Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Look at what San Francisco has done in 3 years


hambone35

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

And Doug go back and look at Luck's game log from last year.  Starting with the 1st game of the 10 out of 11 streak, Luck only threw for 300 yds. twice and had 2 games under 200.  

 

Before last year's 10 out of 11 I agree, we needed hero ball from Luck.  Not last year.

 

In the playoff win v Houston.  Luck threw for only 222.  

That's fine.  You should post that info in one of the JB threads when folks are discussing the reason why we were 2 and 7 down the stretch.  Most think that it was JBs fault, and use low passing stats to prove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, DougDew said:

That's fine.  You should post that info in one of the JB threads to help explain why we were 2 and 7 down the stretch.  Most think that it was JBs fault, and use low passing stats to prove it.

 

Because he is a terrible QB Doug.  That simple.  Luck actually did play game manager in a lot of those 10 wins last year.

 

Game manager is more about game plan than a QBs ability.  Reich insisted on more game manager role than last year and would have had it IMO.  How much better do you think the already prodigious Colts running game would be with Luck than JB?  

 

When Luck needed to throw, he threw.  WHen he didn't he managed.  Garrapolo did that this year.  Prodigious passing numbers v. NO when they needed it and Arizona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Because he is a terrible QB Doug.  That simple.  Luck actually did play game manager in a lot of those 10 wins last year.

 

Game manager is more about game plan than a QBs ability.  Reich insisted on more game manager role than last year and would have had it IMO.  How much better do you think the already prodigious Colts running game would be with Luck than JB?  

 

When Luck needed to throw, he threw.  WHen he didn't he managed.  Garrapolo did that this year.  Prodigious passing numbers v. NO when they needed it and Arizona.

 

We would have been competing for the SB if we had Luck, and SF would have been 2 and 7 down the stretch if they played with JB instead of JG, is that what you're saying? 

 

So Lucks' retirement basically prevented our roster from performing like SFs and SFs roster would have performed like the Colts' if they had JB?  

 

I don't see that, and I see choosing to make those assumptions as being an alternative reality. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last 10 games last year.  Luck   2801    23  TDs

Last 10 games this year.  Garrapolo 2664  21 TDs

 

Reich was trying to build the exact same kind of offense.  Game manager doesn't mean the QB sucks.  JB is a game manager who sucks.                                           

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

 

We would have been competing for the SB if we had Luck, and SF would have been 2 and 7 down the stretch if they played with JB instead of JG, is that what you're saying? 

 

So Lucks' retirement basically prevented our roster from performing like SFs and SFs roster would have performed like the Colts' if they had JB?  

 

I don't see that, and I see choosing to make those assumptions as being an alternative reality. 

 

That sure seems to be what happened to them last year only they were 4-12 down the stretch.  THen they got perhaps the most impactful edge guy as a bonus.

 

They'd probably be more like 7-9 with JB, when teams realzed that there was absolutely no passing threat whatsoever.

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

Last 10 games last year.  Luck   2801    23  TDs

Last 10 games this year.  Garrapolo 2664  21 TDs

 

Reich was trying to build the exact same kind of offense.  Game manager doesn't mean the QB sucks.  JB is a game manager who sucks.                                           

That's fine, but I don't think SF gets its identity, or a lot of their wins, from their O, but I don't follow them very closely.

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

That's fine, but I don't think SF gets its identity, or a lot of their wins, from their O, but I don't follow them very closely.

 

I thought so too until I watched them the last two weeks.  Their offense is 4th in the league in total yds. and scoring.  Last year their D was worse than Indy.  Bosa changed that around.

 

Look at the last 4 games in the regular season.  The offense carried them the last month just like they did Sunday.

 

The Colts main issue is that their top tier QB retired and left them with a back up caliber QB.

 

SF main issue last year is that their top 3rd QB was out for the season and they didn't have Nick Bosa.

 

Give us Bosa and Garappolo.  Good chance we are playing next Sunday IMO.  THem with JB.  They don't make the playoffs IMO>

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

That sure seems to be what happened to them last year only they were 2-14 down the stretch.  THen they got perhaps the most impactful edge guy as a bonus.

 

They'd probably be more like 7-9 with JB, when teams realzed that there was absolutely no passing threat whatsoever.

OK.  If that's your conclusion from your "what if" scenario, that's fine.  I'm just assuming that the actual plays the edge guy made mattered, and I have less ability to judge the Os performance when JG would have had to throw passes in the situations he didn't have to.      

 

And I never said JG didn't matter.  I said that Lucks retirement was not relevant to the discussion about the rosters and the actual performance, especially the SF half of the discussion. 

 

I think there is simply an assumption that we'd be in the playoffs. 

 

Personally, I think both TEN and HOU were probably better this year than last year, and I don't see the addition of Rock and Ben and Parris being all that significant when measuring the Colts potential performance with Luck compared to last year with Luck.  But that's all alternative.

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

OK.  If that's your conclusion from your "what if" scenario, that's fine.  I'm just assuming that the actual plays the edge guy made mattered, and I have less ability to judge the Os performance when JG would have had to throw passes in the situations he didn't have to.      

 

And I never said JG didn't matter.  I said that Lucks retirement was not relevant to the discussion about the rosters and the actual performance, especially the SF half of the discussion. 

 

I think there is simply an assumption that we'd be in the playoffs. 

 

Personally, I think both TEN and HOU were probably better this year than last year, and I don't see the addition of Rock and Ben and Parris being all that significant when measuring the Colts potential performance with Luck compared to last year with Luck.  But that's all alternative.

 

Well I am pretty sure that Reich wouldn't have passed the opportuniuty to draft Bosa had he had it last year. 

 

Parris was hurt, can't judge it.  Both Bangonu and Rock would look a lot better with Bosa harrassing the QB for them.

 

Everything one does on the internet is what if.  If not, it's pure outcome bias.  Did you notice that the other team in the Superbowl has a weak defense and a hero ball QB?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I thought so too until I watched them the last two weeks.  Their offense is 4th in the league in total yds. and scoring.  Last year their D was worse than Indy.  Bosa changed that around.

 

Look at the last 4 games in the regular season.  The offense carried them the last month just like they did Sunday.

 

The Colts main issue is that their top tier QB retired and left them with a back up caliber QB.

 

SF main issue last year is that their top 3rd QB was out for the season and they didn't have Nick Bosa.

 

Give us Bosa and Garappolo.  Good chance we are playing next Sunday IMO.  THem with JB.  They don't make the playoffs IMO>

Well, I said the O being responsible for wins, especially passing O relative to the QB, not that they dont have good stats.

 

What I saw on Sunday was a team that stifled GBs offense and ran all over them offensively.  I mean, the quality of the QB is always important, but goodness, saying that they won the game because they had JG instead of say, Case Keenum, is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

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

Well, I said the O being responsible for wins, especially passing O relative to the QB, not that they dont have good stats.

 

What I saw on Sunday was a team that stifled GBs offense and ran all over them offensively.  I mean, the quality of the QB is always important, but goodness, saying that they won the game because they had JG instead of say, Case Keenum, is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

No one is saying they won the game because of JG.  But he is a threat.

 

You saw the same thing I saw. 

 

But about a month ago, I saw an amazing elite game by JG beating NO in an exceedingly important game that helped them win home field.  It wouldn't have been so easy for them to go into Lambeau last week IMO.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DougDew said:

Ok.  I havent looked at the stats to see if the top dline corps also made the playoffs, top RBs, top WRs or TEs etc.  

 

I'm assuming teams that make the playoffs have a lot of near top5 things.

 

Some here advocate winning with a strong running game and stout D and lesser QB.  Others say those teams that won it that way are an exception.

 

Everybody has an opinion as to what is needed.

 

I'm not saying that I do, or that I know what works and what doesn't, other than we need a better QB than JB and better receivers than the ones playing in the games this season. 

 

I'm saying that we have already made a big investment in the oline....and will again when we replace AC, so lets build the team around that oline. I don't really know what that team would look like, but would escapability of a QB matter all that much?

 

I'd say having a Derrick Henry instead of a Marlon Mack would be a consistent thought, but that's another topic.

 

It is my opinion that you need a top oline, top dline, and top QB to be a perennial SB contender. Top meaning, top 10 at least in every one of those categories. 

 

Or... the GOAT head coach. 

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

 

It is my opinion that you need a top oline, top dline, and top QB to be a perennial SB contender. Top meaning, top 10 at least in every one of those categories. 

 

Or... the GOAT head coach. 

agree on all counts.  NE has really not often been elite on either line, but they've always had Bill Belechik as the coach.

 

But I will say one thing.  Many people have undestimated the prodigious offensive talent at skill positions that that team has had over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

 

And I never said JG didn't matter.  I said that Lucks retirement was not relevant to the discussion about the rosters and the actual performance, especially the SF half of the discussion. 

 

 

That's where you come across as uninformed.

Of course Lucks absence is a huge factor in how the roster performed.  Luck put up more points than Brissett.   More yards per drive.  That means the defense is on the field less.  If the opposing team has to score, the defense can be more efficient.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

Well I am pretty sure that Reich wouldn't have passed the opportuniuty to draft Bosa had he had it last year. 

 

Parris was hurt, can't judge it.  Both Bangonu and Rock would Luck a lot better with Bosa harrassing the QB for them.

 

Everything one does on the internet is what if.  If not, it's pure outcome bias.  Did you notice that the other team in the Superbowl has a weak defense and a hero ball QB?

 

 

Yeah.  I'm trying to compartmentalize the discussion, because usually these threads come around to talking about the decisions Ballard made and some evaluation of Ballard.  I'm not trying to do that, because then other things have to be looked at. 

 

I'm trying to look at comparative situations as best I can, without introducing more moving parts than there already is.

 

Would we be in the playoffs if we had Luck instead of JB?  Well, Funchess was injured, and TY, and Parris.  Ebron couldn't catch, and the defense was porous. 

 

So screen shots of the all 22 view show that Doyle was always open, Pascal and Rogers and Johnson and etc were always open, and that JB just didn't see them.

 

Ok, if those guys could get open on a regular basis, then what is the point of Ballard spending money and capital on Ebron, Funchess and Parris?  

 

If you feel like we could have won with Luck and the cast of receivers we had....then you need to heavily criticize Ballard for spending capital on receivers we didn't need, and should have spent more on defense.

 

I'm not willing to go down that road, that our UDFA receivers were good enough, because that actually leads to a criticism of Ballard that I would simply choose to ignore because I wanted to.  Of course, I don't know why others would not have that criticism.

 

So no, all of our receivers were hurt.  Luck's retirement is irrelevant.  And what would have happened if they weren't, or next year, is yet to be written and will always be unknown. 

 

 

51 minutes ago, Myles said:

That's where you come across as uninformed.

Of course Lucks absence is a huge factor in how the roster performed.  Luck put up more points than Brissett.   More yards per drive.  That means the defense is on the field less.  If the opposing team has to score, the defense can be more efficient.   

read my post above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah.  I'm trying to compartmentalize the discussion, because usually these threads come around to talking about the decisions Ballard made and some evaluation of Ballard.  I'm not trying to do that, because then other things have to be looked at. 

 

I'm trying to look at comparative situations as best I can, without introducing more moving parts than there already is.

 

Would we be in the playoffs if we had Luck instead of JB?  Well, Funchess was injured, TY, Parris, Ebron couldn't catch, and the defense was porous. 

 

So screen shots of the all 22 view show that Doyle was always open, Pascal and Rogers and Johnson and etc were always open, and that JB just didn't see them.

 

Ok, if those guys could get open on a regular basis, then what is the point of Ballard spending money and capital on Ebron, Funchess and Parris?  

 

If you feel like we could have won with Luck and the cast of receivers we had....then you need to heavily criticize Ballard for spending capital on receivers we didn't need, and should have spent more on defense.

 

I'm not willing to go down that road, that our UDFA receivers were good enough, because that actually leads to a criticism of Ballard that I would simply choose to ignore because I wanted to.  Of course, I don't know why others would not have that criticism.

 

So no, all of our receivers were hurt.  Luck's retirement is irrelevant.  And what would happened if they weren't, or next year, is yet to be written and will always be unknown. 

 

 

read my post above.

This offense with a healthy Luck, Funchess, Ebron, Doyle, Hilton, Pascal, Fountain, Rogers and Cain would have been great.  Even with the injuries, Luck would have elevated the receivers and the team would have probably won 11-13 games.   Brissett could not do that.   Just like Mullins and Beathard could not do for San Fran last year.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah.  I'm trying to compartmentalize the discussion, because usually these threads come around to talking about the decisions Ballard made and some evaluation of Ballard.  I'm not trying to do that, because then other things have to be looked at. 

 

I'm trying to look at comparative situations as best I can, without introducing more moving parts than there already is.

 

Would we be in the playoffs if we had Luck instead of JB?  Well, Funchess was injured, TY, Parris, Ebron couldn't catch, and the defense was porous. 

 

So screen shots of the all 22 view show that Doyle was always open, Pascal and Rogers and Johnson and etc were always open, and that JB just didn't see them.

 

Ok, if those guys could get open on a regular basis, then what is the point of Ballard spending money and capital on Ebron, Funchess and Parris?  

 

If you feel like we could have won with Luck and the cast of receivers we had....then you need to heavily criticize Ballard for spending capital on receivers we didn't need, and should have spent more on defense.

 

I'm not willing to go down that road, that our UDFA receivers were good enough, because that actually leads to a criticism of Ballard that I would simply choose to ignore because I wanted to.  Of course, I don't know why others would not have that criticism.

 

So no, all of our receivers were hurt.  Luck's retirement is irrelevant.  And what would happened if they weren't, or next year, is yet to be written and will always be unknown. 

 

 

read my post above.

 

We had essentially the same recievers as last year.  Ebron caught like 14 TDs from Luck last year man.   We dropped Ryan Grant and picked up Funchess for a little more money.  Of course they wanted to upgrade the weapons man.

 

I'm not sure what you are arguing.  It its we need to follow SFs model or all the sudden the SF "plan" worked, then I'd say OK lets go 2-14 next year and draft better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Myles said:

This offense with a healthy Luck, Funchess, Ebron, Doyle, Hilton, Pascal, Fountain, Rogers and Cain would have been great.  Even with the injuries, Luck would have elevated the receivers and the team would have probably won 11-13 games.   Brissett could not do that.   Just like Mullins and Beathard could not do for San Fran last year.   

Please.  How could Luck make them more open than they already were?...as the JB critics contend. 

 

You know, the problem wasn't the receivers needing elevation.  The problem is that the NFL Qb looking downfield for 5 seconds couldn't see they were open....LOL.

 

Again, if they were open, then spending capital on Funchess and Ebron and a second rounder on Parris was a misguided way to build a roster.

 

If they weren't open, then maybe JB wasn't the problem and Luck's retirement wouldn't be that relevant?

 

Pick your criticism, but be consistent. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Please.  How could Luck make them more open than they already were?...as the JB critics contend. 

 

You know, the problem wasn't the receivers needing elevation.  The problem is that the NFL Qb looking downfield for 5 seconds couldn't see they were open....LOL.

 

Again, if they were open, then spending capital on Funchess and Ebron and a second rounder on Parris was a misguided way to build a roster.

 

If they weren't open, then maybe JB wasn't the problem?

 

Pick your criticism, but be consistent. 

 

 

But it's not either or.  They were decent and the great QB got them the ball.  The upgrade was probably an attempt to try to keep up with KC Doug.  And their recievers are way better than what we had.  I don't think ours were terrible, but it was obvious that we needed more firepower.

 

Doug, Ebron was signed to a two year deal before last year.

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

 

But it's not either or.  They were decent and the great QB got them the ball.  The upgrade was probably an attempt to try to keep up with KC Doug.  And their recievers are way better than what we had.  I don't think ours were terrible, but it was obvious that we needed more firepower.

 

Doug, Ebron was signed to a two year deal before last year.

As far as Luck's retirement being relevant:

 

I think the receiving corp we had on the field was inferior to the corp last year.  Neither Luck's retirement nor JB's starting role had anything to do with that.

 

TY regressed (injury), Ebron regressed by himself (drops,) Inman's upgrade didn't contribute (Funchess), Inman himself left, the slot play didn't emerge (Parris), Rogers wasn't upgraded.  Cain and Fountain did nothing different than last year. 

 

That's 3 regressions (mainly because of injury) and no upgrades to slot, Rogers, or Cain; and only one minor upgrade in play in Pascal, who did better than he did last year (did better with JB than he did with Luck, BTW), but hardly offset the negatives.   

 

I don't see how Luck could have had any impact on the injuries to TY, Funchess, and Parris; and could have made up the difference in the overall regression of the receiving play from last year.  I guess, what, we have to assume that Cain would have played like TY, Pascal like Inman, Rogers like Rogers, and Ebron would have been the same as last year?  I can't make that leap.  

 

And that's just the offense.

 

Sheard was injured.  Hunt regressed.  Autry regressed.  Houston's addition didn't offset that. Turay did nothing (injured). Leonard probably took a small step back.  Nothing was added in FA other than Houston, and our two highest draft picks, Rock and Ben, did little.  Moore was injured.  Hooker was his usual invisible self.  I suppose Willis gave us some better SS play than Geathers.

 

I just don't see where Luck's retirement had much impact on much of anything that changed from last year to this year.  I don't see how having Luck on the team would've meant we would have won the Division and advanced in the Playoffs, especially considering how much TEN improved during the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

Because he is a terrible QB Doug.  That simple.  Luck actually did play game manager in a lot of those 10 wins last year.

 

Game manager is more about game plan than a QBs ability.  Reich insisted on more game manager role than last year and would have had it IMO.  How much better do you think the already prodigious Colts running game would be with Luck than JB?  

 

When Luck needed to throw, he threw.  WHen he didn't he managed.  Garrapolo did that this year.  Prodigious passing numbers v. NO when they needed it and Arizona.

Your bolded statement is such an ignorant argument. He was by no means a terrible QB. He was efficient and then he got hurt and ended the season throwing to nothing but receivers that went undrafted. 
 

STOP WITH THE TERRIBLE QB STUFF. It is what drives people insane in here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2020 at 11:22 AM, Thunderbolt said:

This is a copy cat league, hope Ballard sees the success other teams are showing like the 49ers. Ballard and Reich approach this team more of a family oriented, loyalty, blood is thicker than water and so on. This is a business, you're being paid millions to win games and championships and you need to treat it as such, not enablers, if someone is not performing then either retrain or get rid of them. 

Exactly what do you think Ballard has been doing? 

He has turned pretty much this whole team over since he has been here. 

If you don't think this team has a lot more talent than it did when he was hired I seriously have to question if you know what you are talking about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ColtJax said:

 

Really? He's a game manager, he's not the guy you turn the game over to. Look at the last game against the Packers, do you think Payton would have been handing the ball off 90% of the time? The 49'ers are winning with a great defense and a line that's letting street FA running backs run for 200+ yards. It doesn't hurt to have a quality TE to throw too as well..

I think you are under valuing the 49ers QB a lot. He does what is ask of him and makes passes down field when needed. 

I have news for you. Manning did hand off the ball and run all over Chicago in the super bowl. 

.Plus, there is no need to exaggerate the 49ers run 90% of the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

Your bolded statement is such an ignorant argument. He was by no means a terrible QB. He was efficient and then he got hurt and ended the season throwing to nothing but receivers that went undrafted. 
 

STOP WITH THE TERRIBLE QB STUFF. It is what drives people insane in here. 


I think he’s terrible and grading services generally agree.  Bottom tier starter/back up caliber equals terrible IMO.

 

he was below average the first half and terrible after the injury.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DougDew said:

Please.  How could Luck make them more open than they already were?...as the JB critics contend. 

 

You know, the problem wasn't the receivers needing elevation.  The problem is that the NFL Qb looking downfield for 5 seconds couldn't see they were open....LOL.

 

Again, if they were open, then spending capital on Funchess and Ebron and a second rounder on Parris was a misguided way to build a roster.

 

If they weren't open, then maybe JB wasn't the problem and Luck's retirement wouldn't be that relevant?

 

Pick your criticism, but be consistent. 

 

You are not making sense again.   I think you just like to argue even if it is against what you know is true.   

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

You are not making sense again.   I think you just like to argue even if it is against what you know is true.   

I'm not going to rewrite the post where I explained the positional regression the team took this year from last year, where what the QB did or did not do had no impact.  Go find that one please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Myles said:

You are not making sense again.   I think you just like to argue even if it is against what you know is true.   

Actually what happens is, someone derails a thread by taking a tangential point and making an argument out of it. 

 

Luck was relevant to our w/l record, and I said we would have had more wins with him than without.  But assuming he would have led us to winning the division, and advancing in the playoffs is an alternative reality, considering how many positions regressed in play from last year, many due to injury. 

 

And compared to how SF used their picks on players that had an impact, Luck was irrelevant in the Colts (including Grigson) picking a C, FS, a G, and another G and ILB (five of the lowest valued positions in the NFL) with the high picks we had.  And the other high seconds being Quincy and Rock. 

 

To say that the appearance of Luck would have righted that ship and put us in the playoffs is wishful thinking, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think you are under valuing the 49ers QB a lot. He does what is ask of him and makes passes down field when needed. 

I have news for you. Manning did hand off the ball and run all over Chicago in the super bowl. 

.Plus, there is no need to exaggerate the 49ers run 90% of the time. 

 

My point wasn't that he's a bad QB, my point is he's an average or slightly above average QB that's perfect for the offense they have, They got him for a high 2nd round pick, but how much more were they going to get for a guy that started 2 games before he got hurt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probable that the receivers regression was more because of inadequate QB play.  There were the same drop problems last year with Luck.

 

Of course the receiver regression is related to the Luck retirement.  Friggin duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

Your bolded statement is such an ignorant argument. He was by no means a terrible QB. He was efficient and then he got hurt and ended the season throwing to nothing but receivers that went undrafted. 
 

STOP WITH THE TERRIBLE QB STUFF. It is what drives people insane in here. 

Like games against the Raiders, Chiefs, second game against the Texans, both games against the Jaguars, Saints, and Panthers. The Titans and the Bucs games he was terrible after halftime and couldn’t make the passes needed. That’s 10 games out of 15 games he was below average or terrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nickster said:

It's probable that the receivers regression was more because of inadequate QB play.  There were the same drop problems last year with Luck.

 

Of course the receiver regression is related to the Luck retirement.  Friggin duh.

Luck's retirement caused TY to hurt his leg?  Caused Ebron to revert back to DET?  Caused his third best WR, Inman, to not even be on the team?

 

Our three best receivers from last year had problems that had nothing to do with Luck's retirement, one of them not even being here. And the guys who were at least suppose to replace him, Funchess and Campbell, barely saw the field. 

 

And that regression was caused by the disappearance of Luck and the appearance of JB?  Lay off the kool aid man.

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

Luck's retirement caused TY to hurt his leg?  Caused Ebron to revert back to DET?  Caused his third best WR, Inman, to not even be on the team?

 

Luck's three best receivers from last year had problems that had nothing to do with Luck, one of them not even being here. And the guys who were at least suppose to replace him, Funchess and Campbell, barely saw the field. 

 

And that regression was caused by the disappearance of Luck and the appearance of JB?  Lay off the kool aid man.

 

Ty was hurt last year too.  Ebron dropped plenty of passes last year too.

JB had Doyle all year.  A more developed Pascal.  

 

OK Dontrelle Inman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 12:49 PM, masterlock said:

 A Polian clone, but without Polian's eye for talent.

I would not say that he would find talent time to time but when it comes to trading up in the draft he was horrible because the people he stated after the trade up where horrible tongue ugoh and Anthony Gonzalez. He could not also get a great defensive dt to save his life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 1:47 PM, Nickster said:

 

Ty was hurt last year too.  Ebron dropped plenty of passes last year too.

JB had Doyle all year.  A more developed Pascal.  

 

OK Dontrelle Inman.

Ebron was tied 10th in dropped along with kelce  and cook. basses eldeman was 1 and cook was second 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2020 at 12:33 PM, Nickster said:

 

Well I am pretty sure that Reich wouldn't have passed the opportuniuty to draft Bosa had he had it last year. 

 

Parris was hurt, can't judge it.  Both Bangonu and Rock would look a lot better with Bosa harrassing the QB for them.

 

Everything one does on the internet is what if.  If not, it's pure outcome bias.  Did you notice that the other team in the Superbowl has a weak defense and a hero ball QB?

 

 

hero qbs rarely come along, the colts need to find a way to win with an average qb, there are no hero qbs in this years draft class

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

hero qbs rarely come along, the colts need to find a way to win with an average qb, there are no hero qbs in this years draft class

many of the top 10 QBR and YPG QBs were not thought to be hero QBs when drafted.... 

we don't need a hero, but we do need "good" and "capable".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Another great Baltimore Colt has passed. There was a very nice article in the Baltimore Sun about Jimmy’s passing.  I’m glad Jimmy was able to retire as a Super Bowl Champion in 1970, but as some of you have pointed out , Orr is best remembered for the pass that wasn’t , in Super Bowl 3. He was a great receiver , who had great chemistry with Unitas. The Super Bowl 3 loss should have never happened with that 15-1 team. One of the best teams of all time had the worst day , mainly because Morrall was just awful that particular day.  I’m not sure Jim Irsay remembered Orrsville , as his dad didn’t own the team until 1972, but it was a nice tribute. I guess he sees himself as the steward of Baltimore Colts history. 
    • It’s clear from all the talking Peyton has done even though he’s legit friends with Tom he’s still upset about them cheating and why shouldn’t he be?
    • He certainly wouldn't cost a lot. The most i would offer is 6
    • I don't know about that.  It wouldn't be a high pick.  I remember a few years back when we signed veteran WR Dontrelle Inman mid season and I said to myself really?  And it turned out to be a great signing and he contributed significantly.  Tate would require a trade but his acquisition might have the same result and help us reach the playoffs and then anything can happen.  Sometimes acquiring a veteran can get you over the top.  
    • Read Turay isn’t expected to play this week because he has to get in game shape but that’s just an opinion from a sports writer.  Who knows if it’s true or not but I would believe it to be true.   sounds like Pittman will be out there Sunday hopefully he will help the passing game to keep getting better.     Saw Kelly was out today with a knee injury that might not be good.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...