Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colt's picked as Super Bowl Sleeper by NFL Network.


Recommended Posts

NFL Network’s Cynthia Frelund Picks Colts as ‘Super Bowl Sleeper’ Ahead of 2022 Season

The Colts received more high praise from another national media member.

By Luke Schultheis 

 

According to NFL Network’s Cynthia Frelund, the Indianapolis Colts are her ‘sleeper pick’ to win this season’s Super Bowl Championship:

Of course, a start would be the Colts winning the AFC South again, which the franchise has not accomplished since 2014 (and has the longest current drought of any AFC South squad).

That being said, there’s real reasons for optimism in Indianapolis right now.

The Colts already had a fairly well balanced roster and with the big offseason additions of starting quarterback Matt Ryan, pass rusher Yannick Ngakoue, and cornerback Stephon Gilmore, it’s hard not to see how they significantly improved this offseason.

Ryan should provide much needed leadership, consistency, and accuracy to the Colts starting quarterback position that was sorely lacking last season.

Meanwhile, Ngakoue provides a consistent impact speed edge rusher to further complement All-Pro DeForest Buckner’s interior push—and a natural as new defensive coordinator Gus Bradley’s ‘LEO’, lining up ‘wide-9’ to get after the opposing quarterback.

Then you have Gilmore, who should provide a #1 veteran cornerback presence with ball skills and give the Colts secondary a linchpin in steady, reliable coverage—often lining up across from the opposing team’s best receiver.

Not to mention, the Colts have a number of rookies who could immediately contribute including wideout Alec Pierce, tight end Jelani Woods, and safety Nick Cross among others.

The Colts defense truly has a chance to ascend into a Top 3 overall unit this season, but their ultimate team success may come down to just how much Ryan has left in the tank and whether their passing game can do enough to make their offense legitimately well-balanced and dangerous (to pair with First-Team All-Pro workhorse Jonathan Taylor and the dominant ground game).

Given what’s already transpired this offseason, hoisting an elusive Lombardi Trophy isn’t all that unreasonable. The Colts shouldn’t be currently considered a favorite by any means, but it’s not completely out of the question either that Indy could eventually emerge as a potential darkhorse. Winning the AFC South though should be the start.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She can talk some smack on analytics.

Smarter than most of the hot take reporters / personalities out there. And she's super hot. 

Highly doubt it happens, but we have a lot of things that could realistically fall our way. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never know in the NFL. I've seen it change every weekend during the season.

A team from out of no where gets hot and/or a team with all the right players cant get it together.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand her selection of the Colts as her sleeper pick.  I have always thought the trade for Ryan could have the same outcome as the Rams trading for Stafford.  Especially after seeing how effective Rivers was for the Colts in just one season.  We have a lot more going for us this year.  If we could win the South and get a high seed as the other contenders beat each other up it definitely could happen.  I’m with her.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I can understand her selection of the Colts as her sleeper pick.  I have always thought the trade for Ryan could have the same outcome as the Rams trading for Stafford.  Especially after seeing how effective Rivers was for the Colts in just one season.  We have a lot more going for us this year.  If we could win the South and get a high seed as the other contenders beat each other up it definitely could happen.  I’m with her.

I agree. If Cincy can make the SB why not us? Nobody picked Cincy to make the SB and they damn near won it. Matt Ryan gives us hope. Had we got Baker I would've had us at 9-8, Mariota 8-9, 8-9 with Trubisky as well. How we got Matt was a miracle too. I see us going 11-6, maybe 12-5.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

She can talk some smack on analytics.

Smarter than most of the hot take reporters / personalities out there. And she's super hot. 

Highly doubt it happens, but we have a lot of things that could realistically fall our way. 

When it comes to analytics she knows her stuff. It has my brain scrambled, and she is hot :thmup:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, EastStreet said:

She can talk some smack on analytics.

Smarter than most of the hot take reporters / personalities out there. And she's super hot. 

Highly doubt it happens, but we have a lot of things that could realistically fall our way. 

Super hot you say? Now I have to do some research lol

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 11:32 PM, EastStreet said:

she's super hot. 

Yet I'm sure that has nothing to do with her landing the job. :thmup: Have to wonder who fed her those lines to say.

 

So sick of the token bubbled beach blonde (sorry Mr Henley) in the NFL. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jonjon said:

Yet I'm sure that has nothing to do with her landing the job. :thmup: Have to wonder who fed her those lines to say.

 

So sick of the token bubbled beach blonde (sorry Mr Henley) in the NFL. 

 

Most talking heads are given a script to drive home the narrative the network wants. 

Imho, live tv is not entrusted in many. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Super hot you say? Now I have to do some research lol

like @LJpalmbeacher2 said, she has some very nice segments.

 

12 hours ago, jonjon said:

Yet I'm sure that has nothing to do with her landing the job. :thmup: Have to wonder who fed her those lines to say.

 

So sick of the token bubbled beach blonde (sorry Mr Henley) in the NFL. 

 

She's got a history in analytics. Very smart girl. I'm sure she as a team to prep her (like everyone does), but she got the job because she knows here stuff. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not us? I truthfully believe if we made the playoffs last year we could have done some damage. I felt we could play with and beat anyone. Sadly we beat ourselves before we could see what we had.

Off-season moves have me feeling perhaps a little too optimistic.Just in terms of QB play trading Wentz for Ryan is like trading bucket steak for NY Strip. Just thinking about teams not being able to load the box on Taylor has me salivating at the possibilities. Play actions could be our BnB this year. Add in Hines being utilized correctly and I think this offense could be pretty scary. Pittman will only get better with Ryan throwing him the ball and will see a lot more YAC possibilities. The addition of Gilmore and Ngakoue on the defensive side bolsters an already solid defense. I think Cross could be the pick we're all talking about at the end of next year. 

Maybe I'm in the minority here but I think we make a pretty deep run this year. This team is going to take a lot of people by surprise. Competitors like Nelson and Leonard aren't going to forget last year and the taste of how our season ended. We're going to surprise a lot of people. Go Colts :coltshelmet:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2022 at 8:31 AM, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Most talking heads are given a script to drive home the narrative the network wants. 

Imho, live tv is not entrusted in many. 

 


This is false.    Most talking heads write their own material.   And I say that as someone who used to write for talking heads.   My situation was more the exception to the rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:


This is false.    Most talking heads write their own material.   And I say that as someone who used to write for talking heads.   My situation was more the exception to the rule. 

 

There are plenty of examples of ESPN for instance, playing up, or down, different narratives, or up or down particular  conferences and teams. 

 

Take the Salituro/China situation. After the criticism by Morey, ESPN issued an internal memo to basically not discuss the Hong Kong protests and topic. Even displayed Taiwan as part of China on a map. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

There are plenty of examples of ESPN for instance, playing up, or down, different narratives, or up or down particular  conferences and teams. 

 

Take the Salituro/China situation. After the criticism by Morey, ESPN issued an internal memo to basically not discuss the Hong Kong protests and topic. Even displayed Taiwan as part of China on a map. 


Youre talking about a handful of highly controversial instances.   
 

Im talking about day to day life.   What is on Sports Center or the talking head opinion shows.    The stuff that most people are watching ESPN for. 
 

What you’re talking about is roughly less than 5 percent of ESPN, maybe less.   What I’m talking about is more than 95 percent. 
 

Two completely different worlds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:


This is false.    Most talking heads write their own material.   And I say that as someone who used to write for talking heads.   My situation was more the exception to the rule. 

 

Respectfully  disagree my friend.

They may write their own material BUT if they do it's on the subject the producers want AND it has the narrative the networks want which is why they have meetings before the show with the producers.....and of course it helps if it's ENTERTAINING. Lol

 

Case in point.....I'm going way back. John Clayton & Sean Salisbury did their act on a somewhat semi regular basis.

Salisbury would always criticize Peyton Manning and Clayton would always defend him. 

This went on for a handful of years early on Peyton's career. Once it became obvious that he was elite the act had to stop.

 

Imo, very few are trusted to come on National Television and get to say anything they want or feel like at that moment. 

 

If anyone watches the acts of Shannon Sharpe & Skip.... Steven A & Max etc.....etc....you can tell it it's scripted & staged and meant to be entertaining. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Respectfully  disagree my friend.

They may write their own material BUT if they do it's on the subject the producers want AND it has the narrative the networks want which is why they have meetings before the show with the producers.....and of course it helps if it's ENTERTAINING. Lol

 

Case in point.....I'm going way back. John Clayton & Sean Salisbury did their act on a somewhat semi regular basis.

Salisbury would always criticize Peyton Manning and Clayton would always defend him. 

This went on for a handful of years early on Peyton's career. Once it became obvious that he was elite the act had to stop.

 

Imo, very few are trusted to come on National Television and get to say anything they want or feel like at that moment. 

 

If anyone watches the acts of Shannon Sharpe & Skip.... Steven A & Max etc.....etc....you can tell it it's scripted & staged and meant to be entertaining. 


Well….  One of us was in the business and the other wasn’t.   
 

On the opinion shows, of course they want it entertaining.   They want viewers.  Issues can be presented dry as toast or they can be presented in an interesting and entertaining way.   But no talking head is saying things they don’t believe.   They say what they think. 
 

There are pre-production meetings to talk about topics and to give each side time to do some research to make counter-arguments and to write things out.   No talent is being forced to say things they don’t believe for the sake of good tv.   If they did,  wouldn’t somebody say that by now?  ESPN has let go of hundreds and hundreds of on-air talent due to layoffs and other cost-cutting.   Wouldn’t someone have made that claim by now?   Wouldn’t numerous people have made that claim? 
 

Good on-air talent are paid big money to think and articulate in an interesting and entertaining way.   I don’t like Stephen A. Smith, but that’s why he makes $10-12 million per.   No one is writing scripts for him.   Same with Mike Greenberg and all the other on-air talent. 
 

Honestly.   I’m not messing with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "a sleeper to win it all"?

So if she gives us her pick to win it, would it be the Colts?   I doubt it.  

So she would be willing to say the Colts might be able to, but she won't back it up as her pick.

 

My sleeper picks:

Cowboys

Packers

Patriots

Ravens

Cardinals

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Myles said:

What is "a sleeper to win it all"?

So if she gives us her pick to win it, would it be the Colts?   I doubt it.  

So she would be willing to say the Colts might be able to, but she won't back it up as her pick.

 

My sleeper picks:

Cowboys

Packers

Patriots

Ravens

Cardinals

 

The Cowboys have been hyped as sleepers since I started watching the NFL - they are going nowhere until the Joneses give up their meddling to actual GMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Solid84 said:

The Cowboys have been hyped as sleepers since I started watching the NFL - they are going nowhere until the Joneses give up their meddling to actual GMs.

I think picking "sleepers" allows you to pick teams that are possibly capable but you don't really think it will happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:


Youre talking about a handful of highly controversial instances.   
 

Im talking about day to day life.   What is on Sports Center or the talking head opinion shows.    The stuff that most people are watching ESPN for. 
 

What you’re talking about is roughly less than 5 percent of ESPN, maybe less.   What I’m talking about is more than 95 percent. 
 

Two completely different worlds. 

 

There is a very long history of playing up or down teams and conferences for particular reasons. For instance in MLB, the NY teams and Boston due to proximity have always got preferential coverage. In college sports, whatever conference they are affiliated with. Those are not a handful of instances. Folks have been complaining about it for 20+ years. 

 

The China issue is just one of the handful of instances where they actually got caught red handed. And for a good while, they were leaning extremely hard to one side politically. They've tried to become more moderate of late due to household sub loss. They've been in decline in that area since 2011. Regardless, their credibility has taken many hits. Their saving grace is they simply have games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

There is a very long history of playing up or down teams and conferences for particular reasons. For instance in MLB, the NY teams and Boston due to proximity have always got preferential coverage. In college sports, whatever conference they are affiliated with. Those are not a handful of instances. Folks have been complaining about it for 20+ years. 

 

The China issue is just one of the handful of instances where they actually got caught red handed. And for a good while, they were leaning extremely hard to one side politically. They've tried to become more moderate of late due to household sub loss. They've been in decline in that area since 2011. Regardless, their credibility has taken many hits. Their saving grace is they simply have games. 

 

The catering to teams or conferences is NOT politics.    It's business.    What teams attract the most viewers?    Major markets.     What conferences attract the most viewers.     The best ones.      And if you were running ESPN,  you'd do the EXACT SAME THING.

 

They're not trying to give equal times to all 32 NFL teams, and all 30 baseball teams and all 30 NBA teams and so on.

 

And it's the slame for the NFL Network.    Do you know when i typically see replays of Colts games?    From midnight to 3a my times,  3a to 6a east coast time.    When most viewers are sleeping.    Because most viewers don't watch the NFL Network.    They don't pay for the upgraded cable to get the NFLN.    The Colts get viewers when we're great.   Like when Peyton Manning was the QB.     Otherwise.....    not so much.

 

Again,   this is just good business,  and not politics.     You do it too.     So do all good businesses.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The catering to teams or conferences is NOT politics.    It's business.    What teams attract the most viewers?    Major markets.     What conferences attract the most viewers.     The best ones.      And if you were running ESPN,  you'd do the EXACT SAME THING.

 

They're not trying to give equal times to all 32 NFL teams, and all 30 baseball teams and all 30 NBA teams and so on.

 

And it's the slame for the NFL Network.    Do you know when i typically see replays of Colts games?    From midnight to 3a my times,  3a to 6a east coast time.    When most viewers are sleeping.    Because most viewers don't watch the NFL Network.    They don't pay for the upgraded cable to get the NFLN.    The Colts get viewers when we're great.   Like when Peyton Manning was the QB.     Otherwise.....    not so much.

 

Again,   this is just good business,  and not politics.     You do it too.     So do all good businesses.

 

 

 

You're actually proving our points. So thank you. 

 

The conversation was more about "narrative", not "politics", but politics is indeed one of the narratives that ESPN has been criticized for. 

 

So you acknowledge ESPN plays up or down teams or markets. And it's been clear over the years that the teams and markets played up were teams and markets ESPN had a either a financial relationship, or enjoyed some type of proximity benefit, or both. 

 

So why are you proving the point?

 

@LJpalmbeacher2 statement was

"Most talking heads are given a script to drive home the narrative the network wants. 

Imho, live tv is not entrusted in many"

 

So if you agree that ESPN is playing up teams or conferences due to ratings or financial agreements, then how can you say we should trust the journalistic aspects of their reporting? If you have biases, if you slant coverage, if you fluff up teams or conferences over others, then why in the world would we trust?

 

And yes, it's absolutely about business. ACC and SEC big money, and other big dollars elsewhere will do that. But business/ratings is not journalism to trust. It's simply entertainment driven by bias due to capitalistic gain. 

 

Even the political aspects of ESPN criticism can be driven back to bias and $$. They shushed the China criticism because they didn't want to impact their Chinese market share. And they took a hard left in terms of general politics for a long ride, until they found it was impacting their bottom line, then they tried to backtrack. 

 

At the end of the day, they are still losing households (since 2011). Cable companies only include them in their basic offering because they have too, and that's 99% because of the games, not because of the reporting and non-game programming. Direct deals for streams will likely eat at their games over the next 10 years, and it'll be interesting to see what happens once the SEC contract runs out in 2030s. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

You're actually proving our points. So thank you. 

 

The conversation was more about "narrative", not "politics", but politics is indeed one of the narratives that ESPN has been criticized for. 

 

So you acknowledge ESPN plays up or down teams or markets. And it's been clear over the years that the teams and markets played up were teams and markets ESPN had a either a financial relationship, or enjoyed some type of proximity benefit, or both. 

 

So why are you proving the point?

 

@LJpalmbeacher2 statement was

"Most talking heads are given a script to drive home the narrative the network wants. 

Imho, live tv is not entrusted in many"

 

So if you agree that ESPN is playing up teams or conferences due to ratings or financial agreements, then how can you say we should trust the journalistic aspects of their reporting? If you have biases, if you slant coverage, if you fluff up teams or conferences over others, then why in the world would we trust?

 

And yes, it's absolutely about business. ACC and SEC big money, and other big dollars elsewhere will do that. But business/ratings is not journalism to trust. It's simply entertainment driven by bias due to capitalistic gain. 

 

Even the political aspects of ESPN criticism can be driven back to bias and $$. They shushed the China criticism because they didn't want to impact their Chinese market share. And they took a hard left in terms of general politics for a long ride, until they found it was impacting their bottom line, then they tried to backtrack. 

 

At the end of the day, they are still losing households (since 2011). Cable companies only include them in their basic offering because they have too, and that's 99% because of the games, not because of the reporting and non-game programming. Direct deals for streams will likely eat at their games over the next 10 years, and it'll be interesting to see what happens once the SEC contract runs out in 2030s. 


Yeah….   No.   You only THINK I’m making your point.   Par for the course.   You think EVERYONE proves your point — even when they don’t.  Lol. 
 

Again, what you complain about is done by EVERYONE, not just ESPN.  It’s done by the NFLN, by the MLB Network, the NBA Channel, the NHL Network.   You’re giving the people what they want.   ESPN is in bed with the biggest and the best.   Telling you the SEC is best in football is only stating the obvious.   But ESPN also championed Cincinnati to make the Final 4, and they did.  So props to them.   But ESPN is not trying to convince anyone that a lesser conference they have a relationship with (like the PAC-12) is better than it is.  They’re not doing anything to skew the sports world by trying to puff-up lesser conferences or teams.  Poppycock. 
 

As for the China story….   The issue is worth BILLIONS of dollars.  Literally BILLIONS.   Of course ESPN is going to be extra careful about what they say and don’t say.  Would you risk BILLIONS to let Stephen A or some other on-air talent go on some long rant that might pour gasoline on the fire?   Of course not.   There’s no upside.  They’re trying to make smart business decisions as you do in your business. 


Losing subscribers is not surprising….   The entire entertainment world is fractured, likely forever.  People are leaving for all sorts of reasons.   Some for cost, some for politics.  Neither is a surprise.   People have more choice.    But this includes movies, television, music, news ….  You name it. 
 

Let’s be honest….  You don’t like most media. They’re too liberal for you.   They’re guilty until they prove their innocence.   You find a way of making smart logical business decisions as somehow bad and proving your point.   Preposterous.   Lol. 
 

Your posts about Holder prove your hate of media.  Your views are not supported by any facts, but you have jumped to every negative conclusion.   Again, par for the course. 
 

Beyond agreeing that today is Wednesday, I doubt we agree on much of anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


Yeah….   No.   You only THINK I’m making your point.   Par for the course.   You think EVERYONE proves your point — even when they don’t.  Lol. 
 

Again, what you complain about is done by EVERYONE, not just ESPN.  It’s done by the NFLN, by the MLB Network, the NBA Channel, the NHL Network.   You’re giving the people what they want.   ESPN is in bed with the biggest and the best.   Telling you the SEC is best in football is only stating the obvious.   But ESPN also championed Cincinnati to make the Final 4, and they did.  So props to them.   But ESPN is not trying to convince anyone that a lesser conference they have a relationship with (like the PAC-12) is better than it is.  They’re not doing anything to skew the sports world by trying to puff-up lesser conferences or teams.  Poppycock. 
 

As for the China story….   The issue is worth BILLIONS of dollars.  Literally BILLIONS.   Of course ESPN is going to be extra careful about what they say and don’t say.  Would you risk BILLIONS to let Stephen A or some other on-air talent go on some long rant that might pour gasoline on the fire?   Of course not.   There’s no upside.  They’re trying to make smart business decisions as you do in your business. 


Losing subscribers is not surprising….   The entire entertainment world is fractured, likely forever.  People are leaving for all sorts of reasons.   Some for cost, some for politics.  Neither is a surprise.   People have more choice.    But this includes movies, television, music, news ….  You name it. 
 

Let’s be honest….  You don’t like most media. They’re too liberal for you.   They’re guilty until they prove their innocence.   You find a way of making smart logical business decisions as somehow bad and proving your point.   Preposterous.   Lol. 
 

Your posts about Holder prove your hate of media.  Your views are not supported by any facts, but you have jumped to every negative conclusion.   Again, par for the course. 
 

Beyond agreeing that today is Wednesday, I doubt we agree on much of anything. 

 

LOL... yes, you did prove my point. 

But yes, everyone does it. 

But because everyone does it, doesn't make acceptable if we're talking about trust or journalism.

Saying "everyone does it" simply is your means of lowering the bar for journalism. 

 

Most media is liberal. It's fact. 

Here's a Harvard study

https://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

A recent ASU/TAMU report showed 13 liberals for every one conservative in the media.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

And please, don't come back with that wonky science.org study that acknowledges the vast delta (many more liberals), but tries to justify it, and claims it doesn't create bias. 

 

As far as Holder is concerned. It's fact his contract wasn't renewed. It's fact his employer took a hard stance about decreasing political narratives. And it's fact that Holder is/was often political. We'll never know the exact reason he wasn't renewed. But it's like the choices were either he was too political, or he simply wasn't all that good. Or both. 

 

I'll leave you with this...

The US ranks dead last in trust in the media among 46 countries. So please, don't act like this is just a "me" thing lol. You should probably check your own bias. 

https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/us-ranks-last-among-46-countries-in-trust-in-media-reuters-institute-report-finds/

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...