JPFolks
-
Posts
2,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by JPFolks
-
-
On 5/3/2019 at 6:19 PM, dodsworth said:
I was mainly targeting the speed guys but Doyle is definitely
a weapon.
I think Doyle is second to Hilton as the most important guy to have healthy all season. He's just too versatile and productive to be without to get the most out of our offense I think.
-
On 5/3/2019 at 5:19 PM, Farns01 said:
Ty should well acquainted about this. I remembering reading about him doing it to Reggie his rookie season.
And thus will the torch be passed (we hope).
-
Wow, you may be right, but it would be a total bust in my opinion if he only gets 500 yards. We had low paid UDFAs good enough to do that. 10 million for 500 yards? That would be one of the biggest wastes of money I can imagine if that happens. Maybe if he had all of Ebron's TDs then it would balance. Otherwise, yikes. That would be $20K dollars per yard.
-
1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:
Hey JP, I'm happy to buy you a beverage of your choice regardless whenever I come back to Indy (assuming you're in Indy). I'm being cautious, but I think we easily have the most potential talent now. There's just a whole lot to work out in the next 4 months.
Keep in mind last year that Luck had more yards than he did in 2012. It's the fact that he had one WR, and then played musical chairs with all the others. I want a legit #2 on the outside, and if we have that, I think we can blow the doors off this year.
I will bet you a bottle of Crown or Scotch though that Funchess is nowhere near TY in yards (unless TY has injury issues). TY will likely have even more yards this year since teams won't be able to double him. Funchess won't hit 1000. If I win, I'll drink it with you :-).
My claim was that Funchess would match what TY did in year 1, what was it, like 850 yards? I think that sounds about right. He was every bit an 800+ yard receiver for Carolina wasn't he?
-
4 hours ago, Irish YJ said:
2012 was plenty good. WR1 Reggie with 1350+, WR2 TY with 850+, and Avery with 750+. That's a good threesome of production. Reggie was hurt (ACL) in 2013, but still manged 500+ in less than half the season, and TY had his first 1000 yard season. TY and Wayne did good again in 2014, and add 400+ from 2 other WRs each. Luck only played 7 games in 2015, but we had 3 decent guys, one 1000+, one 700+, and one 500+. 2016 was when the wheels came off with WR imo, and IIRC, the OL took a major step back too that year.
To compare, last year we only one WR over 500 yards... Just one.
This year, we have on the roster now
Proven guys
-1 proven tier 1 veteran Colt's WR (TY)
-1 tier 2, but improving veteran Colt's WR (Rogers)
High Potential guys, but definitely not a sure thing
-1 TE-lite WR trying to rebound his career (Funchess) on a prove it contract who is limited at X
-1 2nd year rookie (Cain) with zero NFL production combing back from major surgery
-1 Raw but very fast guy (Campbell) rookie who was a gadget guy running very limited routes
It's a crap shoot
-Pacal who was a UDFA from 2 years ago that we claimed off waivers. 250ish last year
-Fountain - picked a round before Cain, he's a major project, on the practice squad most 2018
-Veasy - UDFA last year that we signed a futures contract with
-Johnson - UDFA three years ago who we traded for during 2018 season.
-Ishmael - UDFA last year, practice squad most of the year
-Hogan - UDFA from 2 years ago, practice squad and IR
-Hart - UDFA this year. Decent prospect
-Dulin - UDFA this year. Might get early work as return guy. I like his chances.
We know what we have with TY and Rogers.
Cain is an injury question until he is not. Campbell has elite potential, but needs a lot of work.
Funchess will likely see time at X and Slot. He will get more work if Cain is slow to come back. Campbell could even get tried out at X if Cain is slow to come back. If Cain and Campbell are quick getting time, that's likely bad for Funchess. The rest are guys we really can't assume anything about.
There's a lot to be excited about in terms of potential, but not close to crowning them yet. In short, if we find 3 that can top 2012's numbers, they yes.
absolutely. but Mack took a huge step forward. let's hope Wilkins does too.
Care to wager a beverage of your choice that the receiving corp this year will exceed the production with Luck beyond any previous year? I think he could challenge the TD record if he and at least 3 of the top 5 WRs and at least one of the TEs stay healthy. He played last year with a hobbled receiver and guys most of us hope aren't good enough to make the roster this year (though I suspect Rogers is going to unfortunately meaning failure by a lot of guys). I get and respect your legit stats as you lay them out, but we haven't gone into any season with remotely this much talent or depth at WR. Funchess will be at least the equal to Hilton Year 1 in terms of yards this year and even Rogers this coming year is better than Avery was back then in my opinion and I think it is unlikely he fills that role, over one of the young guys. Heck we did see Pascal out there, give me him, Funchess, Hilton and Rogers and that is the best Corp in Lucks career. Imagine if Cain, Campbell or the others hit big. ALL the other players won't wash out. They're going to rock and roll this year. And if the two TE's stay healthy all season, Luck could set some serious records.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. No creampuffs were harmed in this live fire event.
-
3 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:
This is a great video mentioning just because he wasn’t asked to go deep at OSU doesn’t mean he can’t.
It was well said but what was with the bees?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Irish YJ said:
Not saying we only keep 7, I'm saying after the starting 5, it's key to have at least a couple guys that can flex. Personally I'd have the starting 5, one T that can flex, one G that can flex, and two more who are either developmental (latest draft picks) who may also flex as well or two guys that are good but can't flex. So I'm good with the 9 standard. Let's not forget we have 10 slots on the practice squad that can be called up at anytime. It fluctuates throughout the year, but to start the year in 2018, we had at least one OL on it. and one TE too.
as far as Ebron is concerned, I agree he's not the best blocker, but he did ok. i disagree about him not being a drive extenders. the guy was clutch enough in the RZ. the guy had the 2nd most TDs of any receiving position, and 5th in total TDs from scrimmage.
I'm optimistic about our WR future. but to say we have more talent than ever, is a stretch. I'd say we have more potential than ever, and it should pan out hopefully. on Mack, I don't see Ware as his backup. i see him as a power or short yardage back. i see wilkins as his backup.
You don't think we currently have more WR talent than at any other time in Luck's career? When did he have more than a developing Hilton and an aging Reggie? That was about as good as it ever was until this year. Heck, when he had an injured hobbled Hilton and Inman late in the season felt like luxury compared to what he usually has had.
-
7 hours ago, richard pallo said:
Wilson came on strong at the end of last year and he is 22 ,the same age as Rock, and he's a former 3rd. rd. pick who has two years experience. And Moore was reported to be one of the players that could be extended this off season and still could be. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to who our starters could be at CB. Really wide open IMO. The other position starters that could be in trouble I think are Walker and Gaethers. There rookie competition would have to really excel and surprise similar to what Leonard did last year. Not likely right now but when camp starts who knows.
You know that is a great point I don't hear much about. Rock is an older than normal rookie and few people are as young as Wilson was. I recall Ballard, somewhere in the recent past, commented on DBs often taking 3 seasons to fully mature. If that is true, then Wilson could be hitting his stride and 2 years experience does make a huge difference.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:
The longer they play together the better they will get.
For those who think a couple may be starters already have to remember positions will have to be earned. Nothing is set in stone except our all pro starters.
It's going to be sweet when the time comes our talent level don't have a big drop off when we have an injury or when we rotate players.
I truly believe we are going to have a defense that is fast, swarming and a little nasty at times.
All it takes is practice, practice and some more practice.
Your post made me think of an interesting question to ponder:
Which 2018 position starters (not spot starters, I am talking primary guys) are most likely to be beaten out by a rookie? And does anyone have a surprise starter losing their job to a rookie or UDFA? The answer I think I have is ZERO. But I am sure some out there may think differently? (And I am not counting Rogers as a starting WR or something similar to that). I expect some people will likely jump on CB and Rock Ya Sin replacing Kenny Moore since some think we won't even make our roster. It's possible he'll take the spot I suppose and Kenny will focus on the slot, but I don't think it is automatic.
Anyone?
-
4 hours ago, Irish YJ said:
IMO, we carried more OL last year because we were inserting 2 brand new early round picks. if everyone is healthy, we don't need to do that this year. starting positions are likely set, and it's just a matter of back ups battling it out.
TE had injury concerns. Only way I see us carrying 4 is if there are still injury concerns, or were assuming we're letting Doyle go after the season, and trying to get a good look at the other TEs.
Keep in mind that the OLs we have are versatile. Braden could literally play 4 out of the 5 spots. Q too. A lot of NFL guards have played T or C in their career. You just don't need a 1 for 1 replacement all the time. You need 2 good versatile back ups, preferably one at T, and one at G, and one of those that can play C.
As for TE, we only ran 2 TE slots around a quarter of the time, while we ran 3 WR sets more than 50% of the time. RBs block as much as TEs do, actually probably more in our O.
To answer you're Q, I'd rather Ebron go down than Mack. I'd rather Mack go down than TY.
Yeah, I just can't get on board with 7 OL. I don't care how good the starters are or how flexible they can play. Injuries tend to happen in spurts. We have to play out the final 10 weeks of the season with no bye week and then right into the playoffs and with our schedule (compared to NE) a #1 seed seems unlikely and even a bye will be very tough. I can see the AFC South winner at 9-11 wins easily because we may be eating ourselves all season. Luck made the playoffs with a terrible line, sure, but he also did it every season with essentially a developing Hilton and an aging Reggie or less. I think if we'd had Doyle all season, that alone would have won us 1-2 more games. Having him to throw to at the end of the first Houston game I think he finds a way to make that catch and get a first down. Ebron had a great year, but he's not a blocker and he's not the guy you want on the route to get a game saving/winning first down. We already have significantly more talent at WR than Luck has EVER had. We'd have to lose 4 of them just to take us down to the level he usually has had to play with and that type of carnage would be an outlier. But we've seen losing our OL and TEs with enough frequency that it is devastating. Ware is our insurance if Mack goes down (which sadly he is prone to). If we have the four you expect we could lose Mack and get by, in my opinion, just about as well as with him (as long as the other three regress instead of progress this year).
It's an interesting debate though. Thanks for engaging. Anyone else have thoughts? Of those 4 groups, which 2 would you like to see the extra body designated in?
-
17 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:
it's open to strategy/scheme, competition, injury, but also draft/FA pick ups (guys you might not need but want to give time). If you have a position that's struggling and you're trying to upgrade, you might carry more. If you have a position with injury issues, you might carry more. If you draft players in a position where the comp is close, you might carry more.
Last year's initial 53 man roster vs the anatomy article standards (or NFL avg).
QB - 2 / 2
RB - 4 / 4
WR - 5 / 6 (-1)
TE - 4 / 3 (+1)
OL - 10 / 9 (+1)
DL - 9 / 9
LB - 6 / 7 (-1)
CB - 5 / 5
S - 5 / 5
ST - 3 / 3
Areas where we weren't average
WR - during the year we carried 5 to start and 6 some weeks. I'd bet we carry 6 this year to start given Cain is coming back from injury and we drafted PC.
TE - doubt we carry 4 this year if Doyle is healthy.
OL - we carried +1 last year because we drafted 2 guys who were in the mix quickly. may not carry 10 this year.
LB - We drafted a few, so I can see us going back to 7.
In short, it's all fluid and year to year based on the things I listed (and more).
See this is where I think OL/TE is more important than RB/WR because injury at those positions puts Luck in jeopardy and affects all the other positions MORE than being short on RB or WR which Luck and his talent with great protection and TE safety valves/added protection can make up for more easily than if Luck is getting crushed due to 3 OL injuries (which happens to teams all the time) or like we found last year when we were down mostly to Ebron at points due to injuries. Would you rather see it at WR or RB?
-
1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:
Yup, 4 RBs are pretty standard. Depending on the scheme, they may even keep 5. RBs make great ST's players too. I'm guessing with our O, the design is:
2 similar standard down backs (RB1 Mack and Back up Wilkins)
1 short yardage back (guessing the Ware sign is bad for Williams)
1 all purpose back (Hines) who can flex to slot if needed.
RB is another position that's often kept on the 10 man practice roster.
If you think about it, there's 22 standard positions, plus K, P, and LS specialists. If every standard position gets a back up, that's 44. Then 47 when you count the 3 specialist. Now you have 6 slots to go deeper, and 10 practice team slots. So reallly you have 63. It's not that simple, as OLs and DLs can play multiple positions, and DBs, DLs, LBs, WRs, and other can be highly specialized based on down and distance, scheme, etc..
Here's a decent/simple article on roster anatomy if interested. There's better/deeper articles out there, but this is light and hits the basics.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1640782-the-anatomy-of-a-53-man-roster-in-the-nfl
Okay, I wasn't very clear on my question. I know often it comes down, at the end, to extra depth at certain positions. So, using your example, we'd have 4/6 WRs, (Depending on 3 WR dominant or 2 TE dominant lineups) 2/4 TEs, 10OLs, 2RBs, 2QBs. That gives us 3 more guys (if we give 3 to the D and 3 to the O and our base WR is 5 and base TE is 3) on the O to add as depth. Where do you spend those extras? Is is ALWAYS a certain way, or is it open to strategy or is it based on the best talent available (or for that matter, the weakest starting talent needing more back up)?
That's the general nature of my question. When you get to decide if you want 6WRs or (fill in the blank) # of guys, which do you prefer, or is it just a standard that nearly all teams use? Or, are 4 or 5 of those on Defense more often? You hopefully get where I am going. Where do you all put the luxury depth players?
-
4 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:
Thanks for posting! You know I never thought they HAD to wait a week before these guys could all come together until Ballard said it in the Colts draft series. (Which everyone should watch if you haven't seen it on the Colts youtube channel). For those who didn't, he was lamenting after the draft that they had to wait a week to get the guys in.
-
11 minutes ago, krunk said:
Im not writing Jonathan Williams off like that. Wait till the pads get on. Hes a pretty good back..
Good to hear you say. I am unfortunately under informed about him. Can you offer any more info/opinion of what you know about Williams?
-
On 4/30/2019 at 10:18 PM, Irish YJ said:
I'm up in the air on this but tend to agree. Williams will be the odd man out.
We now have
Mack as RB1
Wilkins as back up to Mack
Ware as Power Back (he can do more than just be the power back)
Hines as APB receiving back.
That's pretty nice. Will love seeing Ware punish some worn out DLs and LBs late in games, keeping Mack fresh.
I can't recall, do we always keep 4 RB's or is it sometimes only 3? If it comes down to an extra lineman, an extra WR, an extra TE or an extra RB, which would (or anyone else) choose? It seems like one or more of these areas have to cut it deeper than the others. I think I would lean towards an extra TE and an extra OL. Those are Andrew Luck security blankets. In a catastrophic injury scenario, I'd rather he have time and protection to throw to lessor WR's or hand off to lessor RB's (and often there are veterans you can bring in ala Inman) over guys who need time to gel with blocking schemes/personnel and protection packages that a back up level guy is better filling than a guy off the streets.
What are your (or anyone's) thoughts on that?
-
11 hours ago, BigQungus said:
Geez, I was just saying that I'm assuming he agrees with you (in other words, you're speaking on behalf of him), since I was originally talking to him and now I'm talking to you, but it appears that you both hold the same opinion, so I can talk to you and him and not worry about which position each one of you hold, which makes it okay to... ugh, never mind. No need to get so huffy about it
Anyways, what makes you think there is no official depth chart? There is no official depth chart that is RELEASED to the public, but that doesn't mean it's not there entirely. That's like saying an official draft board doesn't exist since it's never released to the public. For all we know, it may not even be released to the team, and only the executives and the coaches know. But it does exist.
Then I apologize as I was not aware of the other posts you are referring to, and I have often been misquoted here by certain people, so sorry I misunderstood your intent. I read exactly what people say on the face value of what they write. Here, I didn't know about your prior context with another poster. I didn't think he would appreciate having me speak for him either. Apparently I ruffle some feathers or so I am told.
Yes, I think they keep an internal depth chart. But you do not know who is on it, nor do I. I am not the one who is making a claim that a 6th round pick is a lock or that he is 4th on our depth chart after getting injured early in camp. This is why I say we'll learn during a FULL camp and preseason and see who shakes out well. I have also said over and over that I like Cain, I hope he is everything you hope he is, but all we have as fans to discuss this is what has actually happened in the past, versus what we hope will happen in the future. I don't WANT Rogers to be the 4th. I'd like to see any of the three bubble guys Fountain, Pascal and Cain (or one of the others) rise up beyond Rogers but so far we haven't seen enough. Of those we have seen, in my opinion only apparently, I think Pascal has at least done something on the field of play that we haven't been able to see from Fountain (merit) and Cain (injury). I'll be quite please to see any/all/whichever of these guys do great and take a place high up the food chain. Until then, we have only the evidence that we have. Have you seen the many cases of camp heroes not even making the team? I have. Have you seen many high level college players wash out early in the NFL? I have. Have you seen many 6th round picks hang around camp, but not rise to the speculation placed on them in the lower rounds of the draft? I have. All I can do is base my opinions from what I have seen. I heard chatter about Cain doing well early in the camp like everyone else did who is discussing this who didn't see him first hand working out. That's all. Then he got hurt.
-
11 hours ago, krunk said:
If we substitute its usually a safety like Geathers playing underneath in Nickel along with Leonard.
Gotcha.
-
11 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:
The only one I can think of is Jerry Hughes
Shipley comes to mind. He became a reliable starter after he was run out of here for horrendously bad Grigson favorites.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, MFT5 said:
“Don’t you think ...” means you don’t even care about the answer. You’re looking for someone to agree w your point. Either find a better way to present your thought or don’t speak
Actually, I respect Krunk and his opinions, and saying "Don't you think" is a respectful way to propose an alternative answers without saying "you're an *" sort of like your response above.
-
12 hours ago, krunk said:
Maybe but to my knowledge we dont really do that with our backers. The starters are usually who you see out there. We dont really rotate them in and out. They may create some new packages for specific matchups. Not sure.
I am just going off what Ballard said about the players post draft as well in their webseries on the draft. When talking about the sudden wealth of backers or backer capable players he seemed to emphasize their unique skills for specific situations rather than all around skills. Maybe it's just Patriot speak for taking players with obvious deficits but also obvious elite skills, since they usually have focused starters, but if you watched that stuff (and I'd think you likely have, perhaps I am wrong) he really talked about specialized skills for specialized attacks.
-
8 hours ago, krunk said:
Im a big Walker fan Jamz but i have to say i like Okereke a lot. Walker is going to have to play damn good football to hold him off. To be honest at some point if Speed pans out like im thinking he will I could even see Speed, Okereke and Leonard starting together. I believe we are trying to build an athletic linebacking crew like Dallas has.
Don't you think that with all these guys varied skill sets that who starts is less relevant than how multiple guys sub in situationally during the game? They seem to have specific skills in mind for moving these guys all around the defense in special schemes for special situations.
-
7 hours ago, BigQungus said:
So, assuming you speak for @MPStack (which, given that he liked your post, can be assumed) you're simply saying we can't assume that he's top 4 on the depth chart?
The Colts set the depth chart. So therefore if there is strong indication that they are in love with him, then it's reasonable to believe that he's high on the depth chart. Now, whether he'll actually perform is another question, but that's not the question you are posing. You are asking if he's high on the depth chart. In other words, you're asking if the Colts like him, since they set the depth chart. And the answer is objectively, yes. At this point in time, the Colts are optimistic about his potential at this point in time.
Well, you know what they say about people who "assume" right? You are welcome to quote my statements and hold me accountable for my words. But to state you "assume" I speak for someone I do not know personally, have never met and know nothing about would be ignorant on your part. So anytime someone likes one of my posts means I am now their official spokesman?
It's hard to take you seriously after that level of childish logic.
There is no official Colts depth chart. Charts published by media sites are speculative. You realize that right? For example, ESPN currently has Hassan Ridgeway still on our team, even though it was updated to include all our draft picks as well as Spencer Ware who another site with a depth chart and roster lists as a Full Back which seems like a departure from his previous usage. So, nothing you see online matters unless it comes from Reich/Ballard. If/when they do post an official depth chart list (if they even do that, which I am not sure about), it will be a form letter level of listing, meaning a predetermined logic will be used to list players. They haven't even met with all of these players, I doubt they have ranked them based on performance yet. Even the Colts.com site has none of our new players listed, nor does it even list Cain with the 4 receivers it DOES list which are Hilton, Rogers, Pascal and Fountain. Compliments made mean nothing. They get asked, they compliment. Why wouldn't they? Do you think they are giving ANY meaningful information out to media? Do you think they want potential FA's to shy away from us because we've already settled on Cain being #4 on the depth chart or as you claim since they say super nice things about him he's obviously on the team so they should go elsewhere.
Really?
-
18 minutes ago, BigQungus said:
So having a great camp doesn't earn you a roster spot?
Deon Cain didn't get cut because he is a very high pick (6th round) and not because he had a great camp??
I'm confused
He got injured and didn't finish camp or preseason games. Do you really not see the difference? He had a brief positive start. You put him on IR and he's back because we control his rights. Why wouldn't we see what he had to offer? Maybe he'll come in, out perform everyone on the team and be a hall of famer. Maybe he'll come in and get smoked by the competition and get cut. Neither of us know which will happen. I just don't "assume" he will in the top 4 on the depth chart. If we believed he would be anything like you seem to think he is, we, or someone, would have drafted him earlier regardless of his drug test. Someone we draft in the second round is someone we expect to be on the team. Few teams have the same expectation for guys picked near the end of the draft. Those are usually simply speculative picks. Sure, PC could flame out as well, but I doubt they picked him in the second round with any real concern that would happen. At this point we don't even know for sure Cain won't fail another drug test right? He has a history after all. A brief flash and injury before we even played out the preseason games against real NFL talent is too small a picture to assume a top 4 ranking. It also seems like some people assume I dislike him. The opposite is true, I actually like him much better than Rogers. But I can't rank him ahead of Rogers before he proves it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Bleedin Blue said:
I don't see PC as redundant at all. TY is going to be working the mid to deep parts of the field and constantly threatening to take the top off the D.
Our other receivers and tight ends are going to be occupying the safeties and linebackers across the middle of the field. PC is going to potentially do either or will even be coming out from the backfield like Mack or take very shallow crossing routes just past the LOS and using his speed and YAC abilities.
Reich is going to have a lot of fun working with all of these options.
I am a HUGE fan of crossing routes. I hope our team becomes crossing route FREAKS. By doing so, the run game and deep passing game will benefit and our mismatches on the crossing routes will destroy most teams without elite pass defending LBs and Safeties. I can't WAIT to see this play out. If Doyle is back to full strength the mismatches will be crazy.
Parris Campbell already Impressing
in Colts Football
Posted
@stitches I think the most interesting thing is the difference in "takes" one suggested it was a bad throw, and the other suggested it was a necessary throw away. Subtle, but opposite.