Kamar Aiken (WR) in for a visit today

[TheRustonRifle#7]

On 3/17/2017 at 1:03 PM, Superman said:

 

So if the idea is upgrading or pushing Dorsett (or even Moncrief), I don't see Floyd being the guy on whom you take that chance.

 

I don't even want Aiken. Adjust the passing offense and use Dorsett properly, IMO, and we have a good top 3.

I couldn't agree more!

[Shive]

5 hours ago, TKnight24 said:

Kamar Aiken is the name, and no. But I'm sure either I or one of our fine forum members who have mastered the art of embedding tweets and have stolen my job (  ) will post the news if he or anyone else signs with us  

You've been hitting the apple juice too hard and slacking my man!

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 3/17/2017 at 1:03 PM, Superman said:

 

So if the idea is upgrading or pushing Dorsett (or even Moncrief), I don't see Floyd being the guy on whom you take that chance.

 

I don't even want Aiken. Adjust the passing offense and use Dorsett properly, IMO, and we have a good top 3.

how do we use dorsett properly? with all his speed he cant seem to get open

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

how do we use dorsett properly? with all his speed he cant seem to get open

That's easy. Give Luck the time to go through his progressions. Luck looks for Hilton first and then gets pressure and dumps off to Doyle as a safety valve. The few times Dorsett has been gone to he produces.

[SaturdayAllDay]

2 hours ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

how do we use dorsett properly? with all his speed he cant seem to get open

He gets open, just doesnt get a lot of looks because hes low on the progression for a good chunk of the playbook. I also think he would do well with some designed screens or slants, which we dont seem to do often. The other problem is that we put him on a 4 second route and our line can only hold for 3. 

[GoColtsWin]

On 3/17/2017 at 0:48 PM, DougDew said:

Good.  Don't ignore the WR or TE positions this offseason.  Moncrief, Dorsett, Rogers and Swoope are no sure things.

While I totally agree with you as of right now. I'm hoping "they", as a group take that leap to a new level. Hopefully this happens, and our new WR's Coach can make a difference(fingers crossed). Here's to hoping!

[crazycolt1]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:48 PM, DougDew said:

Good.  Don't ignore the WR or TE positions this offseason.  Moncrief, Dorsett, Rogers and Swoope are no sure things.

Adding Moncrief to this list makes no sense. He has already shown he belongs.

[tvturner]

Does everyone hate Moncrief now..?

[Superman]

21 hours ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

how do we use dorsett properly? with all his speed he cant seem to get open

 

He gets open more than he gets credit for. 

 

Our passing offense doesn't stress efficiency, quick hitting plays, etc. We often run our receivers right into coverage, rather than working the underneath areas that defenses are giving up. We hardly run screen plays, and when we do, we run them poorly. We ask the QB to hold on to the ball far too long, especially for a team that struggles in protection.

 

For the above listed reasons, and others, I think we misuse most of our offensive players, including Luck. JMO

[OLD FAN MAN]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He gets open more than he gets credit for. 

 

Our passing offense doesn't stress efficiency, quick hitting plays, etc. We often run our receivers right into coverage, rather than working the underneath areas that defenses are giving up. We hardly run screen plays, and when we do, we run them poorly. We ask the QB to hold on to the ball far too long, especially for a team that struggles in protection.

 

For the above listed reasons, and others, I think we misuse most of our offensive players, including Luck. JMO

i see your point and agree he could be used in a different way with maybe better results

[Smonroe]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He gets open more than he gets credit for. 

 

Our passing offense doesn't stress efficiency, quick hitting plays, etc. We often run our receivers right into coverage, rather than working the underneath areas that defenses are giving up. We hardly run screen plays, and when we do, we run them poorly. We ask the QB to hold on to the ball far too long, especially for a team that struggles in protection.

 

For the above listed reasons, and others, I think we misuse most of our offensive players, including Luck. JMO

 

Curious, do you have the All22, or whatever they call it?  I've had it the last couple years and studied some of the games pretty close.  Sometimes it's painful.  

 

Some of what you say is true, especially running poor screen play.  Poor execution, not necessarily design.  Some of our run designs are bad though.  

 

Dorsett does not get open unless they scheme a play for him, if you know what I mean.  Isolate him and you'll see.  TY is almost always open, that's why Luck will go to him even when he's really covered.  

 

As for asking Luck to hold the ball, I think it's the other way around.  I've seen several plays where he Passes on what to me looks like the first option, in order to go for more.  Like you said, with our line that's usually not a good thing.  MH ran a lot of those plays and got rid of the ball.   I wonder how many times he got hit per drop back compared to Luck?

 

Anyway, just my opinion.

 

[OLD FAN MAN]

3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Curious, do you have the All22, or whatever they call it?  I've had it the last couple years and studied some of the games pretty close.  Sometimes it's painful.  

 

Some of what you say is true, especially running poor screen play.  Poor execution, not necessarily design.  Some of our run designs are bad though.  

 

Dorsett does not get open unless they scheme a play for him, if you know what I mean.  Isolate him and you'll see.  TY is almost always open, that's why Luck will go to him even when he's really covered.  

 

As for asking Luck to hold the ball, I think it's the other way around.  I've seen several plays where he Passes on what to me looks like the first option, in order to go for more.  Like you said, with our line that's usually not a good thing.  MH ran a lot of those plays and got rid of the ball.   I wonder how many times he got hit per drop back compared to Luck?

 

Anyway, just my opinion.

 

i think gavin had the all 22 and he could see things i didnt see

[Smonroe]

5 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

i think gavin had the all 22 and he could see things i didnt see

 

He was always a good poster, very knowledgeable.  

 

I had a hard time rewatching a lot of the games last season.  The All22 was kind of a waste for me.  

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Curious, do you have the All22, or whatever they call it?  I've had it the last couple years and studied some of the games pretty close.  Sometimes it's painful.  

 

Some of what you say is true, especially running poor screen play.  Poor execution, not necessarily design.  Some of our run designs are bad though.  

 

Dorsett does not get open unless they scheme a play for him, if you know what I mean.  Isolate him and you'll see.  TY is almost always open, that's why Luck will go to him even when he's really covered.  

 

As for asking Luck to hold the ball, I think it's the other way around.  I've seen several plays where he Passes on what to me looks like the first option, in order to go for more.  Like you said, with our line that's usually not a good thing.  MH ran a lot of those plays and got rid of the ball.   I wonder how many times he got hit per drop back compared to Luck?

 

Anyway, just my opinion.

 

 

I didn't have it this year, just didn't have the time to use it.

 

I think our passing game is brutal at times, though. So many times the receivers run routes that make no sense, especially given the coverage. But I've seen several instances of Dorsett either being open or facing coverage against which he could easily be open, but we don't run hot routes or slants. I've seen him open across the middle, and he doesn't get looked at. The most obvious instance was against the Raiders, which I diagrammed a few weeks ago. 

 

And yes, sometimes Luck doesn't go to the open man right away, but the system encourages him to look deep to short, touchdown to checkdown. 

 

When MH first started getting time, he was getting the ball out quickly and avoiding hits. Then defenses adjusted, and those quick hitters weren't open as much, but he couldn't get the ball down the field, even if he had enough protection (which he didn't). He started getting hit more and more, but at first, he didn't face a lot of pressure, compared to Luck, primarily because we shortened our concepts and he got the ball out more quickly. 

[DougDew]

17 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Adding Moncrief to this list makes no sense. He has already shown he belongs.

I thought he has had a slight case of the DA's....not being able to show up for work all the time.

[Valpo2004]

Wouldn't be bothered by this signing although I'm not sure it's necessary.  

 

Would be somewhat useful to have a possession guy on the field for us.  But the big question is which receiver Aiken is going to take snaps from.  

 

If it's Dorsett then it means we've given up on him.  I don't think it should be Moncrief and certainly not Hilton.  

 

And Rodgers has shown some flashes that mean he should receive some more snaps his 2nd year.

 

Only thing I can figure is if we'll be using the TE position a lot less and replacing it with another receiver.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't have it this year, just didn't have the time to use it.

 

I think our passing game is brutal at times, though. So many times the receivers run routes that make no sense, especially given the coverage. But I've seen several instances of Dorsett either being open or facing coverage against which he could easily be open, but we don't run hot routes or slants. I've seen him open across the middle, and he doesn't get looked at. The most obvious instance was against the Raiders, which I diagrammed a few weeks ago. 

 

And yes, sometimes Luck doesn't go to the open man right away, but the system encourages him to look deep to short, touchdown to checkdown. 

 

When MH first started getting time, he was getting the ball out quickly and avoiding hits. Then defenses adjusted, and those quick hitters weren't open as much, but he couldn't get the ball down the field, even if he had enough protection (which he didn't). He started getting hit more and more, but at first, he didn't face a lot of pressure, compared to Luck, primarily because we shortened our concepts and he got the ball out more quickly. 

 

Yeah, as soon as the teams realized that MH couldn't throw the ball with any accuracy more than about 25 yards, the coverage closed up on him.  They couldn't do that with Andrew.  It's easy to say we should dink and dunk (ala Brady), and I'm not sure why we don't.

 

You're right about the All22, it's time consuming and not a lot of fun to look at when your team loses.  I know that you know football, I assume you played.  When I played, a hundred years ago, I remember one of the receivers I went against in practice always saying he was open.  I would tell him - you're open until I see the QB turn your way.

 

I know it's a lot different in the pros, but that's what I think I see with Dorsett.  He's open if the DBs know the play is going the other way.  The Colts do try to set him up on fly or post patterns when they see the right matchups.  With his speed, he should be getting more of those.  Of course, it helps when the O line cooperates.

 

Let's hope he, and the O line continue to develop.  The offense could go from good to great.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I thought he has had a slight case of the DA's....not being able to show up for work all the time.

I have no clue as to why you think that. He cant get numbers if his QB don't have the time to look for him. He is 3rd on the depth chart and really is not looked at by Luck because of Luck's lack of time to go through any progressions.

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I have no clue as to why you think that. He cant get numbers if his QB don't have the time to look for him. He is 3rd on the depth chart and really is not looked at by Luck because of Luck's lack of time to go through any progressions.

I thought that Moncrief had missed a lot of games during his 3 year career due to inconsistency his first two years now injury this year.

 

 I'm simply saying that there is no reason for Ballard to not be looking at WRs this offseason and compare who's available at what price to who we have now.

[Valpo2004]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't have it this year, just didn't have the time to use it.

 

I think our passing game is brutal at times, though. So many times the receivers run routes that make no sense, especially given the coverage. But I've seen several instances of Dorsett either being open or facing coverage against which he could easily be open, but we don't run hot routes or slants. I've seen him open across the middle, and he doesn't get looked at. The most obvious instance was against the Raiders, which I diagrammed a few weeks ago. 

 

And yes, sometimes Luck doesn't go to the open man right away, but the system encourages him to look deep to short, touchdown to checkdown. 

 

When MH first started getting time, he was getting the ball out quickly and avoiding hits. Then defenses adjusted, and those quick hitters weren't open as much, but he couldn't get the ball down the field, even if he had enough protection (which he didn't). He started getting hit more and more, but at first, he didn't face a lot of pressure, compared to Luck, primarily because we shortened our concepts and he got the ball out more quickly. 

 

Question. . . how does one get the all 22?  Is that something you have to pay for?

[crazycolt1]

40 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I thought that Moncrief had missed a lot of games during his 3 year career due to inconsistency his first two years now injury this year.

 

 I'm simply saying that there is no reason for Ballard to not be looking at WRs this offseason and compare who's available at what price to who we have now.

He only started 12 games his first two years. I don't think consistency was the problem with having Hilton and Wayne starting in front of him. He also had Allen and Fleener who were drawing attention. Last season he did get injured but still put up 7 TDs in 9 games.

Ballard looking at other players at every position is his job. But looking for a WB to replace Moncrief is too pre mature at this point in his career. He is only 24 years old and saying he is inconsistent because of things out of his hands is over looking his potential.

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Question. . . how does one get the all 22?  Is that something you have to pay for?

 

Yes, you can get it with an NFL Game Pass subscription. https://www.nfl.com/gamepass?icampaign=Prod_GP_Nav

 

I have Sunday Ticket, so I don't need Game Pass to watch all the games. The All 22 is the only draw, but I don't have enough time to really use it. I know they do a lower cost subscription in the offseason, I might do that during the doldrums of the offseason, after the draft. Right now, I'm still watching college players.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I thought that Moncrief had missed a lot of games during his 3 year career due to inconsistency his first two years now injury this year.

 

 I'm simply saying that there is no reason for Ballard to not be looking at WRs this offseason and compare who's available at what price to who we have now.

 

Moncreif missed zero games in 14 and 15....     he missed 7 games in 16 due to the broken shoulder.

 

Moncreif started 2 games in 14...   as a rookie, I think he started two when someone else was injured...

 

Moncreif started 10 games in 15...    I think the games he didn't start, the starts went to Andre Johnson until the coaches stopped starting him and then the starts went to Moncreif.

 

Moncreif started 7 of the 9 games he played in 2016,  again due to the shoulder.

 

Another poster tried to make a case that Moncreif is injury prone.....

 

[aaron11]

i dont think moncrief is injury prone necessarily

 

he is prone to average less than 500 yards a season for various reasons

 

i would be for upgrading our # 2 and pushing dorsett and DM down a slot, but the problem with that is we are gutting the defense and rebuilding this year.  its a low priority but i would not say we are fine at WR

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

He only started 12 games his first two years. I don't think consistency was the problem with having Hilton and Wayne starting in front of him. He also had Allen and Fleener who were drawing attention. Last season he did get injured but still put up 7 TDs in 9 games.

Ballard looking at other players at every position is his job. But looking for a WB to replace Moncrief is too pre mature at this point in his career. He is only 24 years old and saying he is inconsistent because of things out of his hands is over looking his potential.

My original comment wasn't about his potential.  I said he wasn't a sure (proven) thing.  No reason to not find a sure thing if Ballard can get one at a reasonable price....not that Aiken is that guy.

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Moncreif missed zero games in 14 and 15....     he missed 7 games in 16 due to the broken shoulder.

 

Moncreif started 2 games in 14...   as a rookie, I think he started two when someone else was injured...

 

Moncreif started 10 games in 15...    I think the games he didn't start, the starts went to Andre Johnson until the coaches stopped starting him and then the starts went to Moncreif.

 

Moncreif started 7 of the 9 games he played in 2016,  again due to the shoulder.

 

Another poster tried to make a case that Moncreif is injury prone.....

 

I didn't say injury prone per se.  He hasn't been very productive in his first three years.  Some due to inconsistency/depth chart and some due to injury.  Its hard for people in our position to say why he hasn't shown up that much.

 

Although if its depth chart issues, I gotta wonder why he couldn't get more production when competing with a worn out Reggie and over the hill Nicks and AJ.  I suppose we need to blame Grigson for that.

 

Its not a criticism, sometimes it works out that way.  Its just an observation that Moncrief hasn't provided a solid reason to not find a proven #2 if one is available, but its not a priority.

[crazycolt1]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My original comment wasn't about his potential.  I said he wasn't a sure (proven) thing.  No reason to not find a sure thing if Ballard can get one at a reasonable price....not that Aiken is that guy.

Fair enough

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

I didn't say injury prone per se.  He hasn't been very productive in his first three years.  Some due to inconsistency/depth chart and some due to injury.  Its hard for people in our position to say why he hasn't shown up that much.

 

Although if its depth chart issues, I gotta wonder why he couldn't get more production when competing with a worn out Reggie and over the hill Nicks and AJ.  I suppose we need to blame Grigson for that.

 

Its not a criticism, sometimes it works out that way.  Its just an observation that Moncrief hasn't provided a solid reason to not find a proven #2 if one is available, but its not a priority.

 

Moncrief had a very good sophomore year with 64 catches and 5 TD's in a year in which he started just over half of the games....    and he was on his way to an even better 3rd season when he broke his shoulder.   

 

There's no one to blame for anything.    

 

Moncrief was the youngest WR in his draft class, and it was a great draft class.    He didn't exactly come from a pro-style offense at Mississippi....     He was young,  big and fast,   but he was very unpolished.     Grigson said so the night he was drafted.     The Colts were fortunate to draft him at pick 90.     

 

Moncreif was a good pick then,  and he's a good pick now.     There's no problem here.    There's no there,  there.      All he needs is to play.

 

The Colts have hired a very good WR this off-season.     I'm sure he'll be working with Moncreif and Dorsett and others.     I look for all our WR's to have a much better 2017 than 2016.

 

 

[Restored]

Expected to sign.

[Valpo2004]

17 hours ago, DougDew said:

I didn't say injury prone per se.  He hasn't been very productive in his first three years.  Some due to inconsistency/depth chart and some due to injury.  Its hard for people in our position to say why he hasn't shown up that much.

 

Although if its depth chart issues, I gotta wonder why he couldn't get more production when competing with a worn out Reggie and over the hill Nicks and AJ.  I suppose we need to blame Grigson for that.

 

Its not a criticism, sometimes it works out that way.  Its just an observation that Moncrief hasn't provided a solid reason to not find a proven #2 if one is available, but its not a priority.

 

Rookie WR's are usually not all that productive unless they are forced into action. So that takes out 14.

 

His 2nd year he was decently productive.  And that was with Matt Hasselbeck at QB most of the time.

 

His 3rd year he had injury issues.  

 

I'm not entirely sold on him yet, we have yet to see him be real productive with Andrew.  But there are reasons for his overall lack of production.  

[AZColt11]

Reported here too.  Looks like we got another WR.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000794149/article/colts-expected-to-sign-wr-kamar-aiken

[Tmoney]

15 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

Reported here too.  Looks like we got another WR.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000794149/article/colts-expected-to-sign-wr-kamar-aiken

1 year deal I like it, anyone know how much?

[Defjamz26]

And thus begins the end for Phillip Dorsett.

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

And thus begins the end for Phillip Dorsett.

That has yet to be determined.

[AZColt11]

16 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

And thus begins the end for Phillip Dorsett.

I don't think so.  He's a different type than Dorsett, more of a Moncrief type than a Dorsett type.  And you can never have enough tall WR's for the redzone.  IMHO the end of Dorsett will be underperforming another year.  But I'm hopeful he goes all Reggie Wayne and wakes up in year 3.

[Defjamz26]

6 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

I don't think so.  He's a different type than Dorsett, more of a Moncrief type than a Dorsett type.  And you can never have enough tall WR's for the redzone.  IMHO the end of Dorsett will be underperforming another year.  But I'm hopeful he goes all Reggie Wayne and wakes up in year 3.

It doesn't matter if Aiken is a different type of receiver. They'll give snaps to whoever performs best. If Aiken comes in and starts playing better then he'll get Dorsett's snaps. Maybe even Moncrief's. I think this may be Dorsett's last season on the Colts though.

[AZColt11]

10 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

It doesn't matter if Aiken is a different type of receiver. They'll give snaps to whoever performs best. If Aiken comes in and starts playing better then he'll get Dorsett's snaps. Maybe even Moncrief's. I think this may be Dorsett's last season on the Colts though.

I hope you are wrong, no offense.  We just can't afford to have missed on another 1st rounder.  This team NEEDS Dorsett to step up.