Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ClaytonColt

Member
  • Posts

    928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ClaytonColt

  1. It's a gentle process that happens over time and it seems to flow through every element of the organisation....from the fans upwards. You only have to look at the post game thread at how many people think this is a good/great season and are happy to slap the team on the back for the mildest of achievements. Give it 4 months and there will be people creaming themselves because we've picked 6 or 7 more guys with high RAS scores and long arms, we've basically got a rookie quarterback returning and we finished 9 and 8 but I don't see anything to get giddy about. We're a team that crumbles in the big moments and lacks talent in key areas. We're happy being mediocre and will make excuses in the face of any criticism. I can't help thinking that we get what we deserve.
  2. Delayed gratification. Don't worry guys. It will pay off in the end.
  3. Not completely sure why we bother having scouts
  4. We need secondary help badly so if Porter is there it's almost a no brainer to me. Mayer and Washington have great potential but I like our TE room already and they look like more of the same as what we already have. Given our situation and what we're trying to do though, I think Joe Tippmann makes an enormous amount of sense if Porter has gone. Could play Guard and gives us long term and short term cover at Center if Kelly continues to regress. He looks like a Colt type lineman to me.
  5. Might as well put this in the 'general NFL' section for another fortnight or so when the real "bargains" are up for grabs.
  6. While Ballard was maybe talking about Paye and Dayo the conversation generally was also about getting improvement from our 2018/19 & 2020 draft classes. I think at the time you mentioned players like Blackmon, Rock, Banogu, Campbell, Okrereke, Willis, Turay and Lewis too. The article was about aggressive teams being successful in the modern NFL. I don't think that requires much more analysis than is in stated in there to be honest. I don't think it's controversial to say that many of the teams who are in the top echelons in the current standings and have had success over the last half dozen years have demonstrated aggressive tendencies. It doesn't mean that all aggressive teams are successful (obviously) but there are very few passive teams that are competing.
  7. Go on then. The article names team who have been aggressive and been successful. If you think the flip side is true you can name the team who have been passive and been successful. We will wait. It might end up a little bit like your "delayed gratitude" ideal of waiting for mid level players to show improvement which never really played out in real life.
  8. The question still stands though. You've pointed out that for every team that is aggressive there is another team that is passive. So out of those two groups who had been successful recently. Its a simple question and the avoiding of it gives an answer almost by default. You know the "right" strategy even if you won't admit it.
  9. Of course. But of those two groups which ones seem to be having the success recently?
  10. A good read buy I'm not holding my breath. We've got a passive trade down strategy in an aggressive trade up league. Its probably a good example of why we are where we are.
  11. I think this is a bit of what I struggle with, especially this year when the QBs are all do different. I can't imagine a front office selling themselves on the skillset of Young for example and convincing themselves he's the future and then watching him taken and going "ah yeah, well Lewis will be fine instead". And I don't think you dump a high QB after a single year unless they're absolutely horrendous - which then would make our process questionable - most rookies get a year or even two of "growing pains". To me if you're willing to give up a 1st for Buckner or a 1st and 2nd for Wentz I have no issue with giving up two firsts to make sure you get a QB you really believe in rather than taking that chance. Just feel it's too passive for a team at such a crucial juncture.
  12. Yes it's an "if" but we need a plan given its a possibility? So what it is? There's one definite QB needy team above us, two who wouldn't massively hurt themselves by a trade down and three teams behind us who who are screaming out for a solution at that position. The danger couldn't be aligning any more clearly. And I don't disagree with your tier theory in general but if you don't believe in the QB why are we picking them at #4 anyway? If you don't love them don't pick them, if you do love them make sure you get them. There's no point falling in love with Stroud (for example) through the process and then watching the Raiders, Falcons or Panthers jumped into 3rd and take them and then shugging our shoulders and saying "ah well, at least we've got our #1 pick next year eh?"
  13. And if all 3 go before us? Or Lewis and Stroud go one and two.....what then? That's the issue with being passive. If we feel like our guy is there for the next 10 years then no point being cute about it.
  14. Which years did they won Super Bowls with lines built as I described?n OL is completely an area where you need to be good. But good teams do it by merging good and mediocre (or worse!) talent who achieve more than their individual skills through coaching and scheme whereas we seem to suggest that you need to pile massive resources into that area which leaves other areas under resourced. But definitely intrigued to know which Super Bowls you are speaking about. It might change my perception.
  15. If we love a quarterback through the evaluation process then we HAVE to trade up for him. There's no point sitting at 4, hoping they fall and then kicking yourself for years because the Raiders, Falcons or Panthers jumped us. I don't want us to end up with the 3rd QB and hear "we loved all 3" type of nonsense. Its the type of typical passive Colts decision making that I've almost come to expect. If you believe your guy is there then go make sure you get him!
  16. You really think we've got shut down corners or explosive wide receivers? Both of those groups are further away from what good teams look like talent wise than the OL.
  17. Raimann was a 3rd. The post I responded to was saying we should take another lineman at the top of the 2nd. If Kelly wasn't cut wouldn't that be saying that we need a line built exclusively through top 3 round draft picks?
  18. So even they didn't fill their line with top 3 round picks? Isn't that my point? What did they win though if you're saying they were successful?
  19. I know how many rounds are in a draft!! I agree there are patterns, that's my exact point. But the patterns suggest that you don't need to fill your line with picks from the 1st 3 rounds to be successful, yet we continually act like we must. I agree with your last paragraph but the way to fix that is not to keep doubling down on a strategy that daunt worked.
  20. So why aren't the best teams in the NFL, teams like 49ers, Bills and the Bengals built just with top draft picks? Why has it always been this way? Why are they always built with a couple of high picks and then a combination of low round picks or mid level (under $10m per year) free agents? It's seems like more of a ideological things that Colts fans are obsessed with but it's not how winning teams seem to allocate their resources.
  21. I need to visit some other NFL forums yo figure out if it's just Colts fans who have this obsession with having a line made up purely of high draft picks. We need to look at how successful teams build their lines rather than packing it full of 1st and 2nd round picks. No team has ever been successful with that strategy so why follow it? We need weapons on offense and get some defensive players who can stop the opposition going on game winning, 80 yard drives more than yet another high pick offensive lineman.
  22. Yikes. If he's got long arms and a high RAS score we'll probably take him!
  23. This is the worst performance I've ever had the misfortune to watch.
×
×
  • Create New...