Jump to content
SouthernIndianaNDFan

Irsay says 3 straight SB's

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

Nobody's going to win 3 straight titles..

…..Every town thinks their 'title worthy' team should have won more than 1..

...but theres just too much competition.

But, to be honest, Irasy didn't say we'd win 3 in a row

 

Correct.    He said HE'D LIKE to win 3 in a row.    Completely different.

 

One is a forecast or prediction,  the other is a wish,  something to hope for.    Not the same.

 

Share this post


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

 

You make it sound like these are the official policies of both the NFL Network and ESPN.   One of which is owned by the NFL, the other is a Billion dollar partner of the NFL.   

 

What you're quoting is the rants of one or two people and attributing them to the entire network.    Sorry,  but this is literally not true.    And there's not a comback that's going to make it true.     This is not one of those,  I'm entitled to my opinion,  unless you want to say it's your opinion that there's no such thing as gravity and the sun revolves around the earth.   Those are factually wrong as is your viewpoint.

 

ESPN has roughly 8-9 thousand employees.   More than 100 of them on the air.   The views of one or two people are not the views of the network.    Period.    Same with the NFL network.   Whatever some knucklehead on that network says is not the view of the entire network.

 

As for Irsay....   I too wish he'd resist the temptation to make such pronouncements.   And the last few years he appears to make fewer and fewer of them.    That's great.   But these things just have a bad look to them.   They're easy to misintepret.   And when they pop-up,  commentators run back to previous Irsay rants....     in short, he's his own worst enemy.    He's got to work harder to shake this image as a guy who is a loose canon.    I wish he would.

 

I like Irsay.   Always have.   But sometimes............

 

You may look at things different and that's fine.

I look at things by what I hear and see. What I see is the media loves to make issues over Irsay. Because he is not a good public speaker he makes a great target. This article this thread is about is a great example of exactly that.

You may like this type of nonsense but I don't have to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't know where you are going you will probably end up somewhere else. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Try reading what was said before posting crap like that.

 

 I did.

 

Try not being so dang cranky before posting crap like that. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

You may look at things different and that's fine.

I look at things by what I hear and see. What I see is the media loves to make issues over Irsay. Because he is not a good public speaker he makes a great target. This article this thread is about is a great example of exactly that.

You may like this type of nonsense but I don't have to.

Awww.....let the media have their fun. 

 

For all his flaws... Jimmy Irsay is one of the best owners a fan could ask for... and "the media" knows it.

 

And look at the bright side.... at least he hasn't kissed his QB on the lips and gotten himself busted in a Florida whorehouse. 

:FlamingoDancing:

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pacolts56 said:

And look at the bright side.... at least he hasn't kissed his QB on the lips and gotten himself busted in a Florida whorehouse. 

 

Good point.

A lot different than what a saint he was during deflatgate and how the NFL was too harsh on him. (while the Colts and Irsay were made out to the bad guys)

Just saying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad I took the time to read the article and  all the posts before responding.  haha

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, after the 1999 season, Irsay had stated that three straight Super Bowls was the goal for that team moving forward.  It is/was a lofty goal for sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 3:53 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

You make it sound like these are the official policies of both the NFL Network and ESPN.   One of which is owned by the NFL, the other is a Billion dollar partner of the NFL.   

 

What you're quoting is the rants of one or two people and attributing them to the entire network.    Sorry,  but this is literally not true.    And there's not a comback that's going to make it true.     This is not one of those,  I'm entitled to my opinion,  unless you want to say it's your opinion that there's no such thing as gravity and the sun revolves around the earth.   Those are factually wrong as is your viewpoint.

 

ESPN has roughly 8-9 thousand employees.   More than 100 of them on the air.   The views of one or two people are not the views of the network.    Period.    Same with the NFL network.   Whatever some knucklehead on that network says is not the view of the entire network.

 

As for Irsay....   I too wish he'd resist the temptation to make such pronouncements.   And the last few years he appears to make fewer and fewer of them.    That's great.   But these things just have a bad look to them.   They're easy to misintepret.   And when they pop-up,  commentators run back to previous Irsay rants....     in short, he's his own worst enemy.    He's got to work harder to shake this image as a guy who is a loose canon.    I wish he would.

 

I like Irsay.   Always have.   But sometimes............

 

NCF.  I agree with some of the sentiment here, but blaming Irsay's casual and imprecise talking pattern is no excuse for a professional media outlet like the NFL network or ESPN or whomever to not take the time understand what he meant.  To that point, I agree with @crazycolt1  that any misrepresentation by NFL Network was probably intentional by whomever decided to air that piece.  Not the whole network, but the spin was not a mistake.

 

There is an audience who believes certain things, like believing things about Irsay, that are fed by intentional misrepresentations as to keep the image going and feed the audience who lives to hear things a certain way. 

 

I don't think its up to Irsay to be more careful about how he speaks.  I think its up to the professional listening companies to be more careful about how well they listen.  But that doesn't feed the bulldog so to speak.  And in that sense, I think ESPN and others are guilty of preying on imprecise speakers like Irsay in order to keep their listeners and readers well-fed with a steady supply of red meat.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

NCF.  I agree with some of the sentiment here, but blaming Irsay's casual and imprecise talking pattern is no excuse for a professional media outlet like the NFL network or ESPN or whomever to not take the time understand what he meant.  To that point, I agree with @crazycolt1  that any misrepresentation by NFL Network was probably intentional by whomever decided to air that piece.  Not the whole network, but the spin was not a mistake.

 

There is an audience who believes certain things, like believing things about Irsay, that are fed by intentional misrepresentations as to keep the image going and feed the audience who lives to hear things a certain way. 

 

I don't think its up to Irsay to be more careful about how he speaks.  I think its up to the professional listening companies to be more careful about how well they listen.  But that doesn't feed the bulldog so to speak.  And in that sense, I think ESPN and others are guilty of preying on imprecise speakers like Irsay in order to keep their listeners and readers well-fed with a steady supply of red meat.

Thanks DD for expressing my thoughts better than I did, much appreciated.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

NCF.  I agree with some of the sentiment here, but blaming Irsay's casual and imprecise talking pattern is no excuse for a professional media outlet like the NFL network or ESPN or whomever to not take the time understand what he meant.  To that point, I agree with @crazycolt1  that any misrepresentation by NFL Network was probably intentional by whomever decided to air that piece.  Not the whole network, but the spin was not a mistake.

 

There is an audience who believes certain things, like believing things about Irsay, that are fed by intentional misrepresentations as to keep the image going and feed the audience who lives to hear things a certain way. 

 

I don't think its up to Irsay to be more careful about how he speaks.  I think its up to the professional listening companies to be more careful about how well they listen.  But that doesn't feed the bulldog so to speak.  And in that sense, I think ESPN and others are guilty of preying on imprecise speakers like Irsay in order to keep their listeners and readers well-fed with a steady supply of red meat.

 

Doug....    I appreciate you weighing in,  but you and CC have a conspiracy theory bent that you both warmly embrace.

 

You don't seem to realize,  Jim Irsay is basically a part owner of the NFL Network that you two think is delibately messing with Jim Irsay.       You REALLY think that is happening?

 

If it were even close to true,  Irsay could end it with a phone call.    He'd call Goodell and Roger would call the Network and that would be the end of it.

 

I don't expect either of you to understand this.     There aren't words that are doing to get you to understand this.     There never are for conspiracy theory minded people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 3:02 AM, crazycolt1 said:

You may look at things different and that's fine.

I look at things by what I hear and see. What I see is the media loves to make issues over Irsay. Because he is not a good public speaker he makes a great target. This article this thread is about is a great example of exactly that.

You may like this type of nonsense but I don't have to.

 

I don't like it either.     And I'm not asking you to like it.

 

Only to understand there's no official position, or narrative by either ESPN or the NFL Network.

 

Both networks allow their on-air talent to basically say what they want about the sport they cover, in this case, obviously, football.    But you're holding a couple of comments made by 1 or 2 people against the entire network as if the word came down from executives at each network.     That's not how these things work.

 

By the way,  contrary to what you claimed in another post,  neither network came down hard on the Colts OR Irsay concerning deflategate.      The person and group both came down hard on was..........

 

Roger Goodell and the NFL.      That's who got blasted by the most by each network.

 

Turns out, Goodell ran a corrupt investigation and then destroyed evidence when it didn't turn out as he expected.     That's who took the brunt of the criticism.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Doug....    I appreciate you weighing in,  but you and CC have a conspiracy theory bent that you both warmly embrace.

 

You don't seem to realize,  Jim Irsay is basically a part owner of the NFL Network that you two think is delibately messing with Jim Irsay.       You REALLY think that is happening?

 

If it were even close to true,  Irsay could end it with a phone call.    He'd call Goodell and Roger would call the Network and that would be the end of it.

 

I don't expect either of you to understand this.     There aren't words that are doing to get you to understand this.     There never are for conspiracy theory minded people.

 

 

I don't think there is any conspiracy.  I think imprecise speakers are an easy target for any reporter to "unintentionally" intentionally misrepresent to get bolder headlines.  If a lot of them in one company do it, then the company looks like they do it has a matter of policy.

 

I do think there is an audience for people who like to view Irsay as nutty or out there, and misrepresentations like this "conveniently" fill that need.

 

It could simply be the reporter himself thinks that about Irsay, and heard Irsay in a way and didn't misrepresent what he thought he heard.  But then he would have heard it through his biased lens, and that's just as bad.

 

The bottom line is that they reported or spun something more vibrantly than what was the case.  It was wrong, and we can speculate as to the reasons.  If you want to hold to the opinion that it was innocent, fine.  But I think a lot of people see it too much to think its an honest mistake.

Share this post


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

 

Doug....    I appreciate you weighing in,  but you and CC have a conspiracy theory bent that you both warmly embrace.

 

You don't seem to realize,  Jim Irsay is basically a part owner of the NFL Network that you two think is delibately messing with Jim Irsay.       You REALLY think that is happening?

 

If it were even close to true,  Irsay could end it with a phone call.    He'd call Goodell and Roger would call the Network and that would be the end of it.

 

I don't expect either of you to understand this.     There aren't words that are doing to get you to understand this.     There never are for conspiracy theory minded people.

 

 

Facts are not conspiracy theories.

I could go back and give quite a few examples of exactly what I am talking about.

I have been watching and listening to ESPN and the NFL Network since they have been in existence. They both have morphed into argumentative and controversial networks that thrive on exactly that.

The bottom line is it sells.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread.   

I don't blame the OP for the title or the thread.   I too heard ESPN talking about this and thought the same as the OP.   

My first thought was that Irsay found an old stash of pills again.  

 

Apparently this is really a non story.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Interesting thread.   

I don't blame the OP for the title or the thread.   I too heard ESPN talking about this and thought the same as the OP.   

My first thought was that Irsay found an old stash of pills again.  

 

Apparently this is really a non story.   

Exactly- This was a non story that was spun into a negative story aimed at Irsay.

You said your first thoughts were Jim found an old stash of pills? Well it seems you are buying what they are selling without even reading the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Facts are not conspiracy theories.

I could go back and give quite a few examples of exactly what I am talking about.

I have been watching and listening to ESPN and the NFL Network since they have been in existence. They both have morphed into argumentative and controversial networks that thrive on exactly that.

The bottom line is it sells.

Your opinions about the intent are stronger than mine. 

 

Why I entered the discussion was to point out that some were blaming the way Irsay speaks or his behavior to justify the tone of the story.  That who he is justifies the tone of the story, and that he needs to change how he speaks in order to change the narrative.

 

No.

 

The professionals who are paid to get things right should be responsible for getting things right.  They need to take the effort to navigate through how an imprecise speaker talks in order to report the situation, or choose not to report it at all, IMO.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without the blue tinted glasses on, I can see this happening. New England will still be a challenging opponent but father time is undefeated and Brady/Beli are near the tail end of their careers. Kansas City regressed over the offseason. Let's see how truly good Mahomes is after an offseason of film. Time and time again we have seen promising teams make it to the AFCCG only to fizzle out the following season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't we all love for that to happen during the Luck era! Three in a row is highly unrealistic and we should be grateful if we manage to win one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Jimmy Johnson stays with the Cowboys in the 90's, you probably would have seen 3 maybe 4 straight. Jerry Jones ego got the best of him. But they did win 3 in 4 years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Exactly- This was a non story that was spun into a negative story aimed at Irsay.

You said your first thoughts were Jim found an old stash of pills? Well it seems you are buying what they are selling without even reading the article.

WEll, he does have a history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Myles said:

WEll, he does have a history

Fueled by the misinformation of the media.

You said it yourself, a non story that you believed before even reading it.

It's been over 5 years since Irsay was arrested but you want to keep believing what the media spins feel free. It's your prerogative.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slick12 said:

I think if Jimmy Johnson stays with the Cowboys in the 90's, you probably would have seen 3 maybe 4 straight. Jerry Jones ego got the best of him. But they did win 3 in 4 years. 

I do think there was at least one or two more super bowl appearances with that team that Johnson had put together. Jones just couldn't stand that Johnson was getting the attention he deserved. IMO Johnson made the greatest trade in NFL history and struck lighting with that trade. In the end Johnson and the Cowboys ended up with 13 players after it was all added up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I do think there was at least one or two more super bowl appearances with that team that Johnson had put together. Jones just couldn't stand that Johnson was getting the attention he deserved. IMO Johnson made the greatest trade in NFL history and struck lighting with that trade. In the end Johnson and the Cowboys ended up with 13 players after it was all added up.

That was an incredible deal for Dallas.  What a haul!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2019 at 7:02 PM, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I'll be honest, I didn't read the article, so I have no context there. I heard this on NFL Network earlier today, and that's exactly how they spun it, so I assumed there was truth to that, and Googled the article as a reference point. In my profession they'd call that lack of due diligence, and I apologize for any confusion. 

Don't sweat it man... anyone who actually cares about this back and forth isn't worth caring about in the first place... you have the hottest topic on the site... it's BORING around here... it's silly season and people who get all riled up over any message board must have nothing else going on in life.  Watch any mainstream news channel and you'll get far more misleading and downright lies about everything non stop.  I heard the same thing you did and it WAS presented all over the place as if he'd said it in the context you thought.  I don't hold you responsible because the sports networks are lying sleazebags.  NBC in particular has had it in for Irsay for a long time.  PFT is especially biased and misleading daily.  A simple comment letting you know you misunderstood his comment would have been legit, the rest is virtue signaling tripe.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Don't sweat it man... anyone who actually cares about this back and forth isn't worth caring about in the first place... you have the hottest topic on the site... it's BORING around here... it's silly season and people who get all riled up over any message board must have nothing else going on in life.  Watch any mainstream news channel and you'll get far more misleading and downright lies about everything non stop.  I heard the same thing you did and it WAS presented all over the place as if he'd said it in the context you thought.  I don't hold you responsible because the sports networks are lying sleazebags.  NBC in particular has had it in for Irsay for a long time.  PFT is especially biased and misleading daily.  A simple comment letting you know you misunderstood his comment would have been legit, the rest is virtue signaling tripe.  

 

You're really serious about this?

 

Lying sleazebags?

 

NBC, which barely covers the NFL,  I think they only have the Sunday night game on a weekly basis,  and they rotate in the playoffs and Super Bowl....   and they've had it in for Irsay for a long time?     Seriously?

 

PFT,  an analytics based company is biased and misleading....  DAILY?!?

 

I don't know where this nonsense comes from,  and I'm honestly not sure I want to know....   Goodness gracious,  what a trainwreck....

 

Share this post


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

Don't sweat it man... anyone who actually cares about this back and forth isn't worth caring about in the first place... you have the hottest topic on the site... it's BORING around here... it's silly season and people who get all riled up over any message board must have nothing else going on in life.  Watch any mainstream news channel and you'll get far more misleading and downright lies about everything non stop.  I heard the same thing you did and it WAS presented all over the place as if he'd said it in the context you thought.  I don't hold you responsible because the sports networks are lying sleazebags.  NBC in particular has had it in for Irsay for a long time.  PFT is especially biased and misleading daily.  A simple comment letting you know you misunderstood his comment would have been legit, the rest is virtue signaling tripe.  

 

Thanks. I'm just glad that someone else saw that basically every viable NFL news outlet was peddling that nonsense that day, so I don't seem like I'm just making stuff up. And yeah, a simple explanation and an apology should be enough, but there's guys on here that do nothing but comment on this site. They seemingly live to ridicule people on here, and I won't say what I really think about those people because then I'd essentially be them. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I’m right here...  if you’d like to comment about me publicly, go right ahead.

 

If you’d rather comment privately, send me a message and I’ll respond.   

 

Totally up to you....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 12:03 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

You're really serious about this?

 

Lying sleazebags?

 

NBC, which barely covers the NFL,  I think they only have the Sunday night game on a weekly basis,  and they rotate in the playoffs and Super Bowl....   and they've had it in for Irsay for a long time?     Seriously?

 

PFT,  an analytics based company is biased and misleading....  DAILY?!?

 

I don't know where this nonsense comes from,  and I'm honestly not sure I want to know....   Goodness gracious,  what a trainwreck....

 

You've never watched Mike Florio's PFT DAILY 3 hour show (2 on TV, one on Radio/Podcast)? Until just recently, you never watched Dan Patricks DAILY 3 hour TV Show? Uh, that was (until April 1st) 6 hours a day talking either entirely, or the majority about Football.   Additionally they were partnered part of the week with Chris Simms who did another multiple hour podcast about Football and he had a similarly negative view of Irsay.  He now appears exclusively for NBC, but back then shared his time with NBC and Bleacher Report.  But "goodness gracious" I guess 6 hours plus (as there are more football related NBC podcasts like The Daily Line and The Safety Blitz plus Malone talks a lot of football in addition to people appearing on NBC that I am not even counting) DAILY sort of uh.. I don't know.. refutes your credibility above just a bit.   

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 3:58 PM, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Thanks. I'm just glad that someone else saw that basically every viable NFL news outlet was peddling that nonsense that day, so I don't seem like I'm just making stuff up. And yeah, a simple explanation and an apology should be enough, but there's guys on here that do nothing but comment on this site. They seemingly live to ridicule people on here, and I won't say what I really think about those people because then I'd essentially be them. 

Yeah, we ALL know who they are... don't sweat it and we ALL feel the same way.  I just happen to be willing to point it out because I don't need to validate my existence by getting "likes" on a message board.  Some people EARN them, but most virtue signal to get them just like they do on the rest of social media. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but 3 Championships  in a row has already been accomplished by The Packers.

Once before the merger and then the first two after that, and don't give me any flack about it doesn't matter before the Name Super Bowl came into play. There was Pro football before it was called the Super bowl. Just as if they merged teams in the future from Europe  to play in the NFL and then changed the name to the World Bowl it would not take away from previous Super bowl winners. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 8:02 AM, lollygagger8 said:

 

 I did.

 

Try not being so dang cranky before posting crap like that. 

Great post 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

I'm sorry but 3 Championships  in a row has already been accomplished by The Packers.

Once before the merger and then the first two after that, and don't give me any flack about it doesn't matter before the Name Super Bowl came into play. There was Pro football before it was called the Super bowl. Just as if they merged teams in the future from Europe  to play in the NFL and then changed the name to the World Bowl it would not take away from previous Super bowl winners. 

I won't give you flack because what you say is true in a way. It is cool you know your history but most people will not look at it the way you do. 3 straight SB wins will be looked at differently by most fans and the media because it has never happened in the SB era. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

I'm sorry but 3 Championships  in a row has already been accomplished by The Packers.

Once before the merger and then the first two after that, and don't give me any flack about it doesn't matter before the Name Super Bowl came into play. There was Pro football before it was called the Super bowl. Just as if they merged teams in the future from Europe  to play in the NFL and then changed the name to the World Bowl it would not take away from previous Super bowl winners. 

Yeah most seem to think that the NFL didn't exist till 1967 or so.

Players like Baugh, Graham, Luckman ect..ect.. are overlooked because too many disregard what they don't know or remember. 

All you have to do is look at the hall of fame list to find legendary players before the so called modern era.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Yeah most seem to think that the NFL didn't exist till 1967 or so.

Players like Baugh, Graham, Luckman ect..ect.. are overlooked because too many disregard what they don't know or remember. 

All you have to do is look at the hall of fame list to find legendary players before the so called modern era.

Oh sure, football has been around since the 20's. Jim Brown retired before the SB era and many consider him the GOAT.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Oh sure, football has been around since the 20's. Jim Brown retired before the SB era and many consider him the GOAT.

But there is not too many who acknowledge or pay attention to the history of the NFL.

Maybe that is why I don't get over excited about things that happen?

When you keep in mind the long history not much surprises you. haha

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

But there is not too many who acknowledge or pay attention to the history of the NFL.

Maybe that is why I don't get over excited about things that happen?

When you keep in mind the long history not much surprises you. haha

Yeah even most of Unitas' best years were before the SB era. Many people don't even talk about the 1958 and 1959 championships the Colts won. Those happened way before I was even born but I know about them :thmup:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Yeah most seem to think that the NFL didn't exist till 1967 or so.

Players like Baugh, Graham, Luckman ect..ect.. are overlooked because too many disregard what they don't know or remember. 

All you have to do is look at the hall of fame list to find legendary players before the so called modern era.

 

Unfortunately,  some of that view has to do with the ESPN-ization of the world.   The idea that sports was practically invented in the late 70's when ESPN was born.   Or that sports was invented in our lifetime but not before (depending on your age) because there was little video or film back then.      It's a very unfortunate view of sports and life in general. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
    • I had us 9-7 just based on guessing/hoping/predicting Luck would be healthy and play great. I was right but a lucky guess, I guess  . I thought that would get us a 6th seed. We won 10 games which got us in.
    • For the first time in a while, I am impressed with the Colts development of players. If this current trend continues, a lot of opinions will change. 
  • Members

    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 1,110

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyEric07

      IndyEric07 8

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfanej

      coltsfanej 159

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 369

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