Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

It's almost upon us.  

Indiana is not going to be represented well.   Outside of winning the conference tournaments, I think Purdue may be the only school making it.  No Butler, No Ball State, No Notre Dame, No IU, No Valpo.   

 

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

It's almost upon us.  

Indiana is not going to be represented well.   Outside of winning the conference tournaments, I think Purdue may be the only school making it.  No Butler, No Ball State, No Notre Dame, No IU, No Valpo.   

 

 

Very unusual for this to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

 

Very unusual for this to happen.

I agree.  I'm not going to search for the info, but I cannot think of another year where only 1 Indiana school made it. 

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

 

 

Beautifully done!!!

 

Now, I like the post where it says...did we decide who gets up there and updates it? Rain or snow or shine, someone has gotta be up there to update it. :) 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'd love a one year deal. I think it's very dangerous for him though. If he has a meh year, his value will tank and career likely over.
    • I think Mack's catch % (63.6) was a factor/reason why those targets diminished the next year. Conversely, Taylor had 36 receptions and a 92.3 catch %.    MAC and Pittman weren't really given a chance as Reich didn't call many/any 50/50 plays. Pittman was that guy in college. MAC has B-ball skills, and had the best WR/TE catch % on the team by a huge margin last year at 79.5% which is phenomenal. 
    • Yes - lots of "ifs" and speculation. If he goes for a one year deal, suits up early, and plays well If he goes for a one year deal, suits up early, and plays mediocre If he goes for a one year deal, suits up late, and has very little to evaluate on the field If he feels like securing a longer term deal is better than waiting to see what happens If the physical looks good or doesn't look good If it was me I would be more interested in getting a solid deal now - not top tier - with some guarantees than taking the risk.  HIs rehab could slow or he could get injured/reinjured and really be in a bad spot.   But I don't think like these guys.     It's not an easy decision for either side.  We will see...
    • Long term? More like 'Long Time', the kind they use when describing the universe and stuff lol. Ballard's  had 5 off seasons & Drafts and still says that we're not there yet  meaning we're not a SB contender. 5 YEARS!!!   Building a championship team is not linear... you can't expect to incrementally improve every year and then one year 10 years down the road your a Championship team.    Teams jump to serious contenders in 1 & 2 year spans these days. With all the movement in FA and raiding the best teams coaching staffs teams talent level fluctuates year to year.    Irsay doesnt say what Ballard says and says we are SB contender and many felt, as did Irsay, this was a good year to elevate our team with playmaking weapons and close the gap with teams like KC...... and we didn't.... mostly or probably a money issue.   And after year 5 Ballard takes the pressure off himself and says WE'RE NOT THERE YET. 5 years and we're still not there with the greatest GM in the history of sports! Lol
    • I agree they'll make an effort for Ertz if released. I just don't know if they'll give him the $ or duration he wants.   Burton's 40 was slightly faster. Granson jumped better and had slightly better 3 cone. Not a significance difference IMO.    Both played a hybrid role, but Granson is not a good blocker.  Burton was used as a QB first, then RB, and finally WR his last year. Granson was a TE both years at SMU.  Burton played against a lot tougher competition. Granson was used deeper in terms of target depth.   It's a wash IMO. Both have funky profiles. Neither are prototypical TEs. Not a huge difference overall. Biggest difference was 3inches in the vert. I was never a big fan of Burton. Granson lacks speed and height too, so not all that pumped. 
  • Members

    • cjrichard

      cjrichard 66

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Caffrey

      Caffrey 146

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Colts1324

      Colts1324 473

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 9,540

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Wentzszn

      Wentzszn 10,375

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BornHoosier

      BornHoosier 171

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nickster

      Nickster 920

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mel Kiper's Hair

      Mel Kiper's Hair 2,405

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 244

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • gspdx

      gspdx 640

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