ColtStrong2013
-
Posts
4,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ColtStrong2013
-
-
4 hours ago, richard pallo said:
If the Rams did offer him a contract making him the highest paid defensive player ever and he turned it down then I can see Ballard staying away. I don't see Ballard going overboard on the that one. Although that said there is no guarantee next years draft is going to get us a major talent on the DL. Especially since I don't see us drafting that high again. Donald and Mack are proven young major talent. Now if Mack would be receptive to being the highest paid defensive player and the Raiders are receptive to a trade then it's a discussion worth having. We haven't had a major talent on defense since Freeney in his prime. Either player would elevate our defense in a major way. I can see Ballard paying if he feels the player is worth it but not going overboard.
Mistakenly quoted this rather than another... sorry pallo
-
1 hour ago, The Peytonator said:
It came out yesterday that Aaron Donald is looking for elite QB money. The Rams have supposedly offered the highest contract for a defensive player ever, and he’s turning it down. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a generational talent, but he is not worth that kind of money. So not only would we have to trade multiple first round picks, we’d also have to break the bank to keep him otherwise risk these lengthy holdouts that he’s done two years straight. I wouldn’t want the headache that he or Bell are causing their respective teams.
He's not worth that kind of money to a smart cap-minded team... but he may be to a small market team needing the boost he will deliver. Teams do stupid things when they are desperate. Ballard will not, unless he sees that he is worthy and the team needs the defensive line boost. Even with a God-awful season on the defensive line this season, I still would anticipate him to address it in next years draft, where defensive tackle is top heavy... And I happen to think the new scheme / rotating several quality players will be much improved compared to years past for us, so I would be dumbfounded if he tried to pull something. He values the draft too much to give top picks away for a position he may draft next year on a cheap contract (comparatively) anyways.
-
2 hours ago, richard pallo said:
I agree. That's why I don't think our pick is going to be a top 10 pick but they might think so and would like to have it. The Jets on the other hand could have a top 10 pick and we would have their 2nd.
Trading players for picks preseason, or even early to mid-season is a gamble... some are willing to take a chance, some are not. If they are looking to unload those guys, they might not care much to where the picks might end up as long as they are getting what they are asking.
-
50 minutes ago, richard pallo said:
I would take Donald over Mack and give them our 1st and 2nd. this year. The consensus on the street is we will not be good this year so they might really want those picks. We already have the Jets 2nd. so it's not like we are not picking in the 1st. two rounds. There is even a chance we trade Brisett for a high rd. pick. We have already received a couple of offers for him. So it's not out of the question. If Luck gets through the season and our line looks good we could be okay with an older veteran backup again.
The consensus from the media... Front offices throughout the league might not take that bet with what could be an offense with #12 that puts up 30+ a game...
-
2 hours ago, K-148 said:
Sure, Donald is a better 3-tech than Aultry or Lewis. But let's get Luke Kuechly!
Donald is the better pick over Mack, because I think Sheard is solid and will be even better in his natural position... and Basham, Turay combo could be real good in time.
But. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We need a strong Mike backer in this organization. Walker could be that guy. But we need it.
-
2 hours ago, Jeremy Waldon said:
I think alot of ppl outside the colts base, dont realize and see the work ethic and determination to be the best for his teammates that luck has, and it spreads to the whole team. Listen to the interviews with the Oline they want to punish players for getting close to luck or any player on OFF, this group of players has the biggest chip i can ever remember a Colts team having.
I beleive they will go out to prove themselves, and make the fan base rally once again to support an annual SB contender, our teams future is on the right path
Defensively, we will find out, with the change of scheme and the first and second year players, how far off we are. It might take another year or two offseasons to really build on the defense... it might not be that far off at all. You watch how the superbowl went last year, and most defenses would have struggled to keep those offenses contained. If this offense moves like it should be capable this year, we won't be far off. If the defense can disrupt through a better pass rush and forcing more turnovers (which is what this defense is supposed to do) then we will be very competitive this season, and contenders going into next with another good offseason. We will find out very soon.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
You're right! On all counts! Let's run a QB sneak every doggone play!
------>>>
<<<-------
I see you Jesus
-
6 minutes ago, Superman said:
That there's a connection between Luck and Manning does not in any way mean that Luck's career has to mimic Manning's. So far, it has not. And their playing styles aren't really that similar. Luck is more Elway than Manning.
The bolded is patently false. Like I said, you're misrepresenting my stance (and then hiding behind the sarcasm tag, which is annoying).
I don't disagree that the QB sneak is efficient. I think you are overstating how much more efficient it is compared to other short yardage run plays, and you're understating the potential for injury with our surgically repaired QB.
I said earlier, we both have a line we don't think should be crossed with regard to QB sneak. You don't want it on the goal line -- because you think it's dangerous, even though you think it's very efficient. I just don't think Luck should run it this season, until we know he's completely past his injury and recovery -- because I think it's dangerous.
The only reason this discussion has become so combative is because of your sarcasm. In substance, our opinions aren't that far from one another.
I apologize for my annoying sarcasm.
We are colts fans. We cannot be too far off in opinion.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:
I've always felt more acute...
1 minute ago, J@son said:You do understand that sarcasm is much easier to get across when talking to someone instead of in written text, right? And if you look around the forum, there are plenty of posts that are legitimately...."out there", so it can be difficult to distinguish between those posts and those where someone was attempting to be sarcastic. Just something to consider.
I'm learning.
-
I look at this as much more positive on the offensive end than negative on the defensive.
Frank Reich is a great offensive mind that likes to exploit mismatches. This is great for this training camp... It's boosting the offense, but also teaching the young defense some things. Hooker and Geathers will help with any mismatches that sre really being exploited right now. And these young defensive backs are having to figure it out. I hope we can play fast on defense and learn to disrupt the game a bit. If we can over the course of the season, this team will get a lot of offensive possessions which can really wreck some teams. This offense can be more explosive than we have seen thus far with Luck and company.
-
2 minutes ago, J@son said:
just gonna leave this right here for you then:
This forum is really poor at sarcasm.
I think Supermans post stating that I was obtuse is a touch more condescending than me saying he must be fun to talk with at home, but i digress.
Enough qb sneak talk for my lifetime.
-
8 minutes ago, Superman said:
What does Peyton Manning have to do with Andrew Luck? When has Luck (or anyone else, for that matter) ever operated with the level of autonomy that Manning had? Manning didn't suggest or demand plays, he called plays. Andrew Luck doesn't operate the way Manning did.
And when did Manning miss a season with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder?
And at the end of the day, if the head coach and architect of the offense says 'we're not putting QB sneak in the playbook for now,' that's the end of the discussion. Doesn't matter how much green light the QB has, the buck stops with the head coach. I'm willing to bet that Andrew Luck isn't nearly as devoted to The Church of the QB Sneak as you seem to be.
The problem with this discussion is that you're either purposely misrepresenting my stance, or you're just being obtuse.
Franchise quarterback that caused the organization to send Peyton his walking papers has a lot to do with the two. There has never been a college qb coming out that is so similar. Perhaps you are misrepresenting my stance? I'm not obtuse in regard to your stance. I fully understand. You disagree with mine, and have proceeded to disagree with everything I have posted on this forum since stating that the qb sneak is efficient and that we shouldn't shy away from it this season in the proper situation. I maintain my stance.
-
6 minutes ago, J@son said:
are you this condescending in discussions at home?
Always.
-
34 minutes ago, Superman said:
I love posts like this. You're ignoring the need to balance priorities, and now you've dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck is going to demand that a specific play is called?
I also love the strawman fallacy. Everyone knows there's a huge difference between a timeshare running back and a franchise QB.
"Dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck demand a specific play" OH MY GOD. How dare I for even thinking of such a thing...
Do you watch professional sports? Do you remember Peyton Manning by chance? The man who didn't have to demand a playcall, but only suggest one... These franchise players have the green light a hell of a lot more than you think they do, which is apparently not at all...
My post about Mack was simply sarcasm. Congrats to you for taking it another level and indicating a fallacy where one doesn't exist. Are you this much fun in discussions at home?
-
54 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
OK
Or get him re-injured.
There will still be broken plays. Luck was injured (shoulder) being pursued and pushed from behind on a rollout throw by Luck vs. Titans. That has been a big problem ever since. His scramble /run vs. the Broncos was cause of Kidney laceration.
True, but not without risk. Coaches don’t want any player on the ground. There is good reason, injury wise, whether they hav the ball or not.
That’s key, he must be smarter. Sometimes it means giving up on a play to live to play another down, or going to the ground before he reaches the goal/first down line to prevent getting leveled by a defender. But I don’t want his playmaking stifled either, just less reckless (unless in playoff, championship, or SB games)
I dont think Frank Reich will be reckless in his playcalling... He's a quarterback, and understands the spots he wants Andrew in. I think there could be several key playoff implication games this season, and I hope we would treat them as such in this regard.
-
I'm really intrigued by this team this season. I havent been excited like this for a while. Expectations are so low from the media, and I think most of us agree that this team should win 7 or 8 games with a healthy Andrew Luck.
What intrigues me most is this could be the year to spark the next ____ consecutive seasons of success. A lot of youth that will hit the field this year. Rookie's and Sophomore's alike. That is scary for a lot of times... but perfect for this season's Colts.
To stay on point, my grade for the scouting from a draft perspective is an A this early on. I have no doubt this years draft was very solid and will produce great football players. Last years draft is what I will be paying attention to most this season. That's where the difference is going to be going into next season. Hooker, Wilson, Basham, Mack, Hairston, Stewart, Walker... that crew is as important as any going forward.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
you cant tell a qb like luck not to scramble, even peyton manning made a big run for a a first down in his last game against the patriots. i dont think they called many qb sneaks that last year while he was nursing injuries though
Andrew luck is going to make plays, whatever it takes... he will also be a smarter quarterback and not take the shots that he has in the past.
-
1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:
I understand the concern...obviously..
..but we need to start thinking of Luck as the guy he was.
I wouldnt have him back returning punts but I'd let him do anything he did before last season.
He's going to take some hard hits.....but he's got to run and get down if its open. QB sneak. Sure. Bootleg at the goal line. I would
......I dont want him to be 'careful'
Andrew was best when he rolled out of a broken play and extended them. TY was also best. The problem with them was it happened all too often. I don't want to get away from those plays as they can still win us a lot of football games... but many Colts fans want to protect him at all costs. Those costs can pretty great with serious limitations of a once in a generation qb. The guy is chomping at the bit to play football because he's been forced to watch for so long... Unleash him and protect him by calling better/quicker plays, being more prepared, and utilizing a much improved offensive line.
That doesn't mean never calling quarterback sneaks when they make 100% sense, or not allowing him to scramble...
-
1
-
-
Guys I guess we should just sit Marlon Mack this season, you know, since he'll be taking shots to his surgically repaired shoulder and all...
-
17 minutes ago, Superman said:
QB sneak on the goal line, he goes over the top, and still gets crushed by multiple defenders. First contact looks like it's to right shoulder.
This is totally safe...
Like I said, I'm not against QB sneak, and I'm not saying the Colts should never run it. I just wouldn't put Luck in that position right now.
Luck demands a qb sneak to extend a drive in a game where the offense is clicking, and you are going to tell him no... ok
Thank God Frank Reich is head coach. Colts fans won't know what they are watching when some risks pay off this season.
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
I believe we can do all of that without relying on QB sneak, especially to the extent you're suggesting it should be run.
I'm not disputing the effectiveness of QB sneak. I do think you're overstating its advantage over other high percentage short yardage plays.
I'm still looking for these QB sneaks anywhere on the field that don't result in multiple offensive and defensive players landing on top of the QB.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrimySickBullfrog-max-1mb.gif
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FatDelightfulJabiru-max-1mb.gif
https://gyazo.com/b21572997a1a715e05139ec973673db1.gif
And my point is that you agree there's a point where the risk outweighs the advantage. We don't agree about where exactly that point is, but that point obviously exists and factors into anyone's decision making. So we don't have to reduce this to the absurd and act like I'm saying that if there's any risk to any play, I don't want it to be run at all.
I'd also like to point out that the Patriots run a ton of QB sneak on the goal line, so you even diverge from the decision making of the five time champs yourself.
On the goal line, Brady generally goes over the top (as do most runningbacks) as the defensive lineman submarine... I'm ok with Andrew doing this if it keeps him above the lineman.
My problem with goal line situations is that there are usually 6 or 7 defensive lineman and a few backers stacked with no gaps to exploit like there is in the middle of the field and especially on 3rd down... they are going to respect Luck and his receivers when they are spaced out with a lot of green in front of them, and that is when a sneak is in order.
-
29 minutes ago, Superman said:
When the risk outweighs the potential reward, you mitigate the risk. It's the defining principle behind throwing the ball away, sliding, dumpoffs, not forcing the ball into double coverage, etc.
It's not all of a sudden, the OP said 3rd and 4th and short.
I'm not sure but it sounds like you're advocating running a QB sneak on any down if it's short yardage? That's a terrible idea. Maybe you'd convert on 2nd and 1 more often, but the points added when you pop a big play on 2nd down are a big factor in efficient offensive output. A QB sneak, even successful, probably takes points off the board on second down.
And even if the Colts were less efficient on 3rd and short in recent years, you're still ignoring the other highly successful play calls that can be used in shortage, and how they compare to QB sneak. For instance, Robert Turbin has been basically automatic in short yardage situations.
Another thing, the Colts have had a big problem with offensive play calling for a while now, including in short yardage. Let's not try to reduce that to something as simple as 'they don't run QB sneak often enough.'
I agree with this, but you're stuck on one number and ignoring everything else because you think it's all-telling and conclusive, but that's not the case.
You can eliminate a high percentage play if you have other high percentage options to replace it, especially if those other options are less risky. The statistical advantage of QB sneak in short yardage is not so significant that the risk of QB sneak becomes unworthy of consideration.
Edit: By the way, you stated that you're against QB sneak on the goal line, because it's dangerous. You admit that at some point, the risk outweighs the reward.
I'm in favor of sustaining drives, something this team has sorely lacked. I'm in favor of high percentage plays, something this team has lacked. I'm in favor of catching defenses off guard, which we obviously have lacked.
I'm not in favor of running straight no-sneaks... but there is no doubt the Patriots and several organizations have had great success pulling it out when it makes sense in a game.
I did say goal line sneaks are dangerous. Because they are. That's the situation that 1200 and 1500 lbs WILL be on top of you, regardless of your position. I believe in spreading defenses out and creating mismatches/taking what defenses give you, something Reich will be very good at, and the qb sneak is a play that defenses give you repeatedly throughout a game in short yardage situations.
-
14 minutes ago, Superman said:
It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"
This is somewhat absurd. All 4 defensive lineman are going to land on him? Do you have faith that Ryan Kelly and Quenton Nelson can hold their ground and perhaps push their guys back enough to where not a single pound lands on Andrew in a sneak at midfield?
I'm against goal line sneaks. I think they are dangerous. I think middle of the field, high percentage quarterback sneaks with defenses spread out, is safe, efficient and smart football.
-
5 minutes ago, Superman said:
It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"
Why risk dropping him back more than 3 steps? Why risk putting him on the field if we are down more than 2 touchdowns late in the game? Risk... makes people do funny things.
8 minutes ago, Superman said:You using the Pats number is a fallacy. League average makes much more sense.
This study (posted earlier) found that there were about five 4th and short play calls per team per year between 2010 and 2012.
Let's say for the sake of argument the Colts did have five games that possibly could have been decided by one 4th and short play call (they didn't, no single team did). If league average for QB sneaks on 4th and short is 80%, then 4 of those 5 games could be won with QB sneak. If league average for other runs (pitches, spread runs, read options) on 4th and short is 70%, then 3.5 of those 5 games could be won with QB sneak.
As a matter of fact, based on the success rates from your FO piece, but with much smaller sample sizes, I could argue that pitches, spread runs, read options and bootlegs are under-utilized on 4th and short.
You're acting like this one play is the deciding factor between winning and losing games, and it's probably not. It's certainly not the deciding factor for a winning season. And it's arguable whether it's significantly more effective than other run plays, on average. It's certainly not 21% more effective, but even if it was, that represents 1 out of 5 plays.
Like I said, on a game-deciding play in a season-deciding game, I'm fine with QB sneak. In any other situation, the statistical advantage of QB sneak isn't as great as you're making it out to be, and even if it was, it's not worth the risk to Luck's health.
I'm also curious whether Manning ran any QB sneaks in 2012, fresh off his neck injury. Not to mention the very different nature of that injury and recovery.
Why are we talking 4th and short all of a sudden? I am talking 2nd, 3rd and 4th and short... which comes to a hell of a lot more than just a handful of times in a game. How many 3rd and shorts have stalled Colts drives over the last several seasons? I'd be scared to death to know, but what I do know without looking is that they were 90 plus percent predictable, without the success of a qb sneak, percentage-wise.
Football is a numbers game. This organization wouldn't hire analytical staffing if it were not important. I know for certain that Frank Reich is going to use statistics and variations 100% more than Chuck Pagano... and he will RISK a lot more than Pagano did offensively.
I understand that we want to protect Andrew. I think we are making great strides in order to do that. But I don't think this organization will eliminate a high percentage play because they are afraid of the risk it poses on him... It's not any different than he getting hit while throwing the football (which will happen this season) compared to any other team' quarterbacks. The risk is there... so is the reward.
<<<-------
Who would you give up draft picks for in a trade and at what cost. Bell, Donald, Mack other?
in Colts Football
Posted
Value in terms of production
overall, yes. Value in terms of production to cap number, not necessarily. This is the moneyball game. If you want to pay a defensive tackle quarterback money, go for it. But you can potentially get a great producer in the first round next year for a fraction of the money... And that is what makes professional sports FUN