Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LucasOilStadium

Colts Vs. Titans Game Day Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, strt182 said:

If I'm thinking right it might be ok at the line but down field you will get a flag for it . Could be wrong though.

 

That's the way it is being called.  However, that is not how it is written in the rule book.  My point is if they are going to call that, fine but then be prepared to call the holds that occur on every play on the line.

Share this post


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

Maybe this will kickstart him into a successful bid to regaining much needed confidence and play in the backfield. Team defense is playing inspired today so far. 

 

I do feel like that a lot of his "issues" have been mental. The tools are there. But he needs the confidence and the right attitude to apply them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think somebody came to make a statement today. But its still early. I know it seemed like first quarter flew by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Is that Wilson's first INT of his career?

2nd or 3rd I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like the trick play there. We were having our way with them. Don’t be silly.

 

sorry to be a downer. I just don’t want to put too much pressure on the D. :peek:

Share this post


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

That play call was trying to be too cute. Not worth it.

Agree !

Share this post


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

I don’t like the trick play there. We were having our way with them. Don’t be silly.

Meh, 

 

mostly didnt like the hurry up near the goal line. Trick play was fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Man that would've been unreal, this Offense is so exciting. 10-0 Indy!

 

I was worried for Luck there. Had it worked, it would have been great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't mind the call.  Yeah, 7 would have completely demoralized the Titans but we still got 3 out of it.  Let the kids have some fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MTC said:

That play call was trying to be too cute. Not worth it.

 

The adult in me agrees...

 

The kid in me loves the play call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MTC said:

That play call was trying to be too cute. Not worth it.

Honestly it could be another wrinkle for teams to worry about later in the season. Not everything works the first time but could lead to a defender hesitating on jumping some route later. Idk 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jdubu said:

You and I both know they pick and choose when to call a hold, zero consistency. I’m more troubled with how many times our players do things like this when they are out of the play. 

 

You're right of course, but refs should not be allowed to just ignore the rule book on certain parts of the field.  If they want to call it that tight, great, just call it that way everywhere on the field.

Share this post


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.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I wouldn't consider #10 a diss..... but I have a bit of an issue with the Cowpies ranked #2 at the same time.   We not only shut them out last season, we out manned, out-muscled and intimidated them in a way that none of us have seen a Colts team do to any team in a long, long time.   You could say "well its only one game".... and that's true.   But that was a statement game, and I just don't see how Brandt can justify a #2 ranking for Dallas given each team's additions this off-season....not to mention all those other teams he has them ranked ahead of.   As for the Colts...on our own merits.... I would have us closer to the middle of the pack on this list, around 7th and certainly ahead of Dallas.
    • His mom sounds awesome.  
    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
  • Members

    • 2006Coltsbestever

      2006Coltsbestever 21,095

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ClaytonC

      ClaytonC 23

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,807

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 416

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 369

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jared Jammer

      Jared Jammer 97

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Surge89

      Surge89 965

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jcrane

      Jcrane 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SVFD Colts Fan

      SVFD Colts Fan 37

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,322

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...