Why we lost? Our GM let this guy go for peanuts and paid our 20 million for this OL play.

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, Mitch Connors said:

Good reason? You know this team is 1-2-1 and dead last in points per game? Our current QB has fumbled 9 times and thrown 5 ints. You're seriously suggesting that his reasoning is proven to be good when looking at QB?

The guys you listed wouldnt be any better and Matt Ryan was much cheaper.

 

So yes. 

[DougDew]

20 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

You would be %ting all over the dude if he was our starting QB doug, lets not act like we missed the boat.

LOL.  I wanted MM last spring, since I know that the reason he was released in TEN was not due to bad play, but injuries (and not living up to the hype of being a high draft pick...sound familiar?).   ESPN QBR rankings through week 4

 

10: Hurts

11. Lawrence

12. T Brady

13. Carr

14, Stafford

15. Mariota

16. Burrow

17. Murray

 

 

21. R Wilson

 

23. Ryan

24. Trubisky

25. Wentz

 

27. WInston

 

30. Garrapolo

31. Fields  LOL

32. Mayfield

 

 

 

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

But Ballards drafting record is very good, so I dont really follow the logic here. He has drafted 3 first team All Pro players and landed quality players at every level of the draft. 

 

 

 

 

Ballard’s philosophy is to draft BPA. That’s gotten us a 20m G, a 20m MLB and a great RB none of which are key positions on a modern NFL team. That’s not how you build a winner. 
The only real hit he’s had in my book is Pittman and I say that as a huge fan of Nelson, SL and JT. 

 

You manoeuvre to get what you need.
When you’re preaching we’re in “win now mode” you get players who will make a difference NOW. Not in 2-3 seasons. Not career backups. 

When you need a QB NOW, you don’t trade for a 3-tech. 
When you need a LT NOW, you don’t sign a guy with an achilles injury or a career backup. 
When you need a WR NOW, you don’t make do with 6th and 7th rounders. 
When you HAVE capable Olinemen on the roster, who will re-sign for peanuts, you don’t let them walk and start career backups instead. 

You don’t sign a backup RB to starting RB money. 

…

 

Ballards dooh-doohs, be they draft, FA or trade related, are adding up…

[Goatface Killah]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Most on here bashing him are whining about the same thing, QB or WR. Or both. 

Ding ding!

Well I dont know what the hell they are seeing but WR and TE are fine and I would say quickly becoming a strength. 

 

QB is a tough one but Matt has looked really good at times. Certainly better than some of the trash alternatives being tossed around given the circumstances.

 

The OL is the biggest issue. Thats obvious. He deaerves criticism for that. And an opportunity to fix it. 

 

[PRnum1]

40 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Why do you have so much faith in a guy who has yet to play a game?

 

And why are you acting like Ballard failed to aee the talent in a guy who hasnt proven anything?

I'm just saying its worth taking a chance for a 3rd round pick.

 

He may be a complete bust, but he looked good in college and the preseason.

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

Ballard’s philosophy is to draft BPA. That’s gotten us a 20m G, a 20m MLB and a great RB none of which are key positions on a modern NFL team. That’s not how you build a winner. 
The only real hit he’s had in my book is Pittman and I say that as a huge fan of Nelson, SL and JT. 

 

You manoeuvre to get what you need.
When you’re preaching we’re in “win now mode” you get players who will make a difference NOW. Not in 2-3 seasons. Not career backups. 

When you need a QB NOW, you don’t trade for a 3-tech. 
When you need a LT NOW, you don’t sign a guy with an achilles injury or a career backup. 
When you need a WR NOW, you don’t make do with 6th and 7th rounders. 
When you HAVE capable Olinemen on the roster, who will re-sign for peanuts, you don’t let them walk and start career backups instead. 

You don’t sign a backup RB to starting RB money. 

…

 

Ballards dooh-doohs, be they draft, FA or trade related, are adding up…

I dont subscribe to anything youre saying tbh. 

 

The Colts havent won more games because they dont have an elite QB. Its that simple. 

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Well I dont know what the hell they are seeing but WR and TE are fine and I would say quickly becoming a strength. 

 

QB is a tough one but Matt has looked really good at times. Certainly better than some of the trash alternatives being tossed around given the circumstances.

 

The OL is the biggest issue. Thats obvious. He deaerves criticism for that. And an opportunity to fix it. 

 

Matt has been really good when he he’s had time.  The issue is exactly what you said in the last line.  Their highest paid line isn’t playing like it.  Now the hard part for Irsay to figure out is it talent and a misuse of funds (GM problem), talent is there but not playing up to its ability (coach problem), or a mix of both.  

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, PRnum1 said:

I'm just saying its worth taking a chance for a 3rd round pick.

 

He may be a complete bust, but he looked good in college and the preseason.

Maybe so. But he cant beat out Mariota, and Mariota isnt very good. 

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

I dont subscribe to anything youre saying tbh. 

 

The Colts havent won more games because they dont have an elite QB. Its that simple. 

Likewise. Agree to disgree it is.

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Matt has been really good when he he’s had time.  The issue is exactly what you said in the last line.  Their highest paid line isn’t playing like it.  Now the hard part for Irsay to figure out is it talent and a misuse of funds (GM problem), talent is there but not playing up to its ability (coach problem), or a mix of both.  

I think its miscast players. Pryor is a good swing tackle. Pinter is a good center. But neither guy has risen to the occasion as starters. 

 

Is that his fault? Yeah I would say so. But is it inexcusable? Not really.

 

He went into the offseason with needs at edge, corner, receiver, tight end and QB. Its hard to fix everything. He took a chance on a couple of young players and it didnt work out. 

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

The guys you listed wouldnt be any better and Matt Ryan was much cheaper.

 

So yes. 

What some people don't realize is, if we had Mitch, Mariota, Wentz, Darnold, Mayfield, a rookie QB, we would be 1-3, maybe 0-4. Ryan was the best choice.

[Goatface Killah]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL.  I wanted MM last spring, since I know that the reason he was released in TEN was not due to bad play, but injuries (and not living up to the hype of being a high draft pick...sound familiar?).   ESPN QBR rankings through week 4

 

10: Hurts

11. Lawrence

12. T Brady

13. Carr

14, Stafford

15. Mariota

16. Burrow

17. Murray

 

 

21. R Wilson

 

23. Ryan

24. Trubisky

25. Wentz

 

27. WInston

 

30. Garrapolo

31. Fields  LOL

32. Mayfield

 

 

 

I dont give a crap about the rankings in QBR Doug. Mariota completed 36% of his passes last week.

 

 

[Two_pound]

I'll settle this debate, the only qb in this past draft that MAYBE has a chance to play in the nfl at a high level is Pickett, every one else will be no more than a career backup. So, Ballard was right to not take a qb, we already have Ehlinger inactive for every game on the roster. Did someone want to draft a qb to compete with Ehlinger for that inactive spot every week?

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

What some people don't realize is, if we had Mitch, Mariota, Wentz, Darnold, Mayfield, a rookie QB, we would be 1-3, maybe 0-4. Ryan was the best choice.

Mariota would be out for the season with a catastrophic injury. His career might be over.

 

We would for sure be 0-4. The highs of Matt Ryan are much higher than any of those guys.

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

I think its miscast players. Pryor is a good swing tackle. Pinter is a good center. But neither guy has risen to the occasion as starters. 

 

Is that his fault? Yeah I would say so. But is it inexcusable? Not really.

 

He went into the offseason with needs at edge, corner, receiver, tight end and QB. Its hard to fix everything. He took a chance on a couple of young players and it didnt work out. 

 

 

 

 

Only thing I’d add is he may have the answer at LT in Raimann on the roster.  They are just trying not to play him too soon and ruin him like Ugoh.  I will say I think Fries did better at right guard than Pinter so they so the MIGHT be on to something there.

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Ballard’s philosophy is to draft BPA. That’s gotten us a 20m G, a 20m MLB and a great RB none of which are key positions on a modern NFL team. That’s not how you build a winner. 
The only real hit he’s had in my book is Pittman and I say that as a huge fan of Nelson, SL and JT. 

 

You manoeuvre to get what you need.
When you’re preaching we’re in “win now mode” you get players who will make a difference NOW. Not in 2-3 seasons. Not career backups. 

When you need a QB NOW, you don’t trade for a 3-tech. 
When you need a LT NOW, you don’t sign a guy with an achilles injury or a career backup. 
When you need a WR NOW, you don’t make do with 6th and 7th rounders. 
When you HAVE capable Olinemen on the roster, who will re-sign for peanuts, you don’t let them walk and start career backups instead. 

You don’t sign a backup RB to starting RB money. 

…

 

Ballards dooh-doohs, be they draft, FA or trade related, are adding up…

Yes.  The philosophy of adding very good players to lesser positions leads to a slow bleed over time. 

 

The Colts went C, FS. G, ILB. G (who's playing RT). CB (who was traded for Yannick), WR, RB with their higher than pick 41 picks.  Not an impactful player in the bunch except Pitt, and at positions that are available via FA.

 

I think the only way he saves his job in January is if Paye, Pierce, and Woods start making plays that help us win games.  Those are positions that matter.  Rogers and Dayo can help too.

 

It could happen.  I make no predictions about whether or not they show something this year.

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

What some people don't realize is, if we had Mitch, Mariota, Wentz, Darnold, Mayfield, a rookie QB, we would be 1-3, maybe 0-4. Ryan was the best choice.

That’s true. We also wouldn’t be saddled with a 35m contract next year and we would have a guy we could keep a few seasons while getting this chaos sorted out. We’re missing continuity. Ryan isn’t looking like a guy who can keep delivering at a high level the next 3 years. 

[BlackTiger]

3 hours ago, Goatface Killah said:

Prove this. 

 

Tua has had 3 really good games. He hasnt proven anything but the fact hes very injury prone.

 

Also, you have no evidence trading up for those 2 was even a possibility.

 

Just because you like them, doesnt mean you can get them. Thats the reality Ballard lives in that none of you have to.

What do you mean prove it?  Ive always been an Alabama fan and liked Tua, he needs good wrs and they finally got him some.  We need better WRs too ourselves 

 

Herbert was a qb with potential and i thought he could be good, its not really a wild claim 

 

You really have a problem with people saying we should have made moves for a different QB.  I dont have to prove anything, you can reach out to teams and offer trades.  the giants and lions were both willing to move

[Two_pound]

I don't think Ugoh was rushed too soon, Ugoh didn't' care, he should be ashamed of himself for how little effort he put into his pro football career. He could have been a worldbeater with all that athletic ability, instead he was LaRaven Clark before LaRaven Clark.

[BlackTiger]

2 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

It's hindsight

No it isnt, I wanted this all along before the draft

 

We could have offered a lot and the giants and lions were willing to move that year

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

I dont give a crap about the rankings in QBR Doug. Mariota completed 36% of his passes last week.

 

 

LOL.  Again, you fail to comprehend a simple concept.  Its not about how "well" he plays....he's 15....not great.  Its about how well he plays relative to the OTHER CHOICES we had.   Get it?  What have been the pass completion rates of the OTHER CHOICES we had...that's the smart way to look at it.  Which is opposite of the way you looked at it.

 

I would not be %ting the bed if he was here.   As you assert.  I would know what to expect, and playing better than the other FA QBs that were available is what I expected.  And that's what's happening.

 

[Goatface Killah]

13 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Only thing I’d add is he may have the answer at LT in Raimann on the roster.  They are just trying not to play him too soon and ruin him like Ugoh.  I will say I think Fries did better at right guard than Pinter so they so the MIGHT be on to something there.

He might, I agree. I thought he did an admirable job in addressing issues on this team and unlike some people, I dont act like there was a good answer to every question.

 

9 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

What do you mean prove it?  Ive always been an Alabama fan and liked Tua, he needs good wrs and they finally got him some.  We need better WRs too ourselves 

 

Herbert was a qb with potential and i thought he could be good, its not really a wild claim 

 

You really have a problem with people saying we should have made moves for a different QB.  I dont have to prove anything, you can reach out to teams and offer trades.  the giants and lions were both willing to move

You dont know if they did or not. I have a problem with people promoting theories as facts.

 

There is nothing wrong with thinking Tua is gonna be a good player but there is something wrong with acting like we passed on a trade for him when that never happened.

[Goatface Killah]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL.  Again, you fail to comprehend a simple concept.  Its not about how "well" he plays....he's 15....not great.  Its about how well he plays relative to the OTHER CHOICES we had.   Get it?  What have been the pass completion rates of the OTHER CHOICES we had...that's the smart way to look at it.  Which is the opposite way of the way you looked at it.

 

I would not be %ting the bed if he was here.   As you assert.  I would know what to expect, and playing better than the other FA QBs that were available is what I expected.  And that's what's happening.

 

Doug. He stinks. Its obvious he stinks. I dont know what else to say to you.

 

We would be winless with Mariota. So he isnt a better player than Matt Ryan. Idc what ranking say. He isnt asked to do what Ryan is asked to do and never would be. Because he stinks. 

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

He might, I agree. I thought he did an admirable job in addressing issues on this team and unlike some people, I dont act like there was a good answer to every question.

 

You dont know if they did or not. I have a problem with people promoting theories as facts.

 

There is bothing wrong with thinking Tua is gonna be a good player but there is something wrong with acting like we passed on a trade for him when that never happened.

Yeah that’s why I think the Ballard decision will be so much harder for Irsay to make than the Frank one.  For Frank it comes down to do you turn things around and start winning games or you don’t and the team moves on.  
 

With Ballard you can say he’s had some really big hits but this team also still has some really major holes it shouldn’t at this point in his tenure as GM.  I could see Irsay going either way on Ballard right now.

[Two_pound]

If you look at the history of the Irsay ownership of the Colts how bad we were other than a few years with Jones, Manning and Luck you see Ballard has kept us highly competitive with a merry-go-round of qb's, very impressive in my book. I guess we could fire him though and hire former Giant gm Dave Gettleman(that's a joke people). We are very fortunate to have Ballard and I'll say his job is safe.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Doug. He stinks. Its obvious he stinks. I dont know what else to say to you.

 

We would be winless with Mariota. So he isnt a better player than Matt Ryan. Idc what ranking say. He isnt asked to do what Ryan is asked to do and never would be. Because he stinks. 

LOL.   Again, you fail simple reading.    Ryan is not in the bucket of FA QBs available last spring that I was talking about.  He was traded for with a draft pick...and has a big salary and inescapable cap hit.  Why are you brining up Ryan?

 

MM is better than Winston...who IS IN the bucket of FA QBs I was talking about.  Ballard was going to sign Winston instead of Mariota before Ryan came available.    However, now that you mentioned Ryan, considering the cost paid for a stop gap QB, MM may have been a better choice than Ryan.

 

BTW, MM has never actually stunk as a QB.  He's been injured because the old TEN offense had him running the ball a lot under that trendy read option play that had Kaep over hyped and over paid for a couple of years..

[Goatface Killah]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL.   Again, you fail simple reading.    Ryan is not in the bucket of FA QBs available last spring that I was talking about.  He was traded for with a draft pick...and has a big salary and inescapable cap hit.  Why are you brining up Ryan?

 

MM is better than Winston...who IS IN the bucket of FA QBs I was talking about.  Ballard was going to sign Winston instead of Mariota before Ryan came available.    However, now that you mentioned Ryan, considering the cost for a stop gap QB, MM may have been a better choice than Ryan.

 

BTW, MM has never actually stunk as a QB.  He's been injured because the old TEN offense had him running the ball a lot under that trendy read option play that had Kaep over hyped and over paid for a couple of years..

Doug Im talking about Ryan because he is who we went with. 

 

Why are we talking about Mariota if its not to suggest he was a better choice than Ryan?

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Doug. He stinks. Its obvious he stinks. I dont know what else to say to you.

 

We would be winless with Mariota. So he isnt a better player than Matt Ryan. Idc what ranking say. He isnt asked to do what Ryan is asked to do and never would be. Because he stinks. 

I agree, it is all opinion but here is what I think we would be with all these QB's:

 

Rookie QB - who knows but probably 0-4

 

Mariota 0-4

 

Mayfield 0-4

 

Mitch 0-4

 

Darnold 0-4

 

Wentz 1-3 

 

at least with a win on Thursday we can get to 2-2-1 with Matt and the season is still salvageable.

 

Those were our choices. 1-2-1 isn't a death sentence but we need to win Thursday.

[Moosejawcolt]

46 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Ballard’s philosophy is to draft BPA. That’s gotten us a 20m G, a 20m MLB and a great RB none of which are key positions on a modern NFL team. That’s not how you build a winner. 
The only real hit he’s had in my book is Pittman and I say that as a huge fan of Nelson, SL and JT. 

 

You manoeuvre to get what you need.
When you’re preaching we’re in “win now mode” you get players who will make a difference NOW. Not in 2-3 seasons. Not career backups. 

When you need a QB NOW, you don’t trade for a 3-tech. 
When you need a LT NOW, you don’t sign a guy with an achilles injury or a career backup. 
When you need a WR NOW, you don’t make do with 6th and 7th rounders. 
When you HAVE capable Olinemen on the roster, who will re-sign for peanuts, you don’t let them walk and start career backups instead. 

You don’t sign a backup RB to starting RB money. 

…

 

Ballards dooh-doohs, be they draft, FA or trade related, are adding up…

If Ballards philosophy was actually to draft the best player on the board then we would be much better. He drafts who he thinks is the best player on the board and there in lies the problem!!

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree, it is all opinion but here is what I think we would be with all these QB's:

 

Rookie QB - who knows but probably 0-4

 

Mariota 0-4

 

Mayfield 0-4

 

Mitch 0-4

 

Darnold 0-4

 

Wentz 1-3 

 

at least with a win on Thursday we can get to 2-2-1 with Matt and the season is still salvageable.

 

Those were our choices. 1-2-1 isn't a death sentence but we need to win Thursday.

The season is absolutely not over. There is 13 games left. A stretch of 5-6 wins in a row totally changes the outlook.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

If Ballards philosophy was actually to draft the best player on the board then we would be much better. He drafts who he thinks is the best player on the board and there in lies the problem!!

Honest question, in 2018 who would you have drafted 6th overall when we took Nelson? You can't say Allen because we had Luck.

[Moosejawcolt]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Honest question, in 2018 who would you have drafted 6th overall when we took Nelson? You can't Allen because we had Luck

i would have moved back and accumulated picks. My reasoning for not taking him is two fold. I think taking a guard at that position. The bigger issue for me was the 2nd contract. We all knew it was coming and I just cannot stomach 20 million for a guard. I just cant not with all holes at the skills positions.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Doug Im talking about Ryan because he is who we went with. 

 

Why are we talking about Mariota if its not to suggest he was a better choice than Ryan?

Because The Colts private Jet was on the runway ready to go get JAMEIS WINSTON before Ryan deal hit.   IOW,  Wrong-Choice- Ballard was going to do it again until ATL screwed up their QB situation.

 

For context, I put up the QBRs of all of the QBs that were offered by members of this forum, via trade (Wilson, Garrapolo)...should have traded up (Fields), or simply signed as FA.  NOBODY except me and a couple of others even mentioned MM.   

 

Nobody was talking about Ryan...until the moment it happened.  Again, here are the rankings of MM and the other QBs mentioned last spring.

 

15. Mariota

16. Burrow

17. Murray

 

21. R Wilson

 

23. Ryan

24. Trubisky

25. Wentz

 

27. WInston

 

30. Garrapolo

31. Fields  LOL

32. Mayfield

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

i would have moved back and accumulated picks. My reasoning for not taking him is two fold. I think taking a guard at that position. The bigger issue for me was the 2nd contract. We all knew it was coming and I just cannot stomach 20 million for a guard. I just cant not with all holes at the skills positions.

The problem with this is, that is what Luck needed the most at the time. Luck could make average WR's look good, he just needed a Line and a decent running game to get him over the top. If Luck had our 2020 Line and Taylor we would have rolled, maybe won it all. Look at what Rivers did with that team.

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Honest question, in 2018 who would you have drafted 6th overall when we took Nelson? You can't say Allen because we had Luck.

Buffalo offered 12 and 23 for the pick...it was nearly positively confirmed by the FO.  When we did not take it, BUF used those picks to trade up to the next pick, pick 7. 

 

QB, LT, Flanker, EDGE. 

 

Since there was no elite player at those positions available at pick 6...you accept the trade down and at least collect more very good players or get another pick next year to then use to trade up to get that elite player next year.  

 

I don't expect Ballard to pick an elite player at those positions when none is available, but you don't forego a trade back just to select an elite G.  That has always been the issue for me.

 

BUF was trading two current first for a QB...that makes sense.  Not taking that trade in order to take a G makes little sense.

 

Say we had taken pick 12 and 23.  Took a good player at 12 and got an early second or another first in the ensuing years for pick 23.  Then used that pick to trade up to get Herbert or Jamar Chase.    You obviously don't plan to do that with a crystal ball seeing the future college kids...but taking a G there shuts a lot of doors for finding the next AC or TY or Mathis....and QB as it turned out.. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Because The Colts private Jet was on the runway ready to go get JAMEIS WINSTON before Ryan deal hit.   IOW,  Wrong-Choice- Ballard was going to do it again until ATL screwed up their QB situation.

 

For context, I put up the QBRs of all of the QBs that were offered by members of this forum, via trade (Wilson, Garrapolo)...should have traded up (Fields), or simply signed as FA.  NOBODY except me and a couple of others even mentioned MM.   

 

Nobody was talking about Ryan...until the moment it happened.  Again, here are the rankings of MM and the other QBs mentioned last spring.

 

15. Mariota

16. Burrow

17. Murray

 

21. R Wilson

 

23. Ryan

24. Trubisky

25. Wentz

 

27. WInston

 

30. Garrapolo

31. Fields  LOL

32. Mayfield

 

 

 

Burrow is 16th, that why QBR stinks as a rating measure. Everyone knows Burrow is a top 7 QB in the league. Jimmy G is 30th and all he does is win.

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Buffalo offered 12 and 23 for the pick...it was nearly positively confirmed by the FO.  When we did not take it, BUF used those picks to trade up to the next pick, pick 7.

 

QB, LT, Flanker, EDGE. 

 

Since there was no elite player at those positions available at pick 6...you accept the trade down and at least collect more very good players or get another pick next year to then use to trade up to get that elite player next year.  

 

I don't expect Ballard to pick an elite player at those positions when none is available, but you don't forego a trade back just to select an elite G.  That has always been the issue for me.

We weren't taking Allen as it stood though at #6 is why I asked the question. We had Luck is why. I am saying who would you guys took at #6 instead of Nelson?

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We weren't taking Allen as it stood though at #6 is why I asked the question. We had Luck is why. I am saying who would you guys took at #6 instead of Nelson?

Nobody. 

 

But Ballard had other options than to select a player there.  BUF was trading TWO decent first round picks for only pick #6.  Tey were giving that up because they wanted a QB.  That expensive trade makes sense for them.  We rejected that trade in order to take a G. 

 

Think about how teams draft in any draft.  Rejecting pick 12 and 23 just to take a G.......does that make sense?  Its basically the same thing as a GM trading up from pick 12 and 23 to select a G.  That's horrible.

 

If we would have rejected a trade because we wanted a QB, that makes sense from a value standpoint.  Rejecting the amount of capital another team uses to take a QB because we want to take a G there makes no sense.  It just doesn't.  

[BlackTiger]

53 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

He might, I agree. I thought he did an admirable job in addressing issues on this team and unlike some people, I dont act like there was a good answer to every question.

 

You dont know if they did or not. I have a problem with people promoting theories as facts.

 

There is nothing wrong with thinking Tua is gonna be a good player but there is something wrong with acting like we passed on a trade for him when that never happened.

They said they were open to trading, its not unusual for teams picking high to do that

 

The exact quote from the lions gm was "we are open to any trade for the #3 pick"

 

The giants were too.  It would have been expensive but they were ready to listen 

[Rhodelesstraveled]

Here is another thing to chew on.  TN only had the ball 12 min in the second half.  Their offense went anemic because they did not want to turn it over.  They felt they could stop us from scoring and they were right even though they were down five starters.   Let that sink in to tell you really how he feels about our offense.  It is clear most here arent learning the lesson from his game plan.  

 

Here is another factor that most have missed.  Look at how ST bailed out Vrabel conservative approach. He relied on his rookie punter to flip the field on us all second half even when he went into a shell.  He was not going to let Tannehill throw a pick and get us back in the game.  That is how Wentz lost the TN game here last yr.   Vrabel uber conservative gameplay was successful because he knew his ooponent well.  The one time we asked our punter to bury TN deep he kicked a 19 yd punt.  

 

There is a systemic problem in our FO and HC.  

 

We had the ball 18 minutes of half two and scored 7 points.  Vrabel knew his DL was far superior to our OL.  He took Pittman way with bracket coverage for a few catches and he had scrubs on the rest of our weapons and this is why they looked good to the non thinkers and why Ryan stats look good to guys like 2006coltsbestever.  

 

When you see what he did,  he knew this OL and Ryan could not score in the RZ because of his DL and our OL.  I called this before the game began.  Tell me why I knew it and Reich couldnt figure this out?