Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts sign AQM to a one year deal


Recommended Posts

So now the defensive line is pretty crowded...............16 fellas for probably 9-10 spots...........

 

Paye

Samson

Dayo

Lewis

AQM

Tomi (Rookie)

Genard Avery

Khalid Kareem

Titus Leo (Rookie)

 

Buck

Grover

Johnson

McTelvin Agim

Taven Bryan

Caleb Sampson (Rookie)

Jamal Woods (Rookie)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Pennock said:

So now the defensive line is pretty crowded...............16 fellas for probably 9-10 spots...........

 

Paye

Samson

Dayo

Lewis

AQM

Tomi (Rookie)

Genard Avery

Khalid Kareem

Titus Leo (Rookie)

 

Buck

Grover

Johnson

McTelvin Agim

Taven Bryan

Caleb Sampson (Rookie)

Jamal Woods (Rookie)

 

Cream will rise

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CR91 said:

I'm not against bringing back AQM, but why add to an already crowded dline group when the oline is lacking in depth.


Hopefully the new Oline coach is a better judge of talent than the old one, and he can see if there’s a glaring need.  
 

After last seasons fiasco, there should be no second chances in going with no competition.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Smonroe said:


Hopefully the new Oline coach is a better judge of talent than the old one, and he can see if there’s a glaring need.  
 

After last seasons fiasco, there should be no second chances in going with no competition.

 

 

 

I'm just concerned we're just going with Will Fries at RG and Raimann at LT and praying it works. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Which is my point. And if something happens to Raimann or Smith, all we have as a backup plan is a 4th round rookie

I’m sure we’ll add depth at xut down.  Allayed is always churning. Gotta remember too that were number 3 in waiver wire claims 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

I’m sure we’ll add depth at xut down.  Allayed is always churning. Gotta remember too that were number 3 in waiver wire claims 

no4 but I get your point. We should be able to claim some good players (hopefully at CB).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

I’m sure we’ll add depth at xut down.  Allayed is always churning. Gotta remember too that were number 3 in waiver wire claims 

 

Which is fine, but why put ourselves in this position instead of addressing the need? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

You mean at all? I guess in terms of proved talent, but they didn't ignore QB, CB, and WR like they did G. 

Should have put a comma between need and yet.   Meaning just because they haven't,  doesn't mean they won't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Should have put a comma between need and yet.   Meaning just because they haven't,  doesn't mean they won't

 

I can only go by what they've currently done. Can they add talent? Sure, but oline was a troubling issue last season and yet we didn't address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I can only go by what they've currently done. Can they add talent? Sure, but oline was a troubling issue last season and yet we didn't address it.

they, along with a lot posters here, felt the issue was mostly coaching so they did address it by making a coaching change at the oline position.  It might now be how you wanted it addressed but that doesn’t mean they didn’t address it.  It also doesn’t mean they are guaranteed to be right either.

 

As for why sign AQM and not an olineman:  AQM was available, cheap, and had already had past success with this GM.  What olineman available fits those three criteria right now?  You can’t just snap your fingers and make players appear because you feel you have a need there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

they, along with a lot posters here, felt the issue was mostly coaching so they did address it by making a coaching change at the oline position.  It might now be how you wanted it addressed but that doesn’t mean they didn’t address it.  It also doesn’t mean they are guaranteed to be right either.

 

As for why sign AQM and not an olineman:  AQM was available, cheap, and had already had past success with this GM.  What olineman available fits those three criteria right now?  You can’t just snap your fingers and make players appear because you feel you have a need there.

 

I'm not just talking now. All throughout FA, what move or moves were made to just add depth? You can blame coaching all you want, but again we're putting all our eggs into one basket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2023 at 1:23 PM, CR91 said:

 

Which is fine, but why put ourselves in this position instead of addressing the need? 

If there’s one area I trust Ballard to find someone serviceable, it’s the trenches. 

On 7/23/2023 at 1:54 PM, jvan1973 said:
5 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

I'm not just talking now. All throughout FA, what move or moves were made to just add depth? You can blame coaching all you want, but again we're putting all our eggs into one basket.

 

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...