ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion
Register FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-02-2017, 10:27 AM
GoBigBlue88 GoBigBlue88 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,297
Thanks: 132
Thanked 1,180 Times in 356 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman View Post
Agree with all you said, except the run D and collapsed late in the second half.
The part of the game I missed! (Thankfully?)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-02-2017, 12:12 PM
Coltsalr's Avatar
Coltsalr Coltsalr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 4,874
Thanks: 650
Thanked 691 Times in 352 Posts
Default

The D also collapsed partially (fully?) due to it being completely worn out due to the offense having the inability to stay on the field.

The Seahawks weren't really running long, methodical, clock-eating drives in which they moved at a glacial pace. They were relying off bigger explosive plays. They just happened to get a lot of them because they were on the field so often.

Doesn't completely excuse the defense, but the offense did them no favors.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-02-2017, 12:51 PM
DrSpaceman DrSpaceman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,349
Thanks: 212
Thanked 674 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coltsalr View Post
The D also collapsed partially (fully?) due to it being completely worn out due to the offense having the inability to stay on the field.

The Seahawks weren't really running long, methodical, clock-eating drives in which they moved at a glacial pace. They were relying off bigger explosive plays. They just happened to get a lot of them because they were on the field so often.

Doesn't completely excuse the defense, but the offense did them no favors.
I don't know about that because the D was barely on the field in the first half and then the Seahawks started with the ball the second half. So you are criticizing one or two short drives in the 3rd quarter?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DrSpaceman For This Useful Post:
VeveJones007 (10-02-2017)
  #4  
Old 10-02-2017, 04:17 PM
Luck4Reich's Avatar
Luck4Reich Luck4Reich is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Destin FL
Posts: 4,555
Thanks: 1,974
Thanked 3,102 Times in 1,636 Posts
Default

The worst thing about these games is every Monday comes and goes yet Pagano is till here.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Luck4Reich For This Useful Post:
Spike (10-02-2017)
  #5  
Old 10-02-2017, 05:15 PM
omahacolt's Avatar
omahacolt omahacolt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,564
Thanks: 1,671
Thanked 4,768 Times in 1,947 Posts
Default

i think you are a bit too hard on hankins. not sure what you expected of him but he is playing pretty much how i thought he would.

i think woods is very underrated. i like that dude.

wtf is with aiken getting so much playing time? the dude has done nothing
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-02-2017, 06:03 PM
VeveJones007 VeveJones007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,111
Thanks: 1,209
Thanked 1,114 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i think you are a bit too hard on hankins. not sure what you expected of him but he is playing pretty much how i thought he would.

i think woods is very underrated. i like that dude.

wtf is with aiken getting so much playing time? the dude has done nothing
I like the d-line. Main thing I want improved for 2018 is a better pass rusher to sub in for Anderson in passing situations. Anderson is good against the run but offers nothing against the pass.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-02-2017, 06:30 PM
Racehorse's Avatar
Racehorse Racehorse is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: God's green Earth
Posts: 13,817
Thanks: 20,957
Thanked 5,414 Times in 3,066 Posts
Default

Brissett needs to forget Aiken. The guy is garbage.

I will also add that it irked me to hear the commentators say certain plays we run are to set up something for later in the game. We all know there just isn't that much creativity in our coaching staff. I mean, it seems like sometimes they run a play just like "well, nothing planned, so let's see what this might do", and if it works (think screen pass), we won't see it but once more the entire game. Other coaches would keep running it until you proved that you could stop it.
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a**
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Racehorse For This Useful Post:
Spike (10-02-2017)
  #8  
Old 10-02-2017, 07:27 PM
Coltsalr's Avatar
Coltsalr Coltsalr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 4,874
Thanks: 650
Thanked 691 Times in 352 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i think you are a bit too hard on hankins. not sure what you expected of him but he is playing pretty much how i thought he would.

i think woods is very underrated. i like that dude.

wtf is with aiken getting so much playing time? the dude has done nothing
Do you think he plays at a level worth $9M per year?

(Honest question)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-02-2017, 08:34 PM
omahacolt's Avatar
omahacolt omahacolt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,564
Thanks: 1,671
Thanked 4,768 Times in 1,947 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coltsalr View Post
Do you think he plays at a level worth $9M per year?

(Honest question)
I don't know. I don't think like that. Especially having like 20 million to spend. I am not going to pretend to think I can determine his dollar value.

It annoys me when fans say a guy is with 3.5 million but not 5 million

If you asked me a year ago I would probably say paying a guy 9 mil a year that doesn't offer much in pass rushing is overpaid. As a general statement
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-02-2017, 05:59 PM
VeveJones007 VeveJones007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,111
Thanks: 1,209
Thanked 1,114 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coltsalr View Post
The D also collapsed partially (fully?) due to it being completely worn out due to the offense having the inability to stay on the field.

The Seahawks weren't really running long, methodical, clock-eating drives in which they moved at a glacial pace. They were relying off bigger explosive plays. They just happened to get a lot of them because they were on the field so often.

Doesn't completely excuse the defense, but the offense did them no favors.
The defense was on the field all of 10 minutes in the first half. Wearing down wasn't the issue last night.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.