smittywerb
-
Posts
3,137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by smittywerb
-
-
I am for whatever does'nt involve keeping them both for 3 years, it won't work, noway possible, in a peaceful way at least.
Why wouldn't it? Has either said they would not? Or are you predicting it won't?
-
What do you think about trading down and swapping picks with Miami for their 1st and 2nd next year and their best DB, and then drafting Robert Griffin III?
Sounds good! (As long as RG3 can make it to us, otherwise there is no point in drafting any other QB not named Luck or Griffin in the first round)
-
Very good question... And if you read my post you would think I am pure Anti-Luck... In fact I don't know enough about him to be Anti-Luck, what I am against is A.) wasting a pick that sits for 2-4 years, and B.) Releasing (cause trade isn't possible) a known NFL future HOF'er for a player that's never taken a snap in NFL.... If Manning wasn't at 85% if reports came in that this surgery didn't "take".... If this was 2015, and Manning was coming up on his last year, and Luck was there I would be singing a different story.... I am only speaking for me, but I think that this most "Anti-Luck" kinda feel same.
I fully understand trading down could mean loosing Luck, and RG3, but again still same thing we don't need his replacement now, we need it when he is done, the trade down hope is for the holes in our team... Sorry if Manning is healthy QB is one of the only holes we DON'T have.
I agree.
But this is what makes this conversation so touchy and hard to understand. I wish we KNEW what Peyton Manning is going through. Like, I wish it was a "Tom Brady" injury where we KNOW he will be back. As far as my opinion, I'm more in the middle. In order to make my decision, I want to see where Manning is. If he is unhealthy, draft Luck and let him sit. If Manning is ready, trade the pick and build.
As far as fears of both sides. If we draft Luck, I hope he doesn't bust. If we trade the pick, I hope it doesn't mean we miss out on RG3 or Barkley (Next year). I am really not comfortable with drafting a player like Moore THAT high and he might not be available if we let him slide back.
-
I think there is talent outside of Luck.. and believe his bounty would bring more value to the Colts short and long term! The draft picks next year or the year after could be ammo to get a Tyler Bray, Matthew Barkley, Or Brock Osweiler in two years!
Sounds good.
Just to be devil's advocate, say the trade partner is willing to give us a king's ransom but Matt (or any other good prospect) is projected to go #1 but we have the #3, would you still bite on the deal if we had this information?
-
Don 't believe that is true. I think they lost the AFC championship to New England and then N.E. beat Philly in the Super Bowl.
Yeah, they went 15-1 that year, or something like that.
But to be on topic, Luck and Manning can co-exist. Now people's definition of "co-exist" is what the arguments are about. With the new CBA, Luck will not be an expensive clip-board holder like many think. But if you think "co-exist" means both will get minutes, then no, they will not, but that wouldn't make sense to give them both minutes.
-
I don't like Caldwell and want to give him the ax, but I feel we should feel him out. If the team's philosophies drastically change and we change some of our ways (ideas on defense, offense, types of players, etc.), then we know that it was more of Polian influence than Caldwell. But if Caldwell continues on with the same flawed concepts and players, then he needs to go. Regardless if it's mid-season or whatever. Hopefully Peyton is healthy because he can coach the offense while we look for another coach lol.
-
I have a question just to understand both sides of the "Luck" argument. Are you guys for trading the pick and acquiring more picks or Anti-Luck? What I'm saying is if trading down meant losing out on RG3 & Luck, would you guys be opposed to taking a less proven college player that is more prone to bust for the picks.
Of course, this is assuming Manning is 85% or above.
-
If I had to choose between Manning or Luck moving forward...... well...... I don't think I could.
That's the thing, you don't have to. Manning and Luck can coexist. Yeah, we will be spending money on a bench player but with the new CBA it is affordable. But not only are we paying for back-up, we are paying for INSURANCE (if he is what he seems to be). I think all of us can agree that we need insurance behind Manning and just because we have insurance behind Manning does not mean we are kicking him to the curb. I feel if we draft Luck this will play out like the Farve-Rodgers situation. Manning will play out whatever years he wants to and will decide to retire on his own terms. Now let's not hope Manning has a change-of-mind and becomes a diva lol.
-
Just adds on to the dislike I have for the coaching staff and Polian (which ever one, I don't really care).
-
From 2000 - 2009 how many "key" injuries did the Colts suffer? Outside of maybe Bob Sanders missing some time and Edge missing some time, I don't think the injury issue for the Colts was no where near what it has been in the 2010 and 2011 season.
Plenty, am I going to sit here and name every one? No. Am I going to tell you that every year I have been apart of this board (I've been here under names, forgot the passwords) people have said "If only we could stay healthy."? Yes, because that is what happens.
-
that is true the scheme is flawed but so is every scheme, the problem that plagues the colts is that they do not have the right players and some of the players they have playing are either not very skilled or not very experienced... just like how Nhamdi was so good in oakland look at him now in philly playing zone he isnt as good as he was playing man... to me zone is much harder to play because playing a really good QB you can be fooled big time, unless the colts get some pretty good corners and another good saftey with a good LB or two they are gonna be plagued.
True, but I'm pretty sure some schemes are better than other schemes and take less talent to be effective. Any person who has played a lick of football will know waiting for the opponent to come to you will get you ran over. I can see why we can't tackle now. It's because of the players and the scheme. Even when our defense was playing at its best we were not a top 5 defense. That means something is wrong with the scheme. Why is it so hard for our team to attack the ball before the offense has thrown it? Why is it so hard for our defense to force TO's and not wait for them? You know I hate to bring this up, but maybe Tryon was right, Caldwell doesn't run this team.
And on the Nnamdi point, that is true, but does that mean all the corners we have are man corners because they can't play the zone well? I understand you can't fit a circle into a square hole but this is different. Instead of trying to fit a circle into a square hole, we are hoping the circle will turn into a square. This scheme is horrible. I don't know how this can sit right with anyone that has played organized football. You tell your team to go out and get punched in the mouth and hope the opposing team misses.
I look at what is behind the decline. With Peyton you have age/injury. The decline of the team is due to injury. Do you think the team would have the record it had if we didn't suffer key injuries?
Same Excuse, New year. injuries, injuries, injuries, injuries. Oh, if we wouldn't get injured every year, we would win the SB every year.
-
You know just putting my dislike for BP aside and he is right to some point... IF the colts had two good DT's in the middle and getting pressure in the middle the defense would be so much different, we wouldnt be complaining so much. But we dont have that, the times when the bears were great is when tommie harris was getting pressure up the middle and had the great Urlacher flying around in the middle... I think to some extent he is correct the colts need PLAYERS, i still dont like the scheme though.
I believe that also, but it would not turn a 32 ranked defense into a top 5. The scheme is flawed. When playing defense, the object is to read and react, not to read and allow. Comparing this to a fight, we are letting the other fighter hit us and hoping he is too tired by the end of the fight to put up a fight. That is flawed. That doesn't sit easy with me in anyway. I don't care if we had Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Suh, and any other high caliber players with the same scheme, the scheme would still haunt me.
-
I guess we can only wait and see if what Bill says is how he sees the Colts approach the draft and next season, or if he is just blowing smoke because he knows it tickes people off...
This is just amazing he believes that. Depending on another team to make a mistake is not how you play football. You do certain things to make the team make mistake, not sit back and wait for a blessing. I can see why we have such a swiss cheese defense. And it's coming straight from Polian's mouth, not the coaches, but Polian.
-
We lost the sb b/c garcon dropped a huge pass, the coaching staff didnt let peyton go n score at the end of the half, hank couldnt recover the onside kick, stover missed a field goal, porter made a great play, wayne dropped a td at the end if the gane, and our d couldnt stop brees when it mattered most. that's why we lost.
1. Receivers drop passes every game. Can't really blame a loss on that unless our receivers were dropping them all game.
2. Agree, Caldwell and whoever handcuffed Peyton at the end of the half. When I was watching, I knew at this point we would lose the game because we began to play conservative.
3. What coach in their right mind would tell Stover to kick a 51 yd FG? Oh yeah, Caldwell would tell him to do that.
-
Yeah, if you are reading that and FLAWED doesn't crash into your mind, then you need help. Polian needs a reality check. We don't even have anyone on the team that hits hard enough that would make the WR's get tired of being hit! What does he see that we are not seeing? If anything, the WR's hit us more than we hit them!
-
Hayden
Sanders
Brackett
Diem
Freeney (IMO, he's sort of one dimensional and is getting paid like he's Demarcus Ware or Julius Peppers)
And just for fun, Caldwell.
-
I've already done this a thousand times. I'll just say that I don't think Manning is the only reason we won so many games, and I'll say that our defense hasn't been weak for ten years (though it hasn't been as good as we would like). Good teams have weaknesses. The Patriots have had a subpar passing defense and pass rush for several seasons now. The Steelers have issues at offensive line and running back. The Packers struggle defending the pass and running the football. On and on. Even great teams are subpar at certain aspects of the game. That's the purpose of the salary cap.
Ideally, you look at a pretty good team that has an issue, and you say "we need to fix this issue," and it's fixed. It's a lot easier to say "we should have fixed our return game a long time ago" than it is to actually devote resources to fixing it. And with such a good offense, it's worth asking whether you want to devote considerable resources to fixing it in the first place. I disagree with some of the things we've done in all phases, personnel-wise, but the salary cap makes every team make tough choices and sacrifice one thing so as to maintain or improve another.
I think some Colts fans don't understand just how special it is to have a team that hasn't had a losing season in nine years. This season sucks, and there's a lot of blame to go around, but this whole "cap management" issue is manufactured, to say the least.
First, I appreciate the success we have had. I didn't agree with how we acquired it, but I appreciate it.
On to the topic, dude, how many years has our defense been in the bottom half of the league? How many years has our ST been at the bottom of the league? I understand what you are saying but if that is the case, then why is GB able to buld a team around Rodgers? How come Saints are able to have a great offense, ST, and above average defense? Yes, it's the cap, but it's more about where you want to spend your money. As you can see, most of our money is tied up in the offense. For majority of our drafts, the first pick has been an offensive player. It is obvious that polian intentions is to keep this offense high powered. If he wanted to improve the defense, he would have spent money in the defense, not sign low-budget cast-aways and say "Look we tried and it didn't work." The one year we spent money on both sides of the ball is the one year we went to the SB. And I think that was more of Dungy's doing than Polian. Not saying Dungy paid the players but he had more input of who he wanted.
If you don't think our D has been trash for a while then I just don't know what to say. Yes, every team has a weakness, but not for 10 years! And a team may have a weakness, but their strengths is what pulls them through. You mention the Steelers, yes they have a crappy o-line (as far pass protection) but they have been trying to address it and the Steelers has always been a good running team so I don't know what to say to that. But like I said, they have been addressing it. With the Colts, the same areas go untouched or filled with scrubs. It was not only until recently where we have actually started trying to address those issues.
-
There are many here who are unhappy with how the Colts have been built and ran over the past decade, relying so much on Petyon to dictate everything and not having a stand up defense. Well right now the two best teams in the NFL, which is probably the Packers and Pats are pretty close to that type of franchise. The Packers have almost no running game and rely on Rogers to pass them to scores, while their defense has to rely on take aways since they really can't stop teams from moving the ball. Then you have the Pats who also have a average rushing game at best and rely on Brady to be their offense while having one of the worse defenses in the league (as we saw today) and I wonder if either of their fan base is upset with it like it seems many Colt fans here are with our structure?
Huh?
For the Packers:
Sometimes it's not all about the stats but it's about TO's the defense causes and the names on that defense. The Packers have a lot of names on that defense from Charles Woodson (didn't he win DPOY recently?), Raji, Mattews, etc. They have quality players on that defense even though the stats might not back up that statement. Also, when I say quality, I mean players that have some talent in them and strike a nerve when their names are mentioned. When it comes to the Colts, outside of dwight and mathis (and maybe Brackett), our defense is pretty much nameless. Antoine Bethea is underrated so he is an exception. Back to the Packers defense, as said before, it forces TO's at critical times and step up when it needs to.
For the Patriots:
During there dynasty run, the Pats had one of the best defenses in the league. Many people believe that it was TB who carried that team to glory but truly it was the monster defense that BB put together. With players like Samuel, Harrison, Wilfork, Bruschi, and others, that defense was very physical and fast at the same time. It was only then when the Pats defense started to decline (from injuries, retirements, and lower quality players) is when TB started to struggle. Even though the Pats have put up good numbers for years, they will never return to that glory road unless they get a defense together.
The main difference b/w us and those teams is that Peyton had to put the team on his back numerous times because he couldn't depend on the defense to get a stop or a TO. Peyton couldn't come onto the field after his defense got a TO and score on a short drive. No, Peyton had to drive 80-90 yds because our crappy ST couldn't get past the 20 yard line. Then he had to sit on the sideline for 8-10 mins because our defense couldn't stop anyone! With Rodgers and Brady and Brees, they get those opportunities.
-
Colts fan from Baltimore, MD.
-
So what does nine straight 10+ win seasons 'reek' of?
Peyton Manning
That's the reason for the cap in the first place. Every team has weaknesses.
Yeah, they have their weaknesses, but not for 10 years straight. We have had a weak D for the past 10 years. We have had the same weaknesses (Run D, Special Teams, etc.) for the past ten years. That is unacceptable! And some areas that were once strengths (Pass Blocking, Pass D) are now weaknesses! I don't care who the GM or coach is, that is unacceptable.
-
Yeah, 2009 will never be forgiven or forgotten every time a team is close to 16-0
-
Nope, as long as he has his hands in things he shouldn't, I don't think so. When/if Peyton comes back, I don't trust him to put the what he needs around him.
-
First good news of the season!
-
Holy CRAP this is a bad stat. Your punter leads the ST in tackles? SMH
What To Do With The First Overall Pick [Mega-merge]
in Colts Football
Posted
Well, for both of you guys, all I'm saying is you can not make an argument by speaking for other people. What you guys are saying has not been documented. Neither Manning nor Luck said "We do not want to co-exist.". In fact, the opposite has been said by both, they have said they wouldn't mind doing the whole "co-exist" thing. Will it hinder us financially, maybe and maybe not. Are we gonna draft Luck, maybe and maybe not. But you can't speak for them.