DougDew
-
Posts
18,398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by DougDew
-
-
18 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:
I’m not sure that has ever been Ballard based on what I have seen. Have you seen the clip of him when he was with the bears breaking down the cornerbacks available in the 2006 draft? It’s interesting. He didn’t exactly promote who he wanted nor was responsible. But it’s obvious he was indicating Devin Hester had the explosive upside and ability to produce in multiple ways versus a guy or two that was higher floor and more likely to produce immediately. They obviously took Hester and he scored on the opening kickoff of the Super Bowl 10 months later on his way to a HOF career.I don't know how Ballard feels about that. What he would do if he was confident that a player would succeed right away.
I'm talking about giving up pick 46, which is likely a ceiling guy, to move up to 8 for a player you "knew" was going to step in and be good right away. I offered Raimann as an example, but the age issue muddied the discussion. Maybe theoretically trading up for Nelson would be a good example, except he's a G so I would pass on that trade.
-
26 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:
No one wanted diggs. We have even said so. It’s about not making any moves in this division while every team at least tried to get better.
Chloe.
Actually, the thread about the proposed trade for Diggs sourced from the SI article proposed: Trading our 15 AND a 4th this year for Diggs. I'm sure that price influenced many opinions.
If the proposed trade was proposed as made today. next years 2nd and change, opinions may have been different. Its possible that some might have wanted that trade but don't now because of this discussion.
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, shasta519 said:
There's a rather large difference between paying a large contract to a 26 year-old and a 29 year-old. Not to mention the 5th year option gives you cost control over another year. Do you want a guy who is in his prime or a guy who could be 30?
22 year-olds don't automatically take 2-3 years to develop. And 25 year-old doesn't always make the transition. So it's just a bet either way. And if a team had to bet on one of these happening, teams seem to be taking the younger player early.
Raimann was never really a R1 pick anyways...he was a mid-R2 prospect (who actually fell a round). So this is sort of all a hypothetical based on a player that hasn't really existed, at least in recent NFL history. But based on what we have seen, when given the chance, teams are going younger. We can't see their draft boards of course, but it's pretty logical to assume that a team has passed on a player in R1 due to age or another player's age was the deciding factor, just by how the draft has fallen.
I've lost track of the point of this convo and don't have the energy to revisit its source. All I can say is that if I knew a player would play well almost right away at a very important position that had nobody manning it, and have him on a 4 year deal, I would take him before I would take players that really had only ceiling to their resume.
That's the way I would view picks 8, 15, and 46.
-
32 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
That I haven’t let go of since the Nelson pick?!?!? Dear God, you’ve led a cottage industry on how wrong the Nelson pick was. It started draft night 2018 and it’s been six years now. But you point the finger at me.
How nice that you’re judge and jury and you’re always innocent and everyone else is always guilty.
I've led a cottage industry? Hmmm. Is that how you view roles on a forum. A few leaders and the rest being following know nothings? That's pretty elite.
I've said for years that when the Colts start getting impactful (aka explosive) players at important (aka explosive) positions, ( explosion vs pancakes, aka positional value, aka interior vs boundary aka...any number of different expressions). the Colts will be real contenders. That has been the basis for nearly all of my posts "over the years". In fact, I don't have much else to say here if it doesn't touch on that principal in some way.
When we pass that standard, the Colts will win. because that's how games are won in the NFL in the post 2010 era. There is no lingering beef here. Every day the Colts get measured against that standard, like I have been doing every day for the past 7 years. Tomorrow is a new day. Lets see if it brings anything.
Today it brought us Blackmon. And brought the Texans Diggs,
-
3
-
-
8 minutes ago, RollerColt said:
In order for a quick turnaround to happen, the entire organization has to first collapse, accumulate a ton of picks, and somehow hit bullseye with a star franchise QB. Houston fans should consider it immense luck what has happened so far, because it often doesn’t work out.
Its a short term sport. Nobody cares about failure that happened years ago. Nobody cares about the previous HC or GM that got fired.
Except if the conversation is about that same guy who is responsible for both the failures and then the wins, you can't really ignore the past.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
Ok…. That’s a great non-answer answer. Just like yesterday’s non-answer answer when I told you Ballard says you’re wrong.
Ok…. Whatever.
For years I've wanted explosion vs pancakes. And made many posts with that same principal. If the GM does it, when he does it, if he does it, I'll be happy.
If I'm not yet happy....wellllllll....I guess the explosion hasn't yet been greater than the pancakes.
If you are changing the subject to being about what I have posted over the past day, week, month, or years; that explanation is about as nonsensical summary I can give. The fact that you perpetually choose to ignore it or forget it only serves your need for stoking your argument that you haven't let go of since the Nelson pick.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Solid84 said:
I think it was rumoured he COULD be traded and there was a thread here on the forum suggesting we could pick him up. IIRC people were against it for various reasons - age, diva, etc.
Okay, I stand corrected. I guess there was opportunity to express it. Sounds like it was a rumor more than serious talks at the time. Sometimes those threads don't get traction if the readers think a lot of capital would be involved, and carry a different tune if they figured it just took peanuts.
I'm not on folks for anything Diggs related. I think the team is one or two years away from even thinking about making those kinds of short term moves.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Solid84 said:
Even if he doesn't work out, they haven't lost anything. They made a move to try and improve. That's more than what we get.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did anybody here know Diggs was on the trading block? I'm not here every day, but I don't think anybody here was in position to pound their fists for him.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
I wouldn’t even know where to begin….
You mean if the Colts finally win a Super Bowl with Ballard after 10 or 11 years, you’re not going to be happy? Or are you going to point out to everyone that it took so long and so the achievement should be diminished?
Is a Super Bowl win to be discounted if it takes too long for some of the fan base?!?
The amount of mileage you’ve gotten out of Ballard taking Nelson with the 6th pick can’t be calculated. Not to mention all the times you’ve listed the picks he’s made that you conclude were wrong and have led to our struggles. Those posts are whoppers.
But no worries. The yellow emoji’s have been removed. You’re safe.
Why are you asking questions that move the goal posts so far it looks like they're in Siberia? Is it because they took away your chucklehead reaction?
This isn't difficult. For years I've wanted explosion vs pancakes. And made many posts with that same principal. If the GM does it, when he does it, if he does it, I'll be happy.
And if it doesn't happen, I'll point it out, just like I have been. Others can decide if they want Ballard around to try the next year.
-
5 minutes ago, Superman said:
Such an eye-rolling statement to make, and pretty pejorative.
Who here was banging the table for Diggs, at any cost?
Okay, now this doesn't seem sincere. Was Diggs even thought to be available? Who bangs the table for any one player in the NFL who does not seem to be on the trade block. If he was, it was not common knowledge here.
-
7 minutes ago, Solid84 said:
This. The apologists act like the Texans gave up the farm for Diggs.
Even if he is a cancer or Diva, those guys usually play nice the first season or two with their new teams. Just knowing he's the new kid in the Stroud, Collins Ryan room probably means he's not going to be shooting his mouth off right away.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:
well- the owner and head coach have to be on that same page and that’s not the direction the organization chose to go… but sure, let’s put 100% blame on Chris BallardI'm not the one being two fisted here. When we start drafting well, and win playoff games, will we give Steichen the same amount of credit for success that we blamed Frank for failure? No matter what percentage it is, its the same right?
-
4 minutes ago, Superman said:
First, the way I see the board, it wouldn't be the last blue chipper at #15, because I think some players will be over drafted, particularly at QB.
Second, I don't agree with the idea that the only way to add explosiveness to the offense is at the top of the first round. In fact, my philosophy is that Day 2 is the best value for adding WRs, so I'm not even married to the idea that we have to take a WR in the first round.
Yours is a very pessimistic viewpoint of the value of #15 this year.
I think other teams will likely value the receivers over the corners, so Ballard would be most likely to get his explosion from a corner, the second tier receivers, or the second tier Edges at 15. But it may be deep enough, who knows.
I would not really look for "value" if I'm looking for explosion. I would spend capital to make sure I got the explosive guy. The capital I save is just going to give me more of the nonexplosive guys that I already have. Provided that I trust my methodology to recognize the difference between the guy at 8 and the guy ranked 46.
-
19 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
And you always insist to me that you’re NOT anti-Ballard. Hmmmm???You still don't get it. Like many, I think he'll do a good job from here. I have hope that he's finally learned the importance of explosion vs pancakes. But maybe not.
But unlike many, I'm not going to say that he will stink forever. And unlike many, I'm not setting up to say how wonderful he has been all along because we finally win a SB 10 years after his hiring....like you probably will say.
-
4 minutes ago, Superman said:
I'd say 13-15 blue chippers this year, which puts the Colts in great shape to get an "elite" prospect at #15.
I think getting the last one on the board is not how I would do it, if in the same off season I'm saying we need more explosion.
I know that explosion doesn't necessarily mean draft pick, it could mean its all solved by getting AR. But there is a lot of space for it to look like you're wanting to get more explosive and simply waiting for the last explosive guy to come to you.
-
7 minutes ago, shasta519 said:
But there's always a chance he's maxed out as he's already in his prime. And when his rookie deal ends, he's going to need a big contract for his age 29-32 seasons, which provides a bit more risk for age-based regression or injuries.
That same 22 year-old might take 2-3 years to develop, but he also is more likely to have a chance at getting to a higher level when he gets there. And when it comes time to extend him, he's going to be playing those age 26-29 seasons, typically seen as prime seasons, so less assumed risk.
I am not arguing whether this the right way to do it, I am just trying to get into the minds of a GM. And this way of thinking makes some sense to me when it comes to R1 picks. Of course, it all assumes you get the pick right in either case.
The actual shrewd thing to do would be to draft an older prospect, get those prime mid 20s seasons on a cheap rookie deal and then let him walk in FA if you can. But R1 picks are usually seen as franchise players, so this is much tougher to do.
I don't see the difference if both the 25 year old and 22 year old play at a high level when they are 25. One is immediate, the other takes three years. From there, the age factor relative to performance/health issues going forward is the same. The only difference is that you now have to spend boku cap on the 22/25 year old to retain him while you have the 25 year old on a rookie deal for 4 years.
IMO, you take a player in round 3 because you expect him to take several years to get up to speed. Not because you know that he's a good player now, but he's older.
-
Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:
well- the owner and head coach have to be on that same page and that’s not the direction the organization chose to go… but sure, let’s put 100% blame on Chris BallardI'm not blaming him, 100%. I'm not choosing to blame it on others either.
Polian had the Colts in the national media AFCCG discussion throughout each of about 10 seasons beginning each September. Under CB, the Colts have been so....yawn....they don't even register, unless JT busts off a few lucky long runs.
-
7 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:
I don’t think he’s the best at all. He won 1 Super Bowl with arguably the greatest qb of all time. What did his teams do against Bill Belichick with similar qb play?
it was a bad dream. Andrew luck retiring was a nightmare!Good lord. So Ballard will take us to the SB in his 10th year and he'll be again regarded as a genius who was simply held back by Luck's retirement in his second year.
Its been 7 years, He's already earned the mark of a stink. Its what he is. Its just a matter of whether or not he'll be given enough time to claw back to level water.
If the entire key to success is getting a QB, then its not rocket surgery to try to move heaven and earth to find one ASAP.
-
3
-
-
27 minutes ago, richard pallo said:
Except now he has a coach and hopefully a franchise quarterback.
So would have any new GM by now. You're tossing away 8 years like it was just a bad dream?
-
7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
If the people of Missouri won’t pay for a new stadium, where does KC relocate to? Neighboring Kansas? I’ll believe it when I see it.I'd think both states would have to collaborate to approve a special tax district for the KC metro area. Then tax the metro area like Indy did with Marion and surrounding counties.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Zoltan said:
Texans got a taste of success and decided to go all in. We’ll see if it works out for them.
Really though, for any team with a supposedly playoff ready roster, is giving up a 5th, a 6th, and next years low 2nd rounder anything more than peanuts? Seems like there isn't much of a failure risk with the acquisition.
Bills must be doing a mild reset and figure Diggs is either too expensive or whiny to bother with. Doesn't mean he'll be a problem for HOU.
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, shasta519 said:
The COVID year changed things a bit, but even with it, there's less than a dozen players at Raimann's age taken in R1 in the past 15 years...out of like 430+ non-QB R1 picks.
Many are interior OL players, with a few DL players, a TE and a CB thrown in. Many of them also turned 24 well after the draft (not 25 like Raimann). Some hit, but many did not. So it's not like the floor is higher either.
But none were OTs. It just doesn't really happen for some reason, especially at technical positions like OT, WR and CB.
Good GMs project development and upside. Older players don't really offer it as much. I think it's really that simple. You can draft an older prospect you think is already pretty good or you can draft a younger prospect you think can be great. And teams are going to the choose the younger player. Besides, if they were truly already great players, they likely aren't still in college at age 24.
To the larger point, I don't think Raimann's success changes how teams view R1 picks.
I can't disagree too much. My main point is that we did not have to wait for Raimann to develop. He has achieved the play status of a 22 year old taken three years ago in the third round and has developed. I strongly believe that if any OT needing team would have known Raimann would have been as good as he has been this early, they would not have waited until round 3 based simply upon the age metric. Especially a OT that can last to age 35. With other positions maybe, but OTs can have longevity.
-
14 minutes ago, Solid84 said:
They should've re-signed their own then spent 5 years trying to build up their team through the draft - much better approach... 🤦♂️
It seems like any given season, there will be two or three teams loading up in the offseason. If it doesn't work, good for us. The issue is that if it does work, there could always be a new team that leap frogs us and makes it harder to reach the AFCCG. Will TEN be the next team next season?
Its like the NFL market has spoken. You need to be one of those teams that leaps 15 spots in the "power rankings", so to speak, to give the team a shot at fighting through the wash. If you take the slow approach, a different Ferrari will just up from behind and pass you every season. And it doesn't matter if that Ferrari ends up on the side of the road after a few seasons. A different one will pass you next season.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, Orioles22 said:
So, Blackmon is the strong safety and Cross plays free safety? Daniel Scott would play at which spot if he's healthy?
And that question illustrates the problem with our safeties. Blackmon fills an immediate need to play either spot reasonably well, but there are still multi-year issues.
Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)
in Colts Football
Posted
Please see my other comments, because this is going to be repetitive.
If you're not going to trust your own board for how you rank players, and instead chalk up not doing anything to the stats that say they may be busts, then I'd suggest that person needs to retire and hand over the keys to somebody who trusts their own scouts.
Assuming I separate out MHJ from the rest of the players as being close to a sure thing NFL player at an important position, I'm not going to give up pick 46 to move up and get him because in the past a lot of top 10 guys were busts? I don't get that.