-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I don't understand this reasoning behind the WR position. They made two very high draft choices the last 2 seasons at WR. Campbell certainly has elite "talent", whether or not he will be a good pro is impossible to discern by his performance since he has been able to play so little. I was skeptical of Pittman because of the speed numbers, but he was a highly regarded prospect. I whole heartedly agree with what you say about being at the crossroads for the WR position. I guess I just hope someone sells their soul so we can get a QB who plays like Charlie Daniels played the fiddle and Robert Johnson played the guitar. -
Here's the thing for me. The Colts really have not been able to do what they planned to do because of personnel issues, so it is hard to see how good they might be if they switch up gears. I think they toyed with the idea of going to a more power type of running style because they had the fullback on the squad but decided to stick with the Mack outside/inside zone stuff that was effective while he was in there the last two years. I think they wanted to run this stretch action and couple it with alot of deep crossers to Campbell and this is a great combo. The stretch play opens up the play action when it holds the backers and Campbell could run right behind them in front of the safeties. To do this effectively, that long handoff is the key. You also can screen that when you get a big upfield rush from the line. I don't think Taylor has shown he can be very effective at this type of play yet. Apparently, we don't have anyone who the staff thinks can run that crosser effectively. Now with Mack out, Campbell out, musical chairs at TE, TY's drop issues earlier, etc., I think it's hard to run the type of offense that they planned on and JT is not a versatile type of back right now that can do "different" things. He in all likelihood needs to have a more quick hitting power running philosophy. I think the early easier schedule makes it difficult to tell how well we've adjusted. Even the Lions are a little better. The next 5 weeks are probably as brutal a stretch as there will be in football. I say all this to say that I think Rivers has done pretty well despite the circumstances. He is the guy I wanted the Colts to sign in the first place. But if we are going to run into the problems I think we will run into this next month or so, having a guy who could make plays after the play breaks down might be essential. I've been saying we will know where we stand after the next 5 weeks, but I think Lions and Ravens will tell us a lot.
-
By danlhart87 · Posted
The top QBs will be gone by the time Colts pick so Colts have several options: . Select best available OT or DE and re-sign Rivers. . Select best available OT or DE and start Eason and draft his backup late. I hadn't done tons of research. Is there going to be a QB in 20s range to draft? One that would certainly start over Eason. Because if not you might as well start Eason. -
Great GM for roster depth and complete team. However, high value positions like WR and pass rusher, definitely lacking in top notch talent drafted or seeing results on the field, it is like we have been waiting for a while for the next WR behind TY to produce. He cannot continue to draft like he has Andrew Luck anymore, hoping the QB will elevate those positions, even if we sign vet QBs in their home stretch. The QB, WR and pass rusher positions cover up roster depth blemishes faster than most positions. No wonder Polian was successful for so long with the draft and inferior depth on D and special teams. We are at a cross roads w.r.t the QB position. We either double down on free agent/vet QBs while drafting for the future simultaneously and continue to do that for the next 2 years while drafting for the high value positions OR pull a big trade for a QB we think can be a franchise QB for 6-7 years. -
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.