.png.b71baf9cad214516c6d6b566ee8ef3cd.png 

The league says this is probably due to using an old browser. They only support the most recent two versions of any browser.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

I can't get anything to load in Windows 95 :(

I don't know why? My Commodore 64 is working just fine.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.   
    • 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

    • cbear

      cbear 735

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • strt182

      strt182 292

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Irish YJ

      Irish YJ 1,009

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColtsGo5150

      GoColtsGo5150 225

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Colts_Fan12

      Colts_Fan12 4,986

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,795

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Melancholie

      Melancholie 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • indyagent17

      indyagent17 1,193

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 19,152

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...