Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

if collie had stayed healthy


Stephen

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure about that. If the question is how much more production would we see with Collie on the field instead of Hilton, I would support the argument that Collie may well, as a vet, had no worse numbers than Hilton does now. But there are things Collie can't do that Hilton can. And Collie wouldn't have been in the Avery role. Brazill wouldn't have the catches he has, as the next man in would have been Hilton probably with a healthy Collie. But with Brazill we're talking about 9 catches. More to the point, Collie in his best years had 60, 58, and 54 receptions, Hilton in 11 games has 33. So other than Collie's 9 game 58 catch season prior to that injury, I'd say the numbers wouldn't be dramatically different. If Hilton catches 5 a game for the last 5 games, he would have 58 for the season. Right where Collie would have been in my opinion. So no functional change. Not 7 more touchdowns right now for Luck for sure. Collie on the field wouldn't change the play calling in the red zone, nor would he necessarily have more targets than Hilton has, which is the comparison in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that. If the question is how much more production would we see with Collie on the field instead of Hilton, I would support the argument that Collie may well, as a vet, had no worse numbers than Hilton does now. But there are things Collie can't do that Hilton can. And Collie wouldn't have been in the Avery role. Brazill wouldn't have the catches he has, as the next man in would have been Hilton probably with a healthy Collie. But with Brazill we're talking about 9 catches. More to the point, Collie in his best years had 60, 58, and 54 receptions, Hilton in 11 games has 33. So other than Collie's 9 game 58 catch season prior to that injury, I'd say the numbers wouldn't be dramatically different. If Hilton catches 5 a game for the last 5 games, he would have 58 for the season. Right where Collie would have been in my opinion. So no functional change. Not 7 more touchdowns right now for Luck for sure. Collie on the field wouldn't change the play calling in the red zone, nor would he necessarily have more targets than Hilton has, which is the comparison in my mind.

collie would have made difference in the red zone also he is a good third down reciever so we prob would have sustained more drives and produces more points if collie were healthy he would have been used in the slot and avery and hilton would take turns with the deep pass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

collie would have made difference in the red zone also he is a good third down reciever so we prob would have sustained more drives and produces more points if collie were healthy he would have been used in the slot and avery and hilton would take turns with the deep pass

The Colts have the third best 3rd down conversion rate in the NFL. I'm not sure they could be doing that any better. Collie is a nice piece, a talented guy, but your original post asks if his presence alone would mean 7 more TDs and 600 more passing yards right now for Luck. I see no way those numbers could happen. First, because if you place Collie back in the lineup, you must take away catches form someone else, you can't just add Collie's production to the results. The Colts wouldn't be running Wayne, Collie, Avery, and Hilton out there on every down, so getting to 7 additional TDs and 600 more yards to me is impossible. I also disagree Collie would have made a difference in the red zone. Arians would call the plays he calls. What I means is, I do not think Arians thought so highly of Collie over Hilton (who is his replacement) that the play calling would have changed or the results any different.

3800 yards would be almost 400 ahead of anyone in the NFL right now. Collie would not make that huge a difference. Stafford leads the NFL with 3400 yards passing. No, Luck wouldn't have 3800 yards today if Collie were healthy. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our WR's have had great plays, but also too many drops. We also have issues getting open in the red zone, probably because there's not enough real estate for our guys to get separation. Collie would certainly be an asset for us keeping drives going consistently, converting more red zone TD's, and offering the threat of a big play. He's not a TY Hilton kind of catch and run home run hitter, but he can work short, intermediate, and deep routes.

It sucks that he's not able to be out there helping us, but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Colts have the third best 3rd down conversion rate in the NFL. I'm not sure they could be doing that any better. Collie is a nice piece, a talented guy, but your original post asks if his presence alone would mean 7 more TDs and 600 more passing yards right now for Luck. I see no way those numbers could happen. First, because if you place Collie back in the lineup, you must take away catches form someone else, you can't just add Collie's production to the results. The Colts wouldn't be running Wayne, Collie, Avery, and Hilton out there on every down, so getting to 7 additional TDs and 600 more yards to me is impossible. I also disagree Collie would have made a difference in the red zone. Arians would call the plays he calls. What I means is, I do not think Arians thought so highly of Collie over Hilton (who is his replacement) that the play calling would have changed or the results any different.

3800 yards would be almost 400 ahead of anyone in the NFL right now. Collie would not make that huge a difference. Stafford leads the NFL with 3400 yards passing. No, Luck wouldn't have 3800 yards today if Collie were healthy. No.

I think, if anything, Luck's completion percentage would be higher, and maybe three or four more touchdowns. But not more yardage.

I do think Collie's production would have been more consistent than Hilton's has been. Hilton could hardly get on the field as a receiver in the first few weeks, but in preseason, Luck was Collie's favorite target. I think it would be Collie having a career year instead of Reggie, had he been healthy all season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, if anything, Luck's completion percentage would be higher, and maybe three or four more touchdowns. But not more yardage.

I do think Collie's production would have been more consistent than Hilton's has been. Hilton could hardly get on the field as a receiver in the first few weeks, but in preseason, Luck was Collie's favorite target. I think it would be Collie having a career year instead of Reggie, had he been healthy all season.

The only evidence we have is the Jags game, and Collie had two looks, one picked but called back, and the one catch where he got hurt. But the play by play of that game tells me a lot about how involved Collie would have been. Hilton scored his first TD and was targeted much more. I agree Collie would have meant a better completion percentage. But there is nothing in Collie's past, which is with PM, that suggests to me he would have been anything more than what he is, which is a 58 catch 8 TD kind of guy. Which, if things keep on keeping on, is about where Hilton will end up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that. If the question is how much more production would we see with Collie on the field instead of Hilton, I would support the argument that Collie may well, as a vet, had no worse numbers than Hilton does now. But there are things Collie can't do that Hilton can. And Collie wouldn't have been in the Avery role. Brazill wouldn't have the catches he has, as the next man in would have been Hilton probably with a healthy Collie. But with Brazill we're talking about 9 catches. More to the point, Collie in his best years had 60, 58, and 54 receptions, Hilton in 11 games has 33. So other than Collie's 9 game 58 catch season prior to that injury, I'd say the numbers wouldn't be dramatically different. If Hilton catches 5 a game for the last 5 games, he would have 58 for the season. Right where Collie would have been in my opinion. So no functional change. Not 7 more touchdowns right now for Luck for sure. Collie on the field wouldn't change the play calling in the red zone, nor would he necessarily have more targets than Hilton has, which is the comparison in my mind.

That second year collie would have had close to 100 rec but he got knocked out for concussions twice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only evidence we have is the Jags game, and Collie had two looks, one picked but called back, and the one catch where he got hurt. But the play by play of that game tells me a lot about how involved Collie would have been. Hilton scored his first TD and was targeted much more. I agree Collie would have meant a better completion percentage. But there is nothing in Collie's past, which is with PM, that suggests to me he would have been anything more than what he is, which is a 58 catch 8 TD kind of guy. Which, if things keep on keeping on, is about where Hilton will end up.

I'd put in Collie for Avery, Collie isn't as fast but can catch while being hit, Avery's arms fold like an accordion when hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That second year collie would have had close to 100 rec but he got knocked out for concussions twice

You've hit the nail on the head though - all we do know about Collie is he gets hurt. Nine games 58 catches was a great start. But his NFL history is not getting to 100 catches, so would is not the word I'd use. Was on pace, could have, sure. But what has happend, as opposed to what might happen, is a 58 catch a year guy. Injuries will preclude us, maybe for good, of ever knowing. It happens a lot in the NFL. But to suggest Collie was ever going to be a 100 catch a year huge difference maker, #1 type WR to me is a huge reach. That isn't what he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Whalen tear his acl? He will never be the same.. collie will always be a step ahead of Whalen.. Remember we mostly saw Whalen against second and third string players in meaningless games..

no he just hurt his foot I think he will be good we just have to wait til next year to find out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say, but Collie will not last in the NFL, I don't see it lasting at all.

Concussions, then this year injury, I just don't think he will be able to stay healthy anymore. He is going through what Bob Sanders use to go through few years back.

His career is almost over, lets face it. 1 more injury and the colts will part way with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only evidence we have is the Jags game, and Collie had two looks, one picked but called back, and the one catch where he got hurt. But the play by play of that game tells me a lot about how involved Collie would have been. Hilton scored his first TD and was targeted much more. I agree Collie would have meant a better completion percentage. But there is nothing in Collie's past, which is with PM, that suggests to me he would have been anything more than what he is, which is a 58 catch 8 TD kind of guy. Which, if things keep on keeping on, is about where Hilton will end up.

Those 58 catches and 8 touchdowns came in about eight and a half games. He was on pace for a career year that season.

As for his work with Luck, it wasn't all that much, but he was targeted several times in the Rams preseason game, and caught a touchdown. He and Luck seemed to be on the same page, and based on camp reports, he was going to be a big part of the passing game.

But more than that, he was ready to produce from the beginning, had he not been hurt. Hilton has had flashes here and there, and lately has worked his way into a nice set of games, but he wasn't polished. Still isn't, actually. In contrast, Collie would have been out on the field as a receiver 90% of the time, and likely would have produced.

Hilton might wind up being a very productive receiver. If he keeps up his current pace and trajectory, he'll probably wind up with close to 60 catches and 8 touchdowns. But I think Collie would be there (or close) already, with five games left. Assuming health. It's really a shame that Collie can't hold up, and I think he's probably played his last game as a Colt. But if he were healthy, he'd easily be our second best receiver, and that would have been the case all year long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collie wouldn't be burning by CBs like Avery (and dropping the ball at such a high rate), but he would definitely provide a Reggie-like presence in the middle of the field. He has a high football IQ, he finds holes in the zone, he gets open, and he catches the ball. If Collie were healthy Reggie wouldn't have so many yards, there wouldn't be so many drops, and Luck would probably be about the same in yards. Completion percentage, TDs, and total points scored would be a fair bit higher I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I saw from Whalen in training and preseason he is a very hard worker with excellent hands and not afraid to take hits. He seems to protect himself better when anticipating hits and holds onto the ball. Don't get me wrong I am a big Collie fan but I think there are too many injury issues with Collie and Whalen is younger. I think the foot injury to IR might have been a little premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

collie is amazing, if he had stayed healthy our offense would be alot more productive. alot of the 3rd down checks that get dropped maybe dont happen with collie being the target, etc etc.. a bunch of what ifs, but yeah i feel we would be better off offensively with him in. hes a serious threat in the slot, and plays the outside well too

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.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not really.   There's a theory that Ballard wants to draft an OL high because he said it's important to protect the QB, and Richardson was hurt last year. And the counter was that Richardson's injury/s probably aren't about the level of OL protection, and drafting an OL high wouldn't address that concern.
    • I'm thinking if we can trade to 8 or 9 and draft Odunze , we should do it if the price is reasonable. The value chart shows giving up P 15 and P 46 is the perfect number. Probably won't do it and I would think 2025 2nd for a 2024 4th added to the deal would make it work . That of coarse would depend on Atlanta or Chicago wanting to move to 15 . Obviously , as we all know , it takes 2 to make a trade.
    • I can too. And that will tell us everything we need to know about how the view him. It will tell us their feelings on the tight end room, and what direction they pick from there will tell us even more.    but if they take him at 15, we won’t know much about what might have happened, as they will be landing someone they had rated highly and fell to them. 
    • Glad that’s over…    if I wanted to argue about it, I would have responded far more in depth than pointing out how you were attempting to gaslight me. I did not. Meaning I was ending my part of whatever the argument was. You “putting a finality to it” and then listing bullet points tells me it was the argument you wanted all along, which makes sense why you brought Grigson up in the first place. Bait, hook, gaslight. Almost got me buddy. You are a funny guy, Doug 
    • Putting a finality on an argument you want to have.   There is a theory that Ballard won't draft a OL high because ARs injuries were not caused by a poor oline.  I felt it important to note that since Luck's major injuries were also not caused by his oline, Ballard could still want to improve it like he did in 2018 simply because AR is The Franchise. And its important to point that out because there has been a running (false) narrative for about 9 years that Luck's oline was the (main) reason for his injuries that kept him out of games.  The (false) narrative is based upon, IMO, a detest of Grigson, and not reality about the facts (or strong rumors) behind the kidney laceration and snowboarding shoulder. Therefore, mentioning Grigson and the (false) narrative was germain to the point about Ballard possibly drafting Oline high this draft to protect AR. Mentioning Grigson shouldn't trigger a CB vs RG discussion, unless people reading it are gaslighted by their own reading lens.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...