Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
Well, what do we mean by "happy"? Until we get another anchor like Castonzo, you can't really be happy. But we can't treat it like it's just a matter of running to the grocery store because we're out of eggs. They didn't like the FA tackle market for whatever reason (money, age, injury, etc.).
With how collaborative and open to input they seem to be... I have an equally hard time believing that Ballard and Reich didn't watch tape together and determine Pryor did alright (as Ballard said before the season). I can't see either of them not signing off on the plan to roll with Pryor, draft a kid they like, and have him take over as that anchor. In the meantime, three studs on the OL from the previous few years would take up the slack.
They were wrong. Pryor was awful. Couple that with the most INSANE lack of ball security I've personally ever witnessed and you have a true disaster. Hopefully the vets return to form. If so, I think at the end of an ugly road, we may actually have that anchor at LT.
|
Maybe happy is the wrong word. I just find it hard to believe that people in the Colts organization (Reich, etc.) didn't think that handing the starting LT spot to Pryor was a bad idea. There were a lot of us on the board who felt it was a really bad move, and you would think guys like Reich would have forgotten more about football than schlubs like us know about the game. Of course you would also think Ballard would know the importance of the LT position, but based on his actions and comments I don't think he does.
At any rate, water under the bridge I suppose. Hopefully Raimann is the answer at LT and the OL gets back to playing at least decent football again next year. We'll see if Ballard has learned his lesson and at least hedges the position, but I kind of doubt it.