EastStreet
-
Posts
26,341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
258
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by EastStreet
-
-
10 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
Is pascal a FA. I think he is already under contract.
ERFA.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/contracts/ (last tab on right)
-
Start of Season Depth
WR1 Hilton / Rogers / Fountain / Cain
WR2 Inman or Pascal / Funchess / DRAFT
Mid Season
WR1 Hilton / Cain / Fountain / Rogers
WR2 DRAFT / Inman or Pascal / Funchess
I'm assuming we bring back either Inman or Pascal.
-
7 minutes ago, CR91 said:
I think what trol.... I mean posters dont get about this signing is that its basically the equivalent of the eagles signing Jeffery. We have the athletic TE like Ertz, the speedster like Alghor, and now the big body WR. Ballard is getting what Reich needs to run his team
I wouldn't compare him to Jeffery. Jeffery is faster, jumps higher, a lot less drops (top 25 catch rate), and had FAR more production. Not comparable. And he's a 13M/year guy too....
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
That is the thing though, you can not take away his TD stat. That is a very important stat by the way. He was arguably the best player in the league in the Redzone all year. He wasn't even close to that in Detroit.
Red Zone Targets
Colts 2018
Ebron 21 (he led the Colts in RZ Targets)
Lions 2017
Ebron 12
Lions 2016
Ebron 6 (Detroit targeted 4 other players more: Bolden 23, Tate, 17, Jones 15, Riddick 15)
Lions 2015
Ebron 8
So I'll say it again. The Colts used Ebron differently. They prioritized him in the RZ. Detroit did not. On average 60% less than the Colts. And again, Ebron's catch %, YPG, and YPC were as good or better in Detroit.
Not underachievement. Used differently.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:
Ebron didn't suck in Detroit but he never came close to 13 TD's in 1 season like he did here either. Most he had was 5. Had we signed Funchess to like a 4 yr deal, I would be pretty upset and complaining but a 1 yr deal for 10 Mill I can live with. Free Agency hasn't really started either, long way to go and we do have a lot of cash.
like i said before, we used Ebron differently. his core stats (YPC, YPG, and catch %) in Indy were actually worse than his time in Detroit. it would probably be more accurate to say that Indy used Ebron more (targets), and in a way that maximized his skill set (to achieve both yards and TDs), while Detroit did not. if you strip away the TD production, the other stats would tell you he achieved as much or more in Detroit.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I figured by your handle you were from NC but Ebron underachieved in Detroit as well. He is good here, I think playing with Luck he will do well here. It is only for 1 year so I am ok with this. I personally wanted Williams or Humphries but not happening it looks like.
All the talk about Ebron underachieving in Detroit is a little strange to me. Indy uses Ebron differently plain and simple. Also, Ebron had a higher catch % in Detroit his last three years, than he did last year with the Colts. in 2016, Ebron had a better YPG and YPC aveage than he did in 2018. He was targeted a bunch more last year because we didn't have a legit #2 WR, so he had more opportunity. And we used him in the RZ a lot more, which translated into a league high for TDs. He never sucked in Detroit. His catch % was better in Detroit, and has always been far better than Funchess.
-
17 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
It has no impact on what we do in the future. That is the point.
As with any fiscal responsibility, you try not to spend money on what you don't need. As I've said in other posts, he's too similar (size/use), but less athletic than Ebron, doesn't fit the profile of a WR2, and we paid top 20 WR.
You can say it has no impact, but that's 10-13M we could have used on another FA DE, S, CB, DL, WR, or really anyone else that fit a true need.
No disrespect, but please explain how a 6-4, slow WR, with poor catch % deserves top 20 WR money when he doesn't fit the core WR2 profile (one that will keep double coverage off TY, and can stretch the field) that we are lacking.
Hell, we only paid 6M IIRC for Ebron.
-
16 minutes ago, JPFolks said:
Yes, you reminded me that they signed Grant. So much for all the people saying "So you think you know more about WRs than Ballard" comments. In the case of Ryan Grant, plenty of us were saying it was a bad signing. What is our biggest problem with the fringe receivers on this roster? They drop the ball. When I think of Funchess, I think of times he dropped the ball when he was wide open. I am sure others have his stats, I only remember seeing it happen via actual game play. He underachieved every year with Carolina and I don't need to look at his stats for that either. I saw him play.
Ballard nailed it last year in the draft. He didn't nail it with previous FA WRs.
Some folks are all like #InBallardWeTrust... lol...
I love Ballard, love what he's doing, but he isn't God. Huge improvement over the last GM, but he isn't perfect, and he's going to make moves that don't work out (he already has). Ebron move was awesome, Grant was not.
16 minutes ago, a06cc said:Ballard goes out and fills a need. People still complain about. I have no clue why people are so mad that we aren’t active in FA. Jim and Chris have said they wanted to save money for the future on multiple occasions.
Except a 6-4 WR that is arguably slower and has far less catch % than our 6-4 TE doesn't really fit a need of a WR2 to take the double team coverage off of TY.
8 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:Who is to say we still don’t get Williams.
We didn’t over pay. It’s a one year and has no risk.
While only a 1 year deal, we paid him top 20 WR money (yearly salary rank). He's not close to top 20.
-
7 minutes ago, CR91 said:
I think we re-sign Inman and draft Boykins in the third round
Hilton, Funchess, Inman, Boykins, Cain
Boykins is a more athletic Funch. Heck, Ebron is a more athletic Funch. All are 6-4. Both are faster than Funch, both have better verts, and both have much better catch %s.
Certainly don't need 3. I would have preferred to draft Boykin, and left Funch for someone else lol.
-
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:
There is probably some thinking that Funchess can show more than when he was in Carolina, so there is an upside component to this signing. If not with the Colts then, he signs a bigger contract to another team to help us get a comp pick.
An older vet, regardless of profile, doesn't provide that factor. Not to mention the WR with the different profile is who Ballard will probably draft.
Even if he improves, I'm still not a fan, simply because I don't see him fitting a true need (which is getting a true #2 that can stretch the field and keep TY out of double coverage).
IMO, he's too similar to Ebron in terms of profil and use. Same height, but actually less athletic than Ebron. If we simply move targets from Ebron to him, it's not really a plus. We already have a highly productive big body target. DF may help in the RZ, I just don't see him doing much outside of that. If you want to say he's a nice addition to depth and the RZ, then OK. But we paid a lot for that. I'm just happy it's a one year deal.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
If Rogers doesn’t come back Colts will get another 2
Rogers is not a legit #2. Speed/size combo is about as meh as can be. Good catch rate though, but that's simply not enough.
Let's hope the Colts get another 2.
-
3 minutes ago, Mr.ZapRowsdower said:
Not understanding what the big deal is. It's a low risk contract with upside with a ton of cap.
I'm thinking some are only butthurt because we didn't sign their guy. To me Ballard already knows he's going to get his No. 2 in the draft and he likes this drafts WR crop. Which I can't blame him.
This is where I am. Not a fan of the signing atll, but I'm assuming we are going for WR2 with the first three picks. If not, I'll be more critical.
I don't like for the reasons posted above, and it's fact/stat based, not because I wanted another guy. I was not a fan of the TW talk either. For a 1 year rental, I'd just prefer someone with different traits/profile.
-
Watched a lot of his games at Carolina being a southern transplant. Also remember him well at UM.
Cons
-Ran 4.7s at combine. Ran 4.48 at UM's pro day. Pro days are always the most "generous"
-No second gear, and not a lot of vertical.
-Sub par catch %. Definitely has drop issues (he had them in college too).
-Catches the ball with his body a lot (which is part of the problem with drops)
-Became WR1 in 2017, and still did not eclipse 1000 yards
-His production dropped in 2018, a year in which Newton had his best completion % (67.9%)
Pros
-Big target. Played TE too. More a less a hybrid type guy.
-Decent at out-bodying defenders
-It's only a one year deal. Either a short term rental to get over the hump, or a prove it deal.
Glass half empty thoughts
One of the least sexy FA WR acquisitions we could have expected. On field production has been a big meh. Too much of a tweener position wise to be a true WR2.
Glass have full thoughts
Big body mismatch, who should help in the redzone. If used in the right way, could be intermediate threat, or used similar to Ebron. Might improve with increased accuracy of Luck, or simply just reinvent via the fresh start.
Opinion
It's a big meh to me. It's a short term deal so I'm not going to + a whole lot. He could turn his career around, or he could get lost in the depth chart. He has a lot of similar traits to Ebron, but Ebron has always had a much higher catch %. Stafford's average completion % is around 62, and Newtons is roughly 60 (so not a huge difference in who's dealing the ball, though Stafford does throw a "nicer" ball). Ebron is more athletic (top performer at the combine in 40 and jump), the same height, 20+ more pounds, so I just don't get this one. In short, will help with RZ and depth, and gone next year.
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:
I strongly doubt it. Seahawks have their starter, so it's not like JB would go in and start and who gives up a 2nd rounder for a backup QB?
teams who have starting QBs who get the hell beat out of them might. IIRC, RW got sacked 50+ times last year. As a point of reference, Brady and Luck were around 20. not saying they offered a 2nd, but there obviously was talk and perhaps an offer.
-
51 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:
Hahaha! NO ONE in the World could believe we are fine. The Coaches are NEVER satisfied. Nor the fans.
You must be ignoring that i SAID we could still have one of the better passing attacks with the guys we have. With the running game, TY, the TE's, Hines, and the Time Andrew gets, he will Kill most D's with one or two Brady like receivers.
I posted we NEED ANOTHER DEEP THREAT. Can you read THAT!
I just showed you that 6 of the top ten offenses DON"T HAVE a "STUD" #2.
How in the ____ the Colts at 5 in offense doesn't prove the numbers and productivity were good, get a GRIP.
Of course now he only needs to be "Legit".
I have posted if Tyrel Williams can get about 1,000 yards and 8 touchdowns he will be worth what we are willing to pay. And i think he can do that. But unless TY misses a lot of play, it will be very difficult because Frank already has so many weapons. Maybe he would be worth some of the pricey Million$ to run a lot of go routes to occupy safeties/stretch the D.I know i haven't discounted the eye of our Stud GM and his staff, nor Frank or his Teaching staff like some seem to. They have a PLAN.
LOL. You haven't showed me anything that 6 of the top 10 Os don't have a legit WR #2. Let's first define "Legit WR #2". I think most would agree at min, they should be top 64 (32 teams x 2) in yards per game (out of WRs). I think that's a good logical starting point.
Below are the top 10 passing Os, and shows the rank of WRs and other TE/RB receivers within the top 64. Note that only two teams have only one WR in the top 64. Indy, which their next best WR didn't even crack 500 yards (and was outside of the top 100), and LAC who at least had two additional WRs right outside the top 64 whom both cracked 650+.
Several of these teams have two WRs in the top 32, and some that have 3 or 4 in the top 64. Then add in the TEs and RBs that are ranked catchers.
TB 3, 30, 43, 50 + (35 TE)
KC 4, 48 + (13 TE)
PIT 7, 10,
ATL 1, 46, 49,
LAR 16, 17. 26,
IND 6 + (59 TE)
PHI 19, 29, 61, + (21 TE),
NE 25, 28 + (44 TE and 58 RB)
GB 5, 32,
LAC 18, (note LAC have 2 650+ yard WRs just outside the top 65 M. Williams / T. Williams)
Spin it however you want, but you can't logically deny this data. Luck had to work twice as hard as he should have spreading the ball around like he did last year. We won't be "just fine" without a legit #2.
-
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
WE had TY and a bunch of 3 and 4 receivers. We need that 2 badly. Imagine getting Williams and Cain is a huge surprise.
Yup. I don't really care if it's Williams or another top FA WR, or an early pick. I just want a bonafide #2 to take the double coverage off TY, and has the ability to take the top off of a D as well. I have high hopes for Cain, but he's got a ways to go.
-
8 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:
Anyone who ever heard of TY Hilton.
And yes the numbers mean nothing because we didn't have our offense in place or the line set for almost half the season. Just double the numbers of the last 8 games and that would be a realistic data point.
How could the staff be Happy with our #2?
INMAN isn't a Colt! Cain didn't play a down, and the rookies... were what we would expect they would be.
But Any knowledgeable fan knows the axion that the biggest jump is from year 1 to year two.
Our biggest concern is TY. What if he gets hurt. Yes we need another deep threat.
Who is the stud #2 WR on the..
2nd leading scoring offense of New Orleans?
4th New England?
5th Colts?
tie 6th Seattle
9th Bears
10th Atlanta
We should have one of the better passing attacks Without adding anyone.Either you weren't following the earlier conversation, or didn't read the last sentence. Nobody said TY wasn't good. The basic point of is that WE NEED A LEGIT #2. The numbers and productivity bare that out.
If you believe we're fine, that's your opinion. But it's obviously contrary to every draft board or expert out there that includes WR as one of our top needs. It's also pretty clear we're kicking the tires on high end WR FAs.
And what you just typed conflicts itself. You ask how the staff could be happy with our #2, but then say we're gonna be good "without adding anyone". If you mean good, but not a contender, then sure....
I'm sure you ignore the correlation (earlier post) to years when we had two legit WRs, and wins.
-
Just now, Moe said:
You have Obviously never been to another NFL team forum, night and day difference!
I belong to several boards across college and pro (and a few tech years ago) that are both free and pay. And I've been a mod. Pay boards are definitely more structured/regulated. Free boards are a mixed bag. For instance a free CBB board I belong to is heads and tails more structured than this.
Not trying to pick on CR91 specifically, but I think most would agree 19 threads in six months about the same guy is a little much. They have small variances, and they're just updates to the same topic (which is the potential of him being a Colt). If I ever wanted to look at Bell's history for instance of becoming a Colt, I'd have 19 threads to weed through.
Not a big deal. In short, some boards are different. You can also say "you get what you pay for". And in this case it's free.
-
40 minutes ago, CR91 said:
Free agency is a constant rumor mill and posters want up to date information and sometimes past threads are 3 pages down and get lost.
Most serious fans come to a "discussion board" for discussion, not news flashes.
There are 19 different "Bell" threads in less than 6 months. 2 from you in the last 20ish days.
A little silly, no? Especially when this thread is based on click bait tweet that doesn't even include an article, and only cites Ian Rapoport (who spews out source-less rumors all day every day). Rapoport also reported Bell and Baltimore, and Bell and Jacksonville speculation in the last 48 hours.
-
19 minutes ago, CR91 said:
So you want people to comb through 100s of posts?
Do you mean, comb through one thread, or several threads on the same topic....
at least if it's one thread, you can catch up without constantly bouncing, and if you ever need to refer back to something, you don't have to look through 10 threads on the same topic to find a previous post.
There's a reason most boards have structure/content guidelines. All paid boards do, and most free as well. But if you prefer the wild west, that's fine too.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, esmort said:
You have to expect it this time of year. The Mods lock and merge new/duplicate threads all the time ... but a lot of posters give them push back because they feel do it(close/merge threads) too much. Can't please everyone. This forum is a lot more organized than many teams websites I have visited.
I belong to several boards, some paid, some not. This is absolutely the worst one in terms of being a free for all. I just started posting a little more on this board but it's painful. The same conversations going on in 5 threads at the same time. A new thread for every "rumor", new video, new article, new comment by someone, etc.. And every "thought" someone has on a pre-existing topic doesn't need a new thread.
Mods wouldn't have to merge/close threads if they set some basic rules. For instance, all discussion on a player, goes in the specific player's thread. All Ballard discussion goes in the Ballard thread. All free-agent rumor discussion goes in a "Free Agent Rumor" thread. We don't need a new thread every time a guy is released or signed to another team. Other boards dealing with college and pro teams typically have those basic structural rules.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:
Well sorry, but those numbers don't mean Jack.
We were developing a largely whole new receiving corp, in a new offense. We are YOUNG.
It was a PLAN that should reap benefits with experience.
Most here think we Already have a Stud.
And some here will have a great idea of what we need by how CB addresses the roster. Frank & his staff have explained it to him thoroughly.Sorry, disagree.
Who are "most" that already think we have a stud. Is that stud Inman? Sorry, but he's limited, and not a legit #2. If Ballard thought he was that stud, we'd have locked him up already. And if Ballard was though he was a stud, we wouldn't be kicking tires on a WR that we know will cost us at least 10M. In short, beyond TY, we don't have a complete WR that's comparative with most other top Os. You just can't dismiss fact and data with simple opinion.
And I agree, we'll find out based on what is done in FA and the draft. If we take a WR in the first two rounds, or get one of the top FAs, then that's means I was correct.
And yes, we are young, and yes we are developing. That will all help with overall depth. That doesn't mean the numbers above mean nothing, nor does it mean the staff is happy with the #2 WR position.
-
20 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:
There is a new forum page for that
Is it called "Colt's Daily News Dumps"
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Breeze said:
If we’re willing to pay that kind of money for another teams ‘3’, why not instead draft a guy like Boykin in the 2nd. He’s also 6’4, ran a 4.42 (matching TW’s pro day), jumps 4” higher and appears to have great hands and high character. Seems like the same receiver, except younger and he played against better competition in college. A much cheaper option.
Love Miles, and would be happy to have him, but he struggles to get off the line. Not saying he can't improve there, but until then, he's not a legit #2.
Not sold on TW either. He was paid the 61st WR last year, so I understand why he wants to maximize. He's better IMO than #3, but wouldn't say he's a guaranteed stud #2 either. I certainly don't see him as a top 20 WR, and if you're not top 20, the Colts shouldn't pay more than 10M a year for him.
I'm thinking some are only butthurt because we didn't sign their guy. To me Ballard already knows he's going to get his No. 2 in the draft and he likes this drafts WR crop. Which I can't blame him.
Colts sign Devin Funchess (Merge)
in Colts Football
Posted
I didn't say he was Jeffery either. I said I wouldn't compare him based on traits/profile/states.
Size is the only comp.
BTW, equivalent means equal in value. They are far from equivalent. Definitely not the same value.