Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,093 Pro Bowler



  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9,732 profile views
  1. Let Frank Gore Walk

    I read a couple of weeks ago that he says he really likes Indy and would like to play another year here. I cannot recall the source from which I read this. Thus, if I am ownership, if the GM agrees and if Gore can be signed for a reasonable price, I would grant him his wish and re-sign him. He is a free agent, though, so it is of course his prerogative to explore opportunities elsewhere if he feels so inclined.
  2. Lots on congratulations messages posted to her and her hubby for the Colts job, too. Interesting stuff.
  3. Such would be contrary to the article that’s been floating around about McDaniels’ lessons learned from his failed stint in Denver. If it’s true that nothing can be finalized due to the Pats still being in the playoffs, we might not hear anything more for three more weeks. To this, the silence from the Colts seems rather telling. At this point, I will be surprised if McDaniels is not the new coach of the Colts.
  4. KC coaches

    Re: KC’s exit ... and yet again an Andy Reid team fails in the playoffs. I think he has been long over rated. That said, what to think of his comment earlier this year when he said Nagy is the best HC candidate he’s seen in, what was it, thirty years?
  5. Only 2 Teams Worth Trading Draft Pick To

    I don’t care who the trading partner is, I am not trading down for anything less than a 1st & 2nd this year, plus a 1st rounder next year. That’s my minimum to pull the trigger, no matter who the trade is with.
  6. Well, Gore wants to come back.

    I hope he gets 139 yards, to give him another 1,000 yard season. Would be a nice takeaway parting gift for this dismal season.
  7. Well, Gore wants to come back.

    I’d still rather have Nelson than Chubb. Even getting Nelson in the 1st, I like the idea of going OL in the 2nd too. Gotta finally get the OL solidified, for the sake of Luck, for the sake of Gore and Mack. Just my preference, build the trenches. The O trench is currently in much worse shape than the D trench. Go OL!
  8. If you have a great interior OL, the pocket will not get pushed up into Luck’s face. When the heat comes from the edges, he can then just step up into the pocket, buying some extra check-down time. Plus, a very good running game is born out of the push of the interior OL, with your linemen getting into position at the second level. if an all-pro OG is there for the taking, given the Colts perpetual OL issues, you take him and don’t look back. Of course, though, I agree that if there’s a trade-back opportunity that allows you to still get your guy, then you pull that trigger.
  9. Well, Gore wants to come back.

    If he really is open to coming back, I‘d sign him for the right price. He still runs extremely hard and his hard working veteran presence could be very important. Gore is a HOF baller!
  10. Adam V

    I concur. Sign him!
  11. Ryan kelly and jon bostic going to IR

    Get a couple average to above average guards on either side of him, and I think that Kelly will indeed SHINE as one of the better centers in the league, IF he can stop getting injured. I think the only disappointing thing so far is that he keeps getting whatever little injuries and then having to deal with the injuries stunts his further development. I have no worries about Kelly. I think it remains clear that he is a solid building block. The issue is, though, the OL has five blocks, but the Colts only have two blocks in that equation. Two guards and a right tackle still need to be established. If I am the GM, I am doing WHATEVER I can to insert three more quality OL building blocks, by any and all means possible.
  12. After Pittsburgh getting hosed, I'm done with NFL

    Welp, I don't know what else to say. What I see, frame by frame, is his right hand losing grasp, with the ball then laying loose on the ground, between his hands, but out of his "grasp". Here's the larger issue, if you are of the opinion that the current rule needs to be changed, how do you redefine what is a catch? I think we can all agree that if a player is on his feet, makes the catch, controlling the ball in his hands, and then takes two (or is it three?) steps, then we have a catch. When in the act of catching the ball, but not taking steps, ergo, due to either momentum or being hit, he is falling to the ground, how do you define the catch in that instance? Can you come up with a better written definition? I will tell you the thing about the catch in the Pitt / NE game, to my eyes, even though Jesse James had taken no steps and was therefore deemed as going to the ground during the act of catching, I saw the ball clearly secured in his hands, with his body twisting and his hands then reaching out with the ball in an attempt to break the plane of the goal line. At this point in time, it was, imho, indisputable that he had full control of the ball! So, to allow for the above situation, where he clearly has full control of the ball, do you propose going back to the old way that the ground cannot cause a fumble? I have to admit, I am a little bit torn on this one. In one way, as in the Jesse James example, it sure looks to me like he clearly made the catch with control, before hitting the ground. But by the same token, I think it's pretty jitty that when a guy is on the way to the ground upon attempting to make a catch, that if when he hits the ground and the ball flies out of his hand, that it might still be deemed a catch. So perhaps the solution is found in the definition of what is a "football move". Again with the Jesse James example, to my eyes, he DID make a football move, by virtue of changing the trajectory of his arms and hands while holding the ball ... ergo, in reaching out with his hands, with the ball clearly under his control in so doing, he did indeed make a "football move". Changing this rule, though, might just make things even MORE subjective. Hence, like I originally posted, this sort of thing is a sticky wicket.
  13. Colts Vs Baltimore

    Baltimore 27, Colts 13. Another Colts loss. ...... Go Giants!!!! Go Houston. (And for the record, it still pains me to think that Baltimore is not the Colts. lol)