Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

OffensivelyPC

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    8,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by OffensivelyPC

  1. He's a situational player right now. I doubt he'll always be a situational player if he's as good as Pagano and company seems to believe. He's a rookie and like most other rookies (even one's drafted in the first round), they are eased in and depending on their progression in all aspects, will see that role expand or limit accordingly. Also keep in mind how many additions we have added to the defense, both OLB and DL. It's about creating competition, seeing whose skill sets are better than others and keeping defenders fresh come gametime. It's the second week in pre-season with a defense
  2. , I think I meant Walden, but then just confused him with Werner and ran with it and didn't notice lol.
  3. Well, it could be the particular coverage called for by the defense. Maybe Pagano and crew think he's better playing soft man while Davis is better at press man. I think it's difficult to know, but I'd be willing to bet that Toler isn't doing his own thing. That gets you benched pretty quickly, especially on the defensive side of the ball.
  4. I have too, except I will say that I doubted his pass rushing ability initially after the Bills game. Think the guy has good potential.
  5. He was undrafted and Colts resigned him this past off season to a 1 year deal. He's an unrestricted free agent.
  6. I'll tell you who else looked good - DHB, Walden, and Ricky Jean-Francois. I don't think DHB had any drops, or if he did, I must have missed it. I had doubts about Walden's pass rushing abilities after last weeks pre-season game, but after last night, I'm optimistic.
  7. The INT was a great play. He keeps making plays like that, and he'll definitely earn every penny of his contract.
  8. Yeah, our run blocking I don't think has been all that sharp. It takes time for a line to gel, so I'm still optimistic. And adding Bradshaw into the mix may change things, but it won't open up any holes. OL has to be better in the run blocking. Luck has cleaned up a lot of the mistakes, although that TD pass to Wayne should have been picked, but I'll take it. Beautiful concentration by Wayne.
  9. Which it kind of baffles me why he has got more starts. The guy just hasn't been good for us.
  10. I agree with you here. I mean, it may have been "catchable" because it was in teh same zip code, but for all intents and purposes, it wasn't a catchable ball...by anyone.
  11. I agree with the Werner assessment. Obviously he still has a lot of improving to do, but for the rookie's debut, I thought he showed decent instinct and has a good nose for the ball. Toler looked like he got beat a few times as well, I'd have to go back and watch the game film, but I don't think he got blown out or anything. And man is McGlynn awful.
  12. man I'm excited for this year. We've shown some good flashes. We also have shown some bad. But we'll get there. Go Colts.
  13. IF for no other reason, it's the freakin pre-season. If we're gonna argue over something, lets at least make it a game that matters. lol.
  14. Look dude, this is stupid. I'll just apologize and walk away. We're both Colts fans here, no reason to be hostile, and I'm partly responsible. Don't mean to be, just took offense because at some point you were getting all condescending and I can overreact when I perceive people to be condescending. Call it a pet peeve. Again, apologies.
  15. And I can acknowledge that protection wasn't great. I dispute his original statement that he would have been beaten on other plays had they not been designed to throw quickly.
  16. It's not about winning the argument, it's about you arguing about what would happen on a different play that never occurred. You want to limit it to this one play fine. Even if he did get beat, there is still no basis for you say that this would happen the same way on a different play, with different protection. That is and has been the point of my argument all along. Yeah, the guy got an inside release on him, and as I said before, he's supposed to prevent that from occurring. So, as I always have, I acknowledged that protection wasn't pretty, but he still kept him from hitting the QB, s
  17. , i did. You just clearly have no idea how to analyze a football play except by conjecture.
  18. I'm the one painting pictures? Dude, you just basically said that if the play were different, Castanzo would hvae been beat. * If the play were different, the protection and everythign else would have been different. But I don't know how you think the QB not being touched on a play equals bad protection. If that's your analysis, remind me next time to take your opinion with a grain of salt because if you were a Colts fan last year, this is an improvement. And he wouldn't have been touched at all this last Sunday if Luck hadn't had the "cadence mishap." You aren't going to win all your b
  19. Yeah, he was fortunate there was a no holding penalty. But let's face it, there's holding on virtually every play of any football game. Doesn't excuse it, but it doesn't make much of a difference. I dunno, I guess I'm just not seeing it. Maybe our definition of "beat" is just not the same. I see an LT who prevented his guy from touching the QB, a DE going to the ground with the ball already halfway to the WR. For as long as Luck was upright, he didn't have to move in the pocket whatsoever. He had at least 3 seconds to get the ball off given that the timer is a 7:57 and Luck already has
  20. I was talking about Castonzo. Much of your original post was regarding AC and my response was primarily directed at this quote "AC would've been beat quite a bit, however, if the passes weren't already designed to come out of Luck's hand quick. I wasn't impressed" I'm saying this isn't a fair assessment, because it's not. When the throw is designed to come out quickly, the LTs job is to make sure that the DE (or OLB depending on the defense or blitz) doesn't get an inside release straight to the QB and/or keep the DE off balance so he can't jump up and swat the ball down. And the only tim
  21. typically I would agree with you, but a change in QB, with that defense changes alot. Palmer isn't a slouch, even if he's not a top 15 QB. Their D is fully capable of stopping our offense, and even with Palmer, they could put up 10-17 points against us, maybe more.
  22. That's because players want the guaranteed money and as much of it as possible as quickly as possible. If the team could average out the contract years for every player they would and I would suspect this is how it was done before free agency and the salary cap (or closer than it is now). Players like guarantees, and when guarantees are back loaded (which most players other than QBs don't like it that way), they can get injured, stick out the season and get cut and not get the full amount guaranteed by the contract (i.e. the likely to be earned portion of contracts).
  23. Agreed. The 70% in cap hits usually isn't quite so crazy when it's a franchise player and front loaded, but here, you're right. If Flacco pans out, they'll have to cut some excess fat and restock in the draft with the friendly rookie wage scale, but that's putting a lot of risk on the franchise. Then again, this is the contract that they must reap and sow. Glad its not our problem (yet anyway)
  24. That's tough. I think we can win 5 division games, and that's pushing it, probably 4 (2 vs Jags, and then our home games, if we're lucky, 5 at TEN). Vs other AFC W - I think we can beat OAK, and 1 at either SD or KC, probably lose to DEN Vs like opponents - Win vs MIA, probably lose to CIN, Vs NFC W - tough one to gauge. Win against STL, 50/50 chance against SEA, ARI, lose to SF I think 9 games is realistic, should win 8, best case scenario we win 10 or 11 games.
×
×
  • Create New...