ColtRider
-
Posts
2,381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ColtRider
-
-
3 hours ago, Dilger85 said:
I agree with crazycolt1. Importance to a team is not directly related to the players compensation. Is Arthur Jones more important than D'Qwell Jackson because he was paid more last year. The same market inequalities happen in the draft. QBs, LTs, and pass rushers are all over drafted while better all around players slip. I would start to build a defense around a solid MLB before any other pieces were in place. I can scheme a pass rush but it is hard to scheme an attitude. Any good defense will have quality MLB or ILBs. The 2013 Seahawks had Bobby Wagner who has made the last two pro bowls as a MLB.
Agreed. MLB/ILB/OLB are the starting point focus to building a formidable defense. Out of the 10 Defensive Super Bowl MVPs selected over the years, "4" have been LBs. Two of them within the last 3 years. Malcolm Smith/Seattle & Von Miller/Denver. The LB position & their core set the tone for the entire defense. The vast versatility & responsibility required by them both physically & mentality is beyond reproach by the rest of the defensive players.
They are, in essence, the QBs of the defense. It's quite a well known fact that the QB of the offense is so very critical to it's success. Same goes for the flip side of the coin on defense as it relates to the LBs. They are the field generals. The decision makers & playcallers. The captains.
I'll take a great LB/and or corps to develop a very good to great defense without any hesitation at all. The nucleus of any past/present/future great defensive teams.
-
5 minutes ago, Dilger85 said:
You are mistaking market inequalities with importance. Scarcity increases value in the market but not necessarily to winning football games. Imagine the Ravens without Ray Lewis, the 49ers without Willis and Bowman, the Bears without Urlacher, etc. those stout defenses would not have been as good. Even last year's Super Bowl participants relied on the leadership of the inside linebacker position. Marshall, Treviathan, and Kuechly were just as important to the team as any another piece. If you cannot stop the run and cover receivers, the pass rush is a moot point. Pass rushers are paid more due to the lack of availability of good ones not that they are more important than the linebacker position. You can have all the pass rushers you want but if you do not have good linebackers to cover and stop the run then you will not be winning much.
Exactly. And I really thought all of what you've stated here was a given by most fans.
Guess I was wrong. Old school jocks like myself have a tendency to do that nowadays.
-
2 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:
Why? I think it's pretty conclusive evidence that the top 10 DEs and 3-4OLBs are paid more money than the top 10 4-3LBs and 3-4 ILBs. You can shake your head all you want, but when teams allocate more money to a particular position, that's the team basically saying your position is more important than positions we pay less money to. How is that wrong?
DEs do not run the defensive calls or sets. The LB position is much more pivitol to a team defense than another position by the mere fact of making more money.
-
42 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:
LBs aren't the core for a great defense. If you want to know who the core of a great defense is, look who's getting paid the most money.
EDIT: To clarify, off the ball linebackers are not the core of a great defense. I guess technically a 3-4 Rush or Sam backer is technically a linebacker, but functionality-wise, they are more lineman than they are linebackers.
All I can do to respond is shake my head. Wow.
-
46 minutes ago, BOTT said:
Because it doesn't start there
What? Besides coaching, are you talking about the LBs as not being the core starting point for a great defense?
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
Let's be clear of the distinction between NFL scouts and people like Mike Mayock. I have no problem with any of the network or Internet analysts, nor do I claim to be better than them, so if it's their word aagainst mine, feel free to side with them. However, they are NOT NFL scouts.
We won't hear much from actual NFL scouts about any draft prospects. What we do hear will be anonymous. But when you dig for team personnel comments about Ragland, not media people, you'll see mixed comments about his coverage ability and potential. Lots of stuff about him being a "throwback linebacker," which is thinly veiled code for 'he can't cover.' Same for comments like "it's okay because he can rush on third down," again, code for 'he can't cover.'
And the film shows that he can't cover. The clip being debated in this thread shows him getting beat in coverage. As a fan, it's great that he was able to break up the pass, and that's a testament to his motor and competitiveness, but through a scouting lens, you have to acknowledge that a) he got beat in coverage, and b) he was only able to defend the play because the pass was overthrown. It's just one play, but as someone who has watched a ton of his games, I feel comfortable saying that's the norm for him in coverage.
Yes, Hunter Henry is athletic, but so are pretty much all the starting TEs in the NFL. Can't pretend there aren't tough matchups every week at TE.
And yes, you can scheme to cover up for a player's weaknesses or limitations. Good coaching should do that, especially if you have a guy who is really good in other areas. But coverage is a big deal. Teams throw more and more, they scheme to isolate mismatches, and they LOVE getting TEs lined up against stiff inside linebackers. It's harder than ever to hide a coverage liability in the NFL, no matter what the down and distance is.
I can agree with this, MOS. The distinction that I was trying to make was not too much intent on the media, rather some of the NFL scouts and organizations such as the Packers & Colts who seem to be genuinely interested in Ragland along with quotes made by them (Packers) through ColtsBlueFL postings of the articles in this thread.
And, the fact that I'm high on this kid because of all the other attributes he brings to the table besides his several assessments of being weak in pass coverage. I've watched film on Ragland as well as real-time games and have been very impressed
with everything else a very good ILB brings to the table. Basically, my opinion mixed with the reviews of this kid from NFL scouting.
So yeah, I agree with your assessment about Ragland's coverage ability, but with a much higher favored opinion. Mine just happens to be on a higher plain than most regarding his ability to cover. I never lay claim to have the entire package as the professional evaluations made by GMs, scouts, coaches, and NFL organizations. Far from it. It's just how I see it. Like you've insinuated, nothing's
concrete as far as the draft goes. And, I understand your evaluation as to his "norm" for non-coverage. I just like this kid's overall approach & playing ability at ILB. I think he'd be a great attribute to most NFL teams.
-
11 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:
There's a difference between being decent and being a liability. If you're consistently 3 steps late into coverage, you are a liability.
I don't deny his ability in the run game. But to me, the better approach for this team is to improve the DL so we can become a 2 gap 3-4 defense (if anything from NT to OLB), then you can afford to have a slow bad coverage ILB to the weakside. Really, I think we're only missing a 2 gap NT, which I think Billings could provide. You could pick up a tweener LB who's good in coverage and we'd be get more bang for our buck going that route as opposed to picking Ragland who is not good in coverage carry the run game burden at the expense of pass coverage.
Well OPC, that's where we disagree; being decent in coverage & a liability. I really do agree with most of the NFL scouts & their evaluation of Ragland. His pass coverage is not a liability, more of a decent one. The film I've been privy to & games I've witnessed from Alabama over the last couple years indicate that. Everything else suggests a tough, smart, get to the ball player. A disruption if you will.
And, disruption is exactly what you want out of a LB. He, according to most scouts, coaches, and analysts state he's much more. A field general on defense. A good decision maker. A formidable force that knows how to evaluate offenses & implements that to the rest of his teammates.
And yes, of course, if the Colts choose to pass on him if still there at # 18 & go another route as Billings, I wouldn't be agitated. I just lend credence to the fact that nucleus positions as a great ILB or OLB are critical to this team's success in the future.
-
5 minutes ago, weslo1812 said:
Ummmm it's a simple mistake on one play....EVERY player makes them!!! And in case you aren't aware Raglands strength is actually that he is very good majority of the time at reading and diagnosing plays quickly. He was slow and or mis read one play....big whoop. If that's such a big deal...then we have big worries about every player in this draft in that case. Because every one of them makes mistakes and gets beat at times. So that must mean we need to be really worried about every player who makes a wrong read or is slow to react on a play etc.
Exactly. Pass coverage is not the primary goal of an outstanding ILB. Nor, has it ever been. The best you're going to get out of most LBs & that includes all the former great ones this league has seen over the years is "decent" at best. Ragland has the ability to become the defensive field general as it were. That's what a formidable defense is looking for in the NFL. Sure, coverage is important. But the role of the Corners & Safeties exstrapolate the LB coverage pass play. Always has. Always will.
The guy brings too much to the table as far as run-stop, tackling, shedding blockers, pass rush, getting to the ball quickly, forced TOs, and the overall ability to evaluate plays & command the defense.
-
12 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
You are equating UDFA Mario Harvey to Reggie Ragland, ranked #7 overall by RealFootballNetwork (Pat Kiwan and group) and #13 overall by Scouts Inc. (Todd McShay and group)? Part time player? The lengths people go to make their point. I counter with this-
D'Qwell is less than a million dollar cap hit next year if cut, and likely to miss games this year. He'll also be 33 to 34 years old. I'd be more interested in the other ILB and ROLB linebacking people on the roster more than Ragland if we go that route. I'd still like a premier ROLB/Edge to land in out lap first. But if they go Ragland as it appears they possibly may, I've thoroughly studied good NFL minds take on the guy and I'm OK with it. In addition, Manchino will know how exactly how to get the most out of him in his new attacking defense. But I feel the Bears will take him, with their long lineage of punishing middle backers- Butkus, Singletary, Urlacher, now maybe Ragland.
This article is a great display and definition of what a very good field general the ILB is supposed to possess on defense. A nice summary from this scout. Ragland fits the bill & more in my mind. He's got a very intense nose for the football & can command a defensive set extremely well. If the Colts have a shot at him, it would behoove them to take him. A very promising LB that can change the course of a game.
-
Pass coverage as an isolated attribute to the former great & now playing LBs have usually not been the force of the position. It's run-stop, tackling for short yardage, shedding blockers, and getting to the ball quickly along with forced TOs that count.
Sure, being able to cover is a very good point. However, disruption, no matter how that plays out every down is the name of the game. Corners & safeties are relied upon to exstrapolate the LB play against the pass.
Decent pass coverage from LBs is about the best you can expect.
-
To tell the truth of it all, I wouldn't mind a bit if the Colts chose Billings. I prefer Ragland at LB as opposed to the NT position Billings. Ragland, IMO, has the capacity and tools to become a very good to great LB in the NFL. That's the target of any good defensive group; their LB corps. Always has been.
So, the starting point begins there. Why would anyone be opposed to that?
-
1 hour ago, krunk said:
Bottom Line
Thumping inside linebacker with throwback size and tonesetting mentality. Ragland is a confident and capable early starter in league who has the temperament to become one of the premier run-stopping inside linebackers in the pro game. Ragland has some coverage and speed limitations, but his instincts and overall awareness should be able to mask those issues.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/reggie-ragland?id=2555169
I believe this write up for the most part, but it's not something that would make me say "Oh don't pick that Ragland guy!". I think most linebackers can be beat in coverage one way or the other. Jerrell Freeman who's supposed to be a good cover linebacker I've seen him beaten plenty of times. I think there's an either or with just about every linebacker. If you get the ones who can cover they are probably not as great against the run. If you get the ones who can stop the run well they may not be as great against the pass. People were saying Denzelle Perryman was only good against the run in the previous draft. Now people are saying he's about to be a star linebacker in this leauge. I think Ragland has enough instinct and film study intelligence to offset some of his weakness. People rag on Dqwell Jackson but I've seen Jackson make any number of plays in the passing game and you never hear anybody talk about it when he does. It's always the same company line!
Agreed. Reggie Ragland is a very formidable LB. IMO, he displays the tools to become a game-wrecker. A force. A play to play 3 down beast. If upon taking this guy in the 1st round, the Colts would eliminate one of the key pieces in the puzzle for a very good to great defense in the near future. I like this LB from Alabama. A great pick for any NFL team.
-
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:
This Draft is the most important in teams history. I cant wait to read the Posts after day 1. So many people have so many different idea's in here on who to take. Some say we should take Elliott if he's there.
It's gonna be very important, '06CBE. I agree. I just posted over in the ILB thread that if Reggie Ragland is there at #18 and BPA is satisfied through that pick?
We take him. I know there's some difference of opinion of OL v. Defense. I just have to side on the option of taking a potential great ILB that can ignite and morph into a very good to great defense. And, that position along with OLB is so very critical as well to acquiring an exceptional defensive club.
-
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I am waiting for the Draft before I pile on Grigs. I think after last seasons FA he is just being cautious because it backfired so much. The Draft is obviously very important.
There's going to be mega-input from the entire connective tissue that has anything remotely to do with the Indianapolis Colts drafts from here on out IMO.
-
4 minutes ago, rock8591 said:
I'm a proponent of Reggie Ragland. He'll be our Vontaze Burfict, without the penalties.
Whenever he's on the field, our defense will play more aggressive. Our D has lacked an impact MLB for a long time.
RR has the skills, talent, football intelligence and overall potential game-wrecker physique & mentality to become a great ILB in the NFL. If he's there at #18 as many projections say, then I'm taking him if BPA is satisfied.
-
33 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
We get this exact post every year.
The Colts sign somebody but it's not at the position of greatest need and some fan acts as if it makes a bit of difference WHEN you sign someone.
If we sign someone tomorrow, or next week, or next month to address a need, it makes no difference either way. The only thing that matters is that we actually address the need. "When" doesn't matter.
Odds are the biggest holes will be addressed in the draft.
Voicing the last sentence : Right on the money in more ways than one!
-
Very good to great defenses have two catalyst positions. ILB & OLB. And man, very tough to acquire & develop for long term play. The Colts need a prime time Mathis & Freeney again to go along with a crushing middle LB which will accomplish a very good to great defensive alignment for the future. Get that, and we're off to the races.
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
Whatever program they started Thornton on is helping already. I wonder what Denzelle Good is up to right now.
To be honest MOS, I'm pretty pumped to see what all the new coaching blood can accomplish. Krein is a great S&C guy. Why Miami let him go is a mystery to me. Clean sweeps at positioning coaches catch fire sometimes depending on their backgrounds & experience. Most of these guys have a good track record in the NFL.
That's a huge plus that's bypassed & overlooked by some. As for me, I'll take it. As I believe that most of our so called "holes" might just contain better coaching, several good selections in the draft, and a drive to adhere to our newly chosen schematic play on offense & defensive style of play.
-
16 hours ago, Track Guy said:
I don't know how his weight loss will affect his play but I am so tired of us not being able to win in the trenches and run the football against good teams. I really think it's an even bigger problem than our edge rusher situation that everyone is panicked about.
I believe Darren Krein just might be the answer to a lot of questions concerning the lines on both sides of the ball.
-
30 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:
Not sure if it's already been posted but interesting article on NFL.com
Basically just Allen talking about how he knows he needs to prove he is worth his contract. Also said his number one priority is to stay healthy. Plus he mentioned how Chudzinski specifically told him that he would "be used differently"
I expect Allen to back up his words. If Chudzinski says he'll be used in a different roll, I'll take that as a positive. As far as injury goes, Krein just may be the guy to get Dwayne on another railed track set up for success in conditioning.
-
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Love this Thread because yes we are that spoiled. Should we maybe have won 2 or 3 Championships in the Peyton era? Maybe but we won one at least and from 2003-2009 we went to 2 SB's and won 98 games and only lost 29 games, that is Regular Season + Post Season. Then we lose Peyton and rebuild on the fly and from 2012-2014 we win 36 games and only lose 18 games Regular Season + Post Season and have made a Final 4. So when we go 8-8 some people act like it's the end of the world for some reason.
Are Indianapolis Colts fans spoiled? Yes, to a degree we are. That's a good indicator to the fact of winning on a consistent basis. A natural human reaction to sports. The expectations are very high from our fan base every year because of that. It's not a bad shed of light depending on how you evaluate the NFL as a whole.
You've laid out the last 14 years or so as proof to what an 8-8 team suffers under scrutiny because of a bad season. Injuries, bad coaching, under-performance by a few, scheme, conditioning et.al are tied into one big knot as to demise on the horizon for years to come. A knee-jerk reaction to slippage of the status-quo.
The overwhelming part of all of this for average fans is how to get back on track? Right? However, when that is addressed & moves are made to establish that, it soon becomes a game of suspect because it's not immediate enough or the cure doesn't present itself in a fashion to opinionated individuals aligned another way.
So, what to do from there? Not much. You wait and see if the franchise has chosen the way out to a different form of winning. I'll bide my time because of this organization's past and focus in on what they're trying to improve on by not whining for heads to roll until the solution is carried out over the next few seasons.
-
12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
That's a very good question, CR.... when he made his announcement that Grigson and Pagano were staying, Irsay said Grigson had overseen a team that had won 41 regular season games in their first four years, better than what we had done with Polian. And had won 3 playoff games, again, better than Polian.
So, that played a factor.
Also, I think Grigson called around to replace Pagano... I can't believe we didn't at least call Saban and several other candidates. My hunch is Irsay didn't like what he heard.... I'd bet he heard that guys like Saban wanted (A) too much money and (B) too much control.
I think Irsay felt firing both would be too much of a shock/blow to the franchise and it was likely better to try and make it work for at least one more year -- if not two.
Nothing else makes much sense.
I will add this...... the last week of the season and in the Monday/Tuesday right after, there were stories that said if Irsay fired Pagano, that Chuck would find no shortage of teams interested in hiring him to be their HC. That to other owners, they thought that Pags had done a good job with a team that (A) wasn't very talented, (B) the HC didn't have great support from the GM and (C) that Irsay was a hard owner to coach for. Other owners thought Pagano would be a very good coach for their team. Reportedly, Irsay heard all that and did a hard look at things and re-thought what he was going to do. Now, I don't know how much of that is accurate.... but it "feels" accurate to me... and considering we all thought that Pagano was going to be fired on Monday, and he got a new contract on Tuesday, it sure seems to fit the narrative.....
Feels to me that Grigson and Pagano are sort of connected at the hip and Irsay has given them marching orders to do better and play nicely in the sand box.
Sorry for the length of this post........
Now THAT is one of the best explanations I've heard so far. And, I concur. Especially, with the outlined marching orders doled out by Irsay. There is a lot of weight that's carried by this. And, I also believe the consensual order to clean house goes along with all of that. A new directive for cohesion between the big boys. Like you say, nothing else makes as much sense. Thanks for the input.
-
3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
What are we disagreeing about here?
You said he had no such track record. I simply pointed out his success which you don't want to acknowledge.
For the record, I have said repeatedly I was fine if Grigson was fired this off-season. He lost my support this season. I've repeatedly said in many posts that the roster is not where it should be after four years. The result of too many misses in the draft and free agency. I've said it over and over and over again, including multiple posts today.
But the guy has a track record and it's pretty darn successful. Just not successful enough. I still wanted him removed because he's made too many mistakes that were avoidable. Opportunities squandered.
NCF, what's your take on why Grigson has been retained by Irsay? I've given my reasons as to why of sorts in different threads. Curious to get more input from more seasoned members here. And, I think that's a huge question only Irsay, probably Pagano, and several privy others could answer. Throwing darts at an empty board is not my forte, but I digress for some more insight as to why.
-
5 minutes ago, BOTT said:
I'm sure others have input, but he is the GM....for better or worse, and he should have final say.
Yep. As it should be. I firmly believe more cohesion is to be sought from here on out.
Major announcement at 5 PM
in Colts Football
Posted
So great to see this from Jim Irsay & the organization. Peyton Manning not only changed the course of the Indianapolis Colts, but the entire NFL. No other QB can lay claim to that. His tireless, undaunting, and exhaustive study of the game became the norm. That attribute along with his superb play over the years catapulted many to a road of emulation. Which has been accomplished.
His class, outstanding respect for the game & players, and overall approach to everything NFL is going to be sorely missed.
You're a great guy, my man! Enjoy your retirement for now. Hope to see you soon if you choose to stay close to the game.