Colts safety Sanders could be out 6 weeks - Page 2

Bruce Banner · 09-17-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marlo

Good one...

No punchline to that ****.

09-17-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awfullyquiet

get out.

Oh, you made me a bowl of cereal, how nice. Next time make it steak and potatoes though honey.

Addict · 09-17-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marlo

Oh, you made me a bowl of cereal, how nice. Next time make it steak and potatoes though honey.

let's see... that comment is rude, degrading AND stereotypical...

I love it.

awfullyquiet · 09-17-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marlo

Oh, you made me a bowl of cereal, how nice. Next time make it steak and potatoes though honey.

...
obviously you're not one to cultural references...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ASjFzi7J0

that might explain things.

Shiver · 09-17-2008, 06:38 PM

This is devastating. They were already getting eaten alive by opposing running backs. This just doesn't seem like the Colts' year. They barely beat a Vikings team with a floundering Tarvaris Jackson.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

This is devastating. They were already getting eaten alive by opposing running backs. This just doesn't seem like the Colts' year. They barely beat a Vikings team with a floundering Tarvaris Jackson.

They barely beat the Oakland Raiders with him last year. They barely beat Miami the year they won it all. Will it be harder to win without Bob? Yes, but the Colts have done it before, there's no reason they can't do it again.

D-Unit · 09-17-2008, 07:12 PM

For someone who gets so much praise, he's way too injury prone. Players like that are more trouble than they are worth. They force the team to rely on them and then when they get hurt, the team takes a major hit. So the team must then invest in a replacement. Double the investment on 1 single position. If the Colts are smart, they trade him while they can get something worthwhile in return.

MetSox17 · 09-17-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610

They barely beat the Oakland Raiders with him last year. They barely beat Miami the year they won it all. Will it be harder to win without Bob? Yes, but the Colts have done it before, there's no reason they can't do it again.

Except that they lost and should have lost games against mediocre teams. One team didn't even pass the ball! The injuries on the offensive line might be a little too much to overcome, or the defense is just that horrible, but had it been any other starting QB in the NFL instead of T-Jack on Sunday, and they would have lost.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Except that they lost and should have lost games against mediocre teams. One team didn't even pass the ball! The injuries on the offensive line might be a little too much to overcome, or the defense is just that horrible, but had it been any other starting QB in the NFL instead of T-Jack on Sunday, and they would have lost.

Why is it that when other defenses bend but don't break, they had a good performance, but when the Colts defense does it, it's because the opposing team didn't execute? Just curious, because this is far from the first time I've heard this.

MetSox17 · 09-17-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Why is it that when other defenses bend but don't break, they had a good performance, but when the Colts defense does it, it's because the opposing team didn't execute? Just curious, because this is far from the first time I've heard this.

Because when you pretty much know the other teams gameplan due to their complete inability to move the ball through the air, yet you still get trashed on the ground, you're pretty bad.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Because when you pretty much know the other teams gameplan due to their complete inability to move the ball through the air, yet you still get trashed on the ground, you're pretty bad.

This is Adrian Peterson, the guy who torched San Diego for 295. It's not like we're talking about some scrub here, this is quite possibly the best RB in the NFL. Honestly, look at Jackson's numbers, it's not like he had such a bad game that you can point to it and say "that's the reason why they lost". The Colts gave up a couple of long runs, but when it came down to it, they tightened up and made the stops they needed to make to keep their team in the ballgame. If they were as bad as you say, AD would've had 3 TDs at least.

MetSox17 · 09-17-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610

This is Adrian Peterson, the guy who torched San Diego for 295. It's not like we're talking about some scrub here, this is quite possibly the best RB in the NFL. Honestly, look at Jackson's numbers, it's not like he had such a bad game that you can point to it and say "that's the reason why they lost". The Colts gave up a couple of long runs, but when it came down to it, they tightened up and made the stops they needed to make to keep their team in the ballgame. If they were as bad as you say, AD would've had 3 TDs.

Yeah, except they got trashed by a rookie the previous week as well. And the playcalling is completely horrendous. That's why they didn't score a single damn touchdown.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Yeah, except they got trashed by a rookie the previous week as well. And the playcalling is completely horrendous. That's why they didn't score a single damn touchdown.

Don't know if you noticed, but Forte had a pretty good game against Carolina as well. Besides, both of these games happened with Bob Sanders, and with Melvin Bullitt in, the Colts allowed 28 rushing yards on 8 carries, so by your logic, the Colts defense will be better for this, right?

MetSox17 · 09-17-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Don't know if you noticed, but Forte had a pretty good game against Carolina as well. Besides, both of these games happened with Bob Sanders, and with Melvin Bullitt in, the Colts allowed 28 rushing yards on 8 carries, so by your logic, the Colts defense will be better for this, right?

How is that by my logic? I never made the assumption that because they allowed less yards in 8 carries with Bullitt in they'll be better. All i'm saying is that your pretty bad defense is gonna get worse. Spin it however you wish.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

How is that by my logic? I never made the assumption that because they allowed less yards in 8 carries with Bullitt in they'll be better. All i'm saying is that your pretty bad defense is gonna get worse. Spin it however you wish.

Your logic: The Colts defense has allowed a lot of rushing yards in the past two weeks, therefore they will allow more without Bob Sanders.

Problem: They did not allow more rushing yards, nor did they allow more yards per carry.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

yo123 · 09-17-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Your logic: The Colts defense has allowed a lot of rushing yards in the past two weeks, therefore they will allow more without Bob Sanders.

Problem: They did not allow more rushing yards, nor did they allow more yards per carry.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

Sample Size.

MetSox17 · 09-17-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Your logic: The Colts defense has allowed a lot of rushing yards in the past two weeks, therefore they will allow more without Bob Sanders.

Problem: They did not allow more rushing yards, nor did they allow more yards per carry.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

I find it laughable that you're making a serious argument out of 8 carries.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo123

Sample Size.

His point is stupid, I'm countering with stupid. Anyone who has watched the Colts in recent years knows their run defense has never been more than league average, and there have been a couple of times in the past 3 seasons that the Colts defense has been among the league's elite.

Dam8610 · 09-17-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

I find it laughable that you're making a serious argument out of 8 carries.

And I find it laughable you think the Colts defense is reliant on stopping the run, so we're even.

yourfavestoner · 09-17-2008, 10:37 PM

Dam, you need to stop attacking the logic of his argument and focus on the argument itself. There's no way that losing Sanders isn't a huge blow to their defense. Just look at the 2006 season, when the Colts were giving up rushing yards at a record pace. Trying to argue otherwise makes you seem like the Charger fans who said they'd be fine without Merriman. Sanders is the glue to your defense. He's the one that holds it together.

Bruce Banner · 09-17-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

Dam, you need to stop attacking the logic of his argument and focus on the argument itself. There's no way that losing Sanders isn't a huge blow to their defense. Just look at the 2006 season, when the Colts were giving up rushing yards at a record pace. Trying to argue otherwise makes you seem like the Charger fans who said they'd be fine without Merriman. Sanders is the glue to your defense. He's the one that holds it together.

You're smarter than most stoners, I'll give you that.

Dam8610 · 09-18-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

Dam, you need to stop attacking the logic of his argument and focus on the argument itself. There's no way that losing Sanders isn't a huge blow to their defense. Just look at the 2006 season, when the Colts were giving up rushing yards at a record pace. Trying to argue otherwise makes you seem like the Charger fans who said they'd be fine without Merriman. Sanders is the glue to your defense. He's the one that holds it together.

Oh, I'm not saying it's not a huge blow, I understand the negative impact his absence brings, but I get sick of all the negativity about the Colts defense even after a pretty solid performance all things considered. Redzone defense is a great thing to have, it's pretty much the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2001. All things considered (for example, the Colts were playing Eric Foster, undersized for a UT, at NT, and the Vikings had Adrian Peterson), it's quite an accomplishment that once the Vikings hit the redzone, the Colts buckled down and held them to 3. Also, I find it pretty funny that he called the Colts defense "pretty bad" when they just LED THE LEAGUE in scoring defense, and were 3rd in yardage allowed. I'm not saying they've been great thus far, but they've only allowed 35 points thus far this season (can't blame them for the safety or the Briggs TD) despite all the rushing yardage they've allowed. Losing a player of Sanders' caliber definitely hurts, hopefully Bullitt can come in and be half of what Bob is to this defense, but I'd like to see my team's defense get credit for a good performance for once instead of everyone finding some way to say it's on the opposing offense. That's been my entire point all along.

islandboy843 · 09-18-2008, 03:51 AM

Damn it must be christmas time for the titans.

Shiver · 09-18-2008, 03:57 AM

This is funny. First Bob Sanders was some miraculous run defender who turned the Colts' defense around by himself, and now they won't be much worse off without him. Come on!

Dam8610 · 09-18-2008, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

This is funny. First Bob Sanders was some miraculous run defender who turned the Colts' defense around by himself, and now they won't be much worse off without him. Come on!

Show me where I said any of that, other than facetiously saying saying that because the Vikings couldn't run in the 4th quarter, that Melvin Bullitt would be an improvement. I don't think you'll be able to find it. In fact, I think I acknowledged a few times that Bob being out was a HUGE blow for the defense. The only other things I've done here is defend my team's defensive performance last Sunday, which, while not stellar, was a lot better than "if it was any other QB than Tarvaris Jackson, the Colts would've lost", and make the point that the Colts have won without Sanders before, which they have.