I think the final resting place for the offensive line is interesting. While I also thought Smith looked good to me so did LaRaven Clark. Clark seems to be the type of player that gets better only when he plays on a consistent basis. For that reason I'm beginning to think he should start. He wasn't perfect but each game he seems to get more consistent. He is less versatile than Smith as he is only a tackle. When TC comes back, would anyone here give LaRaven a shot at RT and let Smith be the primary backup to both guard and tackle? If he can handle it I see it as giving a little more versatility to the back up line as Good and Smith both can play multiple positions.

This game was lost before it even started.

On the road against NE on a Thursday night with half the team injured?

I was just happy they made a game of it in the second half

Leonard being out was a HUGE blow for this game. And then we lose the back up MLB in the first quarter as well. Brady and the Pats killed us right over the middle where he would have been all night

its obvious, for whatever reason, the defensive strategy was completely different this game. For whatever reason, be it Brady or injuries or lack of prep time, or all 3, they were sitting back in coverage, everything short, no extra men to pressure Brady. And he took advantage, just picked apart the D.

The offense, there was good and bad.

The bad was, again, dropped balls. Dropped balls and turnovers. Killers, many of them. This makes me appreciate Wayne, Harrison, the past WRs for the Colts all the more. Rarely dropped the ball and rarely turned it over.

Luck really did well considering the environment and no TY Hilton, no one he can really trust out there or has much timing or a QB/WR relationship with. He made one bad play, the INT before the half. Other than that, he looked great.

This team won't win games vs top teams though with 5+ drops a game, which is what has happened each of the last two games

On the positive as well, the OL in the second half looked pretty good. I thought Braden Smith looked as good at right tackle, or better, than anyone else all season. If Castonzo ever comes back, a line up of AC, Nelson, Kelly, Slauson and SMith for the OL looks to be decent

But still, no running game. Trying to fight for a few extra yards and turning it over. Stupid WR mistake leads to an INT. Can't do that vs the Pats.

The team is 1-4, but the next 3 games before the bye are certainly winnable : Buffalo, Oakland and NYJ. Its very possible we are 4-4 going into the bye and then we have 4 out of 5 games after that vs division teams, so they can be in contention going into December.

A poor record for a young team and a new coaching staff, but I actually still have hope from what I've seen

On the first drive, Brady never had the ball for more than 2 seconds and most of the time around 1.6 seconds. I don't care how many guys you rush, you're not pressuring him that quickly. You're better off with less rushers, but disguise them. 4 or 5 guys looking to rush, but 2 or 3 of them drop back when the ball gets snapped. You might get yourself in the lane of Brady's target.

By far the biggest issue imo was dropped passes. It has been a problem for long enough that one wonders whether it’s a result of poor coaching or more likely a lack of talent. I just cannot see how this team can enter next season without a true number two obtained via free agency and a 3rd/4th round pick as our 3rd option. Beyond Hilton I only see depth players or #3 at best on the roster. Tight end is solid and we have a weapon out of the backfield so getting a threat between the tackles and some defensive talent and we will likely see a team that can compete in January.

I agree totally. This team has continually regressed at WR since the vintage years of Reggie Wayne in 2012 and early 2013.

We need to find our next Reggie Wayne.

It's lack of talent and the thing I'm most critical of Ballard for. He seems to be either/or in free agency vs draft so far. I think most of us would agree: both can complement each other, and signing a free agent doesn't mean throwing away a youth-based build.

I look at it this way: your WR2 opposite Hilton wasn't, at any point in this roster's evolution, a long-term investment solution. Ryan Grant is a young player you want to mold into a future WR2. Neither is Chester Rogers at this point etc. MAYBE you could argue Deon Cain, but I would argue back: he was a 6th round pick and the Colts were HOPING he could flash as he did in camp, but that was always going to be a crapshoot.

So if you weren't impeding anyone else developing at that spot anyway (and even Cain, again, would have probably been a 2019 or beyond development target): why not sign Allen Robinson or someone similar to front-loaded deal instead of sitting on all this cap space?

Amen to keeping Hines on the field as a receiver. He's basically one of those en vogue wink-nod RBs anyway. His first veteran contract negotiation will be an interesting one.

Allen Robinson was coming off an ACL tear, he's not having a particularly great season thus far, and I don't trust that this team would've even kept him on the field.

That said, I'm hoping the reason Ballard squirreled away that cap space is that he's planning to spend it on some of the defenders that could hit free agency this year. You have almost all of last year's tag guys, Suh, Clowney, and a couple more who could all make very interesting free agent targets. Getting Lawrence and Clowney would be ideal, and is possible with nearly $90 million of cap space. That would also allow the Colts to consolidate their top 3 picks if necessary to get their preference of Ed Oliver or Nick Bosa.

I’m not very familiar with the under cap capabilities of other teams to sign their own talent but based on some comments read online I have some concerns that Ballard is setting himself up for a free agent market that either will not be there or will not match our needs. I just hope that in retrospect we dont come to regret not making some investments in free agency this year.

I have a feeling he will always keep us way under the cap until we sign dudes he drafted.

Isn't he forced to meet a set % average of salary cap used over a 4 year period? They are not even close after what he has done last year and this year plus Grigson's last year as GM.

Luck is signed. Hilton is signed. The interior of the O line is signed. This team isn't ready to compete. Maybe after next year. Throwing money around doesn't =winning. See the Redskins

I'm just throwing shit against the wall. But would anybody here trade for Amari Cooper?

He had a horrible year last season, but has improved this season.

Gruden seems to be an idiot. So what would we give?

Not really forced. The team will have to pay the players union if they don't meet the cap minimum.

Like Hoosier said, they don’t have to pay the players.

No. He was terrible last year as well right?

Hell no. We don't need any more guys who can't catch.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/new...tter-drop-rate

That would= the ultimate in stupidity!

I am pretty sure they will not do that, rather move money forward on a few contracts to cover the percent or extend a vet with something front-loaded.

Difference between throwing money around and investing in areas where you can improve your roster without compromising a core belief of building from within though. I think it's folly to go either/or on that philosophy.

One of the rare things I agree with Venturi on...

Nice weekend for the Colts.

Jax loses. Ten loses. Hou is losing. For a terrible start to the season record wise, we are only 2 games out of lead for the division with 5 divisional games to play.

I am NOT expecting to win the division but I love having something to play dor.

Go Colts!

Walk Worthy,

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Colts are tied in OT, go for it on 4th down, miss, lose the game vs Texans

Cowboys have 4th and one in OT, Garrett punts, they lose the game

I realize time left was very different. But even with the loss, I'd still rather be the team going for it on 4th down

Here's my guess as to why Ballard hasn't followed your plan: Ballard believes there's a value in creating a team culture and identity before introducing big name/splashy free agents. He's said it multiple times, and I think he honestly believes it.

You can kind of see it happening on the defense - which is largely a bunch of young players which most people (including most here) had zero expectations for, and who are surprising everyone. That experience is going to create a team identity/pride that Ballard hopes and expects will spill over into future years. Introducing a big free agent (particularly at a skill position) draws lots of attention and creates expectations that can impact and distort performance. Adding one after the culture is created is less disruptive.

This is also why I don't think he'd ever consider trading for someone like Le'Veon Bell - the guy's personally is just too potentially disruptive. I'd be really surprised if he tries to sign him in the offseason too.

o


There were several significant differences between those 2 situations.

For starters, the Cowboys had 4th down and half a yard to go ........ the Colts had 4th down and 4 to go, which is considerably more challenging.

Secondly, the Cowboys were on the opponents' 42 yard-line ........ the Colts were on their own 43 yard-line, which is also a considerably higher risk of gambling and going for it.


Finally, in the Colts-Texans game, there were only 27 seconds left to play. If they had punted the ball, there would have been less 20 seconds left play by the time the punt landed, and it is highly unlikely that the Texans would have been able to get the ball from deep in their own territory and still get into field goal position for the win. In the Cowboys-Texans game, there was still 5:40 left to play in the overtime period. That's still plenty of time for your defense to get a stop, get the ball back, and try for the win if they had chosen to punt.



So there was one common thread between the 2 situations, but multiple differences between them which makes the comparison between them much more complex than simply pointing out the option of going for it on 4th down in an overtime period.



o

No doubt there are differences. But perhaps we can all be happy with the fact that regardless of how you feel about this particular situation, our current coaching staff is making decisions that can at least be debated one way or another.

o


No doubt, whatsoever.

Even though I thought that the decision to go for it was not prudent, I will still take Frank Reich over Chuck Pagano any day of the week.


In fact, even before a single snap was played this season, I pointed out that Frank Reich (as a player) engineered 2 of the most historic comebacks in football history.

In 1984, his Maryland Terrapins were losing to Miami, Fla. by a score of 31-0 at halftime. Maryland came back to win by a score of 42-40.

8 years later, his Buffalo Bills were losing to the Oilers by a score of 35-3 early in the 3rd quarter of the 1992 AFC Wildcard Playoff game. Reich and company came back to win by a score of 41-38, in overtime.


I like the notion of having a guy with that kind of resolve at the helm.


o

I realize all that

But of the two coaching decisions, I am still glad we have the coach going for it on fourth down rather than punting away in OT.

If you view it as basically as Reich does, it seems, which is a tie is a loss, you don't play to tie, punting away means you lose the game, you aren't getting the ball back.

He plays to win and nothing else. He is not settling for a tie or just accepting a tie.

The outcome sucked, but still, of the two decisions, I like Reich's better. In both situations the outcome was a loss in these cases, but in the long run, I still think you are better off with the coach playing to win that settling for a tie

And frankly even beyond that I have no idea how Jason Garrett keeps his job so long

o



Reich DID play for the win before that 4th down situation, and that is what is being ignored by some who simply want to judge the decision as if it were made in a vacuum.

After the Texans tied the game with a field goal in overtime, the Colts immediately threw the ball and got a first down with a 12 yard gain. At that point, there was 1:22 left to play, and the Texans only had 1 timeout left. If Reich was going to play for the tie, he could have called for 3 conservative running plays, and run the clock out. He DID NOT do that. He continued to have Luck aggressively throw the ball downfield to try to get into field goal range for the win. Once it was 4th down and 4 from their own 43 yard-line, the stakes had changed considerably. After having tried to win the game by being aggressive on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd downs, it probably would have been wise to salvage a tie at at that point because of the risk/reward factors that were now in play in regard to the decision to either punt or go for it.

There is being aggressive, and there is being foolish and low-percentage/high risk. Continuing to throw the ball downfield with a little over a minute to play was aggressive and pro-active, and that is what the Colts did. Punting on 4th and 4 from your own 43 yard-line would not have been passive and meek, it would have been accepting the reality (and the risk-reward factors) of the situation.


o

Of course he played for the win. I said that and agree with you.

And maybe it would have been better to punt and just take the tie in that situation

But in the long run, again, I'd rather have the coach playing to win vs. playing to tie or not to lose.

We know Reich would have gone for it on 4th and 1 from the 41 in OT, unlike Garrett, because we saw him do it in a much riskier situation already. It does answer many questions about his philosophy and play calling.

Is it too risky? There is that concern and we will see.

Also the play on 4th down in OT should have worked. What killed it was yet another dropped pass.

Reich is not the one holding back this offense. Its certainly not like in years past where it seems the play calls were doomed from the start or just made no sense. And he won't be holding back offensively when trying to close out games, we know that.

I think fans put more value in culture than teams, to be honest. There is definitely SOME value; don't get me wrong. But I see value in things like accountability (cutting Basham if he isn't doing shit), not anonymity. I realize I'm talking me vs Ballard and Ballard runs the team, but just think we tend to overvalue culture sometimes, or at least overvalue how teams view it.

o


In the long run and the short run, I want a coach to make wise decisions. He wasn't playing for the tie or not to lose by punting. He had already played for the win, and they didn't get it.


o

In most cases I'd probably agree with you, but Ballard seems to have placed a special emphasis on culture building, so that's the main reason for my take on the situation you mentioned. Here's a quote from an article last week on Colts.com:

Ballard: “Look: I think your culture is everything. I think it’s everything. And I think I’ve talked a lot about this with our young players that we have. I mean, not only being aggressive and putting it on the players in terms of, ‘Hey look, we’re gonna take some chances here, and we’re gonna put it on you to perform. We’re gonna do it, and you have to do it in practice.’ But from the way we do everything here — the way we practice, the way we study, the way we hold ourselves professionally, the way we support each other, the way we support our teammates and our coaches. Everything we do plays into the culture that we’re building right now.”

https://www.colts.com/news/chris-bal...-opportunities

I hope he engineers a season comeback to steal the division. It is ripe for the taking.

o


I think so too, although it's going to be tough to overcome the 1-4 start.

Tennessee just lost to Buffalo and Jacksonville got pounded by the Chiefs, so I think that the AFC South is wide open ........ with the Colts at a slight disadvantage because of their current record.


o

3 winnable games coming up, then a bye, and then 4 out of 5 games vs division opponents.

even with the current record, still very much in the division race. So yes its still wide open with the colts not too far behind.

Need to get at least 3 of those 4 division games after the bye though

I wish more companies put an emphasis on this. Many give it some lip service, but don’t really care at the end of the day. It isn’t something you can always measure, but impacts so many things. Glad our GM seems to be actively working on it.

The '75 team won 9 straight to close out the season, '99 it was 11 straight and '09 it was 9 straight.

It can be done.

In '99 Colts did lose the finale to Buffalo and Biscuit getting hurt in that game really killed our playoff chances.

BTW, this is probably when Polian developed his rest the starters playoff strategy.

o


That was '08.

That really pissed me off because the Colts beat the Steelers on their home-field during that 9-game winning streak, and I felt that they were the only AFC team that REALLY had a chance to beat them in those '08 playoffs.


They had to travel to shitty San Diego's homefield for the Wildcard playoff game, even though the Colts were 12-4 and the Chargers were 8-8, and even though the Colts beat them head-on in the regular season.

The last game that the Colts lost that season was a Monday night contest against the Titans. They were leading 7-6 at halftime, and then Manning drive them to a touchdown to start the 3rd quarter to make it 14-6. Then the defense got a stop, but the refs bailed out the Titans with a chintzy INT call. The Titans proceeded to take advantage of that call, and subsequently scored a TD and took control of the game after that. That game (and possibly that crucial INT call) likely cost the Colts the division title, and home-field advantage throughout the playoffs.

And that overrated Titans team lost to the Ravens in the divisional playoff game ........ 2008 was such a wasted opportunity in which fate was not on the Colts' side.


o

That’s the thing, he has gone after free agents. Ballard inquired about Robinson but he wasn’t interested. He went after Norwell, got outbid. He also wanted Calais Campbell, he wanted to go to the jags. He wanted AJ Bouye, not interested. Ballard has been selective about who he has pursued, and he has tried the best FA’s out there. I think he does have a price in his head and won’t get into a bidding war for a guy.

What Ballard doesn’t want is to sign mediocre players for big money. He wants to build a base core through the draft and let them define the culture of the team. He doesn’t want a problem child, he doesn’t want negative locker room presences. I’m ok with this. We need talent at core positions. Probably since 2008-09 this team has overly relied on QB play. Too much bad drafting. I’m hoping that is about to change.

Once we got some talent on this team I can see him getting a FA or two. I want super bowls, I don’t want a decade of good not great like the Pacers. And I feel like getting some FA’s now just makes us decent so we are picking in the middle of the draft.

I don’t remember hearing about him going after those guys. Other than norwell