Chris Ballard on the fan tonight

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This should be really interesting.

 

 

[coltfaninnewyork]

Hope they ask the tough questions,Such as ebron reduced snaps and Quincy Wilson aka Toast 

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

Hope they ask the tough questions,Such as ebron reduced snaps and Quincy Wilson aka Toast 

If it's JMV, he will.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I want some dline questions.  

[MPStack]

I’d ask if he sees these 2nd Rd picks all being solid contributors at some point on a bad defense. That’s a lot of 2nd Rd picks. 

 

Q. Wilson 

T. Lewis

B. Banogu 

K. Turay

Rock Ya Sin

[Bravo]

3 hours ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

Hope they ask the tough questions,Such as ebron reduced snaps and Quincy Wilson aka Toast 

Dan and JMV are the only ones who will even come close to asking tough questions. Hopefully one of them are involved. Even though I know most of you don’t like DD lol

[coltfaninnewyork]

We should start a drinking game take a shot every time CB says" look "

[Superman]

Just now, coltfaninnewyork said:

We should start a drinking game take a shot every time CB says" look "

 

"Listen..."

 

"Yeah, that's a good question."

 

"I dunno, so look..."

[chrisfarley]

3 hours ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

Hope they ask the tough questions,Such as ebron reduced snaps and Quincy Wilson aka Toast 

Unfortunately probably be Bowen.  JMV is 3-6 i think.  Bowen's ok, but agree with other posters, would be nice to have some more pointed questions answered.

[Jdubu]

3 hours ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

We should start a drinking game take a shot every time CB says" look "

 

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

"Listen..."

 

"Yeah, that's a good question."

 

"I dunno, so look..."

You boys better have some strong lovers or years of endurance practice to play this type of game for tonight lol. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Jdubu said:

 

You boys better have some strong lovers or years of endurance practice to play this type of game for tonight lol. 

 

Everybody has their quirks. Ballard's seem to really stand out though. Might be his accent. But I think he's a thoughtful interview so I always enjoy when he's on. 

 

Reich's big quirk is he repeats himself. His big quirk is he repeats himself, while he's preparing his next sentence in his head. 

[Jdubu]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Everybody has their quirks. Ballard's seem to really stand out though. Might be his accent. But I think he's a thoughtful interview so I always enjoy when he's on. 

 

Reich's big quirk is he repeats himself. His big quirk is he repeats himself, while he's preparing his next sentence in his head. 

I’m just saying, gonna be a lot of drinks consumed if you were playing the drink with phrases tonight. I like listening to CB as well. Loved hearing Polian back in his days too. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

7 hours ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

Hope they ask the tough questions,Such as ebron reduced snaps and Quincy Wilson aka Toast 

 

4 games in, 2-2, tied for division lead, & all after our franchise QB retired 2 weeks prior to the season. I'm for asking "tough" questions, but we're better right now than we were last year at this time, so I don't think it's time for another angry Dan Dakich interview like back in 2017, just my opinion.

[Four2itus]

Me, after the interview.....

 

[CurBeatElite]

18 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

4 games in, 2-2, tied for division lead, & all after our franchise QB retired 2 weeks prior to the season. I'm for asking "tough" questions, but we're better right now than we were last year at this time, so I don't think it's time for another angry Dan Dakich interview like back in 2017, just my opinion.

 

Yes, we're really not in bad shape.  We were a few missed kicks away from starting the season 3-0.  We were without our best offensive player (TY) and our 2 best defensive players (Hooker and Leonard) yesterday, and if not for the INT late in the game, we were in position to tie it up late.  OAK isn't great, but they're not a terrible team, either -- the fact that we hung in there with them without 3 of our best players (and others getting hurt in the game) is better than where we were last year at 1-3 (eventually 1-5).  

 

We're still in very good position to win this division, as we have the easiest remaining schedule among non-division opponents left compared to the other teams in our division.  We need to get healthy and iron out a few kinks, but we're in a much better spot today than we were at this time last year.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

No Ballard. Matt suggested they are in meetings and something about roster moves.

[coltfaninnewyork]

8 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

No Ballard. Matt suggested they are in meetings and something about roster moves.

Darn, was looking forward to hearing him .

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Reich has a good interview.

[Shepman]

11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

No Ballard. Matt suggested they are in meetings and something about roster moves.

Better be trading for a big DT/NT to fix the run.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, Shepman said:

Better be trading for a big DT/NT to fix the run.

It interesting he mentioned roster moves. Although I don’t think he has any inside info. But meetings at 6 at night would seem to indicate something.

[CurBeatElite]

13 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

It interesting he mentioned roster moves. Although I don’t think he has any inside info. But meetings at 6 at night would seem to indicate something.

 

If we're going into this weekend possibly without TY, Funchess, Mack, Hooker, Geathers, T. Lewis, (I imagine Leonard will play?), Campbell, and others who were on expected to be on the initial 53 man roster (e.g., Fountain)... I imagine we're going to see something done.

 

My guess would be adding a WR if TY's out, as that went from something we thought was going to be a major strength this year (with TY, Funchess, expectations on Cain and Campbell which aren't being met yet), to something where we are very thin right now.

 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

5 hours ago, coltfaninnewyork said:

We should start a drinking game take a shot every time CB says" look "

 

Look, I started drinking 5 hours ago when you posted this... I'll be honest with myself, I haven't stopped since we refused to attempt an onside kick at the end of the game yesterday around 3:52 p.m. Eastern time. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

4 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

If we're going into this weekend possibly without TY, Funchess, Mack, Hooker, Geathers, T. Lewis, (I imagine Leonard will play?), Campbell, and others who were on expected to be on the initial 53 man roster (e.g., Fountain)... I imagine we're going to see something done.

 

My guess would be adding a WR if TY's out, as that went from something we thought was going to be a major strength this year (with TY, Funchess, expectations on Cain and Campbell which aren't being met yet), to something where we are very thin right now.

 

 

Just a hunch but I think TY plays. Sounds like Reich doesn’t expect Geathers to miss this game. I think Leonard will be back in the practice field this week. Hopefully he stays symptom free. Campbell finished the game so I think he will play.

[Stephen]

5 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Just a hunch but I think TY plays. Sounds like Reich doesn’t expect Geathers to miss this game. I think Leonard will be back in the practice field this week. Hopefully he stays symptom free. Campbell finished the game so I think he will play.

We should  trade for adam thielen.  He seems frustrated  with cousins. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, Stephen said:

We should  trade for adam thielen.  He seems frustrated  with cousins. 

Yeah I read that. But who do you cut when funchess comes back. Michael Crabtree was released and would be a good veteran. I certainly agree we need a veteran but funchess is coming back.

[Stephen]

10 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Yeah I read that. But who do you cut when funchess comes back. Michael Crabtree was released and would be a good veteran. I certainly agree we need a veteran but funchess is coming back.

Idk

[jvan1973]

Is there a link to the interview?

53 minutes ago, Stephen said:

We should  trade for adam thielen.  He seems frustrated  with cousins. 

Obviously not going to happen

[CurBeatElite]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

Just a hunch but I think TY plays. Sounds like Reich doesn’t expect Geathers to miss this game. I think Leonard will be back in the practice field this week. Hopefully he stays symptom free. Campbell finished the game so I think he will play.

 

It sounded like TY could potentially have played yesterday if the game was more meaningful... but who knows.  I won't be shocked if he does play, but TBH, I'd rather see him let that quad get back to 100% before he goes out and puts too much strain on it... I'd rather see him miss this week and have the bye to totally recover than see him tear the thing or dealing with nagging injuries for the rest of the year by coming back too early.  And good point on Campbell, I just read he's dealing with 'abdomen issues' earlier today... but the fact he finished the game was a good sign.

 

58 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Yeah I read that. But who do you cut when funchess comes back. Michael Crabtree was released and would be a good veteran. I certainly agree we need a veteran but funchess is coming back.

 

I thought Crabtree was interesting when he got released... but the more I think about it, I'm thinking he must have slowed down to the point where he's really not a threat anymore.

[IndySouthsider]

3 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Look, I started drinking 5 hours ago when you posted this... I'll be honest with myself, I haven't stopped since we refused to attempt an onside kick at the end of the game yesterday around 3:52 p.m. Eastern time. 

Let me know the next time you see a successful onside kick with the new rules. 

[Stephen]

5 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Is there a link to the interview?

Obviously not going to happen

Lol 

[ColtStrong2013]

8 hours ago, IndySouthsider said:

Let me know the next time you see a successful onside kick with the new rules. 

 

Doesn't change the fact. 

[richard pallo]

16 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

No Ballard. Matt suggested they are in meetings and something about roster moves.

Maybe he's contemplating activating Kelly so he can play in the garbage time in our loss to the Chiefs.  He might get a lot of time actually.  LOL

[Coffeedrinker]

15 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Look, I started drinking 5 hours ago when you posted this... I'll be honest with myself, I haven't stopped since we refused to attempt an onside kick at the end of the game yesterday around 3:52 p.m. Eastern time. 

I don't understand the reasoning for wanting to go for an onside kick.  The Colts had 3 TOs.  Ideally they get the ball but that has a very minuscule chance of working.  So they go for an onside kick and don't get it, Raiders have the ball around 45-50 yard line, Colts stop them, they punt, it goes into the endzone Colts start at the 20 and have 80 yards to go with about a minute and no time-outs, or worse punter puts them inside the 10, so now they have 90+ yards to go with no timeouts.  Or do what they did, kick it, raiders get the ball at the 25, Colts stop them, Raiders punt, looking at the averages for the game, Colts start with ball around the 35-40 so now they have 60-65 yards to go with no timeouts.  I think kicking gave the Colts the best chance to tie the game.  

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I don't understand the reasoning for wanting to go for an onside kick.  The Colts had 3 TOs.  Ideally they get the ball but that has a very minuscule chance of working.  So they go for an onside kick and don't get it, Raiders have the ball around 45-50 yard line, Colts stop them, they punt, it goes into the endzone Colts start at the 20 and have 80 yards to go with about a minute and no time-outs, or worse punter puts them inside the 10, so now they have 90+ yards to go with no timeouts.  Or do what they did, kick it, raiders get the ball at the 25, Colts stop them, Raiders punt, looking at the averages for the game, Colts start with ball around the 35-40 so now they have 60-65 yards to go with no timeouts.  I think kicking gave the Colts the best chance to tie the game.  

 

Realistically, either way you're putting the defense out there, because there's such a small chance of converting the onside. It was 7.5% last year, which includes some surprise attempts that alters the likelihood compared to an obvious onside kick attempt. That's down from 23% in 2017 before they changed the rule. So if there's over a 90% likelihood that the defense has to get a stop anyway, do you want to give your team a chance at decent field position if you get the ball back? Or do you try the onside even though you're probably not going to get it, knowing that even if you get the stop, you'll have terrible field position, no timeouts, and about a minute left?

 

I'm fine with kicking it away in that situation. The defense has to be able to get a stop if you're going to get the ball back. Ours couldn't.

[Mitch Connors]

15 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Is there a link to the interview?

Obviously not going to happen

 

First, I agree a trade is never going to happen. Below is the quote and article they referenced.

 

“At some point, you’re not going to be able to run the ball for 180 yards, even with the best running back in the NFL,” Thielen said at his locker. “And that’s when you have to be able to throw the ball, you have to be able to make plays, you have to be able to hit the deep balls. You have to do that because otherwise it’s too easy for teams to just tee up and rush the quarterback. We have to be able to run the ball and pass the ball.”

 

https://deadspin.com/adam-thielen-tries-very-hard-to-not-say-anything-mean-a-1838625658

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I don't understand the reasoning for wanting to go for an onside kick.  The Colts had 3 TOs.  Ideally they get the ball but that has a very minuscule chance of working.  So they go for an onside kick and don't get it, Raiders have the ball around 45-50 yard line, Colts stop them, they punt, it goes into the endzone Colts start at the 20 and have 80 yards to go with about a minute and no time-outs, or worse punter puts them inside the 10, so now they have 90+ yards to go with no timeouts.  Or do what they did, kick it, raiders get the ball at the 25, Colts stop them, Raiders punt, looking at the averages for the game, Colts start with ball around the 35-40 so now they have 60-65 yards to go with no timeouts.  I think kicking gave the Colts the best chance to tie the game.  

 

I'm kicking the onside kick every. single. time. 

 

I'm not sure why percentages league wide apply to this team. If we never attempt an onside kick, do you know what our success rate will be? Zero. I watched Pat McAfee singlehandedly alter games with his ability to kick onside kicks. I don't care what the rule change is. Simply put, we had 2 ways to get the ball back and we refused to even attempt one of them... for "better field position". That resulted in a big fat L... so much for that. We couldn't stop them twice in that situation let alone 3 times... 

[Superman]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I'm kicking the onside kick every. single. time. 

 

I'm not sure why percentages league wide apply to this team. If we never attempt an onside kick, do you know what our success rate will be? Zero. I watched Pat McAfee singlehandedly alter games with his ability to kick onside kicks. I don't care what the rule change is. Simply put, we had 2 ways to get the ball back and we refused to even attempt one of them... for "better field position". That resulted in a big fat L... so much for that. We couldn't stop them twice in that situation let alone 3 times... 

 

Bringing up McAfee's success with onsides is off base for a few reasons. First, McAfee was mostly successful with the surprise kicks, not the obvious kicks. In obvious 'get the ball back' situations, McAfee was just like everyone else. 

 

Second, McAfee isn't here anymore. So why wouldn't league wide percentages apply to this team?

 

Third, it's silly to ignore the rule change. It has dropped the success rate of onside kicks to a third of what it used to be. It matters.

 

That said, I'm all for finding a way to attempt some onsides if the team can sneak them in here and there. And if we didn't have three timeouts, Sunday's decision would have been a no-brainer, you try the onside kick. But the decision to kick it away is sound and logical, in that specific situation.

[ColtStrong2013]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

Second, McAfee isn't here anymore. So why wouldn't league wide percentages apply to this team?

 

 

I didn't use McAfee for anything more than saying we got the ball back on those kicks... of course he isn't here, but Sanchez is more than capable. League percentages are dangerous to look at when basing decisions of our own team... Should we use 3rd down success league wide to determine playcalling when we have among the highest success? 

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

And if we didn't have three timeouts, Sunday's decision would have been a no-brainer, you try the onside kick. But the decision to kick it away is sound and logical, in that specific situation.

 

Possibly so, except for the big fact that our defense gave up 175 yards rushing up to that point... so needless to say, there was no logic behind trusting they were going to keep them from running it down our throat, which is exactly what they did. 

 

I just don't see how this was the best decision to get the ball back. If you fail at it, you still have timeouts to stop them, which was unlikely. 

[rockywoj]

15 hours ago, IndySouthsider said:

Let me know the next time you see a successful onside kick with the new rules. 

That’s the thing that really sucks about the kick rule implemented last year, it makes a successful onside kick so extremely unlikely to happen.  A detriment to the game, I say. 
 

I said it last year that successful onside kicks will largely be a thing of the past, now.  This hypothesis is being proven correct, sadly. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

I didn't use McAfee for anything more than saying we got the ball back on those kicks... of course he isn't here, but Sanchez is more than capable. League percentages are dangerous to look at when basing decisions of our own team... Should we use 3rd down success league wide to determine playcalling when we have among the highest success? 

 

Every team gets multiple third down attempts every game. You can see a clear trend and variance from your own team on third down. There were 53 onsides attempted last year, league wide. That's an average of less than 2 per team. League wide averages are valuable. If you're just going to go off of the Colts percentage in 2018, then the book says don't try it at all, because we were 0/2.

 

Quote

 

Possibly so, except for the big fact that our defense gave up 175 yards rushing up to that point... so needless to say, there was no logic behind trusting they were going to keep them from running it down our throat, which is exactly what they did. 

 

I just don't see how this was the best decision to get the ball back. If you fail at it, you still have timeouts to stop them, which was unlikely. 

 

 

I understand your angle. If you try the onside kick, even if there's a very small likelihood of recovering, you at least give yourself that small chance of getting the ball back.

 

I just don't think you're considering the field position argument. First, you have to acknowledge that the overwhelmingly likelihood is that you DON'T recover the onside kick. Let's start there. If you try 100 onside kicks, you'll fail 93 times. Those are the numbers. You're most likely not going to recover.

 

So now you're giving the other team the ball at midfield (more likely the 45, or closer). And you still need a defensive stop and have to use your timeouts. If they gain zero yards and punt with a minute remaining, you're getting the ball with no timeouts, probably at your ten yard line. And you put yourself in that situation because you were hanging on to the statistically unlikely chance of recovering an onside kick. 

 

On the flip side, if you kickoff, you're asking your defense to get a stop. And if they do, you'll get the ball back with a minute left and no timeouts, but you're probably starting at the 25 or 30. And that's without a punt return, by the way. Yes, you're still relying on your defense, which has been bad all game. But if you respect the stats, you can acknowledge that you were going to be sending your defense out 93 times out of 100, because onside kicks aren't converting since the rule was changed.

 

When you weigh those two things out, there's an obvious logic to kicking it deep. I understand that if you try the onside, you at least have a chance to get the ball back. But realistically, you're just costing yourself 15-20 yards in field position if you manage to get a stop.