The main issue

[jbaron04]

Let's talk about the main issue we keep over looking. Y'all talking about cro and Melvin guys off the street we need to talk about Mathis and the pass rush. You know the pass rush is bad when tour edge setting player Walden is the leader in sacks. Mathis as I knew last yr is done he will be lucky if he gets 3 sacks this yr. I don't think we got pressure on any qb this yr so far. I think it's time to let maggit and the other young guys play and get better for next season 

[IinD]

Bad roster management with horrible coaching.

 

We're either to young in spots or ancient. A very unhealthy mix.

 

I'm honestly fully off the Chuck bandwagon. Even though we're bad, we're undisciplinedlike never before. Even when we lost on the past we weren't penalty machines.

 

I don't like this Colts team how it's constructed or managed/coached.

 

I feel the right staff could get more from these players.

[1959Colts]

Pass rush has been non existent.  Should at least have T.Y. McGill active.

[Track Guy]

Personnel wise pass rush is probably the most critical weakness of this team, yes. 

[jbaron04]

1 minute ago, IinD said:

Bad roster management with horrible coaching.

 

We're either to young in spots or ancient. A very unhealthy mix.

 

I'm honestly fully off the Chuck bandwagon. Even though we're bad, we're undisciplinedlike never before. Even when we lost on the past we weren't penalty machines.

 

I don't like this Colts team how it's constructed or managed/coached.

 

I feel the right staff could get more from these players.

I agree, the losing is like ok but the stupid penalties is really killing me. Like the holdings and false starts etc...  Players have no respect for the coaching 

[dudeski]

13 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Let's talk about the main issue we keep over looking. Y'all talking about cro and Melvin guys off the street we need to talk about Mathis and the pass rush. You know the pass rush is bad when tour edge setting player Walden is the leader in sacks. Mathis as I knew last yr is done he will be lucky if he gets 3 sacks this yr. I don't think we got pressure on any qb this yr so far. I think it's time to let maggit and the other young guys play and get better for next season 

The young guys are getting more snaps

[Mr.Debonair]

Mathis needs to get back on the juice or whatever he got suspend for 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

I think it's time to let maggit and the other young guys play and get better for next season 

 

Give up on the season in Week 4...??? Good fan, you are.

 

And let's acknowledge the fact that Maggitt isn't actually any good, cost the team with a stupid penalty today, and can't set the edge in the run game. Let's say he he's a somewhat decent rotational player, at best -- he's not the answer to the bad pass rush.

[jbaron04]

6 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Pass rush has been non existent.  Should at least have T.Y. McGill active.

I know , can't remember the last time we had sacks in bunches 

[jbaron04]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Give up on the season in Week 4...??? Good fan, you are.

 

And let's acknowledge the fact that Maggitt isn't actually any good, cost the team with a stupid penalty today, and can't set the edge in the run game. Let's say he he's a somewhat decent rotational player, at best -- he's not the answer to the bad pass rush.

Bro we can be that team that wins 8-11 games a year and not go any wear or we let the young guys play see if we have players or not who said anything about giving up. The young guys are better in some cases.  And I never said maggit was good I said see what he has can't be any worst than grandpa mathis with his 0 sacks and 5 tackles in 4 games 

[jbaron04]

Robert mathis has 0 sacks 4 tackles 1 assist in 4 games smh so glad his 12m comes off the books this yr 

[JColts72]

Playcalling on both sides of the ball is horrible.

 

[TheRustonRifle#7]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Give up on the season in Week 4...??? Good fan, you are.

 

And let's acknowledge the fact that Maggitt isn't actually any good, cost the team with a stupid penalty today, and can't set the edge in the run game. Let's say he he's a somewhat decent rotational player, at best -- he's not the answer to the bad pass rush.

I agree....I am grateful that when I had some very rough times in my life...that I had a better support group.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Bro we can be that team that wins 8-11 games a year and not go any wear or we let the young guys play see if we have players or not who said anything about giving up. The young guys are better in some cases.  And I never said maggit was good I said see what he has can't be any worst than grandpa mathis with his 0 sacks and 5 tackles in 4 games 

 

5 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Robert mathis has 0 sacks 4 tackles 1 assist in 4 games smh so glad his 12m comes off the books this yr 

 

I'm just waiting on you to say anything that resembles an accurate statement. Am I going to have to settle for that little bit in bold?

 

Letting the young guys play and getting ready for next season is loosely translated as 'we suck, we're not going to win anything this year, let's let the young guys run around and lose a bunch of games so we can get a high draft pick next year,' i.e., giving up.

 

Maggitt is worse than Mathis. And Mathis is on the books for $5m this season, not $12m. 

 

The Colts don't have a great roster, and aren't a SB contender. Maybe with a top notch coaching job they would have a chance, but they don't have a top notch coaching staff, evidently. But none of this is new information. Given all that, I'm not sure what people really expected. It's hard to see a different offseason approach yielding better results right now. Maybe a different coaching staff altogether, but I wasn't excited with any of the potential candidates this year. Hue Jackson was my favorite, and the Browns are 0-4.

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Robert mathis has 0 sacks 4 tackles 1 assist in 4 games smh so glad his 12m comes off the books this yr 

Really surprises me, I thought he would be better being it his last season and he's healthy. My predicting has been decent so far this season but when it comes to the Colts it has sucked  

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

45 minutes ago, IinD said:

Bad roster management with horrible coaching.

 

We're either to young in spots or ancient. A very unhealthy mix.

 

I'm honestly fully off the Chuck bandwagon. Even though we're bad, we're undisciplinedlike never before. Even when we lost on the past we weren't penalty machines.

 

I don't like this Colts team how it's constructed or managed/coached.

 

I feel the right staff could get more from these players.

 

You know youre bad when your offensive lineman are better tacklers than the entire defense. 

[21isSuperman]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

Letting the young guys play and getting ready for next season is loosely translated as 'we suck, we're not going to win anything this year, let's let the young guys run around and lose a bunch of games so we can get a high draft pick next year,' i.e., giving up.

 

Hue Jackson was my favorite, and the Browns are 0-4.

With regards to the first part, I don't see the problem.  Why fight to go 7-9 (that's assuming we can even go .500 the rest of the season) and miss the playoffs and draft 15th overall when instead you can give the younger guys some playing time to develop, and draft in the top 10?  Obviously, no coaching staff is going to throw the towel in on the season this early and get themselves fired, but you can definitely see the benefits as a fan.  A bad season could give this team the change in coaching staff, and possibly management, that it needs to go to the next level.

 

Regarding Hue Jackson, I think if he were coaching in Indy, the Colts would be better than what they are now.  0-4 in Cleveland isn't really something to hold against Hue, it's more the norm for Cleveland.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

With regards to the first part, I don't see the problem.  Why fight to go 7-9 (that's assuming we can even go .500 the rest of the season) and miss the playoffs and draft 15th overall when instead you can give the younger guys some playing time to develop, and draft in the top 10? 

 

So, tank the season because you're 1-3 in a pretty bad division, because you want to improve your draft position by 5 or so spots? That seems reasonable... 

 

Quote

Obviously, no coaching staff is going to throw the towel in on the season this early and get themselves fired, but you can definitely see the benefits as a fan.  A bad season could give this team the change in coaching staff, and possibly management, that it needs to go to the next level.

 

In other words, 'we want this team to suck so that the staff we hate gets fired.'

 

Quote

 

Regarding Hue Jackson, I think if he were coaching in Indy, the Colts would be better than what they are now.  0-4 in Cleveland isn't really something to hold against Hue, it's more the norm for Cleveland.

 

 

But according to you, the Colts have a bad culture, and it starts with Irsay... so what difference would Hue Jackson make?

 

To be fair, I'm not off the Hue Jackson train, but I expected the Browns to be better than this. They're probably another offseason away, though.

[ColtfreakDVA]

17 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

With regards to the first part, I don't see the problem.  Why fight to go 7-9 (that's assuming we can even go .500 the rest of the season) and miss the playoffs and draft 15th overall when instead you can give the younger guys some playing time to develop, and draft in the top 10?  Obviously, no coaching staff is going to throw the towel in on the season this early and get themselves fired, but you can definitely see the benefits as a fan.  A bad season could give this team the change in coaching staff, and possibly management, that it needs to go to the next level.

 

Regarding Hue Jackson, I think if he were coaching in Indy, the Colts would be better than what they are now.  0-4 in Cleveland isn't really something to hold against Hue, it's more the norm for Cleveland.

Not trying to pick on you and understand your logic but you play the game to win.  Always. Period.

 

If our team tanked at game 4 or even game 10 I would be very disappointed. If we are mathematically out of it then I am ok with bringing in the rookies and letting them play out the season and get some reps.

 

I know most want to see pagano and grigs gone but to ask the team to speed that up sets a very bad precedent and in the spirit of professional competitive sports really stains the image of an organization.  And the coach isnt going to do that anyway if it means his job, so not going to happen.

 

That is a losing mentality and has no place in our organization (speaking on if the team did that).

 

I am rooting for them thick or thin.

 

 

[Moose Of Woe]

"Build the monster" indeed. It's horrendous to watch this defense play.

 

Offensive line continues to have spurts of playing decent here or there for a game, then reverts to its craptastic usual self for the next half a season.

 

Same old, same old. Maybe the line won't get Luck killed this season. They've come close a few times. His own decision making deserves part of the blame, but that line is junk.

 

Good thing Irsay signed Grigson and Pagano to an extention. Our defense has gotten annually worse since they arrived and the blO line continues to do just that. Special teams are better, at least, but they've done nothing to improve the team as a whole.

[FanFromtheWasteland]

The main issue imo is that other than a half a dozen players, this team stinks Baaaaaaaaaaaad! They don't have to try to tank the season. They are already doing a great job of that, and the sad part is that it is Not on purpose.

[IinD]

3 minutes ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

The main issue imo is that other than a half a dozen players, this team stinks Baaaaaaaaaaaad! They don't have to try to tank the season. They are already doing a great job of that, and the sad part is that it is Not on purpose.

Exactly, it's a crime to basically say so.

 

Terrible LB's, questionable oline, terrible coaching. No discipline, no pass rush. 

 

Pretty easy to see we'd be bad if you looked at it objectively.

[jbaron04]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I'm just waiting on you to say anything that resembles an accurate statement. Am I going to have to settle for that little bit in bold?

 

Letting the young guys play and getting ready for next season is loosely translated as 'we suck, we're not going to win anything this year, let's let the young guys run around and lose a bunch of games so we can get a high draft pick next year,' i.e., giving up.

 

Maggitt is worse than Mathis. And Mathis is on the books for $5m this season, not $12m. 

 

The Colts don't have a great roster, and aren't a SB contender. Maybe with a top notch coaching job they would have a chance, but they don't have a top notch coaching staff, evidently. But none of this is new information. Given all that, I'm not sure what people really expected. It's hard to see a different offseason approach yielding better results right now. Maybe a different coaching staff altogether, but I wasn't excited with any of the potential candidates this year. Hue Jackson was my favorite, and the Browns are 0-4.

Lol, young guy or old we not gonna be good bro, so we have to try to win while letting guys play and see of we have players 

[jbaron04]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So, tank the season because you're 1-3 in a pretty bad division, because you want to improve your draft position by 5 or so spots? That seems reasonable... 

 

 

In other words, 'we want this team to suck so that the staff we hate gets fired.'

 

 

But according to you, the Colts have a bad culture, and it starts with Irsay... so what difference would Hue Jackson make?

 

To be fair, I'm not off the Hue Jackson train, but I expected the Browns to be better than this. They're probably another offseason away, though.

Why y'all keep saying tank we just saying play the young guys can't hurt more than what reitz and mathis production is so far

[21isSuperman]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So, tank the season because you're 1-3 in a pretty bad division, because you want to improve your draft position by 5 or so spots? That seems reasonable... 

 

In other words, 'we want this team to suck so that the staff we hate gets fired.'

 

But according to you, the Colts have a bad culture, and it starts with Irsay... so what difference would Hue Jackson make?

 

To be fair, I'm not off the Hue Jackson train, but I expected the Browns to be better than this. They're probably another offseason away, though.

You and I both know this team isn't going to compete for a Super Bowl.  We can't go head to head with teams like Pittsburgh, New England, Minnesota, etc.  We can't even beat an 0-3 Jags team, let alone compete for a Super Bowl.  So yeah, I don't see the problem with trying to improve your draft spot.  In my opinion, being 7-9/8-8/around that mark is the worst place you can be.  If you go 4-12, you're getting a high draft pick and can look to the future.  If you go 12-4, you're in the playoffs and competing for a Super Bowl.  This roster with this coaching staff will not be winning the Super Bowl this year.  But if you go 7-9/8-8, you're going to be drafting in the 20s while also missing the playoffs.  I think it's the worst case.  So let's avoid drafting in the 20s and let's try to get a real game changer with a high pick in the draft.

 

No, I don't want the team to suck so the staff we/I don't like gets fired.  I want this team to have a sustainable, winning future and I don't think this coaching staff or GM can make it happen.  I think a bad season this year could mean:

1) an infusion of good, young talent from a good draft position

2) a change in coaching staff

3) a change in management

4) a lot of the younger guys get more playing time to develop

5) potentially trading away older players to get something (even 6th or 7th round picks) in return instead of just cutting them this upcoming offseason

 

None of those three are guaranteed to help us win, but I think they give us a better shot than the roster, coaching, and management we have now.  What I'm saying is similar to how some fans were happy that the Colts were losing in 2011 because it meant a better chance of getting Luck.  I don't want to see my team become a perennial loser, nor is this some personal vendetta against the coaches.  But I'm of the opinion that a bad season this year could lead to changes that make the team a competitive and contending team.  So this isn't "let's lose so the coaches get fired", it's "let's lose because that's what I think is best for the long term success of this team".

 

Hue Jackson in Indy > Chuck Pagano in Indy, regardless of ownership.  If Hue was able to do what he did with the 2011 Raiders, and how he made Andy Dalton play like an MVP candidate last year, I think he'd be able to do some great things with Andrew Luck.  Hue doesn't seem to be as coddling a coach as Pagano seems to be

 

16 minutes ago, ColtfreakDVA said:

Not trying to pick on you and understand your logic but you play the game to win.  Always. Period.

 

If our team tanked at game 4 or even game 10 I would be very disappointed. If we are mathematically out of it then I am ok with bringing in the rookies and letting them play out the season and get some reps.

 

I know most want to see pagano and grigs gone but to ask the team to speed that up sets a very bad precedent and in the spirit of professional competitive sports really stains the image of an organization.  And the coach isnt going to do that anyway if it means his job, so not going to happen.

 

That is a losing mentality and has no place in our organization (speaking on if the team did that).

 

I am rooting for them thick or thin.

See above description.  The reason for saying tank this year/give younger guys more reps to develop isn't because I want to see the Colts be a perennial loser.  It's because I think it would be beneficial to the franchise long term.  Again, it's similar to how fans - legit fans to want to see the Colts win every game every year - wanted the Colts to lose games in 2011 so we could get Luck and have a better future.

[jbaron04]

34 minutes ago, ColtfreakDVA said:

Not trying to pick on you and understand your logic but you play the game to win.  Always. Period.

 

If our team tanked at game 4 or even game 10 I would be very disappointed. If we are mathematically out of it then I am ok with bringing in the rookies and letting them play out the season and get some reps.

 

I know most want to see pagano and grigs gone but to ask the team to speed that up sets a very bad precedent and in the spirit of professional competitive sports really stains the image of an organization.  And the coach isnt going to do that anyway if it means his job, so not going to happen.

 

That is a losing mentality and has no place in our organization (speaking on if the team did that).

 

I am rooting for them thick or thin.

 

 

We want to win but let's do it while tj green and haeg are playing and learning not being on the bench cause they have a vet in front of them 

[OLD FAN MAN]

4 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

You and I both know this team isn't going to compete for a Super Bowl.  We can't go head to head with teams like Pittsburgh, New England, Minnesota, etc.  We can't even beat an 0-3 Jags team, let alone compete for a Super Bowl.  So yeah, I don't see the problem with trying to improve your draft spot.  In my opinion, being 7-9/8-8/around that mark is the worst place you can be.  If you go 4-12, you're getting a high draft pick and can look to the future.  If you go 12-4, you're in the playoffs and competing for a Super Bowl.  This roster with this coaching staff will not be winning the Super Bowl this year.  But if you go 7-9/8-8, you're going to be drafting in the 20s while also missing the playoffs.  I think it's the worst case.  So let's avoid drafting in the 20s and let's try to get a real game changer with a high pick in the draft.

 

No, I don't want the team to suck so the staff we/I don't like gets fired.  I want this team to have a sustainable, winning future and I don't think this coaching staff or GM can make it happen.  I think a bad season this year could mean:

1) an infusion of good, young talent from a good draft position

2) a change in coaching staff

3) a change in management

4) a lot of the younger guys get more playing time to develop

5) potentially trading away older players to get something (even 6th or 7th round picks) in return instead of just cutting them this upcoming offseason

 

None of those three are guaranteed to help us win, but I think they give us a better shot than the roster, coaching, and management we have now.  What I'm saying is similar to how some fans were happy that the Colts were losing in 2011 because it meant a better chance of getting Luck.  I don't want to see my team become a perennial loser, nor is this some personal vendetta against the coaches.  But I'm of the opinion that a bad season this year could lead to changes that make the team a competitive and contending team.  So this isn't "let's lose so the coaches get fired", it's "let's lose because that's what I think is best for the long term success of this team".

 

Hue Jackson in Indy > Chuck Pagano in Indy, regardless of ownership.  If Hue was able to do what he did with the 2011 Raiders, and how he made Andy Dalton play like an MVP candidate last year, I think he'd be able to do some great things with Andrew Luck.  Hue doesn't seem to be as coddling a coach as Pagano seems to be

 

See above description.  The reason for saying tank this year/give younger guys more reps to develop isn't because I want to see the Colts be a perennial loser.  It's because I think it would be beneficial to the franchise long term.  Again, it's similar to how fans - legit fans to want to see the Colts win every game every year - wanted the Colts to lose games in 2011 so we could get Luck and have a better future.

I agree, that sounds like a good plan

[OLD FAN MAN]

35 minutes ago, Moose Of Woe said:

"Build the monster" indeed. It's horrendous to watch this defense play.

 

Offensive line continues to have spurts of playing decent here or there for a game, then reverts to its craptastic usual self for the next half a season.

 

Same old, same old. Maybe the line won't get Luck killed this season. They've come close a few times. His own decision making deserves part of the blame, but that line is junk.

 

Good thing Irsay signed Grigson and Pagano to an extention. Our defense has gotten annually worse since they arrived and the blO line continues to do just that. Special teams are better, at least, but they've done nothing to improve the team as a whole.

I agree, grigs cant judge talent

[ColtfreakDVA]

1 minute ago, 21isSuperman said:

See above description.  The reason for saying tank this year/give younger guys more reps to develop isn't because I want to see the Colts be a perennial loser.  It's because I think it would be beneficial to the franchise long term.  Again, it's similar to how fans - legit fans to want to see the Colts win every game every year - wanted the Colts to lose games in 2011 so we could get Luck and have a better future.

 

Again your logic makes sense in a fan way but it doesn't in a professional way and its a pipe dream because no one will lose to get fired.  Football isnt like baseball where coaches might survive a year or 2 of bringing up the youngsters at the end of the season.  

 

This is just way to early to be talking like this IMO.  As a fan maybe I would be more receptive to some of your ideas after we are mathematically out of it.

 

Personally I didn't want to see the Colts suck for luck until they were out of it. Yea its splitting hairs a bit when hoping we dont win even at that point but we really sucked so it didnt matter.

 

I am a fan of the underdog and the adversity story.  Makes the journey all the more satisfying.  

 

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"

[ColtfreakDVA]

16 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

We want to win but let's do it while tj green and haeg are playing and learning not being on the bench cause they have a vet in front of them 

 

As long as it doesn't risk Luck's health (Haeg) and the vet ahead of them isnt working out then I am all for it.

[21isSuperman]

1 minute ago, ColtfreakDVA said:

 

Again your logic makes sense in a fan way but it doesn't in a professional way and its a pipe dream because no one will lose to get fired.  Football isnt like baseball where coaches might survive a year or 2 of bringing up the youngsters at the end of the season.  

 

This is just way to early to be talking like this IMO.  As a fan maybe I would be more receptive to some of your ideas after we are mathematically out of it.

 

Personally I didn't want to see the Colts suck for luck until they were out of it. Yea its splitting hairs a bit when hoping we dont win even at that point but we really sucked so it didnt matter.

 

I am a fan of the underdog and the adversity story.  Makes the journey all the more satisfying.  

 

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"

Fair enough, and I agree completely that it won't happen professionally because this would be a coaching squad essentially firing themselves.

 

But let me ask you this.  If the Colts ended up winning one more game in 2011 and missed out on Luck and went with RG3 instead, what would that have meant for the long term prospects of the team?  RG3 can't stay healthy and is now playing/hurt in Cleveland after becoming a backup in Washington.

 

The Colts are essentially out of it for this year at this point.  Regardless of what the mathematics say, the film doesn't show a team that can compete for a Super Bowl.  So you can make the case that this team is already out of it.

[richard pallo]

It's time to bench Mathis and bring up Bates.  Harsh but it's necessary.  Happens to them all. Time to start making some other changes.  Davis should always covers the best receiver no matter where he lines up. Ferguson and Cromartie to the end of the bench.  More designed roll outs for Luck. He's great when he moves and it puts more pressure on the defense.  Well it's been a long day. Time to turn in.  As Scarlet O'hara said: Tomorrow is another day.  Or something like that.  

[krunk]

Hell they could have got Dexter Mcluster for this mess Ferguson is bringing to the table and spared us all the hype.  The sad thing is he gets more carries than Turbin which is pitiful.

[krunk]

Hell they could have got Dexter Mcluster for this mess Ferguson is bringing to the table and spared us all the hype.  The sad thing is he gets more carries than Turbin which is pitiful.

[krunk]

We got Gore and Turbin to pick up an easy 4th and one and we pass the freaking football.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, krunk said:

We got Gore and Turbin to pick up an easy 4th and one and we pass the freaking football.

I thought Andrew could've ran the frunkin football as well. I am not sure why we didn't challenge the spot either on our catch before that. Looked like we got the first down when TY stretched out over the 1st down marker before he went out of bounds. I am surprised nobody has brought that up. Instead it's 4th and 1.

[ColtfreakDVA]

20 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Fair enough, and I agree completely that it won't happen professionally because this would be a coaching squad essentially firing themselves.

 

But let me ask you this.  If the Colts ended up winning one more game in 2011 and missed out on Luck and went with RG3 instead, what would that have meant for the long term prospects of the team?  RG3 can't stay healthy and is now playing/hurt in Cleveland after becoming a backup in Washington.

 

The Colts are essentially out of it for this year at this point.  Regardless of what the mathematics say, the film doesn't show a team that can compete for a Super Bowl.  So you can make the case that this team is already out of it.

Had we missed with Luck, we may have still had Peyton and a chance at another superbowl before he retired. If we picked RG3 he probably would have sat on the bench until Peyton was done but I dont think we would have picked RG3 anyway, he wasnt the type of QB that would have appealed to them.  

 

Irsay rolling the dice with Manning a few more years and staying with coaches and GM most likely would have picked maybe Kuechly, Kalil or Blackmon. 

 

As a extra thought on that scenario, with Washington paying a kings ransom for getting RG3, we could have traded the 2nd pick with them and ended up with a ton of other picks and be sitting pretty for the last 3 years of Manning.

[IinD]

Krunk you seeing the dark side? This is shocking (sarcasm, I'm just teasing your usual optimism).

 

Ferguson getting these reps is shameful. Just seems more and more besides our other 101 problems, the coaches don't seem to know when and who to play at certain times. Injuries are understandable, but they definitelyh have way too many wth moments 5 plus years in.

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I thought Andrew could've ran the frunkin football as well. I am not sure why we didn't challenge the spot either on our catch before that. Looked like we got the first down when TY stretched out over the 1st down marker before he went out of bounds. I am surprised nobody has brought that up. Instead it's 4th and 1.

I think we maybe didnt want to burn any timeouts but it's a good question.

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I thought Andrew could've ran the frunkin football as well. I am not sure why we didn't challenge the spot either on our catch before that. Looked like we got the first down when TY stretched out over the 1st down marker before he went out of bounds. I am surprised nobody has brought that up. Instead it's 4th and 1.

I think we maybe didnt want to burn any timeouts but it's a good question.