Mitch Connors
-
Posts
748 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Mitch Connors
-
-
38 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:
Yes he does, but at the end of the day he signed a contract and the Cowboys have a right to hold him to it, and they also have the right to decide they dont wanna sink a ton of money into a RB.
Does that go both ways? If Zeke is wrong for wanting something different than his contract do you believe the teams should be forced to keep a player for the duration of a contract - no matter what?
You can't have it both ways. If you want player contracts to be honored because "he signed a contract" then the teams need to honor the contracts and make them 100% guaranteed. No more cutting due to performance inside of a contract.
-
1
-
2
-
-
The real bummer is missing Luck (obviously) the other major downer is thats going to force us to cut another player from this squad that we wouldn't if we didn't need to carry 3 QB's.
If you were hoping to keep 6 WR's (for example) thats not happening if Luck cant play.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:
I'm outraged we didn't look like a SB contender in the 1st preseason game. Fire and trade everybody before its too late.
I recognize the levity but lets not forget the game yesterday was played by two NFL teams with NFL players trying their hardest to succeed individually and inside the team framework and one team looked better than the other.
Its not fair to say this game/preseason doesn't matter for anything other than evaluation and then ignore the fact that the Bills team was doing the same thing (evaluating their players) and they looked like the better team. What does that say about player preparation, quality of depth, talent, experience, etc? Thats up for each person to decide but I dont think its fair to discount people who put more stock in that than you or others do.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, jskinnz said:
I think the old football adage applies here - "think players not plays." It is always helps to have top notch playmakers.
Never heard that saying before but I like it.
-
3 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:
Well if Grigson didn't burn Indy to the ground, it sure wasn't from lack of trying. 6 years of draft picks, 0 All-Pros, & on 1 (debatably) defensive player that actually made an impact. We had a nonexistent rushing attack, & he almost singlehandedly ruined Luck's career by failing to put together some semblance of an offensive line. On top of all that, he's responsible for Deflategate, which was maybe the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to this organization & the fanbase, & it came on the heels of a 45-7 curbstomping against New England, which only made it worse. The (3) 11-5 seasons were fun, but at the end of the day, they were nothing more than fool's gold.
In the end the only thing that matters in this league is wins and ultimately playoff wins. If wins arent the measuring stick than what is? You'd rather lose with "better players/roster", than win with "worse players/roster"? Not me, Ill take the wins 100% of the time.
-
52 minutes ago, twfish said:
You must have missed the Grigson era Colts to learn this lesson
Which part did we miss?
1. Getting to an AFC Championship game?
2. No losing seasons in 5 years?
3. Three years of playoffs, winning more games each year (WC, division, AFC title game)?
4. Taking over a team with the #1 overall pick (the worst team in the league)?
5. Turning over almost the entire roster and winning 11 games in year 1?
6. By all accounts stuck with a coach he wasn't allowed to fire even though he ran the most predictable offense in the league (ill find the article if you want to read it)?
I get it. Everyone loves Ballard and I like what hes done so far but lets not act like Grigson burned Indy to the ground.
-
1
-
-
Says a ton about Leonard that he was willing to listen and was receptive to the feedback. Not everyone can take that, especially after the season he had last year.
-
1
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:
Davis? Man, my memory...lol
This guy....
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviDo01.htm
He was amazing for a couple years and then got hurt. I forgot that he changed his name until I googled him and it returned this link.
-
1
-
-
On 4/29/2019 at 3:45 PM, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:
I mean sadly because it means I like one of Cowherd's takes. He is notorious as a Notre Dame basher, and I'm obviously a huge ND fan. I respect that he's extremely clever, and great at his job, but to say ND just can't compete anymore is nonsense, and just trying to ruffle feathers...it worked lol. I argued my points on the air with him in 2011-2012 (during NDs undefeated National Championship appearance, yeah they got murdered by Bama whatever whatever), and he cut me off the air because I think I was winning the debate.
I argued with Cowherd on air once too. It was the Reggie Bush / Mario Williams draft conversation when Cowherd was saying Bush would be the next Barry Sanders. I said the Texans should draft Williams because they already had Davis at RB who had 1200, 1300 and 1800 yards the previous three seasons and pass rush is way too hard to find. Of course he ridiculed me as is his way. I still feel like I won that 2-3 minute debate even though Davis got hurt that year and never played again.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Pacergeek said:
The best off season in Colts history, has somehow became even better. Ware gives the Colts, by far, the best RB group in the NFL.
Id trade the Colts RBs for the Chargers RBs in a heartbeat.
Gordon > Mack
Ekeler > Hines
Jackson = Wilkins
-
1
-
-
I dont know 95% of the players drafted last week which means I dont know enough to truly tell if we did bad, OK or great. It does make me feel great when people who do know 95% of the players drafted say we killed it.
-
1
-
-
High demand for our pick would mean a lot of talent teams are after. Id prefer we'd start adding that talent to our team now instead of waiting to add it next year.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I like it too, at first I wasn't happy that we traded the 26 to move down 20 spots. The more I thought about it though, I realized we have 3 picks tonight at 34, 46, and 59 + gained an extra 2nd round pick next season. Like I posted above, outside of the top 10 the draft is a crapshoot anyway and we got Leonard at 36 last season as an excellent example.
Doesn't referencing Leonard actually not support the decision to trade down/out? The Colts could have certainly turned the Leonard draft pick into another 2nd and 3rd round last year too but they chose Leonard instead. Id rather have Leonard than another 2nd round pick this year. As obvious as that is to say (given hindsight) it seems so many are stuck on passing on something you know today for something you know dramatically less about next year. As equally as silly - if we passed on Leonard to trade the pick - he wouldnt be on the team.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, John Waylon said:
34 was the one I was expecting to be traded. And I still do. I think Ballard will try to turn 34 into a 1st next year.
Ill be very disappointed if we trade 34. Itd hard for me to accept last nights trade when I'm told the 2nd round talent is ridiculously good only to trade away that ridiculously good 2nd round talent.
We'd essentially swap this years 1st round pick for a different 1st round pick next year. That still equals 2 1st round picks in 2 years if we trade tonight or if we don't. That's not a win. That's losing a year of play from a difference maker.
Sure we gather another 2nd round pick next year but that draft isnt loaded in the 2nd round like this one (so Im told). Thats not a win either.
-
Remember a few years back when ESPN would put the cameras on the kids talking on the phone to the team drafting them and then celebrating with their families before the picks were announced? They've stopped doing that since but that was the worst draft to watch ever.
-
2
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, chad72 said:
True. Folks here are not realizing that we'd be ponying the same or higher amount of money for homegrown talent of ours down the road at some point in time if we hit our draft picks right. With the cap space we have and not many draft picks to re-sign or extend this year or next, I would have had no qualms with the same deal made by the Colts for Lawrence, I truly wouldn't have. The money doesn't bother me, just the draft capital if we had to trade for him. If he was an UFA, yeah, sure count me in.
That's true but with one major difference between the two situations, a drafted player is cheap for 4 years where a FA is expensive from day one. We're paying Houston and a draft pick way less than Lawrence is being paid. Plus the Colts would need to give up that draft capital to acquire Lawrence and pay the contract (according to the article).
The Houston path is gambling less money using two players - Houston and a draft pick.
The Lawrence path is gambling more money using one player - Lawrence.
Sort of the exact concept Ballard espouses with his team building mantra - the more darts you can throw the more likely you are to hit a bullseye.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:
Don't get me wrong, Lawrence would've been a great addition, but I'm glad the Colts didn't give all that money up and got Houston instead.
Plus the article says "traded for Lawrence".
Id much rather have Houston plus draft picks plus money than Lawrence minus draft picks minus more money
-
4
-
1
-
-
On 4/7/2019 at 1:46 AM, NewColtsFan said:
I don't think this has been posted anywhere else, but ESPN.com has a very nice piece about Tillery. It's a written story, not a video story. And it's about all the things you've seen talked about here.
Nothing makes me feel more like an old man than the bolded. I cant stand video articles - i want to read articles not watch them.
Also, get off my lawn and then turn down your music.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, JPFolks said:
Yeah, I was surprised he didn't bounce back big in KC... don't know if it was that he dropped off after injury or the kid that took the spot was just that good. Ware definitely had some excellent games before getting hurt. I also suspect that KC just knows how to block for the running game much better than most.
So true about the KC running game. Since Priest Holmes it seems like the Chiefs can put any player back there and they produce. The Broncos were the same way forever - I think they had 4 consecutive years with 4 different starting backs getting more than 1000 rushing yards (that was like 10 years ago if I recall correctly).
Some teams can just run the ball it seems.
-
42 minutes ago, coltsfansince65 said:
It seems like they are looking to upgrade our RB position in some manner. I would have liked to have picked up CJ Anderson myself.
Agreed. This feels to me like the Colts are confident in Macks ability to be a lead back but they're not confident that Hines or Wilkins can deliver the production of a #1 if/when Mack misses time.
Seems like the depth chart is; Mack #1, OPEN, Hines #3 and Wilkins #4.
Fill the Open in the draft or one of these guys.
-
On 3/27/2019 at 11:51 PM, crazycolt1 said:
I could be wrong but I just don't think Jim would sell the team as long as he is alive but who knows what will happen when he passes. He has 3 daughters so it's hard to say.
I agree. The team is worth so much more for the annual profit than just the value of the team.
In 2018 the Colts generated $373 million in revenue and spent $306 million in operating costs for an operating profit of $67 million. That's a lot of annual profit to lose once you sell the team.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:
But what you fail to mention is the teams who don't have to sign high dollar free agents to be contenders are more successful.
If you grow your own free agents the need is not as great.
That is what Ballard is attempting to do. It's not a point of your comment about taking up for Ballard a lot. I fall into that category because I see and understand what he is trying to do. He has had two very successful drafts in a row and changed the roster over 40% since he has been here.
This team is not anything like it was when he was hired. In two years he has reinserted the Colts into the mixture of winners. We are a long way from that estimated 3-13 team that most thought this team would be at the end of last season.
Till things change I think Ballard does deserve some trust.
Do I expect for him to continue to be as great at drafting as he has? No, not at all. Now is where his work will truly be earned. If not, he will eventually be replaced. That's the business.
Im not criticizing Ballard or the people that fully believe in him. Im saying the narrative is slightly off. All good/great teams sign free agents we just dont pay as close attention because its not the Colts.
Belicheck Patriots; Moss, Revis, Welker, Dillon, Galloway, Vrabel, Harrison, Amondeola, Cooks, McCourty, etc, etc.
The Broncos won free agency and a superbowl with a certain QB. They also added; Welker, Vasquez, DRC & Terrance Knighton the next season.
How about the year the Seahawks won the SB? Cliff Avril, Micheal Bennet and Percy Harvin. 3 of the biggest FA signings that year.
Pick a team/year and Ill find the huge FA's or trades they made before they won something.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
I think the line I put into bold is completely false. It's the comment of media who don't follow the draft close enough and of GM's with a poor drafting record.
But how is it, that typically, the same teams are drafting at the bottom and still finding talent... while some teams are typically bad, typically drafting high and always struggling to find talent?
How does that happen?
Some teams are better at spotting talent. Some teams are worse. It's not a crap shoot. There is some real skill and some real science for many teams. And some are just not that good at it.
By the way, this is not only true in football. It's true in basketball, baseball and hockey as well.
There are two things to consider about a drafted player meeting the success criteria thats being set forth in this debate;
1. Can they play in the NFL?
2. If 1 is met do they resign with the team that drafted them?
If a player meets both of those criteria the next hurdle is signing them to a second contract. On average theres a 71% chance to resign a 1st round pick, 42% a 2nd round pick, 19% for 3rd and its gets worse from there. That really high 1st round number tells you that odds of signing those players in FA is very small because they stay with their team. That also says a team had better maximize their 2-7 round picks because odds are they wont last more than 4 years on that team.
https://www.milehighreport.com/2014/5/13/5713996/how-long-does-the-average-draft-pick-stick-around
This article talks about how statistically most draft picks dont work out.
https://www.dailynorseman.com/2017/4/12/15274148/most-nfl-draft-picks-are-busts
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Superman said:
Let me ask this:
How do you think the "crapshoot" nature of the draft differs from the "crapshoot" nature of free agency?
In two years, what's the likelihood the Landon Collins is still with Washington? How does that compare with the likelihood that Malik Hooker is still with the Colts? Assuming health, in both cases, of course...
My point is that free agency and the draft are similarly questionable. The difference is that free agency is more expensive from a cap standpoint, while drafting takes more time. But neither method of adding players is risk-free, plug-and-play; both are uncertain and require foresight, patience, and discipline.
Free agency is based on the premise that what you've done in the past can be replicated in the future under slightly different circumstances.
The draft is taking something thats never been done and seeing if you can project the future based on a past that is drastically different.
FA is saying this car has run really well on highways for 5 years and 50,000 miles. I bet it will run just as well or better for the next 5 years on city streets. The draft is saying this car looks good in mocks and test track runs and Ill bet we can change a few things with the engine and transmission and make it run like a dream in the city. Both are gambles.
Character doesn’t matter??
in Colts Football
Posted
I dont think you dont understand how pay in the NFL works. The players receive 48% of league revenue. That means if the NFL make $100 the players get $48 and the rest goes to the team. That also means if the NFL makes $1,000,000,000 the players get $480,000,000. The owners get 52% of revenue (which is more than 48%). We as fans (IE customers) determine how much players and owners earn based on TV deals, tickets and merch.
I suppose you may be unique in that you watch the NFL for the owners and not the players and recognize what ownership does that warrants more that the 52% they already earn (since you want to pay players less). Explain to me how we as fans benefit by ownership keeping, lets say, 72% of revenue instead of the 52% they currently keep.
How does Jim Irsay live? You check his Twitter feed?