Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
CurBeatElite

Takeaways from KC

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

 

Colts defense would be better with their two best players as well.  i know you go far out of your way to say hooker isnt that important, but hes the perfect kind of safety to slow down tyreek hill

 

 

You know nothing. 

 

Last year, KC scored 35 without Hooker.  This year, they scored 13 without Hooker.  This isn't about Hooker.  He's irrelevant. (repeat after me...he's irrelevant).   If anything, its about Willis/Geathers.  But its not about that either.  Its about backups vs backups, and even beyond that into how that might effect a gameplan.

 

But since you picked this fight:  Hooker is a what "deep ball hawk"?  What else does he do that's elite?  Strip the ball?

 

How often would his eliteness come into play against Hill?

 

On jet sweeps?   Bubble screens?  Backfield pitch plays to the outside?  Screen passes?

 

What value is the deep ball guy against Hill when 90% of Hill's threat comes from non-deep ball plays?  And what, you're going to say: "Yeah, but Hookers so good he'd stop every deep ball thrown to Hill"  "Mahomes would be shaking in his shoes so much seeing Hooker back there, he wouldn't even try".  Has Hooker ever done anything against Hill?  Oh wait, he hasn't ever played against Hill.

 

If you're going to play a "what of scenario", then play it all the way and don't just pick the way that fits a narrative.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

You know nothing. 

 

Last year, KC scored 35 without Hooker.  This year, they scored 13 without Hooker.  This isn't about Hooker.  He's irrelevant. (repeat after me...he's irrelevant).   If anything, its about Willis/Geathers.  But its not about that either.  Its about backups vs backups, and even beyond that into how that might effect a gameplan.

 

But since you picked this fight:  Hooker is a what "deep ball hawk"?  What else does he do that's elite?  Strip the ball?

 

How often would his eliteness come into play against Hill?

 

On jet sweeps?   Bubble screens?  Backfield pitch plays to the outside?  Screen passes?

 

What value is the deep ball guy against Hill when 90% of Hill's threat comes from non-deep ball plays?  And what, you're going to say: "Yeah, but Hookers so good he'd stop every deep ball thrown to Hill"  "Mahomes would be shaking in his shoes so much seeing Hooker back there, he wouldn't even try".  Has Hooker ever done anything against Hill?  Oh wait, he hasn't ever played against Hill.

 

If you're going to play a "what of scenario", then play it all the way and don't just pick the way that fits a narrative.

90% of hills threat comes from non deep balls?  Can you show me the link to that stat?

Share this post


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

You know nothing. 

 

Last year, KC scored 35 without Hooker.  This year, they scored 13 without Hooker.  This isn't about Hooker.  He's irrelevant. (repeat after me...he's irrelevant).   If anything, its about Willis/Geathers.  But its not about that either.  Its about backups vs backups, and even beyond that into how that might effect a gameplan.

 

But since you picked this fight:  Hooker is a what "deep ball hawk"?  What else does he do that's elite?  Strip the ball?

 

How often would his eliteness come into play against Hill?

 

On jet sweeps?   Bubble screens?  Backfield pitch plays to the outside?  Screen passes?

 

What value is the deep ball guy against Hill when 90% of Hill's threat comes from non-deep ball plays?  And what, you're going to say: "Yeah, but Hookers so good he'd stop every deep ball thrown to Hill"  "Mahomes would be shaking in his shoes so much seeing Hooker back there, he wouldn't even try".  Has Hooker ever done anything against Hill?  Oh wait, he hasn't ever played against Hill.

 

If you're going to play a "what of scenario", then play it all the way and don't just pick the way that fits a narrative.

now you just sound mad.  looks like you dont much about Hill or Hooker 

 

Daruis leonard missed the game too, the best blitzer on the team.  Mahaomes was already limping...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

90% of hills threat comes from non deep balls?  Can you show me the link to that stat?

Nitpicking a generalization? 

 

I sincerely feel sorry for you if you actually go through life not being able to tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

now you just sound mad.  looks like you dont much about Hill or Hooker 

 

Daruis leonard missed the game too, the best blitzer on the team.  Mahaomes was already limping...

I'm mad at you for commenting on something you don't understand. 

 

If you review the comments, the premise of my comment where I mentioned that we have to account for KCs injuries (offense) was in response to either comments directly at me, or comments floated broadly in this thread, that we have a great defense because we held KC to 13 points.

 

Our defense is great.  Not that it played great.  But it is great.

 

The defense on the field.  Not the defense in a what-if setting.  The defense that played.  The one without Hooker, Leonard, Geathers, but with the guy we just brought up from the PS.  That defense.  Our defense is great, because we held KC to 13 points Sunday night.

 

Then you, geniously not understanding that, tell me that I have to account for Hooker offsetting Hill to assess if KC would have scored more points (or beaten us).

 

No, Hooker wasn't on the field.  He wasn't part of the defense that was being asserted as being great.  All I have to point out is that if we add Hill to KCs offense, then KC would have scored more points on the defense that was being asserted as being great.  Which I believe would have led to a loss. 

 

Get it, yet?

 

Now you're adding Leonard.  You've been trying to say I'm wrong, when you don't even understand what is being said in the first place.

Share this post


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

Nitpicking a generalization? 

 

I sincerely feel sorry for you if you actually go through life not being able to tell the difference.

So he doesn't get 90% of his touches at or near the LOS?

Share this post


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

 

Now you're adding Leonard.  You've been trying to say I'm wrong, when you don't even understand what is being said in the first place.

You're the only one that knows what you're talking about most of the time.   You're wrong take on hooker is a part of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

So he doesn't get 90% of his touches at or near the LOS?

So do you think I was trying to be precise?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

You're the only one that knows what you're talking about most of the time.   You're wrong take on hooker is a part of that

You're good at saying that people are wrong.  And you do that with two sentence comments because you think that nitpicking precision proves that somebody is wrong.  

 

Share this post


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

You're good at saying people are wrong.  And you do that with two sentence comments because you're the only one who think's that nitpicking precision proves somebody is wrong.  

 

Im far from the only person that thinks you're wrong.   Look at the likes I get when I call your nonsense. 

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So do you think I was trying to be precise?  

 

 

You posted it as fact.   Im asking for verification.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Im far from the only person that thinks you're wrong.   Look at the likes I get when I call your nonsense. 

You posted it as fact.   Im asking for verification.   

Well, I don't look for strength in numbers.  I'm a bit more confident in my ability to explain to others why I think they're wrong. 

 

I posted it as a fact?  Says who?  Are you one of those people who reads everything in print like its a legal brief?  Should I attach footnotes, or in the case of the internet, a link?

 

Should I be more precise?  Like end everything with "IMO, or footnote something as a generalization.  (What font should I use?).  Most people pick up that kind of stuff in the context of the conversation.   They aren't precision junkies.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DougDew said:

If you're going to play a "what of scenario", then play it all the way and don't just pick the way that fits a narrative.

 

You should take your own advice.  Using your own logic, every game in the NFL every week is won by backups beating backups, because guess what?  EVERY team has injuries.  EVERY week.  There's no point to your hypotheticals about starters vs starters.  :blah:

 

I could do the same thing you are and say that if both teams were 100% healthy, the Colts STILL would have won, and then spend pages and pages defending my opinion with generalizations and hypotheticals, but what's the point?

 

You just keep doing the same thing you always do:  change the subject of a thread with your opinion, move the goalposts to fit your narrative, and keep pushing your narrative when people challenge it.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=4674700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You should take your own advice.  Using your own logic, every game in the NFL every week is won by backups beating backups, because guess what?  EVERY team has injuries.  EVERY week.  There's no point to your hypotheticals about starters vs starters.  :blah:

 

I could do the same thing you are and say that if both teams were 100% healthy, the Colts STILL would have won, and then spend pages and pages defending my opinion with generalizations and hypotheticals, but what's the point?

 

You just keep doing the same thing you always do:  change the subject of a thread with your opinion, move the goalposts to fit your narrative, and keep pushing your narrative when people challenge it.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=4674700

The topic of the thread is takeways about the game..... I said that our backups beat their backups, with officiating that was backup quality (all over the place, calls that both killed momentum and gave momentum to each team at various times)

 

The point of the comment, if you're capable of supplementing written words with abstract things like nuance and context in appropriate dosages, is that given the situation, not much can be taken away from this one game.  Encouraging, yes, but takeaways, doubtful.

 

The rest of the stuff is the typical stuff.  Primarily like you.  Overly Hooker-sensitive biases reading bias into my comments, then make stuff up in order to criticize.  Specifically, comments talked about me blaming an actual win by citing my comments about what would occur in an alternative reality (as if simply saying "would" is a statement of fact),  and more comments about how one defender could shut down the entire impact of another offensive player, when the skills of the defender have never been touted as being capable of shutting down the other skills of the offensive player.  

 

Then I get comments akin to a self-appointed nonsense patrol officer stammering out two sentence criticisms of a generalization I made that is supposedly interpreted as fact, probably just to be able to launch a criticism at an advantageous moment.

 

And you accuse me of moving the goal posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, if Hill was playing, the score probably would have been different, but how different will never know. Like saying if we had recieved the opening kick off, the game would have ended differently.

 

Moot point really.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The topic of the thread is takeways about the game..... I said that our backups beat their backups, with officiating that was backup quality (all over the place, calls that both killed momentum and gave momentum to each team at various times)

 

The point of the comment, if you're capable of supplementing written words with abstract things like nuance and context in appropriate dosages, is that given the situation, not much can be taken away from this one game.  Encouraging, yes, but takeaways, doubtful.

 

And you accuse me of moving the goal posts?

 

Let's review how you decided to jump into this conversation:

 

On 10/7/2019 at 7:52 AM, DougDew said:

Well, we learned that our backups can beat KCs backups in a game where the officiating must have been conducted by backup officials.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure what to take away.

 

Like I said earlier, "backups beating backups" is just a generalization applicable to any NFL game, so no point in that comment.  The officiating is also a complaint applicable to any NFL game.  "I'm not sure what to take away" could also be applied to any game if you really wanted... and what is that anyway?  That's not an opinion.  That's nothing.  You really didn't say anything with your original post.  If you had nothing to say, then why create that waste-of-space nothing post?

 

Your original post is a very deflated take on what was a huge Colts win that puts them in a tie for first in the division going into a bye week.  It might have big implications on the playoffs.  It showed that Ballard has constructed a team better able to handle injuries (and abrupt retirements) than KC and probably a lot of other teams.  It showed that Reich/Eberflus/Sirianni can gameplan with the best of 'em.  It showed that we are better from top to bottom than a lot of people thought we were.  The Colts won the game.  Period.  How's that for takeaways?

 

You know what I takeaway from your original post and subsequent back-and-forths with multiple people?  You are who we thought you were.  Now if you wanna nitpick a huge Colts win, then nitpick their *, but you are who we thought you were, and we're not gonna let you off the hook.  :P

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tyreek hill has hardly played this year, its amazing a colts "fan" can keep saying but, but things would be different if he played

 

things would be different if the best defender on the colts played too.  how many sacks and pressures would the manic get if he played in that game?  can tyreek hill go deep against hooker and beat him?  maybe, maybe not

 

how many points would we have scored if luck played?  who knows, who cares, colts won gg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 8:17 PM, DougDew said:

I'm mad at you for commenting on something you don't understand. 

 

If you review the comments, the premise of my comment where I mentioned that we have to account for KCs injuries (offense) was in response to either comments directly at me, or comments floated broadly in this thread, that we have a great defense because we held KC to 13 points.

 

Our defense is great.  Not that it played great.  But it is great.

 

The defense on the field.  Not the defense in a what-if setting.  The defense that played.  The one without Hooker, Leonard, Geathers, but with the guy we just brought up from the PS.  That defense.  Our defense is great, because we held KC to 13 points Sunday night.

 

Then you, geniously not understanding that, tell me that I have to account for Hooker offsetting Hill to assess if KC would have scored more points (or beaten us).

 

No, Hooker wasn't on the field.  He wasn't part of the defense that was being asserted as being great.  All I have to point out is that if we add Hill to KCs offense, then KC would have scored more points on the defense that was being asserted as being great.  Which I believe would have led to a loss. 

 

Get it, yet?

 

Now you're adding Leonard.  You've been trying to say I'm wrong, when you don't even understand what is being said in the first place.

 

so you only want to talk about what the missing chiefs would have done, but not the missing colts?  if you are going to play what if hill was there then im going to come back with what if we were healthy too?

 

i posted this because im watching the chiefs now and hill is absolutely a deep threat, thats what he does.  look at the TD he just had, it was a lob into what would have been hookers area.  they may not have scored any more points if both teams were healthy

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some HARD excuse making on this broadcast for Mahomes for whatever he's doing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, aaron11 said:

 

so you only want to talk about what the missing chiefs would have done, but not the missing colts?  if you are going to play what if hill was there then im going to come back with what if we were healthy too?

 

i posted this because im watching the chiefs now and hill is absolutely a deep threat, thats what he does.  look at the TD he just had, it was a lob into what would have been hookers area.  they may not have scored any more points if both teams were healthy

I don't have to pretend an alternative scenario very much, where all of the defenders were on the field. 

 

The precedent for your scenario was set last year.  We had all of our defenders except Hooker and they scored 35 point and it could've been more if the game was close.

 

And they never threw deep last year.   With Hill in the game and Hooker out, they never tried to throw it deep.  The absence of Hooker appeared to make no difference in how many points are scored, how many are not scored, and what the game plan is.  

 

Its more of a stretch to assume Hooker would be relevant to the defense against KC than to assume he would not be relevant.

 

I agree, if Hooker is in the game, Mahomes may not lob a pass to Hill down the middle, because that's what Hooker does.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I don't have to pretend an alternative scenario very much, where all of the defenders were on the field. 

 

The precedent for your scenario was set last year.  We had all of our defenders except Hooker and they scored 35 point and it could've been more if the game was close.

 

And they never threw deep last year.   With Hill in the game and Hooker out, they never tried to throw it deep.  The absence of Hooker appeared to make no difference in how many points are scored, how many are not scored, and what the game plan is.  

 

Its more of a stretch to assume Hooker would be relevant to the defense against KC than to assume he would not be relevant.

 

I agree, if Hooker is in the game, Mahomes may not lob a pass to Hill down the middle, because that's what Hooker does.

 

 

 

 

Tyreek hill is very much a deep threat, his TD came on a lob right to hookers area.  its laughable just how much you dismiss hooker because you didnt want us to draft him.  you take shots at nelson too when hes probably the MVP of the team 

 

starting to think you are 100% troll, probably about to ignore, no point in reading your ridiculous posts and watch you try and defend them anymore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

 

 

Tyreek hill is very much a deep threat, his TD came on a lob right to hookers area.  its laughable just how much you dismiss hooker because you didnt want us to draft him.  you take shots at nelson too when hes probably the MVP of the team 

 

starting to think you are 100% troll, probably about to ignore, no point in reading your ridiculous posts and watch you try and defend them anymore 

You seem to be moving the goal posts in an effort to continue to criticize me.

 

I never said Hill wasn't a deep threat.  I disagreed with the notion that he is exclusively a deep threat, which is what someone asserts when they say that one deep-ball FS negates an entire player.

 

I didn't bring up all of the injured players on both sides because I never attributed the loss to injuries on KC's side.  Someone else was spreading fake comments.

 

I simply said that if Hill played, KC would have scored more points.  

 

Now you want to bring up Nelson in a KC game thread, just to start yet another argument.

Share this post


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

I didn't bring up all of the injured players on both sides because I never attributed the loss to injuries on KC's side.  Someone else was spreading fake comments.

 

Don't try to push a false narrative here.

 

In your very first post, you said:  

On 10/7/2019 at 7:52 AM, DougDew said:

Well, we learned that our backups can beat KCs backups in a game where the officiating must have been conducted by backup officials.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure what to take away.

 

You didn't list them by their names, but that is very much bringing up all of the injured players on both sides.

 

In your very next post, you start to name names:

On 10/7/2019 at 9:37 AM, DougDew said:

Reality check is that KC isn't the same without Hill, Hunt, and a hobbled Mahomes; and they don't have a very good LT.  They aren't the same team this year as last, and haven't blown away anybody.  They almost lost to DET. 

 

Nice try Doug...  :nono:

  • Like 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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I just want to point out that in your post, it looks like this was my quote.   It was not.   5 hours ago, Myles said: 61 people voted #3 = a landslide, sorry haters you lose. People with sense know JB is probably not a franchise QB but also know he is above average and doesn't suck.
    • If it ends that Ballard don't replace Luck with a great QB I don't know how I would feel about it.  That's a tough one for any GM to have to face.  Colts fans have been pretty spoiled in the QB department over the last 20 years.  One thing we have learned is having elite QB play does not bring championships.  No matter who the QB is, winning ballgames is the final issue. 
    • Many of the teams you mentioned also stuck with Brissett level QB's too long.  
    • i somewhat feel the same way, luck took the big money, he should have felt an obligation not to quit his job that he was very well paid for at the beginning of a season, past the draft, and leave his teammates and fans hanging. in my opinion he should have quit at the end of the last season to give us a chance to fill his position. he gave no consideration to his teammates or the fans who made him rich, or regard to the whole colts franchise . indy may lose its fan support and team because of the timing of him quitting his lucrative job. luck was a disgrace to the fans who paid him and his teammates by the timing of him quitting his job.
    • Yes I seen them twice and both shows were fantastic. 
  • Members

    • DEFENSE

      DEFENSE 114

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Myles

      Myles 2,657

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • crazycolt1

      crazycolt1 10,833

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TwoTonShogun

      TwoTonShogun 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JediXMan

      JediXMan 40

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Derakynn

      Derakynn 1,296

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 3,763

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Filmmaker1

      Filmmaker1 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MPStack

      MPStack 2,937

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BSteph1

      BSteph1 1

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...