Btown_Colt
-
Posts
1,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Btown_Colt
-
-
1 minute ago, Southside Hoosier Fan said:
They definitely looked good yesterday. The run blocking/run game started looking good last week in the 2nd half of the Jets game...but I wasn’t sure if it was the Jets not playing the run since they had a decent lead or if it was actual improvement.
All in all, AC being back has been a huge boost. Glowinski has filled in well at RG and Smith is doing well at RT.
A lot of people are starting to say the line is fixed, and they have looked good the last 2 games, but I’m not ready to crown them yet. I’d like to see them put several games like this together in a row.
-
Decent breakdown of the O-line and offense in general yesterday vs. the Bills.
-
Well this can end now. Cooper to the Boyz for a 1st is what I just heard.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Narcosys said:
I can agree to that trade, however...
I face my wife this week and if I make the trade, I will literally have no other WRs to play other than D. Jackson
Kupp is out, lockett and brown are on bye, and Allen Robinson and will fuller are both questionable.
If I lose, I don't hear the end of it. Can this deal be done next week?
If you traded D. Jackson, same situation, no?
-
5 hours ago, Narcosys said:
Kamara and D. Jackson
For
Mixon and A. Brown
Kamara and Evans
for
Mixon and Brown
-
1 hour ago, Narcosys said:
I thought you’d never ask!
-
1 hour ago, smittywerb said:
First Paragraph:
We need: 2nd WR, 3rd WR, I think our corners could be upgraded, defensive line, another pass rusher or 2, another LB next to Leonard, a nickel corner, and I could live with replacing Geathers. That's at least 10 players and not including those we need for rotational depth.
Second Paragraph:
It will not, and if you think this was a 3 year plan when he took over, then you were setting yourself for failure. Next year with a good draft and splash in FA, I see us at anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7.
Third Paragraph:
I did not mean to have star at every position, but you have to have solid players at almost every position if you want to last. We are far from that. Once again, you named 2-3 players in an unrealistic situation that once again is NOT going to make us a SB contending team. I don't think it's wise to tie our money up into 2-3 players only to become at best a Wild Card team.
1 hour ago, ThorstenDenmark said:If Chris Ballard had accomplished to get Mack, and let's say hed indeed did go after him, which I don't think he did, as there were no chatter about us being seriously after him.
But let's say we had Mack.
I don't think that would have changed that much.
We sack the QB over and over this season, with Leonard and Hunt having 4 sacks each and Ward and Sheard having 3 each, but we are still one of the worst defences. So adding Mack wouldn't have made us that much better, as our problems are in the passing and run stopping game.
But hell yeah, we would have been better with Mack.
We just have many more holes to fill, and one player like Mack wouldn't have made us better than a 2-4 team.
Again, take a closer look at those games we lost and were behind due to dropped passes and so on, and tell me what the addition of Mack would have helped?
Yes, in the perfect world where we had playmakers on both side of the ball, we could have had a better record. but this is the real world, and we are a very bad 1-5 team.
By the way, just an extra point to this conversation.
The Bears were 5-11 last year. Two of the players originally mentioned in this conversation are now playing for the Bears this year (Robinson and Mack), they already have a couple good running backs (I like Howard but wouldn’t call him a star RB) and this year they are now winning their division. They don’t have a TY Hilton or an Andrew Luck, but yet there they are...winning.
-
36 minutes ago, smittywerb said:
First Paragraph:
We need: 2nd WR, 3rd WR, I think our corners could be upgraded, defensive line, another pass rusher or 2, another LB next to Leonard, a nickel corner, and I could live with replacing Geathers. That's at least 10 players and not including those we need for rotational depth.
Second Paragraph:
It will not, and if you think this was a 3 year plan when he took over, then you were setting yourself for failure. Next year with a good draft and splash in FA, I see us at anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7.
Third Paragraph:
I did not mean to have star at every position, but you have to have solid players at almost every position if you want to last. We are far from that. Once again, you named 2-3 players in an unrealistic situation that once again is NOT going to make us a SB contending team. I don't think it's wise to tie our money up into 2-3 players only to become at best a Wild Card team.
1st paragraph:
You want 10 additional blue chip players, plus solid depth, plus the players already on the team? Any your gonna get all that next year by drafting top 5 instead of middle of the rounds and a few splashes in FA? LOL now THAT is unrealistic. You have a better shot at getting Mack, Barkley, and Robinson LOL.
2nd paragraph:
Well, Ballard is the one that said it, so I guess he sat us all up for failure.
3rd paragraph (and most important so perk up):
I didn’t bring * up or name any players. The person I originally responded to did....you are the one that jumped in without reading what he said.
Your whole post is about what this team needs WITHOUT those 3 players he brought up, when we were talking about what this team would be WITH those three players. Try to let that sink in for a moment because your not quite grasping it. I tried to tell you that in my previous post, but you seemed to ignore it.
Here one more time just for giggles, yes it’s unrealistic. No I didn’t expect Ballard to get Mack, Robinson, and a star RB last offseason. But this whole conversation started because a person said that even if the Colts had those 3 players, they would still be 1-5. That is the debate. Not if it’s realistic or not. Got it yet? Now get off my lawn please, thanks.
-
17 minutes ago, ThorstenDenmark said:
If Chris Ballard had accomplished to get Mack, and let's say hed indeed did go after him, which I don't think he did, as there were no chatter about us being seriously after him.
But let's say we had Mack.
I don't think that would have changed that much.
We sack the QB over and over this season, with Leonard and Hunt having 4 sacks each and Ward and Sheard having 3 each, but we are still one of the worst defences. So adding Mack wouldn't have made us that much better, as our problems are in the passing and run stopping game.
But hell yeah, we would have been better with Mack.
We just have many more holes to fill, and one player like Mack wouldn't have made us better than a 2-4 team.
Again, take a closer look at those games we lost and were behind due to dropped passes and so on, and tell me what the addition of Mack would have helped?
Yes, in the perfect world where we had playmakers on both side of the ball, we could have had a better record. but this is the real world, and we are a very bad 1-5 team.
Come on, don’t go changing your original comment on me now. It doesn’t matter if Ballard went for him or not, that’s not what we were discussing. And your original comment didn’t just include Mack. You said even if they had Mack, a star RB, and Allen Robinson.....not just Mack. And you used it in the past tense as to say that if they had those 3 all season, it wouldn’t of made a difference, they would still be 1-5. That’s what I called out. Your the one that said it, not me.
I’ve watched each game several times. I have that cool game pass thing you have. So I watch each game live, either on tv or at Lucas Oil Stadium, and then I watch them again on game pass. Cool story huh? After watching the games, I still 100% say that Mack, Saquon Barkley, and Allen Robinson DRASTICALLY changes the out come of the games this year and it’s not even close. They might not be undefeated, but they have a winning record and are contending in the play offs. The other teams would have to totally change the way they played against the Colts. And the Colts could have picked their poison on offense.
And yes this is a stupid, unrealistic conversation.
-
Just now, smittywerb said:
And I stand by those 3 wouldn't turn us into what you think they will. Filling 3 positions out of the many positions of need we have doesn't move the needle that much.
Ok..so how many blue chip players do you think a team needs? How many do you expect to get next year with the benefit of drafting in the top 5 vs middle of the rounds?
Seriously, if adding a game changer RB and solid #2 receiver on offense and the best defensive player in the NFL on defense doesn’t bring this team in to contention, then Ballard is going to need to his extend his 3 year plan.
There is no way a team can have stars at every position. In this unrealistic scenario we are discussing, they would have 3-4 stars on offense at the skill positions with another 2-3 above average players. The line would be solid and full of mostly 1st and second rounders. The O would be almost unstoppable. The defense would have the best player on that side of the ball in the league, which would change the way every team schemed against them. The D would have several other several key pieces (Hooker, Leonard, Hunt, Autry). Turey would be an after thought so his job just got easier and he is already showing some progress as a rusher. The only thing the D would be missing is a star CB, that this defensive scheme isn’t really even dependent on. I think you are really underestimating what a game wrecker sack machine could do for the D.
The Colts can only hope and dream the team would look like that after next years high draft picks.
-
8 minutes ago, smittywerb said:
And how possible do you think that is? We can't just throw money at someone an expect them to come. We can't afford to overpay in the rebuild phase either. This isn't Madden. Just because you throw money and say come means they are going to come.
LOL I knew that was going to come next, and now your moving the goal post.
I never once said it was realistic, but that wasn’t the argument. Go back and read the conversation again. He was talking about the Colts being 1-5 and added that he didn’t think having Khalil Mack, a star RB, and Allen Robinson would of changed the 1-5 record. That’s what I called bull on. Thanks though.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, ThorstenDenmark said:
Of course Khalil Mack would have made us better, but compared to the Bears team and roster they already had before he came, the colts roster is no wear near being such a good defence. Yes he would have given us a better chance of winning a game or two more, but I honestly dont think our record would have been better. okay, we could have been 2-4, but not more.
Let´s say we had both Mack and a star RB... yes we would be a better team, but no better than 2-4. I just don't think that would have been enough.
So sorry, i don't agree
By star RB I assume you mean a Bell, Gurley, Elliot, Barkley type running back. Allen Robinson, IMO, is a low tier #1 top tier #2 receiver. So this offense would have Luck, TY, Robinson, one of those RB’s, Ebron, and Doyle. Umm, yea that would have most definitely played a difference in our games this year.
Mack is the best defensive player in the NFL and a sack machine. He is EXACTLY what this defense is missing. He is a game changer. He most definitely changes the way those games are played.
2 minutes ago, smittywerb said:I see it turning us from a 1-5 team to a 2-4 or 3-3 team. A lot of our problems are due to injury, execution, and mistakes...not talent. 1 or 2 players on either side of the field would make a difference, but we would go from top 5 in draft to middle of the draft. And I don't think we are in the position to be a middle of the draft team. We are not a couple of players away from a playoff team, let alone a SB team. Putting 1 good player around bad players will do nothing.
We aren’t talking about 1 or 2 “players” on either side of the ball. The best defensive player in football, a star RB (Bell, Barkley, Gurley, etc) and low tier #1 high tier #2 WR.
If adding the best defensive player in the NFL, a star RB and a top of the line #2 WR doesn’t help this team win games then the Colts should probably just trade Luck and start over because there is no hope. Heck even drafting 1st overall next year, we would be lucky to get a Khalil Mack, yet alone a Mack, Bell/Barkley, and Robinson. Give me a break.
-
24 minutes ago, ThorstenDenmark said:
We are miles away from being 5-1,
So people telling me we are so darn close on being a 5-1 team needs to wake up or quit smoking whatever you are smoking.
I don't even think Khalil Mack, Allen Robinson and a star RB could have helped us.
I agree with the bolded.
As to the next paragraph, I’m not one saying that but it’s called marijuana and no I will not stop smoking it!!!
The third paragraph is pure crap. You really don’t think the best defensive player in the NFL and a star RB wouldn’t help this team? REALLY? Never mind adding in Allen Robinson who, I wouldn’t of paid what he got but, is better than any other receiver on the Colts not named TY.
I mean if you honestly think adding Khalil Mack, a star RB and Allen Robinson wouldn’t have helped this team win some of those games...maybe you should smoke some of what I am smoking?
-
2
-
-
Yup. Chester & Pascal for Cooper.
-
Patience of a Bison, never heard that one before.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Four2itus said:
I can't buy that generalization, no offense.
Week 1 - The Saints lose 48 - 40 to the Bucs
The Bears lose 24 - 23 to the Pack
Week 2 - The Vikings tie the Packers 29 - 29
Week 4 - The Vikings lose 38 - 31 to the Rams
Personally, I could not call those teams bad.
None taken. I never once said good teams wouldn’t lose or bad teams wouldn’t win.
Your Vikings example doesn’t really work. The Rams are one of, if not the best, teams in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers is one of, if not the best QB in the NFL. You should of used the Vikings Bills game to prove your point, but again I never said good teams wouldn’t lose.
Of course it’s a generalization and not a rule. But every week we are talking about how close we came to winning...and that is how the NFL works. It just about always comes down to a couple plays. The good teams make the plays needed to win more times than not. The bad teams make the crucial mistakes to lose more times than not. I don’t really think this is breaking news or a hot take.
Man if he doesn’t fumble we win the game. Man if the defense could of kept them out of the end zone we could of won that game. Man if we hit that field goal we win the game. If we don’t throw that interception in the end zone we could of scored and won the game.
These are all things fans of losing teams say.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
We may only end up with 5 or 6 wins but the future looks bright anyway with Luck looking healthy and our team is young as well.
I agree with that 100% but as far as this season goes, I’m just not gonna get my hopes up and would love to be wrong. On the bright side though...picking top 5 in the draft one more year wouldn’t be bad for this roster.
-
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
1-4 would say we stink but anyone that watches our team closely like we all do in here knows we could easily be 3-2, if not 4-1.
You do realize that’s football right? Every team could say well if this fumble didn’t happen, or we didn’t throw that interception, etc etc.
Good teams find a way to win football games. Bad teams lose close games.
We could very easily end up 1-6 after our next two games. I mean surely we will win some more games, but with the talent on the roster and the injuries stacking up, I can’t confidently say we will beat anyone week to week. Maybe the Raiders, maybe the Giants, maybe the Cowboys. That’s about as good as it gets for me.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:
My use of “seat filler” did not mean just one year but until the young guy was ready
The only reason I commented on your post is because it came across as you saying, oh well guys, he was only supposed to be a fill in stop gap player anyway.
Im saying, regardless of why he was brought in, he was our starting right guard. It’s irrelevant if we have other players because at this point time, I’m going to assume he was the best option at right guard. Hence the reason he has been starting there since day 1.
-
4 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:
The most intriguing thing to me about Boehm is he was also a wrestling champ which means he has the skills to work in the trenches and perhaps this staff can bring out in him what they've brought out in Clark and Haeg this year?!!?
Injuries or holding penalties?? Not sure which direction your heading with this?
j/k
-
3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
After Norwell not coming here and questions with Mewhort he knew he had to draft at least one OG outside of the 1st Round
So maybe not Smith but a young guard in need of mentoring that Slausson provide
Right but it had more to do with Norwell not coming here then it did with filling in for Smith...unless your assuming he draft based on need and not BPA. Ballard said he thought Smith was the last starting caliber guard in the draft. I see no reason why he wouldn’t of started Smith from day 1 if he had earned it.
And if Slausen would have played at an All Pro level all season there is no reason to think Ballard wouldn’t of tried to sign him again this upcoming off season.
-
5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
Friendly reminder from TigerTown
Slausson was signed on a one year contract as a “seat filler” until Smith was ready
So in March Ballard knew that he was going to draft Smith in the 2nd round in April and that he would need someone to fill in for him until he was ready?
-
Need a big stop from our D here. Don’t give NE the momentum back
-
j/k
Was on a cruise ship last 2 Sundays, saw scores what did I miss?
in Colts Football
Posted
They have looked better the last 2 games. They didn’t look as good the first 3 games. I know there was injuries. The competition the past 2 weeks wasn’t as good as the competition the first 3 weeks. Before last week people wanted to draft 2 new tackles in the upcoming draft. After yesterday the line is fixed.
I am excited about the future of the o-line. I’d just like to see some consistency now. String a couple more good games together, keep the same lineup, etc.