Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Narcosys

Ryan Grant ruled out for KC

Recommended Posts

That would seem the most sensible plan to me.

 

Dare I say it’s not exactly a big miss, in fact I’d like to see Fountain get on the field so we can at least evaluate. We’ve seen enough Grant and he’s for whatever reason not fired in this offense. 

 

FA next year, I don’t expect him back.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

That would seem the most sensible plan to me.

 

Dare I say it’s not exactly a big miss, in fact I’d like to see Fountain get on the field so we can at least evaluate. We’ve seen enough Grant and he’s for whatever reason not fired in this offense. 

 

FA next year, I don’t expect him back.

 

 

Fair, but if he has been starting over Fountain, then what does that say about Fountain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Fair, but if he has been starting over Fountain, then what does that say about Fountain?

 

A very fair point too, but you have to feel somewhat confident the dropoff couldn’t be too big. I mean the difference between 0.1 and 0 isn’t huge haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

A very fair point too, but you have to feel somewhat confident the dropoff couldn’t be too big. I mean the difference between 0.1 and 0 isn’t huge haha

So in this game, would you rather see more Fountain or more two TE sets?  Since the weather has turned, I expect more TE sets to aid in blocking because you know were running it.

Share this post


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

So in this game, would you rather see more Fountain or more two TE sets?  Since the weather has turned, I expect more TE sets to aid in blocking because you know were running it.

 

Ahh a different proposition, you’d figure on more 2TE sets with Hewitt in with Enron, Hilton and Pascal at WR I’d guess. Pascal is for me our best blocking WR and obviously you’re not taking TY out. Besides it also leaves the threat of P/A shots.

 

As great as we’ve been on O, I do wonder if we’d have been even better with Doyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Ahh a different proposition, you’d figure on more 2TE sets with Hewitt in with Enron, Hilton and Pascal at WR I’d guess. Pascal is for me our best blocking WR and obviously you’re not taking TY out. Besides it also leaves the threat of P/A shots.

 

As great as we’ve been on O, I do wonder if we’d have been even better with Doyle. 

Hewitt over Cox, who has the size advantage?  Although, to be honest I haven't seen Cox much in pass blocking, either by lack of use or my lack of observation I couldn't tell you.

Share this post


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

Hewitt over Cox who has the size advantage?  Although, to be honest I haven't seen Cox much in pass blocking, either by lack of use or my lack of observation I couldn't tell you.

 

To be fair I wouldn’t say that I can judge his blocking either, was more thinking Hewitt in almost declares we’re running the ball, but with Ebron/TY/Mack/Pascal I think we still have the ability to hit them with the pass, especially off P/A. 

 

Ive not looked this season, but historically Luck has been very good off P/A, to the point I couldn’t understand why we didn’t use it more during previous schemes. I guess because teams didn’t respect our running game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Neither one of you it seems actually watch the games based on your observations. Go Colts!

Share this post


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

Interesting. Neither one of you it seems actually watch the games based on your observations. Go Colts!

 

Would you care to expand? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

To be fair I wouldn’t say that I can judge his blocking either, was more thinking Hewitt in almost declares we’re running the ball, but with Ebron/TY/Mack/Pascal I think we still have the ability to hit them with the pass, especially off P/A. 

 

Ive not looked this season, but historically Luck has been very good off P/A, to the point I couldn’t understand why we didn’t use it more during previous schemes. I guess because teams didn’t respect our running game.

Ya, so if Cox can run block then we can still disguise it. I know, cause I just watched highlights, that Cox was in on Mack's TD run on the left side. He could have used a little better vision as far as extra defenders coming up, but he got the push with Castanzo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dontrelle Inman has been what we hoped Ryan Grant would be.

 

I feel a "good luck with your future endeavours" coming for Grant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DaveA1102 said:

Dontrelle Inman has been what we hoped Ryan Grant would be.

 

I feel a "good luck with your future endeavours" coming for Grant.

 

Pretty much, you’d hope the market next season for Inman isn’t too competitive, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Narcosys said:

So far he is the only one, unfortunately he is a starting WR. So who will we have replace him? I know we have TY, Pascal, Inman, and Rogers, but we still want to roster five for this game. So do we bring up Fountain and see what he can do or run more two TE sets?

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2019/01/10/colts-injury-update-ryan-grant-ruled-kc/

 

Fountain has been on the 53 for a few weeks and was active in the Wild Card game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Fountain has been on the 53 for a few weeks and was active in the Wild Card game.

Ah, I didn't read that. I know he was up and down the past few weeks, but didn't see him elevated for the WC game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

That would seem the most sensible plan to me.

 

Dare I say it’s not exactly a big miss, in fact I’d like to see Fountain get on the field so we can at least evaluate. We’ve seen enough Grant and he’s for whatever reason not fired in this offense. 

 

FA next year, I don’t expect him back.

 

 

Grant was not available last week either, Glad to see someone besides me thinking that is no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

That would seem the most sensible plan to me.

 

Dare I say it’s not exactly a big miss, in fact I’d like to see Fountain get on the field so we can at least evaluate. We’ve seen enough Grant and he’s for whatever reason not fired in this offense. 

 

FA next year, I don’t expect him back.

 

 

 

Using the word miss with Fountain right now is just a touch premature.  As in way premature.

 

I think the coaches have done enough evaluation to at least have him on the 53 and be active last week.

 

Grant will clearly not be on the roster in 2019.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Using the word miss with Fountain right now is just a touch premature.  As in way premature.

 

I think the coaches have done enough evaluation to at least have him on the 53 and be active last week.

 

Grant will clearly not be on the roster in 2019.

He meant Grant won't be missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Using the word miss with Fountain right now is just a touch premature.  As in way premature.

 

I think the coaches have done enough evaluation to at least have him on the 53 and be active last week.

 

Grant will clearly not be on the roster in 2019.

 

Sorry to be clearer I meant give us as fans a chance to see what he can do. I’m sure the coaches have as you say been evaluating him all the way through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...