Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by OffensivelyPC

  1. He does have a point about the oversaturation of the game. But where I think his point loses me is that, unlike basketball, there's one game per team per week (on average) for 16 weeks. Basketball has 3-4 games per team per week for 24 weeks. Even the playoffs get more dragged out to about 2 weeks per series if it goes 7 games making the entire playoff run last 2 months (where as the NFL playoffs is about a month, including the pro bowl). For the hardcore fans, 3 days of games a week I don't think is too much, even the hardcore basketball fans do that. But what the NBA does, that the NFL
  2. Because he saw all sorts of playing time for us (out of necessity) and then on the Chargers, he registered 2 tackles and only played in a handful of games before he got hurt. I mean, I don't know how that would have played out in the formula, but I'm sure that was the primary reason.
  3. That makes the most sense, especially since they awarded 32 picks this year.
  4. Yeah, I get whaty ou're saying, and to be honest, your assessment makes more sense than what I had going on in my head. But I think we both agree that arbitrary awards aren't exactly common sense in this situation. Of course, I would like it a lot more if we got an extra 3rd and 4th round pick occasionally.
  5. I'm not sure of the reasoning either. Just an agreement between the owners to have them. It almost seems to penalize teams for drafting well and not being able to keep all their players.
  6. Seems to me that this move by the Texans means they'll be taking Clowney, Watkins, or Mack with the first pick (or even trading down a few spots). They have at least an average QB who can start while they groom a QB. At the very least, they have given other teams a reason to reconsider what the Texans will take, potentially increasing the costs of trading up. Smart move on the Texans end.
  7. Yeah, I doubt that will ever happen. But I'm with you, I would love to know the formula. With as much scrutiny the NFL already gets, this would get destroyed by the media for any inconsistencies because it will be inherently subjective. Which I find funny because the NFL rejects Total QBR for the same reason.
  8. Mods should merge with http://forums.colts.com/topic/27661-compensatory-picks-awarded/
  9. SF lost the S to Bucs, forget his name. Pitt lost Mike Wallace.
  10. No, i'ts a formula they use, based on how many players you lost and the value of those players - things like salary, playing time, post season honors are calculated. Nothing to do with how many picks they already have as far as I know.
  11. Mods feel free to modify the title, since it comes across as that we got a pick. Should have read, "Compensatory Picks Awarded." Couldn't edit the title.
  12. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24499306/nfl-gives-out-32-compensatory-picks-ravens-jets-lead-with-four Colts get none. Jets and Ravens get 4 each. Not the best year to not get any compensatory picks.
  13. I'm not a huge fan of draftek for several reasons, but the biggest reason is that they always seem to force picks to fit the needs instead of sometimes just taking the best player. And I'm not saying they are reaching by my standards, but they are reaching by their own standards. On a scale of 1-9, 1 being the biggest need, we decided to reach 40 spots (which means, by their standards, we voluntarily made our 2nd round pick a 3rd in nature) for a CB, judged to be a "3 need" instead of going to the next biggest need, a "4 need" and taking the best player available, which would have been Dav
  14. I tried, it, didn't really see the appeal in it. It doesn't accomplish anything any easier than just simply using the mobile website for these forums. Better off saving the space and just using my mobile web if a compy isn't handy.
  15. It wasn't reported a ton, but there were some scouts that had anonymously cited Griffin as selfish. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/148026515.html And what DefJamz is reporting about is rumored to some extent (i.e. the rumor that he asked the coach not to review his bad film in front of teammates http://thebiglead.com/2013/11/24/mike-silver-rgiii-asked-the-redskins-not-to-show-his-bad-plays-in-film-study/). Take it for what it's worth, I don't know why any player would ever ask to not review the bad film, but I could also see why a coach with his job on the line and trade bait (eith
  16. That's really a terrible analogy. I get the point you were trying to make, but cheating is an outright betrayal. A bad business move is simply just a mistake, the blame of which would fall on not only Grigson, but of several other high ranking members of the business. There may have been some dissent, but Grigson wouldn't (and most likely couldn't) make unilaterally.
  17. This situation kinda reminds me a little bit of the Brian Bosworth draft pick. I was too young to remember it, but I've read about it and seen some of the old footage of games and interviews. Dude arrived for his first practice in a helicopter if that tells you anything. While he encouraged it (and Clowney hasn't at least to the same extent), the Boz couldn't possibly live up to the hype unless he came into the NFL and dominated everyone. This is typically the hype that surrounds only QBs. And like QBs, the expectations are unreasonable.
  18. Whether we're talking "safest," "bust," or "upside," the draft is a crap shoot. Clowney's upside is tremendous no doubt, but the one thing that can make his upside absolutely meaningless is lack of effort, and that's the red flag on him.
  19. Better in zone and off man , but needs some work at press. The scouting reports say that he has excellent run support, but of the film I saw, I thought he was pretty average in that aspect. Also thought he was a below average tackler, but again, only saw one game. Has the physical ability to be a solid corner at the NFL level. I wouldn't take him in the second, and my gut is that he'll get taken by a team who runs a more zone before he ever gets to the 90th.
  20. Yeah, that would be the "fairer" trade. I'd still push for the earlier one.
  21. I'm all for trading back. It also depends on other trades made after the draft starts. Suffice it to say, moving back isn't a bad idea, but in your scenario, I wouldn't do it unless Jax/Cle gave up their earliest 3rd round and 4th round selections to move up. Otherwise, I say keep the 59th pick to ourselves.
  22. And that makes a lot of sense. I'm not in the group of those that are "need to know." So I am obviously only speculating as to the handful of people who are pulling strings. I just know that there's a handful of guys who do pull the strings and everone else is an informant - whether they are a scout or liar (i.e. a different team's scout). It could be the OC and DC - that would make a lot of sense as well. But if there's one thing that has been made obvious to me, it's that, out of the list of guys that we've worked out, a good portion of that is cloak and dagger moves. And to me, it mak
  23. So why don't we do a rounds 4-7? If someone wants to based off this draft right now, I'm game. I can at least make it a couple of rounds.
  24. oh I'm not saying it happens often, I'm just saying it HAS happened when I've played...and I didnt' even draft him on that particular occasion.
  25. I'm kinda torn on him as well. To me, he's a tweener that just doesn't really excel at any one thing. Guess that's what makes him a tweener. That being said, he's draftable, I just think there will be better players available at the 3rd that will be able to contribute more sooner. If we absolutely must take a DE/OLB type of tweener prospect, instead of Lawrence in the 3rd, I think I'd rather wait until the 5th and see if someone like James Gayle or Prince Shembo falls.
  • Create New...