Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

When *RUNNING* the ball became a swear word.


Recommended Posts

Just wondering why its such a sensative topic on here. Why is it that people get all hurt and upset when we say we want to run the ball or want that to be our identity. I understand we have a great young quarterback but he isn't a 6-7 yr veteren yet...he isn't in the Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers level yet where he can carry a team with his arm for a season..and especially in a playoffs (even Peyton and Tom have shown thats hard to do). When we see year after year the teams with balance like the Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, 49ers, Seahawks, and now we've seen teams like NO and GB change to more of a balanced attack. The day of Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin (feature back) are over but it doesn't make the running game any less valuable. It makes a team and qb more formidable. Perhaps its how bad our OL has been but I love the thought of pounding the rock...imposing our will..and then letting Luck throw into favorable coverage eating up chunks of yards. I am one of the biggest PM guys on here and loved how he threw it around and the exciting way we played but at the same time AL isn't PM yet....he is still a young qb and will only get better and could surpass him possibly* but give our young qb a running game and you make him a contender. Ask him to throw 40 times in the playoffs is a recipe for disaster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's because all games are won or lost by the QB.

When you have an 'expected to be great' QB, that can't happen any other way but for him to rack up stats.

Great QBs are their own OC, HC, and GM. They run practices, and have a say in all personnel moves.

Besides, RBs are greatly devalued in recent years.

How could anyone trust them to contribute to winning a championship, or a game, for that matter.

 

 

 

/s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering why its such a sensative topic on here. Why is it that people get all hurt and upset when we say we want to run the ball or want that to be our identity. I understand we have a great young quarterback but he isn't a 6-7 yr veteren yet...he isn't in the Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers level yet where he can carry a team with his arm for a season..and especially in a playoffs (even Peyton and Tom have shown thats hard to do). When we see year after year the teams with balance like the Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, 49ers, Seahawks, and now we've seen teams like NO and GB change to more of a balanced attack. The day of Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin (feature back) are over but it doesn't make the running game any less valuable. It makes a team and qb more formidable. Perhaps its how bad our OL has been but I love the thought of pounding the rock...imposing our will..and then letting Luck throw into favorable coverage eating up chunks of yards. I am one of the biggest PM guys on here and loved how he threw it around and the exciting way we played but at the same time AL isn't PM yet....he is still a young qb and will only get better and could surpass him possibly* but give our young qb a running game and you make him a contender. Ask him to throw 40 times in the playoffs is a recipe for disaster. 

 

It really is That Simple.

Most OVERRATE Andrews current skills and we ALL have been Freaked by the line Grigson and Pagano had put together. But it is a BUILD ya know. :thmup:

No reason we won`t make a nice O-Line step upwards after dumping the Big 3.

We are All gonna have to see it to believe of course, it has been so ugly on the eyes and for MORE than 2 years. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to be a running team, so we let our best RB from 2013 go, do nothing to improve the O-line and sign a WR.  Our three RBs consist of Trent 2.9 and two dudes coming off IR. 

 

I like Chuck. Everybody likes Chuck.  But I'm beginning to think Chuck will be the Jim Mora of the Luck era.  If Luck's magic runs out for a stretch and he's unable to bail the team out on a weekly basis, things could go south very quickly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Indy isn't used to seeing a run first team in this era... Plus it is a scary word and I am going to get all hurt about it when our O-Line allows out running backs to get hit at the line of scrimmage and makes our running backs break tackles and make moves as soon as they get the ball!!!

I'm shivering just thinking about it!!! Yikes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's because all games are won or lost by the QB.

When you have an 'expected to be great' QB, that can't happen any other way but for him to rack up stats.

Great QBs are their own OC, HC, and GM. They run practices, and have a say in all personnel moves.

Besides, RBs are greatly devalued in recent years.

How could anyone trust them to contribute to winning a championship, or a game, for that matter.

 

 

 

/s

It's funny how some of the same people that feel Peyton failed us are the same that want to put all the pressure on Andrew. I agree we were extremely fortunate to have Peyton and a leader like him and yet in the same sentance can't expect Andrew to carry this team without a strong running game to lean on (especially in some key games) I don't blame people though because watching our line work is frustrating at times and yet its equally frustrating watching our RB run into the back of it too even though there are still holes there. I just like the discussion because so many think its a passing league...and yes you have to in critical situations but running the ball is still a major part of successful teams game plan in the playoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering why its such a sensative topic on here. Why is it that people get all hurt and upset when we say we want to run the ball or want that to be our identity. I understand we have a great young quarterback but he isn't a 6-7 yr veteren yet...he isn't in the Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers level yet where he can carry a team with his arm for a season..and especially in a playoffs (even Peyton and Tom have shown thats hard to do). When we see year after year the teams with balance like the Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, 49ers, Seahawks, and now we've seen teams like NO and GB change to more of a balanced attack. The day of Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin (feature back) are over but it doesn't make the running game any less valuable. It makes a team and qb more formidable. Perhaps its how bad our OL has been but I love the thought of pounding the rock...imposing our will..and then letting Luck throw into favorable coverage eating up chunks of yards. I am one of the biggest PM guys on here and loved how he threw it around and the exciting way we played but at the same time AL isn't PM yet....he is still a young qb and will only get better and could surpass him possibly* but give our young qb a running game and you make him a contender. Ask him to throw 40 times in the playoffs is a recipe for disaster. 

 

You're right, but you don't even realize how wrong it is to be right.

 

You don't learn how to be a race car driver by going 50mph around the track. You take the keys and you run the crap out of it.

 

When you have someone who can potentially be on the the same level as those QB's and possibly even be BETTER than them (I know it's blasphemy to think that anyone can be better than the great Manning, so sue me) You don't hinder him by having a power running game.

 

I love the idea of a running game.... That is setup from a good passing game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not rocket science. All of the past teams who have won multiple super bowls have had one thing in common. Pittsburgh- strong running game / Dallas- Smith and a strong running game / Bronco's- strong running game. Even the Colts only super bowl win was due to a strong running game. To down play having a strong running game is being blind. I don't understand why so many want to put the Colts on Luck's back just to have the same results we had with Manning.  So far Grigson is trying to build a more balanced team with offense, defense and special teams play but some just don't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some will hate this. Pagano on power football approach: "That will never change. You’re going to hear that until they run me out of there.."

— Stephen Holder (@HolderStephen)

March 25, 2014

Pagano cont'd: "You want to be a physical football team...I don’t think dropping back and throwing it every time will develop that mindset."

— Stephen Holder (@HolderStephen)

March 25, 2014

#CaseClosed

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to run the ball, it's not a mystery, not a theory, it's a fact. Especially as Pep continues to grow as a coordinator, and is able to become more creative and unpredictable with his playcalling. I think this offense has the ability to be one of the most dangerous in the league, but not without a balanced attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that it's because were not used to seeing a running game. We always get sold dreams of us having this amazing running game to take pressure off the QB, but it never comes to fruition. It's the same thing now with Chuck trying to turn us into the Ravens. Most fear this is going to be a lot like the Peyton-era where Andrew Luck does most of the heavy lifting.

 

The thing that makes a lot of good QB's even better is when they have a good RB who can get defenses to stack the box, so that the field is wide open for passing. See: Russell Wilson and Ben Rothlisberger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for being a power run team, as long as we have the horses for it. What annoys me to no end is, they talk up all this "run, run, run" physical/smashmouth bravado nonsense, but do nothing in the off-season that take the steps towards making that an attainable goal. Our big move on offense so far is signing yet another receiver. Meanwhile, we grab another o-linemen from the clearance rack and expect be physical upfront? It's a joke. These guys (Grigson and Pagano) either aren't on the same page, or just don't have a plan to begin with

Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame manning a na-Polian for building a team around a pass happy qb. Why do you think most of these crazy colts fans want to pick up wr's and te's every year.

I'm with Pagano! I want to be a physical, punch you in the mouth team. Have always loved the ravens, steelers and even ne teams that played that way. I've always thought of the colts as a sissified, soft, powder puff team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RUNNING the ball becomes a swear word only when it's not working.

 

No one had any complaints during the Forty-Niner game when Ahmad Bradshaw ran wild and the O-line was a physical force.

 

But, we all went crazy when Richardson was asked to consistently (over and over and over again) run into the backs of our interior O-linemen only to get tackled for minimal gain, or a loss.

 

I don't care about a "Power Run" game. Let's just have a successful run game, regardless of the formations. It's all about being effective, controlling the tempo, and putting up points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to be a running team, so we let our best RB from 2013 go, do nothing to improve the O-line and sign a WR.  Our three RBs consist of Trent 2.9 and two dudes coming off IR. 

 

I like Chuck. Everybody likes Chuck.  But I'm beginning to think Chuck will be the Jim Mora of the Luck era.  If Luck's magic runs out for a stretch and he's unable to bail the team out on a weekly basis, things could go south very quickly. 

 

Do you like Grigson?    Because Chuck doesn't do the things he does, or say the things he says without being on the same page with Grigson.     So, if you have problems with Pagano,  then you also have problems with Grigson.

 

And if you have problem with both, then your enjoyment as a fan is going to be seriously impacted,  unless the Colts win enough to satisfy you.......    and something tells me....  we won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year was maddening when it came to "running" to say the least but I feel there is a lot of potential with a healthy line.

 

I don't see how people aren't excited about this.  If we have even a decent (120 yds 1 td) avg during the season from all three backs combined, that means they will begin biting on the PA fake.  Which creates so much opportunity for Luck and co. to go to work.

 

I don't think we have to be a SMASH mouth line ALL the time, but we need to be able to let teams know they in a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire league is centered around super passing. It became a huge thing with Dan Marino. As much as people blame it on the Niners it really wasn't them. Believe it or not, they ran the ball hard when Montana was there and probably even more when Young was the QB. Yeah sure they had their games where he threw 40 passes but that was rare. When Walsh coached the Niners, they were not one dimensional by any means. They did start to lean towards passing though when Siefart was there the first few years, but all that changed when Young came into start and they went back to running it down your throat. The Niners liked to throw deep, but people forget Roger Craig was a beast. They would run the ball down team's throats cause they could. Roger Craig was a monster in his prime, and so were some of the backs when Young was starting QB, especially Ricky Watters in his prime.

 

Around same time as Marino, you had the Run-N-Shoot Oilers pop up and Warren Moon put up very good numbers for that system that was hell bent on passing every down but they never won anything.

 

You might be thinking that it worked back then cause Young and Favre got rings, but Favre's Packers back in the day ran the ball a lot too. Go look at the Holmgren Pack and they really were not one dimensional as people think. When they won that Super Bowl they had 2 good RB's on their team through Levens and Bennett, and when they lost their SB, they didn't run it well enough since Dorsey was averaging 9 yards a carry.

 

 

The idea that having a one dimensional passing game creates "winners" is a joke.

 

Balanced teams win a whole lot more than the super elite greatest players ever blah blah blah quarterback teams.

 

There is a reason Big Ben has two rings, but Peyton, Rodgers and Brees only have one and as much as the Pats fans deny it, Brady got his three rings when they had running games. The Pats in those years were deadly on the ground, even though Brady gets all the credit.

 

 

 

Back in the 1970's no team ever won a Super Bowl with a one dimensional super passing attack and elite quarterback. No one. Back then the rules didn't favor the QB either and you didn't get PI and holding calls to walk you down the field, but there were some impressive great QB's like Bert Jones, Steve Grogan and Brian Sipe. But no one remembers them, as the SB winners all had dominant running backs in that decade. Most teams with the elite QB's that did all the work didn't even reach the Super Bowl, as was the case with Bert Jones.

 

Before the whole "ZOMG 5,000 YARDS PASSING DUDEEEE GREATEST QUARTERBACKS EVAR!" became the thing, Bert Jones put up one of the best statistical passing seasons ever, and he didn't reach the Super Bowl. Warren Moon put up some solid years in Houston and never reached the Super Bowl. Brian Sipe put up an awesome year and even won the MVP in 1982 and didn't even reach the Super Bowl (Red Right 88 is questionable since the kicking game really screwed them hard in that game).

 

 

You don't win when you don't run the ball well and totally not run it at all. Even the Packers that struggled running it in 2010 some how managed to get a running game out of no where when they made the playoffs and were averaging around 90-100 yards rushing in those games. There is a reason Mark Rypien has a Super Bowl ring even though he was a total bust outside that one good year in 1991.

 

 

Wanting to run the ball also helps when your QB isn't trying to do everything by himself cause hes God! If the Colts get a good running game, watch out. They are just a few pieces away from really being a Super Bowl contender again. I know everyone likes to down them and say how Manning some how carried the team all those years, but that is totally not true. You see it right here. Luck comes in and they have went 11-5 twice now. This team isn't horrible. They weren't horrible before either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy question to answer. Anybody that has watched the Colts for the last half of the past decade knows they couldn`t run the ball. My guess is that plays a huge part in the negative view towards running the ball. I personally would love to see the Colts be able to shove it down opposing defenses throats, pound that rock on a consistent basis. Then go over the top with TY, Hakeem and Reggie when they stuff the box. 1 dimensional will only take you so far  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for being a power run team, as long as we have the horses for it. What annoys me to no end is, they talk up all this "run, run, run" physical/smashmouth bravado nonsense, but do nothing in the off-season that take the steps towards making that an attainable goal. Our big move on offense so far is signing yet another receiver. Meanwhile, we grab another o-linemen from the clearance rack and expect be physical upfront? It's a joke. These guys (Grigson and Pagano) either aren't on the same page, or just don't have a plan to begin with

Dear God...

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can still run the ball. The only thing we need to work on is not being so predictable about running the ball. Watching game sitting at home I can predict when we are going to run versus when we pass a good majority of the time. If I can do it I bet other teams and defensive coordinators can too. I think if we run out of a single back 3 receiver set versus the predictable two back two tight end set we will be more productive in both the running and passing game. It will make the other teams defense play more honest IMHO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not how much you run but how effectively you run it and when you run it.

 

You think the Seahawks would have had Bennett and Avril at a high efficiency if the Broncos said "enough is enough of not getting first downs, let us line up 2 TEs with just 2 WRs and run it down the NASCAR package's throat". That is what the Broncos did in game 2 vs the Giants' NASCAR package, they did not do so in the SB. It would have meant taking one of their 3 WRs off the field, like it was a crime. It would have made the WRs more efficient in the long run. Why did the Patriots lose both their SBs vs the Giants? One, the OL had issues with the Giants' DL but then, they could not run against the NASCAR package effectively.

 

One thing a ferocious DL does not like is being pushed back by a bigger OL, it is easier to use his quickness against the bigger OL when the OL is in retreat trying to protect his QB.

 

Running on 3rd and short, plus down the goal line where gaps are squeezed by good coverage teams, running using the no huddle are all critical elements of the running game that are essential for balance. Heck, people think Bruce Arians does only 7 step drops but once he gets his lead passing the ball, out of the blue, he will just call 5-10 consecutive runs when the D is tired and gashed. Nothing more demoralizing than using the run to kill clock towards the end of games against a tired D.

 

Even if the pass to run ratio may be 60-40, excellent situational running is absolutely a must. The situational running can also be used as an offense's plan B that helps a QB settle down in a difficult situation too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can still run the ball. The only thing we need to work on is not being so predictable about running the ball. Watching game sitting at home I can predict when we are going to run versus when we pass a good majority of the time. If I can do it I bet other teams and defensive coordinators can too. I think if we run out of a single back 3 receiver set versus the predictable two back two tight end set we will be more productive in both the running and passing game. It will make the other teams defense play more honest IMHO.

That's what Alabama does :thmup:

The good ol' "One Back" offense. I bet Trent Richardson misses that haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last season we lost a starting guard and our other guard and center have been dropped with no remorse. I think our o-line is alright "when healthy" and the same goes for our running backs. Honestly if for whatever reason our running backs can stay healthy, I actually think we have very talented trio of backs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Original. We don't have enough condescending * personas around here

 

It is what I do...

 

1) The offseason is not over with yet

2) They invested into the o'line with 4 people last year, with the likelihood or at least the possibility that all 4 will start & play this year

3) Sometimes the best moves you make are the ones that you don't

4) Saying that Pagano & Grigson are not on the same page or appear to not have a plan simply deserves a Dear God...

 

I know you are one of those contrarians.  To know this I need to look no further than your screen name.  You call me unoriginal but everytime I get on here all I see is you griping about something.  You may be consistent but you are not original either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering why its such a sensative topic on here. Why is it that people get all hurt and upset when we say we want to run the ball or want that to be our identity. I understand we have a great young quarterback but he isn't a 6-7 yr veteren yet...he isn't in the Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers level yet where he can carry a team with his arm for a season..and especially in a playoffs (even Peyton and Tom have shown thats hard to do). When we see year after year the teams with balance like the Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, 49ers, Seahawks, and now we've seen teams like NO and GB change to more of a balanced attack. The day of Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin (feature back) are over but it doesn't make the running game any less valuable. It makes a team and qb more formidable. Perhaps its how bad our OL has been but I love the thought of pounding the rock...imposing our will..and then letting Luck throw into favorable coverage eating up chunks of yards. I am one of the biggest PM guys on here and loved how he threw it around and the exciting way we played but at the same time AL isn't PM yet....he is still a young qb and will only get better and could surpass him possibly* but give our young qb a running game and you make him a contender. Ask him to throw 40 times in the playoffs is a recipe for disaster. 

 

Bingo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is what I do...

 

1) The offseason is not over with yet

2) They invested into the o'line with 4 people last year, with the likelihood or at least the possibility that all 4 will start & play this year

3) Sometimes the best moves you make are the ones that you don't

4) Saying that Pagano & Grigson are not on the same page or appear to not have a plan simply deserves a Dear God...

 

I know you are one of those contrarians.  To know this I need to look no further than your screen name.  You call me unoriginal but everytime I get on here all I see is you griping about something.  You may be consistent but you are not original either. 

 

1. No, it isn't over yet. But it's looking more and more likely that our only potential upgrade/depth will have to come through the draft with yet another unproven player. I would've liked to have seen an established veteran without injury problems be brought in to push Holmes for starting duties, not another bargain player like Costa is and McGlynn was.

 

2. Yes they did invest in 4 players last off-season, and I'd be totally fine with having them as our starters with no competition if 3 of those 4 players brought in didn't have serious question marks leading into this coming season. Thomas is still coming back from serious injury, Thornton was wildly inconsistent (while still showing promise) and Holmes basically didn't play. Cherilus is the only player acquired on the line last season that you can truly feel confident about going into this season. For everyone else, the cause for at least a little worry/concern is warranted.

 

3. I agree. I don't feel that notion is applicable in the case of marginally addressing an offensive line that struggled the last 2 seasons and will be starting 3 players on the interior shrouded in uncertainty, however

 

4. I admit I am guilty of hyberbole in my comments about Pagano/Grigson, due mainly to frustration. What I meant to say is, Grigson's actions thus far in free agency on offense do not coincide with the mantra of "power run football" in my opinion. Better?

 

 

And I'm only considered "contrarian" because posters like you constantly bully anyone who deviates from a blue Kool-Aid mindset. I'm a fan of my team, and when I see something I feel is hindering their evolution, I tend to call it out on here. This place is an outlet to voice our opinions of the Indianapolis Colts. If you don't like my opinions, you're more than welcome to ignore me.

 

 

Also, what you think the reason behind me screen name is, and what it ACTUALLY is are 2 different things. Don't assume you have me pegged anymore than I have you pegged 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, it isn't over yet. But it's looking more and more likely that our only potential upgrade/depth will have to come through the draft with yet another unproven player. I would've liked to have seen an established veteran without injury problems be brought in to push Holmes for starting duties, not another bargain player like Costa is and McGlynn was.

 

2. Yes they did invest in 4 players last off-season, and I'd be totally fine with having them as our starters with no competition if 3 of those 4 players brought in didn't have serious question marks leading into this coming season. Thomas is still coming back from serious injury, Thornton was wildly inconsistent (while still showing promise) and Holmes basically didn't play. Cherilus is the only player acquired on the line last season that you can truly feel confident about going into this season. For everyone else, the cause for at least a little worry/concern is warranted.

 

3. I agree. I don't feel that notion is applicable in the case of marginally addressing an offensive line that struggled the last 2 seasons and will be starting 3 players on the interior shrouded in uncertainty, however

 

4. I admit I am guilty of hyberbole in my comments about Pagano/Grigson, due mainly to frustration. What I meant to say is, Grigson's actions thus far in free agency on offense do not coincide with the mantra of "power run football" in my opinion. Better?

 

 

And I'm only considered "contrarian" because posters like you constantly bully anyone who deviates from a blue Kool-Aid mindset. I'm a fan of my team, and when I see something I feel is hindering their evolution, I tend to call it out on here. This place is an outlet to voice our opinions of the Indianapolis Colts. If you don't like my opinions, you're more than welcome to ignore me.

 

 

Also, what you think the reason behind me screen name is, and what it ACTUALLY is are 2 different things. Don't assume you have me pegged anymore than I have you pegged 

 

1) Yeah because the draft is a horrible place to get players for your team.

 

2) I don't worry about what I can't control.  What I do know is this - they have a plan and access to more info than us.

 

3) Let's specifically reference Mack as that seems to be the crux here.  Is it a gamble the way they are trying to build the o'line this year - perhaps.  Time will tell.  But I would absolutely argue that overpaying for a guy like Mack is just as big a gamble - maybe more.  There are consequences to signing him - maybe it means they let Allen or Fleener go in a couple year because of it.  There is also the very real possibility that Holmes' play for the value of his cost far exceeds that of overpaying for Mack.

 

I don't think the notion that they are marginally addressing the line is close to accurate.  Again 4 of five potential starters this year where from last year's draft / FA class.  There is nothing marginal about that.  In fact, that is a radical overhaul.  On top of the fact that that they still can draft a player and bring in a spot guy here or there. 

 

4) What if Thomas, Thornton & Holmes make up a solid interior this year?  Does Grigson then become a genius?

 

The hyperbole that you and others post is comical to me.  Getting all worked up because the people with the info make a move that you don't agree with is just funny.  I fully appreciate a good debate with anyone on here but the over-the-top nonsense makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.  Try a much more measured approach - it will instantly give you credibility. 

 

Lastly it forever makes me laugh that contrarians always are touting the "this place is an outlet to voice our opinions of the Indianapolis Colts."  Well no kidding.  I am not preventing you from your opinions - please keep them coming.  And I would never ignore you - your type is what makes this place fun for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, it isn't over yet. But it's looking more and more likely that our only potential upgrade/depth will have to come through the draft with yet another unproven player. I would've liked to have seen an established veteran without injury problems be brought in to push Holmes for starting duties, not another bargain player like Costa is and McGlynn was.

 

2. Yes they did invest in 4 players last off-season, and I'd be totally fine with having them as our starters with no competition if 3 of those 4 players brought in didn't have serious question marks leading into this coming season. Thomas is still coming back from serious injury, Thornton was wildly inconsistent (while still showing promise) and Holmes basically didn't play. Cherilus is the only player acquired on the line last season that you can truly feel confident about going into this season. For everyone else, the cause for at least a little worry/concern is warranted.

 

3. I agree. I don't feel that notion is applicable in the case of marginally addressing an offensive line that struggled the last 2 seasons and will be starting 3 players on the interior shrouded in uncertainty, however

 

4. I admit I am guilty of hyberbole in my comments about Pagano/Grigson, due mainly to frustration. What I meant to say is, Grigson's actions thus far in free agency on offense do not coincide with the mantra of "power run football" in my opinion. Better?

 

 

And I'm only considered "contrarian" because posters like you constantly bully anyone who deviates from a blue Kool-Aid mindset. I'm a fan of my team, and when I see something I feel is hindering their evolution, I tend to call it out on here. This place is an outlet to voice our opinions of the Indianapolis Colts. If you don't like my opinions, you're more than welcome to ignore me.

 

 

Also, what you think the reason behind me screen name is, and what it ACTUALLY is are 2 different things. Don't assume you have me pegged anymore than I have you pegged 

The Colts invested in 4 players last year to bolster the OL.  They can't walk away from this players yet - that's a knee-jerk reaction.  We have to trust that Grigson knows what he's doing. Once again - they won 12 games last year including the playoff win!  Grigson thinks Holmes can play C for us, if Thomas comes back and his healthy and Thornton develops consistency, then we have a vastly improved OL.  If these three guys are the right guys, then we can play some power football or at least be better than last year.  I will grant you that there is a concern, in my mind, about the RB position.  We can't seem to get that right through the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering why its such a sensative topic on here. Why is it that people get all hurt and upset when we say we want to run the ball or want that to be our identity. I understand we have a great young quarterback but he isn't a 6-7 yr veteren yet...he isn't in the Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers level yet where he can carry a team with his arm for a season..and especially in a playoffs (even Peyton and Tom have shown thats hard to do). When we see year after year the teams with balance like the Giants, Ravens, Steelers, Pats, 49ers, Seahawks, and now we've seen teams like NO and GB change to more of a balanced attack. The day of Emmitt Smith and Curtis Martin (feature back) are over but it doesn't make the running game any less valuable. It makes a team and qb more formidable. Perhaps its how bad our OL has been but I love the thought of pounding the rock...imposing our will..and then letting Luck throw into favorable coverage eating up chunks of yards. I am one of the biggest PM guys on here and loved how he threw it around and the exciting way we played but at the same time AL isn't PM yet....he is still a young qb and will only get better and could surpass him possibly* but give our young qb a running game and you make him a contender. Ask him to throw 40 times in the playoffs is a recipe for disaster. 

Having a good running game is something I have missed since we let Edge get away. I look for Trent to have a good season, and if Vick and Ahmad are healthy, watch defenses go nuts trying to stop the offense. plus, don't you miss icing the game away with a bunch of runs late?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got winded reading that 

Shoot, Thats nothin, Wait till you see someone post a full page where you swear you could fit 6-7 paragraphs into and they do it with NO PUNCTUATIONS. Makes a persons eyes hurt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot, Thats nothin, Wait till you see someone post a full page where you swear you could fit 6-7 paragraphs into and they do it with NO PUNCTUATIONS. Makes a persons eyes hurt

 

Well this is rich given your inability to get their or there right.

 

1) I would not say economy of words is a strength of yours.

 

2) When being derisive about the punctuation of others, I would make sure my own was solid, which it is not.  Punctuations?  WTH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...