Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

CurBeatElite

Member
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CurBeatElite

  1. Definitely don't disagree that bulking up can help w/ the larger NFL athletes... but if it's his ankle which was nagging all year, there's definitely some logic behind him thinking extra weight and all the pounding he is doing on his lower body by running/cutting/etc. was responsible for that.
  2. He was battling a few nagging injuries most of last year (I think mainly his ankle)... he is quoted as saying: “I’m not a typical linebacker,” Leonard said. “I’m more of a speed guy, very athletic so if I’m going to play in space, I’m going to need to move. “If you look at a linebacker, 6-4, 230 pounds, going to come downhill. I’m more of a speed guy and very athletic. So if I’m going to play in space, I need to be able to move. And I played all my life at 215, 220 and was never over 225. And last year I was injured a lot, that was when I was pretty heavy, so I want to stay down. Hopefully I can cut some of that down.” I'm assuming he is thinking his weight gain last year transitioning from college to pro ball was partially responsible for him dealing with injuries.... https://clutchpoints.com/colts-news-darius-leonard-losing-weight-to-maximize-his-ability-to-play-his-best-football/
  3. Leonard lost ~15 pounds in the off-season. I know he said he did it to get faster and to stay healthy (he thought the weight he added last year played a role in his nagging injuries). I didn't notice him looking any faster than he was last year, and wonder a bit if he lost any strength/power with the weight loss. I hope not, and will give him the benefit of the doubt that this past game was just a fluke.
  4. If we have a shot to win a SB, the road likely goes through NE in the playoffs (.... if we get there).
  5. Moore II and Wilson both very obviously telegraphed when we were sending a DB on a blitz... it's early in the season and all, but we've gotta do something about this issue as the season goes on. Yesterday was the first time in a while where I thought our O has potential to be a good screen team. There was a screen to TY on (I think 3rd and 17th) which TY took about 14-15 yards and wound up a few yards short of the first.... that's the first time since Terrence Wilkins' days when I remember us executing a somewhat successful screen pass (I'm sure that I'm wrong, but I don't remember the last time we've had a decent looking screen game since Wilkins).
  6. Was Speed inactive? I was expecting to see him a bit, but don't recall seeing him at all.
  7. We may have made Ekeler look better than he really is, but he is still a good player in this league. I agree with you on offense -- we looked good, but there were times when it seemed like our play calling was very predictable/one-dimensional. I think we'll see more balance moving forward. Yes, our 3rd down D was horrific. It seemed like we were just leaving parts of the field wide open for them to gain moderate chunks of yards on 3rd down situations. We'll need to improve this for sure as the year goes on -- if Rivers and LAC did this to us yesterday, I don't even want to think about what Brady and NE will be able to do to us when they've got Antonio Brown up to speed.
  8. I don't see how rookies cost us the game any more than our veteran players. Vinatieri left 7 points on the board. On their 3rd TD drive, we got a sack for a loss of 10 on 3rd and 8, which also involved a fumble which Turay recovered.... it was reversed because Justin Houston (our most seasoned vet on D) was called offside. Instead of having the ball deep in their territory, we gave them a 3rd and 3 and then they marched down and scored. Rookies had nothing to do with that mistake, Houston cost us huge there. Several other big plays resulted in miscues from our vets. Hooker and Geathers both missed tackles. The long TD by Ekeler, Darius Leonard went for a strip and the guy broke the tackle for 55 yards -- looked like from Leonard's angle he could have pretty easily just wrapped him up and brought him to the ground rather than go for the big play and get burned. It was a great effort, but Ebron bobbled that would've been TD which cost us 6 points. Sure, our rookies made some rookie mistakes... but in no way do I think they cost us any more than our vets throughout this game.
  9. If they traded up for him in round 1 or 2, I would think for sure the plan was for him to take over for Geathers. In the 4th, after we had already traded back to acquire multiple picks, we traded up -- Ballard said something along the lines of "we saw S as a position of need and there was a significant drop off in talent after Willis, so we went up to get him." Again, I think they saw a guy who could maybe take over for Geathers in a year or 2... but I don't think the plan for any 4th rounder is for them to come in and unseat the team captain as a rookie, regardless of if you traded up for him or not.
  10. They did trade up for him in the 4th round, showing they like the guy a lot.... but still, he's a 4th rounder. Geathers has not been able to stay healthy, Hooker has his own injury concerns, Farley was coming off season ending injury, Odum has shown spurts but is largely unproven, and we didn't really have other reliable options on our roster during the time of the draft at the S position. I think after addressing other glaring concerns prior to drafting Willis, they probably thought this guy can come in and provide depth and ST help with the possibility of taking over for Geathers in a year or 2 if Geathers got hurt again or didn't play very well... I don't think the plan was for a 4th rounder to come in and beat our a team Captain on day 1... unfortunately, Geathers just didn't play very well yesterday. I wasn't in the gameplanning sessions, so I'm not sure if they knew all along that Willis was going to play that much, but my hunch would be he got more time than expected due to Geathers having an off day.
  11. While I think the coaches called a pretty good game overall (especially the offensive ones), I found it odd that we seemed to get 1-Dimensional on offense. I get it, once Mack got going, he was on fire... but I'd like to see us keep a more even balance throughout the game next week. I am really not too worried about Vinny. He's the GOAT in terms of NFL Kickers. He missed wide, but he had plenty of leg on the ball. I would be more concerned if he came up short on that 49 yarder, but that had the power to make it from 55+ if it was more accurate. I have little doubt that Vinny can get this thing fixed. Looked to me like he just got the wind knocked out, he was back in very soon after that.. it was alarming at first, but I don't think anything to worry about. They haven't stated if he'll need surgery or not yet... I've broken my clavicle on 3 occasions, the first took ~6 weeks to heal (in 2001, so I'm sure the doctors today can do things to speed that up), the second was 6-8 weeks, and the 3rd took more like 12-14 weeks... just depends on the severity of the break, where on the clavicle is broken and if muscle or tissue around the area got damaged with the break.... If I had to bet, I would put money on Funchess coming back mid-season.
  12. I get that we are rotating guys in and out possibly due to heat and to keep the players fresh.. with the amount of injuries we had last year, I assume Reich and Co. are going to keep a rotation at a lot of positions to keep players fresh. That said, it was in the low-mid 70's. It was in the 90's in Jacksonville yesterday and KC still handled the Jags pretty well. We've got plenty of water/gatorade on the sidelines for our players to keep hydrated and we had several months to condition them in training camps and their personal off-season workouts. The field was not slick or muddy, so there really weren't too many health conditions to be afraid of outside of common football injuries. It's (IMO) a lot more dangerous to play a game in snow/mud conditions and freezing temperatures than in sunny conditions with 70 degree weather. I think the major concern is that both Geathers and Willis had mediocre games and Willis probably saw the field more than the coaches had desired. Oh well, hopefully they both can watch the tape and improve as the year goes on.
  13. I think this team is mature and unselfish enough that they want to win games and don't care too much about who is making the plays. One thing I think Reich does very well (for the most part) is adjust to situations within the game (this is something we didn't really see from the Pagano era after Arians went to Arizona). TY was our star last year, and will continue to be our star for another few years (perhaps Campbell takes over that role if TY slows down a little?). However, there were clearly situations where Luck had other WRs/TEs/RBs to utilize. This is why Ebron had so many touchdowns, the coaches knew how to find mismatches for him in the red zone. As @Irish YJ said, the problem with TY (at times) last year, was he lacked a supporting cast (or late in the year was playing with pretty bad ankle sprains). If Funchess, Campbell, Cain work out at WR and if Ebron and Doyle stay healthy, we should have plenty of options on 3rd and 6 type plays. TY's a top 15 WR in the NFL... having him on our team is definitely not a weakness.
  14. https://www.colts.com/news/hale-hentges-surprising-colts-coaching-staff This just posted on Colts.com front page today. Sounds like he's having a good camp.
  15. I think we've seen the ceiling from Rogers. He's a dependable WR and dependable PR. He's not great, he's not flashy, and I don't think he's got game-changing potential. However, he does what he's asked to do well. Guys like Ishmael, Fountain, Johnson, etc. (IMO) have more potential than Rogers, but they haven't shown to be as consistent, reliable, or dependable. I think you're right, unless the younger guys take their potential and make it consistent, Rogers sticks around.
  16. They said a while back (after Durant came back early and tore his achilles) they were going to be extra cautious with Luck. I think he's going to be just fine by the start of the season.
  17. Sounds like he's down to 192 lbs. He was 216 in rookie training camp and I think about 205 last year... I imagine that'll help his quickness some.
  18. It's clear Ballard really likes Geathers and he was a captain last year. When he's on the field, he can play NFL-caliber football (though, I do think Odum's better in coverage). Geathers is basically on a 'prove-it' deal, and I think what he has to prove is that he can stay healthy. If he does stay healthy, I find it hard to believe they'd cut him.
  19. Yes, ST is going to be what separates the last 2 guys apart. We've got competition at S, too with Hooker and Geathers probably being starters, Odum looking good, Farley returning, and the additions of Khari Willis and Derrick Kindred. We kept 11 DB's total on our final roster last year (5 S, 6 CBs). Ballard often talks about how much he likes the versatility of Wilson (and he said this about Tell after drafting him). We'll see how health shakes out throughout training camp and if we make any moves... but with Wilson and Tell (and possibly Moore II) likely being able to transition all right to S, I wouldn't be shocked to see 7 CBs and 4 S on our opening day roster. My assumption is Hooker and Geathers (barring injury) are basically locks. They seem very high on Willis and traded up to get him, so I'd be shocked to see him get the ax. It seems like Odum is the logical 4th lock for S now, but Farley was a good player for us before he got hurt and Kindred has a bit of starting experience in the NFL. You're absolutely right, it'll come down to who is willing to play and thrive on STs to see who makes the final roster. I just hope we stay healthy across the board and keep whoever wins the training camp/pre-season battles around. I really liked Ballard's quote after the draft when he said something along the lines of 'you know you're doing it right when 10 guys you have to cut wind up playing on Sundays for other teams.' -- I don't think we're at 10 guys, yet... but I imagine at least 3 of the DBs we cut will get picked up and won't be shocked to see some guys at WR, OL, LB, RB get picked up by other teams as well.... Good problem to have.
  20. Tell is very versatile and very athletic. I think he's got a very good shot to make this team, especially if they think he can make the transition to CB in a year or two. He's a more natural fit to fill in at S than many of our other CBs who will be fighting for the last spot or 2 (like Hairston, Collins, and Milton). I also won't be shocked if we trade Hairston for a late round pick, he's proved he can play in this league... but we seem to be pretty deep at this position right now. I like Tell due to his versatility, and think he's got more than a 'slim' hope to wind up on our 53.
  21. My apologies, I didn't read the full article until after I posted... dang.. oh well, hopefully it's his foot in the door to get an MNF job for the NFL.
  22. https://www.wthr.com/article/pat-mcafee-signs-thursday-night-football-deal-espn?fbclid=IwAR0CwLVMRC87PwPili25gC1QrmRCrsoWoJPnGnJbqxB10Z_Qt151DLb-yro Should be interesting.
  23. I think if we stay healthy, our D should be much improved.... my main concern is: (1) Sheard looks like he's going to the PUP, he has been a critical run defender for us and can get to the passer some, (2) Houston hasn't played a full season in 2-3 years, (3) Hooker and Geathers both have had their injury issues, (4) still no telling if our young guys can hold up through the 16 game season (and hopefully into the post-season), (5) I could go on, but we've got several other guys (on both sides of the ball who have had their share of injury issues/nagging injuries.... pretty much every team has that though, so I guess no need to worry too much). We have enough depth on D that we should be able to rotate guys quite often and keep them fresh..... Another point to consider, is our O looks (at least on paper) like the most-balanced offense of the Luck Era. Having the O we had in the Peyton era tremendously helped Freeney/Mathis and co, as our O was (except against the Pats) generally able to move the ball well enough that we could force the other O to be 1-Dimensional. If we can score early and often with this O and also kill clock time (which, if healthy I see no reason why we can't with this OL and some of the weapons around Luck), it will be very beneficial to our D both: (1) keeping them fresh, and (2) allowing them to focus mainly on causing havoc for the other QB.
  24. This comes from an article on Colts.com (Hooker was ranked 55th best NFL Player by Pro Football Wire): " "In just his second NFL season, Hooker became the recipient of the ultimate gesture of respect given a defensive back — an extreme lack of targets in relation to his snap totals. He was on the field for 977 snaps and saw just nine targets all season. He gave up four catches for 51 yards, 25 yards after the catch, one touchdown, two interceptions, two pass breakups and an opponent passer rating of 60.2. Part of this has to do with Hooker’s role in the Colts’ defense. He’s the last line in the deep third either as a single-high or split safety, so he’s seeing a lot of completions underneath his position. Then, it’s his job to go get the receiver, which he does with outstanding diagnostic skill and speed. But when you do throw deep in Hooker’s area, your chances of success are not good. He’ll either take over the route up the boundary or jump your receiver’s route over the middle. Championship defenses need deep-third safeties who can shut things down play after play, and the Colts are in very good shape with Hooker in that role.” Hooker has been in the league for two seasons, and he's been an excellent player in a different way each of those seasons. As a rookie, he was the ballhawk that he was drafted to be, intercepting a pass in three straight games before ultimately suffering a season-ending ACL tear. In 2018, quarterbacks didn't want any part of him, avoiding him downfield like the plague. Heading into 2019, this is his first offseason since being in the NFL that he has been healthy and isn't rehabbing from surgery. The sky certainly appears to be the limit for one of the league's more exciting safeties." It will be interesting to see how teams attack Hooker, especially given that it seems like we've improved our CB play with some of our offseason additions/retainments. Hooker could have a monster year without putting up monster numbers (he was throw at 9 times all of last season, that is ridiculous). Part of me thinks teams see he's so good in coverage and avoid him just because he's so good... part of me thinks teams saw we had other glaring weaknesses in pass coverage last year and just simply attacked those areas instead of dealing with Hooker. With improved play from the rest of the secondary (and pass rush), teams may be forced to test Hooker more, leading to more INTs... or they may continue to avoid him... either way, if he doesn't have a lot of INTs but they only test him 9 times and he picks off 2 of those balls, he will have had a very nice year.
  25. That was a great catch by Mo Alie... and working on plays to utilize our size on offense, especially in the red zone, is a good idea. I'm just saying, when possible, I'd like to see our guys catching the ball with two hands and holding on to it... sure, the gloves and the size of the player's hands make 1 handed catches more likely than in the past, but I'd rather see us stick to fundamentals and only rely on one-handed catches when necessary in game situations rather than think it's highly likely for our players to have high catch rates by designing plays aimed for 1 handed catches. True to both points. Many have said this may be a good thing for Funchess, as his drops seem to come when he's hit in the numbers rather than having to make a play on the ball. As long as our guys are catching it, that's great... and I see @Chloe6124's post suggesting "The point I was trying to make is because of the size of these three players when a ball is a little off they are able to still catch the ball with one hand." My initial reaction to this thread was we should be making 1 handed catches a lot more (this may be true), and my response was suggesting I think it's unwise for us to be in the mindset that because we have size that we should be training our guys that 1 handed catches are good ideas. When necessary, sure, but I'd rather any day of the week see us use fundamentals and catch the ball with 2 hands than see a bunch of drops with a few highlight reels.
×
×
  • Create New...