Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Btown_Colt

Senior Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,871

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Btown_Colt

    Empty Stadium Seats

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    11 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

    As far as the commercial breaks you have to keep in mind that is what pays the bills. That is why the players are on the field for you to watch in the first place.  Without the TV money these games wouldn't be on TV at all. 

     

    Oh that’s how that works? Just kidding with you.

    I get that but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t negatively impact the fans experience at the game, which is the only point I was making. At home commercials suck but you can change the channel or go to the fridge. At the game your just kinda stuck there. 

    Empty Stadium Seats

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    I go to several games a year, and enjoy them, but man there is way to many breaks in play. Constantly stopping the game for commercial breaks, injuries, etc. Dakich talked about it today, and I hate to agree with him, but he is right on this one. I mean a player will start limping off the field, get close to his sideline and trainers, then lay down on the field while they look at him. If you can get off the field, then get off and let’s go.

    • Like 2

    Bell to the Colts? (Article/Rumour)

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

     

    He also has no control over where he gets traded to, & I'm not so sure Pittsburgh would want to move him to an AFC team that's trending up.

    I read the opposite. He has complete control over where he gets traded. If he doesn’t like the team, he doesn’t sign the tag, then they can’t trade him.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Steelers (+1.5) @ Buccaneers Thread

    in NFL General

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

    Honest question because I’ve spoken about this several times.....how is that not hands to the face and a penalty on the runner? Why when a lineman or corner or anyone without the ball get a penalty but the runner doesn’t. It should be a penalty and could easily injure the guys neck.

    I’m not sure and I agree. 

    • Thanks 2

    Bell to the Colts? (Article/Rumour)

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

    The last line was a bit tongue in cheek

     

    I want him as well

     

    But not for a year, for a 3rd round pick

     

    I dont see ANYONE doing this 

    I know it was, and I read all your posts in this thread. It’s a tricky situation, that’s for sure. 

     

    I’m not opposed to spending some money, good players require it. I’m not opposed to spending a draft pick either....just not sure which one. 

     

    End game...if Ballard can figure out a way to make it happen without really jepordizing too much of the future, I would be beyond thrilled. It’s just a tough situation to navigate.

    • Like 2

    Bell to the Colts? (Article/Rumour)

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    1 minute ago, MikeCurtis said:

     

    Well.......

     

    I guess its time to eat some humble pie

     

    Jvan1973......  You are RIGHT  I was WRONG.........

     

    I admit it freely and am accepting (W.F.O.T.) Wrong Fan Opinion Therapy sessions, beginning on Thursday

     

    This is what happens when you have limted time to research and you WANT something to happen that makes sense (At least to my mind)

     

    Carry on......

     

    I REALLY like our current stable of RBs.........  Who wants Bell anyway????

     

     

     

     

     

    C’mon, we all want Bell the player. We just don’t want 17 million dollar a year Bell or one year rental Bell. There is no doubt what he would do for the Colts offense.

    • Like 5

    Colts release RB Christine Michael

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, DraftMaster said:

    That's what I was thinking, until I realized Ballard never makes splashy moves :( 

    We can’t say that yet. Who all has he had a chance to make a splash for? Mack? That cost the Bears a heck-of- a lot. 

     

    Im not sure how I feel about Bell. Obviously we could use Bell the player, and I’m tired of not having a solid running game, but let’s not pretend that there is no risk in signing Bell. If it was easy or a no brainer, it would be done already. Heck we probably wouldn’t be having the discussion because he would still be playing for Pitt.

    5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

    Made room for the new DB

    I know, I just wanted to stir the Bell pot!

    • Thanks 1

    Not going for 2

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, love the shoe said:

    no I said if we would have got 3 on the first drive we would have been down by 1 nt 4 and a filed goal to win would have been all we needed right , so that last pass to Jack would have probably never happened , we were in range and in my opinion would have ran the ball and the clock down for the winning FG   just my opinion

    Your correct. Sorry I thought you was the OP, which is who I was replying to with my first post, not yours. I agree with you, so not sure why you replied to my post like you did. It’s all good. 

    Jack freakin Doyle... SMH

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

    They hadn't stopped the colts in the redzone all day to that point but whatever it is what it is.

    They hadn’t? Seems to me like I remember an interception in the red zone. 

    The only other time I remember being in the red zone was TD to TY. I can’t recall if we were in the red zone on Ebron’s TD. 

     

    Bottom line is it still wasn’t a guarantee that we would of got the TD. There were to many other things that went wrong I that game, like Lucks INT in the red zone, to pin it on a Doyle. Yea it was a contributing factor.

    Not going for 2

    in Colts Football

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, love the shoe said:

     no but that would have changed the way we would have played on the last drive , we were talking about going for two   where I grew up 3 was a higher number than 2  :)

    Yea, well you were talking about going for two so that we would of played the last drive differently, which isn’t the case. Try to follow along. Yes going for two MIGHT have made it so that we only needed a FG to tie the game, but it would not of changed the last drive that much. You don’t think we would of tried to push the ball down the field and go for the win?

×
×
  • Create New...