Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kansascolt

Delone Carter's future..

15 posts in this topic

I've been pulling for this guy since he was drafted last year and have been wanting to see some more carries from him this year. With that said, after that fumble yesterday, do you think he still has a future with Indy or was that the final straw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well he did score a td so that might save him, but he needs to learn to tuck it close to the chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That fumble wasn't his fault.

The defender did a great job of punching it out, even with two hands on the ball.

I think we could keep him for cheap.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had it tucked defender made a good play.. Also he put on allot of weight he is huge. And i think he should stay he runs hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they are worried about replacing Carter, He is not doing himself any favors but he is under contract until 2015 and he is our power back down at the goal line

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he can't hold onto the ball, he can't play. It makes no difference why the fumbles happen, he drops the ball way too much. I don't see a future for him with the Colts. I also don't think he provides anything substantially different than Brown or Ballard in short yardage, which is what he's basically stuck with now, so there is no reason to sign him again when the contract expires. It isn't like he is some dynamic talent which isn't easily replaced. I liked him at Syracuse, rooted for him to have success, but I simply haven't seen anything which makes me think he is not easily replaced. And fumbling frequently is a quick way to get replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Delone, but this would be a nonissue even if it were his contract year. Way to premature to really even put thought into it. He has 2 more years to prove himself and I'm hoping to have a more stout offensive line after free agency, so that we can more accurately and fairly assess our stable of backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his future is pretty secure. There's no need for the team to invest in new rb's

Completely agree.. I REALLY like the trio of Brown, Ballard, and Carter. I just wish Arians would give them more opportunities to allow them to get in a rhythm along with the O-line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more of a two headed monster in the run game I say we keep him but bring in a RB in FA and Carter gets cut before the season Brown won't be resigned that's why I say we bring someone in from FA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more of a two headed monster in the run game I say we keep him but bring in a RB in FA and Carter gets cut before the season Brown won't be resigned that's why I say we bring someone in from FA

Brown is still under contract in 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that Carter has the fumble problems. Because I absolutely LOVE his running style. He is a north-south runner that almost always picks up yards. And he has far more speed than he is given credit for. He is like a poor mans Michael Turner less the fumbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his future is pretty secure. There's no need for the team to invest in new rb's

Ha don't bet on it. Carter was a Polian pick. He'll be lucky to be here next year. Grigson will still be turning over the roster big time this off-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pulling for this guy since he was drafted last year and have been wanting to see some more carries from him this year. With that said, after that fumble yesterday, do you think he still has a future with Indy or was that the final straw?

All fumbles are your fault.....He need good play in the final month to stay...

He runs hard but he'd be cut if the season ended today..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For whatever reason, my last few films have been controversial ones. I didn't plan it that way. It just sort of happened, but I will admit that I have always been drawn to provocative subjects ever since I can remember. My latest review called "Confirmation" a 2016 political drama directed by Rick Famuyiwa slides right into that hot button territory as well. I promise to behave myself here & only establish broad brush strokes that the director portrays in this 1 hour & 50 minute piece of cinema, but it will be extremely difficult to restrain my true feelings since I graduated from high school in 1991 & remember very well the US Senate Hearings on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on TV & the sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill, a former subordinate under Thomas's supervision at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.]   In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna be honest with my audience & say that I believed Miss Hill's testimony back then & I never thought Mr. Thomas should have been confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall either & the director has this same slant or bias in this production too. Watching this flick took me right back to 1991 during the George H.W. Bush Administration who submitted Thomas's name for consideration to the highest judicial office in the land. It was almost bizarre to see younger versions of anchormen Tom Brokaw & Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, & footage of Peter Jennings & Tim Russert, former host of "Meet The Press" both deceased now. The picture does a nice job of blending fictional testimony scenes from Hill & Thomas with archival news footage from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN. It's odd to see the primitive nature of TVs & computers back then long before iPhones & iMacs were present in every office in America.    In a nutshell, the movie is divided between 2 sides: Those who believed that Clarence Thomas is being railroaded by groups like NOW [Natl. Organization Of Women] simply because he leans toward the Conservative side on issues & Those on the Progressive side who believed that Anita Hill was sexually harassed by her boss who made several unwanted advances & lewd sexual references toward her based solely on her appearance & physical attractiveness as he saw it refusing to change his behavior after numerous requests to do so.    Plotline: The year is 1991 & Clarence Thomas [Wendell Pierce] has been nominated to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The chairmen of these Senate Hearing is Joe Biden [Greg Kinnear] from Delaware. The process appears to going along smoothly for Thomas until a current professor of law at The University of Oklahoma named Anita Hill [Kerry Washington] decides to reluctantly testify before Congress in the Senate. I won't bore my audience with Congressional names or the staffers who work on their behalf on both sides of the DC aisle other then to say this: The bulk of this film focuses on the testimony of Hill & how Thomas reacts to the allegations leveled against him.    Clarence Thomas's supporters somehow convince Biden to deliver his testimony first & while giving his opening remarks Thomas claims that these sexual harassment allegations are false, unfounded, & that he treated all his female employees with respect. When Anita Hill is allowed to testify before the Senate, she tells the body assembled there in a long, prepared, typed statement that Mr. Thomas constantly tried to ask her out socially, bragged about the size of his organ, talked about several adult films he had seen despite making her feel very uneasy, & that on 1 occasion he made a deplorable joke about hair from a private region of his body being found on the aluminum can itself. As you listen to Hill say these words out loud, it dawns on you that all the members in these judiciary hearings are men with zero women in elected office at this point. Think about that reality for a second.    Despite the fact that Anita Hill is well educated, well read, articulate, a credible witness, & very bright; the following doubts & allegations are brought against her testimony: Why did it take her so long to bring these sexual harassment charges forward? Why did she continue to have contact with Thomas? Why didn't she just talk about misconduct sooner & bring formal charges against him? Is she just looking for simple fame, fortune, & publicity? Was she secretly attracted to him & Thomas declined her advances so therefore she wants revenge now? Did she get some of her crazy harassment allegations from books like "The Exorcist?" Did she develop a secret, sexual crush on Thomas known as erotomania like she's some sort of mental deviant?    As you watch the absurd theories cast against Miss Hill by senators who believe this is an unfair witch hunt against Clarence Thomas, it makes you upset or it made me furious rather than none of these male Congressmen ever considered the possibility that men in positions of authority could use their stature & influence to manipulate the situation to their advantage thru unwanted advances or even intercourse because they write evaluations on their subordinates that they oversee, they determine a women's future thru promotions or recommendations; they can blackball or prevent females from working at other law firms or any law firm rather ever again. Could a women studying law really saw no to her boss's advances back in 1991 with the 'boys will be boys' mentality? Sadly no, not really. Not if you wanna advance or climb up the legal ladder anyway. In addition, this really ticked me off. Anita Hill's claims of harassment weren't taken seriously in the Senate chamber because she was a black woman instead of a white woman stating these allegations against Thomas. What?!! That's absurd! Why should the color of the woman's skin even matter. That's freaking ridiculous & very insulting.    You wanna know how Clarence Thomas refutes these unsettlingly serious allegations? He calls the whole backlash situation against him a "high tech lynching." Excuse me? You have got to be joking. So let me get this straight, a former employee under your supervision who happen to be black just like you has committed a vile act of racist cruelty against Thomas simply because he was asked several times to stop engaging in lewd conversations about her appearance & Clarence claims that what Anita did to him by testifying is the equivalent to a hate crime? I'm about ready to smack you sir. And the worst part is that nobody in the Senate challenges Thomas on such ludicrous remarks at all. Unbelievable.    Hill even agrees to take a lie detector test to prove that she is telling the truth. However, many who oppose her assertions claim that the results are meaningless because testers can make anybody pass polygraphs if they want. Ah no, first you establish a base line with false responses & then you monitor a person's heart rate & breathing patterns for erratic fluctuations. The only individuals who can pass a polygraph are psychopaths & serial killers with no appreciation for right or wrong & no impulse control. Lie detector tests are almost impossible to fake as long as the professional examiner knows what the hades they are doing.    The picture ends with Miss Hill returning back to Oklahoma. She is tired of fighting against unfounded innuendo about her reputation & character assassination tactics. Once back teaching, she takes comfort & solace in all the letters she receives from women who thank her for opening their eyes against sexual harassment. Clarence Thomas becomes a Supreme Court Justice as we all know.    This film does make think twice about what you say to your female colleagues in the workplace as it should. Can you say some looks nice today without it coming across as inappropriate? I guess it depends on a person's tone, sincerity, & maintaining eye contact without visually wondering to other sections of a co-workers anatomy I guess. Lets roll with a B- on "Confirmation" because Hill & Thomas's performances were quite good & we never see Clarence believe he ever did anything wrong, even though he claims that he can't look his son in the eye anymore while undergoing the confirmation process anyway.    If I ever said anything that made a woman feel uncomfortable about her appearance or attractiveness, I'm sorry.        "Who's to say what's for me to say...be...do
      Cause a big nothing it'll be for me
      The land of opportunity
      The golden chance for me
      My future looks so bright
      Now I think I've seen the light"  
    • He has enough money if he has that big of a problem with this country he can fund a ticket to any country of his choice that he cares enough to stand up for. I am sure he has a passport so it's just a matter of taking care of his finances and get on a jet and fly the hades out of here.
    • You pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. It's hard for me to comprehend why he chose this way to made his voice be heard.
    • I believe they have amended the rules to 'touching the passer'......
  • Welcome New Members

    • Hi And Welcome! You can create a thread after you have 10 approved posts.  When you first join, you can post 5 replies per 24 hours so, it takes 48 hours at minimum before you can post.   Apologies for the inconvenience but it keeps our drive by trouble making to a minimum.
    • Hello Colts Nation   I am a long time reader of this forum but never really participated in comments but hope to join in this season.   Been a Colts fan since the 'move' when i lived in Carmel.  Actually liked the Colts before that when i was younger but it was the uniform that appealed to me.    I am wondering how do I start a topic in a forum?  Do I have to have so many replies before approved?  I tried to find the rules topic on this but no luck.   Thanks   Edit: I finally found the section on the rules to posting.  :-)
  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.