DougDew

I'm not aware that forums exist to create black holes of inescapable positivity that crush rational discussion. You must live in a different universe than me. Every year, WalterFootball has a redraft of previous years' drafts. Each year, players exceed their draft position as a matter of commonplace. GMs generally don't get praised for something that randomly happens each year. JFC, don't you get that?

As I said, I don't think I ever used the word. Others use it, and I cringe when I read it. Its possible that Robert Mathis was a steal, in that Polian probably figured that other GMs didn't value an undersized pass rusher as much as he did. But now others do too. Ever watched the show Storage Wars? Somebody sees something that they know others don't see or know its value. They get it cheap. You could say they stole the item more than they got lucky, because they knew the item and knew nobody else did. The way the draft works, if Ballard knew Raimann would have been a top 10 LT, he would not have picked AP and JW before Raimann. Steal is the wrong word, and lucky is a better word.

Why retort with such a baiting post? You should get called out for it. You choose: Everybody, including you, thinks a black box contains a nice glass vase worth $100. So you let 78 other boxes get chosen. Then then you choose that black box and you find out it has a crystal vase worth $500. Which is the better word to describe that? A Steal. Or luck. A steal would be when you knew the black box had the $500 vase AND you knew that nobody else knew what you knew, so you let 78 other boxes get chosen first. Doesn't happen that way when drafting players.

LOL. Like some others who have been around so long here, you still don't get it either. So thanks for not understanding it, then applying that bad thought to my thinking. If everybody had Pene Sewall a top 10 LT and he busts, I would not blame the GM who drafted him. I would blame him if he was one of a few GMs who rated him that high. I would be screaming if it was a G though, even if the G didn't bust.

I wouldn't. I don't think I've every used the word seriously. Doesn't the would steal mean that you know what something is and found a way to get it before others found out what it was? I think what happened is more like everybody thought the black box contained a nice glass vase, then you open it and it turns out to be crystal. I would not call that a steal. If Ballard would have thought Raimann would be a top 10 LT by his second year...he would not have waited until pick 79 to select him. No, I don't think its a steal the way most use that word around here.

It might be a steal, but why credit a GM for that? He just picked the guy that was sitting there available. Did LAR think Puca was going to be as good as he is, and the GM knew that no other GM knew what he knew so he let him drop? It doesn't work like that. The way it works is this. IND needed a LT. LAR needed a WR. They both drafted a guy that NOBODY forecasted to be a top 10 anything. If they would have thought that each would have been top 10 early....,they would also figure that other GMs knew that (or else they are tremendously egotistical and conceited)..and they would have drafted each player with their first round pick (or at least before Jelani Woods and Alec Pierce). That's what the NFL does with LTs they think will be top 10 LTs and top 10 WRs early...they draft them in the first round so nobody else drafts them.. The fact that LAR and IND did not do that shows that they knew nothing substantially more than any other GM about how the player would turn out....they may all have thought they were good developmental players. The reason they were picked is because the the team needs aligned with the each players availability and forecast. (After we picked AP and Woods before Raimann,,LOL) If you want to equate GM stealing a player with a GM getting lucky, I'll agree to that, but I doubt that's the way most see it. I think Ballard would have looked more astute if he picked Raimann ahead of AP and Woods....and not have passed on him twice like every other GM did.

The traditional definition of a "WR#1" includes the ability to take the top off of a defense. Maybe not blowing the defense away, but take the top off. In his recent presser, Ballard said that taking the top off, stretching the field, is what AP can do. Its why AP was drafted. IIRC, Ballard has never said that about Pittman. Its doubtful that Ballard thinks that Pitt is a traditional "WR#1".

Raimann is playing well, probably above expectations at this point given his draft position. A steal? It doesn't work that way. Raimann, who is outplaying his drat position, was passed over by Ballard twice, just like every other GM did. Its not like The Ballard knew he was 1st or 2nd round talent, knew that other GMs didn't know this, and shrewdly waited until pick 79 to select Raimann because he saw something in Raimann that the others didn't, and knew he would still be there. Raimann fell a little in the draft, and was sitting there at pick 79, and Ballard picked him because he NEEDED a LT more than the other GMs that didn't pick him. And IIRC, he picked the perpetually/weirdly injured TE Woods before Raimann, so Ballard's player valuation doesn't really look that exceptional. He picked a guy at a position of need who was staring him in the face because he fell a bit. That's the way it works. Raimann deserves the credit for being the player he is. And probably that really good oline coach that Reich had that helped Raimann develop after a few rough games at the start.

Yes, he ran the ball too. The topic at hand was an inference that we don't need to look at WRs with pick 15 because "AR will make our WRs better". Nobody can definitively say that with a sane mind.

Bull. Stop making stuff up. I didn't care who the Colts picked once Stroud was off the board, or if they traded down and deferred the QB pick until this year. I remember sh-t from 15 years ago, can't you remember stuff from 5 months ago? Minshew filled in for AR and the passing game got better....remember? Then Minshew tailed off and went up and down. How do you know that ARs first 4 games wouldn't have been his best games this season, just about how Minshew looked?

I'm not nuts. You make stuff up in your head to feel good about the Colts. He played 4 games and defenses didn't even have much tape on him. He showed nothing in the passing game to suggest he is the answer. I'm not saying he isn't, but saying that we learned in 4 truncated games what we were supposed to learn in a full 17 game season is nuts.

Technically yes, Polian signed back up players and kickers. I assumed OP was looking more at signing immediate starters with higher price tags. For example, IIRC, he signed Brackett as a backup to MLB Rob Morris, whom he drafted 26 but was later moved to SAM as Brackett won the starting role.

Why? We don't even know if AR is any good. We were supposed to find that out this year. Besides, most GMs would go get weapons to help their young QB. They don't expect their young QB to make their existing players better.

When Polian first got here, he signed a few. DE Chad Bratzke S Chad Cota Edit: Yes, Jeff Burris, a Corner. and there may have been a few lesser players. In a few years he signed Cory Simon, a DT stud with Philly who somehow fatted-out of his playing time almost immediately as a Colt. There was that FA QB from his time in CAR (cant remember the name) to start when PM went down late in pre-season. He traded for Tyrone Poole when he signed Bratzke and Cota. He traded for Booger during the SB years. That's all I got.

Somewhere around the same ol' .500. I figured a couple of games under. We were one game over. Yawn.

Um. If you've watched the NFL more than one season,, teams typically have Power Backs and Third Down backs for situations. Almost by absolute definition, third down backs are not 1st stringers. And in our situation, it seems that our 2nd stringer gives our first stringer a breather but they run the same plays. Steichen put in our third down back because our third stringer was probably the best RB for that play, because he probably has the best hands over our two power backs. Why is that dumb?

What do you mean?

I can't see why you and others are barking about Goodson being on the field to catch a designed RB pass play rather than either Moss or JT. You do know that the "best players" in that situation are not Pitt or a TE, right? Moss and JT are the only two players higher than Goodson on the depth chart at RB. Would either of the two have been able to catch the ball while spinning a 180 and moving away from the ball? Maybe Steichen specifically wanted Goodson to run a 4th down RB pass play because he thinks Goodson has the best hands of any RB we have? Saying "not having your best players on the field" is simply cliché-speak, IMO.

Why do you have to bother me when it was Steichen who didn't call JTs number? I'm just pointing out why he didn't. JT ran through holes, because the defense was scattered wide most of the game to take away the short sideways passes that we throw. When they decided to stop the run, they stuffed the middle because that's where JT runs. He had a great game, but that's only because he was the alternative to us not having a passing game, which Aikman pointed out and which is NOT the way to have playoff success in the 2020's. Go make your beef with Steichen and Aikman.

No, other do. I just got here, and commented because others were spinning that JT should have gotten the ball. The reality is that Steichen didn't even call JTs number when it mattered, because of the high stuff likelihood. If I'm bashing JT for pointing out why, I guess the HC is really bashing JT for actually making that decision. My realistic and fair comments just seem like bashing to those who live in the spin zone of thinking JT matters when it matters...or that a generational G or an elite WILL mattered for the past 7 years.

We would have gotten blown out because of a poor passing game. HOU shut down our passing game, because passing the ball is key to playoff success. JT played like a RB that benefited from a defense that was focusing on stopping the pass. More up the gut runs that succeeded in the middle of the game, but got stuffed when it mattered (like after the HOU injury 3 more run plays resulted in a punt). Even Steichen knew not to run him up the gut on 4th and 1.

He was open. So what ever route he ran, a playoff caliber Qb should put it on him. I doubt that AR would have either, but that's the current state of the Colts QBing right now. And most teams have 3rd down RBs that are not PS guys. But our star RB can't be counted on to run plays like that one. Steichen is absolutely the last person to blame for the play fail.

Goodson was wide open and across the FD line. Seems like the play caller did a great job.

You are talking about calling a different play? Why would a different play have worked if Minshew threw it behind that receiver too? Or maybe in another play, the defense covers every other player except the PS guy....just like the play that was ran.

My thoughts on the game: A well played game overall. Just got beat by a better team. It was as if HOU allowed JT to run but shut down the pass,,,,knowing that NFL playoffs are about passing the ball and a RB running for 200 yds is less harmful. There is no trophy for "making the playoffs", so I don't know why folks made such a big deal about it. The chances of this team winning the AFCCG after getting in by an expanded playoff setting was very remote anyway. Overall a good season, and Steichen should be commended for getting this team as far as Frank usually took the Colts. But shuffling HCs, DC, schemes, playcalling, etc. are not going to get this team where it needs to be. Kind of like worrying about what RB you have when you are playing in a passing league.