compuls1v3
-
Posts
2,508 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by compuls1v3
-
-
3 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:
I dont think he was worthy of an all pro selection. I don't think he is a top 5 linebacker yet. People on this board were so offended that James mayb nominated as droy. To me, James is a better player and more dynamic. I still think Leonard can b great . I just think people fell in love with his stat line. He was very average the last 3 weeks. I didn't notice him on the field at all. Honestly, I thought he looked below average as of late. He may have bought into his own hype. He seems like a player that plays better when he is *.
He forced a fumble and recovered. How is that not dynamic? I will admit he looked lost at times, but he is a play maker.
-
4 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:
The defense got us in a hole right away, 2 TD's on first 2 possessions AND took away any plans on running.
You can still run when down 2 TDs in the first Quarter, but you can't go 3 in out 4 times in a row and expect to catch up.
-
Good job Wilson. ATTACK!!!
-
11 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:
This is pathetic.
The offense, definitely.
-
4th and 1 and LBs 5 yards off the line of scrimmage.....
-
6 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:
How’s all that snow working out and slowing down KC?
Also, looks like that horrible KC defense showed up....
-
13 hours ago, Superman said:
Cover 6. Don't spy Mahomes, just contain the edge. Use your would-be spy to stay close to Kelce, but play Cover 3 behind it. Run fast, tackle well.
Agreed. Also, if Mahomes is running your way, attack him. Don't jump up and try to defend a pass.
-
I love the stat 4.6 yds. when running between the tackles. Gotta love it!!
-
Just now, Superman said:
I think we're missing each other on this.
I don't think picking a guard at #6 represents max value.
Maybe when I said "pick value" you thought I was talking about the pick value chart that's used to value picks in a trade. That's not what I was talking about.
Not trying to argue; just trying to understand. So you WOULD pick a guard at 6, but it would not be max value? Or you wouldn't pick a guard at 6 because it does not represent max value? Please educate me, because the only value I see is what is laid out on the field. I see a great left guard and great right tackle as max value (of course, after they have proved themselves). As it stands right now, would you rather have Nelson and Smith and a future high 2nd round pick, or Chubb? That will clear up my confusion. You know my stance! Also, thank you for your patience with me. I'm just a football fan with opionions, but I see you as a very knowledgeable football guru.
-
1
-
-
-
56 minutes ago, runthepost said:
It also doesn’t work well if the receivers recognize zone as well
Aka our Hilton?
-
Of all my mixed feeling of Hooker earlier in the season, I really wanted to see him play a game like this with a high powered passing attack all season. He'll either shine or be exposed, and I'm waiting to see him shine against the Chiefs. I hope he plays and gets a pick or two! C'mon Hooker, I'm rooting for you!!
-
6
-
-
1 minute ago, Superman said:
Glad we cleared up the other part, but even this is a misrepresentation of my position.
I don't think picking a guard at #6 represented maximum value. I'm okay with the pick.
If that is not correct, which guard at 6 would have represented maximum value? I was confirming that you wouldn't pick a guard at 6, but now that is wrong?
-
6 minutes ago, Superman said:
I'm saying that even if I hated the player we drafted, that wouldn't mean the trade was bad. I've never said the trade was bad. The trade was excellent.
(I've also never said the pick was bad, just to clarify.)
I misread your post. Ok, so you agree the trade was good, you just don't think we should have picked a guard at 6. Well, I'm glad we DID get a guard at 6, AND I'm glad he worked out (thus far). Nelson rocks, along with his collateral in Smith, regardless of our 2nd round pick next year. That's just gravy! I'd take those two alone over Chubb if I had to go back and pick at 3. But that's just me.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Superman said:
I've already commented on part of this, and I'm not gonna get back on that merry -go-round.
But I would like to point out that the value of the trade is completely separate from the value of the pick at #6. The trade was a slam dunk.
And the pick was a winner, also. I'm not complaining about it. I'm very happy we have Nelson. But theoretically, we could have blown the sixth pick on a bad player; that wouldn't undermine the value of the trade and the extra picks.
Where my opinion differs from basically everyone else is when it comes to the resistance to using a premium pick on a guard.
Exactly.
How can the pick value be the problem? That is where I'm confused. We received 2 great players plus 1 extra unknown player for when we could have had 1 great player. I guess if we ever play the Broncos we'll see how Chubb does against Nelson and Smith. Those two alone are better value, IMHO. Maybe I just don't understand value? Getting extra picks seems like value to me.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Superman said:
I wish we didn't have to deal in extremes all the time.
How about us who felt that picking a guard that high in the draft wasn't maximizing value? I never doubted that Nelson would be good; his play and success are not surprising, as I called him the safest player in the draft.
But I still don't think that taking an interior lineman is max value, and him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong. I'd rather have a great pass rusher and a pretty good LG than a great LG and mediocre pass rushers.
Nonsense.
I disagree. It wasn't a one for one trade, we also got our starting right tackle in Braden Smith AND a high 2nd round pick next year. I'd rather have a great LG, great RT, and a high second round pick instead of just a great pash rusher. Protecting our number ONE asset is high on the priority list in my back, then getting after the passer is next IMHO.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, The Peytonator said:
You can control the clock if you grind out long drives. I’m normally an ‘air it out’ type, but Saturday I want to see the Indianapolis House of Pancakes serving up double stacks all night in the run game. Run it down their throats all night. It’s the smart thing to do because it gives the defense time to catch their breath, and they’ll need to against this high flying Chiefs offense.
Besides, running the ball will setup OUR play action pass, and it will be fun to watch Luck air it out!!
-
Does anyone remember that sack Autry had against Watson, where he dropped into coverage, Watson ran his way, then he darted after Watson and closed in? Ithink that was earlier in the season. In contrast, last game against Watson I saw a few times where he scrambled and our guys jumped to block a pass, which lead to big gain runs. We just need to attack Mahomes IMHO with some clever disguises. Get Autry and Leornard in on some blitzes!!
-
6 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:
Good write up but it is based on misconceptions.
1. Running game has dropped without Hunt. The fact is in the 11 games with Hunt the Chiefs averaged 115.8 yards/game rushing. After they released Hunt the Chiefs are averaging 116.2 yards per game.
Mahommes relies on the big play/Mahommes cannot be patient. That is just not true, the Chiefs are 7th in the league with average number of plays per drive at 6.22. The Colts are 11th at 6.16. Also according to his passing charts he primarily lives right in the area where the cover 2 is susceptible.
Drives that end in FGs are not going to be enough against the Chiefs.
Thank you! I said the same thing in another thread. They ran it against the Seahawks...and that runner looked good. But....we still got an awesome run defense, keeping Elliot AND Barkley in check and everyone else under 100 yards, is pretty respectable.
I also agree, Mahommes is gonna feast on this cover 2, just like Manning and Brady did. Hopefully our blitzes get home though, that will cause mistakes.
I agree, completely, that field goals will NOT beat the Chiefs. They are gonna score. This is not that Jags we are talking about here...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, horseshoecrabs said:
Mack, Lenard , and over course, Luck deservers mention, along with the coaching staff, Players that are new, buying in to our ," The team concept". We have exceeded any expatiations of any body that rated us, as finishing last before the season began. I think the offensive line is the main reason that we have got to the point that we are. We should be glad that we have built an offensive line of this magnitude, that allows us the luxury to have a good ground game, and time in the pocket. Just goes to show regardless of talent, that a good offensive line can make everyone look good! ak "running back, QB wide receiver, Tight end, etc....
Our D-Line get some credit too IMHO. We are stopping the run, which is crucial come playoff time.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:
If I were the Chiefs Id put Hill in the backfield as an RB at least 10 times and dump it off to him over and over and over. We cannot defend the RB passing attack and Hill is arguably the best player in the league with the ball in his hand. Id be certain that happens 15 times.
I love Leonard but he got juked out of his cleats a few times by Watson and Miller when they had the ball in space - Hill would do worse.
Very true. Misdirection on that team has the potential to kill us. Maybe we prepare for that. We'll see.
-
31 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:
I know he is a fan favorite on this board, however he misses assignments on pass plays where I see number 50 running after a back catching a pass from behind several times this season. I just don't think he as as good as many on this forum do.
I don't know what his assignments are for passing, but I saw some dump offs to the right side of the Colt's defense to the running back. Considering we have allowed the least amount of points in the post season, I'll take it.
-
2 hours ago, Blueblood23 said:
Walker you got to be kidding. I've been very disappointed in his play especially lately. Moore and Mack have improved exponentially.
Did you see the game without him on the field against the GIANTS???
-
5
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:
The game can go either way.
But we have the edge at QB and btw I like my QB's looking where they throw.
Our WR & TE vs theirs is probably a push.
Our OL is better.
Our Defense is better.
We're a Balanced team. We're capable of running, passing, play good defense.
They can only pass.
We're 4-0 vs Chiefs in playoffs.
I watched some off the Seahawks game and they looked like they could run to me. The good news is our run defense is STOUT!
Let's talk 2019 offseason
in Colts Football
Posted
Does Smith really suck at RT? I thought people were praising him against the Texans, and then he has a bad game against KC and he's bad? Just curious what people think.