Ballard and Steichen are safe

[ChoppedWood]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o



The Colts, the Jets, and the Browns didn't just morph into existence last month, and you didn't just starting rooting for the Colts last week.



o

No fucking idea, none, what in the fuck this has to do with anything? Not a single fucking thing about the past history of these teams is applicable to whether I would want to be sitting in either the Jets or the Browns positions RIGHT NOW, at the end of the 2025 season vs that of the Colts. Sometimes man you just go to weird dots that don't connect.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

No fucking idea, none, what in the fuck this has to do with anything? Not a single fucking thing about the past history of these teams is applicable to whether I would want to be sitting in either the Jets or the Browns positions RIGHT NOW, at the end of the 2025 season vs that of the Colts. Sometimes man you just go to weird dots that don't connect.

o


You need me to spell it out for you like you're a 5 year-old ??? OK. I'll do just that.

Almost all of your posts are psychotic rages about Chris Ballard's failures over the past 9 years as the Colts' GM ...... that is very much about the past. Then in your next breath, you say that you would rather be in the position of the Jets ...... and when I point out that the Jets have been a dumpster fire of a franchise for almost 15 years, and that they didn't get to be in their current position out of design, you say, "No, that's in the past !!! I'm not talking about the past !!! I'm talking about right now !!!"

That is what a child does ...... he makes incessant, non-stop complaints about one team's GM's doings over the past 9 years, and then he asserts that he would rather be in the position of another team whose GM's have done nothing but run their franchise into the ground for well for almost 15 years ...... if you're too stupid to follow and comprehend that very simple logic, then you're a bigger imbecile than I thought that you were in the first place.


o

[ChoppedWood]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o


You need me to spell it out for you like you're a 5 year-old ??? OK. I'll do just that.

Almost all of your posts are psychotic rages about Chris Ballard's failures over the past 9 years as the Colts' GM ...... that is very much about the past. Then in your next breath, you say that you would rather be in the position of the Jets ...... and when I point out that the Jets have been a dumpster fire of a franchise for almost 15 years, and that they didn't get to be in their current position out of design, you say, "No, that's in the past !!! I'm not talking about the past !!! I'm talking about right now !!!"

That is what a child does ...... he makes incessant, non-stop complaints about one team's GM's doings over the past 9 years, and then he asserts that he would rather be in the position of another team whose GM's have done nothing but run their franchise into the ground for well for almost 15 years ...... if you're too stupid to follow and comprehend that very simple logic, then you're a bigger imbecile than I thought that you were in the first place.


o

And all of that has what connection go whether or not, on 1/7/26, I would prefer to be in the Browns or Jets position than I would the Indianapolis Colts?

Past success, past mediocrity, no bearing whatsoever on where we stand in terms of prospects for the future at this moment in time. The Browns may get John Harbaugh. Would I rather be the Browns, with John Harbaugh and Myles Garret vs Shane Steichen and Latu Latu, oh hell yes I would. Again, the question is about TODAY, not the 1947 Kentucky Shiners that morphed into the Oakland Truckers in 1965, and then were bought by the Memphis Steelers in 1971 where Crankston Moore fumbled at the goal line just like Jonathan Taylor but they went on to win the SB in 1987 so the Colts will win the SB too.

[Oldcolt]

This thread has become insane.

[Puck]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

This thread has become insane.

Yes very tiring to see every thread over run with the same arguments
Blah Blah Blah


It's getting old fellas

[Kray007]

Originally Posted by ChoppedWood

And all of that has what connection go whether or not, on 1/7/26, I would prefer to be in the Browns or Jets position than I would the Indianapolis Colts?

Past success, past mediocrity, no bearing whatsoever on where we stand in terms of prospects for the future at this moment in time. The Browns may get John Harbaugh. Would I rather be the Browns, with John Harbaugh and Myles Garret vs Shane Steichen and Latu Latu, oh hell yes I would. Again, the question is about TODAY, not the 1947 Kentucky Shiners that morphed into the Oakland Truckers in 1965, and then were bought by the Memphis Steelers in 1971 where Crankston Moore fumbled at the goal line just like Jonathan Taylor but they went on to win the SB in 1987 so the Colts will win the SB too.

I can’t even begin to believe that we’ve gone down this particular road.

I grew up 150 miles from the big apple. I have friends who are die hard Jet fans, and, at the end of evey year, they’re left sitting on their couch, contemplating slitting their wrists.

In case you didn’t notice, the Jets staged a fire sale two months ago, purging the roster of talent. The cupboard is bare at quarterback, defensive end, cornerback, almost every other meaningful position. They can’t rush the passer, and they can’t protect their own guy.

Sweet.

As far as the Brownies are concerned, they have the chance to land the quarterback of their choice. But by the time he’s ready to contribute, Garrett will be deep into the wrong side of 30. There’s a good reason why they’re picking 1. The Watson trade put them in a hole they’re just beginning to dig out of. Hitching your star to them is like sailing into the unknown with the captain of the Titanic at the helm.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by Kray007

I can’t even begin to believe that we’ve gone down this particular road.

I grew up 150 miles from the big apple. I have friends who are die hard Jet fans, and, at the end of every year, they’re left sitting on their couch, contemplating slitting their wrists.

In case you didn’t notice, the Jets staged a fire sale two months ago, purging the roster of talent. The cupboard is bare at quarterback, defensive end, cornerback, almost every other meaningful position. They can’t rush the passer, and they can’t protect their own guy.

Sweet.

As far as the Brownies are concerned, they have the chance to land the quarterback of their choice. But by the time he’s ready to contribute, Garrett will be deep into the wrong side of 30. There’s a good reason why they’re picking 1. The Watson trade put them in a hole they’re just beginning to dig out of. Hitching your star of them is like sailing into the unknown with the captain of the Titanic at the helm.

o


Yes, but Chopped Wood made that post 2 days ago ...... that's in the past ...... it's no longer Tuesday anymore, it's Thursday. He wants to talk about NOW, THE PRESNT, not the past. How many times does he have to keep repeating himself ???

o

[ChoppedWood]

Originally Posted by Kray007

I can’t even begin to believe that we’ve gone down this particular road.

I grew up 150 miles from the big apple. I have friends who are die hard Jet fans, and, at the end of evey year, they’re left sitting on their couch, contemplating slitting their wrists.

In case you didn’t notice, the Jets staged a fire sale two months ago, purging the roster of talent. The cupboard is bare at quarterback, defensive end, cornerback, almost every other meaningful position. They can’t rush the passer, and they can’t protect their own guy.

Sweet.

As far as the Brownies are concerned, they have the chance to land the quarterback of their choice. But by the time he’s ready to contribute, Garrett will be deep into the wrong side of 30. There’s a good reason why they’re picking 1. The Watson trade put them in a hole they’re just beginning to dig out of. Hitching your star to them is like sailing into the unknown with the captain of the Titanic at the helm.

Great, both franchises suck, both have been atrocious at making good decisions for decades. Yep, not disputing it.

Right now, both of them are in a position to potentially land franchise changing players and COULD in a couple years be contesting for a playoff run. Note the word COULD.

I know what's in the back of your head- the 7-1 start, the 8-2 after 10, then the injury and then the downfall. We're not that far away, we can be a winner, we can get Dimes back and we can make a big run. Sure, sure, ok!

On the season, we had 2 significant wins, Denver and SD. Other than that, we beat dogshit, and we lost to EVERY other "good" team we played. Oh don't start, don't start- we were "close" in several of those games- don't start, doesn't matter- at the end of the season, we LOST those games.

In every fucking article / engagement since the season ended, the team reps have made reference to a couple of very impactful moments. One, the most frequently mentioned, the inability to stop Seattle from going down the field in SECONDS to win the game. The other, the inability to get a 1st down against KC to ice the game. Yep, two critical failures that definitely could be attributed to the failure to make the playoffs. Both of those, are representative of a coach that has REPEATEDLY demonstrated to us that he struggles enormously against good football teams. But yeah, sure, next year, sure that will all change! Sure, because yeah man, it just will!

Next year, we will have a QB dragging his leg around, our all-world DT will be using toothpicks to keep his head from falling down, and our all world RB who was healthy ALL damn year, will remain that way even though he is now in the yellow zone of 27 years of age, and his fall off at the end of the year is not in any way an indicator that his play is starting to dip. Oh, and our ALL world OG, who again was essentially healthy all year, who will be 30 years old, will stay that way again and his play will not in any way dip from what it also did late in the year.

Yep, all negative indicators, they are meaningless, because we are the Colts by God and we have bad ass Ballard and Super Star Shane guiding us, and their past results do not indicate future performance!

The greatest likelihood is next year is a 6-7 win team. We again are stuck in shitty draft order. All the brass are sent packing. We probably SUCK terribly in 27 as we shed the old guys and go full youth as we chase a real QB.

So, backing up, yes, give me either the Browns or Jets positions---- right now, with a chance to get a couple young stars in the fold and at least attempting to re-build right now, vs what I expect to be a Blah year next year, a terrible year thereafter, and probably 2 more really shitty years as we fully rebuild. So yep, I would rather be them right now than where we are at this very moment. At least they have HOPES of getting things going north vs what I believe is almost certainly an escalator down for the next 3-5 years.

I don't get it, there are some of you who have this weird aversion to accept that what we have seen from the GM for 9 years and the HC for 2, is not at all who they really are. I believe Denny Green man.

[Kray007]

Okay, this post isn’t intended to defend Steichen or Ballard or anyone or anything about the organization.

It’s a simple question sparked by the inability of the team to win against Seattle. The Seahawks get the ball with 42 seconds left and 31 seconds later, kick a winning FG.

For most the hundred year history of the league, that would have been inexplicable, considered an epic fail, a two or three time in a season occurrence.

But, has the ground shifted under our feet? Are we living in a new age, crafted by the dynamic kickoff and the league’s incessant drive to extract every last ounce of excitement from the game? How does that combine with the new rules for kicking balls that seem to be driving an explosion of what seems possible on FG attempts?

A few years ago, you would have seen teams blast a kickoff into the end zone. The result, 1st and 10 at the 20. 60 yard field goals were unheard of, anything from 50 out was a prayer. So, you had to move 50 yards in your 40 seconds.

Nowadays, teams are getting starting field position at the 35 or 40. In order to put yourself in position for a 60 plus yard FG, you might have to only move the ball 10 or 15 yards.

In those circumstances, 42 seconds is an eternity.

We saw this play out as early as week 2, when the Giants played Dallas. The Giants take the lead with 19 seconds left, Dallas moves 18 yards and Aubrey kicks a 64 yarder to send it into OT.

I think that it’s changing the way coaches use timeouts at the end of halves. We’ve gone from trying to bleed the clock on D to calling timeouts, trying to conserve every last second. Teams are getting a couple of extra plays, an extra half minute of time to score all because coaches are trying to jockey themselves into a position where they get the ball back with 30 or 40 seconds left.

I think that the result is that the importance of special teams play has just escalated. You need a kick return game that gets you to the 40. You need to stop runners from crossing the 25. You need a kicker who’s money from 60.

[ChoppedWood]

Originally Posted by Kray007

Okay, this post isn’t intended to defend Steichen or Ballard or anyone or anything about the organization.

It’s a simple question sparked by the inability of the team to win against Seattle. The Seahawks get the ball with 42 seconds left and 31 seconds later, kick a winning FG.

For most the hundred year history of the league, that would have been inexplicable, considered an epic fail, a two or three time in a season occurrence.

But, has the ground shifted under our feet? Are we living in a new age, crafted by the dynamic kickoff and the league’s incessant drive to extract every last ounce of excitement from the game? How does that combine with the new rules for kicking balls that seem to be driving an explosion of what seems possible on FG attempts?

A few years ago, you would have seen teams blast a kickoff into the end zone. The result, 1st and 10 at the 20. 60 yard field goals were unheard of, anything from 50 out was a prayer. So, you had to move 50 yards in your 40 seconds.

Nowadays, teams are getting starting field position at the 35 or 40. In order to put yourself in position for a 60 plus yard FG, you might have to only move the ball 10 or 15 yards.

In those circumstances, 42 seconds is an eternity.

We saw this play out as early as week 2, when the Giants played Dallas. The Giants take the lead with 19 seconds left, Dallas moves 18 yards and Aubrey kicks a 64 yarder to send it into OT.

I think that it’s changing the way coaches use timeouts at the end of halves. We’ve gone from trying to bleed the clock on D to calling timeouts, trying to conserve every last second. Teams are getting a couple of extra plays, an extra half minute of time to score all because coaches are trying to jockey themselves into a position where they get the ball back with 30 or 40 seconds left.

I think that the result is that the importance of special teams play has just escalated. You need a kick return game that gets you to the 40. You need to stop runners from crossing the 25. You need a kicker who’s money from 60.

I completely agree, the new rules clearly foster the ability to score at the end of games. I can't remember the exact stat, but I heard it earlier this week, something like 73% of the games this year were one score games. Yes, it is all part of the Roger Goodell plan to manufacture more intrigue- I hate the man for living but he is a master marketing machine.

All that said, we lost that game against Seattle because Lou played like a scared little whimp allowing them to just gobble up yards with zero resistance in the most critical point in our season to that point, which is of course why I fucking pray some idiot GM hires him (they won't because they aren't stupid).