Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Lost: Offense

John Waylon

By John Waylon
in Colts Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Larry Horseman Practice Squad

Larry Horseman

Posted
Posted

I do think Luck, BA, the OL, the defense...basically the whole team...needs to be criticized on some level or another. What I don't understand is how many seem to want this years Colts to be a consistent offensive juggernaut. It's a team full of rookies and cast offs. As fans, we need to keep our expectations in check and not consciously or subconsciously compare this team to the 2000 era Colts, the Pats, etc. until we are a few years into the rebuild. That being said, I'm looking for progress each week and as a whole I haven't seen that over the last few games. There has been improvement in TO differential, however, which is key moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted
Reading this forum reminds me of the old saying, "some folks would be complaining if they were hung with a new rope."  The Colts have overcome some of the most incredible obstacles to be in the playoffs this season. 

 

That saying never made any sense to me. I WOULD be complaining if I were hung with a new rope. I think you would, too.

 

It's true that the Colts have overcome a lot of obstacles to get to the playoffs. I don't see anyone denying that.

 

Running plays?  I was watching the game hoping Arians would not call another running play.  Ballard is a rookie and the only running back left on the team worthy of the name.  The Colts are in the playoffs and it would be nice to see him on the sidelines for this game against the Texans.

 

What? It's downright silly to suggest that a team that's trying to win a game should decide not to run the ball. Absolute nonsense.

 

As for preserving Ballard for the playoffs, don't you have to get there first? As of yesterday's game, we weren't in the playoffs. The best way for us to get there was to win, and for the first four possessions of the second half, we did a terrible job of moving the football and sustaining drives primarily BECAUSE we refused to run the ball.

 

Luck spent the afternoon running for his life and people are complaining about his stats.  We won the game folks.  With heart and guts, the team, led by Andrew, won the game.  Shut up with all the complaining.

 

 Who is complaining about stats???

 

We did win the game. We didn't perform well, however, and there are multiple reasons why. It did take heart and guts, but how about some brains? It was brainless to allow our offense to completely disappear over the course of four possessions by relying on a passing attack that simply wasn't working. Luck did lead us to victory, and he deserves credit for that. But the game-winning drive also employed -- quite effectively -- that rushing attack that you were supposedly hoping we wouldn't use.

 

As for the "shut up" comment, what makes you the arbiter of what is worthy of complaint and what isn't? Again, absolute nonsense.

 

Bruce Arians should be the "coach of the year". 

 

I agree.

 

A team made up of a few veterans, some castoffs of other teams and FA's has had a winning season no one would have predicted.  The team that will be in the playoffs was laughed at before the season began, as the worst team in the NFL.

 

Also true.

 

All the complainers need to put a sock in your pie hole.  Celebrate this team and the most unlikely winning season.  As Grigson says, this is Spielsburg stuff.  Enjoy the teams success, for crying out loud.

 

Again, I can't believe someone would have the gall...

 

Most of us ARE celebrating this team and this season. Most of us are enjoying the unlikely success this team has had.

 

None of that means this team is above reproach. The play calling in the second half was the very definition of reproachful. It made no sense to call pass play after pass play, while the quarterback was struggling, the receivers were dropping passes, and the defense was getting run over. Not to mention the fact that we had a lead. It doesn't matter that we've had a good season, or that we've overcome odds. None of that excuses stupid decisions by the coaching staff.

 

Luck is a rookie; he's going to have bad stretches during games. I don't mind that, and I'm not off the Luck train. He's still a special talent, and we are LUCKY (pun intended) to have him. The receivers, outside of Reggie, are young and limited and inexperienced, and sometimes they are going to struggle. That's okay as well. We all know that the line is mostly comprised of misfits and backups, and they are going to have bad games.

 

I'll even make excuses for Bruce Arians. He has a lot on his plate, much more than he was initially expected to have. It's a road game. It's a young team. The Chiefs defense isn't a bad defense. There was probably some looking ahead that distracted the team, with Pagano set to return and the playoffs on the horizon. He was probably trying to get some things straight with Manusky, since the defense was getting pushed around. There were injuries and substitutions. We're down to one legitimate running back. For him to help this team keep its composure and come back and get the lead, on the road, against a pretty good defense, and then put the game away with a defensive stop and a clock-killing drive, is all impressive. These are the reasons I think he'll make a good head coach, if he gets the chance.

 

However, NONE OF THAT excuses his play calling on the first four possessions of the second half. It was dreadful. It was terrible. It was awful. His play calling made our offense look unworthy of a 10-5 record. It put excessive pressure on the rookie quarterback who was struggling, on the receivers, and on the defense, and over the course of a quarter and a half, the entire team came crashing back down to earth. Despite the wonderful season we've had, he was failing as a play caller AND a head coach for those four possessions.

 

This is a legitimate complaint. If you don't like it, ignore it. Don't try to suppress it just because your euphoria is so through the roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HtownColt Walk On

HtownColt

Posted
Posted

And Couch was sacked over 100 times in those 3 years...

Where is the stat on that one? Also led the browns to the playoffs in 2002. Sacked 166 times in 4 years which is 2 sacks a game on average which isnt bad. And he was sacked 56 times as a rookie which Arians had no part of that year because Arians wasn't there yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BleedBlu8792 Walk On

BleedBlu8792

Posted
Posted
Where is the stat on that one? Also led the browns to the playoffs in 2002. Sacked 166 times in 4 years which is 2 sacks a game on average which isnt bad. And he was sacked 56 times as a rookie which Arians had no part of that year because Arians wasn't there yet

 

51 times in Arians first year. 30 in his second year and only played 14 games. 19 in his 3rd year and Couch only played in 10 of those. So he was right at 100, not over as I previously stated, but that's A LOT of sacks in 3 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FireJimCaldwell Walk On

FireJimCaldwell

Posted
Posted
And Couch was sacked over 100 times in those 3 years...

 

 

Where is the stat on that one? Also led the browns to the playoffs in 2002. Sacked 166 times in 4 years which is 2 sacks a game on average which isnt bad. And he was sacked 56 times as a rookie which Arians had no part of that year because Arians wasn't there yet

 

 

sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4649/career

 

Cleveland's quarterbacks were sacked 126 times during Arians 3 years as OC. 2.6 a game. 

 

A QB can make or break an OL.  Look at Denver... Their OL wasn't a strength the last couple of years 41 & 42 sacks and now they getting regular praise(I still don't see them as an elite group), but they are getting praise because Manning gets rid of the ball and has been sacked 21 times with a game to go. It's basically the same group except for Koppen replacing Walton earlier this season. 

 

97 they had 62 sacks, essentially the same group or similar talent has 22 in 98.  

 

2010 they allowed 16, in 2011, it more than doubles to 35(which can be attributed to the horrible quarterbacking), and its now at 40 with a game to go.

 

I believe part of that is talent, part of it is a rookie qb that isn't as sound in his decision making as he was in college or as he likely will be in 5 years, and some of that is the scheme.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ColtsBlueFL Team Captain

ColtsBlueFL

Posted
Posted
I really don't care who agrees or disagrees with me. Just stating my opinion. And as I said in my last post, I'm not deferring all blame from the o-line. I just think Arians has lived off that "I don't have the linemen to run my scheme.." excuse as long as he's been a coordinator. They didn't ever have the ideal line in Pittsburgh to get the most out of his scheme either, despite having 5 off-seasons to try and get it together. Interestingly enough, Pittsburgh invested 2 early picks to the o-line right after he was fired. 

You made your opinion appear as if it absolute fact, and I'm calling you out on it!  It is not fact, and it is not credible unless you can provide evidence that supports it.  Oh, also get your facts straight in your responses. Pittsburgh didn't fire Arians.  They decided not to renew Arians contract that expired and reported he retired.  

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/uncategorized/steelers-arians-retires-from-coaching-218363/

See?  That's how you do it.  In addition, I'd like to point out Pagano's very first call after getting the Colts HC job was to BA to see if he would accept the OC position.  Pittsburgh went to 2 SB's under BA's 5 years as OC, winning one.  Their O line was good enough, because it is about winning.  And why didn't you address the rest of my points in that line of my post?

 

Hollow W's, won without foundation. The way we're playing now is nothing we can build on. You can't live off of luck (no pun) forever. At some point coaching and execution needs to be the reasons we win, not spontaneity. Almost every one of our wins could've gone in the other team's favor. A team's luck tends to shift from year-to-year. At some point, we have to stop playing backyard football and win behind a REAL offense.

This is pure speculation, one I normally would not have responded to. But, since it is in your response to me, my opinion is that yours is unfounded.  Winning in NFL is hard and it's a parity league., Many games are won or lost on a few plays.  One season with Peyton, we barely won many games.  It happens. For every team.  As far as opinons on backyard offences ,I think Wash DC and Seattle's O is backyard, but very effective.  As is ours, where it counts.  We have more W's than either of those teams right now.  And Luck's ability to deliver in the clutch is the reason. Winning is a great foundation, IMHO. :)

 

Essentially my point. The consensus around here tends to think it's all the o-line's fault. I say it's just as much the fault of the coach who makes a weak spot look weaker with the type of offense he demands be run.

There is plenty of blame and Kudos to go around.  I'm not going to deny that.

 

Pittsburgh and Cleveland had those same prayers at one point in time... until they both wised up and realized that it wasn't the talent, but the scheme that was flawed.

Wow, you're killing me here. In 2002, Arians took the Browns to 9-7 and a wildcard birth, losing to the Steelers  36-33.  Arians was only there for 2001-2003.  How often do the Browns go to the playoffs?  And Pagano was Browns secondary coach from 2001-2004, while the Steelers hired Arians as WR coach for 2004

 

(And before you predictably point to the Steelers record this season as some sort of talking point, consider that their defense fell off considerably this year before you go that route)

The D fall off may well be true, but I'm not going to look that up.  I do know Ben Roethlisburger doesn't like his OC playcalling.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/10/21/roethlisberger-criticizes-haley-offense/1647279/

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/ben_roethlisberger_openly_criticizes_play_calling_in_loss_to_cowboys/12448201

 

My opinion is Ben's opinion might factor in, significantly.

 

lol... I think the real question here is, what are YOU trying to prove? It's kind of hard to prove an opinion. I didn't think it would be necessary to preface every post with a "in my opinion..." at the beginning, as I thought it was quite apparent, already.

Opinions are fine.  I have no issue with people have opinions, feelings, or preferences. But when you take your opinion and add to them items and reasons that aren't supported, but stated as an absolute truth, I can challenge you to back those claims up.  If you can, it only lends more to your credibility and strengthens your position. If you cannot.... 

 

I didn't say it was exclusive to Arians, and it doesn't make it any more or less a stupid call. I think running that kind of stuff in the redzone is a wasted snap, regardless of who's calling it. Arians DOES run a lot of sweeps and reverses in that part of the field though, and with little success. Misdirections and reverses are more effective in space, not a condensed field.

Nobody's perfect.  I agree how dumb that play call was.  But there have been others too. However, IMHO, the good far out weighs the bad.  That play didn't lose the game, nor was Luck hurt on it. 

 

 

 

And the diatribe would be just the same if we were 5-11, except a lot more people would agree with me. Arians has lived off talented QB's and skill players making his scheme look competent for the last 6 years. How many broken plays has Luck and Big Ben turned into masterpieces under Arians offense? I fail to see why he should get credit as a coach when his offenses tend to do the best when he's either NOT calling the plays or the play is extended by the QB. He's one lucky SOB, I'll give him that much 

Great players can make any coach look great.  Poor players, not so much, eh?  That Tim Couch... Browns playoffs 2002, turned out to be a great one, yes?

 

Folks are just going to have to get used to the fact Pagano's first choice and phone call was to Bruce Arians after he was named Head Coach of the Colts.  Pagano knows more X and O's than us, and what Bruce brings to the table.  and what Bruce did in his absence.  I'm good with the Grigson, Pagano, Arians trio.  Very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FireJimCaldwell Walk On

FireJimCaldwell

Posted
Posted
I forgot the question mark, it was meant to be a question. I was testing my memory to see if I recalled right

Oh okay. Your memory was correct.. I just don't remember if that was the game that they Cleveland fans cheered his injury or if that one came later. Couch broke his leg in week 16, Holcomb also started the season, and I'm not sure if he was injured which allowed them to go back to Couch or what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ColtsBlueFL Team Captain

ColtsBlueFL

Posted
Posted
I forgot the question mark, it was meant to be a question. I was testing my memory to see if I recalled right

I couldn't remember, for certain. I know Colts cut Holcomb so he could follow Arians to the Browns and compete with Couch for the starting QB job.  Can't remeber whether it was injury, or Arians just deciding to make the switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted
And went to the playoffs.

No one can take that 9-7 record away from them but Cleveland had a top 10 defense that year and were last in total offense. 28 in passing yards, Im in the camp of our offense has struggled at times do to multiple reasons, Bad O Line, Luck hanging onto the ball to long at times as well as bad playcalling at times. Also as far as backyard football goes that will only work for so long, It works now but eventually we are going to have to get more efficient on offense because defenses adjust obviously,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YOUR GM Walk On

YOUR GM

Posted
Posted
You made your opinion appear as if it absolute fact, and I'm calling you out on it!  It is not fact, and it is not credible unless you can provide evidence that supports it.

 

 

My god, man. Do you have a point in all of this or do you just want to argue? You said my comments were opinions, not facts, and I even confirmed as much in my next post, yet you still want to bicker?... 

 

Oh, also get your facts straight in your responses. Pittsburgh didn't fire Arians.  They decided not to renew Arians contract that expired and reported he retired.  

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/uncategorized/steelers-arians-retires-from-coaching-218363/

See?  That's how you do it.  In addition, I'd like to point out Pagano's very first call after getting the Colts HC job was to BA to see if he would accept the OC position.  Pittsburgh went to 2 SB's under BA's 5 years as OC, winning one.  Their O line was good enough, because it is about winning.

 

It's common knowledge that Arians had no choice in the matter. This isn't up for debate. He was forced out because Art Rooney wanted to go in another direction with the offense and overruled Tomlin on the matter of Arians coming back. The Rooney's were classy about it and let him save face by calling it a retirement, but he was relieved of his play-calling duties whether he wanted to be or not.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/34496197

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7489906/pittsburgh-steelers-chose-not-keep-bruce-arians-bucking-ben-roethlisberger-sources-say

 

 

I think it's sad that you have to resort to word pinching on something that is really a non-issue

 

 And why didn't you address the rest of my points in that line of my post?

 

I addressed everything that was worthy of being addressed. What exactly did I miss that you're so hung up on right now?

 

 

This is pure speculation, one I normally would not have responded to. But, since it is in your response to me, my opinion is that yours is unfounded.

 

Awesome....And I care about this much

 

 Winning in NFL is hard and it's a parity league., Many games are won or lost on a few plays.  One season with Peyton, we barely won many games.  It happens. For every team.  As far as opinons on backyard offences ,I think Wash DC and Seattle's O is backyard, but very effective.  As is ours, where it counts.  We have more W's than either of those teams right now.  And Luck's ability to deliver in the clutch is the reason. Winning is a great foundation, IMHO. :)

 

You're missing my point, in reference to the "backyard football" remark. What I'm saying is, playing sloppy, undisciplined football for 3 quarters and always expecting the QB to bail you out in the 2 minute drill at the end of games is not anything tangible that can be transferred over to next season. You can't build an offense around broken plays, scrambles and QB throws with 2 defenders draped on his back. You're essentially playing hero ball and rolling the dice every time you take the field. How is that making Luck a better QB, or any of our offense better in the long run? Seattle and Washington aren't playing backyard football. They're running effective plays that cater to the personnel on the roster. We're running a high demand offense that is feast or famine, and requires the QB to operate under constant duress.   

 

 

Wow, you're killing me here. In 2002, Arians took the Browns to 9-7 and a wildcard birth, losing to the Steelers  36-33.  Arians was only there for 2001-2003.  How often do the Browns go to the playoffs?  And Pagano was Browns secondary coach from 2001-2004, while the Steelers hired Arians as WR coach for 2004

 

And the fact still remains that he was fired by the Browns because his offense wasn't producing anymore. Inconsistency is a trend in Arians led offenses, if you haven't noticed yet

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1696154

The dismissal of the 51-year-old Arians has been expected for weeks.

Cleveland's offense was supposed to be the team's strongest unit this season. However, injuries across the offensive line and inconsistency from quarterbacks Tim Couch and Kelly Holcomb led to the offense dropping in several key statistical categories.

The Browns fell from No. 23 to No. 26 in total yardage, went from No. 18 to No. 25 in passing and scored just 15.9 points per game after averaging 21.9 in 2002.

 

 

 

The D fall off may well be true, but I'm not going to look that up.  I do know Ben Roethlisburger doesn't like his OC playcalling.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/10/21/roethlisberger-criticizes-haley-offense/1647279/

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/ben_roethlisberger_openly_criticizes_play_calling_in_loss_to_cowboys/12448201

 

My opinion is Ben's opinion might factor in, significantly.

It's also well-documented that Ben wasn't pleased with the Arians firing, so he's been pouting about it ever since. He doesn't like Haley's offense, even though before the injury, he was on pace to have his best season statistically and was taking less hits, sacks and pressures. Sounds to me like Haley was trying to protect Ben, but Ben is too slow to realize it.   

 

And while we're bringing up credible opinions, Hines Ward even went as far to say that part of the reason Arians wasn't retained is because he coddled Ben too much and let him do whatever he wanted.

 

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/118613-ed-hines-ward-explains-arians-firing

 

 

 “Sometimes when you get so close, partiality sets in and you don’t know if Bruce Arians is doing what’s best for the Steelers or if he’s doing what’s best for Ben Roethlisberger. I think that set in and they had to part ways because when you go out there and you can’t decide what’s best for the team and you’re doing what’s best for the players. That can be a problem.” -Hines Ward on Bruce Arians firing

 

 

Opinions are fine.  I have no issue with people have opinions, feelings, or preferences. But when you take your opinion and add to them items and reasons that aren't supported, but stated as an absolute truth, I can challenge you to back those claims up.  If you can, it only lends more to your credibility and strengthens your position. If you cannot.... 

 

What you're not realizing is i didn't make that post with the intent to convince anyone of anything. Just voicing my opinions on the state of the offense. If you don't agree with it, so be it. Nobody has time to write mini research papers just to appease you. Anyone who's watched the games can see that play-calling is an issue with this offense. I've already spent way too much time in this thread than I originally intended. Thanks.....

 

 

Nobody's perfect.  I agree how dumb that play call was.  But there have been others too. However, IMHO, the good far out weighs the bad.  That play didn't lose the game, nor was Luck hurt on it. 

 

You keep adding up the sum of those poor play calls, and eventually the odds will catch up. It WILL cost us a game. It WILL get Luck hurt. (in my opinion.... Better?)

 

Great players can make any coach look great.  Poor players, not so much, eh?  That Tim Couch... Browns playoffs 2002, turned out to be a great one, yes?

 

I'd rather have a great coach who can make marginal players look great,  and great one's look like HOFers

 

 

 

Folks are just going to have to get used to the fact Pagano's first choice and phone call was to Bruce Arians after he was named Head Coach of the Colts.  Pagano knows more X and O's than us, and what Bruce brings to the table.  and what Bruce did in his absence.  I'm good with the Grigson, Pagano, Arians trio.  Very good.

 

I think Pagano went with familiarity. He and Arians coached together (and against each other.) That's neither a testament or indictment to Arians abilities as a play-caller. Bruce has handled the interim HC job much better than I expected....And I hope it gets him a one way ticket out of here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted
77 hits to Ben last year + 42 sacks=-119 times D Got to Ben

 

This year 64 hits + 35 sacks=99 times D got to Ben

 

That's actually a higher pace. Ben missed three games this season, and only one last season. That's 7.9 hits per game last year, and 8.25 this year.

 

I blame Ben for how much he gets hit, though. He just holds the ball too long. Always has, prior to Arians and now post Arians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted
So it's basically identical. Factoring in Ben missing time, and the fact that there is still one game remaining.

pretty much and both do hang onto the ball quite a bit (Ben and Luck), Its a combination of things including O Line, Luck himself hanging onto the ball and at times bad playcalling (throwing deep on 3rd and short for example on ocassion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Dee Walk On

John Dee

Posted
Posted
I don't think anyone is looking to say Arians is guilt free here. I think people are saying its fair to say to say Luck shares some of the blame too and I am sure he would be the first to tell you that. It's not all lucks fault or all Arians fault or all the lines fault. It's a combination of the three.

 

 

I think most underestimate the viability of the "NFL players mindset" ...    

 

The Colts are up and coming..    going to the horrible KC Chiefs.         +7 favorites. 

 

IMO I have not seen a let down game thus far....     Sunday against the Chiefs I think we seen Indy's FIRST let down game.

 

BUT....   when the chips were on the table.....  who stepped up?   Mr Luck.... 

 

Go Colts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FireJimCaldwell Walk On

FireJimCaldwell

Posted
Posted
Maybe, Maybe Im not reading it right or they are not clear enough

I know like on Sunday's you'll see a stat that qb has 15 dropbacks, 3 sacks, 5 hits...or something to that affect, so you might be looking at 100% accurately, but I do think they could state it more clearly. 

 

I'm not 100% sure on how they look at it.

 

Matt Ryan has his individual splits updated since he played Saturday night. The QB's from yesterday haven't been updated yet.

 

The NFL.com website has Atlanta's OL down for 77 hits and 26 sacks.

 

His individual stats have him  knocked down on 60 passes, and 23 sacks. So I am not sure how they do not have the other 3 sacks accounted for unless he simply runs out of bounds behind the LOS. Ryan is the only QB to take a snap for the Falcons, so a look at his #'s hasn't really helped solve the question either way.

 

The Falcons have had 959 offensive snaps

362 rushes

571 passes

26 sacks

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/8780/passing_splits.html

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PASSING_QBHIT&qualified=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Dee Walk On

John Dee

Posted
Posted

I am from Knott County Ky...     Tim played in nearby Leslie Co....     He was recruited by "everyone"  And he stayed home.

 

Tim was a really great QB until he damaged his shoulder.     After that ...   It was over.

 

TC is really a great guy.   It is too bad it did not work out for him.     

 

Rock On TC, Rock on Colts.

 

I feel sorry for Tim Couch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Dee Walk On

John Dee

Posted
Posted

This is the reason some Steeler folk didn't keep their jobs...   Pitt's OL has been a train wreck for at least 4-5 years now.

 

It has not been a cohesive unit.   It all starts up front...  

Yes, and I don't see that changing much moving forward. Even when the Steelers were considered to have a stronger offensive line Roethlisberger was getting hit quite a bit. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malakai432 Practice Squad

Malakai432

Posted
Posted
Why do people obsess over Andrew?

Because he was the reason the Colts reloaded. The Colts chose to rebuild around Luck who is the greatest prospect since Elway.

People get nervous when other rookie QBs look better than the super hyped luck.

One starts to wonder if the Colts took the best Player available.... because most people believed it was okay to let go of Manning and rebuild since we can grab this great new QB.

Since it looks like he might not be as good as advertised and that there other rookies looking better, people will be worried.

This will continue to happen until Luck starts looking like the greatest QB since Elway.

Luck looks bad.

People then comfort themselves and note the improvements Manning made year one to year two. But this is not Manning.

So far Luck looks inferior to the other rookie QB's, wilson and RG3.

Whether its the system, WRs, or coaching to blame, Luck looks bad.

Fortunately most people don't think like that, people still talk about him in a positive light on ESPN and the NFL network. All over the place for that matter.

At least he hasn't had any injuries, concussions or almost blew out his knee. He's by far doing the most with the least. Your a hard man to make happy, Colts are in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BleedBlu8792 Walk On

BleedBlu8792

Posted
Posted
I think most underestimate the viability of the "NFL players mindset" ...    

 

The Colts are up and coming..    going to the horrible KC Chiefs.         +7 favorites. 

 

IMO I have not seen a let down game thus far....     Sunday against the Chiefs I think we seen Indy's FIRST let down game.

 

BUT....   when the chips were on the table.....  who stepped up?   Mr Luck.... 

 

Go Colts...

 

Absolutely....

 

It couldn't have been the defense that created 3 turnovers and held the Chiefs to 13 points...  :rollseyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Superman
      Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

      By Superman · Posted

      Not really.   There's a theory that Ballard wants to draft an OL high because he said it's important to protect the QB, and Richardson was hurt last year. And the counter was that Richardson's injury/s probably aren't about the level of OL protection, and drafting an OL high wouldn't address that concern.
    • dw49
      Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

      By dw49 · Posted

      I'm thinking if we can trade to 8 or 9 and draft Odunze , we should do it if the price is reasonable. The value chart shows giving up P 15 and P 46 is the perfect number. Probably won't do it and I would think 2025 2nd for a 2024 4th added to the deal would make it work . That of coarse would depend on Atlanta or Chicago wanting to move to 15 . Obviously , as we all know , it takes 2 to make a trade.
    • ColtStrong2013
      Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

      By ColtStrong2013 · Posted

      I can too. And that will tell us everything we need to know about how the view him. It will tell us their feelings on the tight end room, and what direction they pick from there will tell us even more.    but if they take him at 15, we won’t know much about what might have happened, as they will be landing someone they had rated highly and fell to them. 
    • ColtStrong2013
      Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

      By ColtStrong2013 · Posted

      Glad that’s over…    if I wanted to argue about it, I would have responded far more in depth than pointing out how you were attempting to gaslight me. I did not. Meaning I was ending my part of whatever the argument was. You “putting a finality to it” and then listing bullet points tells me it was the argument you wanted all along, which makes sense why you brought Grigson up in the first place. Bait, hook, gaslight. Almost got me buddy. You are a funny guy, Doug 
    • DougDew
      Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

      By DougDew · Posted

      Putting a finality on an argument you want to have.   There is a theory that Ballard won't draft a OL high because ARs injuries were not caused by a poor oline.  I felt it important to note that since Luck's major injuries were also not caused by his oline, Ballard could still want to improve it like he did in 2018 simply because AR is The Franchise. And its important to point that out because there has been a running (false) narrative for about 9 years that Luck's oline was the (main) reason for his injuries that kept him out of games.  The (false) narrative is based upon, IMO, a detest of Grigson, and not reality about the facts (or strong rumors) behind the kidney laceration and snowboarding shoulder. Therefore, mentioning Grigson and the (false) narrative was germain to the point about Ballard possibly drafting Oline high this draft to protect AR. Mentioning Grigson shouldn't trigger a CB vs RG discussion, unless people reading it are gaslighted by their own reading lens.

  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...