Jason_

yes, I'm aware. that's why I asked It wouldn't be the first time a number was unretired. I believe the Broncos had #18 retired when Peyton signed there but it was unretired for Peyton. Personally I think the number should just be retired for other QBs. No other colts QB would wear 18 but if a WR wanted to, I say let him. Just my opinion on a relatively unimportant matter

Here is the most important question of all...IF this were to happen, would he be allowed to wear #18? Should he be allowed to wear #18? I say let him...I bet Peyton would say the same.

He's a poet, and he didn't even know he was rhyming those words. Hopefully someone will get the reference lol

I don't think the number of players who can play 3T is as important as how many of them can play it better than Murphy could? Mind you, I haven't watched much of Murphy so I'm basing this on what I've heard and read, but I'm assuming if the Colts picked him at 15 then they agree with at least most of the scouting reports.

yeah pretty much what I figured. If they are going to start mixing up coverages and running more man coverage, then sure grab a CB in the first. If they're going to continue being a mostly zone team regardless, then no, no round 1 CB.

Imagine Buckner next to Murphy for the next couple of years on passing downs. Honestly I think he'd have more of an immediate impact than an edge rusher would.

And I wouldn't be upset at that at all.

The only WR spot I'd consider "basically set" is #1 with Pittman, and that's only for this coming year because there are a few WRs in this draft that have a higher upside than Pittman that could challenge for the #1 spot.

In my 2024 draft, I was able to get Rome Odunze and Byron Murphy in the 1st round and later in the draft I still got Xavier Legette and Cam Hart. if Ballard can't do the same he's a complete failure.

Honest question, have we gotten any indication that they want to make the defensive playcalling more diverse? In terms of incorporating more man coverage, that is.

What scheme was that corner drafted to play in?

This is highly unlikely

Again, you know this how? We needed long term solutions at both DE spots. Perhaps they drafted him hoping they could improve his pass rush and make him the long term RDE while also knowing that if they couldn't, they'd still have a long term solution at LDE.

Says who? besides you of course

um, no

Nobody said Doyle was a Clark. But he was definitely a decent (or better), consistent TE, which was what you originally said.

You are correct. What I should have said was, PM if you wanted to continue the discussion. My intention was to provide an alternate path to continue the conversation, not to dictate anything to you. That was my bad.

those flat earthers and sovcits...amirite?

I said...PM me if you want to continue. Quick question though (rhetorical of course) am I ignoring facts or deflecting them with laughable conspiracy theories? can't be both now can it? Honestly though, you seem to be the only one who really got their panties in a twist over this. Is it because someone dared suggest Irsay might have done something a tiny bit shady? who knows. again though. Done here. Literally the last time I'm saying it.

again, we're done here. You are also entitled to your opinion. But you've provided nothing other than "no you're wrong that never happened" I've ignored facts? I asked you what I've ignored. I have responded to every post that responded to me. I could literally say the same thing about you because, unlike others who have provided some discussion and specific questions, all you've done is this: I will not respond to you again on this topic. Feel free to PM if you'd like.

Negative champ. but also, ugh..forget I asked that. PM if you want to respond, but I've ignored nothing. I've addressed every point where possible and clearly admitted points that could not be refuted. Several others have discussed this with at least some level of intelligence. All you've done is compare me to a flat earther, say I'm ignoring facts and denying truth and of course your original dismissive comment about your moon real estate. You can be as dismissive of the possibility as you want, and it might dampen your opinion of Irsay but it really isn't that outlandish of an idea.

what facts exactly have I ignored?

say that again, but in the mirror we are very much done here though. If you think that what I've suggested is in the same category as flat earthers then so be it. I would vehemently disagree that they're even close to the same thing. Really want to say more but not going to. Enjoy your weekend

like who? I don't recall anyone saying that any HC was dictating (you used that word) anything to Ballard.