When *RUNNING* the ball became a swear word.

[Gavin]

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

Crawl out of the wrong side of the bed today?

[antipatriot]

I am not against a running game I think it is extremely valuable to the offense however I am against running for the sake of running and trying to prove a point when it is not working.  I think when our line has the ability to help the run game we could be a dangerous run team but our line has not been able to do so.  I also think and most will argue that you pass to set up the run instead of the opposite, if the D has to play the pass you see less 8 in the box and so on.  Football is a sport where each phase compliments the other and no one phase wins games for you.  You have to do what works in the situation that you are in not proclaim we will be a power running team when you are not built to be one and when your opponents are built to stop that game plan.  It is all situational.  So as much as I really think the passing game is the key every team does need a run game, however I really do not like the stubborn attitude that our current HC has about the run game as much as I like the guy and I think we are going to be a great team under him I think he really needs to look at what we currently are and that is a team with many dynamic offensive players who can cause trouble for any D and not just a run first team.

 

NUFF SAID

 

GO COLTS can't wait for the off season to be over

[dgambill]

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.

No...but you do start them out on the Nationwide series. Andrew is there yet. You may think so but you will have plenty of those 3 and 4 int games if you want him to go out and throw the ball around 40 times a game....HE MAKES MANY MISTAKES....and he isn't exactly the most accurate qb in the league. He is great...I love him...but he isn't ready to carry a team. Defenses confuse him sometimes, he can have a tendancy to be inaccurate, but most importantly his OL can't give him the time to be one of those qbs. He isn't on the level of a Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and simply look over the defense and know exactly what they are going to do and what play to put us in and get the ball there....he will eventually...but not yet. The way we used him this last year is good....asking him to throw more I only think hurts our TEAM. He is developing just nicely as is. He doesn't need to throw the ball every down to get better. There is NOTHING hindering about having a great running game. Do you honestly think that sets a guy back? Sure if he throws 10 times a game ala Tim Tebow/Mark Sanchez but we are talking about having a team is 50/50....perhaps sometimes 60/40 pass or 60/40 run depending on the matchup. My goal is to have the best team possible....Luck isn't only going to grow by throwing it 50 times a game....and his development shouldn't cost the team the ability to run the ball. Tom Brady developed quite nicely and we all know he wasn't a guy asked to carry a team....quite the contrary...and as his skills evolved so did the playbook. All in all though a teams success is more important than a players stats. I see nothing wrong with having a great running game and then when we throw have a complete qb behind center.

[YOUR GM]

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. 

 

 

1) The draft isn't a place to look for an experienced starter on a struggling line, particularly so when your first pick in said draft won't come until right before the 3rd round 

 

2) Cop-out answer. "I'm not a coach and neither are you"

 

Because no coach or GM has EVER made a poor decision or evaluation of the talent on their roster, right? 

 

3) We didn't have to go after Mack. We could've grabbed any number of starting caliber veteran centers/guards to push Holmes. You bring in starters to push your starters, not backups.

 

4) Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that he's gambling big time right now, on a unit that many feel needs to be a sure thing this year and going forward in order for the team to be successful

 

Lastly, I don't care if you don't take me seriously. I'm not here to make friends or impress anyone on here. I don't have to deal with you outside of this forum. I don't even have to deal with you ON this forum, in fact. 

 

It is more telling of your own character that you get some kind of twisted enjoyment out of ridiculing people on here though.... You have fun with that. See you around