JPFolks
-
Posts
2,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by JPFolks
-
-
30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
Peyton Manning's Super Bowl came in Year 9.
Luck is in Year 7.
Yes... and it is clear that Manning never had a team/staff around him to truly cash in on his historical talent. It took one injury prone Safety to make the difference and get us over the top in year 9 and he missed most of that season. But truth be told, most of Manning's years were wasted by timid coaches too nice to go for the jugular when needed more than lack of talent. And though we did have two amazing WR's in Manning's years as well as a consistently above average to great O-line and some great RB's (gosh, sounds exactly like what I have been advocating for here), I think his talent made the rest of our team look far better than they were. Look what happened the year he went down. 2-14.
It is a tragedy that Brady will be known as the Greatest QB in history when Manning was superior but played for a weak organization who collectively get way more credit than they deserve because 2 QB's have fallen into their laps 2 of the year's they bottomed out. If Luck wins only one SB it will have been a tragic waste of what should have been an all time great career.
-
2
-
-
On 10/5/2018 at 11:39 AM, #12. said:
With so many young, inexperienced and new players, with a new coaching staff and new offensive and defensive systems, it's impossible to say what we need until we see a full season from this team.
Rough guess - nearly half of last night's starters have less than 16 starts in the league. Many only have a handful. You have numerous other free agents, starting and playing important roles who are new to the team.
That's why you bring in a handful of veteran FA's to supplement the weak areas. Probably 5 players in the right spots would have made a tremendous difference. Plus we should have drafted at least one OT and brought in another Veteran FA OT. Clark just isn't viable enough and the other guys aren't good enough at RT. Protect Luck and the rest of the team can "grow up" over time and he's good enough to work with young players and to overcome a bad defense. Give him a RB that can seriously pound in between the tackles behind that viable line (2 things he's never had) and he can take us deep into the playoffs based solely on his talent. But damn, why can't anyone in 6 years take care of the most obvious problems we've had since Luck was drafted? (And don't point to injury... we obviously haven't ever had sufficient depth to overcome injuries we KNOW are coming because they happen to EVERY team). Youth and build a team through a plan is great, meanwhile we need to sprinkle in some FA Vets to fill the holes rather than once again throwing Luck to the wolves.
-
On 9/21/2018 at 2:03 AM, NewColtsFan said:
Exactly HOW were Luck's first three years "wasted." Unless you mean Luck was drunk as can be?!
As you know, the Colts went 11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and went a round further in the playoffs each year ending with the AFC Championship in 2014. How is that..... "wasted." ?
If you want to point to 15, 16, 17, that's another story. But Ballard isn't responsible for having to rebuild a bad franchise. Luck is going to play a long time. Remember, Manning's Super Bowl year didn't happen until year 9. There is still plenty of time for Luck to take us to a Super Bowl.
They were wasted because they used up his healthiest years with teams not good enough to win a championship. Going 11-5 and losing in the playoffs is nice and we should always try to win as many games as possible including this year, but those years were wasted. They did not draft well in the "rebuild" meaning he was never going to have a team with the potential to win it all. Luck, almost single handedly won those games and could likely have won a super bowl with any lineup better than average in the league. But he had hot garbage around him so those years were wasted. And not only did they waste the years, but they wasted his health. His inadequate line and inadequate running game (both of which persist through today) meant he was getting pounded a record number of times per game. Those wasted first 3 years when he was nearly indestructible led to 3 unhealthy years STILL with no run game and no O-Line. And he missed over half of those games because of the DAMAGE he took in year 1, 2 and 3. For you to suggest those years were worth it is ridiculous. They are forgotten, meaningless footnotes in a sad saga of wasting what might have been the greatest QB talent in league history.
That brings us to today. Though we have all new people around him, he still has no run game and a weak line. Sure we got a great guard and now have a good Center/LG combo, but our RG is aging and has been playing poorly as the season has moved forward. And our Tackle depth is inexcusable. Even if ALL of them were healthy, we'd have a huge problem at RT and a growing problem at RG. Same old, same old. And even though they drafted two RB's this year, outside of one being a good pass catcher, we STILL have no run game.
So I return to my original premise: How many MORE years are we going to waste the talent that used to be Andrew Luck, HOF level talent who is now brittle and closing in on 30 already? Slow and steady building of the team still has a long way to go. It remains to be seen if we have a back capable of running between the tackles for significant yardage and our line still needs a RG and RT assuming our LT comes back and plays at an above average level which is questionable because he's had some bad years in the past by his own admission. Our backups are inadequate at either Tackle as we've seen. And just because they may play better now and then than the train wreck they usually are, it is STILL not good enough. We should have spent 2 more draft picks on Tackles as it is clear in this day and age that teams with good lines have a giant advantage and few teams can keep them healthy so it needs to be the deepest group on the team to protect the only asset on our team that CAN get us to a SB with a chance to win. If we aren't working towards that, what is the point?
So instead of sitting on all that money, why didn't we make sure we had serious depth on the line which would cover injuries that predictably are coming? Give Luck a great line and a RB that can pound the rock for real and the rest of the team can be garbage and he can take us to the SB. (just look what he's doing with our train wreck of a WR depth chart!) But Ballard didn't address the O-line year one nor the RB situation. And he did far too little in year Two on either as well as is evident through 4 games. Ironically those first three years you're so thrilled about happened because Grigson (who I thought was terrible starting year 2) brought in a bunch of aging FA's on short deals. If he could have drafted his way out of a wet paper bag we may have won a couple SBs with him in charge but he drafted like he worked for the Browns for the past decade and never solved the most obvious team needs: OLine and RB's. Sound familiar?
But feel free to disagree. It's just a game and all of this is just entertaining banter between games. No need to get worked up about it. All these players, Top Management and Top Coaches are rich beyond most mere mortals and many players have generational wealth before they are 30. Luck will be fine even if the best years of his career are wasted away.
Peace out.
-
What I am unsure of in all of this is how the "plan" is going to make up for all the lost Luck years by "patiently building a young team?" Luck is a generational talent who had his first 6 years wasted and perhaps 2+ more years also wasted with incomplete teams where he has to risk his health further wearing down his career treads with incomplete teams. We're 2 years in without much chance of even making the playoffs (something we did 3 times with the old regime) unless once again Luck picks our cities teams on his back and trudges us into the fringe of the playoffs to be massacred along the way in a best case scenario. It's hard to imagine that 2 years in to this regime of our current GM and the talent isn't equal to the first 2 years of the scrap heap of Grigson? Think about that long and hard.
Every season with Luck is priceless. Filling in gaping holes with some reasonable FAs is hardly rash thinking when considering the prospect of wasting more years of Luck. Perhaps in this day and age of near flag football, Luck can play until he's 45. But if the wear on his body catches up to him after 10-12 years, what an all time waste this all will have been.
So maybe Ballard's slow and steady approach is rational if you have an average QB or a rookie 1st pick, but year 6+ of Luck is a bit more urgent in my opinion.
Peace to the dissenters and supporters alike.
-
1
-
-
If they beat the Bengals and Redskins, then we'll certainly have some evidence to go by. If we start 1-3, then not so much.
-
At this point Nyheim should make the team. He likely WILL, but his performance, in my opinion, has been the worst of any of the draft picks or significant FAs. (except whoever was at Center late in the first preseason game who couldn't get a snap off accurately 3 straight plays. I never did get his name). Nyheim is a dangerous risk at this point with his fumbling and he hasn't done anything good to date in a game.
-
4 hours ago, shastamasta said:
Ridgeway definitely has the talent...would have went higher in the draft if not for concerns about being in shape. Probably the best D pick Grigs made when it's all said and done.
well... since SOMEONE has to be his best D pick, it isn't necessarily saying much.. if they are nearly all F's a D looks great. So far in the regular season he's been no better than a D in my opinion. Let's hope he moves up to being a B.
-
28 minutes ago, MTC said:
For those complaining, it shows you that he was going to be cut after the draft. Better to pick up something rather than nothing.
You are right, but he had lost weight so he could play all positions on the line, but obviously the plan didn't call for someone of his talent level in this new rotational d-line concept. I hope the people we've brought in will all be better than him. Guess we'll find out.
-
3 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:
Well let's hope we draft in the top 3 one more time to help us fill more holes next year.
And maybe we add a quality FA or two. Great Plan.Not sure I understand your post. The only plan I raised was to plug a hole or two with a quality FA since waiting for only the draft more likely means waiting 3 years to fill all the holes. Is that what you prefer? I'd rather try NOT to finish with a terrible record outside the playoffs because every season with Luck is nearly priceless and he's not getting younger. So your post is confusing. I see we just dumped Anderson today as well, which seems like a strange move if we're really building rotations of fresh D-Line players to throw at opposing teams. Is that part of the stated plan as well? When healthy he was our best remaining D-Lineman and had lost weight so he could play anywhere on the line which gave us flexibility and with less playing time due to rotations may have helped kept him healthy.
-
6 hours ago, Deadpool said:
Smith will be at RG and Mewhort will be back at RT.
Castonzo - Nelson - Kelly - Smith - Mewhort
You are correct sir! And then we have the best of last year's starters as depth where they belonged in the first place. I always liked Mewhort, I hope he can stay healthy.
-
3 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:
Lol...
Have you listened to Ballard & Reich's presser??? It is the verbage they use & i don't think it's that hard to understand...
I understand your (well, theirs really) premise but depth only makes sense if you at least have solid (meaning average or better) starters at key positions. If you have gaping holes at key positions, and the likely starters are coming from your inexperienced role players, it seems like a legit concern to raise. Perhaps last year's picks will step up, but I think it still remains to be seen. Our corners are weak, our linebackers are non existent (though the one we did pick up I liked) and our receiving corp is scary inexperienced and completely unproven at any level beyond Hilton. Those are enormous holes to fill with a 4, 5 and 7. I am still unsure of RT at this point as well and neither of these DEs are (or at least shouldn't be) starters this year. For that matter we still need another back to go with Mack. You can't fix all of this with a single draft which is why I didn't understand spending on a single difference maker at our biggest positions of need so that we at least had one less hole unfilled. I guess we're saving Irsay a few bucks this year. Let's hope they don't chase some camp reject or aging vet in desperation like Bryant.
So the sky isn't falling... that fell during Grigson's years. I am less trusting until people prove something. Hopefully the results will live up to or surpass our GM's reputation league wide. I am optimistic but to suggest we're now on easy street after 5 picks in the first two rounds seems a little too optimistic. Meanwhile Luck's years are ticking by with half of them so far already wasted.
On a positive note, thank god they are FINALLY serious about fixing the O-Line.
-
20 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:
The NFL could have adjusted the schedule so that the game was in Indianapolis. A few changes could have put it where the game was played here. This would have created more "drama" with McDaniels having to come to Indianapolis. More drama would mean more opportunity to make $$$ through merchandise (t-shirts, visors, vodoo dolls, etc). It also would have drove ticket prices up. From about week 3 on last year you could get seats dirt cheap for the Colts. By the end of the year I believe I saw tickets as low as $5. That means more money for the NFL and one thing we know about the NFL is that they are all about making money.
I don't believe that is correct. We simply flip back and forth every 3 years home/away. The flexibility might be there if we were playing them as the same finishing place (think Oakland this year) but when it is division rotation it revolves home/away. I could be wrong but I don't think I am in this case.
-
14 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:
Me too. I am a firm believer in what happens in the locker room stays in the locker room and I also believe the players feel the same way.
It wouldn't bother me if the press wasn't allowed in the locker room at all. These players deserve to have their own space to think and reflect as a team.
Yeah they only do it to appease the media and they give them NOTHING important at after game coverage interviews and pressers. Stop feeding reporters and force them to become journalists and not simply propagandists.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:
Its a bit of catch 22 as, although the second half of the season has a lot of home and divisional games where we can get a run going, it means the first half of the schedule has some pretty tough games, including going on the road to the two teams who contested the Superbowl last year.
It also includes a third road game against the conference finalist Jaguars which in total might be a net benefit simply because those are 3 likely losses (as any) so might as well lose them on the road making the home games a tiny bit more winnable.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:
I will say this, I think the chances are a lot better than we thought several weeks ago. If the buzz around Cleveland liking Josh Allen #1 overall are true the I believe QB's go 1-2-3 and possibly 5 to Denver. Then it all comes down to Cleveland at 4, who will pick either Barkley or Chubb. For the record, I think Cleveland takes Chubb.
I LOVE the idea of getting one or the other so it is a no lose situation in my view if 4 qb's go. But it is more likely that we trade down again than get either of them, but that may be better anyway in the long run assuming Ballard makes good picks. I think the jury is still out on his track record so far.. let's hope he nails it this year.
-
1
-
-
On 4/11/2018 at 3:04 PM, Old Colt said:
Again; cheap and depth.... still no play makers or difference makers on either side of the ball. Not much left out there now and certainly can't get many, if any, immediate ones in the draft. Not sure what good a big amount of cap space will do the Colts. Don't care if it is only April, not like these type of players are suddenly coming available in the summer..... may take 2 or 3 drafts at best... meanwhile Colts stock pile cheap, depth players to fill the roster and sit on 2nd most cap space....
At least my season tickets aren't going to increase.....
Yeah, I can see your point. I am fine with not breaking the bank on old players, but could they really not find one clear starter in FA? Ebron is the highlight and his track record is underwhelming and Stafford is a solid QB. Ebron will pair with our starting TE, but wasn't there a starting defender worthy of signing in the entire FA field? Do they really need to save up cap space for whatever is left after the draft and people cut in training camps? Maybe every starter level FA was overpriced and unworthy of our 4-12 team, but I bet some of them do in fact play up or beyond their contracts on other teams. Meanwhile.... PS: we did sign a way over the hill guard/center so it isn't ALL about signing youth now is it?
-
1
-
-
On 4/11/2018 at 9:15 AM, Myles said:
Cheap depth. Ballard has proven to do very well adding young depth to the team for little money. We are just waiting to see if he can add good quality starters by opening the wallet a little bit.
All Ballard has proven so far is a 4-12 record,,, nothing more. Not sure why he has so much credit with folks. I am not anti Ballard, but I am also not giving him credit for anything he hasn't done. Not sure why anyone else is beyond wishful thinking. Last years draft picks haven't proven anything yet, beyond being injury prone so far. Sure, we all hope they'll improve but I don't see any proof of anything. Ironically his best signing got cut due to scheme change, but it seems like we should at least have gotten something for him in trade. I gave him a pass year one, but he hasn't built up an ounce of slack beyond being neutral year one. If he flops this year he is squarely in Grigson territory. Grigs scored with his first draft even if you remove Luck from it. Even with our young free safety who missed over half the season, his first draft did not produce a Hilton or the two tight ends. So lets wait and see before we all blindly offer up "in Ballard we trust" because I heard plenty of "in Grigson we trust" claims to fall for all that baseless rhetoric again. He may be great or he may flop, but so far he's neither.
-
43 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:
Barkley wont be there at pick 6 but if he is, the Colts will take him.
I wouldn't be shocked or against trading down again if Chubb and Barkley are both gone which is likely. I think we can find a great running partner for Mack who can be more powerful than Mack (and I agree, we need a back who can block) with a later pick. For some reason we resigned Christine Michael who is seriously undependable and our other power back who is only good on the goal line (having brain lock on his name, but everyone knows who I mean). So we have 2 backs coming off season ending injuries and another who can hit a home run with a big hole or catch the ball well and go for big yards, but unless he can block he's not a solution on 3rd down even. Barkley would have been nice, but the 3 2nd round picks were too good to pass up by a mile. I hope one of the top 4 QB's is still around and Buffalo comes calling (if they haven't moved up to one or two or four. Many are suggesting the Jets or even the Giants might move up to #1 to get the guy they want, so about anything is possible. We can get Guice perhaps if we're very lucky or more likely Chubb or the DB from Ohio State would be a good option. It would be kind of funny to get the Chubb cousins both with our first two picks. I could be happy with that.
-
On 3/21/2018 at 6:43 PM, TdungyW/12 said:
I’m going to laugh my butt off at everyone here who doesn’t like Mack when he goes for 1000 yards
If he's going to be our primary 3 down style back he'd better get way more than 1000 yards or we're no better off than we were with an aged Gore. We need to look for a 1400 yard rusher and 500 yard receiver otherwise we should platoon 2 backs. He can definitely breakaway and catch but he's no power back nor goalline back unless it is 3rd and long.
-
Marvin is hard to pick against. But I give Reggie a slight edge because after Grigson initially tossed him aside for Garcon until he refused to resign and Reggie came back to us, swallowing his pride and being, in my opinion, the key reason Luck was able to take us to 11-5 3 years in a row out of the box and then when he asked for one last year to get all his numbers in line with a first ballot HOF (he only needed 3rd string level stats that year to lock them down and pass Marvin in multiple major categories) Grigson the * kicked him to the curb when in truth even at his age he would have significantly outperformed in his sleep the guy from Houston we replaced him with for WAY more wasted money and in the end he still remained the classy guy he'd always been even with Grigson's knife squarely in his back. Without Reggie, TY doesn't develop so fast and we don't likely win as many games those key 3 seasons and maybe don't even make the playoffs one or more of those years. Reggie was class all the way. Marvin unfortunately had that shooting issue before what likely would have been his final year which people kind of ignored in general which tilts it in Reggie's favor I think. I will say that Marvin was the guy who invented some of the techniques we see nearly all receivers use though, so it's a tough call.
-
1
-
-
Now when Chubb is gone and we trade down again with the Bills to 12 we can pick up a top Tackle (since the guard will be long gone) and the line will be in good shape... plus with the extra picks we can pick up an RB that will hopefully have us forgetting players we missed out on. If we could haul in another extra 1 and maybe a 3 to go with the 12th pick we'd have most of our holes plugged. It might be hard to resign them all but that's a good problem to have.
-
12 hours ago, jskinnz said:
As I stated above.
Clauson filled a need at a reasonable cost. I would make an educated guess that the "better veteran WR" were deemed either not good enough, or too expensive or they really like some guys in the draft.
Signing one aging vet does not mean a break from overall philosophy. They will be miles younger this year.
JS,
I am really not disagreeing with signing guys to fill holes. But many rightfully decried Grigson from doing the same, especially older players with injury history. Let's hope he has something left in the tank and plays the whole season. It seems like not only are O Lineman worse overall than ever before, but they also seem to be getting hurt more often than I can recall. I remember season after season while growing up where the O Lines rarely if ever had a played hurt. I can't recall anything like what has happened to the Colts the past 6 years. I don't recall Manning losing multiple guys each week nor the Steelers growing up.It never seemed to be a thing.
-
3 hours ago, jskinnz said:
Really not all that difficult to understand.
Clearly this is a short-term signing. The younger guys out there in free agency were either too expensive or Ballard thinks are not as good as Slauson. So they sign him to a team friendly, short term deal. In fact if after training camp Slauson is not what they thought, I would bet they can cut him without too much penalty.
Signing an old journeyman isn't the question... why is THIS guy so special that he's pulled a Grigson move and signed a broken down short term vet in contradiction to his stated philosophy and if this is the new policy, or was all along, then why not sign a better veteran WR for example (I don't count Ebron who couldn't get ball from one of the most prolific QBs in the league and he played bad enough to get booed by Lions fans... no small rebuke).
-
6 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:
I love all the posters who say...
"this player is no good" or "this player is great"...
When they probably have never even watched the guy play football.
I've seen him play quite a bit, but that's the past. The Chargers who know him best passed. But more curious to me is this seems to completely contradict the philosophy of getting younger core players to compete long term. If we're looking for short term older players, what is next Suh? We have plenty to spend. I am not advocating for it, just trying to understand the philosophy I guess.
Ballard is a genius
in Colts Football
Posted
Well, I made the point that they are all rich myself. But yes, when you have a talent as rare as Luck, winning even 1 SB will have been a tragic waste of his talent. Give him a line and RB to go with Hilton and he can take a team to a SB and win. But no one seems to ever get around to getting him those things try as they might.
And many DO consider Marino and Fouts' careers to have been wasted. All that talent with a single Super Bowl ring and only one appearance in the game at all. Big time wastes! If Moon had spent his entire career in the NFL, he'd have likely been the greatest of them all but we'll never know and that is unfortunate as well.