CurBeatElite
-
Posts
1,577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by CurBeatElite
-
-
27 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:
We just don't have the magic this year.
We were 1-5 to start last year, we're already in a better place (record wise). If we come back healthy and get hot after the bye, we'll be sitting in nice position to take the AFC South.
The entire AFC is kind of a mess right now -- you've got KC and NE at 4-0, Buffalo at 3-1 (if NE didn't knock Allen out of the game, I actually thought NE could've won that game, they've been very surprising so far).... then you've got 8 teams at 2-2 (including the entire AFC South), the Steelers at 1-3 and 4 teams at 0-4.
If things keep going like they are, chances are a 10-6 record will be good for a playoff spot (heck perhaps even a 9-7 or 8-8 with tie breakers will do the trick). We could easily be 3-1 (Vinny's kicks) and possibly even 4-0 (we didn't show up vs. OAK).... I don't think there's any reason to panic about this team yet.
-
5 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
I think some of the titans problems will be solved with lewan back this week. Mack had a full practice so I am sure he will go. As far as the Texans they are capable of going on s run. They did what we did last year starting out like 1-4 and going on a run like we did. The Texans are one team if Watson gets hot can beat KC. Funchess cant come back until about week nine or ten.
It's week 7 when we return from the bye, so we have 1-3 weeks without him... we'll have him down the stretch, though, which is what will really matter -- especially if we can stay healthy and some of the younger WRs gain more experience and trust with JB.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, richard pallo said:
It will remain a non issue until he misses another extra point or an easy FG. It comes with the territory when you are the oldest player/kicker in the league. Hopefully he can get through this year and retire with a good final season under his belt.
Vinny's the most clutch K of all time. I hope he doesn't miss anymore gimme's, just because the fans and media will troll him for days... but if there was any kicker to have on the field for a kick under 45 yards to win a game, I'd stack my chips on Vinny.
2 hours ago, egg said:Zuerlein is 14/14 in xtra points, and 6/6 within 40 yards..... He is 3/3 50+
Last night he made 3 field goals and 2 xtra points.
Everyone misses a kick here and there.
Vinatieri missed many easy kicks. I personally think it's still the beginning of the end for him.
The thing which hasn't worried me about Vinny's misses is that they haven't been short. If it was his age as the factor as to why he's missing kicks, I'd suspect it was because his strength was declining/he was getting weaker with age (look at Peyton, when he retired his balls simply had little to no 'zip' left on them, it was clear his arm strength was far from what it used to be).
One of his week 1 misses (I think it was from 46 yards) had the leg to be good from 55+, he just hit it a little wide. Last week, his 57 yarder had the leg behind it, just a little off. To me, this suggests he's not done, as he's still got plenty of 'oomph' and power behind his kicks. He has some minor mechanical issues to work out (and IMO, some issues to work out with the snapper and holder, there have been a few missed kicks this year where I think the snapping timing was slightly off and the hold was less than perfect).
Vinny has long established himself as one of the hardest working players and one of the most consistent players in the NFL. I imagine he would walk away if he truly thought he didn't have it anymore, but I think we'll see him continue to work hard and play a critical role for this team as the season continues.
-
4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
I think if I was the colts I would release Dulin and bring up Johnson from the PS. He has more experience.
With Campbell out, is there a chance Dulin returns kicks? Granted he played at a small school, he excelled there in college (3 KR TDs as a senior).
-
1 hour ago, VaAllDay757 said:
What is he having trouble with? I'm not understanding...I thought you couldn't practice until you pass protocol?
I read Josh Allen (Buffalo QB) was throwing yesterday, but cannot have contact until his passes protocol. @Superman hit it on the head, the end process of the protocol is being able to practice w/o showing symptoms.... I'm kind of curious to know what kinda symptoms Leonard is still showing that are keeping him out, but if he needs to be kept out it's definitely in his best interest later in life.
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:KC is going to score 40 by halftime and Mahomes will be on the bench by the second half. We might not even have 53 players to dress. Season is going down the toilet fast. We need to sign another WR.
Colts should just forfeit the game. Lol
We'll have to play similar to how we played 2 weeks ago and sustain long drives which result in scoring early and often. Our best chance is just to keep the ball away from Mahommes as much as possible, and with TY back in the line-up, we should have a shot at doing OK there.
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:We need to fire our medical staff. Also seems the turf at Lucas oil is bad for the players. Colts continue to be the most injured team every year.
Wilson missed a month last year with one. I don’t think there is any reason to think that just yet.
Medical staff has very little to do with concussions and concussion recovery. They aren't something you can prevent with strength and conditioning and time and rest are really the only things that allow them to recover. The med staff should probably be praised for reporting a failed test for Leonard as he'd be put at more risk going out and playing if he wasn't 100% (I don't know how often it happens any more, but I know in the past a lot of coaches would pressure med staffs to clear players from concussions to allow them to get back on the field).
52 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:Ehh we'll be 2-3 presuming we lose to KC. All of those players are on a timetable that should have them returning shortly. They said Hooker was 4 to 6 weeks. I believe after the bye week it will be at 4 weeks. Leonard should not be out with a concussion for a month. TY I would think would be healed up as well.
There is then a stretch of pretty winnable games.
Injuries cost us the Raiders game. I don't think we would beat KC anyways. But get some key players back after the bye week and avoid further issues and we could do well.
Funchess could also return as well after Week 8 or 9.
Yea, this would be a much different tune if we were 3-1 or 4-0 going into this game (which we very well could be). That said, everyone in our division is 2-2 and we're undefeated against our division opponents so far... we need to win our divisional games or at least go 4-2 in them, and we need to win the games we're supposed to win (Denver, Miami, etc.) and we'll probably be in pretty good shape in the AFC South at 9-7/10-6.
47 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:I agree. As long as we win most of our division games and win games against teams like Miami, Carolina, and Denver we will be fine. We should sweep Tennessee and split with Houston and Jacks at worse.
The nice thing is after this weekend 3 of our 4 most difficult non-divisional games are over. We'll have LAC, ATL and KC out of the way and then we have Miami, Denver, Pittsburgh (who hasn't really looked good w/o Big Ben), Tampa Bay (let's hope their win over the Rams was a fluke, as they looked awful before then), Carolina (very beatable) and New Orleans (the only game I don't think we should be expected to win).
The rest of the AFC South still have these non-divisional games (which, IMO are more difficult than our remaining schedule):
Texans: ATL, KC, Baltimore, OAK, Pats, Bucs, Broncos (they've got 4 very good teams left in ATL, KC, BALT, NE whereas we've got KC and NO as the really good teams)
Titans: BUFF, DEN, LAC, TB, CAR, KC, OAK (they've got 3 very good teams left)
Jags: CAR, NO, Cincy, NYJ, TB, LAC, OAK, TB, ATL (again 3 very good teams left)
I think our team could be in better position, but we're certainly still in the hunt for the AFC South and (IMO) have the easiest remaining schedule within our division. Plus, we should be getting Hooker back soon, Mack back after the bye, Leonard back after the bye, Funchess back after the bye, Geathers back after the bye, etc. etc... and our young guys will have gotten some critical experience and should only improve week to week.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Superman said:
Just to speak to this, the reason we didn't win a respectable amount of games without Peyton and Luck is because the rest of the roster wasn't good. And if you look at the 2008-2010 drafts, or the 2013-2016 drafts, it becomes obvious why the roster wasn't good.
And then when you ask why those teams couldn't beat good teams in the playoffs, while acknowledging that we had good QBs carrying subpar rosters, it should become obvious how important it is to draft well consistently. With or without a highly paid QB, you have to stack good drafts to build a good, balanced roster.
I agree whole-heartedly... but our team wasn't all that different than the team Luck carried to the AFCC Game just a couple years prior.... or in the case of Peyton the team which won the AFC South the year before and was predicted by many to do the same again.
Our drafts late in the Polian era (and into the Chris Polian era) and with Grigs (outside of 2012) were pretty atrocious. I don't think either Pagano or Caldwell were elite coaches by any means, but Luck and Peyton both demonstrated that an elite QB could carry a team to the playoffs and mask a lot of flaws on a team as a whole... unfortunately, they didn't have a good enough team around them for most of their careers to get over the hump of being a 'playoff team' to a 'superbowl team.' A lot of great QBs had that issue over their careers (Marino, Elway until very late in his career, Aaron Rogers most of his career, etc. etc. etc.).... the bottom line is, when playoff football starts, it is almost impossible for a QB to simply carry his team through the playoffs to the superbowl on his back... just about every SB Championship team in NFL history has seen a balanced team with a good/very good/elite D, while a lot have had good/very good/elite QBs, I think the odds of winning are better with a good QB along with very good coaching and D than an average D with an elite QB.
-
5 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
While true, isn't the reverse true about the QB?
As Colts fans, we've seen how hamstrung a team can be by the franchise QB being the highest paid player in the league. Not a lot of money left for foundational pieces on the defense.
You're also only one injury away from purgatory, which we as Colts fans also know all too well. A handful of elite players on defense can make up for the loss of one to injury. Relying on one elite player is easier, but riskier.
Yes -- I think us going 2-14 without Peyton (when experts were predicting us to be SB contenders winning 12+ games) is a perfect example.... it's getting hard to argue with Brady being the GOAT after his 6th ring, but I always bring up the point that they still went 11-5 the year he was out with a QB (Cassell) who never played a snap in college (behind Mark Sanchez and Matt Barkley). ... Peyton did so much more (IMO) to mask problems with our team than Brady ever has had to, and it showed without Peyton we were the laughing stock of the NFL. Same with Luck missing a full year, we went 4-12 and were exposed as a very bad football team. There is a reason why Peyton (and Luck) had a hard time getting over the hump in the playoffs -- because in the playoffs the whole team needs to show up to beat other elite teams and in most years we simply didn't have the supporting cast or depth across the roster (especially on D) to get past some very difficult AFC foes. Another factor in the playoffs which isn't as big in the regular season is weather -- chances are (if Indy doesn't get homefield advantage and their dome) there will be games played in January in NE, Pittsburgh, Baltimore (heck this year maybe Buffalo or Cleveland).... the weather there is typically nasty at that point in time -- I don't know off the top of my head, but I remember several playoff games which were in very cold weather (where Peyton seemed to always struggle) and sometimes winter storms which does a number on limiting the QB/passing game... without a very good D and the balanced O to run the ball, it's almost an impossible task for a QB to go into that type of environment and be expected to win with a high percentage.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, aaron11 said:
Foles was pretty great in that playoff run, and lights out in the super bowl.
Same with Flacco on his run -- but his D carried him there and it makes it a lot easier to play well at QB in high pressure games when you aren't carrying the team by yourself (e.g., Manning threw several forced INTs in big games, knowing he basically had to put points on the board every drive due to our D not being able to stop the opponent... Peyton also had a hard time in big games for the early part of his career, so maybe something about Foles' and Flacco's calm demeanors helped them as well, but undoubtedly going into a game as a QB knowing you've got a good supporting cast in all 3 phases helps).
9 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:
It's hard to argue with the overall point that defense more than helps win championships...but I just had to point out that the those Giants defenses both ranked outside the top 15 those years (17th and 25th).
Their defense played well in the playoffs...but if we're counting playoff run as a part of those labels then it'd only be fair to label Flacco's SB run as "elite" and Foles' SB run as at least "very good"See above response, and you're right -- that Flacco playoff/SB run was one of the best in NFL history (I think he threw 11 TDs and 0 INTs in that span). He did have a somewhat lucky deep ball against Denver to get past the Broncos at the end of the game, but otherwise he played very well. I would argue, as above, it is a lot easier to play with composure and relaxation though when you know you've got a full team around you to back you up and you don't have to force things -- both Foles and Flacco were in that situation (as was Peyton when he won with the Broncos as basically a gimp, as was Dilfer when he won with Baltimore, etc. etc.).
As far as the Giants go, there were only 2 teams in the NFL in the year they won the first SB who could disrupt Brady without blitzing (the Colts except Freeney went down in week 17, and the Giants). With Strahan, Justin Tuck and Osi Umeniyora they at least had an elite DL and they had the formula to beat Brady (i.e., hit him with your front 4 and keep everyone else in coverage -- they did just that and they were excellent in the post-season even though they got off to a slow start early in the year). Their second SB over the Pats they had Tuck, Umeniyora and JPP, again probably one of the best DLs in football and a DL built to hit Brady without blitzing.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
I love an elite defense....
But the way the NFL is run these days, this one isn't a hard question...
It's Elite Coach/Elite QB.
By a landslide and nothing is a close second. Doesn't mean an elite defense isn't important, or that you can't win with another formula... not every Super Bowl winner was done with coach/QB. But the desirable duo is coach/QB. It's what everyone is shooting for.
But it's not easy to find either....
I tend to disagree (see my post above)... but if you look at SB history, only twice did the losing team score more than 30 points in the SB (the 49ers scored 31 against the Ravens when Flacco and John Harbaugh beat Kaepernick and Jim Harbaugh in 2013, and the Pats scored 33 when Foles and Doug Peterson beat them in 2018 -- in both cases neither winning team had what would be considered close to an elite QB)..... Peyton was an elite QB the vast majority of his time with Indy, and only won one SB (he was able to carry our team through the regular season is what was normally a weak AFC South division, but we didn't have the D to get us over the hump in the post-season), Dan Marino (certainly up there in a top 5 QB of all-time argument) never won a SB, etc..
As you point out, it's very rare to be able to pair an elite coach with an elite QB (there just aren't that many of them -- in today's NFL, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to really define any QB aside from Brady, Mahommes, Brees and Rogers as truly 'elite' QBs, you have guys like Wilson, a healthy Big Ben, and a few others who are very good QBs but probably not 'elite' -- that's less than 15% of teams with 'elite' QBs). There are also very few coaches I would consider 'elite' (really, Belichek is the only one I think you can say is undoubtedly an 'elite' HC, Reid is very good but has never won a SB so I have a hard time putting him up as 'elite', then you have other coaches like Carroll, McVay, John Harbaugh and a few others who are probably at the 'very good' tier and a bunch of other coaches who are still building their resumes to go from 'good' to 'very good' - I'd say that's Reich so far... and a bunch of HCs who are probably average or below). Brady and Belichek are an anomaly, there has never been an elite QB with an elite HC together for close to as long as those guys have been.
It's been shown time and again that an 'elite' QB can carry a team through a regular season (e.g., Peyton, Rogers, Brees, Marino), but none of those guys were consistently winning SBs or even getting to the SB, usually because they didn't have an 'elite' team/D around them. Peyton played with HOFer Marvin and likely future HOFers Reggie and Edge, but only got to the SB twice in Indy with a .500 record. Our D simply wasn't good enough to get us over the hump in the playoffs during his long career here... he won another SB with Denver when he was basically a gimp who was called upon to manage the game in the SB while his D held CAR to 10 points. The Rams last year had what most thought was an 'elite' or very close to elite O, and NE held them to 3 points to get a win in the SB.... Brady didn't have a great game, but their D was lights out.
There are far more examples of teams with very good/elite D's and non-elite QBs winning SBs over history than there are of teams with elite QBs and less than a very good D winning SBs (pointed out above, since 2001, only the 2007 Colts' had less than a very good D and won a SB, every other team over that 19 year period had a D that was at least considered very good). If you remove the Pats, who have an elite coach and elite QB and always have at least a very good D, there are 10 of the last 13 SB champions who won with very good/elite D's and non-elite QBs.
Defense wins championships, it always has and it always will.. having a good/very good QB along with a very good/elite D has proven to win more championships over time than having a very good/elite QB and a D which is not very good/elite. It also helps to have a well-balanced O which can run and attack in multiple ways instead of having an elite QB with a passing-dominated O (see Peyton-- after losing Edge, we never really had a run game which was more than average and that coupled with average D's allowed arguably the greatest QB of all-time to get to two SBs with only 1 win during his tenure here).
-
2
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, runthepost said:
Only 2 players from his 2012-2014 drafts are still in the nfl.. can you guess who they are?
If you count practice squad (Gerri Green, Jackson Barton) and IR (Daurice Fountain, Javon Patterson), Ballard is 29/29 of players still in the NFL from his first 3 drafts... dismiss those players and he's still 25/29.
A few players are not with us any more, but landed on other rosters (Denzelle Goode -- OAK, Terrell Basham -- NYJ, Nate Hairston -- NYJ, Zach Banner -- PITT).
I posted more information in a recent thread bashing Ballard's drafts -- he has actually done a phenomenal job to date with his drafting.
1 hour ago, Nesjan3 said:Henry Anderson still on the Jets?
He was 2015... the OP specified 2012-2014.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
Pats put Gostkowski on IR.
Zuerlein just missed a game-winner for the Rams.
No such thing as a sure thing at kicker in the NFL. We might be grateful we still have Vinny down the road.
I have never seen more missed kicks in my life than I have this season -- it seems like every week there has been at least 1 game which was lost due to a missed kick (in some instances kicks), whether it be a FG or XP (or both).
I think we're still in good hands w/ Vinny, and don't see how we could upgrade from him with the available FA market.
-
1
-
-
Let's look at SB champs from 2001 on:
2001 -- Baltimore Ravens (QB - Trent Dilfer -- elite D, very good coach, below average QB)
2002 -- NE Patriots (QB - Brady, elite coach, emerging QB, very good D)
2003 -- Tampa Bay Bucs (QB -- Brad Johnson, elite D, average QB, above average coach)
2004 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite coach, very good D, very good QB -- Brady wasn't 'elite' at this point, IMO)
2005 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite coach, very good D, very good/elite QB)
2006 -- Pittsburgh Steelers (QB -- Big Ben, very good coach, elite/very good D, very good QB)
2007 -- Indianapolis Colts (QB -- Peyton, elite QB, HOF coach, good/average D)
2008 -- NY Giants (QB -- Eli, good QB, very good coach, elite D)
2009 -- Pittsburgh Steelers (QB - Big Ben, very good QB, very good coach, elite/very good D)
2010 -- NO Saints (QB -- Brees, elite QB, very good/elite coach, very good D)
2011 -- Green Bay (QB -- Rogers, elite QB, very good D, very good coach)
2012 -- NY Giants (QB -- Eli, good QB, elite D, very good coach)
2013 -- Baltimore Ravens (QB -- Flacco, good QB, elite D, very good coach)
2014 -- Seattle Seahawks (QB -- Wilson, very good QB, elite D, very good coach)
2015 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite QB, very good D, elite coach)
2016 -- Denver Broncos (QB -- Peyton, elite D, good coach, average QB -- at this point in his career, Peyton was a game manager)
2017 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite QB, very good D, elite coach)
2018 -- Philly Eagles (QB -- Foles, good QB, very good, good coach)
2019 -- NE Patriots (QB -- Brady, elite QB, very good D, elite coach)
If we remove the Pats, who have an elite coach and a very good D and I put Brady as an elite QB in 3-4 of his 6 SBs (I don't think he was 'elite' his first 2 SBs). we have 13 champs in the past 19 years.
Every single one of those teams had at least a very good D, except the 2006/7 Colts who allowed over 5.3 yards per carry rushing (one of the worst run defenses of all time). We had an elite QB and HOF coach along with 2 HOF WRs (assuming Reggie gets in).... we had the most efficient offense in the league and a few things broke our way after Hester's opening KR for TD.
Of those 13 SBs (non-Pats), we see Dilfer, Flacco, Foles, a washed up Peyton (Peyton was not elite on that Broncos' SB team, he was a game manager at the time with a bad arm/neck), and Brad Johnson with titles (that is 5 QBs who range from below average to slightly above average in 13 wins). Then we see Eli with 2 titles (he IMO is above average, but certainly not elite) -- that makes 7 titles with QBs who I think are less than 'very good' (I think you can argue that Big Ben x2 and Wilson are closer to 'very good' than 'elite'. which would make 10 of the last 13 (non-Pats titles) going to teams with very good/elite Ds and very good/elite coaches without an elite QB.
The Pats are an anomaly in Sports History (not just NFL), and I don't think there's any doubt that Belichek (although he may cheat) is the best coach of all-time. They have at least a 'very good D' every year, and Brady has developed into an elite QB. Of the last 19 teams winning a SB (including Pats), the 2007 Colts are the only team that didn't have at least a 'very good D'.
IMO, an elite coach and an elite D usually trumps an elite QB without a D. I don't think Foles is much (if any) better than Brissett... with proper coaching and a little more O balance our O should be very good and should be able to put points up week in and week out. If we had an elite D, I have very little doubt Brissett is just as good as several of the QBs who have won SBs in the past 20 years who had an elite D and very good/elite coaching...
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:
Yep. If this D Wasn’t trash and AV didn’t miss kicks that first game the offense has done fine. We would be 4-0 if it wasn’t for the trash defense.
The D hasn't been great, but I don't think it's trash either. We've played several game without 3 of our best defensive players (Sheard, Hooker, Leonard) and have dealt with other injuries (Desir was banged up last week, T. Lewis has been out, etc.). Our D, in regular time, has not allowed more than 24 points so far, which our O (when healthy) should be able to cover or stay in the game. Vinny's leg (not our 'trash D') was the main reason we lost week 1. Last week, we were right in the game and had a chance to tie it late before Brissett threw a pretty bad INT (very telegraphed).
-
4 hours ago, BigQungus said:
We got Malik Hooker, Marlon Mack, and Anthony Walker out of that draft! Most teams would call that a success, but over here, people expect a 100% hit rate
Look at the last few drafts of the Polian era -- our best player from the 2009 draft wound up being a punter in the 7th round (by far the most valuable to the team/organization from that draft was McAfee). The 2010 draft was a total bust with Jerry Hughes winding up having some success in Buffalo, but no other player from that draft really did anything for us (Angerer has a decent year or two before getting cut and retiring). The 2011 draft we got Costanzo in round 1, and Ijalana became decent elsewhere -- nobody else from that draft did anything for us. The 2012 draft w/ Grigson we got Luck and TY who were (TY still is) stars for us.. we got a few decent years from Fleener and Allen and 1 good year from Ballard, so essentially 5 players contributing (I suppose maybe Chapman but seems like he was hurt or not productive). We essentially got nothing from the 2013 draft (Werner, Holmes, Thornton were all busts, and Hughes never lived to his potential our late round picks did nothing). The 2014 draft -- Mewhort was good prior to injuries cutting his career short, Newsome showed potential but got busted w/ dope and now plays in CFL, Moncrief was decent at best). The 2015 draft -- we got a good rookie year from H. Anderson but he never really panned out for us due to injuries, Parry had a decent year or 2, Dorsett and Denzelle Goode seem decent now but for other teams after doing little to nothing for us, and Geathers is still around. The 2016 draft -- Kelly is a stud, Ridgeway was nothing more than decent and Clark and Haeg are still with us as backups.
_____________________________
Enter Ballard -- so far he has had a better draft in every year that he's been here since at least 2009 (further than that really, maybe 2006 or 2003 compare to the 2017 draft, but other than a few studs (Marvin, Peyton, Reggie, Edge) in other years, Polian rarely had drafts which had >4 players starting and playing key roles after 2.5 years.
I believe many experts think batting .500 (i.e., 50% or more picks become valuable players) is very good for the NFL draft. So far Ballard is >75%, so he is doing pretty darn well. Especially considering these guys he has been drafting came to one of the worst teams talent-wise in the NFL (aside from Luck, TY, Vinatieri, Costanzo, Geathers, Kelly and maybe 1 or 2 others, our team was pretty much garbage when Ballard took it over, in large part due to very poor drafts from our previous GMs).
3 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:There are so many problems with this post that others have touched on so I'll try and break them all down for you.
1. You say Ballard only hit on 1 out of 3 drafts, and we presume that you are giving him 2018. But the 2017 draft was productive. Hooker is a starter, Wilson is a starter, Mack is a starter, and Walker is a starter. Stewart is a rotational player. Granted Bashem and Banner where busts. But we are starting 4 players from that draft right now and one player is rotating.
2. You can't judge a draft class based on 4 games. Usually you need 2 or 3 seasons. Jared Goff looked like massive bust in his first season. He's now a franchise QB getting paid franchise money.
3. It's ok if we don't have a player in the top 20, even after everything works out. The question should be if the team was marginally improved by the draft.
4. We didn't pick til like pick 34 so we shouldn't be expected to have a top 20 player.
5. Furthermore especially this early on, the players who draw the most attention for these lists are the top players who are picked. Darius Leonard worked out to be defensive rookie of the year. But if you had put up a top 20 rookies list after week 4 there is a good chance he wouldn't be on it. That's because with so little to go on, the "name" players get the benefit of the doubt.
Basham is actually playing pretty well for the NYJ this year as a rotational player. And we got a draft pick for Hairston from that draft, so he's another guy that can still play in the NFL, but the way Ballard went about this off-season, we just didn't have room for him in our secondary. Banner didn't work out for us, but he's still in the league as a back-up on the Steelers. So that puts Ballard at drafting 8 of 8 players in his first draft that are still on NFL rosters in their 3rd year, which is pretty darned good.
Aside from Fountain being hurt/IRed from the 2nd draft (Fountain would likely have made this team), every player drafted is still in the NFL in year 2. That is remarkable. And just about every one of them plays a decent role for us.
This past draft saw Javon Patterson go to the IR, and Gerri Green and Jackson Barton to our practice squad... so technically all of our draft picks from the past draft are still in the NFL.
If you look at it that way, Ballard's retention rate of drafting NFL Caliber players is 8-8 in year 1, 11-11 in year 2, and 10-10 in year 3.... take out Fountain, Patterson, Green and Barton (guys that are IRed or P-squad) and he's 25/29 (0.86), remove Hairston, Basham and Banner (guys who are still in the NFL but on other teams) and he's 22/29 (76%). I would venture to guess there are very few, if any GMs who have the same or better NFL retention rates in the past 3 years.
2 hours ago, shastamasta said:The OP had to know what type of response this post would get.
I don't agree with the OP...or the idea that a rookie class can be judged this early.
However, on the subject of drafting, I will point out that in the past 3 drafts...the Colts have selected 18 defensive players (out of 29 total players)...and four weeks into this season...the Colts are currently #31 according to DVOA (only ahead of MIA...and somehow behind CIN). Injuries have been an issue...but even at full health...they have been a bottom-tier group. We will see where they finish...but if they are still a bottom 4th team at the end of the season...we might need to consider changes.
The DVOA has our run D as 32. Kind of surprising as that was our strength last year. So far, Ballard has addressed the DL the least out of defensive positions in the draft (Turay was brought in as a pass rusher, Lewis has been hurt, Stewart still needs to improve, and Bangonu is kind of a hybrid type player -- but the majority of Ballard's picks on D have been LB and secondary).
Sheard just got his first action since very early preseason last week, he was our best run defender on the DL last year, so hopefully his addition will help improve. Lewis, I think, is pretty good against the run, and has been hurt. Hunt doesn't look quite as good this year as he did last year (IMO), and I'm not sure if that's solely on him or if that's due to the lack of a big guy next to him. And then we've been dealing with some injuries at LB (mainly Leonard)... so hopefully we'll see the run D improve as our players get healthier... the biggest disappointment to me so far is the lack of consistency in pass rush, however... Houston has been pretty underwhelming, and after showing flashes in game 1 I don't notice Turay nearly as much (I was hoping and somewhat expecting this would be a breakout year for him, but he's off to a slow start w/ 1 sack in 4 games).
Hopefully when our guys start coming back from injuries we'll see our D improve as the year goes on.... at least they are keeping us in games, though. They've not given up more than 24 points in regular time so far, and when our O is healthy we should have enough talent to put up 24+ versus most opponents.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:
Brissett is not a franchise QB and never will be.
He is tied with Patrick Mahommes with 10 TD as the top 2 QB's in the NFL in that stat.. he's the first Colt in a long time to have QBR above 115 in 3 of his first for games.
He is obviously a leader and his teammates respect him. He'll be OK. Great or not, he's shown he can win with a team around him.
Let's wait for it to play out, I think he's gonna lead us to an AFC South Championship.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Think we have a low shot of winning this game, but I think we'll keep it close. Glad I am not betting on it, but I bet we can keep it within 2 scores.
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
I think the answer is better coverage. The young guys are struggling with their zones, and it's making a pass rush irrelevant.
Yes, they go hand in hand... opposing QBs have no problem getting quick passes in against our D which does make the pass rush irrelevant at times... but at other times, the lack of pass rush allows for deeper passes to be completed.
I think a fully healthy Sheard will help our DL quite a bit, along with a fully heatlhy T. Lewis (if there's such a thing).
-
5 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:
Well Campbell hasn't done jack anyway no real loss there.
Kind of what he said 2 weeks ago about Leonard too and he has missed the last two games.
Campbell hasn't done much but he's proven he's a threat (albeit, a shoestring tackle away from breaking a KR for a TD, plus a TD reception where he burned the guy covering him). Frank and Suriano are very good with their offensive play calling, the more they see what they have with Campbell and the more they see they understand how Brissett is comfortable with him, the better. Not a huge loss if we have to play KC without him, but the more he's on the field, the better... I think the coaches will figure out how to use his freakish athleticism sometime before the season ends.
-
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:
Just a hunch but I think TY plays. Sounds like Reich doesn’t expect Geathers to miss this game. I think Leonard will be back in the practice field this week. Hopefully he stays symptom free. Campbell finished the game so I think he will play.
It sounded like TY could potentially have played yesterday if the game was more meaningful... but who knows. I won't be shocked if he does play, but TBH, I'd rather see him let that quad get back to 100% before he goes out and puts too much strain on it... I'd rather see him miss this week and have the bye to totally recover than see him tear the thing or dealing with nagging injuries for the rest of the year by coming back too early. And good point on Campbell, I just read he's dealing with 'abdomen issues' earlier today... but the fact he finished the game was a good sign.
58 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:Yeah I read that. But who do you cut when funchess comes back. Michael Crabtree was released and would be a good veteran. I certainly agree we need a veteran but funchess is coming back.
I thought Crabtree was interesting when he got released... but the more I think about it, I'm thinking he must have slowed down to the point where he's really not a threat anymore.
-
13 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
It interesting he mentioned roster moves. Although I don’t think he has any inside info. But meetings at 6 at night would seem to indicate something.
If we're going into this weekend possibly without TY, Funchess, Mack, Hooker, Geathers, T. Lewis, (I imagine Leonard will play?), Campbell, and others who were on expected to be on the initial 53 man roster (e.g., Fountain)... I imagine we're going to see something done.
My guess would be adding a WR if TY's out, as that went from something we thought was going to be a major strength this year (with TY, Funchess, expectations on Cain and Campbell which aren't being met yet), to something where we are very thin right now.
-
Just now, Stephen said:
We need to keep the ball away from them. A heavy dose of wilkins Williams will help if mack can't go.
Yea, they don't really have a great D, so we should be able to utilize our OL and move the ball on them.
Detroit seemingly had the best game plan against Mahommes so far, they didn't stop him but they slowed him a down and flustered him a little, so maybe we can build on that to some extent.... but you're right, we're going to need to control the clock and keep the ball away from Mahommes
-
18 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:
4 games in, 2-2, tied for division lead, & all after our franchise QB retired 2 weeks prior to the season. I'm for asking "tough" questions, but we're better right now than we were last year at this time, so I don't think it's time for another angry Dan Dakich interview like back in 2017, just my opinion.
Yes, we're really not in bad shape. We were a few missed kicks away from starting the season 3-0. We were without our best offensive player (TY) and our 2 best defensive players (Hooker and Leonard) yesterday, and if not for the INT late in the game, we were in position to tie it up late. OAK isn't great, but they're not a terrible team, either -- the fact that we hung in there with them without 3 of our best players (and others getting hurt in the game) is better than where we were last year at 1-3 (eventually 1-5).
We're still in very good position to win this division, as we have the easiest remaining schedule among non-division opponents left compared to the other teams in our division. We need to get healthy and iron out a few kinks, but we're in a much better spot today than we were at this time last year.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, jameszeigler834 said:
May have to sign somebody geathers may not play sunday.
I'm sure if we have 3 more guys (potentially Geathers, Mack, and Campbell) out on Sunday we're going to have to sign some players or elevate some players from the practice squad.
Ballard said this after the draft, which I agree with and can see a reason why we wouldn't bring a S in for this game. He likes guys to be versatile and able to play multiple positions.... Tell played S in college, and although Ballard suggested he wanted to move Tell to CB, that a big bonus of having a guy like him is he has the raw ability to play anywhere in the secondary if needed. He mentioned Q. Wilson as another guy who can move to S if needed. Moore II also has ability to move to S if needed (I don't think we want to see that, but it's there). Then Odum is a pretty good player.
We have 2 CB's, but no S, on the practice squad... and I'm not totally familiar with the FA available at S (looks like Mike Mitchell is still around)... but I would tend to doubt that we bring in somebody new at S for this game. I'd think we throw Odum out there with Willis and rotate Wilson and Tell in the mix before we brought in someone off the street. Who knows though?
KC is so fast on O, it's gonna be a real challenge stopping them without our best D on the field.
-
3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
We might be deep in a couple years with the players we have. The problem is your relying on rookies as your depth. Your going to have struggles when there is injuries and rookies come in. Especially as many as we played yesterday.
Agreed 100%. However, the blessing in disguise may be that our rookies are getting some time/experience early on which may help tremendously if we need them late in the season with a playoff run on the line. I think 'Flus says pretty often 'the only way to get better is to play.' Hopefully these rookies get some growing pains out of the way early and are able to help with increased positive contributions as time goes on.
-
1
-
Players Ruled Out for Sunday:
in Colts Football
Posted
Funchess also provides a big body and seemingly had good chemistry with Jacoby.... he should really help us in short yardage and red zone situations as we may start becoming predictable with TY, Ebron and Doyle as our staples in those situations.