YOUR GM
-
Posts
1,983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by YOUR GM
-
-
we are all colts fans an want our team to win, lets don't fight among ourselves, we all want the same thing, colts to win. we can disagree but when it goes as far as it can go , let it go, don't let pride keep us from being one together. go colts
Hey, thanks for trying...but coffee and I are lost causes. Lol ;)
-
I was really hoping to see the progress Adongo had made. This sucks
-
LOL. You are funny when you cry. I'm sorry I hurt your poor little feelings. As far as my reason for chiming i on this thread, mainly it was because it's a public forum that I have belonged to for years and I post often in threads that interest me.
Typical. Just the kind of response I expected. I usually agree with most of what you say, but constant need to throw insults into each of your debates really weakens every point you try to make. I mean, come on, really? "Crying?," "...Poor little feelings?" Is this your poor attempt at being a 'mean girl' or something?... Moving along
Again reading comprehension. And for the record just because Grigson has signed some free agents and made a couple of trades does not mean he chases any name that may be available.
He doesn't chase names, but the musical chairs act he's done every year with our 2nd receiver on the depth chart is very much in the mold of "signing a guy with a few years experience every year..." line you said.
I read what you said the first time. And you are wrong, at the time Richardson was signed, Ballard was already IR'd meaning Bradshaw was the starter. Which means the Colts had a starter with a known injury history, that is not the case with Thornton and Mewhort.You're grasping for straws. Ballard was the starter, he got hurt, we immediately looked to trade for another back. That had nothing to do with Bradshaw's injury history, and everything to do with us wanting to go with a committee of backs. That's just you trying to create a talking point, and you failed at it. If anything, it had more to do with their lack of faith (initially) in Donald Brown as a change of pace.
I was not aware that Avery, DHB and Nicks were the only players available when the Colts signed them. That is the only way you can try to claim that Grigson has done what you misunderstand about my post.
You should really just let that go, as it's clear we're arguing about nothing. But if you need to keep reiterating that i misunderstood your intention of the original post (which I acknowledged already) just to make the appearance of having anything of substance to say, by all means, continue grasping.
I understand the point about Luck and TY and others rookie contracts but it's still not a good idea to make bad decisions in the present in hopes it makes future decisions easier. And trading for and signing Boone would not make the future situation any easier. Ever since the salary cap, teams have been able to provide balanced teams even with high priced players. Nor, do I buy into the thought that the Colts are closer to getting to the SB with Boone that without Boone.
It's about balancing both. Acquiring Boone would not cripple our future, and he'd likely be a building block for it. You're realistically parting with a mid-round pick and giving him a starters contract. I don't agree, in principle, with the idea of parting with draft picks for veteran players, but this would be one of the few exceptions, as the offensive line needs to improve significantly, while still maintaining a good amount of depth. We're down Donald Thomas and Xavier Nixon already. We will likely have another significant injury along the line at some point as well. Joe Reitz and the big question mark that is Lance Louis is not enough for me to consider what we have quality depth behind our starters. Mewhort was intended to be a key backup this year, and I think bringing in another quality starter puts him back on schedule to be that, and makes our entire line stronger, overall.
Well that would be kind of hard to prove, since often times when that happens the player stays in that role as a solid back-up. But there are numerous examples that once a player got their chance they excelled which one could conclude that had they gotten their chance sooner they could have excelled sooner. One player that comes to mind is Alex Boone. Another one that comes to mind is Jeff Saturday. There are tons of examples like that in the NFL. Without knowing all the particulars of each situation I cannot prove anything. On the same token you cannot prove that sitting did not hinder their progress... because how much better could they have been? Or how much longer could they have been at their highest levels.
You're the one asserting that our young linemen can't develop without being starters, I gave examples of high draft picks who didn't start right away but still got minutes and eventually became quality offensive linemen after a spot opened up for them. The point is, it has been done before, so you really need to stop using the "stunted development" angle, because it has little merit. Will more playing time accelerate their development? Sure. Does that mean they're not developing at all if they're not thrown in as starters immediately? Absolutely not.
You, mistakenly, think I post here to become endeared by people. I come here because there are a handful of people that post interesting stuff that I like to read. You are usually one of the posters that I like to read Lastly, I really can't help it if you read my posts and assume I am coming from a superior position. But I will keep responding the same way I always do despite your pleas to go easy on you.
You sure you don't mean "inferiority?" Typically those who have to insult or belittle others constantly are doing so because they think little of themselves and have to put others down to feel special. If you really need an ego boost, I'd suggest buying a motorcycle, wearing muscle shirts, hitting the clubs again and dating a 20 something with nice "assets"
Or maybe you just really enjoy being a . Whatever floats your boat. It's been nice, see you around
-
Ok, drinker, you're a pretty articulate guy and can convey a message quite well (the "pompous, condescending p.rick" vibe you're trying to convey to me right now is coming across CRYSTAL clear, btw), so maybe you can explain to me what your point was when chiming in this thread with:
"Once again, I am glad the fans do not run the team. Fans always want to chase any name that may be available..." ?...It's pretty reasonable that someone might draw the conclusion that you were trying to say Grigson doesn't do this, seeing as how he IS the one running the team, and not the fans. Paired with your comments at the end of that post, it was enough for me to point out that you were incorrect. If that was not your intent, then we really have nothing further to talk about on the topic. I will address the points related directly to Boone, however:
Well you would be wrong. Neither Thornton or Mewhort have a history of injuries. In case that is too much for you to follow. Bradshaw was the starter... he had a history of injuries. Thornton and Mewhort are the starters... neither has a history of injuries.
Go back and read what I said. I said Mewhort's backup has a significant injury history (Louis), not Mewhort himself. And Bradshaw was not the starter last year, Ballard was until he got hurt... In case that's too much for you to follow
You really have a severe reading comprehension problem don't you? Situation is different, they were not traded for they were signed as FAs on cheap one year deals. Boone would have to be traded for and signing a new multi-year contract. But it was similar in that those signings caused problems for the team and it's a good example of why it's not good to do that very often.
How hard is it for you to differentiate between two totally different talking points? Avery, DHB and Nicks were not brought up to compare directly to the notion of bringing in Boone. It was in response to you saying we shouldn't trade or sign every player with a few years experience that comes along. Once again, this is a moot discussion now because if you agree Grigson has been guilty of such in the past, there's no point in arguing over something we both acknowledge as being true.
So, teams with QBs not on their rookie contracts don't make it to the SB? Outside of that, you are under the mistaken idea that the Colts don't have a strong oline this year and also that adding a player like Boone (whom I personally like as a guard) would be the difference between the Colts having a strong oline or not. I'm not convinced either is true.You're smarter than this (I hope...) New CBA, bigger contracts for QB's are coming in the future (they're already starting) and Luck will be at the forefront of that big payday. The way teams are being built is changing due to that fact. The Seahawks and Ravens, at the time of winning their respective superbowls had their QB's on cheaper deals. Once the Ravens paid Flacco, they pretty much had to gut their superbowl team. They lost some to retirement, but they simply let other key players walk, in order to sign him. That's the decision we will be dealing with in a few years, sorry to say
And if Boone were a center, I'd be all for it. I like Holmes but I'm not as sold on Harrison as many on this forum. I just think the Colts are pretty set at guard and would not like to see Mewhort or Thornton benched because I think both have the tools to become as good as Boone in a 3 or 4 years. But that will never happen if the Colts keep signing guards to be starters ahead of them.Show me proof that signing one veteran hinders the growth of a young offensive linemen, please? You can't. I've listed examples of 1st round left tackles being placed in a reserve role their rookie seasons, and they're now quality starters on pretty good offensive lines. The idea that Mewhort or Thornton can't develop because of Boone's presence is unfounded. As i've repeated several times now, Donald Thomas was slated to start anyways, meaning one of Mewhort or Thornton were going to be on the bench this season anyways, had Thomas not gotten hurt
Next time you'd like to clarify your statements or correct me for misrepresenting them, please do so without the excessive condescension. It's not very endearing, and just invites more condescension in response to it. Thanks
-
It wasn't meant to be a talking point. It's a legitimate concern, though. You can only do a pre-trade physical; you can't do any kind of conditioning tests, as far as I understand. So whether he's in football shape is pretty much impossible to determine before you get him on the field. And in any event, I would think he'd need 2-4 weeks of practice and conditioning before he's ready to actually compete. That's not a reason not to trade for him, but it is part of the cost.
Where this would be problematic is if he's entirely out of shape or dealing with some kind of injury that no one knows about because he hasn't worked with the team at all. That might show up on the physical and void the deal, but it might not.
Those are all fair points. I wasn't saying you'd work him out before the trade, though. I was saying you'd see what kind of shape he's in before the topic of an extension comes into play after you've traded for him. And yes, I agree that is a significant risk, parting with a mid round pick for someone you're not 100% sure is in peak condition. And if he were hiding an injury, I'm sure there would be clauses in place that would, like you said, void any trade or contract extension, you would at least hope
-
Oh, I see you want to point to every signing and say see. Good for you, you get a cookie.
Actually, no. I was just pointing out how you really don't have a point because the GM you're saying would never make such a trade or signing like the scenarios you mentioned is actually the GM MOST likely to do so. But thanks for the cookie, anyways
The only two that really would be similar to Boone would be Davis and Richardson because those were traded. The rest were FAs signed to one year deals, so it's not really the same.
This is the second half of what you said: "That is how you build a team, not by trading for or signing every guy with a couple of years experience that comes along."
That is actually exactly what Grigson has been doing ever since he's been here. The players I've listed that we've acquired is proof of such. Whether or not I philosophically agree with that method is another story, but the fact remains that you're inaccurate in trying to make the assertion that Grigson wouldn't make a move like this. He actually would, and the evidence is pretty clear proving so.
The Richardson situation isn't really similar either in that, the Colts had lost a RB for the season and the only other RB on the roster has a injury history. They were taking snaps away from a promising, younger players.
We've lost Donald Thomas for the year and behind his replacement is another pair of guards with their own injury histories. One of them hasn't played since 2012, in fact. I'd say the scenarios are pretty comparable
Avery and DHB kind of prove my point though, so thanks for bringing them up.
So wait a minute, are you disqualifying them as evidence or are you using them? Make up your mind, earlier you said their acquisitions were not the same.
Would the Colts record had been better if they had just let TY fill Wayne's role or did they suffer because they tried for 5 weeks to have DHB fill that role? Same with Avery, did they stunt the development of Hilton, Brazill and/or Whalen by giving those practice and game reps to Avery?
Davis is similar to the Boone suggestion and that has worked out pretty well. But even that is different in that the Colts had not spent 2, high round draft picks on the CB position before they traded for Davis like they have for the guard position.
You and I have pretty much the same view point regarding the receiver situation last season. Where we differ is, I'm not as eager to put as much youth on the field at the same time, when it comes to the offensive line. Particularly when we're likely gearing for a run at the title these next few years. Are you willing to deal with the growing pains that will come this year, potentially costing us a chance at the Lombardi, for MAYBE a more cohesive unit 2-3 years from now? By that time, Luck will be getting his mega contract, as will the rest of the 2012 class, and we likely won't be able to have as balanced a team as we're capable of having now. The window for our next title(s), I believe, is before Luck's rookie contract is up. Once he gets paid, things will get tricky. So why not win now, while you have all the horses, and are probably only a strong offensive line away from going deep into the playoffs?
-
We are obviously talking past each other at this point. I'll just leave it with we disagree, and it's obvious why from reading our previous posts.
Just to bring it back to the original topic, I don't think Alex Boone is the right fit for us, based on what he would likely cost. And I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether a guy who hasn't participated in any team activities is in football shape. I think that's a very valid question, and one any team that is interested in trading for him should concern themselves with.
If we did trade for him, I'd plug him right in at LG, assuming he's in shape. He'd probably pick up on the system in a short period of time, given that Harbaugh and Roman run an offense similar to what Pep brought from Stanford (Luck even spent time with Alex Smith prior to the 2011 system, during the lockout, helping him get up to speed on Harbaugh's offense). And he would probably be better than Jack Mewhort right now. Like you said, he'd be the replacement for Donald Thomas, and Mewhort would go back to his reserve role. I just don't think it's the right move for our team, again, based on what he would cost.
You're correct, we'll likely never see eye-to-eye on this topic, and that's fine. I'll leave with briefly addressing the bolded, though:
You're right in saying it's not unreasonable for any team to question whether he's in shape or not, and I'm sure any team looking to trade for him will have the common sense to do so. Just the same, I'd hope a guy planning to hold out for as long as Boone already has would have the common sense to train while he's waiting out a new contract, as showing up out of shape wouldn't help his cause any. I'm sure no team is going to extend him until they work him out first. My only point is, there have been no reports to suggest that he might be out of shape and to try and make that a talking point, without any knowledge of whether that is or isn't the case, is not something I'd consider a legitimate argument. And as I said, teams will do their due diligence before hand, so it really isn't an issue or a reason to have pause in possibly trading for him
-
Once again, I am glad the fans do not run the team. Fans always want to chase any name that may be available.
But I will throw this out there to ponder. The only way anyone knows that Boone is any good is because he had a chance to play, his coaches saw enough in him to give him a chance rather than signing or trading for another player that had more experience and more NFL film. That is what coaches do, they evaluate the talent and decide if they are good enough to get a shot or not. If they determine they are, then you have to let the player play and take the good and the bad as they gain experience.
That is how you build a team, not by trading for or signing every guy with a couple of years experience that comes along.
Trent Richardson, Vontae Davis, Donnie Avery, DHB, Hakeem NIcks. Maybe you should relay that memo to Grigson...
-
Wow, talk about "pot meet kettle." Not only did you misrepresent aspects of my last post, but you're also all over the place, even bringing previous discussions into the debate now
No, they're not building exclusively through the draft. But they'd obviously rather draft and develop young guys than trying to plug in a different veteran guy every year. (As an aside, you've been critical of adding veteran receivers instead of developing the younger receivers. This is the exact opposite argument from you. It's weird, especially considering that it's easier to work young receivers into the mix.)
It's not the same position, and no nowhere near as critical as any player on the offensive line. Pretty straight-forward to see why I'd rather roll with young receivers over a young offensive line. Andrew Luck's health being the biggest factor. Also, I am not against youth on the offensive line. What I am against his pushing youth to prove a point, and at the expense of potentially winning NOW. If Holmes and/or Mewhort can get the job done -- great. One or both of them will be the starters going forward... but why are they entitled to the starting spots? Because we drafted them? That's a silly reason to hand someone a starting job, in my opinion. Start the guy who is gonna win you the most games, regardless of where he came from
And the sticking point around these parts about Khaled Holmes was always "how can he possibly be ready after only 12 snaps?" And now you're saying that it's no problem to develop a young lineman, even if he sits on the bench all year. I don't think that's a good approach, especially with such short rookie deals. We obviously disagree there.
That's not what I said, at all. What I said is that young players can develop without being starters. That doesn't mean they're sitting on the bench all year. By that logic, why even bother drafting Mewhort, if he wasn't originally going to start this season anyways? Put your young guys in that 6th/7th linemen role, let them learn for a year or 2 and make them earn their starting position. Nate Solder and Riley Rieff are perfect examples. Both originally started out as extra linemen/blocking TE's and backup tackles during their rookie campaigns, then got worked in to the starting right tackle as the season progressed, then finally settled in on the position they were drafted to play the following season. Nothing was handed to them. They started out as rotational linemen and are now both starting left tackles. New England has had a dominant line for years and Detriot has fielded one of the better offensive lines the past few seasons
Viewing Boone as a replacement for Donald Thomas is a fair angle, when talking about roster composition. I hadn't thought about it that way. But there's still the issue of cost, both giving up a mid-round pick and, more than likely, signing him to a new multi-year deal. (Fair points about his holdout, but do you want to give up a mid-rounder for a guy who sits out until Week 11, then fusses through the entire offseason? To this point, Boone is the only player I know of to holdout this far into the preseason. It appears his angle is to force a trade so he can get the new deal he wants from another team.) This, for a player that hasn't participated in any team activities this offseason, who could be terribly out of shape, and now you'd be relying on him to start for you. I still think he's too costly, and not a good fit. I'd rather let Lance Louis and Jack Mewhort continue to share first team snaps in practice.
As you originally said, if we were to trade for him, one would assume a deal would be worked out fairly quickly. I don't see anyone trading for him unless they're willing to pay him, and certainly wouldn't trade for him if he were out of shape (You don't know if he is or isn't, so it's a little disingenuous to try and use that angle as if it's a viable talking point against acquiring him.) I'm not kicking and screaming if we don't go after him. My only stance is, inquiring about his availability is not unreasonable, and I wouldn't be mad if a trade was made for him, so long as no more than a 3rd rounder was the compensation.
Also, Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins both held out deep into the season a few years ago because they refused to sign their RFA tender, but ultimately folded for the very reason I stated earlier (Had to be on a roster for at least 6 games to be considered a full season)
Last thing, your suggestion of bringing in as much competition as possible is what I was alluding to when I said that too much competition can stunt the development of your young guys (whom you've spent considerable assets on). Another veteran would be fine, but going back to the offseason debate about another veteran lineman to compete for a starting spot, I think there's a certain mix you want in order to both promote competition and continue to get meaningful work for the young guys. At this point, for the Colts, adding a veteran lineman at any position isn't a bad idea. But someone like Boone would be your defacto starter, and I don't think that's what we need right now.
Once again, if Donald Thomas was the intended starter going into the season, how does adding another (better) starting caliber guard change how Mewhort/Thornton are developed in comparison to if Thomas never got hurt?...
And what you're saying is the extreme of what I suggested. I've always said I wanted ONE more quality veteran guard to add to the mix, not 3 or 4 aging, costly veterans that would stunt the young players growth all together. I'd argue that one high caliber guard would actually accelerate their development, based off the simple fact that they'd be learning from a talented veteran. That goes double for Holmes, who would benefit the most from dominant guard play next to him
-
What interesting is that I only decided to fully articulate my position because I was tired of having it misrepresented in so many different ways.
Just to respond to a couple of your points:
1) Boone's holdout is already different from most in league history, in that he's already forgoing money. His is the first protracted holdout under the new CBA. It's a roll of the dice, at the very least, and it doesn't really make sense to trade for him unless you're willing to give him the contract he wants.
2) We have veteran linemen on the roster already, who are both competing and are capable of stepping in if necessary. The problem is that you don't like the guys we have.
3) Regarding Khaled Holmes, the argument has never been he was ready to start this year (and you never would have accepted that argument anyways). The argument was that he was drafted to be the eventual starter, and at some point you have to give him that opportunity.
And this is kind of the sticking point in this discussion that we've been having in one form or another since March. You don't like the strategy being employed. I see and believe in its merits more than you do, and as such, don't see bringing in someone like Alex Boone as a reasonable investment for our team.
My apologies if you feel I misrepresented what you've said in this thread. As for your points:
1. Boone's holdout is not unique, in the sense that the outcome will be the same as all the others. If he isn't on a team for at least six games in the regular season, it won't count as full season of service accrued under his current contract. Meaning, he'd be shooting himself in the foot even more, having inadvertently extended a contract by an extra year that he wishes to get out of. Not to mention, if he holds out the entire season, it would cost him 4.5 million in total. I don't know what the figure is up to as of right now, but I know he's losing 30,000 a day. But I do agree that the most likely scenario would be an immediate extension if he were traded here.
2. It has nothing to do with who I do and do not like. I choose to deal in realism, not look at everything with rose-tinted glasses. Lance Louis hasn't played since 2012 and Joe Reitz seems to always be nicked as well (and can't get on the field even when he isn't hurt, for some reason.) That is about the extent of our veteran depth, at the moment. These guys are not challenging anyone for a starting job. Any good offensive line unit has one backup on the roster fully capable of unseating one of the starters, because the talent gap isn't that huge. We have guys with the potential to be quality backups, but they also happen to be gimps, which isn't good when you're already down 2 starters and one backup.
3. You're missing my point. What i'm saying is, if Holmes turns out to be a quality player early on, the very fact that he is disproves your notion that young players need starters minutes in order to develop at all -- He had 12 snaps last year, none of them as a starter, or even at the position he is currently playing.
I don't believe Grigson and Pagano are building the line through the draft, exclusively. They signed Cherilus and Thomas as free agents for significant coin just a year ago. Alex Boone is a young, high quality, veteran guard who would very much fit in the mold of what Grigson and Pagano are looking for in an interior linemen. Your problem is, you believe that obtaining more young talent at a position you've recently drafted for is somehow admitting that a mistake was made or that those players won't be given a chance to compete. Nobody knows if a pick will pan out, so bringing in as much competition as possible is not a bad idea. I'm not saying go out and load up on a bunch of high priced veterans, but given our current position (3 starters with a combined one season and 12 snaps experience, and 2 gimpy backup veterans), bringing in one young, veteran who is a proven commodity is not going to stunt the growth of our young players. He'd essentially be taking Donald Thomas' spot, so how would acquiring him change our dynamic any? If anything, Boone's arrival would mean a sure departure for Thomas and probably a few other vets at the end of the season. I can live with that, as Thomas was under contract for 2 more years, anyways
-
Supes, I generally either avoid getting into debates with you all together or just stop responding after awhile because you tend to oversaturate your point by being a little long winded at times. So I find it particularly amusing that you're the one telling me I'm talking about "so many things." That being said, I'm relaxing today and have nothing better to do, so I'll try to answer the best I can
You are talking about so many different things, and are projecting several viewpoints that I do not agree with.
1) Boone hasn't shown up for work. The presumption is that he is not going to show up for work until he gets a new contract, which is why the Niners are reportedly interested in trading him. Or you can trade for him and try to sweet talk him into coming to work, despite having zero rapport with him. Again, the presumption is that any team that trades for him is going to be working a new deal with him.
Boone is not the first player in the history of the league to not show up for work because of a contract dispute, and I'm sure if you check the history books, the vast majority of players that did so, eventually caved once they realized the checks weren't coming in anymore. Boone is no different, and as I said, he has no leverage, regardless of where he plays next year. The Niners situation and our situation are polar opposites. The Niners have an established line with great depth and don't really need to deal with the headache of a contract dispute with, realistically, their 3 or 4th best starting linemen on the team. Point being, they can afford to shop him.
Now look at our situation. We're comprised of linemen who are all either lacking experience, trying to overcome serious injuries and/or are nothing more than decent players at the moment. We need quality starters and depth, and Boone could potentially bring both.
2) Even if you can get him in the building without a new contract, Boone has two years left on his current deal. You don't let him walk after the season if he doesn't work out. Either you cut him (wasting a mid-round pick), or you deal with another protracted holdout (his base salary in 2015 is lower than it is in 2014).
It is very clear that we are in "win-now" mode, and given the injuries we have already faced along the line, it is not a poor investment to take a flier on a pro bowl caliber player who wants to get paid. If he, indeed, is worth what he's asking, why wouldn't we pay the man after trading for him? Even if it spills over into next season, he still has no leverage and there would be no need to cut him. This year would be the "prove it" year, and if doesn't prove to be worth what he's asking, let him walk in 2 season. I don't think he has much of a chance to get paid in San Fran, whereas, if he were brought in to our organization, should he perform at a high level, he would get paid.
3) Yes, starter money is eventually going to be paid to some of the guys on the offensive line. Why rush to do so if you think you have young guys who can handle the job? You are looking at cap space as a year-to-year proposition, and that's a mistake. You can roll over cap space, so what you spend today affects what you can spend tomorrow. So if you have guys still on their rookie contracts who are doing a satisfactory job -- and how can you know if you don't give them a chance to perform? -- you are getting a very favorable cost-benefit from them. That is better for the team's long-term prospects than spending starter's money on a position where you might not even have to (if your young guys can play).
Why rush, you ask? I ask why prolong developing a talented, cohesive unit for THIS year? Let's ignore the fact that even if Boone gets paid, it will not be anywhere near the cap busting contract you're trying to make it out to be. He's not getting left tackle money, so let's calm down a little.. Even if he did get that kind of money, I would trade away cap flexibility 2 years from now for a better shot at the Lombardi this year, in a micro-second. And if we're making that kind of trade, we're presuming he's going to make that kind of impact
4) The starter's money that you eventually spend will be on guys that have been in your system, and it will be after you've gotten 3-4 years of rookie contract cost-benefit from them. That's different from trading for a veteran who wants starter's money now. Better or worse? That's undetermined in the present, but it is very different, and there's no debating that.
You're right, we don't know how Boone would perform here, but we at least have a greater sample size to look from with him than we do our current starters. He is a potential young building block on any offensive line, and it would be silly to pass up acquiring a known commodity for something you're hoping is "satisfactory"
5) If you don't give your young guys a chance to start now, then when are you going to give them a chance to start? You only have them for 4 years on their rookie contracts. If you bring in Boone, he's your starter, assuming health, for the next two or three seasons. When do you develop the young guy he's supplanting in the lineup?
Last time I checked, Alex Boone was only one person. There are 5 positions on the offensive line -- two of them are guards. Boone would, presumably, take ONE of those starting positions. Am I missing something here? If Alex Boone is flat out better than Hugh Thornton, I don't care about stunting Thornton's growth, as he's likely not going to be one of my starters in the future, anyways. Boone is only 28 years old. He still has (assuming good health) at least as many years of quality play in the tank that Thornton or Mewhort have on their respective contracts. Beyond that, I don't understand why you somehow feel players can't develop unless they start. I wish you would further explain that assertion, because it is historically inaccurate. And by that same logic, how could anyone assert that Khaled Holmes was ready to play going into this year, with his whopping 12 snaps last season? Did we stunt his growth not playing him as well?....
6) Regarding competition, there is such a thing as overcrowding any given position. Bringing in cheap veterans / journeyman is different than having established veteran starters and first and second year players. If you are so flush with established veteran starters that your young guys never get meaningful playing time, then there's no sense in having the young players in the first place. You aren't developing them, nor are you taking advantage of their cheap rookie contracts. I don't think bringing in Boone would necessarily make the line overcrowded; I'm only saying that competition and development only exist when you're actually putting the young players on the field.
Can you honestly say with a straight face that we have an overabundance of depth and talent on our offensive line right now? I assert that competition is exactly what is needed on this line, more than anything. Who are we counting on if Thornton and/or Mewhort go down? We've already lost Thomas for the year and Holmes for a month. Behind them we have a bunch of serviceable at best players with their own injury red flags. I'm willing to stunt the growth of Thornton or Mewhort for a year if it means we'll be deeper this year. Mewhort was the intended 6th linemen going into the season anyways
7) Along those lines, we're talking about OL. Not DL, where you rotate players; not LB, where different players take the field in different situations; not the secondary where you play 6 or 7 guys every game; not RB or WR; not a position where your young guys will actually contribute on special teams... Reserve offensive linemen don't play unless there are injuries. They don't get brought along slowly, they don't get first team snaps, they don't get playing time against real opponents. They pretty much just sit there, until you have to throw them in the fire. Bringing in an established veteran starter would not promote competition. It would stunt the development of at least one of your young guys.
You don't acquire depth on the offensive line for rotational purposes, you acquire it in the event that you lose multiple starters at the same time, so that the level of production doesn't drop as much when they're not there. That scenario sound familiar to you?
Bringing in an established veteran makes us better this year and going forward by virtue of the fact that that's at least one extra player on the roster that you could realistically throw in to start, if you had to. Not to mention the fact that he might actually be better than the player you're trying to develop will ever be. If Thornton or Mewhort's ceiling isn't equal to Boone's current level of production (and I'm not saying that's the case), why would you care about developing them to take his spot when he's still relatively young himself?
Taking all those things into consideration, along with the cost of acquiring him, I don't think Boone is the right fit for our team right now. If we need veteran depth at all, it's at tackle and center, not guard, IMO (Boone played tackle earlier in his career, but since 2012 has been a guard exclusively). If you do bring in a veteran guard, you bring in a low cost, short term guy, who can step in in a pinch, and we already have Lance Louis and Joe Reitz, both of whom played well in the first preseason game. You don't give up a mid-round draft pick for an established veteran who wants a starter's level contract just to come to work, and who may or may not be in football shape. Boone just doesn't make sense for the Colts, IMO.
What's the point in acquiring all of these multi-position players if you're not willing to put them in when the injury bug hits? Mewhort is a G/C, Reitz is a G/T. If you bring in another guard, that makes Reitz a viable option as backup tackle and/or Mewhort an option as backup center. We need quality linemen, regardless of position. Boone is a quality guard, and bringing him in for a 3rd rounder for a year to prove he's worth the money he wants would be a sensible investment, IMO
-
It's not sticking with your picks. It's giving your picks a chance to perform, in which case, you increase your odds of getting maximum value from them over the short life of their rookie contracts.
You don't bring Boone in and let him walk when his contract is up. You bring Boone in and give him a new contract; that's the only way he shows up to work. So now you've given him starter's money and years, and that makes no sense unless you're putting him in the starting lineup. Not to mention surrendering a mid-round pick for him.
What you're calling competition is actually undercutting your young players. And that's fine, if you don't believe in their ability to get the job done and want to bring in someone that you think is better. But Boone isn't going anywhere to compete for a starting job. If we brought him in, he'd be a defacto starter, so long as he's healthy and in shape.
Boone has no leverage with the Niners or with any potential trade suitors. He will show up for work, eventually, whether with the Niners or not. He's in no position not to. And of course if you trade for a guy with a proven track record, and give up a 3rd rounder for him, you're going to start him to see if he's an improvement over anything we have. If he isn't, fine. Experiment failed -- let him walk after the season. If he is, keep him as a starter, pay him and have your recent draft picks as added depth. Starter money is going to be handed to the offensive line eventually, regardless of who is and isn't retained from the 2012 draft class, and regardless of who it is that would be getting a lucrative contract on our line. Boone getting a new contract (or anyone, for that matter) and the 2012 draft class being retained are not synonymous, at all. We're gonna have to spend money on the line anyways.
Also, our guys are rookies and second year players -- why do you somehow equate that if they're not handed a starting job right off the bat, they're not being given a chance to show anything? They have the duration of their rookie contracts to unseat someone, and if they're outperforming competition in practice, they SHOULD be seeing the field, regardless of what is invested where. We need to stop making decisions with our pocket book and just go with who can win us more games
-
Not a sensible move for us, IMO. He wants a starter's contract, probably top ten guard money for 4-5 years. No one knows what shape he's in, because he hasn't participated in the Niners offseason program. The Niners probably want at least a third rounder for him.
The Colts have put a lot of trust in their young guards, and anticipate that they will be the starters in the future, and for several years. I could see starting Boone over Mewhort, but it's hard to know whether the guy is actually ready to play, or how long he'll need to get ready, and with that kind of uncertainty, it's hard to project him as a better option right now.
If there's any spot we need a reserve at, it's tackle or center. Reitz looked good on Thursday, but Nixon is down for about a month, John is on IR, and Hall looked terrible. Holmes is now hurt for probably a month, and we're down to two rookies and a scrub reserve that can't make anyone's final roster, and was a free agent two days ago. Boone is a guard. He played some tackle earlier in his career, but never center. Good player, but not the right fit for us right now, and too expensive.
I don't agree with the logic of sticking with your picks, come hell or high water. It's the GM's job to assemble talent on the roster. It's the players jobs to earn their spots and contracts after they are brought in, and it's the coaches jobs to recognize who deserves what jobs. If Mewhort or Thornton can't beat Boone out for either one of the starting guard spots, they weren't meant to be our starters. If Boone is brought in for a 3rd rounder and doesn't beat either of our young players for the starting job, let him walk once his contract is up, if he's asking for too much. I could live with gambling a 3rd rounder on him if he's shown quality starter ability in recent history (which he has)
The idea of handing players jobs does nothing but breed complacency. If your picks are as good as you think they are, you shouldn't be afraid to give them some competition. We don't have a single linemen on our roster right now that is absolutely above being challenged for a starters spot, in my opinion. Only elite players should get that kind of treatment
-
Why you would even post that in the first place is beyond my understanding...
Based off of our brief encounter in this thread, i'd say that wouldn't be much of a voyage to reach
Let it go, guy. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, basically saying (in a sarcastic manner) that our linemen are getting hurt so often, that I'd rather play the remaining preseason games without them on the field, to preserve their health. If you couldn't comprehend the facetious nature of my post (based off the sheer absurdity of what I suggested) that really is YOUR hang up, not mine
-
You tell me.
Case closed.
I ask if you were joking, only to emphasize how ridiculous your response was. If you can't tell I was obviously being facetious when I "suggest" we go into an actual game (preseason or not) without any offensive linemen on the field, without me using an emoticon, the problem might lie more within your interpretation skills than my posting style. Just sayin
-
Typically, if one is not serious, they preface their post with an emoticon or other signifiers such as a j/k, or /sarcasm etc.
Yes, it is up to you to not use those, if you so choose. But without the ability to see your body language and hear the tone and inflection of your voice, it is vastly more difficult to infer if one is joking around or not. To be sure, I was not positive whether you were or were not. Nonetheless, I decided top point out what I did if for no reason that maybe there is at least one person out there who might think that or something similar was a good idea to implement.
........
You're joking, right?
-
Nice thought, but would draw an illegal formation flag every play.
I wasn't being serious
-
Throw Hasselbeck out there with 5 receivers and no linemen, just so we can get through god**** preseason, for cryin out loud
-
Holmes was playing well before the injury. That's what makes this even more frustrating
-
-
Somebody has put a voodoo curse on the Colts, I'm convinced
-
Man, i can't wait to watch this again on Game Rewind just to watch his play, specifically. I was focusing more on the O and D line's play from what I watched last night
-
He'll probably do better in a zone scheme which, if Bill Lazor is truly running a Chip Kelly style offense, the Dolphins will be using. Satele is not a very good football player but I have no idea why our staff tried to fit him in a power scheme. His lack of strength has always been his weak point. His failures here were just as much the fault of poor utilization as it was his inability to block, or even attempt to.... Ok, so it was mostly because of the latter, but my point still stands
-
I like the sound of this very much. We should be able to put up numbers bordering on elite this year on offense... IF we stay healthy and this offensive line experiment actually works
Montori Hughes...bust?
in Colts Football
Posted
He was raw coming out of college and an obvious project player, IMO. Why would you give up on him after one season? The guy can move for a big man, and even though he was a 5th rounder, we did move up to get him, which means Grigson and the coaches obviously saw something in his game that they coveted (to a degree)