Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

You gotta love NFL Network's flip flop views on this team


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, indykmj said:

Puzzled as to why anyone cares what LT, the NFL Network and any other

pundit, etc. thinks about the 2020 Colts ?

I have learned over the years that most of the media outside of Indy doesn't know our team well enough to analyze them. We are a small market team so 2nd page news to most of the media. I am ok with it and prefer that way. It doesn't even bother me anymore. Even when Peyton was here we never got the coverage that Pats, Steelers, Giants (NY) got worldwide. 

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

Puzzled as to why anyone cares what LT, the NFL Network and any other

pundit, etc. thinks about the 2020 Colts ?

They're all talking heads, paid to push network views.

 

Very seldom do you get the individuals actual opinion.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic but I did some research on teams who have the best W-L records over the last 20 seasons = 2000-2019. That is 2 decades, here are the Top 5:

1. Patriots = 237-83 (74.1%) Have won 6 SB's

2. Steelers = 205-113-2 (64.5%) Have won 2 SB's

3. Packers = 197-121-2 (61.9%) Have won 1 SB

4. Colts = 197-123 (61.6%) Have won 1 SB

5. Ravens = 190-130 (59.4%) Have won 2 SB's

 

-Over the last 2 decades we are 4th in winning % and tied for 3rd with the Packers in wins. We also have a SB win. I really can't see how anyone in the media can overlook a franchise as great as ours to this topic. 

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

-Over the last 2 decades we are 4th in winning % and tied for 3rd with the Packers in wins. We also have a SB win. I really can't see how anyone in the media can overlook a franchise as great as ours to this topic. 

We live in a fly over state. 

It was also different when we had Manning on the roster as far as drawing media attention. 

I had said it before and I will say it again --

  There are media people who don't like Jim Irsay, especially at ESPN.  It started with Mike Wilbon with his none stop calling Jim no different than his father Robert. Wilbon has always peddled a negative narrative aimed at the Colts. 

How much of that has rubbed off I am not sure? 

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

We live in a fly over state. 

It was also different when we had Manning on the roster as far as drawing media attention. 

I had said it before and I will say it again --

  There are media people who don't like Jim Irsay, especially at ESPN.  It started with Mike Wilbon with his none stop calling Jim no different than his father Robert. Wilbon has always peddled a negative narrative aimed at the Colts. 

How much of that has rubbed off I am not sure? 

Wilbon is a huge face for ESPN so many will believe and like what he says. Having said that Jim is nothing like his father. What is sad, many probably think he is.

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

Wilbon is a huge face for ESPN so many will believe and like what he says. Having said that Jim is nothing like his father. What is sad, many probably think he is.

Jim is not a very good public speaker and way too many assume he has a problem because of that. 

There have been fans right here in this forum who have made negative comments on his public speaking so it's not just the media.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Jim is not a very good public speaker and way too many assume he has a problem because of that. 

There have been fans right here in this forum who have made negative comments on his public speaking so it's not just the media.

 

Public speaking isn't his strong area I agree. He also has had addiction to pain killers and had that DWI. Having said that he is a much better owner than his father was and is a much more caring guy than his father was. He cares about the Colts and hates to lose. It is unfortunate some in the media or some fans do not see that. He has an argument for being best owner over the last 20 years IMO. He made sure we drafted Peyton and Luck when some actually wanted Leaf and RG3. That alone shows his football intelligence. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, w87r said:

They're all talking heads, paid to push network views.

 

Very seldom do you get the individuals actual opinion.

At least you had the courage to say what you think.

 

But the exact opposite is true.   The people ESPN hires say what they want to say NOT what the network wants them to say.

 

ESPN has fired hundreds of people over the last 10 years.   If what you claim is true, it would only take one disgruntled former employee to make that claim.    So how many have said what you claim?    Zero.

 

If even one did it would be the biggest story in sports, headlines everywhere.  Don’t take my word for it, do a google search.  See what you find.   I don’t think you’ll find anything... 

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

At least you had the courage to say what you think.

 

But the exact opposite is true.   The people ESPN hires say what they want to say NOT what the network wants them to say.

 

ESPN has fired hundreds of people over the last 10 years.   If what you claim is true, it would only take one disgruntled former employee to make that claim.    So how many have said what you claim?    Zero.

 

If even one did it would be the biggest story in sports, headlines everywhere.  Don’t take my word for it, do a google search.  See what you find.   I don’t think you’ll find anything... 

Fair enough. However, I'm sure all these guys have non disclosure agreements, and would risk being sued if they came out and said it.

 

BSPN is actually the worst, if you don't think their paid to push espn agenda, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Plenty of stuff out there on it.

 

https://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/767/inside-and-out-espn-dealing-with-changing-political-dynamics

 

"Many ESPN employees I talked to -- including liberals and conservatives, most of whom preferred to speak on background -- worry that the company’s politics have become a little too obvious, empowering those who feel as if they’re in line with the company’s position and driving underground those who don’t."

 

Just a small snippet from article, but bottom line everyone is paid from ESPN and if they were fired for not falling in line with the company beliefs, they got to go.

 

 

They get higher rating for controversy, why you think they have so many debate shows.

 

Most of what these guys say is scripted and written by writers for the show. Just talking heads.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

At least you had the courage to say what you think.

 

But the exact opposite is true.   The people ESPN hires say what they want to say NOT what the network wants them to say.

 

ESPN has fired hundreds of people over the last 10 years.   If what you claim is true, it would only take one disgruntled former employee to make that claim.    So how many have said what you claim?    Zero.

 

If even one did it would be the biggest story in sports, headlines everywhere.  Don’t take my word for it, do a google search.  See what you find.   I don’t think you’ll find anything... 

I am not too sure of that myself.

Do you honestly believe that all of the commentators actually believe what they are saying in those point - counter point argumentative shows? 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am not too sure of that myself.

Do you honestly believe that all of the commentators actually believe what they are saying in those point - counter point argumentative shows? 

 

Now I can agree with you on this one.

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

I am not too sure of that myself.

Do you honestly believe that all of the commentators actually believe what they are saying in those point - counter point argumentative shows? 

 

In the point-counter point shows?   No. But in those shows, somebody has to take other side.   I think it’s acknowledged and understood there. 
 

But, that’s NOT what I was responding to.  The poster I was responding to claims all the on-air talent aren’t saying what they want to say.  They’re saying what the management wants them to say.   And THAT is 100 percent false.   I’ll be writing more about that today.    Hope that clarifies.  

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

I am not too sure of that myself.

Do you honestly believe that all of the commentators actually believe what they are saying in those point - counter point argumentative shows? 

 

I know one thing, they are boring. So much info online, they aren’t saying anything new. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ColtUp said:

Brady brought in Gronk perhaps Rivers can bring in Gates?

 

 

Gates has nothing left and nothing left to prove. When he becomes a Hall of Fame finalist, the only thing he has to do is wait for that phone call from Canton, be ready to wear his golden jacket, and unveil his head statue at the Pro Football Hall of Fame ceremony. 

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

Brady brought in Gronk perhaps Rivers can bring in Gates?

 

I don't know what Gronk will be like this year, but the others right before me above are correct. 85 is about 5 years removed from the great player he once was. His last 2 - 3 years playing after that were not fun to watch, I can tell you. Now, he could still box out most defenders on a short curl and pick up about 5 yards for you, but that was about it. If he caught anything downfield it was because of a busted coverage. Seriously, if every single one of the tight ends on this team aren't significantly better than 85 at this point, then they don't belong in the NFL. And that's just the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 3:00 PM, w87r said:

Fair enough. However, I'm sure all these guys have non disclosure agreements, and would risk being sued if they came out and said it.

 

BSPN is actually the worst, if you don't think their paid to push espn agenda, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Plenty of stuff out there on it.

 

https://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/767/inside-and-out-espn-dealing-with-changing-political-dynamics

 

"Many ESPN employees I talked to -- including liberals and conservatives, most of whom preferred to speak on background -- worry that the company’s politics have become a little too obvious, empowering those who feel as if they’re in line with the company’s position and driving underground those who don’t."

 

Just a small snippet from article, but bottom line everyone is paid from ESPN and if they were fired for not falling in line with the company beliefs, they got to go.

 

 

They get higher rating for controversy, why you think they have so many debate shows.

 

Most of what these guys say is scripted and written by writers for the show. Just talking heads.

 

 

I'm sorry,  I've said this before,  but I see you added more material here and you've completed misunderstood this.

 

First,  there are no writers for the on-air talent.   None.   The talent writes what they want to say.   I even contacted a friend who works at ESPN for the last 30 years.   He says all on-air talent writes what they say -- period.   And thre is no company position on various issues.   So, for example, on al the debate shows you talked about,  the hosts say what they want.   No writer writes what to say for them.   

 

Here's what your article is talking about.   The company is clearly on the liberal side.   They've hired in the past a bunch of Conservatives who wanted to say whatever they wanted to say.  Mostly about politics in the real world.   The name Curt Schilling might be familiar.   He had been warned repeatedly about talking about real world politics that have nothing to do with sports.   He kept doing it and basically dared the company to do something.   He thought they wouldn't.   They did and eventually he was let go.   

 

ESPN is trying to stay away as best as they can from real world politics.   If oyu want to point to Conservative political views,  fine, you'll get no argument from me.

 

SPOILER ALERT:  That's going to take a huge hit on Wednesday, 5/27,  in the aftermath of the dead black man in Minneapolis and the black man in New York who a white woman called the politce on and lied about what he was doing (caught lying on tape), as well as the jogger in Georgia who was shot and killed months ago and the video has now surfaced.  Outraged professional athletes are now loudly speaking out.    That means ESPN is going to talk about the real world even thought most of their viewers may not like it.   But you have to cover what the athletes are doing and saying.

 

Many people here (most?) think ESPN doesn't like Jim Irsay and the Colts.   Do certain anchors, hosts, reporters have issues with us?    Maybe,  possibly.    But there is no corporate position on Irsay or the Colts.  All on-air talent is free to say whatever they want to say.   No one tells on-air talent what to say when it comes to day-to-day sports.   To be clear,  ESPN doesn't want anyone trashing the sports they cover or hurting the professinal relationships.   If you're going to attack the commissiner of a sport,  then you had better have more than just an opionion.   You better have some substance to back it up.    Former NBA Commish David Stern was legendary for calling up the head of ESPN and SCREAMING about things he heard said about the NBA on ESPN that he didn't like.  

 

You wrote that there's plenty of things on the internet to support your view.   Please feel free to take another crack at it,  because the first article doesn't support your position.    It's taking about something different,  how ESPN doesn't want the real world of politics infringing on the day to day coverage of sports.   Some things can't be stopped.   More women in pro sports.   Gays in sports.   How athletes react to real world injustice.    But if Curt Schilling wants to spew hate about Muslims, which he did,  or talk about transgender bathroom laws,  that's going to lead to the unemployment line, which it did.

What do those issues have to do with sports?

 

Last thought:   I try as often as I can to explain the world of the media to people here.   30 years in the business so I should be able to to.   Frankly,  I take no pleasure in strongly opposing your views here.   In fact, no one is more surprised than me.   Because, quite honestly,  I think you've had an incredibly long stretch of really top notch posts for many months here.    I think you've seriously rasied your game and I find myself in agreement with many of your views.    And if I haven't given you a ton of likes then shame on me.   I try to reward good posting.  I find your posts smart and well reasoned.   I enjoy reading your views.    And then we hit this thread.   And I did a double-take when I saw who posted about the media.  So please take this as the compliment that it is intended.   I'm a fan of yours.   Just not here on this particular subject.

 

If you have other comments, or questions,  I'm happy to continue this discussion....   my apologies for the length of ths post.   Just so much to respond to.

 

NCF

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Last thought:   I try as often as I can to explain the world of the media to people here.   30 years in the business so I should be able to to.   Frankly,  I take no pleasure in strongly opposing your views here.   In fact, no one is more surprised than me.   Because, quite honestly,  I think you've had an incredibly long stretch of really top notch posts for many months here.    I think you've seriously rasied your game and I find myself in agreement with many of your views.    And if I haven't given you a ton of likes then shame on me.   I try to reward good posting.  I find your posts smart and well reasoned.   I enjoy reading your views.    And then we hit this thread.   And I did a double-take when I saw who posted about the media.  So please take this as the compliment that it is intended.   I'm a fan of yours.   Just not here on this particular subject.

 

If you have other comments, or questions,  I'm happy to continue this discussion....   my apologies for the length of ths post.   Just so much to respond to.

 

NCF

 

Thank you for including this.  Not everyone that reads your recent posts has been around for years, and they probably don't know that ^this^ is the real @NewColtsFan.

 

You may come off snarky and condescending to someone that doesn't know you, but you're truly very respectful to respectful posters, and a joy to talk football with.  Hopefully the folks that tend to give you a hard time read this and appreciate it.

 

I've learned from you that blanket-statements about the media in general don't fly.  I think a lot of people have been burned by dishonest or slanted reporting, but we forget that we're talking about humans working for their boss, and not everyone maintains the integrity that they should as a member of the media.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You wrote that there's plenty of things on the internet to support your view.

First off, great post. 

 

Just did want to pull this up. I was referring to ESPN pushing their agenda, when I was saying there is plenty of evidence on the internet. If employees feel empowered by siding with said company, and being driven underground if not. I think it influences what you(commentator) write.

 

I said, fair enough, there probably wasnt much about personalities saying something because of NDA.

 

After my initial post, before your current post. I had already did some rethinking on the subject.

 

I appreciate your perspective. I have did a little bit of research on my end, since. I have determined that my initial thoughts were incorrect and not afraid to own it.

 

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Last thought:   I try as often as I can to explain the world of the media to people here.   30 years in the business so I should be able to to.   Frankly,  I take no pleasure in strongly opposing your views here.   In fact, no one is more surprised than me.   Because, quite honestly,  I think you've had an incredibly long stretch of really top notch posts for many months here.    I think you've seriously rasied your game and I find myself in agreement with many of your views.    And if I haven't given you a ton of likes then shame on me.   I try to reward good posting.  I find your posts smart and well reasoned.   I enjoy reading your views.    And then we hit this thread.   And I did a double-take when I saw who posted about the media.  So please take this as the compliment that it is intended.   I'm a fan of yours.   Just not here on this particular subject.

 

If you have other comments, or questions,  I'm happy to continue this discussion....   my apologies for the length of ths post.   Just so much to respond to.

 

NCF

 

Appreciate all the words.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Thank you for including this.  Not everyone that reads your recent posts has been around for years, and they probably don't know that ^this^ is the real @NewColtsFan.

 

You may come off snarky and condescending to someone that doesn't know you, but you're truly very respectful to respectful posters, and a joy to talk football with.  Hopefully the folks that tend to give you a hard time read this and appreciate it.

 

I've learned from you that blanket-statements about the media in general don't fly.  I think a lot of people have been burned by dishonest or slanted reporting, but we forget that we're talking about humans working for their boss, and not everyone maintains the integrity that they should as a member of the media.

 

LCF...      

 

Many thanks...  You're very kind and generous with your praise.   Honestly,  explaining the media is getting harder and harder to do.    There's plenty of media that I'm not at all comfortable with.   I don't want to sound like the old guy who says "back in my day,  this never would have been allowed to happen."    But, so often,   that's the truth.

 

Most of my years working were the 80's, 90's and 2000's...   and the internet was at its dawn in my later years.   Since I've mostly left,  the internet has exploded.   It not only dominates the media landscape,  it shapes it as well...   because everyone is now in a hurry to put out material.  The drive to be first is powerful.   More powerful than the drive to be right, to be acurate.    That doesn't help anyone.   

 

So when I post here about the media,  I try to explain, to give context.   I'm not trying to defend, though it may come across like that from time to time.    Much of the problems that all of us face with the media,  is that most major organizations have been shrinking for 12-15 years.   Smaller staffs, with fewer people asked to do more.   And there are fewer sets of eyes to go over material.   So if someone makes a mistake,  there are fewer people around to catch the mistake before it gets on the air, or before it gets printed.   When people here ask the question "How did that happen?"  that's usually the answer.   Media newsrooms are operating at a skeleton level.   So few people in most newsrooms.   When I started and for most of my years, newsrooms buzzed like a beehive.  They were packed and everyone was going somewhere doing something.    Now,  newsrooms have so few people in them you wonder how anything gets done.   It's very sad to me.   Anyway...   that's the world we live in right now.   I have more thoughts on this (no surprise!)   but this isn't the forum for that.   So, I'll leave it here unless someone else wants to continue this....    I'm always here....

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 I don't want to sound like the old guy who says "back in my day,  this never would have been allowed to happen."    But, so often,   that's the truth.

 

I hope you take this for the compliment that it is:  I think of you as the Walter Cronkite of our little community.  :hat:

 

Walter-Cronkite-1970.jpg

 

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Most of my years working were the 80's, 90's and 2000's...   and the internet was at its dawn in my later years.   Since I've mostly left,  the internet has exploded.   It not only dominates the media landscape,  it shapes it as well...  because everyone is now in a hurry to put out material.  The drive to be first is powerful.   More powerful than the drive to be right, to be acurate.    That doesn't help anyone.

 

I have a love/hate relationship with the internet.  It truly is great for providing information instantaneously.  But it is also equally culpable of providing false information just as instantaneously, and pretending to be just as valid of a source.  :wall:

 

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Anyway...   that's the world we live in right now.   I have more thoughts on this (no surprise!)   but this isn't the forum for that.   So, I'll leave it here unless someone else wants to continue this....    I'm always here....

 

Perfect thread for this topic IMO.  And it's the slow part of the offseason, anyway, right?  Why not talk about fair and respectable reporting of the news?  I think it's pertinent to all of us, especially in the current climate of reporting, where everyone has an agenda/bias/slant and "fair and responsible" seems to have been left in the rear-view mirror.  :thmup:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I hope you take this for the compliment that it is:  I think of you as the Walter Cronkite of our little community.  :hat:

 

Walter-Cronkite-1970.jpg

 

 

I have a love/hate relationship with the internet.  It truly is great for providing information instantaneously.  But it is also equally culpable of providing false information just as instantaneously, and pretending to be just as valid of a source.  :wall:

 

 

Perfect thread for this topic IMO.  And it's the slow part of the offseason, anyway, right?  Why not talk about fair and respectable reporting of the news?  I think it's pertinent to all of us, especially in the current climate of reporting, where everyone has an agenda/bias/slant and "fair and responsible" seems to have been left in the rear-view mirror.  :thmup:

 

Wow!    I don't know what I did to deserve such an honor, but I'm confident that those here who are not fans of mine are either laughing hysterically or getting violently ill!    Perhaps both!!

 

Honestly,  I'm not even good enough to be a pimple on the rear end of the fly that might annoy Cronkite (if he were still alive, which he's not).    

 

Regardless,  I promise the check is in the mail!   Just PM me with your contact info and the money is on the way!   :thmup:

 

Media is always a favorite topic of mine...   Never tire of it.   And I'd be happy to talk shop during the quiet off-season.    My only concern is that it might easily turn into politics and that's off-limits here...     so, it's....   tricky.    But I'm always willing to try...

 

  • Like 1
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

    • The 48 member HOF selection committee does not use the Pro reference guide for their selections.  Atlanta vs New England has exactly nothing to do with a player being selected.  Please educate yourself in the procedure and then maybe you will understand.  The dog you are using does not hunt. 
    • Basham had a strip sack yesterday lol I pretty much ignored the NBA this year, especially after the Pacers dropped. Not sure I'll ever go back. I gave the NFL a shot. Wasn't near as bad.  Pretty sure we blitzed more pre-Reich. Tried to look for % but the adv D stats for blitz % only went back to 2018 lol on PFR I think Houston is very solid, still. He's got 10 total pressures, only one less than Buckner. AQM and Autry both with 7 or 8ish.    As far as blitzing goes, while we don't do it a lot, Willis has had some nice ones. He's got 3 pressures on 9 blitzes. Okereke has blitzed the most (13 times), but has zero pressures.  Probably time to move those attempts to someone else.
    • Pro reference has a cool list of HOF predictions.   https://www.pro-football-reference.com/hof/hofm_QB.htm   He rates just under average for HOFers. The only current HOF guy I’d rate him above is NA math.  There are a few players like Big Ben that rate above him on that list.   i personally think the lack of a championship appearance makes him marginal but I think he will and should get in.   he is essentially a dead heat on this page with Ryan.  Do you rate Ryan as N HOF?  I personally put him in the hall of very good and see him and Rivers at like the cutoff line. I would rate Ryan over Rivers if ATl wouldn’t have blown it against ne.
    • Pro reference has a cool list of HOF predictions.  He rates just under average for HOFers. The only current HOF guy I’d rate him above is NA math.  There are a few players like Big Ben that rate above him on that list.   i personally think the lack of a championship appearance makes him marginal but I think he will and should get in.   he is essentially a dead heat on this page with Ryan.  Do you rate Ryan as N HOF?  I personally put him in the hall of very good and see him and Rivers at like the cutoff line. I would rate Ryan over Rivers if ATl wouldn’t have blown it against ne.
    • Raiders caught KC napping. Bucs were more ready. However, Bucs did look real balanced overall vs both the Packers and Raiders, 2 good teams they beat.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...