Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 829
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, legend300 said:

My cousin is a bengals fan and he just text me and said I don't know who is worse.  We both agree a tie would be fitting.  Smh

 

Did you tell him about how opposing-team-friendly we are in the third quarter?

 

He might want to ready his popcorn during halftime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Brissett looked decent the first couple games.  That is somewhat typical when a new QB comes in unexpectedly.  He'll have a couple decent games, and then opposing teams shut him down once they get some game film to work with.  So let me ask you this.  In a situation like this, does it make sense to bring in a new QB every couple weeks and just cycle through QBs so that at least the opposing team doesn't know what to prepare for?  It is definitely not a good recipe for success, but what we are doing isn't working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark you calendars guys and gals. This will probably be a trivia question later in the year. 

 

"When was the last time the Colts had a lead in a game?"

 

Two days before Halloween. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlueShoe said:

Mark you calendars guys and gals. This will probably be a trivia question later in the year. 

 

"When was the last time the Colts had a lead in a game?"

 

Two days before Halloween. 

So much for hanging onto that bandwagon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

So Brissett looked decent the first couple games.  That is somewhat typical when a new QB comes in unexpectedly.  He'll have a couple decent games, and then opposing teams shut him down once they get some game film to work with.  So let me ask you this.  In a situation like this, does it make sense to bring in a new QB every couple weeks and just cycle through QBs so that at least the opposing team doesn't know what to prepare for?  It is definitely not a good recipe for success, but what we are doing isn't working.

The key thing is what he does was the newness and such wears off

 

 The problem with changing the QB all the time is the chemistry

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't get this. First, if you're skeptical of the pro day numbers, then just throw out all of this year's testing. I think that's unreasonable. If you want to bump him up a tenth of a second, that still puts him in the same range as those other guys.   Second, watching him play, he has more than adequate movement ability. This has become a meme. He's not Fields or Lance. But even in today's NFL, you don't have to be freakishly athletic to play QB at a high level. He's athletic enough. Another one.    We agree, if I identified Jones as "my guy" in this draft, I wouldn't be moving up to #3 for him. But he's a different kind of prospect than Lance and Fields, and as much as there is to like about those guys, they have question marks of their own. And if they were to struggle in the NFL, it wouldn't be the first time that a tools-y athletic QB prospect fell short of expectations. But I'm not taking issue with Lance or Fields, at all. They should be ranked high this year.   Just pointing out, again, that some of the Mac Jones coverage is unfair. He's being written off as an unathletic, physical dud, and that's nonsense. He has similar or better physical ability as several other guys who have gone top five in recent seasons. Dwayne Haskins and Teddy Bridgewater were physically uninspiring. Mac Jones is a good enough athlete to play NFL QB.   It's fair to say he'll be overdrafted if he goes in the top ten. I'm disagreeing with the idea that he's not gifted enough to play well. 
    • Maybe to #21? With Wentz as our QB, I wonder if Ballard would consider him? .... And Wentz will say "oh boy, here we go again".  
    • I certainly understand the Ingram intrigue but I'd have to go with Kerrigan here. His body has a lot more left in the tank than Ingram and his body is as healthy as can be due to Washington's dominant young d-line. Kerrigan could certainly give us 1-2 years of above average play! 
    • I remember it like yesterday, then read the reasons shortly after the selection, and they made sense.  Edge played at The U, which ran the stretch, and the Colts were running it as well.  Edge also had fewer miles on his legs, due to being in running back by committee for most of his career there.  Lastly, Edge was the better receiver and pass blocker.    I sometimes wonder if Ditka thought about making that insane offer to the Colts first? 
    • I don't care how he tested (especially this year, when all those pro-day tests are under serious question)... I care how he plays and how he looks on tape. Players that didn't test off-the-charts are some of the best playmakers in football - Mahomes ran 4.82 with 30 inch vertical. I'd take him over any of the best athletes in the league making plays on the move. With that said... I don't see Mac Jones in similar light even though they tested very similarly. I don't think he's stuck in mud in the pocket. But I do not think he has enough mobility to scramble when needed. He will be one of the worst scrambling starting QBs in the league IMO. I think him scrambling will be extremely rare in the league. I just don't think he has the mobility and physical talent to do it while launching the ball downfield.    I like him too. But there are levels to this thing. I like him as a late first-second round QB. I think he can be a good productive QB in the right system(Shannahan system for example). I don't like him enough to give up 3 1st round picks + 3d for him, though. This is my whole contention here. He's just not THAT type of player IMO. Lance and Fields are. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...