Shipley starting against JAX

[corgi]

Already seen the Injury Video, I don't watch the full presser. Thankfully colts.com breaks the presser into sections

Pagano didn't seem confident is my point

He's listed as probable and if you watch up until the point where the reporter asked if Holmes would start he was confident voice. Once that question came up, he took a step back and started saying if

I don't believe his ankle is healthy. If I had to guess, I'd say 75% if even that the way they're talking

You're just looking for reasons to complain at this point TK. You're basing every argument off of assumption, that's not really a good strategy for winning debates.

 

I mean I'm truly devistated that Coach Pagano didn't pass the your confidence test, but again that's all based on your personal perspective and isn't really a leg to stand on.

 

You aren't qualified to diagnose an injury in person, let alone one several states away. Do you really think that if he had this horrendous injury they wouldn't address it? Like by, oh I don't know putting him on IR? If he's not at 100% there is no reason to put him out on the field and risk reaggrivating the injury. Shipley has been fine and he's healthy.

[SteelCityColt]

It's just not adding up. If he's probable...... Why isn't he starting?

Doesn't probable mean you're basically playing barring any random setback?

What happened to all that "Holmes is the future, Holmes is our guy" praise?

If he's our guy, why isn't he getting his starting job back from a guy we just traded last season and was cut this season? If he can go, why isn't he gonna start?

You wouldn't see the Falcons list Julio as probable but come gameday they let Douglas start in place of Julio. Julio is their guy, and he will play if he's able

The praise was so high for Holmes in the offseason now it seems to have simmered down

But it is what it is........... I say we ride Shipley the whole season cause it's been working

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

 

There's a heck of a lot of difference between Jones to Douglas and Holmes to Shipley... Bad comparison. 

 

We're a team that's been mutilated by injuries over the last two seasons and you're quibbling that they're easing a guy back in? They must almost be ecstatic that Shipley played well, there's no pressure to rush Holmes in until they feel he's ready and (I say this as pure speculation) they feel he's the best option at C. 

 

Can the coaching staff ever do right in your eyes again??! 

[Superman]

It's just not adding up. If he's probable...... Why isn't he starting?

Doesn't probable mean you're basically playing barring any random setback?

What happened to all that "Holmes is the future, Holmes is our guy" praise?

If he's our guy, why isn't he getting his starting job back from a guy we just traded last season and was cut this season? If he can go, why isn't he gonna start?

You wouldn't see the Falcons list Julio as probable but come gameday they let Douglas start in place of Julio. Julio is their guy, and he will play if he's able

The praise was so high for Holmes in the offseason now it seems to have simmered down

But it is what it is........... I say we ride Shipley the whole season cause it's been working

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

 

Again, good heavens...

[SteelCityColt]

Again, good heavens...

 

I believe in these parts it's pronounced Dear Lord... ;) 

[Superman]

I believe in these parts it's pronounced Dear Lord... ;)

 

I was leaving that up to jskinnz...

[Jason_]

Pagano said very clearly that Shipley is going to start, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Also, you have zero information on which to base your 75% claim. It's silly. The whole point is that they want to take it slow -- which is in keeping with what the team has done throughout the offseason and preseason and up until now. Pagano said that if Holmes dresses on Sunday, they'll try to work him in for a few snaps. 

 

There's nothing unclear about what Pagano has said regarding Holmes. He said they're confident in Shipley, and they want to be cautious with Holmes. This isn't rocket science. I don't know what else you'd want to see or hear. You're making something out of nothing.

 

Kind of like that poster that kept whining about trading away a backup Kicker that was set to be waived anyway.  Oh wait...

[jameszeigler834]

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/AQ-Shipley-To-Start-At-Center-Against-Jacksonville/f69e9df5-f9d8-4223-8bf5-67cfb35ff43b

 

Muy interesante.

Why is he starting if Holmes is probable?.

[Superman]

Why is he starting if Holmes is probable?.

 

It's all in the thread. I think it's a combination of several things.

[akcolt]

Why is he starting if Holmes is probable?.

 

The dude is made of glass time to move on Shipley is the C and Harrison is the back up maybe the future. Holmes will be IR'd at some point and very quietly cut next year.  

[Jason_]

Why is he starting if Holmes is probable?.

 

Apparently because Dr. Evil stole Chuck Pagano's mojo

[SteelCityColt]

Kind of like that poster that kept whining about trading away a backup Kicker that was set to be waived anyway.  Oh wait...

 

Keeping 2 kickers was the way forward after all... 

[TKnight24]

Kind of like that poster that kept whining about trading away a backup Kicker that was set to be waived anyway. Oh wait...

Funny, cause that backup kicker put the at 0-2 with a GW FF didn't he?

Great isn't it? A backup becomes a hero for Philly fans for a few days

[TKnight24]

The dude is made of glass time to move on Shipley is the C and Harrison is the back up maybe the future. Holmes will be IR'd at some point and very quietly cut next year.

Riding Shipley the whole season, Holmes can stay on the bench

[SteelCityColt]

Funny, cause that backup kicker put the at 0-2 with a GW FF didn't he?

Great isn't it? A backup becomes a hero for Philly fans for a few days

 

So what were we meant to do with him? Not cut him? 

 

He was getting picked up off waivers anyway so it didn't really change much. That's the point you don't seem to get. What's more worrying is you stand up him kicking the winner as vindication of your opinion (which to your credit is nice to see you trying to do), but not realising how even more farcical it makes you sound.

 

 

To put this to bed once and for all, you're the GM, what would you have done with Parker? 

[Jason_]

Funny, cause that backup kicker put the at 0-2 with a GW FF didn't he?

Great isn't it? A backup becomes a hero for Philly fans for a few days

 

That same kicker missed a relatively easy FG earlier in the game too.  Either way, him making or missing that last field goal does not mean it was a bad trade.  Did you expect them to keep 2 kickers on the roster?  Did you think they were going to try to put Parkey on the PS?  If you thought the latter, I don't know what to tell you...keeping a P or K on the PS would be monumentally stupid....imo.

[akcolt]

Kind of like that poster that kept whining about trading away a backup Kicker that was set to be waived anyway.  Oh wait...

That was me I just didn't see any reason to give Philly a K for nothing let them take a chance on him making it to them on the wire or give us a 7th.

 

Grig's and his allegiance to the Eagles gets old. By the way I took that Parkey in most drafts he is 5/6 with a 51 yarder. Where is that RB we traded for again?

[TKnight24]

So what were we meant to do with him? Not cut him?

He was getting picked up off waivers anyway so it didn't really change much. That's the point you don't seem to get. What's more worrying is you stand up him kicking the winner as vindication of your opinion (which to your credit is nice to see you trying to do), but not realising how even more farcical it makes you sound.

To put this to bed once and for all, you're the GM, what would you have done with Parker?

If you cut him, he must clear waviers and I believe there's a system in place for the waivers where bad teams get first dibs or something like that. So who's to say he would've lasted to the point where the eagles could pick him?

[SteelCityColt]

That was me I just didn't see any reason to give Philly a K for nothing let them take a chance on him making it to them on the wire or give us a 7th.

 

Grig's and his allegiance to the Eagles gets old. By the way I took that Parkey in most drafts he is 5/6 with a 51 yarder. Where is that RB we traded for again?

 

Same question...

 

To put this to bed once and for all, you're the GM, what would you have done with Parker? 

[SteelCityColt]

If you cut him, he must clear waviers and I believe there's a system in place for the waivers where bad teams get first dibs or something like that. So who's to say he would've lasted to the point where the eagles could pick him?

 

No one can say but rather then getting nothing for him we got something... that's just plain business sense. He could quite of easily have gone to another team we play and kicked a winning FG against us, is that somehow better in your eyes? 

 

So is your answer then, straight up cut him? 

[Superman]

Are we really going back to the Parkey trade? Can we not, please?

[TKnight24]

So what were we meant to do with him? Not cut him?

He was getting picked up off waivers anyway so it didn't really change much. That's the point you don't seem to get. What's more worrying is you stand up him kicking the winner as vindication of your opinion (which to your credit is nice to see you trying to do), but not realising how even more farcical it makes you sound.

To put this to bed once and for all, you're the GM, what would you have done with Parker?

And sorry, didn't answer your inquire

I would've traded him for a pick. Better than what we did get for him. That was my problem with the trade. Just get a 7th instead of getting someone who had zero chance to make the roster. That 7th round pick could've made the team you never know how it shakes out on draft day. Sure stats show 7th rounders generally don't make the rosters but things happen. Numbers do lie sometimes. People get caught up in "NFL history" too much

[akcolt]

Keeping 2 kickers was the way forward after all... 

It wasn't keeping 2 K's we all know that wasn't happening it was giving the Eagles something they were in desperate need of Henery could not kick the ball into the endzone on Kickoffs and stunk it up on FG% last year not to mention having a weak leg.

 

Parkey will finish top 3 in scoring this year it is a win for me and the Eagles and I guess Grig's keeps his eagle buddies.

[TKnight24]

No one can say but rather then getting nothing for him we got something... that's just plain business sense. He could quite of easily have gone to another team we play and kicked a winning FG against us, is that somehow better in your eyes?

So is your answer then, straight up cut him?

..... We didn't get anything for him. That player is long gone, we got nothing. They got a starting kicker

[Superman]

And sorry, didn't answer your inquire

I would've traded him for a pick. Better than what we did get for him. That was my problem with the trade. Just get a 7th instead of getting someone who had zero chance to make the roster. That 7th round pick could've made the team you never know how it shakes out on draft day. Sure stats show 7th rounders generally don't make the rosters but things happen. Numbers do lie sometimes. People get caught up in "NFL history" too much

 

And what if no one agreed to give you a 7th rounder? Then what?

[TKnight24]

And what if no one agreed to give you a 7th rounder? Then what?

Then you cut him. Then and only then do you cut him. But you don't trade him to a team in desperate need of a K and in return you get a player that plays a position you're stacked at. That didn't make sense is the problem I have with it

[Superman]

Then you cut him. Then and only then do you cut him. But you don't trade him to a team in desperate need of a K and in return you get a player that plays a position you're stacked at. That didn't make sense is the problem I have with it

 

And if you cut him and the Eagles claim him, then what? 

[Jason_]

That was me I just didn't see any reason to give Philly a K for nothing let them take a chance on him making it to them on the wire or give us a 7th.

 

Grig's and his allegiance to the Eagles gets old. By the way I took that Parkey in most drafts he is 5/6 with a 51 yarder. Where is that RB we traded for again?

 

I honestly don't remember you complaining about the Parkey trade, only TK.  However, who cares where that RB is?  Parkey was going to be waived, but instead of waiving him and getting nothing, Grigson traded him and got a RB who got some time with our offense and provided another body at RB during the rest of TC and preseason.  

 

and give us a 7th?  We got a 7th for Caesar Rayford last year, who had a decent showing in preseason and plays at MUCH more important position than Parkey.  Do you really think we could have gotten the same value in return for a K that we got for a situational pass rusher??  Basically it came down to 2 players who were going to be waived, but instead of waiving them, the 2 GMs decided to avoid the waiver process and trade them instead.  Even if Parkey becomes the permanent K for the Eagles for the next 10 years, that STILL would not have been a bad trade because we were not going to keep him anyway.

[Jason_]

And sorry, didn't answer your inquire

I would've traded him for a pick. Better than what we did get for him. That was my problem with the trade. Just get a 7th instead of getting someone who had zero chance to make the roster. That 7th round pick could've made the team you never know how it shakes out on draft day. Sure stats show 7th rounders generally don't make the rosters but things happen. Numbers do lie sometimes. People get caught up in "NFL history" too much

 

see my previous post about trying to get a pick for Parkey.

[TKnight24]

And if you cut him and the Eagles claim him, then what?

Then that's how it plays out. I wouldn't care then. But we gave him to them is the problem I have. At least if they got him through waivers, then they had to wait on him. But to just give them to him knowing they needed a K badly is what blows me

[OffensivelyPC]

Funny, I came here for a conversation about Holmes, and most of what I've seen was how Pagano didn't say the exact right thing in an informal interview and why we should have put Parkey on waivers instead of getting a draft pick. 

 

Back on topic - I doubt this has anything to do with Holmes' job being in jeopardy or antyhing.  "We can play winning football with AQ."  That's all I need to know when we got a guy coming off of a high ankle sprain that's kept him out for how long now?  6, 7 weeks?  Clearly it was one of the bad kinds of high ankle sprains - and for a guy that already has had ankle problems, no less.

[akcolt]

If you cut him, he must clear waviers and I believe there's a system in place for the waivers where bad teams get first dibs or something like that. So who's to say he would've lasted to the point where the eagles could pick him?

He probably would not have made it to the Eagles  that was the point in the trade. We gave him to the eagles for nothing. The kid was 3/3 with 2 50 yards plus in the Eagles final preseason game. I don't want to get into that debate again. I just don't get helping other teams especially good ones.

 

He will be fantasy gold.

[Jason_]

Then that's how it plays out. I wouldn't care then. But we gave him to them is the problem I have. At least if they got him through waivers, then they had to wait on him. But to just give them to him knowing they needed a K badly is what blows me

 

and Grigson apparently wanted another RB at that time.  You know as well  as everyone else that Grigson is constantly churning the bottom of the roster, trying to get better in any possible way. Maybe he just wanted to see if Fluellen was better than Tipton for that last RB spot?  The fact that the trade was FOR a RB is proof enough that Grigson was obviously interested in bringing in another RB at that point anyway.  

 

So, Grigson got to bring in a RB he was obviously interested in and all he had to do to get that RB was to trade a K that he was going to release anyway.  Anything beyond that simply does not matter.

[Jason_]

He probably would not have made it to the Eagles  that was the point in the trade. We gave him to the eagles for nothing. The kid was 3/3 with 2 50 yards plus in the Eagles final preseason game. I don't want to get into that debate again. I just don't get helping other teams especially good ones.

 

He will be fantasy gold.

 

We didn't give him to the Eagles for nothing.  We got a RB that we got to try out to see if he was better than one of the bottom 2 guys on the depth chart at that position.  Yes he has since been cut, but if we suffer an injury to a RB at some point then maybe he gets brought back.  Who knows?  More importantly, who cares?  

 

Do you two really think that Grigson just called up the Eagles and said, "hey, you guys need a kicker don't you?  well tell ya what, I've got an extra one, why don't you just send me any player you have that you were going to cut and you can have Parkey.  I'm here for you guys"?

 

No, of course not.  that would be monumentally stupid.  Grigson was obviously interested in bringing in another RB at that time, and he wanted to bring in Fluellen.  If the Eagles waive Fluellen then maybe he gets picked up before Grigs has a shot at him.  I'd say that was much more likely than a K being picked up off waivers but who knows.  Either way, Grigson got a player he wanted to bring in and the Eagles got a player they wanted to bring in.  Both teams got something for someone they were going to release anyway so essentially both teams got something for nothing.  

[akcolt]

I honestly don't remember you complaining about the Parkey trade, only TK.  However, who cares where that RB is?  Parkey was going to be waived, but instead of waiving him and getting nothing, Grigson traded him and got a RB who got some time with our offense and provided another body at RB during the rest of TC and preseason.  

 

and give us a 7th?  We got a 7th for Caesar Rayford last year, who had a decent showing in preseason and plays at MUCH more important position than Parkey.  Do you really think we could have gotten the same value in return for a K that we got for a situational pass rusher??  Basically it came down to 2 players who were going to be waived, but instead of waiving them, the 2 GMs decided to avoid the waiver process and trade them instead.  Even if Parkey becomes the permanent K for the Eagles for the next 10 years, that STILL would not have been a bad trade because we were not going to keep him anyway.

Here is one of my post I am not going back to look for more. I thought it was stupid at the time think it was stupid now. Why are we helping a team we compete against.

dude we traded a backup kicker. We win by default.

He was a back up kicker to us.

 

Henery struggled last year made a career low 80% of fg's and doesn't have the leg to kick the ball into to the endzone on Kickoffs. Kelly was looking to replace him. He probably just did.

 

We should have got a 6/7th round pick instead of a player we are going to cut or made Philly wait on him until cuts.

 

 

[MTC]

I'm somehow not surprised, yet I am. 

 

Confusing, isn't it?

[akcolt]

We didn't give him to the Eagles for nothing.  We got a RB that we got to try out to see if he was better than one of the bottom 2 guys on the depth chart at that position.  Yes he has since been cut, but if we suffer an injury to a RB at some point then maybe he gets brought back.  Who knows?  More importantly, who cares?  

 

Do you two really think that Grigson just called up the Eagles and said, "hey, you guys need a kicker don't you?  well tell ya what, I've got an extra one, why don't you just send me any player you have that you were going to cut and you can have Parkey.  I'm here for you guys"?

 

No, of course not.  that would be monumentally stupid.  Grigson was obviously interested in bringing in another RB at that time, and he wanted to bring in Fluellen.  If the Eagles waive Fluellen then maybe he gets picked up before Grigs has a shot at him.  I'd say that was much more likely than a K being picked up off waivers but who knows.  Either way, Grigson got a player he wanted to bring in and the Eagles got a player they wanted to bring in.  Both teams got something for someone they were going to release anyway so essentially both teams got something for nothing.  

That is not true the Eagles got a starting K we got a RB I am pretty sure we cut in less than a week.

[Superman]

Then that's how it plays out. I wouldn't care then. But we gave him to them is the problem I have. At least if they got him through waivers, then they had to wait on him. But to just give them to him knowing they needed a K badly is what blows me

 

This is really nonsense.

[Jason_]

 

Here is one of my post I am not going back to look for more. I thought it was stupid at the time think it was stupid now. Why are we helping a team we compete against.

He was a back up kicker to us.

 

Henery struggled last year made a career low 80% of fg's and doesn't have the leg to kick the ball into to the endzone on Kickoffs. Kelly was looking to replace him. He probably just did.

 

We should have got a 6/7th round pick instead of a player we are going to cut or made Philly wait on him until cuts.

 

 

 

 

can you name any K that has ever been traded for a 6th or 7th round pick?  Again, we couldn't get any better than a 7th for Rayford...we got what, a conditional 6th for Shipley I think?  Do you really think an UDFA K would have gotten us the same value?

[akcolt]

No one can say but rather then getting nothing for him we got something... that's just plain business sense. He could quite of easily have gone to another team we play and kicked a winning FG against us, is that somehow better in your eyes? 

 

So is your answer then, straight up cut him? 

It is not good business. This team needs something we have so we just give to them? I could careless who made a winning 30 yard fg I would assume any K they signed would have made that K.  They would not have been K the ball into the end zone or dropping them in from over 50 but that kick Monday night I had a good shot at making.

 

Yea that is my answer kick us a late pick or we are sending him to the wire good luck.

 

I promise that is all I will say about Parkey from this point forward.

[Superman]

can you name any K that has ever been traded for a 6th or 7th round pick?  Again, we couldn't get any better than a 7th for Rayford...we got what, a conditional 6th for Shipley I think?  Do you really think an UDFA K would have gotten us the same value?

 

Not only that, but everyone in the NFL knew that we weren't keeping Parkey.