Alex Boone

[Coffeedrinker]

Trent Richardson, Vontae Davis, Donnie Avery, DHB, Hakeem NIcks. Maybe you should relay that memo to Grigson...

Oh, I see you want to point to every signing and say see.  Good for you, you get a cookie.

 

The only two that really would be similar to Boone would be Davis and Richardson because those were traded.  The rest were FAs signed to one year deals, so it's not really the same.

 

The Richardson situation isn't really similar either in that, the Colts had lost a RB for the season and the only other RB on the roster has a injury history.  They were taking snaps away from a promising, younger players.

 

Avery and DHB kind of prove my point though, so thanks for bringing them up.  Would the Colts record had been better if they had just let TY fill Wayne's role or did they suffer because they tried for 5 weeks to have DHB fill that role?  Same with Avery, did they stunt the development of Hilton, Brazill and/or Whalen by giving those practice and game reps to Avery?

Davis is similar to the Boone suggestion and that has worked out pretty well.  But even that is different in that the Colts had not spent 2, high round draft picks on the CB position before they traded for Davis like they have for the guard position.

[YOUR GM]

Oh, I see you want to point to every signing and say see.  Good for you, you get a cookie.

 

Actually, no. I was just pointing out how you really don't have a point because the GM you're saying would never make such a trade or signing like the scenarios you mentioned is actually the GM MOST likely to do so. But thanks for the cookie, anyways

 

The only two that really would be similar to Boone would be Davis and Richardson because those were traded.  The rest were FAs signed to one year deals, so it's not really the same.

 

This is the second half of what you said: "That is how you build a team, not by trading for or signing every guy with a couple of years experience that comes along."

 

That is actually exactly what Grigson has been doing ever since he's been here. The players I've listed that we've acquired is proof of such. Whether or not I philosophically agree with that method is another story, but the fact remains that you're inaccurate in trying to make the assertion that Grigson wouldn't make a move like this. He actually would, and the evidence is pretty clear proving so.

 

The Richardson situation isn't really similar either in that, the Colts had lost a RB for the season and the only other RB on the roster has a injury history.  They were taking snaps away from a promising, younger players.

 

We've lost Donald Thomas for the year and behind his replacement is another pair of guards with their own injury histories. One of them hasn't played since 2012, in fact. I'd say the scenarios are pretty comparable

 

 

Avery and DHB kind of prove my point though, so thanks for bringing them up.  

 

So wait a minute, are you disqualifying them as evidence or are you using them? Make up your mind, earlier you said their acquisitions were not the same. 

 

Would the Colts record had been better if they had just let TY fill Wayne's role or did they suffer because they tried for 5 weeks to have DHB fill that role?  Same with Avery, did they stunt the development of Hilton, Brazill and/or Whalen by giving those practice and game reps to Avery?

Davis is similar to the Boone suggestion and that has worked out pretty well.  But even that is different in that the Colts had not spent 2, high round draft picks on the CB position before they traded for Davis like they have for the guard position.

 

You and I have pretty much the same view point regarding the receiver situation last season. Where we differ is, I'm not as eager to put as much youth on the field at the same time, when it comes to the offensive line. Particularly when we're likely gearing for a run at the title these next few years. Are you willing to deal with the growing pains that will come this year, potentially costing us a chance at the Lombardi, for MAYBE a more cohesive unit 2-3 years from now? By that time, Luck will be getting his mega contract, as will the rest of the 2012 class, and we likely won't be able to have as balanced a team as we're capable of having now. The window for our next title(s), I believe, is before Luck's rookie contract is up. Once he gets paid, things will get tricky. So why not win now, while you have all the horses, and are probably only a strong offensive line away from going deep into the playoffs?

[superrep1967]

I would be all for it..

Do whatever it takes to protect Luck

Yes Luck needs a good o-line something he hasn't had since he's been here. I would love to see how good Luck could be with a good o-line and given time to throw. 

[Superman]

You're correct, we'll likely never see eye-to-eye on this topic, and that's fine. I'll leave with briefly addressing the bolded, though:

 

You're right in saying it's not unreasonable for any team to question whether he's in shape or not, and I'm sure any team looking to trade for him will have the common sense to do so. Just the same, I'd hope a guy planning to hold out for as long as Boone already has would have the common sense to train while he's waiting out a new contract, as showing up out of shape wouldn't help his cause any. I'm sure no team is going to extend him until they work him out first. My only point is, there have been no reports to suggest that he might be out of shape and to try and make that a talking point, without any knowledge of whether that is or isn't the case, is not something I'd consider a legitimate argument. And as I said, teams will do their due diligence before hand, so it really isn't an issue or a reason to have pause in possibly trading for him 

 

It wasn't meant to be a talking point. It's a legitimate concern, though. You can only do a pre-trade physical; you can't do any kind of conditioning tests, as far as I understand. So whether he's in football shape is pretty much impossible to determine before you get him on the field. And in any event, I would think he'd need 2-4 weeks of practice and conditioning before he's ready to actually compete. That's not a reason not to trade for him, but it is part of the cost. 

 

Where this would be problematic is if he's entirely out of shape or dealing with some kind of injury that no one knows about because he hasn't worked with the team at all. That might show up on the physical and void the deal, but it might not. 

[YOUR GM]

It wasn't meant to be a talking point. It's a legitimate concern, though. You can only do a pre-trade physical; you can't do any kind of conditioning tests, as far as I understand. So whether he's in football shape is pretty much impossible to determine before you get him on the field. And in any event, I would think he'd need 2-4 weeks of practice and conditioning before he's ready to actually compete. That's not a reason not to trade for him, but it is part of the cost.

Where this would be problematic is if he's entirely out of shape or dealing with some kind of injury that no one knows about because he hasn't worked with the team at all. That might show up on the physical and void the deal, but it might not.

Those are all fair points. I wasn't saying you'd work him out before the trade, though. I was saying you'd see what kind of shape he's in before the topic of an extension comes into play after you've traded for him. And yes, I agree that is a significant risk, parting with a mid round pick for someone you're not 100% sure is in peak condition. And if he were hiding an injury, I'm sure there would be clauses in place that would, like you said, void any trade or contract extension, you would at least hope

[Coffeedrinker]

 

Oh, I see you want to point to every signing and say see.  Good for you, you get a cookie.

 

Actually, no. I was just pointing out how you really don't have a point because the GM you're saying would never make such a trade or signing like the scenarios you mentioned is actually the GM MOST likely to do so. But thanks for the cookie, anyways

 

Umm I never said the GM would not make such a trade.

 

The only two that really would be similar to Boone would be Davis and Richardson because those were traded.  The rest were FAs signed to one year deals, so it's not really the same.

 

This is the second half of what you said: "That is how you build a team, not by trading for or signing every guy with a couple of years experience that comes along."

 

You get a A+ for being able to quote what is written.  But since your original point was that I was saying the GM would never make such a move then this is about as invalid as your the first part.

 

That is actually exactly what Grigson has been doing ever since he's been here. The players I've listed that we've acquired is proof of such. Whether or not I philosophically agree with that method is another story, but the fact remains that you're inaccurate in trying to make the assertion that Grigson wouldn't make a move like this. He actually would, and the evidence is pretty clear proving so.

 

I have not said or asserted to hinted or anything that Grigson would not do such a thing.  No wonder your posts are so long, you spend so much time making stuff up and that replying to the stuff you make up.  This would go much smoother if you just replied to the comment and not your misunderstandings of the comments.

 

The Richardson situation isn't really similar either in that, the Colts had lost a RB for the season and the only other RB on the roster has a injury history.  They were taking snaps away from a promising, younger players.

 

We've lost Donald Thomas for the year and behind his replacement is another pair of guards with their own injury histories. One of them hasn't played since 2012, in fact. I'd say the scenarios are pretty comparable

 

Well you would be wrong.  Neither Thornton or Mewhort have a history of injuries.  In case that is too much for you to follow.  Bradshaw was the starter... he had a history of injuries.  Thornton and Mewhort are the starters... neither has a history of injuries.

 

 

Avery and DHB kind of prove my point though, so thanks for bringing them up.  

 

So wait a minute, are you disqualifying them as evidence or are you using them? Make up your mind, earlier you said their acquisitions were not the same. 

 

You really have a severe reading comprehension problem don't you?  Situation is different, they were not traded for they were signed as FAs on cheap one year deals.  Boone would have to be traded for and signing a new multi-year contract.  But it was similar in that those signings caused problems for the team and it's a good example of why it's not good to do that very often.

 

Would the Colts record had been better if they had just let TY fill Wayne's role or did they suffer because they tried for 5 weeks to have DHB fill that role?  Same with Avery, did they stunt the development of Hilton, Brazill and/or Whalen by giving those practice and game reps to Avery?

Davis is similar to the Boone suggestion and that has worked out pretty well.  But even that is different in that the Colts had not spent 2, high round draft picks on the CB position before they traded for Davis like they have for the guard position.

 

You and I have pretty much the same view point regarding the receiver situation last season. Where we differ is, I'm not as eager to put as much youth on the field at the same time, when it comes to the offensive line. Particularly when we're likely gearing for a run at the title these next few years. Are you willing to deal with the growing pains that will come this year, potentially costing us a chance at the Lombardi, for MAYBE a more cohesive unit 2-3 years from now? By that time, Luck will be getting his mega contract, as will the rest of the 2012 class, and we likely won't be able to have as balanced a team as we're capable of having now. The window for our next title(s), I believe, is before Luck's rookie contract is up. Once he gets paid, things will get tricky. So why not win now, while you have all the horses, and are probably only a strong offensive line away from going deep into the playoffs?

 

So, teams with QBs not on their rookie contracts don't make it to the SB?  Outside of that, you are under the mistaken idea that the Colts don't have a strong oline this year and also that adding a player like Boone (whom I personally like as a guard) would be the difference between the Colts having a strong oline or not.  I'm not convinced either is true.

 

And if Boone were a center, I'd be all for it.  I like Holmes but I'm not as sold on Harrison as many on this forum.  I just think the Colts are pretty set at guard and would not like to see Mewhort or Thornton benched because I think both have the tools to become as good as Boone in a 3 or 4 years.  But that will never happen if the Colts keep signing guards to be starters ahead of them. 

 

[Superman]

Evan Mathis started 22 games in 7 years before he went to Philidelphia.

Josh Sitton didn't start his rookie season, nor did Matt Slauson.

 

There are many other examples... exceptional, first-round interior linemen are expected to start as rookies, but we don't have any. The rest of them sit and learn. To suggest their growth will be stunted as a result is completely unfounded. Players train, study, and they get better, that does not mean you suffer now to reap the rewards in the future. You can have the best of both worlds.

 

As has been alluded to, Thomas was pencilled in as a starter, we would simply be replacing him with a better player. Schematically, Boone comes from a blocking system that is more similar to ours than any other in the league.

 

Given the nature of how our FO operates, and given the fact that we have a Championship-quality roster... ruling out a move like this due to modest monetary hits is overly conservative and unambitious. And a third-round pick for a problematic, holdout player? I doubt we would have to give that much up... even so, the odds that we end up with a player of Boone's quality with that pick are big. Yes, you lose his cheap rookie contract, but again, it is a modest monetary hit, and Thomas' contract has left us in a position to cut him without much of a hit.

 

It is not a no-brainer, but to be as dismissive as some have been here seems ignorant.

 

To me, Evan Mathis and Matt Slauson are really bad examples. Neither of them ever performed at a high level for the teams that drafted them, and actually demonstrate what my concern is regarding sticking our young guys behind entrenched starters who will be ahead of them on the depth chart for at least the next couple of seasons. The Panthers never got anything out of Mathis; the Jets got only one mediocre year out of Slauson, and then they let him walk. Josh Sitton is a better example, but the Packers didn't sign a well-established veteran in his first or second year to start ahead of him; they put him on the field in his second year and never looked back, despite some growing pains along the way.

 

The concern about stunting their development -- which I believe is a valid concern -- isn't the only angle. The other part of it is that you only have the young guys under contract for four years. If you trade for Boone now, there's a very real chance that he's your starter for the duration of the contracts of your first or second year players. If he's not, then the trade probably wasn't worth it.

 

Also, just because declining a move like this is "overly conservative and unambitious" doesn't mean that it's the wrong decision. The Richardson trade was aggressive and ambitious, and was made partly on the basis of the team being in contention mode. That's not to say that you should never be aggressive and ambitious, just that that's not a real justification for any move.

 

I'm not trying to be dismissive. I just gave my thought process, which I think is very inclusive. I just reach a point where I don't think it's the right move for us, after considering all the angles I can think of. The upside is obvious, and while I'm not sure Boone is a better player than Thomas, he would very likely be our best guard, and our offensive line play would be better with him than without. Unlike the Richardson trade, Boone would make our team better, right away, assuming he's in reasonable shape.

 

My sticking points are that I think he undermines the development of our young player(s), he would likely cost a mid-round draft pick, and he wants a multi-year starting guard contract (which means we'd be double-dipping at LG this year, paying our RT premium money, and getting ready to pay our LT starting money; that's getting expensive). 

[Superman]

Those are all fair points. I wasn't saying you'd work him out before the trade, though. I was saying you'd see what kind of shape he's in before the topic of an extension comes into play after you've traded for him. And yes, I agree that is a significant risk, parting with a mid round pick for someone you're not 100% sure is in peak condition. And if he were hiding an injury, I'm sure there would be clauses in place that would, like you said, void any trade or contract extension, you would at least hope

 

That's assuming he comes into the building before you give him the deal he wants. The Niners have had talks with his agent, with the two sides not coming close enough. And Boone's response has been to stay away through the entire offseason program, through training camp, through the first preseason game, racking up fines all along the way. Even if he comes in in Week 11 in order to get his accrued season, that's probably too late to void a trade.

 

To me, it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who trades for him is ready to give him starter's money in order to get him to end his holdout. Otherwise, I think it's a waste of time. If you want him enough to trade for him, you ought to have the checkbook out, because that's what this is all about in the first place. 

 

If he's hiding an injury, that's a different story. You'd likely be able to void the trade and the contract if he fails a standard physical.

[YOUR GM]

Ok, drinker, you're a pretty articulate guy and can convey a message quite well (the "pompous, condescending p.rick" vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw), so maybe you can explain to me what your point was when chiming in this thread with:

 

"Once again, I am glad the fans do not run the team.  Fans always want to chase any name that may be available..." ?...It's pretty reasonable that someone might draw the conclusion that you were trying to say Grigson doesn't do this, seeing as how he IS the one running the team, and not the fans. Paired with your comments at the end of that post, it was enough for me to point out that you were incorrect. If that was not your intent, then we really have nothing further to talk about on the topic. I will address the points related directly to Boone, however:

 

 

 

 

 

Well you would be wrong.  Neither Thornton or Mewhort have a history of injuries.  In case that is too much for you to follow.  Bradshaw was the starter... he had a history of injuries.  Thornton and Mewhort are the starters... neither has a history of injuries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go back and read what I said. I said Mewhort's backup has a significant injury history (Louis), not Mewhort himself. And Bradshaw was not the starter last year, Ballard was until he got hurt... In case that's too much for you to follow

 

You really have a severe reading comprehension problem don't you?  Situation is different, they were not traded for they were signed as FAs on cheap one year deals.  Boone would have to be traded for and signing a new multi-year contract.  But it was similar in that those signings caused problems for the team and it's a good example of why it's not good to do that very often.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How hard is it for you to differentiate between two totally different talking points? Avery, DHB and Nicks were not brought up to compare directly to the notion of bringing in Boone. It was in response to you saying we shouldn't trade or sign every player with a few years experience that comes along. Once again, this is a moot discussion now because if you agree Grigson has been guilty of such in the past, there's no point in arguing over something we both acknowledge as being true.

 

So, teams with QBs not on their rookie contracts don't make it to the SB?  Outside of that, you are under the mistaken idea that the Colts don't have a strong oline this year and also that adding a player like Boone (whom I personally like as a guard) would be the difference between the Colts having a strong oline or not.  I'm not convinced either is true.

 

 

 

 

 

You're smarter than this (I hope...)  New CBA, bigger contracts for QB's are coming in the future (they're already starting) and Luck will be at the forefront of that big payday. The way teams are being built is changing due to that fact. The Seahawks and Ravens, at the time of winning their respective superbowls had their QB's on cheaper deals. Once the Ravens paid Flacco, they pretty much had to gut their superbowl team. They lost some to retirement, but they simply let other key players walk, in order to sign him. That's the decision we will be dealing with in a few years, sorry to say 

 

And if Boone were a center, I'd be all for it.  I like Holmes but I'm not as sold on Harrison as many on this forum.  I just think the Colts are pretty set at guard and would not like to see Mewhort or Thornton benched because I think both have the tools to become as good as Boone in a 3 or 4 years.  But that will never happen if the Colts keep signing guards to be starters ahead of them. 

 

 

 

Show me proof that signing one veteran hinders the growth of a young offensive linemen, please? You can't. I've listed examples of 1st round left tackles being placed in a reserve role their rookie seasons, and they're now quality starters on pretty good offensive lines. The idea that Mewhort or Thornton can't develop because of Boone's presence is unfounded. As i've repeated several times now, Donald Thomas was slated to start anyways, meaning one of Mewhort or Thornton were going to be on the bench this season anyways, had Thomas not gotten hurt

 

 

Next time you'd like to clarify your statements or correct me for misrepresenting them, please do so without the excessive condescension. It's not very endearing, and just invites more condescension in response to it. Thanks 

[Superman]

 

You're smarter than this (I hope...)  New CBA, bigger contracts for QB's are coming in the future (they're already starting) and Luck will be at the forefront of that big payday. The way teams are being built is changing due to that fact. The Seahawks and Ravens, at the time of winning their respective superbowls had their QB's on cheaper deals. Once the Ravens paid Flacco, they pretty much had to gut their superbowl team. They lost some to retirement, but they simply let other key players walk, in order to sign him. That's the decision we will be dealing with in a few years, sorry to say

 

This is a nitpick that I have. What you're saying here is just accepted as conventional wisdom, but it's not really true.

 

First, Joe Flacco's cap hit in 2013 was smaller than it was in 2012. The Ravens didn't have to gut their team to re-sign him. They let older veterans walk (like Ed Reed, big deal), and some of their free agents got the Super Bowl bonus from other teams (Ellerbe, Kruger). They traded Boldin because they didn't want to pay him his $6m base salary, and he wouldn't agree to a pay cut. The Ravens made smart decisions in not retaining or overpaying those players (with the exception of Boldin). They weren't forced to let them go because they didn't have cap flexibility. As a matter of fact, they later made a huge addition when Dumervil became available. Flacco's contract will be a problem in the future because of the way it's structured, but it wasn't the reason the Ravens let guys walk in 2013.

 

Second, I don't agree with the idea that having a highly paid QB is somehow a detriment to winning a SB. Obviously, spending more on that one position means you have less for other areas of need, but it doesn't preclude you from having a good roster. You have to do a good job in the draft, and you have to be smart in free agency, because your margin for error is smaller. But this big QB money thing is often presented as if it will prevent us from being contenders once Luck's new contract kicks in. From my perspective, by the time Luck is in his fifth year, he should be considerably better as a player, making it easier for us to maximize on the overall talent on the roster.

 

Of course, it's easier to build the roster around a QB on his rookie deal. But that doesn't mean our window is shut once we have to pay him. Not at all.

[Coffeedrinker]

Ok, drinker, you're a pretty articulate guy and can convey a message quite well (the "pompous, condescending p.rick" vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw), so maybe you can explain to me what your point was when chiming in this thread with:

 

LOL.  You are funny when you cry.  I'm sorry I hurt your poor little feelings.  As far as my reason for chiming i on this thread, mainly it was because it's a public forum that I have belonged to for years and I post often in threads that interest me.

 

"Once again, I am glad the fans do not run the team.  Fans always want to chase any name that may be available..." ?...It's pretty reasonable that someone might draw the conclusion that you were trying to say Grigson doesn't do this, seeing as how he IS the one running the team, and not the fans. Paired with your comments at the end of that post, it was enough for me to point out that you were incorrect. If that was not your intent, then we really have nothing further to talk about on the topic. I will address the points related directly to Boone, however:

 

Again reading comprehension.  And for the record just because Grigson has signed some free agents and made a couple of trades does not mean he chases any name that may be available.

 

 

Go back and read what I said. I said Mewhort's backup has a significant injury history (Louis), not Mewhort himself. And Bradshaw was not the starter last year, Ballard was until he got hurt... In case that's too much for you to follow

 

I read what you said the first time.  And you are wrong, at the time Richardson was signed, Ballard was already IR'd meaning Bradshaw was the starter.  Which means the Colts had a starter with a known injury history, that is not the case with Thornton and Mewhort.

 

 

 

 

How hard is it for you to differentiate between two totally different talking points? Avery, DHB and Nicks were not brought up to compare directly to the notion of bringing in Boone. It was in response to you saying we shouldn't trade or sign every player with a few years experience that comes along. Once again, this is a moot discussion now because if you agree Grigson has been guilty of such in the past, there's no point in arguing over something we both acknowledge as being true.

 

I was not aware that Avery, DHB and Nicks were the only players available when the Colts signed them.  That is the only way you can try to claim that Grigson has done what you misunderstand about my post.

 

 

 

 

 

You're smarter than this (I hope...)  New CBA, bigger contracts for QB's are coming in the future (they're already starting) and Luck will be at the forefront of that big payday. The way teams are being built is changing due to that fact. The Seahawks and Ravens, at the time of winning their respective superbowls had their QB's on cheaper deals. Once the Ravens paid Flacco, they pretty much had to gut their superbowl team. They lost some to retirement, but they simply let other key players walk, in order to sign him. That's the decision we will be dealing with in a few years, sorry to say 

 

I understand the point about Luck and TY and others rookie contracts but it's still not a good idea to make bad decisions in the present in hopes it makes future decisions easier.  And trading for and signing Boone would not make the future situation any easier.  Ever since the salary cap, teams have been able to provide balanced teams even with high priced players.  Nor, do I buy into the thought that the Colts are closer to getting to the SB with Boone that without Boone.

 

 

Show me proof that signing one veteran hinders the growth of a young offensive linemen, please? You can't. I've listed examples of 1st round left tackles being placed in a reserve role their rookie seasons, and they're now quality starters on pretty good offensive lines. The idea that Mewhort or Thornton can't develop because of Boone's presence is unfounded. As i've repeated several times now, Donald Thomas was slated to start anyways, meaning one of Mewhort or Thornton were going to be on the bench this season anyways, had Thomas not gotten hurt

 

Well that would be kind of hard to prove, since often times when that happens the player stays in that role as a solid back-up.  But there are numerous examples that once a player got their chance they excelled which one could conclude that had they gotten their chance sooner they could have excelled sooner.  One player that comes to mind is Alex Boone.  Another one that comes to mind is Jeff Saturday.  There are tons of examples like that in the NFL.  Without knowing all the particulars of each situation I cannot prove anything.  On the same token you cannot prove that sitting did not hinder their progress... because how much better could they have been?  Or how much longer could they have been at their highest levels.

 

 

Next time you'd like to clarify your statements or correct me for misrepresenting them, please do so without the excessive condescension. It's not very endearing, and just invites more condescension in response to it. Thanks 

 

You, mistakenly, think I post here to become endeared by people.  I come here because there are a handful of people that post interesting stuff that I like to read.  You are usually one of the posters that I like to read  Lastly, I really can't help it if you read my posts and assume I am coming from a superior position.  But I will keep responding the same way I always do despite your pleas to go easy on you.

[YOUR GM]

 

 

LOL.  You are funny when you cry.  I'm sorry I hurt your poor little feelings.  As far as my reason for chiming i on this thread, mainly it was because it's a public forum that I have belonged to for years and I post often in threads that interest me.

 

 

Typical. Just the kind of response I expected. I usually agree with most of what you say, but constant need to throw insults into each of your debates really weakens every point you try to make. I mean, come on, really? "Crying?," "...Poor little feelings?" Is this your poor attempt at being a 'mean girl' or something?... Moving along

 

 

 

Again reading comprehension.  And for the record just because Grigson has signed some free agents and made a couple of trades does not mean he chases any name that may be available.

 

He doesn't chase names, but the musical chairs act he's done every year with our 2nd receiver on the depth chart is very much in the mold of "signing a guy with a few years experience every year..." line you said. 

 

 

 

 

I read what you said the first time.  And you are wrong, at the time Richardson was signed, Ballard was already IR'd meaning Bradshaw was the starter.  Which means the Colts had a starter with a known injury history, that is not the case with Thornton and Mewhort.

 

You're grasping for straws. Ballard was the starter, he got hurt, we immediately looked to trade for another back. That had nothing to do with Bradshaw's injury history, and everything to do with us wanting to go with a committee of backs. That's just you trying to create a talking point, and you failed at it. If anything, it had more to do with their lack of faith (initially) in Donald Brown as a change of pace.   

 

 

 

I was not aware that Avery, DHB and Nicks were the only players available when the Colts signed them.  That is the only way you can try to claim that Grigson has done what you misunderstand about my post.

 

 

You should really just let that go, as it's clear we're arguing about nothing. But if you need to keep reiterating that i misunderstood your intention of the original post (which I acknowledged already) just to make the appearance of having anything of substance to say, by all means, continue grasping.  

 

 

I understand the point about Luck and TY and others rookie contracts but it's still not a good idea to make bad decisions in the present in hopes it makes future decisions easier.  And trading for and signing Boone would not make the future situation any easier.  Ever since the salary cap, teams have been able to provide balanced teams even with high priced players.  Nor, do I buy into the thought that the Colts are closer to getting to the SB with Boone that without Boone.

 

It's about balancing both. Acquiring Boone would not cripple our future, and he'd likely be a building block for it. You're realistically parting with a mid-round pick and giving him a starters contract. I don't agree, in principle, with the idea of parting with draft picks for veteran players, but this would be one of the few exceptions, as the offensive line needs to improve significantly, while still maintaining a good amount of depth. We're down Donald Thomas and Xavier Nixon already. We will likely have another significant injury along the line at some point as well. Joe Reitz and the big question mark that is Lance Louis is not enough for me to consider what we have quality depth behind our starters. Mewhort was intended to be a key backup this year, and I think bringing in another quality starter puts him back on schedule to be that, and makes our entire line stronger, overall. 

 

 

Well that would be kind of hard to prove, since often times when that happens the player stays in that role as a solid back-up.  But there are numerous examples that once a player got their chance they excelled which one could conclude that had they gotten their chance sooner they could have excelled sooner.  One player that comes to mind is Alex Boone.  Another one that comes to mind is Jeff Saturday.  There are tons of examples like that in the NFL.  Without knowing all the particulars of each situation I cannot prove anything.  On the same token you cannot prove that sitting did not hinder their progress... because how much better could they have been?  Or how much longer could they have been at their highest levels.

 

You're the one asserting that our young linemen can't develop without being starters, I gave examples of high draft picks who didn't start right away but still got minutes and eventually became quality offensive linemen after a spot opened up for them. The point is, it has been done before, so you really need to stop using the "stunted development" angle, because it has little merit. Will more playing time accelerate their development? Sure. Does that mean they're not developing at all if they're not thrown in as starters immediately? Absolutely not.

 

 

 

You, mistakenly, think I post here to become endeared by people.  I come here because there are a handful of people that post interesting stuff that I like to read.  You are usually one of the posters that I like to read  Lastly, I really can't help it if you read my posts and assume I am coming from a superior position.  But I will keep responding the same way I always do despite your pleas to go easy on you.

 

You sure you don't mean "inferiority?" Typically those who have to insult or belittle others constantly are doing so because they think little of themselves and have to put others down to feel special. If you really need an ego boost, I'd suggest buying a motorcycle, wearing muscle shirts, hitting the clubs again and dating a 20 something with nice "assets"

 

 

 

Or maybe you just really enjoy being a . Whatever floats your boat. It's been nice, see you around

Edited August 11, 2014 by Superman

[Superman]

Mod note: We ought to able to discuss topics like this without name-calling and personal digs. Please remember the rules. Thanks.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Not opossed to this but I think Grigson is comitted to Thronton, & Mewhart. I would see if you could trade Thronton & say a 6th RD pick for Boone. I like Boone I think that would be a fair deal!

[Coffeedrinker]

 

 

 

LOL.  You are funny when you cry.  I'm sorry I hurt your poor little feelings.  As far as my reason for chiming i on this thread, mainly it was because it's a public forum that I have belonged to for years and I post often in threads that interest me.

 

 

Typical. Just the kind of response I expected. I usually agree with most of what you say, but constant need to throw insults into each of your debates really weakens every point you try to make. I mean, come on, really? "Crying?," "...Poor little feelings?" Is this your poor attempt at being a 'mean girl' or something?... Moving along

 

I won't reply to this other than to quote you. "he "pompous, condescending * vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw)"

 

 

 

Again reading comprehension.  And for the record just because Grigson has signed some free agents and made a couple of trades does not mean he chases any name that may be available.

 

He doesn't chase names, but the musical chairs act he's done every year with our 2nd receiver on the depth chart is very much in the mold of "signing a guy with a few years experience every year..." line you said. 

 

If you say so.

 

 

I read what you said the first time.  And you are wrong, at the time Richardson was signed, Ballard was already IR'd meaning Bradshaw was the starter.  Which means the Colts had a starter with a known injury history, that is not the case with Thornton and Mewhort.

 

You're grasping for straws. Ballard was the starter, he got hurt, we immediately looked to trade for another back. That had nothing to do with Bradshaw's injury history, and everything to do with us wanting to go with a committee of backs. That's just you trying to create a talking point, and you failed at it. If anything, it had more to do with their lack of faith (initially) in Donald Brown as a change of pace.   

If you say so.  Ballard was no longer the starter, he was on IR.  Bradshaw was the starter and had/has a history of injuries.  They needed another starting level RB.  The Colts are not in that situation yet, the starters do not have a history of injuries.  What they may need is a solid back-up.  That is not Boone, not because he wouldn't be a solid back-up but because he is not going to go to a team to be back-up.

 

 

 

I was not aware that Avery, DHB and Nicks were the only players available when the Colts signed them.  That is the only way you can try to claim that Grigson has done what you misunderstand about my post.

 

 

You should really just let that go, as it's clear we're arguing about nothing. But if you need to keep reiterating that i misunderstood your intention of the original post (which I acknowledged already) just to make the appearance of having anything of substance to say, by all means, continue grasping.  

 

Yet you keep commenting on it as well.  Seems you are the one grasping.

 

 

I understand the point about Luck and TY and others rookie contracts but it's still not a good idea to make bad decisions in the present in hopes it makes future decisions easier.  And trading for and signing Boone would not make the future situation any easier.  Ever since the salary cap, teams have been able to provide balanced teams even with high priced players.  Nor, do I buy into the thought that the Colts are closer to getting to the SB with Boone that without Boone.

 

It's about balancing both. Acquiring Boone would not cripple our future, and he'd likely be a building block for it. You're realistically parting with a mid-round pick and giving him a starters contract. I don't agree, in principle, with the idea of parting with draft picks for veteran players, but this would be one of the few exceptions, as the offensive line needs to improve significantly, while still maintaining a good amount of depth. We're down Donald Thomas and Xavier Nixon already. We will likely have another significant injury along the line at some point as well. Joe Reitz and the big question mark that is Lance Louis is not enough for me to consider what we have quality depth behind our starters. Mewhort was intended to be a key backup this year, and I think bringing in another quality starter puts him back on schedule to be that, and makes our entire line stronger, overall. 

 

Boone was an UDFA.  So I believe that talented players can be found in round three.

 

 

Well that would be kind of hard to prove, since often times when that happens the player stays in that role as a solid back-up.  But there are numerous examples that once a player got their chance they excelled which one could conclude that had they gotten their chance sooner they could have excelled sooner.  One player that comes to mind is Alex Boone.  Another one that comes to mind is Jeff Saturday.  There are tons of examples like that in the NFL.  Without knowing all the particulars of each situation I cannot prove anything.  On the same token you cannot prove that sitting did not hinder their progress... because how much better could they have been?  Or how much longer could they have been at their highest levels.

 

You're the one asserting that our young linemen can't develop without being starters, I gave examples of high draft picks who didn't start right away but still got minutes and eventually became quality offensive linemen after a spot opened up for them. The point is, it has been done before, so you really need to stop using the "stunted development" angle, because it has little merit. Will more playing time accelerate their development? Sure. Does that mean they're not developing at all if they're not thrown in as starters immediately? Absolutely not.

 

I am not asserting they can't develop (again you either have a reading comprehension problem or you just enjoy making up something about a poster and that arguing the point you made up), I am saying that it's slows their development and minimizes the length of time that they will play at their peak.  And I would guarantee that you ask any player in the NFL, college or high school, they will tell you the develop the most by playing during the game.

 

 

 

You, mistakenly, think I post here to become endeared by people.  I come here because there are a handful of people that post interesting stuff that I like to read.  You are usually one of the posters that I like to read  Lastly, I really can't help it if you read my posts and assume I am coming from a superior position.  But I will keep responding the same way I always do despite your pleas to go easy on you.

 

You sure you don't mean "inferiority?" Typically those who have to insult or belittle others constantly are doing so because they think little of themselves and have to put others down to feel special. If you really need an ego boost, I'd suggest buying a motorcycle, wearing muscle shirts, hitting the clubs again and dating a 20 something with nice "assets"

 

Well, you're the one that claimed I was condescending.  One cannot be condescending if one is inferior.  Regarding your comment about insult and belittle, I will simply respond by quoting you, (the "pompous, condescending *" vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw)"

 

Or maybe you just really enjoy being a . Whatever floats your boat. It's been nice, see you around

 

You know, I've heard that typically those who have to insult or belittle others constantly are doing so because they think little of themselves and have to put others down to feel special. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself that you need to insult me.  But that's okay, if a fellow Colts fan can feel better about himself by insulting me, then have at it.  I'm glad I'm able to do my part for your self esteem.

 

Edited August 11, 2014 by Superman

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Just read the end of these post, theres some funny stuff on here!

[YOUR GM]

Coffee, we're done here. At this point, it's not even about the original topic anymore. Couple things, though.

 

 

1.) Just because I said your tone is condescending does not equate to you actually being superior to someone. It just means you're trying to portray yourself as such. The fact that "superior/inferior" was the first thing to pop in your head is a bit bizarre, and shows you feel the need to be "above" someone. Once again, most likely due to your own self-esteem issues.

 

2.) I never claimed to be the coolest head in the room. Once provoked, I tend to dish the insults right back. A flaw of mine, I admit. But anyone is welcome to go back and read our exchange in this thread and see who was rude first. Pretty sure it was you. 

 

 

Everything else you said amounts to bickering and "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Coffeedrinker]

Coffee, we're done here. At this point, it's not even about the original topic anymore. Couple things, though.

 

 

1.) Just because I said your tone is condescending does not equate to you actually being superior to someone. It just means you're trying to portray yourself as such. The fact that "superior/inferior" was the first thing to pop in your head is a bit bizarre, and shows you feel the need to be "above" someone. Once again, most likely due to your own self-esteem issues.

 

2.) I never claimed to be the coolest head in the room. Once provoked, I tend to dish the insults right back. A flaw of mine, I admit. But anyone is welcome to go back and read our exchange in this thread and see who was rude first. Pretty sure it was you. 

 

 

Everything else you said amounts to bickering and "I know you are, but what am I?"

I guess I need to reevaluate my life,     I never realized how cruel and heartless I had become. If you could possibly find it in your reading challenged heart to forgive me my indiscretions, I know I would feel better.  No longer will I disagree with a poster because in doing so I am being rude.  No longer will I tell a poster, who is clearly wrong, that they are wrong because in doing so I give off a type of vibe that cannot be typed on this forum.  From now on when a poster twists my words around to mean something they did not mean and then argue that those twisted words are wrong, I will simply reply, "You are right, your complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what I wrote is spot on."  The next time somone talks about people that insult only do it because they feel bad about themselves and then in the very next sentence calls me a A@@, I will simply say, "thank you sir may I have another." 

 

You have inspired me to write a song in your honor.

 

Real Men of Genius

(Real men of Genius)

Today we salute you. Mr. Conscience of the Message board

( Mr. Conscience of the Message board)

Armed with nothing but a computer, keyboard and internet access you roam the message boards to help ease those troubled souls who don't feel good about themselves

(I'm okay.... you're not!)

You don't need to read and understand what is written, they are troubled so you will make up your own interpretations and argue that point until your fingers are numb

(OH THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT!)

And hey, it's okay for you tell other people they are wrong but you don't let anyone get away with that stuff to you.

(I'm the one who knows)

So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, Conscience Boy. 'Cause we all know, when the going gets tough, the tough throw insults and claim the other guy started it.

(Mr. Conscience of the Message board)

 

Back on topic.  I don't think trading for Alex Boone is a good idea for the Colts.

[YOUR GM]

I guess I need to reevaluate my life, I never realized how cruel and heartless I had become. If you could possibly find it in your reading challenged heart to forgive me my indiscretions, I know I would feel better. No longer will I disagree with a poster because in doing so I am being rude. No longer will I tell a poster, who is clearly wrong, that they are wrong because in doing so I give off a type of vibe that cannot be typed on this forum. From now on when a poster twists my words around to mean something they did not mean and then argue that those twisted words are wrong, I will simply reply, "You are right, your complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what I wrote is spot on." The next time somone talks about people that insult only do it because they feel bad about themselves and then in the very next sentence calls me a A@@, I will simply say, "thank you sir may I have another."

You have inspired me to write a song in your honor.

Real Men of Genius

(Real men of Genius)

Today we salute you. Mr. Conscience of the Message board

( Mr. Conscience of the Message board)

Armed with nothing but a computer, keyboard and internet access you roam the message boards to help ease those troubled souls who don't feel good about themselves

(I'm okay.... you're not!)

You don't need to read and understand what is written, they are troubled so you will make up your own interpretations and argue that point until your fingers are numb

(OH THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT!)

And hey, it's okay for you tell other people they are wrong but you don't let anyone get away with that stuff to you.

(I'm the one who knows)

So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, Conscience Boy. 'Cause we all know, when the going gets tough, the tough throw insults and claim the other guy started it.

(Mr. Conscience of the Message board)

Back on topic. I don't think trading for Alex Boone is a good idea for the Colts.

Lol!

Yeah, this guy TOTALLY doesn't have a complex

[BlueShoe]

Mod note: We ought to able to discuss topics like this without name-calling and personal digs. Please remember the rules. Thanks.

 

I stopped reading the thread once the showmanship started. It is a huge turn-off for me. But I will admit I am getting old, and just do not have time for the nonsense anymore. To tell you the truth I wish I would have discovered walking away on message boards a long time ago. 

[BlueShoe]

Not opossed to this but I think Grigson is comitted to Thronton, & Mewhart. I would see if you could trade Thronton & say a 6th RD pick for Boone. I like Boone I think that would be a fair deal!

 

That is an interesting thought. hmmm.

[Johnny Bui]

We could cut Thomas due to his history of injuries to make cap space for boone.  Also, salary cap is gonna increase so thats another up side.

[Superman]

We could cut Thomas due to his history of injuries to make cap space for boone.  Also, salary cap is gonna increase so thats another up side.

 

Can't cut Thomas until next season.

 

And yes, the cap is going to go up, but the contracts for Luck, Fleener, Allen and Hilton are up soon as well. A deal for Boone isn't going to be a cap buster, but it still has to be accounted for, obviously.

[SteelCityColt]

Who would have thought a discussion about a G could inspire such passion!  

 

I'm not in favour or trading for Boone, mainly for reasons set out by Superman, but the interior O line is a worry. In theory Mewhort/Holmes/Thornton could be fine but I wouldn't want to bet on it, or more importantly on that trio staying healthy all season. 

[Coffeedrinker]

We could cut Thomas due to his history of injuries to make cap space for boone.  Also, salary cap is gonna increase so thats another up side.

 

 

Can't cut Thomas until next season.

 

And yes, the cap is going to go up, but the contracts for Luck, Fleener, Allen and Hilton are up soon as well. A deal for Boone isn't going to be a cap buster, but it still has to be accounted for, obviously.

Could they offer Thomas an injury settlement?

 

I don't keep up on cap figures but I think the Colts, if they wanted to make a deal, have the cap space to do it and the cap space to offer a good contract.  But, IMO, the Colts have two starting quality guards and they have one quality back-up (Reitz) and two that seem like they could be quality back-ups (Nixon and Louis).  The issue I have with the back-ups is not the quality of their play but the quantity of snaps they can provide.  Reitz seems to get hurt every 5 plays and Louis is 2 years removed from an ACL injury and Nixon just had his knee scoped.  So I wouldn't mind them picking up another guard for a back-up.

 

I think Mewhort was drafted to be the starter this year.  I think the organization was hopeful about Thomas but not depending on him.

[Superman]

Could they offer Thomas an injury settlement?

 

I don't keep up on cap figures but I think the Colts, if they wanted to make a deal, have the cap space to do it and the cap space to offer a good contract.  But, IMO, the Colts have two starting quality guards and they have one quality back-up (Reitz) and two that seem like they could be quality back-ups (Nixon and Louis).  The issue I have with the back-ups is not the quality of their play but the quantity of snaps they can provide.  Reitz seems to get hurt every 5 plays and Louis is 2 years removed from an ACL injury and Nixon just had his knee scoped.  So I wouldn't mind them picking up another guard for a back-up.

 

I think Mewhort was drafted to be the starter this year.  I think the organization was hopeful about Thomas but not depending on him.

 

We had a good discussion last week about injury settlements. The conclusion was that the Colts are on the hook for Thomas in 2014. An injury settlement usually only comes into play if the player is trying to get back on the field in that season, and wants to be released from IR.

 

If the team wanted to, they could add another guard. I thought we should add someone after Holmes got hurt and we found out that Nixon had his surgery. There's plenty of cap space for low-level moves. A multi-year deal is a different story.

 

About Mewhort, I think he's capable of starting right away. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Manning1887]

I would consider trading for him if we could get him for decent price. I just don't see him taking less than $5 million per and he may want something in the Andy Levitre range (ridiculous for a guard). 

 

One point to think about. What if we get more than just Boone in a trade with the 49ers? 

 

What if we trade a 2015 2nd round pick for Alex Boone and Corey Lemonier (OLB Auburn)? Lemonier has some potential as a strong side OLB, and I am really not that high on Walden. Cutting Walden may allow us to better "afford" Alex Boone. 

[BOTT]

I would consider trading for him if we could get him for decent price. I just don't see him taking less than $5 million per and he may want something in the Andy Levitre range (ridiculous for a guard). 

 

One point to think about. What if we get more than just Boone in a trade with the 49ers? 

 

What if we trade a 2015 2nd round pick for Alex Boone and Corey Lemonier (OLB Auburn)? Lemonier has some potential as a strong side OLB, and I am really not that high on Walden. Cutting Walden may allow us to better "afford" Alex Boone.

Lemonier hasnt shown anything to warrant that kind of trade

[Coffeedrinker]

Not opossed to this but I think Grigson is comitted to Thronton, & Mewhart. I would see if you could trade Thronton & say a 6th RD pick for Boone. I like Boone I think that would be a fair deal!

That is an interesting scenario, although I'm not sure who Thronton is?

 

That would not be a bad deal, IMO.  Even a 4th or a 5th, Thornton for Boone and 5th or 6th would be good.

[OLD FAN MAN]

 

 

 

 

LOL.  You are funny when you cry.  I'm sorry I hurt your poor little feelings.  As far as my reason for chiming i on this thread, mainly it was because it's a public forum that I have belonged to for years and I post often in threads that interest me.

 

 

Typical. Just the kind of response I expected. I usually agree with most of what you say, but constant need to throw insults into each of your debates really weakens every point you try to make. I mean, come on, really? "Crying?," "...Poor little feelings?" Is this your poor attempt at being a 'mean girl' or something?... Moving along

 

I won't reply to this other than to quote you. "he "pompous, condescending * vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw)"

 

 

 

Again reading comprehension.  And for the record just because Grigson has signed some free agents and made a couple of trades does not mean he chases any name that may be available.

 

He doesn't chase names, but the musical chairs act he's done every year with our 2nd receiver on the depth chart is very much in the mold of "signing a guy with a few years experience every year..." line you said. 

 

If you say so.

 

 

I read what you said the first time.  And you are wrong, at the time Richardson was signed, Ballard was already IR'd meaning Bradshaw was the starter.  Which means the Colts had a starter with a known injury history, that is not the case with Thornton and Mewhort.

 

You're grasping for straws. Ballard was the starter, he got hurt, we immediately looked to trade for another back. That had nothing to do with Bradshaw's injury history, and everything to do with us wanting to go with a committee of backs. That's just you trying to create a talking point, and you failed at it. If anything, it had more to do with their lack of faith (initially) in Donald Brown as a change of pace.   

If you say so.  Ballard was no longer the starter, he was on IR.  Bradshaw was the starter and had/has a history of injuries.  They needed another starting level RB.  The Colts are not in that situation yet, the starters do not have a history of injuries.  What they may need is a solid back-up.  That is not Boone, not because he wouldn't be a solid back-up but because he is not going to go to a team to be back-up.

 

 

 

I was not aware that Avery, DHB and Nicks were the only players available when the Colts signed them.  That is the only way you can try to claim that Grigson has done what you misunderstand about my post.

 

 

You should really just let that go, as it's clear we're arguing about nothing. But if you need to keep reiterating that i misunderstood your intention of the original post (which I acknowledged already) just to make the appearance of having anything of substance to say, by all means, continue grasping.  

 

Yet you keep commenting on it as well.  Seems you are the one grasping.

 

 

I understand the point about Luck and TY and others rookie contracts but it's still not a good idea to make bad decisions in the present in hopes it makes future decisions easier.  And trading for and signing Boone would not make the future situation any easier.  Ever since the salary cap, teams have been able to provide balanced teams even with high priced players.  Nor, do I buy into the thought that the Colts are closer to getting to the SB with Boone that without Boone.

 

It's about balancing both. Acquiring Boone would not cripple our future, and he'd likely be a building block for it. You're realistically parting with a mid-round pick and giving him a starters contract. I don't agree, in principle, with the idea of parting with draft picks for veteran players, but this would be one of the few exceptions, as the offensive line needs to improve significantly, while still maintaining a good amount of depth. We're down Donald Thomas and Xavier Nixon already. We will likely have another significant injury along the line at some point as well. Joe Reitz and the big question mark that is Lance Louis is not enough for me to consider what we have quality depth behind our starters. Mewhort was intended to be a key backup this year, and I think bringing in another quality starter puts him back on schedule to be that, and makes our entire line stronger, overall. 

 

Boone was an UDFA.  So I believe that talented players can be found in round three.

 

 

Well that would be kind of hard to prove, since often times when that happens the player stays in that role as a solid back-up.  But there are numerous examples that once a player got their chance they excelled which one could conclude that had they gotten their chance sooner they could have excelled sooner.  One player that comes to mind is Alex Boone.  Another one that comes to mind is Jeff Saturday.  There are tons of examples like that in the NFL.  Without knowing all the particulars of each situation I cannot prove anything.  On the same token you cannot prove that sitting did not hinder their progress... because how much better could they have been?  Or how much longer could they have been at their highest levels.

 

You're the one asserting that our young linemen can't develop without being starters, I gave examples of high draft picks who didn't start right away but still got minutes and eventually became quality offensive linemen after a spot opened up for them. The point is, it has been done before, so you really need to stop using the "stunted development" angle, because it has little merit. Will more playing time accelerate their development? Sure. Does that mean they're not developing at all if they're not thrown in as starters immediately? Absolutely not.

 

I am not asserting they can't develop (again you either have a reading comprehension problem or you just enjoy making up something about a poster and that arguing the point you made up), I am saying that it's slows their development and minimizes the length of time that they will play at their peak.  And I would guarantee that you ask any player in the NFL, college or high school, they will tell you the develop the most by playing during the game.

 

 

 

You, mistakenly, think I post here to become endeared by people.  I come here because there are a handful of people that post interesting stuff that I like to read.  You are usually one of the posters that I like to read  Lastly, I really can't help it if you read my posts and assume I am coming from a superior position.  But I will keep responding the same way I always do despite your pleas to go easy on you.

 

You sure you don't mean "inferiority?" Typically those who have to insult or belittle others constantly are doing so because they think little of themselves and have to put others down to feel special. If you really need an ego boost, I'd suggest buying a motorcycle, wearing muscle shirts, hitting the clubs again and dating a 20 something with nice "assets"

 

Well, you're the one that claimed I was condescending.  One cannot be condescending if one is inferior.  Regarding your comment about insult and belittle, I will simply respond by quoting you, (the "pompous, condescending *" vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw)"

 

Or maybe you just really enjoy being a . Whatever floats your boat. It's been nice, see you around

 

You know, I've heard that typically those who have to insult or belittle others constantly are doing so because they think little of themselves and have to put others down to feel special. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself that you need to insult me.  But that's okay, if a fellow Colts fan can feel better about himself by insulting me, then have at it.  I'm glad I'm able to do my part for your self esteem.

 

 

we are all colts fans an want our team to win, lets don't fight among ourselves, we all want the same thing, colts to win. we can disagree but when it goes as far as it can go , let it go, don't let pride keep us from being one together. go colts

[BlueShoe]

Could they offer Thomas an injury settlement?

 

I don't keep up on cap figures but I think the Colts, if they wanted to make a deal, have the cap space to do it and the cap space to offer a good contract.  But, IMO, the Colts have two starting quality guards and they have one quality back-up (Reitz) and two that seem like they could be quality back-ups (Nixon and Louis).  The issue I have with the back-ups is not the quality of their play but the quantity of snaps they can provide.  Reitz seems to get hurt every 5 plays and Louis is 2 years removed from an ACL injury and Nixon just had his knee scoped.  So I wouldn't mind them picking up another guard for a back-up.

 

I think Mewhort was drafted to be the starter this year.  I think the organization was hopeful about Thomas but not depending on him.

 

I like your thinking here.

 

It appears to me that Reitz is currently our #1 backup tackle at RT and LT. John was the backup LT - if we are using how, why, and when the players came into to the Jets game (which is usually a decent indication). Once John when down, Reitz moved from RT to LT. 

 

Having Boone would give us more options at tackle (especially Left Tackle), which for some reason is overlooked as a need right now. Not sure why people are overlooking this so much. I like how you have not overlooked this importance.

 

To me, Boone makes a lot of sense, if the 49ers would part with him for a reasonable pick (such as a 3rd or 4th). 

[BlueShoe]

I would consider trading for him if we could get him for decent price. I just don't see him taking less than $5 million per and he may want something in the Andy Levitre range (ridiculous for a guard). 

 

One point to think about. What if we get more than just Boone in a trade with the 49ers? 

 

What if we trade a 2015 2nd round pick for Alex Boone and Corey Lemonier (OLB Auburn)? Lemonier has some potential as a strong side OLB, and I am really not that high on Walden. Cutting Walden may allow us to better "afford" Alex Boone. 

 

I like trading for Boone, but do not see a need at linebacker. We already have so much talent at linebacker that it is very likely we will cut a few who will make other teams. And Walden does not get enough credit. He was the only linebacker last year who could consistently contain the edge.

 

Strong side outside linebackers are not usually flashy or fast for that matter. They don't stick out on the stat sheets because they do a lot of the dirty work.

 

Walden is doing a good job.

[Superman]

Lemonier hasnt shown anything to warrant that kind of trade

 

I like Lemonier. Thrown in with Boone for a third, I'd be way okay with that. But that will never happen.

[Coffeedrinker]

I like your thinking here.

 

It appears to me that Reitz is currently our #1 backup tackle at RT and LT. John was the backup LT - if we are using how, why, and when the players came into to the Jets game (which is usually a decent indication). Once John when down, Reitz moved from RT to LT. 

 

Having Boone would give us more options at tackle (especially Left Tackle), which for some reason is overlooked as a need right now. Not sure why people are overlooking this so much. I like how you have not overlooked this importance.

 

To me, Boone makes a lot of sense, if the 49ers would part with him for a reasonable pick (such as a 3rd or 4th). 

I think you misunderstood part of my post.  Reitz is the primary back-up for LT but he's also capable of backing up the guard position.  That is a reason why Reitz and Nixon are valuable back-ups because between the two of them, the Colts have four positions covered.

 

And I like Reitz a lot, he's good enough to be a starter in the NFL, IMO, but he just cannot stay healthy.

[Coffeedrinker]

we are all colts fans an want our team to win, lets don't fight among ourselves, we all want the same thing, colts to win. we can disagree but when it goes as far as it can go , let it go, don't let pride keep us from being one together. go colts

Thank you sir, may I have another. ;)

 

(In a post that was deleted by our ever vigilante moderators, I said I had changed my life, I thought it was pretty good; I had a crying emoticon and everything, and that is how I would respond from now on when someone tells me how I should respond to other posters, so I'm making good on it in case anyone read it.)

[BlueShoe]

I think you misunderstood part of my post.  Reitz is the primary back-up for LT but he's also capable of backing up the guard position.  That is a reason why Reitz and Nixon are valuable back-ups because between the two of them, the Colts have four positions covered.

 

And I like Reitz a lot, he's good enough to be a starter in the NFL, IMO, but he just cannot stay healthy.

 

I understood what you were saying, and I agree with it.

 

The fact that Reitz cannot stay healthy is a concern to me too. 

 

It is also my loose-opinion, based on where the original second team was playing, that John had surpassed Reitz at backup LT on the depth chart.

[YOUR GM]

(In a post that was deleted by our ever vigilante moderators, I said I had changed my life, I thought it was pretty good; I had a crying emoticon and everything, and that is how I would respond from now on when someone tells me how I should respond to other posters, so I'm making good on it in case anyone read it.)

Lol! Just couldn't resist. I saw it... along with the "song" that you (a grown man) wasted the time to write for me.... The mods did you a huge favor by deleting it, honestly. Yup... normal behavior from a well adjusted, middle-aged, grown man right there. I cringed FOR you a little after reading it, just saying

(Que your "crying" emoticon response)

Back to topic. I'm not against a trade for Boone

[YOUR GM]

we are all colts fans an want our team to win, lets don't fight among ourselves, we all want the same thing, colts to win. we can disagree but when it goes as far as it can go , let it go, don't let pride keep us from being one together. go colts

Hey, thanks for trying...but coffee and I are lost causes. Lol ;)

[ColtsBlueFL]

We are not the only team in serious need for a high quality guard.  In fact, I believe a Boone is more necessary in Tampa Bay  than in Indy.  Josh McCown must be protected and upright in order to perform.  Luck has more ability and mobility and can create even in turmoil.  We, as Colts fans, are just tired of him having to do so year after year.

 

I can see Lovie and the Bucs trying out every option to get Boone on board, and we'll be riding what's left in our cupboard. If we get real lucky, maybe a solid depth G gets cut from someone on the last team roster reductions and we can scoop him up before another team does.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000376883/article/alex-boone-on-tampa-bay-buccaneers-trade-radar

 

http://www.ninersnation.com/2014/8/11/5993505/alex-boone-trade-rumors-tampa-bay-buccaneers-new-york-giants

[Coffeedrinker]

I understood what you were saying, and I agree with it.

 

The fact that Reitz cannot stay healthy is a concern to me too. 

 

It is also my loose-opinion, based on where the original second team was playing, that John had surpassed Reitz at backup LT on the depth chart.

Ahh my bad.  Could be about Ulrick but I don't think so.  He was a real work in progress, I figure he is probably two years away from increasing his strength to the NFL level.