Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Well, I appreciate you straightening out the information. That still isn't the number of possible schedules, it's just the number they created based on the financial needs mixed with the venue availability issues and other stuff. There are some horrendous schedules for certain teams out there. Whatever human intervention took place, they clearly didn't care about screwing teams. Oakland and Tampa got it the worst and it was needless. But money is all that matters, not the health of the players or fairness of competition. That much is clear.
  3. I didn't suggest anything. I'm just saying that by applying you logic to everyone on the roster, we shouldn't need to upgrade anything. Or does that just hold true to WR?
  4. Simple. It means we need to continue to look elsewhere for someone ready to play out of the box. Someone who shines, even if its just as a rookie. I would suggest the draft and we hope that Cain's brief spark before injury was more than fools gold. Johnson and Paschal had brief moments where they appeared capable but certainly were far from Elite talent. Rogers and the rest of the guys on the roster after Hilton and Funchess seem like cannon fodder for the most part. We need elite talent. We need elite speed. We need elite hands. We need elite route running. In essence, we need SOMETHING to be elite about our qualified #2 and #3. I didn't see anything that suggested "Elite" from any of these guys last year. Did you? Someone will be #2 even if they're terrible. There WILL be a #2. What I think most people hope for is that the #2 has something elite, if not many things elite about their skill set. Outside of Hilton, that isn't a word that applies to the backups from last year and camp bodies. Are you going on the record to say we have our full time, long term #2 and eventual #1 when Hilton is gone on the roster? Who would that be? And no matter how you answer, using your criteria, what supposed practical value is that supposed to have? What practical value does my opinion have? At least the same value as any opinion you or anyone else shares. None of us have power over the team. The point of a message board is to post opinions and discuss. You apparently disagree with my statement, so let's hear who our #2 elite talent is among the scrubs? Settling for a #2 without elite talent is what we did last year. Ryan Grant was devoid of anything elite and it showed. Questions?
  5. Based on snap counts last year. TE was 1.29, WR 2.56, RB 1.03 So we ran 2 TE sets a little less than a 3rd of the time (likely a lot on early running downs or RZ), 3 WR sets more than half the time, and used only one RB except for a few instances. A few things to ponder.... How sure are you that DF was signed assumed to be full time starter? By most reports, Cain had locked down the #2 spot last year before he got injured. Do you think Cain was told DF was signed to be the starter? Might he have been signed to provide depth to the unit while Cain gets his form back? Or even while a drafted WR comes on.... Also, as discussed, DF's most successful routes were short to intermediate middle type routes (not X WR routes). Not necessarily perimeter or deep. Do you think the coaches will force fit him into areas where he's had the least success? It's also been discussed that he might find more success as a big or bully slot? In terms of stretching the field... If you've read up on Reich's offense, there is a lot of talk about "4 vert" or K gun (going back to his own QB days). Yes there is a lot of up tempo quick hits, but there is supposed to be a stretch element too. It's supposed to be multiple formations, multiple plays, all up tempo. 4 vert is just what it sounds like. 4 players going vertical. Not just all short to intermediate. Luck can throw every ball. Not using his vertical talents would be a bit silly, no? On the whole WR unit, we have literally only one proven guy and that's TY. Potential and talent are great words, but we have only TY that's proven. DF has had his ups and downs, and hopefully he gets it turned around. I love Cain, but he's rehabing and didn't exactly light the world on fire at Clemson. Both he and Renfrow were there in 16 and 17. Cain stayed about the same while Renfrow took a nice step forward. All the other guys (Pascal, Johnson, Fountain) are projects that we hope might pan out. You mentioned Johnson, and I like his potential too, but he didn't do much at TX, and has been hurt 2 of his 3 NFL years. In short, based on last years stats, not one WR ranked inside the top 80 in yards other than Hilton. It's incredible what Luck did with all the moving parts last year, but he shouldn't have to work this hard. And you mentioned you'd take a RB early. If we're talking about proven, and also potential... When Mack came back in game 6 IIRC, we were a top 10 rushing team the rest of the year (I think if you normalize, Mack would have been 5th or 6th in yards). We also just drafted Hines who had a very good first year (700+ all purpose yards), and Wilkins who averaged 5.6 yards per carry in back up duty to Mack. Individually, that's much more proven than our WR corp. I would like to have a power back compliment over Williams, but that's in the middle to late rounds. Not saying we will, or won't take a WR early, but every mock and "needs" board out there has WR in the top 2. Even Colts.com listed WR first in their post FA needs. Of course Ballard will do what he wants, but the overwhelming majority of "experts" out there are saying Indy needs to upgrade WR.
  6. Today
  7. WHERE EXACTLY did I say any of the nonsense you stated above? Dude, I don't know you but you either have the wrong person or you are simply projecting. I didn't comment on the 30 allowed visits at all. I made no pro or con comments of any kind on the topic. I asked a legit question that I did not know the answer to. You need to.. uh... relax or something. It's all in your head!
  8. If Ballard didn't see some talent in a player he wouldn't be on the roster in the first place. Are you suggesting otherwise?
  9. You continued and continued to say something that was factually untrue by a magnitude of trillions. That's significantly misleading and posting it (and defending it) was either dishonest on your part or naive on your part. I chose the less offensive option. Those numbers were given to you by the media but they were false. I can't believe you thought it was accurate, or that you keep arguing a lost point. It was not true. Basically it was people too lazy to do a quick google search to get an answer. We have a National game on CBS against the Chargers week one that is also away. I have used the word "National" games throughout, not Primetime games. It is the National game that day, the first game of the season, so the Colts are at a disadvantage in every known National game this year. The Primetime Night games are also all away. The last time the Colts had a home Sunday or Monday night football game? 2015. Random scheduling would not likely come up with all our games on Sunday/Monday night being away since then. It's intentional scheduling. It's about money, damn the fairness. It's also a big disadvantage to have such an early Bye week when our divisional opponents are late in the season. That is intentional. ALL the scheduling is intentional, even your quotes mention all the owner requests etc. I am confident the Colts owner did not say "please have all our national games away so we are at a disadvantage and our city and stadium isn't featured on the national coverage!" It costs our city and team money and prestige by being away. Not money shots of the city lit up at night or the stadium roof open etc. No talks about the meals at St. Elmo's and the other common banter that happens when you host a home National game. Further, if we lose those games (and it's a big disadvantage having to travel and play an away Sunday or Monday or Thursday game and being the underdog on our high profile week one National game with the Chargers). And my overall point was and is that the Colts get hosed... often! Let's not lose that. So I thought I would check to see if my suspicions were unreasonable. As it turns out, it is EVEN WORSE (yes, I use capital letters when I please thank you) Look at HOW UNFAIR the NFL schedule makers have been to the Colts on Thursday night games going back to the very first year: Colts Thursday Night Games Since The Start: 2007 At Falcons 2008 At Jaguars 2009 At Jaguars 2010 At Titans 2011 Texans (Manning out) 2012 At Jaguars 2013 At Titans 2014 At Texans 2015 At Texans 2016 Steelers (Luck Out) 2017 Broncos (Luck Out) 2018 At Patriots 2019 At Texans Out of 13 Thursday night games, we were the away team 10 times. TEN TIMES. Exactly how is that fair? It isn't. It is getting hosed regularly by the NFL. ON PURPOSE. Short weeks, hurt players, away game travel, lopsided unfairness at the Colt's expense. To make it worse, of the 9 divisional Thursday night games, 8 were away (89%). That's a double hosing just like it is this year. That could easily turn out to be the most important game of our season. No matter what it will factor in significantly on potential playoff scenarios. And since this goes back into the "Manning" era, it also disproves your theory that we are getting worse treatment now that we apparently aren't any good? (Or whatever it was you were trying to say above). As an aside I thought it was interesting (and admittedly coincidental in this case) that our only 3 home games came when our starting QB's were out. 10 of 13 away games is not a coincidence however. The only other possible National games (4PM window games) as currently scheduled are against Denver and Miami both at home. Those teams are expected to be down this year making a National broadcast unlikely. As the quote above states, computers can't even deal with the endless possibilities. So humans made decisions and the Colts got hosed... again. I predicted it BEFORE the schedule came out, and the prediction happened to be correct. It's not a new phenomenon so the prediction was no great thing. I guess it wasn't so much a prediction, but rather it was predictable. Had we been the host of the Thursday night game at least (it isn't like we're not overdue), then I'd be fine with it. There is no reason they could not have manually given us a home game on Thursday, just as they manually gave us the game away for the 10th of 13 possible schedules. Is it fair? Nearly 77% of our Thursday games have been away. So back to your earlier posts. The bottom line is you posted statements that were obviously untrue. My using the word naive took all malice away from your intentions and actions because we all get stuff wrong even really silly stuff. It was being polite on my part. If naive was the wrong word, what were the right words? Intentionally Dishonest? Naive is an escape hatch from dishonest. I am sincerely sorry if the word "naive" hurt you so deeply. I realize that some people's feeling are quite easily hurt. But what is the saying? Facts don't care about your feelings and the facts are on my side. Many trillions of options for one team's schedule even with conflicts for venue usage; not 100,000 and most certainly not 10.
  10. We have plenty of weapons, but the teams we will face in January have better weapons. Our weapons are good enough to get us to January. Doubtful how much further we can go than that? What makes our offense go is this... 1. The scheme and play calling we run. 2. Andrew Luck, who makes everyone better. 3. Our offensive line, which makes everyone better. At receiver, after TY Hilton, we have a bunch of mostly questions marks. Even Funchess is a question mark until he proves himself as Ebron did a year ago. Super Bowl Caliber teams have much more talent than we do. At running back, after Mack, we have mostly question marks. Super Bowl Caliber teams have much moe talent than we do. At tight end, we have Doyle and Ebron. That's nice, but Doyle is a question mark untiil he proves his health and is back to form. Overall that's a lot of question marks for a team that wants to go to the Super Bowl. The other teams have much less. Many of the guys in this thread are JAGS. Just Another Guy. They'll do for now until we get better. But in the long-term we hope to get much better. Not sure how much better we get this year, but between the 19 draft, the 20 free agency and the 20 draft, we need more quality player makers than we currently have.
  11. Great! Sounds like we're making the same point? For a corner in a mostly zone scheme, they're fast enough, even thought no one would characterize them as fast.... Fair enough?
  12. we're not talking about devaluing. you said if they're on the roster, Ballard must see something in them? can that not be applied to everyone on the roster?
  13. MJ was drafted in 16. He's been injured 2 of his 3 years. Played 15 games, and was targeted 16 times in those games. Prior to signing as an undrafted FA, he was at TX. Didn't do a lot there. He's always had outstanding measurables, just wasn't reliable. didn't get a combine invite. here's his rookie profile. https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2016/5/30/11809802/eagles-rookie-profile-marcus-johnson-texas-wide-receiver-longhorns-profile-nfl-draft-2016
  14. I said I understood his point of view. I don't devalue players like you seem to do. Players earn their spot and develop. It's that simple.
  15. As far as I know, they use the same process for their NFL evaluations as they do for their college evaluations. Now the additional component here is the projection, because their NFL grades are descriptive of the performance, while the draft big boards are predictive, which of course adds some uncertainty and projection about the prospects transition into the league. I would love to see their correlation numbers(but they are not public so...) because they've been introducing some new things into their projections - for example, they've said they've been studying what translates from college to NFL and what doesn't... for example - pass-blocking for OTs seem to translate better than run-blocking ... clean pocket passing translates and is more stable than off-script plays for the QBs, pressures/win%/college grade translate more than sacks for DL, etc. Then you add athleticism to the mix... and things can get murky. In general my biggest beef with their boards has been that they seem to overemphasize what the player is right now and don't seem to put enough emphasis on developmental upside. Although... as I say that I look at DK Metcalf being their no. 1 ranked WR while sporting a grade of about 70... (while most other projected day 1 and day 2 receivers are in the 80-90 range), so... maybe they've been changing their projections a bit... I don't know.
  16. what was your point then? you were supporting choe's suggestion that we don't need O weapons, because we have XX already and Ballard sees something in them because they are on the roster. why wouldn't you apply that logic to everyone on the roster? no spin. it's logic. but please explain.
  17. People love to talk about how smart Rick Venturi is, and he is. However, if you look at his record as a head coach it’s not good, that just reminds me even bad football people are way smarter than anyone posting here when it comes to football.
  18. KC followed the blue print Phil and Jax laid out (and even the Bengals early on) to double TY, and it worked. We played teams with crappy Os last year. This year we play 7 of the top 11 Os from last year. We can't afford to be shut down like KC did to us. If we get down early, we're one dimensional, and more times than not, we're going to lose. We have zero proven weapons receiving besides TY and Ebron (and Doyle if he can stay healthy) at this point.
  19. Now where did I say that? Putting your own twist on my comment is a waist of time.
  20. Q wasn't brought in last season and he was out first pick. I don't think we can read anything into what Ballard does or don't do. Trying to figure out how this draft is going down is just a guess at best.
  21. you can say the exact same thing about every person in every position on the team. "Ballard evidently sees something in all of them or they wouldn't be here"... does that mean we don't need to upgrade any person in any position?
  22. They are below average for their position. Quincy's 28th percentile, Desir is 37th percentile. Speed might not be the biggest prerequisite for our specific system, though... that was my point.
  23. Even though I am a Reds fan I don't like how few Cubs games I can see on Direct TV. I think their broadcasts are the best, both technically and the broadcasters. Rasiel Iglesias has figured it out. He started off rough but he has struck out the last 9 hitters he has faced in a span of his last three games. I hope he sits tomorrow.
  24. I think both of us have been swaying toward defense since the end of last season. Especially after hearing what Ballard has said. Naturally we need to improve at every position that's possible. Ballard will mix it up with 9 picks. (maybe more if he trades down?)
  25. I like Simmons a lot, just not a fan of waiting a year. His off the field issue bothers me, but not enough to keep me from picking him (assuming his interview covered it well). While the injury itself is not a show stopper, it's much harder rehabbing a 300ish lb guy as opposed to someone leaner. And getting back in game shape takes longer. As for him at NG/DT, he officially played NG at MSU. He was moved around a lot though. Most project him to DT. He like Tillery can both be moved around the interior. Another thing that concerns me a bit, is how much of his success was because teams were focusing on Sweat. Whenever you have multiple high achieving guys in any unit, their play is raised because of others.
  26. I’ve been saying for months that the emphasis in the draft would be defense. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need more and better playmakers.
  27. My opinion is if T J Hockenson is there you take him and run regardless it being TE. He gives you line protection and a receiving threat. It's like drafting two positions in one.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...