Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation



  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,778 profile views
  1. Self aggrandizing when still not understanding is cute. You just can't let it go. My statement was still accurate. I read the article. I didn't write the article, have not a clue what the author did to gather his numbers. It makes ZERO difference. 4th. 2nd. 31st. It's cute how you're consumed with attacking me and coming to the aid of New Colt Dude. This is as dead a horse as it gets. You two can continue to attack me, for reasons which escape me, but this will be my last post on the subject. Your enraged blindness to disprove a post from someone you don't know regardin
  2. You're aware that you quoted a post of mine in which I said the age of the Colts OL was not the youngest in the NFL, and you demanded I back my claim up, correct? And then I did. And then when, after some voodoo and creating your own argument (at a given moment, last weeks game, whatever, as opposed to the entire group as a whole as I stated) you still ended up concluding the exact same thing I did - that the Colts don't, in fact, have the youngest offensive line. Whether we're talking about last week or the roster as a whole. Even after changing the parameters they don't. So I'm not sur
  3. Of course I did because it's irrelevant to the point I made. Reitz and Haeg were both on the roster at the start of the year, no? The age of the Colts line. In total. Not on third and six in the second quarter of the Lions game or in the fourth quarter of the Bears game. The line as a whole. All of them. Some act like the Colts are in some unique never before seen situation. And it's simply not true. Not only in the history of the game, but in this year. Other teams start very very young offensive lines. Many have played very young kids together due to injuries. The Colts give up too
  4. I sure hope we're watching the start of a core at OL which will be around a long time! I also wish it didn't ever get to this point - where the Colts had to start so many kids at the same time. But this is an OL thread not a Grigson or Polian thread.
  5. You asked for a reference to my statement, I supplied one. The Colts don't have the youngest line in the NFL. That's what I said. You're welcome to disagree with that writer's math too. Doesn't change the facts and makes no difference to me. Here's the point, because I think you've lost it while trying to win an argument only you're having, The Colts are among several teams with very young offensive lines. Other teams, like the Titans for example, with similarly young lines, are playing better and much more cohesively than the Colts so far. Rushing yards. Sacks allowed.
  6. Here you go. At he start of the year these were the average ages. http://www.phillyvoice.com/nfl-age-inventory-offensive-line/
  7. There actually is a blueprint - the Titans, Lions, and Seahawks all have younger lines than the Colts. This year. What the Colts are doing isn't unique. It's not common, but it isn't unique. And the Colts compare favorably to those lines, and others around them in the 5-10 spots. Except one category. Sacks. Detroit is close. The point is, maybe the players taken don't fit the plan. It's my complaint with many things Pags and Grigs - seemingly forcing round pegs into square holes, and an inability to adjust. Or unwillingness.
  8. I'd like to see the numbers on defensive formations, base looks against us. It wouldn't shock me if we see more cover two or cover three than anyone else. I mean, if you were preparing a defense against the Colts, what you focus on? Not letting TY, or anyone else, beat me deep. You know teams aren't scared of Frank, or that line. And I'm certain that most d-coordinators think their front seven is better than the Colts up front, so no need for safety help. And we all know defenses can get to Luck without help/blitzing too. I'm not excusing the lack of plays/throws Dorsett's way, but my
  9. I strongly disagree with the notion that rookies should be allowed to take time to gel, or learn, or produce, or whatever. Tunsil has improved Miami's pass protection - every article assessing their line play includes mention of the work he's done, what he's contributed. Stanley was a day one starter, and his absence yesterday was obvious, the Raiders got at Flacco all day. Conklin has been solid, a day one starter at LT (second leading rushing team in the NFL, and second fewest sacks allowed). So I'm not just naming first rounders, everything I've read about Ehinger with KC has been except
  10. Not addressing either line sufficiently. The game is in the trenches still. And the Colts trenches stink. I was leaning Richardson, but, to have the beanbags required to pull the trigger on that, sincerely thinking it was just a surroundings issue for Trent, and it would be different in Indy (fewer all-you-can-eat buffets?) was brave. Or insane. Either way, I actually give some points for that. To act like a baseball GM in football was, I don't know, interesting. Huge gamble, huge failure. But had it been huge gamble, huge win...
  11. These are the kinds of games teams with any character, any heart, any interest, have to win. Home against an inferior opponent (ok, similar?). These are the kinds of games teams with playoff aspirations win period. So it has to be the Colts, right? I sure hope so. I'm tired of being angry on Sundays.
  12. I really like picks 2 onward in your early draft. I also think Phillips could be a dynamic play-maker. He'll have to adjust back to OLB, but that's all he was in high school, and junior college, it's just at Illinois he put a hand in the dirt. He simply makes plays, and a lot of them behind the line of scrimmage. I would say, though, If the Colts are in a position to take Fournette, I'd prefer to go Tim Williams or Jonathan Allen, or even one of the top LTs (Robinson), or CB (Tabor). I think Fournette and Cook will be taken early. Top 10 early. And in that range I'd much rat
  13. My homer call is Marquis Haynes for an edge pick, and I love the athleticism of Evan Engram at TE/WR. Aaron Jones, Cook obviously, and Ralph Webb at RB.
  14. The problem I have with Grigson is he seems to be reactionary. It feels, to me, like he chases positions in his drafts Missing on Thornton (good draft pick, productive, but in 32 of 48 possible games - so not the solution) and Holmes (not to mention Cherilus) results in chasing OL a couple years later. Using more picks to cover his misses just a couple years ago. Same for DT. Same for Edge rusher. Same with CB. What kills me is the use of picks on positions for a second or third time in a handful of years. It makes the misses cost so much more. Four of eight picks on OL is not a for
  • Create New...