Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

BigQungus

Member
  • Posts

    498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Football. Why else am I here, stupid?

Profile Fields

  • About Me
    <p>
    HI
    </p>

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

BigQungus's Achievements

Walk On

Walk On (1/6)

265

Reputation

  1. Not for your backup tackle. It's unrealistic to expect to have 3 starting calibre tackles on your team, and to throw your general manager over the coals for that is silly. My expectations are just that the backup doesn't wreck the gameplay, and Davenport hasn't really done that. Not that I'm saying this is a stroke of genius by Ballard for picking him up or anything like that, but it's not really something that I consider a mistake
  2. No, failing to pick up the option means that he wasn't worth being the 14th highest paid safety in the league (which is what he would have been paid at the time if we had picked up the option). It's not the same, in terms of grading a draft pick, as cutting a guy outright a la Tarell Basham or Zach Banner
  3. Except the original claim was that Ballard didn't do anything, and that is false. Also, I wouldn't compare Ballard spending 6 million on 3 backups to Grigson throwing tens of millions at free agents. Lastly, are we even sure that Davenport is a "miss?" I mean, the guy isn't good, and he is a liability most of the time, but what really did you expect?
  4. Isn't Tyquan Lewis a starter? Also we didn't technically cut Hooker, we just declined his 5th year option. It still counts as a miss, but it's definitely not the same.
  5. He got multiple serviceable backups in Tevi, Holden, and Davenport. Unfortunate that all of them disappointed. But Ballard still tried
  6. To be honest, I think your expectations were a little too high if you thought this was out of the question. Everyone knows one of the biggest concerns with Wentz is his availability. It's certainly not ideal, but I'm not surprised at all
  7. Yes, Carson Wentz being injured increases the likelihood of Carson Wentz not playing 70% or 75% of the team's offensive snaps
  8. I was on the fence between a B and an A. It depends on if we're grading based on expectation for Wentz or for quarterbacking as a whole. I graded it for quarterbacking as a whole before I realized that this can be taken different ways I think based on expectation and how much he will need to do to get us to win, I grade it an A. He certainly had an A performance against the Rams, and his Seahawks game is better than I remember. But I wouldn't give him an A for quarterbacking in general, because that would put his play among the elite NFL QBs. He might get there, but I don't think his play has been there just yet.
  9. His numbers from the Seahawks game apparently are better, somehow. But the most telling stat is the yards per attempt, almost 8 against the Rams defense. I don't know where Foxworth is getting that he played badly though. 247/1/1 with a 65% completion percentage and 5 rushes for 37 yards against the Rams defense doesn't sound that bad to me
  10. We can't say for sure that that still won't happen
  11. It could just be because Coutee is a good receiver when healthy and not just because TY is hurt
  12. This shouldn't have been unpredictable. Anyone who understands how Ballard thinks shouldn't be too surprised.
  13. So you'd rather have Kinlaw and some money than Buckner? And remember, it's not Kinlaw or Buckner, it's a chance at Kinlaw or Buckner for sure
  14. None of these guys are as good as Deshaun Watson though, so that's a moot point
×
×
  • Create New...