Narcosys
-
Posts
6,792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Narcosys
-
-
40 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:
Smart.
Agreed.
Ballard has been crystal clear in all of his dealings w the media and fans. He has not misled anyone. He has said things and then stuck by it. If anything, I have seen numerous Colts articles where writers basically say "Ballard said he was going to do this" or "Ballard basically said he was not going to do that" in reference to fans being upset that we did or did not do something in player acquisition.
This is why any fans upset that we don't chase Bell or A.Brown, etc are just not listening. Listen now and you would know we are not going after those guys.
Ballard has said repeatedly he will build through the lines on both sides of the ball. He has also said he thinks the OL needs to be 10 deep.
I think the one thing that would prevent us from taking a first round offensive lineman is the fact that this class is so good and so deep on the defensive line. There might be a DL at 26 that is usually a top-15 talent in other years. That will necessitate us taking that DL.
But if the DL talent is not there for whatever reason, I would 100% not put it beyond Ballard taking an OL there for now and the future.
Those DL that are so good are the ones going top 15, only because there is nothing else good coming out in this draft. There are maybe 2 QBs that will be drafted in the first round, but neither are first round quality, let alone the top 10 in which they will be drafted. Our first pick will not be DL, based solely on the fact that 8 DL will go top 15, leaving good quality players at other positions available.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 12/26/2018 at 6:54 AM, CR91 said:
Here are some pics
https://www.colts.com/photos/exclusive-photos-a-first-look-at-the-colts-cheerleaders-new-uniform
They look wholesome which I think was the idea. Not exactly eye candy, but I don't mind them
They aren't terrible, but they could do away with the shoulder pads. They just look off or out of place to me.
-
1
-
-
Defense.
Need DB, Safety, LB, and DEs.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, LockeDown said:
Ballard believes we haven’t seen the best of Luck yet. So He thinks in 4 years that Luck will be even better.
In 4 years luck will be 11 years into his career. He'll have maybe 4 left after that. Hopefully we get something from those last 4.
2 hours ago, Roger said:Brissett is not better than those three. He would be a backup on any of those teams. He is like Matt Cassell.
Not sure how you can say that but ok.
-
2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Sure anything can happen, look at what happened to Oladipo for the Pacers the other night. It is a risk as a GM that I would be willing to take. Luck's talent is just too great to give up on him. Other than Mahomes and Rodgers no QB's are more talented at this moment IMO. Just saying based on talent.
Won't disagree with that.
-
1
-
-
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:
After watching this season I am less worried about Luck's shoulder now. I hve to admit every time he did get hit this season I flinched LOL. He seems to be 100% and I haven't heard from any sources he isn't.
For now, age and time will still wear him down and that shoulder. You can't believe that after just one season you trust he won't re-injure it, especially since he took the fewest hits in the league. He's a risk, no other way to look at it. I worry in 4 years his shoulder is going to be bothering him as the wear and tear catches up.
-
6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Regarding Luck, the only QB's that are arguably better as of now,
Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes. I guess maybe Wilson but I think Luck is definitely better than him as of now. Notice how Wilson can not win in the Playoffs without that great Defense he had or without Lynch. I would take Luck over Big Ben or Rivers as well. Brady and Brees are getting old though. Rodgers really had an off year too. Mahomes is scary good and young!
Back on topic
I would keep Jacoby for another season, he is on a cheap contract and a solid backup just in case Luck gets concussed or something and has to miss a game or come out of a game.
I worry too much about his injury, its too much of a risk to me to just overlook it due to his skill.
-
40 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:
Hypothetically, would you trade Luck for all three of the Raiders 1st round picks this year straight up?
No, too many picks in one year. Looking at future draft classes, I'd want to spread the picks out over the next 3 years. This way we can better grow brissett and better evaluate our needs as our draftees develop.
Not smart to stack all in one draft.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, CoachLite said:
That's why Chris Ballard gets paid the big bucks, and the fans here are … just fans. Doing what's right for the individuals AND the team is a hard job.
Smh
-
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
The QB's you mentioned are outliers and Bortles will never win a SB. Brisett is definitely not better than Joe Flacco when he was in his prime. Yeah out of 53 SB's played there have been probably 5 or 6 that have won a SB that aren't in that very good or great level. Most of them have been. Luck is just entering his prime and had a career season. Brissett isn't even close to his level. Brissett is a solid backup and I like him but come on. Luck has the potential to become a Top 5 - 10 QB of all-time. We do not even sniff 10 wins without Luck this season. You think Brissett throws 39 TD's and 4500 Yards? We would've been around 6-10 without Luck.
I disagree, I think people are severely underestimating Brissett's skill.
If we can get 3-4 picks for the next 2-3 years off of Luck, I'd rather slightly lose skill at the QB position and greatly raise the skill around the entire team. We'd be more well rounded and not relying on one person to win games.
-
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I hope you are kidding. I can not tell. Having an Elite QB is very important, we aren't winning a SB with Brissett.
Tell that to the cardinals with Dilfer, the Ravens with Flacco, or the Jags last year with Bortles who choked away a sure win.
Brissett is better than all three of those QBs, we can win without Luck. We very likely would have won 10 games with Brissett at QB this year. I don't see why we don't cash in on a QB who's likely halfway through his career and an injury that is always at risk of coming back easily and getting worse over time, and keep a younger, stronger, and nearly just as skilled QB.
Makes sense to me. What I don't get is why some people are so hard stuck on Luck when his future is just as unknown as Brissett's is.
-
We have and are building a great team, we don't need an "elite" qb, which Brissett could turn into.
Trade Luck, get a ransom, and start Brissett on a cheaper deal.
-
26-21, patriots
-
Idk why people talking like ebron doesn't have hands
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:
Namath may have been a lot of things but he brought a huge following of females into the NFL.
By trashy I meant skill wise.
-
Except neither are making guarantees and neither are trashy qbs like namath.
-
6 hours ago, jskinnz said:
For the most part I believe this is the case. I doubt it was league directed but it seems clear to me that the officials decided to let the players decide the game and in doing so with the no PI call the officials actually decided it.
There has been much talk about making PI a reviewable call in the last few days. I don't think that is the answer because where does the line stop on judgment calls. And it seems the game could really start to drag. The solution for me is an emphasis on a penalty is a penalty regardless of the time of the game or the importance of a game.
I don't get why people would say that t will drag. If you are limited on how many times you can challenge, then what is reviewable makes no difference. Three is three no matter what it is.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, King Colt said:
On msn.com they have the latest video of one official #60 waiving off another official who I assume was calling PI. What else could he be waiving off? Sorry I can't cut & paste, bad keyboard I think.
-
-
2 hours ago, JimJaime said:
Not in that game, outside of the one bad Roughing the passer call they were allowing the Chiefs D get away with anything.. especially illegal contact and PI.. and they sure didn’t let the Pats get away with PI.. 2 scores because of it and 1 TO negated by them.. if anything the refs were keeping the Chiefs in the game by calling it ONE WAY.. (not saying were bad calls just they missed just as blatant PI etc the other way)
Hardly
-
1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
Their 25 like in college, so you only have to go 25 yards to score?
Yes
-
12 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
What if they don't allow any kicking in OT?
Both teams get at least one possession from their own 25. You have to go for it on 4th down, have to try to get TDs, and have to try 2-pt conversions if you score.
Nobody likes to see a game decided by a missed FG/XP anyway. At least Bills, Bears, and Colts fans (among others) don't.
That's what were talking about, putting it on the 25 and 4 downs to score. Then keep pushing them back 5 yards if they are both successful. Only TDs, no 1st downs. I like the 2pt conversion requirement.
-
46 minutes ago, Superman said:
It makes it easier for teams to score, making extra OTs more likely. Kicking isn't a factor, field position isn't a factor... It's a radical change that I don't think makes a lot of sense.
Forget timed OTs, just let them go at it and first to score after each get a possession wins.
The only thing I can think is if they both score on the first possessions, then each get another set of possessions (maybe jest move the back 5 yards and 4 downs to score like before).
If neither score on first possessions its first to score wins.
-
1 minute ago, Superman said:
Yes. College completely changes the game in OT, and is more likely to result in a longer game.
I don't understand what's wrong with simply giving both teams a possession.
I thought it was just me.
But they do give a possession to both teams. It just makes it quicker to score. Put them on the 25 and say you've got 4 downs to score. Each get a turn and then first to score. Its the same way as you're suggesting except they don't have to go 80 yards.
Colts extend RG Mark Glowinski [Merge]
in Colts Football
Posted
Players that most likely will be there for us at 26 and 34.
Byron Murphy cb,
Deionte Thompson safety,
Johnathan Abram, safety
A.j Brown, WR
N'keal Harry, WR
D.K. Metcalf, WR
Jerry Tillery, DT
Brian Burns DE
Dre'mont Jones DE/DT
Mack Wilson, LB