Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

stitches

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    8,032
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by stitches

  1. 3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

     

    It's really hard for me to comment on his play since I'm not seeing very much of the games.   On a week to week bases, I'm seeing maybe 15-to-25 percent of the snaps.   The exceptions are the two nationally televised games I've seen.    So, on that basis, I can't add much.

     

    But the game slows down for players at different points.   Just because guys like Claypool and Lamb are doing great,  doesn't mean that everyone else who is not doing as well are all going to be disappointments.   Give the kid some time.  Give the kid some meaningful stretch of games.    I'm speaking broadly,  generically.    But I think the more time we give this kid,  the more we're going to see,  and the more we're going to be pleased.    Honestly,  that's my view.

     

    Agree... which is why I want to give him time and reps. Hopefully he gets better with experience and refinement from the coaching staff. 

    • Like 1
  2. 3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

     

    First, I should say you're seeing dramatically more than I am.    I've only seen a few games, and then hi-lites from most of the others.

     

    Second, I should say what I often say with you.   That I admire your view and your judgement highly.   Always have. 

     

    All that said...    I think you're making far too much out of far too little.    I think expectations for all our rookies are outsized based on who they were....   but without the benefit of a normal off-season,  and without 4 pre-season games,  and then all the games Pittman lost due to injury,  I think expectations remain unrealistically too high.   Same with Taylor and others.   I'd cut Pittman lots of slack and not worry too much about what we're seeing until roughly a year from now.   Seriously.

     

    I still think of Pittman's future as incredibly bright.    But maybe that's just me?

     

    It's not even about his production. After he got back from his injury his production has actually been fine. I'm not one of those who wants ungodly numbers from him to think he's showing promise. But I do want to see him beat his man off the release on he outside. I do want him to win some contested balls and show body control and good hands. My problem with him right now is that ... he just... doesn't win his reps really. He needs his man to get stuck in traffic or for a defensive breakdown to happen in order to make stuff happen. Just an example - look at what Claypool is doing. Look at what Ceedee Lamb is doing...

     

    I couldn't care less if he ends the year with 400 yards and 2TDs... It's not what this is about... it's about me wanting to see some flashes of what he could become with development. So yeah, sure... I absolutely agree with you that it's still early in his career and there is time for him to get better and develop, but we still can watch what he's doing now and where he's struggling and evaluate that. IMO he's struggling with pretty much every single aspect of playing X-receiver. Which is why Reich started using him a ton in the slot after his injury. 

     

     

    This is not a coincidence. The jump in production coicides perfectly with Reich moving him inside to the slot and scheming things for him. 

     

  3. 10 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

     

    Makes you wonder about how bad Costanzos injury is. 

    IMO the hope is probably that he's ready for the playoffs... if we get to the playoffs without him. Officially he's week-to-week. Depending on the severity of the sprain, MCL injuries usually take between 2 and 4 weeks so... yeah... Maybe we get him back for the last game or two... or maybe we save him for the playoffs. I don't know... that's a total guess on my part. No expertise and no internal knowledge here. 

    • Like 1
  4. Here's something I've been avoiding talking about, because I don't want to be debbie downer......... but Michael Pittman has not been as good as his raw numbers indicate. He's been force fed and schemed open on crossers like crazy. He's catching balls with noone even close to him(on broken assignments or artificial picks) and he's dropping balls with people around him. He's not winning one-on-one. Almost all of his success has been from the slot on schemed crossing routes. Now... the positive is that he's showing more than I expected after the catch, but IMO this is not exactly what he was drafted to do and if we are honest there probably should be players with better traits and skills for that role on the roster(Campbell... even TY). I've been kind of disappointed in him this season. He's not showing much of what he was drafted to do. He has real trouble separating one on one, he has trouble out-physicalling his opponents both on his releases and at the catch point(and this is a shocking development for me because I thought this would be a strong side to his game coming into the league). This is coming from someone who loved him as a prospect and thought he would be a very good X receiver. He's shown nothing this season to suggest that X receiver is in his future. 

     

    Lets hope he improves and shows us more by the end of the year or even next year. 

  5. Depending on who the teams selecting early are, those players might or might not be reachable. If the Bengals for example are 1 or 2 it's very possible they trade back and if there a team willing to trade back then there really isn't anything out of reach.... as long as you are willing to give up the assets to do it. Not sure Ballard is the type that will give up multiple 1sts for a QB... so... I don't know... 

     

    Oh also, I wanted to say... it's HIGHLY unlikely all of those go top 10 or 20. IMO Trask and Mac Jones are more likely to be late 1st-second rounders than to be top 20... 

    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Superman said:

     

    Because I watched the game, and Rodgers played better. How many of our third and fourth downs was Rivers not even on the field for? 

     

    Statistically it was pretty much equal. I think Rodgers had a better individual game.

     

     

    That's garbage. It's an intentional misrepresentation of my point. 

    This whole discussion is very similar about last year's discussions about JB, when we were being branded "Jacoby haters" and similar, just because we were pointing out the faults in his games and the unsustainability of his stats(which regressed in the second half) and pointing out that we were winning in many cases despite him, rather than because of him. 

     

    I don't think this is the situation with Rivers this time, I think he's having an actual positive impact in most games(and negative in others too), but I agree - the main reason we are sporting a 7-3 record right now is the defensive perofrmance of this team. IMO Rivers is playing good in most games and he's contributing much more to the wins than Brissett did last year. 

    • Like 3
  7. 6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

    Been listening to a lot of podcasts recently and the consensus on Trask seems to be the same. His lack of athleticism and traits should keep him out of the first round. Dan Orlovsky most recently said that on Move the Sticks.

     

    Also heard the same sentiment on the Draft Dudes podcast. I’m just not buying into Trask. I don’t see it at all.

    I see it with him. I think he's a good QB... the question is ... can he be great? The things he does are not flashy, but he's a very efficient executor of an offense. IMO if he keeps playing like this it's almost certain he will go in R1 or early R2. I prefer other options but if Ballard and Reich love him and think he can be the guy, I will be willing to listen and support drafting him. 

    • Like 1
  8. On 11/18/2020 at 9:05 PM, Superman said:

     

    The Chiefs moved up from #27 to #10, and gave up their current first, current third, and the next year's first. 

    I would definitely give that up if I believe the QB I'm getting has high chance to be franchise QB type. 

    • Like 1
  9. 45 minutes ago, Superman said:

     

    Good post. I actually think the question Ballard was asked was about the fact that he had declined opportunities to pursue other openings, and whether the Colts having Luck was a major factor in why he wanted to pursue that opening. And Ballard's response was basically 'it's not about one player.' 

     

    I think he went out of his way to make that point clear, but I didn't take his comments to mean that he doesn't think it's important to have a good/great QB. 

    It's all about priority really. Any GM would obviously rather have a great QB than a mediocre one. The question is how much are they willing to sacrifice to that end? 

    • Like 1
  10. 34 minutes ago, Superman said:

     

    I'm divided. Still evaluating how this season goes, as far as what I think of the rest of the roster. For instance, is Pittman any good? Do we need another WR? What are we doing at TE? Do we have any pass rushers (magic 8 ball says 'don't count on it'). 

     

    If I had to bet, right now, I'd say that either Rivers comes back, or they go with Eason. And I haven't really watched anyone in this year's draft, so that might change things.

    To me it doesn't really matter what the rest of the roster looks like and how things develop for the rest of the year... we have some baseline of quality on the roster and to me it doesn't matter if we need another WR or EDGE or TE or OT... in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter until you get your QB of the future. To me getting the QB is prime priority! No.1! Nothing else comes close to it. We need future franchise QB more than we need any other position. And QB is more important position than any of those(and maybe even all of them combined) in the roster construction of this team. 

  11. 11 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

    We really have no idea on how Eason is developing.  But If I had to guess I would bet they are happy with his progress and the effort he is putting in.  Everyone says he has all the physical tools necessary and Ballard drafted him.  So if Rivers retires I'm thinking Eason is the guy and they will also bring in a veteran to back him up.  

    That would be the ideal development if he indeed is ready to take over next year. It would mean Ballard and Reich have seen a ton of good stuff from him in practice and are ready to bet on him and bet on him big. This would be much bigger indication about what they think than the words(reports) coming out of camp that they are happy with his development. 

     

    So yeah... if they clear the path for Eason to start and just bring in a vet to back him up and be competition for him(without actually demanding the starting spot i.e. someone like Foles/Brissett level rather than someone of Matt Ryan/Stafford level.) that would be the best possible scenario. It would also allow us to strengthen the team elsewhere with our premier picks rather than having to give them up for a QB(still want to point out that I have no qualms about giving up tons of premier picks if it meant we got our pick of a QB in this draft). 

  12. 2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

     

    Or option 3, take flier on a lower round development guy, but I feel we've already done that with Eason. 

    I'm not a fan of this. I think lower rated prospects have much lower chance of succeeding. It's better than not drafting any QB, but it's not that much better... 

  13. 2 minutes ago, Superman said:

     

    So let's say Rivers retires. Do you trade up for a stud prospect, or do you target Stafford or Ryan (in the hypothetical event that they're available)? 

    Prospect. Especially if you love that prospect. This is my personal preference. I don't think Ballard thinks the same. IMO he's more likely to go the other way. 

     

    BTW depending on the price for each move... I actually wouldn't mind doing BOTH! For example - if Matt Ryan goes for a 2nd and we can trade up for Lance/Wilson using future 1st. I might actually do both of those and have Ryan as the caretaker/bridge while Lance/Wilson gets ready to play. 

  14. 26 minutes ago, Superman said:

     

    Where I start on this is I don't think any GM would like to build a perennial contender without a foundational QB. I assume that every GM wants a great QB. I just think Ballard doesn't want to go flailing around desperately trying to find one. 

     

    If they had stuck with JB after 2019, I'd have some concerns. That would suggest that they think they can win with mediocre QBing. Instead, they tried to get an immediate upgrade. They also drafted a talented guy who needs some work. 

     

    To me, it all depends on the strategy. Right now, it's unclear. If the strategy remains a mystery after this offseason, especially if I feel like QBing is holding us back, then my patience will be much shorter. 

     

    This reminds me of the Broncos. Elway has drafted three QBs in the two rounds -- Osweiler, Lynch, Lock. He also drafted Siemian, Dysert and Kelly; Siemian started 24 games for them. And Elway signed Manning and Keenum; Keenum basically got the Brissett contract a year before Brissett did. Elway has done basically everything you would want a GM to do to find good QBing, except trade to the top of the draft for the #1 guy. And he still hasn't found a foundational QB (assuming Lock isn't that guy). He's running out of rope, but it's not because he hasn't tried, it's because he hasn't succeeded, outside of Manning. (He's had other drafting issues as well.) My point is just that even though there are a lot more QBs than there were 15 years ago, it's still not easy finding the right guy. 

    Unfortunately this is the sad reality - finding a franchise QB is NOT easy. But choosing to not pursue finding one is even worse in my books. It's waving the white flag before you've even tried. And since it's not easy, you can absolutely expect that there is a good chance you will fail once or twice before you find the guy. But you still have to keep trying. So yeah... Elway IMO is doing it right strategy-wise, but obviously has been bad with his evaluations. Ideally Ballard would fall in love with a QB and get us in position to draft him this coming draft, but I'm not so sure that this is where he wants to go. For example, I think it's more likely we go after another vet QB than trade up in the draft for Lance or Wilson or whoever Ballard loves. 

     

    (edit: actually the most ideal situation is that Eason is the guy and he takes over next year and is our QB for the foreseeable future, but I don't think that's very likely)

    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
  15. 1 hour ago, DougDew said:

    I don't think that any GM doesn't believe that "QB goes a long way". 

     

    I think the choice is whether you need a franchise level QB, or can win it with Tannehill's or Matt Ryan's...the second tier guys.  And if you have Mahomes at KC, will you need to find another Mahomes to push through the AFC Championship.

     

    I think there is a big difference between Tannehill and Matt Ryan. I don't think they are in the same tier(especially career-wise). I'd take a QB with the Matt Ryan's career for the Colts and I think we would be a perennial contender with that type of QB. I don't think the same about Tannehill. 

     

    1 hour ago, DougDew said:

    I think many believe you need the franchise guy.  I think Ballard probably doesn't,  making him the wrong GM for a lot of people on this forum.  Much soul searching yet to come, IMO.

    I guess my franchise guy definition extends a bit beyond what you consider franchise QB since you don't consider Matt Ryan one. But yeah... ultimately, Ballard will be judged for his track record and sooner or later that will include his handling of the QB position. I guess we will have to wait and see... 

  16. 27 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

     

    Can you share with us the PFF scores for the other starting O-lineman?

     

    I'd be most curious.    Their pass blocking is great.    Their run blocking?    Not so much.

     

    AC - 71.3(39th out of 77)

    Quenton - 80.0 (6th out of 83)

    Kelly - 73.1(6th out of 39)

    Glowinski - 74.6 (10th out of 83 )

    Braden - 75.6 (27th out of 77)

     

    Those are all good grades. None of them is obviously bad. The run blocking has taken a step back, but IMO the pass-protection has become better this year. 

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
×
×
  • Create New...