Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

it's not because were facing the jags. that's the least of my worries no i'm more afraid because during the time when covid was really bad Florida was a really big hot spot for it. Now i dont know what safety precautions the jags took over there for there stadium but i hope that its enough so that our whole team dont end up testing positive after just one game,:Cry:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shadow_Creek said:

it's not because were facing the jags. that's the least of my worries no i'm more afraid because during the time when covid was really bad Florida was a really big hot spot for it. Now i dont know what safety precautions the jags took over there for there stadium but i hope that its enough so that our whole team dont end up testing positive after just one game,:Cry:

I actually feel the complete opposite and think the Colts are going to destroy Jacksonville week one.

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

it's not because were facing the jags. that's the least of my worries no i'm more afraid because during the time when covid was really bad Florida was a really big hot spot for it. Now i dont know what safety precautions the jags took over there for there stadium but i hope that its enough so that our whole team dont end up testing positive after just one game,:Cry:

Meh I’m not. And you have to remember that a lot of our players live in Florida during the off-season. Besides, Covid 19 isn’t going anywhere, odds are we are all going to get it at some point. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Meh I’m not. And you have to remember that a lot of our players live in Florida during the off-season. Besides, Covid 19 isn’t going anywhere, odds are we are all going to get it at some point. 

If we haven't already. 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, not all of Florida is infected.  Mainly, south FL.  I’m in central FL and you wouldn’t even know it’s an issue based on our numbers.  

 

Secondly, the NFL tested over 8500 players, coaches, staff, etc., multiple times.   6 positives.  
 

I’m not saying it isn’t a concern.  But, IMHO, I think the media makes it seem a lot worse than reality.  
 

When was the last time we won a season opener, or won a game in JAX?  Let’s break both of those streaks!

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

it's not because were facing the jags. that's the least of my worries no i'm more afraid because during the time when covid was really bad Florida was a really big hot spot for it. Now i dont know what safety precautions the jags took over there for there stadium but i hope that its enough so that our whole team dont end up testing positive after just one game,:Cry:

right.  I'm not worried about the game or stadium itself but the team getting there and staying in a hotel, etc.  Being exposed in and around FLA in general is worrisome.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm attending this game, the Jags are selling a limited quantity of seats, and they'll  be socially distanced. In addition, they won't  be accepting cash anywhere in the stadium, and tickets will be mobile.

20200831_132626.jpg

20200831_132906.jpg

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

First of all, not all of Florida is infected.  Mainly, south FL.  I’m in central FL and you wouldn’t even know it’s an issue based on our numbers.  

 

Secondly, the NFL tested over 8500 players, coaches, staff, etc., multiple times.   6 positives.  
 

I’m not saying it isn’t a concern.  But, IMHO, I think the media makes it seem a lot worse than reality.  
 

When was the last time we won a season opener, or won a game in JAX?  Let’s break both of those streaks!

 

 

 

Whoa, 2013 is the last time we won a season opener... it'd be a great trend to turn around, especially against a division opponent.  And 2014 is the last time we won a game at Jacksonville (or neutral site against them).  Seems like most seasons when predicting the outcome before the season, we should have 2 wins over Jax and we haven't swept them in 6 years.  That'd be another good thing to turn around.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Week 1 is our preseason... 

 

The only thing I'm worried about is injury...

 

I'm sort of curious to see how injuries impact the entire NFL in 2020.  The shortened camps and lack of preseason games has to impact this somehow, IMO. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CurBeatElite said:

I'm sort of curious to see how injuries impact the entire NFL in 2020.  The shortened camps and lack of preseason games has to impact this somehow, IMO. 

Here's a great place to follow if you're interested in how all teams are effected. The below tweet is the summary of the 2019 season. Easy to read, but powerful graphical representation. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Here's a great place to follow if you're interested in how all teams are effected. The below tweet is the summary of the 2019 season. Easy to read, but powerful graphical representation. 

 

 

 

Interesting plot.  We had the 13th most injuries in the league it looks like and one of the highest quality players missing time to injury it appears.  Will be interesting to overlay the 2020 plot on the 2019 one to see how this changes in the covid year (and interesting to see if missed games due to covid tests are going to count as injuries or get a separate category).

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

 

Interesting plot.  We had the 13th most injuries in the league it looks like and one of the highest quality players missing time to injury it appears.  Will be interesting to overlay the 2020 plot on the 2019 one to see how this changes in the covid year (and interesting to see if missed games due to covid tests are going to count as injuries or get a separate category).

I like how they use X and Y to show injury total and wins, and use circle size to show AV lost. 

 

I posted this last season when folks were whining because of injury. Yes, we did get hit, but SFO, KC, HOU, and NE all had more injury, same or more AV, but still more wins (and obviously playoff attainment/success). 

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

I like how they use X and Y to show injury total and wins, and use circle size to show AV lost. 

 

I posted this last season when folks were whining because of injury. Yes, we did get hit, but SFO, KC, HOU, and NE all had more injury, same or more AV, but still more wins (and obviously playoff attainment/success). 

 

Yes -- I guess it'd be pretty hard to create a graph which would truly encompass all metrics would be difficult.  For example, KC had a league- MVP candidate at QB, NE had arguably the best QB ever at the helm.  When we lost to HOU 20-17, we had TY back after coming off 3 straight games lost and a plan of keeping him under 30 plays (so he was active, but really a non-factor) and that specific game Mack was hurt.  Also doesn't point out that 3-5 games last year we lost could've been won if field goals and/or extra points were made (based on the score alone).  

 

Also doesn't account for the fact that Jacoby's play noticeably dropped off after hurting his knee midway thru the season, even if he wasn't listed on the injury report in many games he played.. etc.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Yes -- I guess it'd be pretty hard to create a graph which would truly encompass all metrics would be difficult.  For example, KC had a league- MVP candidate at QB, NE had arguably the best QB ever at the helm.  When we lost to HOU 20-17, we had TY back after coming off 3 straight games lost and a plan of keeping him under 30 plays (so he was active, but really a non-factor) and that specific game Mack was hurt.  Also doesn't point out that 3-5 games last year we lost could've been won if field goals and/or extra points were made (based on the score alone).  

 

Also doesn't account for the fact that Jacoby's play noticeably dropped off after hurting his knee midway thru the season, even if he wasn't listed on the injury report in many games he played.. etc.. 

The other teams all dealt with those limitations too. When Mahomey was hobbled for several games but played for example. Point is, because we know every little thing that impacts the Colts, we tend to think we're more impacted than other teams. Maybe it's correct sometimes, but the overwhelming majority of time, we're no different. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

The other teams all dealt with those limitations too. When Mahomey was hobbled for several games but played for example. Point is, because we know every little thing that impacts the Colts, we tend to think we're more impacted than other teams. Maybe it's correct sometimes, but the overwhelming majority of time, we're no different. 

 

True and untrue.  I don't dislike Brissett... is he anywhere near the level Mahommes is at prime form? Or when playing hurt? Probably not...

 sta

Did Mahommes lose 3-5 games because his kicker couldn't make an XP or FG? No, he didn't.  

 

That, however, is what Ballard is seemingly trying to answer - Polian built this team around Peyton.  Grigs built it around Luck.  Ballard has said since day 1 he's building a team where the QB isn't the only accountable player.  He seems to be on the right track... now let's just hope we stay healthy this year.  We should be able to win games even if Brissett is starting over Rivers without having to rely on a point or 2 (assuming Ballard's improvements with additions of Buckner, Rhodes, Taylor, our Rookies, and development of our younger guys likes Q, Leonard, Okereke, Willis, Turay, etc.).  

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

 

True and untrue.  I don't dislike Brissett... is he anywhere near the level Mahommes is at prime form? Or when playing hurt? Probably not...

Nope, but logically if Mahomes has greater value than Brissett, then Mahomes is a greater loss if out, or hobbled. Just hypothetical, but if Mahomes give the team 400 yards per game and 4 TDs, while JB gives the team 200 and 2, and they're both at 50%, KC is losing 200 yards and 2 TD, and the Colts only 1/2 of that.

 

In other words, Mahomes is there identity, and a far greater % of their total O. When JB was out, we were still in position to beat Pitt, but lost late in the 4th because our D couldn't stop Rudolf from going 70ish yards lol. And you can hang the Miami loss on Reich.

1 minute ago, CurBeatElite said:

 sta

Did Mahommes lose 3-5 games because his kicker couldn't make an XP or FG? No, he didn't.

Nope, not 3-4, but 1, yes a missed FG at the end of the game vs TN cost them. They also had a missed FGs vs both Houston and GB. And all four games they lost all had one thing in common. Mahomes was either out, or hobbled with a hurt knee.

1 minute ago, CurBeatElite said:

That, however, is what Ballard is seemingly trying to answer - Polian built this team around Peyton.  Grigs built it around Luck.  Ballard has said since day 1 he's building a team where the QB isn't the only accountable player.  He seems to be on the right track... now let's just hope we stay healthy this year.  We should be able to win games even if Brissett is starting over Rivers without having to rely on a point or 2 (assuming Ballard's improvements with additions of Buckner, Rhodes, Taylor, our Rookies, and development of our younger guys likes Q, Leonard, Okereke, Willis, Turay, etc.).  

All GMs say that. I do agree Ballard is doing a better job actually doing it. But let's face it, if JB is playing, it's still going to be close. While CB is trying to build a team that's not overly dependent on the QB position, that does not mean we won't prioritize having a good QB, or  accept an average or below average one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I like how they use X and Y to show injury total and wins, and use circle size to show AV lost. 

 

I posted this last season when folks were whining because of injury. Yes, we did get hit, but SFO, KC, HOU, and NE all had more injury, same or more AV, but still more wins (and obviously playoff attainment/success). 

Well, those other teams listed didn’t have JB chucking the ball 3 yards downfield either. I think many can agree, a slightly better output from our QB spot last season would have netted this team 3-5 more wins. JB was just that bad for this team and having TY hobbled didn’t help anything from a team that was devoid of talent. Assuming Rivers can play anywhere near his capabilities of his past, he would have secured Indy a playoff team last season under the same circumstances I believe. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Nope, but logically if Mahomes has greater value than Brissett, then Mahomes is a greater loss if out, or hobbled. Just hypothetical, but if Mahomes give the team 400 yards per game and 4 TDs, while JB gives the team 200 and 2, and they're both at 50%, KC is losing 200 yards and 2 TD, and the Colts only 1/2 of that.

 

In other words, Mahomes is there identity, and a far greater % of their total O. When JB was out, we were still in position to beat Pitt, but lost late in the 4th because our D couldn't stop Rudolf from going 70ish yards lol. And you can hang the Miami loss on Reich.

Nope, not 3-4, but 1, yes a missed FG at the end of the game vs TN cost them. They also had a missed FGs vs both Houston and GB. And all four games they lost all had one thing in common. Mahomes was either out, or hobbled with a hurt knee.

All GMs say that. I do agree Ballard is doing a better job actually doing it. But let's face it, if JB is playing, it's still going to be close. While CB is trying to build a team that's not overly dependent on the QB position, that does not mean we won't prioritize having a good QB, or  accept an average or below average one.

I really like what Ballard is doing and has done with this team. My question is, or rather my hope is, that Irsay stays patient if things don’t go the way we all hope this year. 

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

I really like what Ballard is doing and has done with this team. My question is, or rather my hope is, that Irsay stays patient if things don’t go the way we all hope this year. 

The only issue is, what do we do next year if Rivers retires. We're kind of in QB purgatory after this year even with the rest of the team being solid. So I hope Ballard is or has planned something ahead of time that he is looking at, whether it be the draft, a FA, or a trade.

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

The only issue is, what do we do next year if Rivers retires. We're kind of in QB purgatory after this year even with the rest of the team being solid. So I hope Ballard is or has planned something ahead of time that he is looking at, whether it be the draft, a FA, or a trade.

 

$40 mil. plus dollars come off our books if River retires and JB is gone. We can pull a trade for ARodgers if needed, if he is unhappy there. :thmup:

 

Albeit, I think Rivers wouldn't want to uproot his family again and might settle here, so unless his performance falls off a cliff, he'd be open to come back on another 1 year deal, following which we can make plans for ARodgers again while drafting one for the future in 2022 draft if Eason doesn't develop as well in 2 years. :) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Nope, but logically if Mahomes has greater value than Brissett, then Mahomes is a greater loss if out, or hobbled. Just hypothetical, but if Mahomes give the team 400 yards per game and 4 TDs, while JB gives the team 200 and 2, and they're both at 50%, KC is losing 200 yards and 2 TD, and the Colts only 1/2 of that.

 

Not sure I'm totally buying this logic.  If KC is down to 200 yds and 2 TDs and we're down to 100 yds and 1 TD, they're still in better shape.  Also, as you point out the 4 losses for KC were games when Mahommes was out or playing hurt.  That AV figure doesn't seem to just be related to the QB.  For example, we lose a TY who was obviously Brissett's favorite WR and we may be in worse shape than say if KC loses a Tyreek Hill (or if NE lost an Edelman) simply because Brissett seems to struggle with his reads and had a strong tendency to favor going to TY.  A guy like Mahommes or Brady could make do with a loss at TE/WR better than Brissett simply because they have more ability to raise the level of play from the guys around them (kinda like how Luck had Inman looking like a probowler at times and I'm not sure Brissett even knew he was on the field in 2019).  

 

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

All GMs say that. I do agree Ballard is doing a better job actually doing it. But let's face it, if JB is playing, it's still going to be close. While CB is trying to build a team that's not overly dependent on the QB position, that does not mean we won't prioritize having a good QB, or  accept an average or below average one.

 

Right, GMs say those things a lot.  However, it was pretty clear with Grigs at the helm that this team was built around Luck.  With Polian, it was built around Peyton (that's why we went from a superbowl favorite to a 2-14 team with the loss of 1 guy).  Ballard said from the start he saw a flaw of this team was that it relied way too much on Luck.  I don't disagree that Ballard won't accept average or below average QB play (probably exactly why he brought in Rivers)... but he has done a significantly better job in just a few years than Polian or Grigs did over their duration here to have a team that can actually compete in games if we're relying on average QB play (which is what you'll typically get if you need to use a backup).  In previous regimes, we all basically knew it was over if we lost Peyton or Luck for an extended stretch.  Now, at least we have some hope of sticking in games if our back up is on the field.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jdubu said:

Well, those other teams listed didn’t have JB chucking the ball 3 yards downfield either. I think many can agree, a slightly better output from our QB spot last season would have netted this team 3-5 more wins. JB was just that bad for this team and having TY hobbled didn’t help anything from a team that was devoid of talent. Assuming Rivers can play anywhere near his capabilities of his past, he would have secured Indy a playoff team last season under the same circumstances I believe. 

IMO, last year with Luck or Rivers, and we might not have lost a game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, csmopar said:

I really like what Ballard is doing and has done with this team. My question is, or rather my hope is, that Irsay stays patient if things don’t go the way we all hope this year. 

I probably agree with you depending on what you define as patient. I don't want to jump the shark and mortgage the future badly if Rivers does not work out, but I also don't want any more years of JB like mediocrity. I absolutely understand why JB was given the reigns in 17 and 19, and was fine with it. Both of those years were products of Luck being injured or retiring at the last minute. If Rivers tanks (which I doubt he does), my expectation is that they either look for another top FA, or give one of the young guys a shot. 

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

 

Not sure I'm totally buying this logic.  If KC is down to 200 yds and 2 TDs and we're down to 100 yds and 1 TD, they're still in better shape.  Also, as you point out the 4 losses for KC were games when Mahommes was out or playing hurt.  That AV figure doesn't seem to just be related to the QB.  For example, we lose a TY who was obviously Brissett's favorite WR and we may be in worse shape than say if KC loses a Tyreek Hill (or if NE lost an Edelman) simply because Brissett seems to struggle with his reads and had a strong tendency to favor going to TY.  A guy like Mahommes or Brady could make do with a loss at TE/WR better than Brissett simply because they have more ability to raise the level of play from the guys around them (kinda like how Luck had Inman looking like a probowler at times and I'm not sure Brissett even knew he was on the field in 2019).  

It's math. KC may still be in better shape if Mahomes is just hobbled, but they've also lost more (% of O). Just because they are still better with him hobbled, does not mean they haven't lost more. It just means we were bad to begin with. It's just an equation. And if guys like Mahomes or Jackson are totally out, those teams are pretty much dead in the water given their QBs are such a high % of their O. JB is just not that big of a loss comparatively. 

 

8 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

Right, GMs say those things a lot.  However, it was pretty clear with Grigs at the helm that this team was built around Luck.  With Polian, it was built around Peyton (that's why we went from a superbowl favorite to a 2-14 team with the loss of 1 guy).  Ballard said from the start he saw a flaw of this team was that it relied way too much on Luck.  I don't disagree that Ballard won't accept average or below average QB play (probably exactly why he brought in Rivers)... but he has done a significantly better job in just a few years than Polian or Grigs did over their duration here to have a team that can actually compete in games if we're relying on average QB play (which is what you'll typically get if you need to use a backup).  In previous regimes, we all basically knew it was over if we lost Peyton or Luck for an extended stretch.  Now, at least we have some hope of sticking in games if our back up is on the field.

It's very debatable with Polian (having this discussion in a different way in another thread). We actually were top 10 D in two of the Peyton years (1 year top 5), and averaged 18th (in the middle) on D. We also had years where we ran the ball well, and were very balanced. I do agree on little more investment on D might have yielded us a SB or two more, but Polian didn't simply ignore things and go all-in on O. If you look at the draft history, he spent plenty of capital on D. My biggest complaint about him was in FA. Grigs was just clueless. IMO, his biggest problem was he was simply not good at talent evaluation.

 

At the end of the day, we all knew it was over last year when Luck retired. Sure we could have made the playoffs, but most knew a SB was simply a pipe dream at that point.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...