Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

OffensivelyPC

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    8,387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by OffensivelyPC

  1. 15 hours ago, EastStreet said:

    I agree with most, just not on TY. He did get open some deep, but he also didn't get open deep at times. Most of his open moments were on busted coverage, or against man vs not so great CBs. He's still fast in general (wouldn't doubt if he's high 4.4s) and that's plenty to get "open", but he just doesn't have the size. He didn't need the size when he was 4.3s or low 4.4s. 

     

    And not sure why he doesn't think TY can be a slot. He's got plenty of speed left for the slot position, and his route running would create great mismatches vs LBs and SSs. 

     

    On Rodgers, I think he's a bit overly optimistic. I love his speed and athleticism, but his size is a real limitation. He'd do fine vs smaller WRs that aren't physical, but a big and/or physical WR would give him fits in a big way. IMO he needs to work on his body in the offseason. Depending on the team, or WR unit were playing, sure, but the wrong matchup would be scary. I do like him better as a CB than Moore (when he's moved from NB to CB). 

    Definitely agree that TY has lost a step.  And he was usually protected in the slot from dealing with man coverage.  Without it, and since his injury, he's not the same player.

    • Like 1
  2. Not only that, but the stadium was in such a terrible state and deeply in need of massive upgrades.  As I understand it, the upgrades wouldn't happen without some serious concessions, hence the legislature trying to seize the team under eminent domain.  Legal?  Probably not.  Desparate?  Absolutely.  The fact that some Baltimore fans are still salty about it, but then take in the 95 Cleveland Browns by storm and rename them the Ravens is really the only argument you'll ever need against said salty fans.

    • Like 3
  3. On 1/17/2021 at 4:03 PM, Fluke_33 said:

    What is the difference between least desirable and most undesirable?  I don’t get it. 

     

    On 1/18/2021 at 12:00 PM, stitches said:

    The least desireable is one that you still desire but would take reluctantly and as a last resort after all other options have failed. The most undesireable is... you actively don't want anything to do with it. :D I think... :dunno:

    It's like dating.  In college there was a girl in my group of friends I wouldn't (and didn't ever) touch in my drunkest state no matter how hard she tried.  Undesirable.  There were others where I thought, this might be a mistake, but the hell with it.  Desirable.  Just so I don't sound like too much of a *, it's worth noting that I ended up marrying one of them.  Wejust celebrated our 10 year anniversary this past October.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 3
  4. I have no idea what unlock the swag means, but I picked it anyway.  Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Lance dropped into the 2nd at all.  He's got one full season as starter unless you count their lone 2020 game as a "full season."  One year wonders are incredibly difficult to project.  You're not surprised if someone takes him in the first, but you wouldn't be surprised if he fell into day 2 or even day 3.  Trey Lance looked amazing in 2019 . . . against Div-II competition mind you.  

     

    So move up to take Trey?  It may not be necessary.  Belicheck is definitely a guy that I could foresee taking him in the first.  But I have a hard time projecting where guys like Trey Lance are valued by NFL brass.

  5. 1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

    Here is the thing. We haven’t seen a snap from a rookie either. So what’s the difference with Eason. At least Eason was here a year and learned the playbook and from rivers. I doubt we will be in position to even get any of the top 4 QB. Not even a trade up. I would rather give Eason a shot then Jones or Trask.

    When I say "we" I mean you and me.  The difference is the coaches have worked with Eason and already know where he is at developmentally.  The activity with Eason is the Colts essentially saying, "Not only is he not good enough to be a backup to Rivers, we'd rather keep a 4th WR or special teams backups on the sidelines."  Can that guy improve over the offseason?  Sure.  But whatever shot they give Eason is at best time as a backup QB.  We already know the Colts do'nt want Brissett at the helm.  

     

    Sure "we" collectively being us and the Colts staff, hasn't seen a rookie QB on take a snap until he actually does.  But you and I do'nt work with these players and project and development.  Colts staff does.  They know when a player is ready to start, backup, etc.  They're not just gonna put a guy on the field and cross their fingers.  If I'm right about how the Colts feel about Brissett/Eason, they're going to want to look at the draft class and hope they can bring in someone better than those two guys and hopefully their projections on the newer guy amounts to a competitive or better starting QB by week 1.

    • Like 1
  6. 15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

    I think it’s time to just save the cap space and see what Eason has. 

     

    Otherwise it’s trade for Wentz or Stafford. Foles could be in there too. Just start the clock with Eason and see what he has. Make Jacoby the backup and lets roll.

    Or draft a QB which is probably the best case scenario.  I know we haven't seen Eason, but Eason never took a snap and was on and off the active roster.  That's telltale sign enough for me that we should not expect only Eason and Brissett to battle for the starting job going into week 1.  We absolutely should acquire a QB outside of Eason and Brissett.

    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, Superman said:

     

    I think Stafford has four or five really good years left, and is playing well right now, so I have him ahead of Wentz. But he probably would cost more.

     

    I don't want Darnold. For a late pick, sure, but in three years, he hasn't done anything in the NFL. I lean more toward him not ever being good.

     

    If I had to guess, I'd say Matt Ryan goes nowhere. But physically, he can still play. Carr and Garappolo are good options, but have lower ceilings. No thanks on Mariota, Winston, or Brissett. I wouldn't even spend the staff's time on them as potential starters. I'd rather commit to one of your top three options and go get your guy.

    Stafford may cost more cap than Wentz, but the Eagles reportedly will make the cost to trade undesirable for most teams.  Ballard doesn't seem to have a penchant for throwing mutiple high round picks for anything, much less a QB that we don't know whether he can return to his 2017 form.  His most high profile trade was a 1st (plus contract extension) for Buckner.  In terms of picks, it was simply player for pick.

     

    I always liked the idea of Wentz with Reich in Indy.  I just don't want to give up multiple 1-3 round picks for him.  I mean if the Colts did acquire him somehow, I think if there's anyone that can get him to right the ship it's Wentz.  So I don't necessarily hate the idea, but I don't love it either.

  8. 30 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

    Ballard talked about the possibility of having Nelson transition to a tackle. It wont be hard to find a good LG.

    Definitely harder to find a stud LT, but these days, I wonder if the traditional blind side tackle position isnt as sought after as it once was with QBs being generally more mobile and offenses being tweaked to fit those sorts of QBs. Rivers doesnt necessarily qualify as the new mobile QB, so it makes sense to move Nelson to LT if we cant find a replacement. But I think Rivers is better off not having guys in his grill up the middle, TBH. So I think it best to leave Nelzon at LG and draft an LT. 

    • Like 2
  9. 6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

    I agree it's somewhere in the middle, but the eye test for me at least, shows Wentz is broken in some way. Not saying the OL is great, but IMO Wentz has caused some of his own problems. 

    Maybe, but why?  How?  Scheme maybe?  It makes no sense that he was an ascending talent since his rookie year and all the sudden in 2020 it goes downhill.  Even with all his weapons injured last year, dude still was at least an average QB.  Reitz was obviously his best years as a QB.  But he stil played well even after his injury so we can't even say he pulled a Carson Palmer and was a shell of his former self after injury.  The entire ordeal makes no sense.

     

    Trade and restructure, I'm on board with.  Get him at a prove it level, but I am willing to bet Reitz, if anyone could bring back the Wentz we knew.  Especially if we are not one board with any of the QBs this year's draft class.  There's options out there for me and I think Wentz is at least in the discussion.  Reitz brought back a recognizable Rivers even if his arm isn't what it once was.  And Wentz is what, 28?  At the very least, I think I'm more willing to bet that the Colts coach and staff can get more out of Wentz than I think Wentz is all the sudden broken in 2020 and beyond.  There's more proof that he's not broken, anyway.

  10. 16 hours ago, EastStreet said:

    Welp, the OL and surrounding talent excuse for Wentz took a big hit today. 

    Hurts got sacked zero times, had 270ish total yards, a TD, and spread it around to 8 different pass catchers. 

    And did it, while beating a team with a top 5 D.

     

    Not saying Hurts is great, or the next big thing. Just saying he was able to win against one of the better team in the league, which is something Wentz has not been able to do.

    Hurts had 14 total QB pressures, but was able to escape them.  It was on the morning show here in Indy.  Think the guy was quoting PFF.  The difference is that Hurts has the legs to escape, similar to what's his nuts over there in Baltimore.  So I am not totally buying that the line was all the sudden better when Hurts came in or that Wenz was so bad it made his OL look worse than it really is.  It's probably somewhere in the middle.

  11. 22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

    This is more your rush to judgement which you often do.   You’ve already decided that guys are misses before it’s time.   You’ve already decided on Turay, Lewis, Ya-Sin,  Benagu, and Campbell.   Fortunately, Ballard hasn’t decided.   Most of these guys have been hurt.  Give them the time and the health to show what they can do.   You’ve already backed off on Lewis...   maybe you’ll back off on some of these other guys too?

    Thank God someone has some sense here...this thread is bananas and it could hardly get worse.  I'll take a GM that his on 3 out of 7 picks, let alone have those picks be 2nd rounders.  It's like the nincompoops here expect every 2nd rounder to be a hit.  Show me one that has that sort of hit rate, ya know?

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  12. On 11/29/2020 at 6:31 PM, Moosejawcolt said:

    I believe this is where u build your team is thru the 1st 3 rounds. What is your assessment of Ballard's ability to pick quality star players. Nelson excluded. Honestly, I am less than impressed so far. Its been 4 drafts.

    Lay off the peyote...

  13. 3 hours ago, Arodgers12 said:

    You guys have a better chance of going to the SB than us. I think we will choke in the first round.

    I think the AFC gauntlet is a little tougher this year with the Chiefs, Ravens, Steelers and Titans.  Not sure that whoever comes out the NFC east, Saints, Bucs or Seahawks could stack as well.  At the very least, the Pack is more of a frontrunner amongst those teams than the Colts is in the AFC.

  14. 5 minutes ago, poaponies said:

    this almost feels like the no pass interference on the hail marry. In some ways  

    Its what should happen. You could call hold or pass interference, or defensive holding on the vast majority of plays,  but its never called that way. So when it actually is called that way, there's an appearanxe of unfairness, or impropriety... disproportionately at the very least.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...