Bio not provided
Nate, you do realize that in the course of this discussion you have stated that Touchdowns, passing yards, and QB rating are all pointless stats. The problem isnt that I havent proven anything. Its that when something is proven to you, you bassically say that the proof doesnt matter. Any stat I or someone else brings up is a pointless stat and any stat you use is the "real proof".
2 years, 7 months ago on Did the 1998 Colts Have More Talent than the 2012 Colts? | March
I beleive we were talking about with QB play was the biggest factor in each teams "losing" record. The point I was making was that both teams QBs were bad enough that blaming 2011 QBs didnt matter because theres more to only winning 2 games than just bad QB play. Nate was argueing the point that the QBs were the biggest factor, so again. wheres the basis for the comment? Who was "Attributing QB wins to the team"?
@Payton So now your just gonna state random crap like "you dont know football"? So easy to make general statements when you dont have to back it up isnt? But lets see, at what point was "basic football Strategy" brought up? We've talked about stats, players on and off the roster. As to how the game is actually played I dont beleive has come up even once. Also the point I was making was that the quarterback play in 97 was no better than the Qbs in 2011, making the QBs a nonfactor in the comparison of the teams. I dont beleive Iever said either team won based on QB play and I dont beleive Nate did either. Face it, you made a comment that you thought was mildly witty, and it wasnt.
"The 97 team played better but didnt have as much talent". Say that out load and tell me you dont sound like the drunk guy at the end of the bar. This teams younger, and Coyer shouldnt coach peewee. I'll give you that. Younger does not mean more potential I can think of 6 young guys on this team that have "potential". Angerer, Powers, Carter, Conner, Collie and Costanzo. 2 of those players still have alot to prove they can even be starters. Every other "under 26" can walk. Powers is the only CB worth keeping on the roster period, and thank god we picked up Zibi cause SS was hurtin big time.
P.S. Does Payton always jump in with Irrelevant and painfully unfunny oneliners or is this new?
Okay so your stance is they fumbled less and their O line was worse, But they had a much, much better QB. They won 1 more game and were better than 2011 in every other respect and therefore are a worse team than 2011? Somehow, the math doesnt add up there.
If you want to talk individual QB stats, fine. Harbaugh won 2 games in 97. Weeks 15 and 16, sound familiar? In the final win against Miami in week 16 Harbaugh put up 4 of his 10 touchdowns on season. Just saying if we are including garbage time for padding stats, that game needs to be taken into account. Marino and starters sat most of the game and in a season which Harbaugh started 11 games 40% of his touchdowns and his best completions percentage of the year came in that game.
@Nate Dunlevy @rogcohen Okay the 97 team had 60% completions and threw 16 touchdowns to 17 INT. the 2011 team had 56% and threw 14 TD to 14 INT. For further reference Harbaughs was 61% Orlovsky had 63%. Now after you tell me these stats dont matter(now that rating and passer yards dont matter apparently) which pretty much eliminates all QB stats, look at the fact that 97 stats were better across the board Rushing, Run defence, pass defense and even turnovers. Now please just give me one peice of proof that the 97 team only did better because the 2011 team had "vastly inferior QB play"
What does Harbaugh's stats in 97 have to do with the 98 teams record? But, if you want to compare 97 teams combined QB rating was 77.6 the 2011 teams was 72.2. Yes with the exception of Orlovsky our QBs sucked, Collins wasnt ready or in shape and Painter has always been painter. However they did throw 3200 yds which is more than several teams with winning records. Hell the Jags had a pathetic passing game and they swept us.
So okay I'll put 97 Harbaugh on the team, but ill give you 3 wins maybe 4. The secondary is still mediocre at best, Jones-Drew and pretty much every other RB 1st or 2nd string still has a career day against us. Only winning 2 games takes a very magical combination of crap on all sides of the ball. And lets not completely forget that minus 1 roughing the passer penalty, we would have 1 win.
Really? cause our current team went 2-14, some would argue they arent any good based on that. Are they pointless? I would think that makes comparing them to the 98 squad pretty fair.
@Nate Dunlevy So then why not just answer the straight question. Compare the 98 roster to the current roster. Then there are no predictions. I reasonably expect that we will make a straight trade of Freeney for Calvin Johnson and the next day, I'll fart a dragon.
Agreed, the article even says
"This begs the question: did Bill Polian really have more to work with in 1998 than Ryan Grigson in 2012?
First, allow me to set the parameters of this roster comparison."
It looks like the parameters are in the question. So in one sentence a question is asked, and in the next sentence you explain your going to answer it by creating a new question.
Okay, but you have counted it. so apparently theres no "if". So now your camparing things things we already know with complete predictions. And again, it seems all the facts count against 98 and all the predictions put 2012 in the positive.
If your only including players who were on the team through the 1999 season, Then why not only include players who will be on the team through 2013 and take out Freeney, Collie and Powers. Once again, I see a very simple argument made complicated for no other reason than. You dont include Faulk because he was only there Peytons rookie year 98 and didnt contribute for the second year progress. Couldnt the same be said for the 3 names above?
I know Edge wasnt, but my point was in the 2 year period laid out either Faulk or Edge
was on the roster, yet neither is included. I guess I just dont see the validity for the exclusion or the need for the 97 to 99 requirement. HB still worries me Browns on/off switch seems to change with the day. I really like Carter and think he could be a real starter "If" he learns to hold the ball.
2 years, 8 months ago on Did the 1998 Colts Have More Talent than the 2012 Colts? | March
I could point out that there seems to be rules that you seem to have created for this arguement that already stack the deck in 2012s favor. I mean come on Nate. You've created rules in which you compare 9 players against an entire roster with players of your choosing. It just so happens these rules also exclude 2 pro bowl running backs. because they werent on the roster for the 2 consectutive years you laid out, a stepulation that doesnt effect the 2012 roster. I could also point out that mathis and freeney(DFree most likely gone after this season) are now playing in 3-4 system which moves them both to outside linebacker after spending their entire profesional careers in a 4-3 alignement. My arguement isnt so much with the answer, just the way you came to it. Just seems odd.
That being said, several of the freeagent pickups make me alot more optimistic about this team. Zibi and Avery were real needs. Although I stiff feel we have no true starter at TE or HB. Wonder if hes still up, if we would take Fleener in round 2.
There were a few talented defenders with the team in 98, Belser and Poole standout in my mind at the moment. Currently our defense has Mathis, Bethea and Angerer. Those are really the only standout guys, everyone else I hesitate to even call a starter. This "talented" defense was one of the worst in the league last year. I'll agree this defense is better, but not by much
2 years, 8 months ago on The Purge | March
@rogcohen @Payton I thought It was about the Improvement between 98 and 99 aswell as what was already In place when Manning arrived. Which is why Payton references Faulk not being on the team in 99. Either way, in 98 Faulk was here and in 99 James was here. Both those years the Colts had talent on the roster to back Manning. On the current roster, that talent isnt there. Eldridge, Collie and Brown our currently our best options at their positions. A Far cry from Peytons rookie year with Dilger, Faulk and Pathon (not to mention a young Harrison)
@19>18 @Nate Dunlevy I have to agree that 8-8 isnt what I would call "competitive". 8-8 means you can't win the tough games but you arent bad enough to lose all the time. Sure Id rather go 8-8 than 3-13 but .500 is no promise for a better future and sadly I fear thats all Grigson will give us. I mean, we are moving forward with a rookie GM, a rookie Head Coach and a Rookie QB (with currently no previous offensive starters on the roster) how could that plan backfire?
Harrison was a superstar for sure but the 99 colts had alot more working for them that year. James rushed for 1500 yds as a rookie (more yds than Faulk ever did as a Colt). Although they were young, the O line was vastly better than the one we currently have in place. As is, the offense is just plain laughable. I have A very hard time beleiving that the series of events that took place between 98 and 99 will repeat again. Manning turned out to be the definetive franchise player. The following year James was far better than anyone could hoped for and Harrison grew to Hall of Fame form. That kind of lightning hitting twice isnt just a long shot, to quote Jason its "absolutely delusional"
@TonyFishers Young players with speed tend to try and make a play before they make the catch. Which leads to alot of drops early in their career. Garcon matured alot this year. In a year when the receivers could have shown their worth, hes really the only one that stood out. I cant understand the logic of keeping Wayne over him at this point.
2 years, 8 months ago on If Kuharsky ran the Colts | Articles
I disagree with so much of this that its not even worth listing each point. I will say that the line "Not a bad offense in reality", made me lagitimately laugh pretty hard.