DougDew

It looked to me like defenses figured out that they could stack the box against JT and take Pittman away via coverage. And neither Paschal, Doyle, Mo-Allie, or whomever we had in the slot could do anything about it. Wentz, and any QB, would have been toast under that situation, and the Oline would get aggressively attacked by the defense as well. Compare Paschal, Doyle, Cox, and the ? slot back then to what we have now and still want to obtain.

Cross should be FS. He has the range. Daniel Scot was supposedly encouraging. Blackmon s/b SS, but he can't hold up with his body type. I'm for signing a FS vet on a short term contract and have Cross and Scott play behind him. Then draft a SS with Blackmon as backup. There are a lot more SS candidates than FSs coming out, AFAIK. SS in 2nd through 4th?

He actually had a good year with us. Late season implosion was a team effort. Imagine if had a real WR opposite Pittman to go to, and a TE that could actually threaten the seam. Needed to throw dump offs though.

PFF's latest Top 150 player ranking, 4/1/24, has DeJean ranked #8. Q Mitchell is #10. XLeggette #63. XWorthy #68.

A ton? Woods was a 3rd rounder. We haven't invested anything higher than a 3rd rounder in the TE space in about 20 years. That was Dallas Clark. Both Doyle and Mo resigned to decent contracts here, but they came to the Colts as UDFA's, IIRC. Ogletree a 5th, and Granson and Mallory, both limited players, 4ths. Seems like at least one of them was probably BPA at the time.

Doesn't that almost describe AP perfectly?

I said in the other thread, I would not be surprised if Ballard traded up this year to get one of the elite players, if there was a bright line to be drawn. I don't think anybody would disagree that Bowers belongs in that group. Look at where the real holes are on offense. The WR group is a known quantity, Pitt, Downs, and AP all played a lot. The TE group is more unknown. Lots of role players, and Woods who was out all year, and Cox who probably could be a cap casualty. I talked about the TE room being less impressive than many here thought. I I think it is much less stable than the WR group as a whole. Bowers could set the corner stone for that group, with everybody else filling in as the role players they seem to be. On defense, RDE is a long term issues since Ebukam is not that, and Paye has apparently switched to LDE. But I don;t know if trading up for an EDGE is necessary. Corner has known quantities that can be worked with. Of course, S is a hole, but that's not likely in the first round even with a trade down. I think this trade rumor makes some sense. Doesn't mean it isn't speculation, but there may be some legs with this one. If so, I hope Ballard can include one of our redundant TEs in the trade, any one of them is fine w/me, to maybe help save having to give up pick 46.

Nelson, Smith, Kelly, and Leonard never got the shot. Most of the stars/leaders. IIRC, Irsay sort of laid the leadership thing on Wentz, in that he didn't whip his team into doing what it took to keep practicing and playing without risk. Then a lot of players got it during that infamous end of season melt down. I don't know if any of that leadership criticism was really due to covid, but a lot of things were getting blamed on covid and the attitudes back then so I guess its possible. I said I thought the trade was premature, and Wentz should have been allowed to come back the next season with a better supporting cast of receivers, but the FO pulled the plug on that pretty quickly. I also thought the move from Wentz to Ryan in about a week was one of Ballard's actual genius maneuvers, but we see how that went.

Yes to most of those things. Your comment about Wentz not working out struck me as a decent comparison to the WR/TE room then as now...and a receiver room that many folks think needs to get even better in the draft. I think Wentz would have had a decent chance of working out if it wasn't Zach Paschal who played opposite Pittman. Paschal went to Philly and got buried in the depth chart behind actually good players. I can't even remember who played slot, since PC was on IR?. I think Doyle was TE...the F role?, and Mo was a younger version of himself. Godawful help for a QB who liked to sling it downfield, IMO. Just an OT divergence about the past. And maybe a comment about Ballard. Carry on.

Really, do you think the WR and TE room would be any different now than what it was? I think Wentz would have had a much better chance to succeed if the total WR and TE room was better than it was then...which is pretty much the same as it is now, and folks are now starting to see the need for other viable options besides Pittman. Not discounting Wentz' issues, but he had the same WR and TE room to work with that everybody wants to be improved now, even worse without Downs. (who were the WRs opposite Pittman and in the slot during the Wentz year?) I think the conversation back then needed to be exactly what the conversation has been this offseason. Make that change, and I think Wentz had a decent chance of working out as the QB.

As I said to Jvan, its subjective as to how dominant I think Mahomes is relative to how somebody else might see it. I'm not going to convince others to see it a different way. I agree about Kelce, but they seem to be able to churn through WRs like NE did with Brady and Gronk. I didn't care for NE during that period either, and its not just because they were direct rivals of the Colts. Mahomes/Kelce are two players specifically that can't really be replaced...very special. I think their defense is more about pass rush, coverages, and schemes; so its not as one specific person dominant like you're saying with Jones, IMO. I don't like BAL and BUF. Lamar and Allen are two pretty unique players...one of a kind each in their own athletic way..... that are handed the responsibility to win games for their team. That's the way I see those three teams, and I hope Ballard isn't relying upon AR to be that player for the Colts this coming season or beyond.

I know that Swift is making Kelce more popular, to the extent that his popularity is even relevant to what I was talking about. The question was rhetorical.

In addition to Rice. Taylor, Dwight Clark, Roger Craig in an era when RBs mattered more, Joe Montana still made plays based upon more of his football traits, not so much personal athletic traits. That's is a distinct difference in entertainment value for me. But that goes way back before the salary cap, when SF stacked the team. I hope Ballard builds out the roster with talent in the "right" places.

None recently. You can say that about NBA championships when Jordan was with the Bulls. That's the problem, it gets reduced to finding that one guy who is better than that one other guy. But I'm talking about holding my interest as a fan and holding it over a period of time. As I've mentioned here, winning a SB "just because" is not what holds it. Certainly just winning a Division "just because" wouldn't even move the needle for me. It might work for you. It doesn't for me.

Examples, in what way? If I said that even KC has a few heros, I still think the weighting of it is bent more towards Mahomes being more of a dominant hero than the others. So the teams I list in terms of who has the best hero dispersion is going to be based on my opinion and not any type of objective criteria that you can Google and compare against...which I assume you are looking for. Off the top. Cincy, Philly, SF, Det, probably JAX is striving to get there. Not structured the way I like. BAL, BUF, KC. I'm not talking about having good players. I'm talking about heros..and who the fans typically look to to make a winning play, which is subjective in itself.

How is explaining my opinion trolling? OTOH, I've gotten responses with a meme of a teenage diva. A meme with a muscle heads rolling his eyes. And response that says blah, blah. All from the same guy. Again, I like the heros dispersed throughout the team....in positions that matter....and not relying on MJ ball hogs when it comes to it being about "one guy". And I like process. So as a matter of process, I like teams that are designed to have the hero dispersion in positions that matter, and keep those players as the core players. Any player can make a hero play, but ...like Sneed....if they are not considered core, the team trades him, LOL. Kelce and Jones are what I'm talking about, but more than two more is better. Ballard has not done this. He seems to think heros are made along the oline and interior dline. After 7 years, the only heros in meaningful positions that can be considered core players are Pittman and JT, and there is some question if RB is even that kind of position. Every other player is in wait and see mode. Yawn. Edit: To the bolded. I'm not talking about popularity of players, but do you think dating Taylor Swift and delving into the non-football entertainment industry is helping his popularity?

When they redid the stadiums, I think they brought the fences in from where they were in the 70's through the early 90's. Small ball can win if MLB wanted it to prevail. I guess one person's boring tedium is another person's interest.

I haven't followed baseball in 20 years. I used to watch the Cubs and Braves religiously on WGN and TNT, back in the day. Every ball and strike became exciting, because it meant a possible base runner, and then another, and then a scoring opportunity. Each pitch mattered, and the Balls/strike count was interesting. I suppose that's too boring for the more impulsive nature of our world today. To me, that strategy being wiped out or not even engaged because you're waiting for a pumped up dude to simply hit it out of the park, is a yawner for me. But, I think there are pitchers that play the stall game too. Just fiddle around on the mound and make the batter stand there with anticipation. In the process, the pitcher wastes a lot of fans time because they are also waiting with anticipation. I suppose MLB is trying to get the game to move along.

Its a balance, but I favor execution of designed plan with a little improv at times. If the plan fails, make the plan better, don't just toss it out and turn it over to the athlete. The same out of balance problem happened with basketball a long time ago, and baseball during the steriods era where home runs were the entire focus. It wasn't so much the cheating, it was what they were trying to cheat at as well...making the splash play even more important by making the athleticism (or strength) greater. Now with football, its about that one guy's ability to improvise. All three sports kind of embrace the ego-centric, look at me, Diva-ish? type of way of approaching a team sport. I suppose back in the day, baseball was dominated by babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, etc., but it seemed the heroism had to be more dispersed back then in order for a team to win. I was never a big fan of the Favre GB teams either. I never really rooted for them.

Stats, why are they relevant? KC is definitely planned and sold as a team being about "one guy".

Its probably what they expected with Fields. I think that style requires a team to have an MJ, or they have no chance. He's the only guy that makes plays, so you either get one on your team or you are destined to have a boring season with little chance. I like scrambling, but the idea that winning comes almost exclusively because the MJ style QB has to take matters into his own hands gets real boring real fast to me.

No. They are becoming just as hateful to me like Pittsburgh, NE, and the Chargers were when we had Manning (but for different reasons). I watch KC in hopes of seeing Mahomes getting creamed on one of his silly ad lib out of structure non team oriented plays. I don't like watching "ball hogs" take over a game, and hope it never becomes the key to winning a team sports championship.

The Ballard era has certainly tempered my enthusiasm as a Colts fan. But I've been doubting the process for several years now, where more folks are starting to get that way. And I'm not that enthused about needing a QB to play like Michael Jordan to compete with the other MJ in KC...not my idea of entertaining team sports. So even if we win with AR playing like how people seem to expect him to play, its going to be with a brand of football that's different than the brand I prefer. We'll see. Its why I'm becoming drawn to SF, DET, and I thought JAX. Call me a bad fan I guess, but I only have unconditional love for my family. Football fandom needs to be earned and maintained, JMO.

Well, we're talking several guys, not just one. For me, I think that posting a lousy race time would almost require an asterisk next to the win, IMO, especially if it was my only championship. In all of sports, the whole point of practicing is to perform at your best when it matters. Of course, in a team sports, there is strategy and preparation for a single opponent next game, so that plan needs to come together, or adjusted during the game. I think that if we went to the SB under Minshew or Flacco it would be a pretty hollow championship for me. Not nearly the same as 1995? when Harbaugh (Captain Comeback) led the Colts in a playoff run despite entering the playoffs with a 9-7 record. Harbaugh was playing well enough to actually have been named the starter during the season, after a few games of where he was obviously outplaying Erickson. It was a sign that we'd be coming back the next season with the same team to challenge for several seasons, after seeing Tobin put together a roster that was getting better each season. Not the same with a Minshew or Flacco led team. Even if we win with Flacco or won with Minshew, the intent would be to not have the same QB the next year. Sort of a one-year one-off team that doesn't reflect the true Colts. Just less satisfying for me.

After all of your training and practicing, trying to achieve your best time, would you feel a little bit lucky if your ran poorly, but every other really good runner fell and broke their leg during the race? Then you hoist the blue ribbon with some crappy first place time, kind of gloating because you won.....but everybody else is snickering. LOL