BigQungus
-
Posts
498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by BigQungus
-
-
15 hours ago, indyagent17 said:
It's always interesting when a guy in the second round holds out a bit even after the first pick was signed
It's a Grand Canyon sized leap to call this a holdout.
-
1 hour ago, BlueCrew48 said:
I have been banging the Suh drum for weeks. I think he is the better player on the field. McCoy seems like a great locker room presence, and still talented. I would be happy signing either, but would prefer Suh. I could see Ballard going with McCoy over Suh based on the all the variables. I know some of you probably think we shouldn't sign either. Would you guys like to sign McCoy, Suh, or neither?
McCoy. I'm not convinced at all of Suh's scheme fit, and I also think he could go overpriced very easily. That right there is enough to not sign him and notice I didn't even mention culture or whatever.
28 minutes ago, BlueCrew48 said:I saysign them both to 1 year mercenary deals. Less base with lots of incentives. Something like 8 mil guaranteed, 2 mil for 8+ sacks. 4 mil for a Super Bowl appearance. Maybe some other incntives like a mil for 16 games played.
The problem is that we don't really have room for 2 more interior d linemen
-
2 hours ago, BlueCrew48 said:
I get that we are all about the culture, or COLTure, but in football it is ok to be nasty once in a while. I wouldn't build around Suh, or Vontaze Burfict, or one of the other dirty players. But, I would add Suh to a team that is established in culture.
The Bulls added Dennis Rodman and one championships. The Warriors do pretty good with Draymond Green. Ron Artest had success with LA. Great teams have a guy with an edge, and football is the nastiest sport of them all. Not to mention DT is probably one of our biggest needs. If you bring him in and he F's up the locker room, you let him go. It's simple
Well even if you don't factor in the character concerns, the signing still doesn't make too much sense
-
3 hours ago, BlueCrew48 said:
Plus gotta add a spot for Suh. From what I am seeing, there is a good chance we sign him. I think I would rather sign Ansah than Suh though.
The above poster is correct too, gotta widdle the D down to less that 26. If we sign a defensive free agent, I think you will need to remove 2-3 at least from the OP list. I am thinking you will have to cut Shippy, and Franklin to make room. We will see what Speed can do. I really like Farley, but he seems to get dropped on the depth chart a lot, so he may be expendable.
What makes you think there's a good chance we sign him? Just because some posters and media are drawing the connection, doesn't mean it's actually there
-
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:
Wow....,
Honestly your post reads like it was written by his agent. Good dude?!?
If half of what you wrote was true, he’d still be with Detroit, or Miami, or the Rams, or any other team he’s played for... all of them were more than willing to let him leave...
I agree that we shouldn't sign Such, but your logic is faulty. There are other circumstances for why a team doesn't bring a player back. And anyways, I don't judge necessarily how good I think a player is based on other teams' evaluation of said player.
-
13 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:
So, I was reading an article titled "What if Peyton Manning had declared for the draft after his Junior year?" He in all likelihood would've been a New York Jet, under Bill Parcells, and history would be entirely rewritten. As it turns out, he obviously went back to Tennessee for his Senior season, threw for 3800 yards and 38 TDs, and was subsequently selected by the Colts in 98 (over Ryan Leaf, thank ya Jesus). So, the stars aligned for us to end up with Manning, and I think all would agree, we had some great years. Then, Manning gets injured right at the time when Luck just so happens to be coming out; yeah, another generational talent falls to the Colts, what are the odds? So, let's assume that Luck remains healthy until he retires, for the sake of my post, and plays to the ripe age of....say, 38. Luck essentially turns 30 as this season starts (September 12th, 1989), so that would have him as the Colts QB through the 2027 season. That would be essentially 30 YEARS of elite QB play. That crap just doesn't happen. There are franchises that can't get it right ever, striking out with QB after QB, or getting a few years here and there. It got me thinking? Is this the best stretch of quarterbacking in the history of the NFL? It almost has to be, right? And what if we only win 1 SB under Luck, and appear in another? That would be 4 SB appearances, with 2 wins...in 30 freaking years of ridiculously good, extremely lucky, QB play. It's fair to say that would be massively under achieving. Anyways, I hope we go on a mean streak and win 4 or 5 with Luck, and Ballard orchestrating, just some random thoughts. Sorry if I rambled, need to get this crap "on paper" sometimes, and what better place than the Colts forum, yeah?
The national media isn't sold on Luck as a "generational" QB, but if he plays like how I know he can, then without a doubt he will be nationally regarded as a generational QB
24 minutes ago, MFT5 said:how is having 30 years of elite quarterback play and only going to and winning 1 SB lucky. The patriots have 6 en that same span
He was predicting 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 Super Bowl win for Luck, which I think is realistic
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:
Awesome! I just heard on some podcast, locked on colts I think, that he was a bad pick and only caught two deep passes last year.
This is great news.
-
20 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I had to think long and hard on this one because I liked our draft but I will still stick with 11-5. I have high expectations as everyone should but not 100% sold that we will win 12 or 13 games and go to the SB. I have us making the AFC Title Game, and I still say the Saints is the game we will most likely lose. The Chargers and Chiefs are a close 2nd. If the Chiefs game was here I would pick us in that game. I still have us 5-1 in the division.
I voted:
11-5
Lose to Saints
Loss in Conference Championship
I chose exactly what you chose
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, chad72 said:
You have to understand that there is a reason why a) Spencer Ware was available (his torn ACL/PCL that he never truly recovered from, I felt, which led to Kareem Hunt get the job at the beginning of the 2017 season) and b) there were more injuries as he was eased in during 2018 (shoulder and hamstring injuries in 2018 season). That was the reason we were able to sign him for little guaranteed money.
We are not getting the Spencer Ware from 2016, that is 100% certain. He is just insurance as a between the tackles RB, nothing more, he is not going to have the same burst as Mack. If we expect that, we will be disappointed. I'd rather him not see the field that much, which would mean Mack is healthy for the most part, to be honest.
I agree with you for the most part, but he looked really good last year when he wasn't injured
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:
I think it's a non factor at this point. Obviously at some point you probably want him to start blocking so that he can stay on the field, but he's a situational guy at this point. Most plays he's gonna be on the field for will either be designed specifically for him, or he'll be a decoy. He won't be on the field in the traditional 2 TE/2 WR stuff (TY and Funchess), just 3 wide or designed plays really.
He'll have to block at some point. Maybe our WR corp is hit with injuries. Maybe he's a decoy. Maybe T.Y. catches a slant and Campbell is upfield so he has to block a DB while T.Y. takes it to the house.
-
9 minutes ago, That Guy said:
I think you're not a SB caliber team until you've proven you can beat other SB caliber teams. I'll even go further and say you should have to do it on the road. We haven't done that. Right now, we just have a lot of potential.
In order to win a SB, you'll need to beat at least two other SB caliber teams (might not face one in division round, but definitely will in conference championship and SB itself).
How many SB calibre teams have we faced last year?
We faced the Chiefs. We faced the Patriots when almost half of our starters were injured. Then who?
-
15 hours ago, Superman said:
Nope.
At the time, I defended the Bears trade under the same rationale -- if you want the QB, just get him. Like the kids are saying now, "secure the bag." And I was a huge Solomon Thomas fan, so I'm kind of surprised that he isn't working out with the Niners, and I hope he gets with a staff that gives him a real chance.
So here, it's the same thing. It's not about the ends justifying the means. I'm saying Trubisky is an example of the media and fans dumping on a team for what was judged to be a bad draft pick, while at the same time praising the Niners for what was judged to be a great pick (and a great trade; I still think they did good in the trade). The point is that history proves that next day draft analysis is about as worthless as pre-draft prognostication. So why not just wait and see whether Jones is actually worthy of being drafted #6, rather than acting like we know for a fact that he's not?
Well I still think that the trade wasn't worth it, but whatever.
I do agree that we shouldn't say things with certainty before the season actually starts, but I get why people are highly skeptical of Jones.
-
55 minutes ago, shastamasta said:
Pretty much where I am at. Not as high on Willis...but then again...I am pretty biased against Ss where coverage (and athleticism) might be a concern. That's why I am much higher on Tell. But we don't really know how they plan to deploy these players.
Relative to most box safeties, Willis actually has pretty good coverage skills. And his athleticism isn't bad at all, so I'm not sure where you got that...
-
2
-
-
40 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
The item at hand is the Bears prevented any other team{s} giving the 49ers players and/or enough draft capital to allow them to leapfrog the Bears and take their QB. The Bears assured they got 'their guy'.
How picks turn out is a different topic.
And was it worth it?
Anyways, I'm not sure, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that's what he's saying in the first place.
He said "The stories have not been completely written yet, but two years in, the Bears look a lot smarter with Trubisky than the Niners with Thomas (who might not make it to Year 3, per some reports)."
To me, that sounds like he's saying the Bears are looking like they're winning the trade because they drafted Trubisky instead of Solomon Thomas
-
On 4/30/2019 at 12:50 PM, Superman said:
I get second guessing, it's what fans and the media do. I don't understand why people act like they absolutely know what would have happened (i.e, 'no other team would have taken Jones,' etc), or like they absolutely know whether a player will be good or not. Especially at QB.
Everyone did this with the Trubisky pick. We -- myself included -- praised the Niners for roping the Bears into a trade from #3 to #2 and still getting Solomon Thomas. Most criticized the Bears for investing in Trubisky. The stories have not been completely written yet, but two years in, the Bears look a lot smarter with Trubisky than the Niners with Thomas (who might not make it to Year 3, per some reports).
So why can't we just wait and see how Daniel Jones plays?
Just because the player the Niners picked was a bust and Trubisky turned out okay, doesn't make the trade any better.
To me, that's a little too much ends-justify-the-means for my liking
-
1 minute ago, Nulled said:
Thanks for that info. I can tell you, that to the common person these two actions are pretty similar. At a high level without context, both kids got beat. That being said, I'm sure Hill didn't intentionally break his child's arm.
Either way, there is right around zero chance Hill gets barred from the NFL. He might be suspended for the 2019 season, but that is about it. Like i previously said, after said suspension is over he will be playing football. The Chiefs are wise to make sure it's them.
I recognize that it's a business, but if you actually want to change things, you can't sit around and wait for another team to make the first move. Using the same logic, other teams may say "Well, if we don't pick him up, another team definitely will. We should pick him up before they do."
And of course from the business side, I don't care what happened to AP, the PR risk would be too great for me to pick up this dude, not to mention the other risk that he won't get into trouble again.
-
1 hour ago, Nulled said:
You do realize Adrian Peterson beat his kid with a tree branch, right?
It was a switch. Not worse than breaking a kid's arm. Is it extreme? Absolutely. I'm not sure I would call it cruel though.
Some people are raised in that type of culture though, where you do things maybe not of that degree, but of that nature to discipline your child.
I'll try not to go too much into this because it's an online forum, but my family comes from a country where maybe 50 years ago, switches would be used to discipline your child. At the end of the day though, you still love your child. Now, they never used it to the extent that AP did, nor did they necessarily use it on kids that young, but I'm just trying to give context into what he did. AP was raised in a culture where that was still okay to do. I found this in an article.
"Peterson's family and friends confirmed to USA Today Sports on Monday that he grew up in a household where his father, Nelson Peterson, used whippings as disciplinary measures.
Peterson said "I have always believed that the way my parents disciplined me has a great deal to do with the success I have enjoyed as a man."
Now obviously I'm not trying to excuse what he did. Beating a 4 year old with a switch to where he gets a number of bruises and lacerations on his body is not okay. But it's not on the same level as breaking a 3 year old's arm. And clearly AP did it because he thought it was the right way to discipline a child.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Myles said:
I wouldn't say there is "NO" reason. It's still Irsay's money and you don't stay rich by spending when you don't have to.
Yes, but you don't make cap-saving moves on a productive player who plays at an important position unless you REALLY have to.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:
So here are my cut predictions:
-Zach Pascal
-Le’Raven Clark
-George Odum
-Chris Milton
-Zaire Franklin
-Ahmad Thomas
-Skai Moore
Sounds very solid! I like Zaire Franklin and Skai Moore, so I'd be sad about that, but you gotta do what you gotta do
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JPFolks said:
Well, you know what they say about people who "assume" right? You are welcome to quote my statements and hold me accountable for my words. But to state you "assume" I speak for someone I do not know personally, have never met and know nothing about would be ignorant on your part. So anytime someone likes one of my posts means I am now their official spokesman?
It's hard to take you seriously after that level of childish logic.
There is no official Colts depth chart. Charts published by media sites are speculative. You realize that right? For example, ESPN currently has Hassan Ridgeway still on our team, even though it was updated to include all our draft picks as well as Spencer Ware who another site with a depth chart and roster lists as a Full Back which seems like a departure from his previous usage. So, nothing you see online matters unless it comes from Reich/Ballard. If/when they do post an official depth chart list (if they even do that, which I am not sure about), it will be a form letter level of listing, meaning a predetermined logic will be used to list players. They haven't even met with all of these players, I doubt they have ranked them based on performance yet. Even the Colts.com site has none of our new players listed, nor does it even list Cain with the 4 receivers it DOES list which are Hilton, Rogers, Pascal and Fountain. Compliments made mean nothing. They get asked, they compliment. Why wouldn't they? Do you think they are giving ANY meaningful information out to media? Do you think they want potential FA's to shy away from us because we've already settled on Cain being #4 on the depth chart or as you claim since they say super nice things about him he's obviously on the team so they should go elsewhere.
Really?
Geez, I was just saying that I'm assuming he agrees with you (in other words, you're speaking on behalf of him), since I was originally talking to him and now I'm talking to you, but it appears that you both hold the same opinion, so I can talk to you and him and not worry about which position each one of you hold, which makes it okay to... ugh, never mind. No need to get so huffy about it
Anyways, what makes you think there is no official depth chart? There is no official depth chart that is RELEASED to the public, but that doesn't mean it's not there entirely. That's like saying an official draft board doesn't exist since it's never released to the public. For all we know, it may not even be released to the team, and only the executives and the coaches know. But it does exist.
-
Let me guess, another confused reaction from @MPStack
-
1 hour ago, JPFolks said:
He got injured and didn't finish camp or preseason games. Do you really not see the difference? He had a brief positive start. You put him on IR and he's back because we control his rights. Why wouldn't we see what he had to offer? Maybe he'll come in, out perform everyone on the team and be a hall of famer. Maybe he'll come in and get smoked by the competition and get cut. Neither of us know which will happen. I just don't "assume" he will in the top 4 on the depth chart. If we believed he would be anything like you seem to think he is, we, or someone, would have drafted him earlier regardless of his drug test. Someone we draft in the second round is someone we expect to be on the team. Few teams have the same expectation for guys picked near the end of the draft. Those are usually simply speculative picks. Sure, PC could flame out as well, but I doubt they picked him in the second round with any real concern that would happen. At this point we don't even know for sure Cain won't fail another drug test right? He has a history after all. A brief flash and injury before we even played out the preseason games against real NFL talent is too small a picture to assume a top 4 ranking. It also seems like some people assume I dislike him. The opposite is true, I actually like him much better than Rogers. But I can't rank him ahead of Rogers before he proves it.
So, assuming you speak for @MPStack (which, given that he liked your post, can be assumed) you're simply saying we can't assume that he's top 4 on the depth chart?
The Colts set the depth chart. So therefore if there is strong indication that they are in love with him, then it's reasonable to believe that he's high on the depth chart. Now, whether he'll actually perform is another question, but that's not the question you are posing. You are asking if he's high on the depth chart. In other words, you're asking if the Colts like him, since they set the depth chart. And the answer is objectively, yes. At this point in time, the Colts are optimistic about his potential at this point in time.
-
On 4/30/2019 at 2:54 PM, MPStack said:
Rogers, currently has a better NFL resume than Cain. Is he a star? Absolutely, not. Does he bring more to the table than Cain at the moment? Yep!
Cain lasted until the 6th Rd for a reason. Now, he’s coming off an ACL injury with only a camp sample of playing time.
There is more depth at the WR position now.
Hilton, Funchess and Campbell are locks.
Rogers also brings return experience to the team with 53 receptions, which IMO pretty much guarantees at least to me, that he’ll be on the 53 man roster.
Cain is going to have to prove a lot to make the opening roster.
Like, I stated earlier, I think he either ends up on the PS or PUP list for a sustained period of time.
So what's your point? He's gonna have to prove a lot?
-
Day one OTAs
in Colts Football
Posted
Yes I'm sad, but at the same time, Caroline Cann is the perfect name for a reporter of the Carolina Panthers who has Cam Newton for a QB