EastStreet
-
Posts
26,341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
258
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by EastStreet
-
-
9 hours ago, ManningGM said:
We need to draft another WR like Deebo Samuel or Harry. I really hope they aren't gonna go out next season with the WR core we have now.
I do like Deebo. I'm really not firm on who, just need a fast, vertical threat with good hands to stretch a D.
-
11 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:
Ya none of those are even close to what you are suggesting we trade lol
i suggested i think a 6ish spot swap with a 4th round kicker. the first one listed is an 8 spot swap with 4th rounder kicker. it's early second instead of late 1st. not far off and only took me 2 mins to find. i'm sure i could go back further...
-
28 minutes ago, krunk said:
Reich is probably kicking himself because committing to the run and playaction passing is more of what he should have done against KC instead of all the spread out shotgun two minute stuff. New England on the other hand did opposite of what we did.
NE didn't get down big early. TY was blanketed early, KC scored early and often.
Lesson - get a legit vertical WR2, and don't let a team run and pass all over you.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
Sound like Reich might use DF a lot in the slot.
been saying this since he signed. i think his best position for us is in the slot.
IMO, more upside there than #2WR.
-
here are two articles
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/zach-pascal-22405/
https://horseshoeheroes.com/2019/02/06/colts-2019-free-agents-zach-pascal/
one says he's a FA. the other shows him as an ERFA
not much out there on his original contract details (only that he was claimed off waivers), and what is out there is somewhat conflicting. i can't find anything out there saying he's under contract for 2019, but have found a few saying he's a FA/ERFA.
-
10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
ZP is on the roster. You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a story from the front of the website. Goes position by postion. Zack is on the roster. Says others have been tendered but have not yet signed. The whole story is a good read. The writer used his views to include possible candidates for draft picks. Doubt he's using any inside info. That would be a no-no.
https://www.colts.com/news/colts-offseason-needs-post-free-agency-frenzy
ZP and MJ were both ERFAs, right?
The article is wrong by not including Johnson (who was tendered) on the roster.
Pascal is not on the roster if not tendered. If he was tendered, he's on the roster.
Nothing has been reported that I've seen that he has been tendered.
-
20 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
It's not that I don't like advanced stats, I think the people who do the research draw conclusions that NFL people would disagree with.
Here's an example.... a year or so ago, a poster (don't remember who) posted a study about arm length of left tackles. He found it on PFF. And the conclusion was that arm length was over-rated and not needed. And it had the same graphic that you offered in your study of WR's....
It had a vertical line and a horizontal line... with no years, or names, or anything recognizable and it had lots of different colored dots with lines connecting them. I couldn't make heads of tails of it. But the conclusion was that arm length was just not that important for LT's.
And yet, it was a 3-year old study, done by someone (don't know who?) who did not work at PFF. And PFF still seems to value arm length of all lineman. So does NFL.com. So does ESPN.com. All who have advanced stats. So, I can't find anyone who accepts the premise of the study that was posted.
As for the Eagles, you make an interesting observation that I can't give you a statistical based answer to. But, Frank Reich, himself a life long Quarterback, thinks better running and better play action will make the rest of his offense hum. I think Reich and Ballard have access to all the same analysis that you have. Do we know if ANY NFL teams have accepted this study as conventional wisdom? Not that I'm aware of.
It just seems to defy logic to me that the quality of the running game does not matter. That all you have to do is run play-action. That the benefit of having a good to great running attack brings you no more benefit. That seems illogical to me. Strikes me that every team that has used a 1st round draft pick (including some that have used a top-10 or even top-5 pick on a RB) are strongly disagreeing with you. What do they know that the people behind your study don't seem to?
Sorry this went so long..... just trying to address all the issues in play....
Everyone knows a good running game opens up the passing game, and vise versa.
The point is, play action is a scheme to fool you into thinking you're going to run, which opens up lanes. And it can be effective doing so without a great running game.
-
1
-
-
As long as they are not increasing the number of challenges, I have zero problem with this. I'm assuming it's the booth late game like others. Wonder if the booth has the authority to review the entire game and ring down whenever they want.
-
27 minutes ago, Jdubu said:
Yeah, it’s potential which is why I said on paper. They have to show consistent play instead of showing flashes. The one factor that jumps out is the newness of the system last season. An entire new group of coaches and many players. A second year in the system may be just what the doctor ordered for a few of these guys to take the next step up for us. If we go wr with our first three round picks, I’m very much fine with it as well. I just dislike getting Funchess on that 1 year deal, wishednit was at least 2 just to get a little bit out of it if he goes off the scale in season one.
I'm happy it's a one year deal honestly. but doesn't matter now.
I do think another year in the system, and improved chemistry with Luck will go a long way for some. From a ceiling perspective though, still not overly optimistic with the group besides Cain. Aside from Cain, I could see Johnson and maybe Fountain taking a step forward.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
I think the first sentence is 100 percent false. And I think the studies you have that say otherwise are 100 percent wrong. And judging what Frank Reich says in an interview on the website right now, I’d say he doesn’t agree with your studies one bit. And his is the only view that matters.
I get it, you don't like advanced stats. So here's some simple things to think about.
Philly... who is a team that uses play action a ton (top 5 in play action %), was 7th in passing, but a horrible 28th in rushing. So play action is working very well for them with a really crappy running game.
You have to look at things in two ways. 1) how a DC schemes in general, and 2) how a position group reacts. A good running team will cause an opposing DC to game plan to combat the run. A DC will also scheme to combat a good passing team. Regardless of scheme, the position groups, especially LBs, react to what they see. A good play action fake will cause the LBs to bite, regardless of the opposing team's RB anticipated performance. Their job is tackle the RB, and if they think it's a run, they won't ignore it. If the LBs bite, it opens up lanes, plane and simple.
In general, a good rushing team always makes things easier on the passing game. A good passing game also makes it easier on the running game. Respect of either requires attention. That's just common sense regardless of if you run a lot of play action or not. But, play action, regardless of rushing success, will require scheme adjustment (game plan), and if done properly, will cause the D to react (real time).
Philly's running game was bottom 5, while their passing game was top 10. Can you explain this? I absolutely want to improve the running game, but let's not act like we need to because it's required for the passing side of things to work.
-
4 minutes ago, JPFolks said:
I hope it is a young burner like Hilton.. we have some big big bodies.. we need SEPARATION and a back up plan if Hilton goes down. Plus he's getting older and we need him to train the next great Colts WR like Harrison trained Reggie and Reggie trained TY.
yup. while i would prefer someone 6-2 or 6-3 and FAST, anyone that can stretch the D vertically opposite Hilton is fine. I don't care if they are sub 6 foot as long as they have great hand and can blow the top off the D. And yes, we need to start planning for when TY loses a step. I'd love someone that he could mentor for the next 4 years. I think TY would be great in slot when he does start to lose speed.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BProland85 said:
With the signing of Houston, I'd argue a stud DT is more of a need than DE. We still have Turay who has tons of talent.
DE is still a need, but I would just say DT may be a bit more of a need is all.
Agreed. And it's not like Burns is an elite can't miss guy. He's got upside, but also a lot of questions about his frame, weight, and strength. While he might be worth a 26+59 or 26+89, I would not give 26--34. iDL is a much bigger need given we just picked up Houston.
-
PM will end up either with the Colts or Vols at some point.
-
8 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
Comparing ZP to DI is like comparing Kelly to Constanso two very different types of players
What will affect DI is the signing of DF and return of Cain and maybe Johnson
I'm not comparing them to each other, simply describing them. They are both in a position group that will have to make some decisions. The both did play around 30% of their snaps out of slot, but that's about the end of their similarity. 6-2/220 vs 6-3/200. DP was closer in size though to our WR2 last year (Grant).
What will matter more than anything, is if we draft a WR, and if we do, what type we draft.
-
23 minutes ago, RNGDShobby said:
We have plenty of that. And if its all non-guaranteed, whats the harm? Get him for a year. Draft a Wilkins/Tillery. McCoy can play and tutor, then cut him if he isnt required. Easy.
not claiming to be an expert capologist, but i would not assume there's no plan for the 74M in cap space left. We have to spend roughly 54M (we can carry around 20M) still, but we're reported to be working on extensions for 3-5 guys. none of us really know what's free and clear.
-
13 minutes ago, JPFolks said:
Thanks YJ, I mistakenly thought he was still in play. As you said, his catch rate was still better than Funchess and he was a low paid FA rookie. If he isn't on the team either, then who do we have again? Hilton, Funchess, Rogers, Cain and Fountain? Who am I missing? If that is it, we need to draft a WR with our 1st pick if any of the top WRs are there. If we sign Inman, then maybe one of the first 3 rounds. I will be surprised if Fountain is around and Cain is a complete ? so that is not a murderers row of WR talent. One injury to Hilton and what do we do? Just play Funchess and 3 TE's hoping Doyle is the target so the ball isn't dropped outside the endzone? Rogers needs to be the final WR on the team IF he even makes it. I think him being anywhere near #3 means a massive failure. I'd rather see Funchess at the #3 and someone great (Reggie Wayne to TY's Harrison) with our healthy Dallas Clarks (Doyle) and match-up nightmares Funchess and Ebron. People think Cain, I think it is too risky to count on that. Maybe Pascal will be in training camp and we can see if he has improved over the year. Thanks!
overall, i still expect us to draft a WR. i think ballard is in a wait and see mode on Inman and ZP. he may be waiting on the draft, may be waiting to see how Cain is progressing, or both.
if i had to guess, i'd bet that one of the two come back. ZP showed flashes (was good in both Houston games), Inman showed consistency and was solid depth. in the short term, i'd probably pick inman if i had to chose one.
-
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:
Ballard pretty much confirmed on the rapp sheet podcast that if they can get DF to reach his ceiling he will re sign him. He said absolutely when asked. He also said the coaches know exactly how they will be using him.
Newton had a bad shoulder. I don’t think looking at his statistics last year is really fair.
did Ballard happen to define his "ceiling"?
his pay puts him in the top 10-15 WRs. That's 1200-1300 yards territory.
-
pass. one 12+M FA is enough along the front 4.
i'd rather draft an iDL with the first pick.
if there's money just sitting there unused, then sure. but wouldn't sacrifice somewhere else for him.
-
15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
And if we drafted a receiver we would be able to count on him? I am taking my chances on a 24 yo with 4 years of nfl experience over a rookie in the draft anyday. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t draft one to develop. But expecting a rookie we draft this year to come in and play and make a impact right away I don’t think is going to happen.
Funchess only had 500ish yards last year. That's more than Grant, but less than a lot of rookie WRs in 2018.
https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/rookie-review-how-the-wide-receiver-class-fared-in-year-1
-
1 minute ago, Superman said:
I disagree. There's little upside for the Colts, and a ton of upside for Funchess. It's not the end of the world, but that's my opinion.
Obviously my intention.
Disagreed, partly because I don't like any of our other receivers besides Cain, and I don't think it would be smart to rely on him. Especially in 2019.
The other reason is because this draft is kind of loaded with receivers that have traits I value. I'll be disappointed if we don't wind up with one.
I think you and I are in lock step in our thoughts on Fuchess, and the state of WR in general.
On the topic of upside to the DF deal, the only thing I can realistically think, is that Ballard only wants one year, and plans to draft and develop. More or less a one year band-aid to develop a new drafted WR and/or see how Cain rebounds.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:
Any team would be stupid to accept that. Find me one instance in the last decade where a team moved down that many spots in the first round for a 4th-7th round pick.
I've seen all kinds of things. Below are just a few recent examples. None are perfect examples, but close in general. Like I said, depending on a team's situation, a lot of things can happen.
Lions move up to address long-time backfield issues
Lions receive:
» 2018 second-round pick (No. 43) -- Kerryon Johnson, RB, AuburnPatriots receive:
» 2018 second-round pick (No. 51) -- traded to Chicago
» 2018 fourth-round pick (No. 117) -- traded to Tampa BayTitans bolster pass rush with another trade
Titans receive:
» 2018 second-round pick (No. 41) -- Harold Landry, EDGE, Boston CollegeRaiders receive:
» 2018 second-round pick (No. 57) -- P.J. Hall, DT, Sam Houston State
» 2018 third-round pick (No. 89) -- traded to Los Angeles RamsBills receive:
» 2018 first-round pick (No. 16) -- Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech
» 2018 fifth-round pick (No. 154)Ravens receive:
» 2018 first-round pick (No. 22) -- traded to Tennessee
» 2018 third-round pick (No. 65) -- traded to OaklandBrowns receive:
» 2017 first-round pick (No. 29): David Njoku, TE, MiamiPackers receive:
» 2017 second-round pick (No. 33): Kevin King, CB, Washington
» 2017 fourth-round pick (No. 108): Vince Biegel, OLB, WisconsinFalcons upgrade pass rush via trade with Seahaw
-
I've said the same in a few threads about S. There really aren't any great or elite guys. There are however a bunch of good/solid guys with high upside (dependent on what scheme they go to). No way in hell I'd take a S in the first. There will be several good prospects still available at 59 and later.
I agree on their take on WR as well, although I'd probably push it a spot up. Not really any lock/elite prospects, but a ton of guys with high ceilings that will do very well in the right system. I do think theirs a few tiers, and there will be a clear drop off after mid to late 2nd round.
I know some have been down on iDL at our 26, but there could be 2 or 3 nice options at 26. Not perfect options, but plenty good for a 26.
Hope we go iDL at 26, and WR at 34 or 59.
-
6 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:
With a 4th round pick we MIGHT be able to move up 1 spot.
i agree in general. really depends on the situation though. let's say you're a team sitting at 20, that has clearly made a choice based on need instead of BPA. If they know they want a player (or one of a few) that they are confident will be available at 26 (like a WR), they might be looking themselves to trade down. Depending on how far they are willing to drop, and the offers, they might be willing. there's always a few moves that are head scratchers.
-
1 minute ago, Fisticuffs111 said:
Yeah, just looking at the Saints/Packers trade for comparison, but they traded up from #27 to #14 for a pick swap, a 5th, and a future 1st.
I think trading up more than 10 spots would force us to include either our #34 or a future 1st, along with a pick swap. I wouldn't be crazy about that but who knows, Ballard could really like him.Agreed. The only position I'd ever mortgage the future on is a truly elite QB.
I'd be more than happy to package a pick in the 4th - 7th round range to move up a few slots, but I'm not really supportive of messing with 34 or 59 at all. And I sure am not giving up a future first round pick.
-
1
-
Gerald McCoy anyone??
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
a team has to spend 89% of cap if i understand it correctly.