Venturi tells the truth

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Some in here clearly are unsure about Richardson. Bur let me ask you this. What we would be his floor the . Correct? So would he just automatically get better. His floor was pretty great.

[OLD FAN MAN]

2 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Again we drafted him at 4. Then add how good he looked. Yes I have high expectations for next year. He sat and was able to learn the game which is only going to help him too. 

imo ballard wanted ar all along. the success of the running qbs in the last few years may have changed the game away from pocket passers who require a great o-line to stay upright. running qbs open up a number of ways to beat defenses. stroud has looked very good but we will see how he does against great pressure teams, pressure affects pocket passers more than mobile passers. ballard may come out looking very smart taking ar. but i do think stroud will be good but can they keep an o-line to keep pressure off him is the question. ar may be good even if our o-line is not elite

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

31 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

imo ballard wanted ar all along. the success of the running qbs in the last few years may have changed the game away from pocket passers who require a great o-line to stay upright. running qbs open up a number of ways to beat defenses. stroud has looked very good but we will see how he does against great pressure teams, pressure affects pocket passers more than mobile passers. ballard may come out looking very smart taking ar. but i do think stroud will be good but can they keep an o-line to keep pressure off him is the question. ar may be good even if our o-line is not elite

Texans and colts are going to have a lot of fun battles in the coming years

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Bur let me ask you this. What we would be his floor the . Correct?

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You can put this however you want, but what happened above is you accused me of doing something that I do not do, and I defended myself. If that's arrogant to you, I don't know what to tell you. But when you make an accusation like this, don't expect me to just back away.

 

Speaking of which...

 

 

This is 100% false. As I said earlier, I do not try to shut down discussions that I'm done engaging in, I simply move on. 

 

 

I also take strong issue with this. Apparently your feelings are bruised over our discussion on the 4th down call, which is interesting because you pursued that discussion with me, not the other way around. You should maybe revisit that thread and take a look at how aggressive you were with everyone who saw that differently than you did, and then come back and tell me who was belittling whom. 

 

And in this very thread, I do not think that my exchange with goatface in particular was belittling at all. We were having a solid discussion, IMO. If @Goatface Killah feels differently, I hope he sets me straight. I don't know what exchange with @2006Coltsbestever you're talking about, but same goes for him.
 

 

Yeah, there are a ton of smart people here, and I respect people's opinions. It's still a discussion forum, where disagreements are worked out. Which is what goatface and I have been doing.

 

I don't have a problem with anyone having a particular opinion, including a negative opinion of me as a poster. I'm not everyone's cup of tea, and I'm fine with that. 

 

 

And decided to chastise me, LOL. What response did you expect? That chastising also included an accusation that was not true.

 

Goatface and I were having a solid back and forth, we expressed our viewpoints and I believe we came to a better understanding of each other's positions. And then a third party comes in and tells us that our discussion is a waste of time... I don't see the the point in pretending that he was doing anything else, simply because he didn't quote anyone.

 

I thought richard's comment was unnecessary, and I said so. If you disagree, so be it.  

 

 

Thanks. I don't know why this discussion had to be so sharp. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't think they're smart or respect their opinion, and that includes you, and the other people that you've mentioned earlier.

I thought we had a pretty good discussion. It may have been when you said I was getting defensive and I really wasn't. That could be Interrupted wrong by anyone. You and I are fine. I think the only time you annoyed me was, when you said Minshew played badly in a game (I think it was the Tennessee game, so I still disagree with you there)and I thought he played good, but that was over a month ago. We are good 👍 

[Goatface Killah]

19 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Sacks are a product of pressure, pressure isn't a product of sacks. That's why the pressure rate matters so much because more pressure is more opportunities to impact the play (with sacks among other ways).

 

It's not two separate things. Sacks is a subcategory of pressure.

But it is 2 seperate things. They might be connected, but they arent the same.

 

 

[Shepman]

5 hours ago, Goatface Killah said:

But it is 2 seperate things. They might be connected, but they arent the same.

 

 

Sacks could be stated as the outcome produced from pressure versus a sub category under pressure.

[CR91]

When your CBs are two rookies and three udfas, it's self-explanatory. Brents and Jones were really good, but not having another vet outside of Kenny really hurt