Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ClaytonColt

Member
  • Posts

    847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ClaytonColt

  1. 3-2 over that spell looks most likely to me. Anything better than that and I'll be delighted especially if we managed to win the 3 division games along the way. I can't for the life of me see how we're consistent enough to win 5 on the bounce either in terms of decision making or play. It would basically be like calling 5 coinflips in a row at the moment.
  2. There's no other reason to rate them positively apart from the fact they have ended up here. If Turay or Lewis were playing at any other team would we look at them and describe them as "excellent"? I would highly doubt it. Every part of our defense is brutal. The front 4 get little to no pressure, the linebackers look lost and the secondary can't cover anybody. Not one bit of the defense looks above mediocre.
  3. It will never fail to surprise me how bang average (or worse!) players are supported on here simply because we happened to draft them. There's another thread on here about our pass rush stats and they are horrendous but Turay and Lewis are 'coming into their own'. Eek!
  4. That's an absolutely fine predictions but they are *s if they do so. We've got to make a decision after week 12 I reckon. If we're 4-8 or worse at that point and we don't sit Wentz that point we are dumb. Anything better and it's a debate. Unless we've contractually promised to play Carson if he's fit I don't knownwhy there would be any legal recourse.
  5. At this point it's not about Wentz though is it. We've already got him regardless of what we do. We've literally got an option to choose between a 1st round pick or a 2nd. If we choose to take the 2nd for absolutely no benefit then we deserve everything we get.
  6. The trade looks good because Wentz looks good I agree. Imagine with hindsight missing out on a defensive All-Pro for the sake of going 7-10 rather than 5-12 for example. We would be a laughing stock for years.
  7. They're going to have to bench him if we end up with a top 10 pick. If they don't it will end up going down as an historically bad decision, especially if the Eagles and up getting a really good player out of it.
  8. We're still going to end up with 25% - 30% of our cap just tied up in those 5 players if we resign Q the money he deserved and get an above average LT. Its a lot and I can't think of any successful teams who have won with resources allocated like that. There has to be a couple of "Chris Reeds" on the line somewhere.
  9. This is completely fair but it's missing the limitation of how you spend your resources. Back in 2019 the whole line cost us less than $25m. Assuming we sign Q for the reported ~$20m per year we'll be spending 66% more than that on just the three contracted players. How do we fill RG and the crucial poition of LT without having a disproportionate amount of the cap tied up just in one area? We can probably fill the guard positions with players like Reed who don't blow the bank but can we fill the LT position?
  10. To me it's almost the only way that would make some sort of sense from a team building perspective but it isn't going to happen. The problem that we're going to end up with though is that we'll either have to find a hidden gem at LT or be prepared to have a second (or third) tier player at that crucial position when it's easier to find one who plays competently such as Reed or Glow at guard. If we have the top paid left guard, 3rd highest paid center and 5th highest paid right guard then we're going to have to scrimp somewhere to share the resourced around. Are we better off doing that at guard or tackle?
  11. To some degree Chris Reed is exactly the problem we have with our team building. He's a million miles behind Nelson in pure talent terms but could he competently play left guard for 20% of the price? Absolutely. We would barely even notice the difference on 90% of snaps.
  12. It's a fair point but I don't think to many of the complaints come down to Paye and Dayo. It's the lack of delayed gratification from Campbell, Banogo, Okereke, Willis, Stewart, Turay, Lewis, etc, etc. It's the players that we were told to be patient in but who don't seem to be getting any better or in some cases actually regressing that is causing the issue. We're no longer talking about a small sample size with these guys any more, to an extent they are what they are. Add into this some possible regression from our established players (I'm thinking Kelly and Doyle mainly) plus perpetual injuries to others and I'd say that the 2021 picks were the least of our concerns.
  13. As with everything in life its a bit of both, rarely is it just one element in isolation. However it's difficult for me to look at this roster and decide it isn't majority Ballard. The way the offense has been built from the inside out provides us with almost no competitive advantages and minimal weapons. The one potential weapon we have can be nullified by stacking the box and the opposition getting infront on the scoreboard. The more we end up spending on the O-Line (and we're going to have to to justify the 'sign your own' mantra) the worse it's going to get. As for the defense. Wow. Where to start. DE, outside corner, safety, any linebacker not named Darius.....all dumpster fires. The contract given to Stewart might actually be the worst one on a per year basis in the NFL. Nobody can get to the quarterback and there just seems to be receivers randomly running around in masses of space. Flus takes a lot of stick on here but there might not actually be a good scheme to run with these guys. I don't want to let Reich of completely because there's been weird play calling, we don't seem to develop many players and he's part of the team building process too but looking at the roster the GM has to be answering some difficult questions about player evaluation and strategy.
  14. Plus the most expensive Defensive Tackle duo in the league on a per season basis.
  15. All of the things that should be a strength from the way the team is built are failing spectacularly. I'm thinking O-Line, run defense, pass rush, running game. Scheme isn't great but even on an individual basis the players aren't getting it done. Only bright sides today were Wentz and Pitman. Thought both of them looked really good. Relatively hopeful on Wentz's injury given how he was standing and moving on the sidelines but its probably misplaced hope.
  16. Can't believe the ball hit the move man and he didn't even react to diverting its path Just acted like nothing happened.
  17. I'm sure he does and maybe even the fans but look at us. We probably have a top 7 cap/cash spend and we talk about winning one play off game or winning the AFC South as a target. The sad thing is its probably realistic but isn't that actually a comment on how we actually allocate our resorces.
  18. Ballard gets a little bit too much credit for me and I think its down to a couple of reasons. Firstly we had a terrible experience with Grigson so in some respects he gets viewed in a overly positive light because he's so different. Secondly, in general Colts fans seem to overrate our roster constantly. You only have to look at the posts from a month ago which were claiming that the cuts were going to result in good players being released but we got down to 53 easily (and cut even more) with barely a notable or worthwhile player leaving the squad. To some degree Ballard's positive reputation boils down to absolutely nailing the Nelson and Leonard picks. Outside of that there's been questionable moves and contract extensions. Having basically the top paid interior D--Line when one of them is Grover Stewart, Hines being paid as top 10 at his position when he's our #2, his drafting of key positions (especially CB and DE) being arguably as bad as Grigson's drafting of O-Line. He's 4 years in, he's had some wins and some losses and overall he's got a positive demeanour and an outlook that seems to match Colts fans requirements. If we were a bit more demanding and realistic about our roster then he might be on a bit more of a hot seat but it seems like he just aligns with our relatively conservative methodology and happiness with being good rather than actually challenging for titles.
  19. I personally feel like that's a different aspect of it. These teams did well with very good or great O-line play but they didn't always spend 40% of their resources to achieve it. For me part of the trick is getting a line that is greater than the sum of its parts, a couple of excellent players in there mixed in with cheaper complimentary parts. You can then get a unit to overachieve the resources it took to build it, its one of the few areas of the team where it is consistently done. If other teams get their unit to play at a similar level to ours while spending less resources on it it gives them a massive advantage over the remainder of the team.
  20. I'm starting to think we're just going to roll with what we have. Can't see them signing any of the remaining free agents given the question marks that surround them all. Having to sacrifice a bit of talent at left tackle is probably a repercussion of having 2 players at "secondary" positions that are worth top end money and another relatively high pick who has performed excellently. Suppose we can't have a line where 4 of the members are high picks and expensive. Just unfortunate that it's the most crucial position that is possibly going to be weakened.
  21. I don't want to give it a great per deal, I think they're pretty useless straight away. But I liked the doubling down on the D line men early - I was just pretty confused by the next 3 picks. We seemed to go for people with unremarkable talent and also unremarkable traits, like were specifically trying to get run of the mill players or special team contributers. That's not to say they're wrong - any of those guys could have a Blackman type season - but from the outside looking in there's not really much to get excited about in terms of potential.
  22. I thought the Bills did a really good job given their drat position. Them and the Brown's were the standouts to me.
  23. There's still a couple of players out there that could help us on day three. Trey Smith who is has obviously played guard but could make a switch and Tommy Doyle who is probably a similar type of project as Stephen Brown who everyone seemed to love earlier in yhe draft. Obviously both are projects rather than day one starter's (and Smith has some medical concerns) but if we could pick one up they could still assist us.
  24. I like this pick and love Paye's place in this team. Just seems likes a Colts kinda guy and you can't help but pull for him. Hope he causes absolute chaos!
  25. Edge would be my preference but actually having a player there who is worthy of that pick seems unlikely. Paye is the only one I'm absolutely confident in and after that it's seems like a lot of players with question marks. We're looking for an edge to basically lead that position group so the bar is enormously high. We already have a number of rotational "second tier" type players. On the offensive line our new pick could realistically be the 4th best player on our line and still be perfectly serviceable. If we leave our defense with basically Leonard & Buckner as the key aspects we're going to struggle whereas a line of Q, Kelly and Smith shouldn't necessarily require top tier talent alongside them.
×
×
  • Create New...