Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

My work computer blocks twitter.  But you are saying there is video of him making the edge on a run play right?

 

 

Still frames of it  (I wish Castonzo didn't miss his block on it either)

 

kCQSNS5.jpg

 

XFB2s1W.jpg

 

H5GWMHi.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 352
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Were we watching the same Taylor?   Because I thought he looked tantalizingly fast, talented, and physical for a rookie RB.   Also looked better catching the ball than I ever expec

Taylor should have gotten the ball on that 4th and 1.

And the history of bad threads from the ol Nickster continues...  

Posted Images

37 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Still frames of it  (I wish Castonzo didn't miss his block on it either)

 

kCQSNS5.jpg

 

XFB2s1W.jpg

 

H5GWMHi.jpg

 

He gained two yds there man.  I'd like to see him cut it up field here for a significant gain.  They were walled off. He doesn't look particularly sharp there planting the left foot and getting up field.  I don't think that is good evidence for making the edge.

 

You and I will have to agree to disagree here.

 

On your second still, I thik its clear that he had a half step  because of his straight line speed, but doesn't really cut it up sharply and gets a minimal game.  This is a type of play that Mack is particulary good at.  

 

This was the play that actually made me think that he wasn't impressive getting to the edge, then I did some research and saw that this is concern in his scouting report.  His lateral running ability is average to below according to those reports, and to me this play is good example of that.

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

He gained two yds there man.  I'd like to see him cut it up field here for a significant gain.  They were walled off. He doesn't look particularly sharp there planting the left foot and getting up field.  I don't think that is good evidence for making the edge.

 

You and I will have to agree to disagree here.

 

On your second still, I thik its clear that he had a half step  because of his straight line speed, but doesn't really cut it up sharply and gets a minimal game.  This is a type of play that Mack is particulary good at.  

 

This was the play that actually made me think that he wasn't impressive getting to the edge, then I did some research and saw that this is concern in his scouting report.  His lateral running ability is average to below according to those reports, and to me this play is good example of that.

 

you're trying way too hard to stick to this misguided notion.  btw, can you provide links to the scouting reports that indicated he struggled getting around the edge?  I looked up several scouting reports (from the more reputable sites) and none of them indicated anything about him struggling getting around the edge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

you're trying way too hard to stick to this misguided notion.  btw, can you provide links to the scouting reports that indicated he struggled getting around the edge?  I looked up several scouting reports (from the more reputable sites) and none of them indicated anything about him struggling getting around the edge.

Career Snapshot
Three-year starter who earned First Team All-America honors in each of his final two seasons at Wisconsin. Rushed for 2,003 yards and 21 touchdowns and caught 26 passes for 252 yards and five TDs as a junior in 2019. Rushed for 2,194 yards and 16 scores as a sophomore. Fell just short of 2,000 rushing yards as a true freshman with 1,977 yards and 13 TDs on 299 carries. Became the first player in FBS history to rush for 6,000 yards over a three-year span.

Positives
A super-productive college ball carrier who is best as a downhill and between-the-numbers runner. Patient, waits for blocks to develop, and finds the running lanes. Runs with authority through the hole, has a tremendous burst of speed, and easily beats defenders into the open field. Strong, breaks the initial tackle and carries defenders for yards at a clip.

Works to get as much yardage as possible from each carry and falls forward when tackled. Displays outstanding vision and football instincts. Terrific pass-catcher out of the backfield who adjusts to the errant throw and makes the reception away from his frame.

Negatives
Does not have quick change-of-direction skills. Can’t improvise or create yardage. Loses momentum when he alters the angle of runs and cannot make defenders miss.

Analysis
Taylor is a tremendous downhill ball carrier who grinds it out on the inside. He comes with a lethal combination of speed and power, but he’s a scheme-limited ball carrier who isn’t skilled enough for every offense. Best as an inside power runner, Taylor will be very productive at the next level in the proper scheme.

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

Career Snapshot
Three-year starter who earned First Team All-America honors in each of his final two seasons at Wisconsin. Rushed for 2,003 yards and 21 touchdowns and caught 26 passes for 252 yards and five TDs as a junior in 2019. Rushed for 2,194 yards and 16 scores as a sophomore. Fell just short of 2,000 rushing yards as a true freshman with 1,977 yards and 13 TDs on 299 carries. Became the first player in FBS history to rush for 6,000 yards over a three-year span.

Positives
A super-productive college ball carrier who is best as a downhill and between-the-numbers runner. Patient, waits for blocks to develop, and finds the running lanes. Runs with authority through the hole, has a tremendous burst of speed, and easily beats defenders into the open field. Strong, breaks the initial tackle and carries defenders for yards at a clip.

Works to get as much yardage as possible from each carry and falls forward when tackled. Displays outstanding vision and football instincts. Terrific pass-catcher out of the backfield who adjusts to the errant throw and makes the reception away from his frame.

Negatives
Does not have quick change-of-direction skills. Can’t improvise or create yardage. Loses momentum when he alters the angle of runs and cannot make defenders miss.

Analysis
Taylor is a tremendous downhill ball carrier who grinds it out on the inside. He comes with a lethal combination of speed and power, but he’s a scheme-limited ball carrier who isn’t skilled enough for every offense. Best as an inside power runner, Taylor will be very productive at the next level in the proper scheme.

 

link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 11:49 AM, Nickster said:

THey gave up 0 sacks in 41 pass attempts.  And very few pressures.  SO they were outstanding in pass pro.  As good as it gets.

 

Backs not named Jonathon Taylor gained 66 yds on 13 carries for a 5.1 ypc which is excellent. 

 

No it appears we weren't watching the same game.  Hell they even average 4 ypc WITH Taylors 2.4 ypc on 9 carries. 

According to the official gamebook the Colts gave up 1 sack for 5 yards, 2 TFL and 4 QH (QB Hits).  So I agree, that is really good for 46 pass attempts.  And only 2 TFL on 22 running plays is really good as well.  It shows that the oline was playing on the positive side of the LOS most of the game.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also did not think Taylor looked impressive running, to me it looked like he was expecting things to work like they did in college, some of the moves he tried in the hole were things in college lead to big gains but the NFL lead to getting tackled faster.

 

But that being said, he did show his speed in the passing game and showed his power a couple of times, so I think this week the coaches and JT are working on hitting the hole full speed and then looking for the cut and the move.

 

Lastly, on the run that we have the screen shots of, of Taylor getting to the outside... that was a 5 yard gain, not a 2 yard gain.  At 9 of 22 JTs line was not impressive, but no reason to not give him credit where credit is due.  And it would have gone for a lot more if AC had been able to seal but instead JT had to run more horizontally towards the sideline for about 5-8 yards longer than he should have.  I don't remember what defense the Chargers were in but it is something that Rivers probably should have brought the TE in motion to the play side so he could have chipped and helped AC get that seal block.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Does not have quick change-of-direction skills. Can’t improvise or create yardage. Loses momentum when he alters the angle of runs and cannot make defenders miss.

This doesn't read as having issues getting to the edge. That tells me he's more of a north/south runner and not a "jitterbug" type of RB, so essentially the opposite of Hines. He's not juking anyone out, but that's not the same as being able to take runs outside.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shive said:

This doesn't read as having issues getting to the edge. That tells me he's more of a north/south runner and not a "jitterbug" type of RB, so essentially the opposite of Hines. He's not juking anyone out, but that's not the same as being able to take runs outside.

You have to make a cut to run around the edge.  North/South Runners aren't usually running to the bourndry and cutting up the field effectively.  Too make and edge you have to run East/West firsts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From everything i saw hes going to be deadly on screens all year long. I like the little stretch run to the left he did in the redzone. Play looked stuffed but he still cut it up, got skinny and gained about 4 or 5 yards. He kind of runs like Cory Dillon to me. I think he will be fine

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nickster said:

You have to make a cut to run around the edge.  North/South Runners aren't usually running to the bourndry and cutting up the field effectively.  Too make and edge you have to run East/West firsts.

He's more of a "one-cut" runner, so while lateral agility isn't a strength of his, he has the speed and explosion to make that cut up the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

According to the official gamebook the Colts gave up 1 sack for 5 yards, 2 TFL and 4 QH (QB Hits).  So I agree, that is really good for 46 pass attempts.  And only 2 TFL on 22 running plays is really good as well.  It shows that the oline was playing on the positive side of the LOS most of the game.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I also did not think Taylor looked impressive running, to me it looked like he was expecting things to work like they did in college, some of the moves he tried in the hole were things in college lead to big gains but the NFL lead to getting tackled faster.

 

But that being said, he did show his speed in the passing game and showed his power a couple of times, so I think this week the coaches and JT are working on hitting the hole full speed and then looking for the cut and the move.

 

Lastly, on the run that we have the screen shots of, of Taylor getting to the outside... that was a 5 yard gain, not a 2 yard gain.  At 9 of 22 JTs line was not impressive, but no reason to not give him credit where credit is due.  And it would have gone for a lot more if AC had been able to seal but instead JT had to run more horizontally towards the sideline for about 5-8 yards longer than he should have.  I don't remember what defense the Chargers were in but it is something that Rivers probably should have brought the TE in motion to the play side so he could have chipped and helped AC get that seal block.

 

I just don't agree.  I think a runner who is good at making a cut upfield which is not a strength of Taylor's makes more of that run.  

11 minutes ago, krunk said:

From everything i saw hes going to be deadly on screens all year long. I like the little stretch run to the left he did in the redzone. Play looked stuffed but he still cut it up, got skinny and gained about 4 or 5 yards. He kind of runs like Cory Dillon to me. I think he will be fine

 

Agree on screens.  He reminds me of a bigger Donald Brown.

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

 

I just don't agree.  I think a runner who is good at making a cut upfield which is not a strength of Taylor's makes more of that run.  

You don't agree with what?  That he got 5 yards instead of the 2 yards you claimed above?

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Agree on screens.  He reminds me of a bigger Donald Brown.

 

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

You don't agree with what?  That he got 5 yards instead of the 2 yards you claimed above?

 

Was it a coverage sack? I never saw Rivers go down at all.

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

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/wisconsin-jonathan-taylor-scouting-report-2020-nfl-draft/

 

and dude I know nothing about Tony Pauline.  I have no input on his credentials.  it's just a scouting report I looked at from a net search.  there are others.

 

yeah I don't know anything about him either.  What I do know is I looked at nfl draft profiles from sites that I've grown to trust somewhat and none of them mentioned anything about lack of speed or inability to get around the edge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

yeah I don't know anything about him either.  What I do know is I looked at nfl draft profiles from sites that I've grown to trust somewhat and none of them mentioned anything about lack of speed or inability to get around the edge.

No one question his speed Jason, but there is more to running on the edges than initial straight line speed.  Equally if not more important is the cut up field, both the power of the cut and knowing when to do it.

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse.  I think JT was unimpressive running and I've said why.  I see your perspective.  

 

I am skeptical.  I hope like every other wisco RB in the last 25 yrs, he's not dependent upon massive obvious holes to be effective in the running game that's all.  I might see something different this week, and I hope to.

 

And to be honest, if he was from any other school but Wisco, I'd probably be less skeptical.  Wisco is kinda like RB Bust U.  Interestingly, James White has been a decent pro but almost all in the passing game.  And Gordon's value came from the passing game.  He's only every had one season when he averaged more than 3.9 ypc.  

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

You don't agree with what?  That he got 5 yards instead of the 2 yards you claimed above?

 

 

23 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

You don't agree with what?  That he got 5 yards instead of the 2 yards you claimed above?

 

Probably mixed up the response intended for someone else.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Nickster said:

No one question his speed Jason, but there is more to running on the edges than initial straight line speed. 

 

I realize that

 

 

Quote

I'm not trying to be obtuse.  I think JT was unimpressive running and I've said why.  I see your perspective.  

 

 

I believe that you're not trying to be obtuse.  Sometimes, though, one does not have to try.  I also get that you have some concerns, possibly legitimate concerns.  I think the biggest problem is you perhaps misrepresented that concern initially when you said, based on the evidence from the game, that Taylor could not get the edge.  Well, a play has been shown that proved you wrong on that.  He did make the edge on one of the more athletic LBs in the NFL for a 5 (not 2) yard gain.

 

Say you don't think he can do that consistently.

 

Say you are concerned about his vision.

 

But for the love of god man, stop trying to stick to this "he can't get the edge" because he showed very clearly that he can.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I was just going by the NFL Gamebook.  And it looks like they are crediting the JB play as a sack.

I couldn't think of the play but Oh yeah the JB option or WTH that was.  Looked like the Funt to me.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

I realize that

 

 

 

 

I believe that you're not trying to be obtuse.  Sometimes, though, one does not have to try.  I also get that you have some concerns, possibly legitimate concerns.  I think the biggest problem is you perhaps misrepresented that concern initially when you said, based on the evidence from the game, that Taylor could not get the edge.  Well, a play has been shown that proved you wrong on that.  He did make the edge on one of the more athletic LBs in the NFL for a 5 (not 2) yard gain.

 

Say you don't think he can do that consistently.

 

Say you are concerned about his vision.

 

But for the love of god man, stop trying to stick to this "he can't get the edge" because he showed very clearly that he can.

 

OK Jason, it is obvious that you are very passionate about this issue.  He did gain 5, I think a good edge runner gets well up the sideline on that play.  You and I disagree.  And. That's. OK.

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

OK Jason, it is obvious that you are very passionate about this issue.  He did gain 5, I think a good edge runner gets well up the sideline on that play.  You and I disagree.  And. That's. OK.

 

Not really.  I just find it incredibly annoying when people get upset and start complaining about things, and then go way overboard making things up that aren't true. 

 

However, nobody said he was a good edge runner.  You said he couldn't get the edge.  Others have said he can because he did.  You keep moving the goalposts to avoid having to admit you made an incorrect statement.  First it was, 'he can't get the edge', but now it's 'well he did and he got 5 yards but I thought he should have gotten more'. 

 

The lengths that some people go to so as to avoid having to admit they may have been wrong about something simply astounds me. 

13 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I was just going by the NFL Gamebook.  And it looks like they are crediting the JB play as a sack.

 

makes sense...looked like an RPO.  I don't think there was ever any intention of Brissett running the ball himself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Not really.  I just find it incredibly annoying when people get upset and start complaining about things, and then go way overboard making things up that aren't true. 

 

However, nobody said he was a good edge runner.  You said he couldn't get the edge.  Others have said he can because he did.  You keep moving the goalposts to avoid having to admit you made an incorrect statement.  First it was, 'he can't get the edge', but now it's 'well he did and he got 5 yards but I thought he should have gotten more'. 

 

The lengths that some people go to so as to avoid having to admit they may have been wrong about something simply astounds me. 

I don't know man.  you sound like my wife now. 

 

I don't think he is going to be a good edge runner.  Sometimes we say something like he can't make the edge, meaning he's not good at making the edge.

Only Siths deal in absolutes.  Hyperbole is used in this world.

 

I can make the edge if there is a sniper in the crowd taking out the defense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit that I was not impressed with his running.   I guess I just expected more from all the hype.  Hopefuly Hines, Taylor and a bit of Wilkens can provide what is needed.  

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

I don't know man.  you sound like my wife now. 

 

I don't think he is going to be a good edge runner.  Sometimes we say something like he can't make the edge, meaning he's not good at making the edge.

Only Siths deal in absolutes.  Hyperbole is used in this world.

 

I can make the edge if there is a sniper in the crowd taking out the defense.  

 

Perhaps you should listen to your wife. Odd because that usually goes the other way around. The man has to beg the wife to say what she means (easy ladies,im only joking... Kind of)

 

Say what you mean.. People here aren't mind readers.   Hyperbole is used in this world, way over used in fact, but it very rarely helps to advance a constructive conversation. Look how many responses we've gone through when you simply could have said "I don't think he'll be good running around the edge". It took me about 15 seconds to type that out and I'm on my phone. 

 

This is always a problem on here after a loss because a lot of people can't simply talk about what actually went wrong but instead have to go way overboard making up stupid crap that isn't true just to make themselves feel better about the anger and frustration they're feeling. 

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

I'll admit that I was not impressed with his running.   I guess I just expected more from all the hype.  Hopefuly Hines, Taylor and a bit of Wilkens can provide what is needed.  

I was impressed with his pass catching abilities.

IMO he will get better when he gets more adjusted to the speed of NFL players. He was used to being the best in college but now he is facing NFL caliber players. 

The lack of not having pre season games with the new players showed big time. 

The whole team including the coaches just didn't play sharp. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Perhaps you should listen to your wife. Odd because that usually goes the other way around. The man has to beg the wife to say what she means (easy ladies,im only joking... Kind of)

 

Say what you mean.. People here aren't mind readers.   Hyperbole is used in this world, way over used in fact, but it very rarely helps to advance a constructive conversation. Look how many responses we've gone through when you simply could have said "I don't think he'll be good running around the edge". It took me about 15 seconds to type that out and I'm on my phone. 

 

This is always a problem on here after a loss because a lot of people can't simply talk about what actually went wrong but instead have to go way overboard making up stupid crap that isn't true just to make themselves feel better about the anger and frustration they're feeling. 

 

That's funny dude.  I probably should listen to my wife more. 

 

I DON"T THINK JONATHON TAYLOR SHOWED HE IS GOING TO BE GOOD AT MAKING THE EDGE.  I WAS UNIMPRESSED WITH HIS CARRIES.  There, that is what I meant.

 

To me it's very annoying when someone tries to break down language as if they were in a game of GOTCHA, which seems like what you are doing. 

 

Are you a lawyer perhaps?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Perhaps you should listen to your wife. Odd because that usually goes the other way around. The man has to beg the wife to say what she means (easy ladies,im only joking... Kind of)

 

Say what you mean.. People here aren't mind readers.   Hyperbole is used in this world, way over used in fact, but it very rarely helps to advance a constructive conversation. Look how many responses we've gone through when you simply could have said "I don't think he'll be good running around the edge". It took me about 15 seconds to type that out and I'm on my phone. 

 

This is always a problem on here after a loss because a lot of people can't simply talk about what actually went wrong but instead have to go way overboard making up stupid crap that isn't true just to make themselves feel better about the anger and frustration they're feeling. 

 

I mean come on dude.  We would have said Shaq can't make foul shots, when he makes overy half of them.  We would say Baez can't hit the low outside slider when he does in fact hit it sometimes.  We say things like he can't dance when in fact he is out there shaking his adz.  We say she can't cook when we are in fact eating the dinner that she cooked.

 

If you are not a native English speaker, then maybe you need more precision in language.  It is difficult to understand nuancee for non native speakers of any languge.  Come on dude.

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

 

I mean come on dude.  We would have said Shaq can't make foul shots, when he makes overy half of them.  We would say Baez can't hit the low outside slider when he does in fact hit it sometimes.  We say things like he can't dance when in fact he is out there shaking his adz.  We say she can't cook when we are in fact eating the dinner that she cooked.

 

If you are not a native English speaker, then maybe you need more precision in language.  It is difficult to understand nuancee for non native speakers of any languge.  Come on dude.

You sure are an argumentative dude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Well what is a message board for if not to argue man?  

There is a difference between discussing, debating and talking rather than arguing. 

Just because someone else has a different opinion or a different point of view does not make them wrong. 

If everyone thought the same there would be no need for a forum. 

 

 

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

Well what is a message board for if not to argue man?  

 

the purpose of a message board is to facilitate discussion, not argue.  At least that's the purpose of this one.

 

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

That's funny dude.  I probably should listen to my wife more. 

 

I DON"T THINK JONATHON TAYLOR SHOWED HE IS GOING TO BE GOOD AT MAKING THE EDGE.  I WAS UNIMPRESSED WITH HIS CARRIES.  There, that is what I meant.

 

To me it's very annoying when someone tries to break down language as if they were in a game of GOTCHA, which seems like what you are doing. 

 

Are you a lawyer perhaps?

 

 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I am in IT and I'm responsible for drafting procedural documentation that has to be accurate.  However this really doesn't have anything to do with that.  You've been on this board long enough I know you've had to have seen some of the ridiculous posts that get made around here, especially after a loss, after the draft and after the first wave of free agency.  Some people just have to go so far overboard when they get upset that it derails potentially productive discussion. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I mean come on dude.  We would have said Shaq can't make foul shots, when he makes overy half of them.  We would say Baez can't hit the low outside slider when he does in fact hit it sometimes.  We say things like he can't dance when in fact he is out there shaking his adz.  We say she can't cook when we are in fact eating the dinner that she cooked.

 

If you are not a native English speaker, then maybe you need more precision in language.  It is difficult to understand nuancee for non native speakers of any languge.  Come on dude.

 

I don't know who the 'we' is you're referring to but I would not be included in it.  I'd have said Shaq sucks at making foul shots.  I wouldn't have said anything about Baez because I literally could not care less about baseball.  Saying he 'can't dance' is a little more subjective because it depends on the definition the person has of what 'dancing' means.  And finally I'd simply say I don't care for her cooking or her cooking sucks. 

 

I am a native english speaker.  I honestly don't know how far back in my family tree I'd have to go to find an ancestor that was not born here in the US.  I think you need to 'come on dude' yourself...English is not really difficult to understand.  There are plenty of words in the english language that you can use to say what you really mean.  If, after the first post of proof that Taylor got the edge on Jack you would have simply said, "ok maybe I misspoke.  I should have said I thought he could have done better" then this would have ended.  Instead, you dug your heels in, stuck to your narrative that he cannot even though multiple members posted that you were wrong and even showed proof.  Only after all that happened did you finally clarify and say that you thought he should have done better. 

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

There is a difference between discussing, debating and talking rather than arguing. 

Just because someone else has a different opinion or a different point of view does not make them wrong. 

If everyone thought the same there would be no need for a forum. 

 

 

When did I do what you are suggesting?  Did I ever tell you you were wrong?  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

the purpose of a message board is to facilitate discussion, not argue.  At least that's the purpose of this one.

 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I am in IT and I'm responsible for drafting procedural documentation that has to be accurate.  However this really doesn't have anything to do with that.  You've been on this board long enough I know you've had to have seen some of the ridiculous posts that get made around here, especially after a loss, after the draft and after the first wave of free agency.  Some people just have to go so far overboard when they get upset that it derails potentially productive discussion. 

 

 

 

I don't know who the 'we' is you're referring to but I would not be included in it.  I'd have said Shaq sucks at making foul shots.  I wouldn't have said anything about Baez because I literally could not care less about baseball.  Saying he 'can't dance' is a little more subjective because it depends on the definition the person has of what 'dancing' means.  And finally I'd simply say I don't care for her cooking or her cooking sucks. 

 

I am a native english speaker.  I honestly don't know how far back in my family tree I'd have to go to find an ancestor that was not born here in the US.  I think you need to 'come on dude' yourself...English is not really difficult to understand.  There are plenty of words in the english language that you can use to say what you really mean.  If, after the first post of proof that Taylor got the edge on Jack you would have simply said, "ok maybe I misspoke.  I should have said I thought he could have done better" then this would have ended.  Instead, you dug your heels in, stuck to your narrative that he cannot even though multiple members posted that you were wrong and even showed proof.  Only after all that happened did you finally clarify and say that you thought he should have done better. 

 

Oh I was definitely venting about what was a pretty shocking performance Sunday.  I said a few time much earlier in this thread that I should have entitled it JT Unimpressive Running, instead of Unimpressive period.

 

It takes to to argue man.  I consider it debate and I think it's fun. 

 

You want to call it arguing fine.  Doesn't bother me.  

 

I was very anti JB last year and felt that it was obvious very early on that despite some seeming "team Success" he wasn't good enough.

 

With Taylor, I didn't see anything encouraging on his carries.  Straight line backs from Wisco often struggle in the League.  Iam not sure he will not be as effective running as advertised, but I am leanig that way right now.  

 

How can I argue with myself man?  It takes two. Now I don't feel like what we are doing is negative.  Seems like you do. OK fine with me.  You don't respond I won't respond.  

You and I must have disagreements on convential language usage.  You are IT; I was an English major, probably has a lot to do with how we view language.  

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

 

Oh I was definitely venting about what was a pretty shocking performance Sunday.  I said a few time much earlier in this thread that I should have entitled it JT Unimpressive Running, instead of Unimpressive period.

 

It takes to to argue man.  I consider it debate and I think it's fun. 

 

 

 

It does take 2 (not to...are you sure I'm the one who needs help with the english language? :P ) to argue but it only takes one to say, 'you know what, I misspoke.  Let me clarify...."

 

 

Quote

You want to call it arguing fine.  Doesn't bother me. 

 

hold up, YOU'RE the one who called it arguing, not me.   See below :P

 

26 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Well what is a message board for if not to argue man?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J@son said:

 

It does take 2 (not to...are you sure I'm the one who needs help with the english language? :P ) to argue but it only takes one to say, 'you know what, I misspoke.  Let me clarify...."

 

 

 

hold up, YOU'RE the one who called it arguing, not me.   See below :P

 

 

Ok it might have been someone else that said arguing.  

 

Cool Jason I'm good.  You and I can look at that 5 yd. run and think different things.  But are you really saying you don't know what people mean when they say Shaq can't make foul shots?

 

JK man.

2 minutes ago, TheMose said:

Is this fun for you guys?

Well yeah it is for me man.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

 

You and I must have disagreements on convential language usage.  You are IT; I was an English major, probably has a lot to do with how we view language.  

 

I guess so.  I simply believe that words should be used in such a way as to reflect their actual definition. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J@son said:

 

I guess so.  I simply believe that words should be used in such a way as to reflect their actual definition. :)

 

It's been fun.  


I tend to have different ideas about argumentation and debate.  I think they can keep peole sharp mentally as long as they try to use reason and not emotion.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nadine locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I bet you are 1000% wrong.   Nelson is the biggest name in the league at G, and it's not even close.  A "bad" Nelson (that gets called for ticky-tack holds that happen on every single NFL play) is still better than 90% of the guards in the NFL.   Your hot-take posts are getting very tiresome.  
    • They have contributed as much their rookie year as the entire group maybe by end of the season, but I doubt there's even a tiny chance of 2 all pros. Even 1 is a major stretch.  I am not sure we have any all pro's on the team since the most deserving one is Buckner (who I count as our first round pick in every way) has impact but no stats to wow anyone not intimately aware of his impact. If he misses this game we may painfully see how valuable.  But their collective impact has certainly added up. 4 starters and 2 solid special teamers in a so far playoff level team is quite a haul for any draft pick class in history.  It is at least adjacent to 2018, unless you don't count Buckner in any way.
    • Nothing against you and I like you as a poster but counting Ballard's 2017 season is a stretch. I realize he was the GM that year (1st year) but he didn't have the Coach he wanted and Luck was out for the year. We went 4-12 that year so his record is a bit skewed because of that. Others have posted the same thing about Ballard's record so you are not the only one and I just don't see how anyone can count that season legitimately. I pretty much go by 2018-this year when he hired Frank and his record would be 25-19 counting the playoffs. Is he the best GM in the league, probably not but he is good. He is responsible for drafting Nelson, Leonard, Mack, signing Houston, signing Rivers and trading for Buckner = great work there. Luck just retiring on the team and McDaniels dissing him even made his job that much harder. 
    • I am late to the party but it doesn't matter because I would've been 1-1 anyway. I had the Lions and Washington so it offsets     Here are my Sunday picks/Monday pick: Ravens 17 Steelers 24 Chargers 19 Bills 27 Titans 27 Colts 30 Panthers 20 Vikings 21 Browns 27 Jags 17 Giants 24 Bengals 10 Cards 27 Pats 23 Dolphins 99 Jets 0 (Fluke's original quote) Saints 24 Broncos 13 49ers 17 Rams 30 Chiefs 34 Bucs 24 Bears 17 Packers 27 Seahawks 31 Eagles 17
    • Yes, love the limited stuff from Harris. I really want to see more routes from him, but overall, love what he's doing. I'd love for him to be a long term answer at slot if Campbell moves to Z.    I'm up in the air on specs. I need to see him hit some long ones, as well as some additional clutch kicks. Glasgow, like I said, I just don't expect much from. Doubt he's ever a contributor on D, but if he kills it on ST, I'm happy.    A buddy of mine (a Ball State grad/fan), thinks Pinter develops into a RT, and the Colts will eventually move Smith over to LT (when AC retires), and let Pinter take RT. I don't know about all that, but I do agree Pinter might develop into more than we think.    I think Pittman will develop into a long term and consistent WR for us. I know he's just starting to emerge, but he just has the look. Good/willing blocker, good hands, etc.. He might not be the 50/50 guy I want, but I also think he might be better at in-stride catching than I thought.    JT, I think he'll be fine once he gets acclimated and use to the run blocking scheme. I don't want to diminish his talent, but most RBs should be able to be successful behind our OL, and he's better than most.    Blackmon is the most interesting to me. He's always been a hammer which I love. He's struggled though in coverage in college, and as we saw, got burnt deep a few games ago. Not sure if he's too aggressive forward, or just struggles with coverage and range. I hope it's just aggressiveness. It definitely helped him when they moved him from CB to S in college, but at the same time, Utah ran a ton of man, which we do not. Love most of what I've seen thus far. I just hope it's not a case where teams get film on him, and start testing him deep a lot. We've been fortunate to play some bad Os early that simply don't go deep a bunch. Will be interesting to follow.
  • Members

    • pgt_rob

      pgt_rob 2,494

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solon

      Solon 586

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DynaMike

      DynaMike 33

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nancy

      Nancy 81

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Lucky Colts Fan

      Lucky Colts Fan 6,658

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mr. Irrelevant

      Mr. Irrelevant 1,117

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Virtuoso80

      Virtuoso80 540

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CR91

      CR91 11,040

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BeanDiasucci

      BeanDiasucci 152

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mick12Maher

      Mick12Maher 74

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