Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

D-Line thoughts?


Recommended Posts

I think the Browns did a fantastic job of neutralizing the pressure, both by moving Weeden around and getting the ball out quick. They also kept extra blockers in practically every time we sent a heavy blitz. Really good blocking, really good play calling, and good decision making by Weeden.

Same thing in the secondary. Aside from a couple plays early, and then the Gordon drop, our coverage was right there. Both touchdown passes were covered, and either Weeden threw the receiver open or the receiver made a great play, or both. I think their passing game was good, more than our coverage was poor.

The Browns have one of the better offensive lines in the league, with Joe Thomas on the left and Alex Mack as the center. Both pro bowl caliber players.

Coverage did a great job of tackling but the bad thing was Powers and Vaughn were played the typical Cover 2 defense. And they were getting beat in the short to intermediate throws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on you have been around long enough to know that just because player plays doesn't mean he's 100% healthy and it's clear he was not. He was hurt he tried to give it a go it didn't work so they had to sit him down. There is already talk of him missing this week's game with the same injury. That's not someone who is healthy that is someone who tried to play threw an injury to help his team.

Give the Colts credit healthy or not they still stopped him but I think it's also safe to say Richardson was not close to 100% and that impacted his performance as well.

Yeah.....nobody who plays in the NFL is 100% healthy. Some are 80%, some are 60%. I don't know what Richardson's % was, but he played in the game, and he got shut down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. It takes a certain level of non intelligence to say that.

It takes a certain level of intelligence to not know that neither Richardson, nor anyone he plays with or against, are 100% healthy. A very low one. You don't know how healthy anyone is, neither do I.

What we do know is this: he had 8 carries for 8 yards.

Many people, including you, predicted a huge day for Richardson. You now look foolish in your prediction. Deal with it.....don't blame me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.....nobody who plays in the NFL is 100% healthy. Some are 80%, some are 60%. I don't know what Richardson's % was, but he played in the game, and he got shut down.

He also got removed from the game....

Do you think Trent Richardson was taken out because he was ineffective? Or because he was hurt?

Come on now..... you know the answer.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

He also got removed from the game....

Do you think Trent Richardson was taken out because he was ineffective? Or because he was hurt?

Come on now..... you know the answer.....

He already answered that. According to Kuffs, Richardson was taken out because he only had 8 yards on 8 carries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He already answered that. According to Kuffs, Richardson was taken out because he only had 8 yards on 8 carries.

If he had 8 carries for 80 yards and 2 td's, i'm sure they would have yanked him right out.

Why can't people just own up to their *ic predictions? I mean, its right there in black and white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had 8 carries for 80 yards and 2 td's, i'm sure they would have yanked him right out.

Why can't people just own up to their *ic predictions? I mean, its right there in black and white.

Let me be clear: eight carries for 8 yards says one thing pretty clearly, and that's that Richardson wasn't effective.

But watching the game, it was obvious that he was hampered by his injury. He was trying to avoid contact, he was moving gingerly, there was no explosion, and so on. After his catch to open the game, he wasn't in any condition to carry the ball. Whether it's an injury or not, that lack of production is a reason to get pulled. But for anyone who watched the game, and who has seen Richardson play, it was obvious that he was hurt.

If he had 80 yards on 8 carries, no, you don't pull him. That would be ridiculous. But that's not relevant; he didn't have 80 yards on 8 carries.

I'm not interested in defending anyone's predictions. But suggesting that one of the better backs in the NFL would have a good game against us isn't "*ic" in the least, not after we gave up 200+ yards the week before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had 8 carries for 80 yards and 2 td's, i'm sure they would have yanked him right out.

Why can't people just own up to their *ic predictions? I mean, its right there in black and white.

*ic? Wow. You sir are a bright one. So if I predicted Tom Brady to throw for 350 yards, 4 TD's and no INT's, but he only had 200 yards and 2 TD's, would my prediction still be *ic? The dude was hurt and ineffective. What part of IF HE WAS HEALTHY do you not understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*ic? Wow. You sir are a bright one. So if I predicted Tom Brady to throw for 350 yards, 4 TD's and no INT's, but he only had 200 yards and 2 TD's, would my prediction still be *ic? The dude was hurt and ineffective. What part of IF HE WAS HEALTHY do you not understand?

Yeah, it would be *ic, because you would have been off by 150 yards and 2 tds.....lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be clear: eight carries for 8 yards says one thing pretty clearly, and that's that Richardson wasn't effective.

But watching the game, it was obvious that he was hampered by his injury. He was trying to avoid contact, he was moving gingerly, there was no explosion, and so on. After his catch to open the game, he wasn't in any condition to carry the ball. Whether it's an injury or not, that lack of production is a reason to get pulled. But for anyone who watched the game, and who has seen Richardson play, it was obvious that he was hurt.

If he had 80 yards on 8 carries, no, you don't pull him. That would be ridiculous. But that's not relevant; he didn't have 80 yards on 8 carries.

I'm not interested in defending anyone's predictions. But suggesting that one of the better backs in the NFL would have a good game against us isn't "*ic" in the least, not after we gave up 200+ yards the week before.

Exactly my point.

He had 8 yards on 8 carries, which makes those who predicted him to run all over our defense.....*.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by Superman, October 26, 2012 - personal insults
Hidden by Superman, October 26, 2012 - personal insults

Exactly my point.

He had 8 yards on 8 carries, which makes those who predicted him to run all over our defense.....*.

Dude, you're insanely jaded, a homer, stupid and an all around in-the-dark person that should never be allowed to voice an opinion. Idk who died and made you high and mighty decider of all football knowledge, and what you think are "facts", but you couldn't be more wrong about this. I'm not sure why I'm arguing with a wall, but I feel my IQ drop every time I read something you post.

To call an opinion that was based on facts, let alone everything he did in college and while HEALTHY moronic is moronic in itself. What you're doing and saying is only based on a game that he couldn't produce in because he was wait...NOT HEALTHY.

My head just exploded from all the logic and truth I laid down on you.

Oh, and I cannot WAIT until your predict something and are off. This board is going to slaughter you.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • To actually answer this...if he stays healthy...   63% completion rate, 3,900 - 4,100 yards, 24 TDs, 12 INTs, 91 Passer Rating, 59 QBR
    • It's an interesting thought exercise. But I really think that condition exists because of the injury history. As long as Wentz is healthy, I couldn't even imagine how they would spin the optics of benching him prior to reaching that threshold. They certainly didn't bench JB when it was clear he wasn't able to get the job done. The reason was because he gave them their best chance to win (or so they said).   And unless they get a legit backup QB...that's definitely going to be the case with Wenz.   What message does that send to the locker room and fanbase other than "we care more about a 1st round draft picks than we do about Carson Wentz and about winning." I can't imagine that going over well in the locker room...especially if these guys are truly bonding.   And if Wentz somehow doesn't give them the best chance to win at that point...then they would have major egg on their faces for even making that trade.  
    • That's weird comment...   Anyway, given all are healthy the 5th or 6th guy better be good on STs because he's not going to get a lot of reps in a game.  Heck Patmon hardly put on his uniform last year.  He looks the part but so do a lot of others that have come and gone.
    • I before E except after C 
    • Alright, here it goes. These trades will be close enough but not perfect, let me preface them.     Trade 1: Colts trade No.21 to Ravens for No.27 and No.104 (their 3rd round compensatory pick) and No.171 (their 5th round pick) Trade 2: Colts then trade No.27 to Falcons (they move back into Round 1) for pick No.35, their 4th rounder (pick No.108) and their 5th rounder (pick No.148)   Colts 1st pick: Round 2 Pick No.35 - Payton Turner, DE, Houston 6'5", 270 lbs - strong, good natural bend and agility for his size, fits our D to a tee. Some might say this might be a reach but they said that about Leonard too, and a very good system fit is worth half a round or round early, IMO   Colts 2nd pick: Round 2 Pick No.54 - Spencer Brown, OT, Northern Iowa, 6'8", 311 lbs (lots of Jared Veldheer comparisons, very good athlete much like Braden Smith) - very quick on his feet, should be able to definitely transition to LT, I think he is a better prospect and athlete than Dillon Radunz at this stage of the draft, with longer arms and larger hands, IMO.   Colts 3rd pick: Round 3 Pick No.104 - Jabril Cox, LB, LSU, 6'3", 232 lbs - his athleticism will improve our LB corps and he has good arm length as well that Ballard covets, very good instincts and explosive with good cover talent   Colts 4th pick: Round 4 Pick No.108 -  Tamorrion Terry, WR, Florida State, 6'3", 207 lbs - has good speed, route running needs work which is why he will be available here, can be used like Alshon Jeffery for the big X WR/big body for slants for Reich's system while also sneaking past DBs for the occasional surprise home run hit   Colts 5th pick: Round 4 Pick No.127 - Hunter Long, TE, Boston College, 6'5", 254 lbs - body type is very close to Dallas Goedert and he will be our Burton replacement, receiving TE that is a mismatch for safeties and LBs   Colts 6th pick: Round 5 Pick No.148 - Benjamin St. Juste, CB, Minnesota, 6'0", 202 lbs - I am on the group consensus that Ballard will be drafting only for depth at cornerback unless some great value screams at him; and this is the kind of developmental prospect that fits what they like in CBs that is long that I expect the Colts to draft and develop.   Colts 7th pick: Round 5 Pick No.165 - Jonathan Marshall, DT, Arkansas, 6'3", 310 lbs - Very quick and disruptive athletic DT that is suited to play 3-technique on the inside.   Colts 8th pick: Round 5 Pick No.171 - Darrick Forrest, S, Cincinnati, 6'0", 206 lbs - excellent special teamer, definitely a box safety and has played a lot of big nickel for Cincinnati, compares to George Odum     Colts 9th pick: Round 6 Pick No.206 - Jamie Newman, QB, Wake Forest, 6'3", 234 lbs - might be a later round Jacoby Brissett all over but should help with occasional usage of RPOs and QB sneaks by the goal line   Colts 10th pick: Round 7 Pick No.248 - Chauncey Golston, DE, Iowa, 6'5", 269 lbs - long armed developmental prospect who actually played well lining up inside at Senior Bowl, might work good in certain sub packages     Alright now, crucify me.   
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...