Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Here's my 2 cents 2.0


danlhart87

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

The only game I got to see live was Colts Texans 2017 with the greatest QB sneaker of all time Jacoby 

I have been to around 50 games or so but I live here in Indy. Haven't been to one since the 2013 season though. We actually played the Texans that week and blew them out 25-3 led by Luck. Greatest game I ever attended was the Sunday night game when we beat the Pats 35-34 after being down big in 2009. That was unreal. I was also at the Cowboys game in 1999 when Harrison burned Deion Sanders. We won that game as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, w87r said:

Sorry, I dont even drink and had the same thought.

I have never drank and will most likely will continue that trend 

Just now, Arodgers12 said:

I think the 2006 Colts were better than the 2009 Colts. Would you agree?

Both are great

2005 are the best to not win it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm cautiously optimistic after the loss. We win games in the trenches. We protect our QB and eliminate your running game. We tried to make it work without Kelly, but losing Castonzo was too much to overcome. You saw the difference in the first play without him. Expecting to slow down the Titan running game without Autry or Buckner was delusional. Hopefully we get some guys back for Houston. If we do, I expect us to get back on track. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I have been to around 50 games or so but I live here in Indy. Haven't been to one since the 2013 season though. We actually played the Texans that week and blew them out 25-3 led by Luck. Greatest game I ever attended was the Sunday night game when we beat the Pats 35-34 after being down big in 2009. That was unreal. I was also at the Cowboys game in 1999 when Harrison burned Deion Sanders. We won that game as well.

That game was in 2009?! I remember watching that like it was yesterday. Weren’t the Pats up huge too? If I recall I remember watching that game on a Sunday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Solon said:

I'm cautiously optimistic after the loss. We win games in the trenches. We protect our QB and eliminate your running game. We tried to make it work without Kelly, but losing Castonzo was too much to overcome. You saw the difference in the first play without him. Expecting to slow down the Titan running game without Autry or Buckner was delusional. Hopefully we get some guys back for Houston. If we do, I expect us to get back on track. 

This forum is going off the deep end if we lose Sunday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I have been to around 50 games or so but I live here in Indy. Haven't been to one since the 2013 season though. We actually played the Texans that week and blew them out 25-3 led by Luck. Greatest game I ever attended was the Sunday night game when we beat the Pats 35-34 after being down big in 2009. That was unreal. I was also at the Cowboys game in 1999 when Harrison burned Deion Sanders. We won that game as well.

You ever see The Colts play Us or the Vikings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danlhart87 said:

This forum is going off the deep end if we lose Sunday 

I'll be upset too if we lose on Sunday, especially if we get some of our guys back. Can't lose 3 divisional games and expect to play in January when you're not a world beater tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I have never drank and will most likely will continue that trend 

Both are great

2005 are the best to not win it all

I thought the Vikings were better than the Saints in 2009. I do think that Indy had a chance to beat Minnesota more than they did against the Saints. I just felt the Colts matchup better with the Vikings better than the Saints. I think MN would have won but it would have been a very close game. Obviously I hate Minnesota so I would have rooted for Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arodgers12 said:

You ever see The Colts play Us or the Vikings?

I haven't believe it or not. I have seen the Bears once though and that was the only road game I ever attended. That was in 2004 and we won big in that one. Our offense was lethal that day. I have seen the Texans and Jags a bunch, those tickets were always cheap back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I haven't believe it or not. I have seen the Bears once though and that was the only road game I ever attended. That was in 2004 and we won big in that one. Our offense was lethal that day. I have seen the Texans and Jags a bunch, those tickets were always cheap back in the day.

I remember that game. I have a great memory. Didn’t you guys win 45-17 or something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danlhart87 said:

Colts can still make playoffs even with loss

 

Definitely. Cleveland has to play Baltimore and Pittsburgh again if I'm not mistaken. Raiders are inconsistent. Dolphins are well-coached, but where's the proven talent on both sides of the ball? Most of these teams have just as many questions surrounding them as us. I'm just saying 3 divisional losses will be very hard to overcome. Have to take into account AFC record when deciding who gets to make the dance. Lot of teams will be floating around 9-7 or 10-6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Solon said:

Definitely. Cleveland has to play Baltimore and Pittsburgh again if I'm not mistaken. Raiders are inconsistent. Dolphins are well-coached, but where's the proven talent on both sides of the ball? Most of these teams have just as many questions surrounding them as us. I'm just saying 3 divisional losses will be very hard to overcome. Have to take into account AFC record when deciding who gets to make the dance. Lot of teams will be floating around 9-7 or 10-6.

Plus Colts play Raiders which could ultimately effect things 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I think it was 41-17. Edge went off that game and had over 200 Yards and Wayne had a huge day too. Bears fans were talking junk before the game but by the 3rd Qtr it was silent lmao 

How could they say anything? They sucked back then and still do. That 2006 team was tough though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

2006 has to be rated #1 because we won the SB but 2005 was loaded, we just folded against Pitt. 2009 wasn't as loaded as those 2 teams, Harrison was retired by then, also in 2009 Bob Sanders played like 1 game.

How bout the 2000 team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

2006 has to be rated #1 because we won the SB but 2005 was loaded, we just folded against Pitt. 2009 wasn't as loaded as those 2 teams, Harrison was retired by then, also in 2009 Bob Sanders played like 1 game.

Don't remind me of Vanderjagt 

 

the office no GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

My top 3 are:

1. 2006

2. 2005

3. 2009

 

That is just the Indianapolis era. The 1995 team was really good as well. That team had a solid defense and Harbaugh played unreal that season, he was so clutch a lot like Luck was in 2012 with those comebacks.

 

I think we played you guys in 95 too. I can’t remember if we won or lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

I think you got bitten by a ghost of some point made 5 years ago and responded to that ghost, thinking that's what I said. 

 

Are you better with numbers?

 

Each set of numbers.... 50+40...compared to...40+50 . add up to 90.   But, they achieve 90 in different ways.

 

And in order to get to the goal of 100, you need to add the same level...10...to where ever you are short.  Lets say 10 equals the talent needed to get about 3 more wins in a season.

 

Even though the individual components have different levels themselves, the current aggregate level of 90 is the same level you were at 5 to 7 years ago.   

 

How about this number as an explanation. 

 

125 million.  Back then, we had talent concentrated into a $125M QB, but no Oline and no ILBs.  That got us about a consistent 10-6 record.

 

Now, based upon the current contract estimations, we're going to have about $125M invested in a lower talented QB, but a better C, LG, and ILB.  Same overall level of talent, just disbursed differently.  And about the same 10-6 record and first round playoff loss.  

 

It sounds like you think the talent disbursal of a less talented QB but a better C, LG, and ILB means that the team has more overall talent than what it did before when the talent was wrapped up into one player that got us to the 10-6?

 

I think its the same level of talent, just spread out differently.

 

We didn't go far enough before because we never got what we needed, an oline and a D.  And we ain't going any farther now despite having an oline and a D, unless we get a QB.  (and still maintain same talent at #1WR and LT we had 5-7 years ago)

 

Understand?

 

The concept has nothing to do with Ballard or Grigson. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Doug ...    I’ll put this as simply as I can...

 

The roster that Rivers has is better than the roster that Luck had.   You may disagree.  Maybe others here might agree with you.  But that’s my view. 


Otherwise,  We are so far apart, we’re going to have to agree to disagree and let it go at that.   Fair enough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Doug ...    I’ll put this as simply as I can...

 

The roster that Rivers has is better than the roster that Luck had.   You may disagree.  Maybe others here might agree with you.  But that’s my view. 


Otherwise,  We are so far apart, we’re going to have to agree to disagree and let it go at that.   Fair enough? 

You guys disagree a lot :spit:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Our overall roster is definitely better now so I agree with @NewColtsFan but I think what Dew is trying to say without a franchise a QB we will never be a 12-4 team or win a SB. It just depends really. Ravens won a SB with Trent Dilfer and Joe Flacco so who knows.

To follow this up, Rivers was a franchise QB but at the age of 38 is just considered good at this point, he isn't Andrew Luck of 2012-2014 or even 2018.

Link to comment
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

    • This is it, and that's how I saw Ballard's pushback -- he's always going to be small. So what do you do with that? Whether they were talking about Worthy or someone else, I don't think Ballard's point was that he needs to put on 10-12 pounds and he won't be able to. I think the point was you can't count on that, so judge his body as it is now.   As for Worthy, he's not much smaller than Josh Downs. At a certain point, small is small. If you draft a guy like that, you need to be comfortable with his size, not betting that he's going to get bigger.
    • Dobbs doesn't strike me as being team president/GM material, and the fact that there has been little movement, little evolution in Ballard's approach in 8 years, tells me Dobbs is more of a yes man, a rubber stamp man.  Other teams can see that.  If Dobbs, or anyone, were actually challenging Ballard from time to time, you might see a change in approach occasionally.
    • If I can find it, I’ll post it. But I think with most teams, they don’t have a plan for TEs. They just draft them just because. Steichen is a guy that seems to have a plan for the players that are drafted. And we’ve seen in Ballard’s recent presser that getting guys the staff can create a plan for is important to them.   This past season we drafted Downs who was different from the receivers that Ballard typically drafts. He had a lot of success because of his own ability, but Shane also schemed up ways to get him favorable match ups. I think Bowers is the type of guy that would flourish with Shane scheming him up. He’s a mismatch against LBs and safeties.
    • Well it’s expensive to move up into the top five.  He said in his presser moving up for Harrison is a “fantasy “.  I would guess he’s referring to pick 4 or there about.   That’s expensive.  I don’t consider he meant that high when he mentioned striking distance.  For me striking distance starts at pick 9.   Probably costing our 2nd round pick as well.  Let’s face it the only 2nd rd picks where Ballard acquired a great player with were Leonard and Taylor.  Leonard in the 30’s and Taylor pick 41.  We would be giving up 46 with a chance to get elite.  Pick 46 would probably get good not even great if he used it.  I’m hoping he tries for greatness this time and stays or moves up.  Please don’t trade back.  That’s all I ask.
  • Members

    • James

      James 796

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • krunk

      krunk 8,293

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tfunky14

      tfunky14 171

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • boo2202

      boo2202 666

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 19,253

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 20,732

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Defjamz26

      Defjamz26 4,616

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 21,151

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • throwing BBZ

      throwing BBZ 3,734

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nevbot

      Nevbot 119

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