Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    487

Everything posted by Superman

  1. Ehh, I think guys like Walker have their place, but at the right price. Especially when he's probably not good enough to be on the field in sub packages.
  2. If you're talking about a strict adherence to "pay your own" then you're right. But no one said "pay all of our own," so I think we're okay. Let players walk when they don't fit in the long term view of the team, or when you find them to be easily replaceable. Especially if you identify their potential replacements in advance.
  3. Starting with comp picks, we probably aren't getting any in 2021. Check this: https://overthecap.com/draft/ While we probably qualify for two, only 32 comp picks are awarded. Our would probably be #38 and #40, as of right now. We're $120m under the 2021 cap (using a conservative $215m cap). They have plenty of work to do, but plenty of flexibility to get it done. They're going to let replacement level players walk if they want significant money. They'll figure out what to do with the more highly valued guys. And then they'll fill the roster with lower priced guys. You'
  4. I'm really not sure where all the concern comes from. We're in great cap shape, we don't have a a QB who is going to be resetting the market anytime soon, and we have a bunch of young guys on rookie contracts who are playing major roles, on both sides of the ball. Also, the cap is getting ready to start bumping up pretty strongly in the next year or two. Of course we can't keep everyone. And truth be told, we don't want to keep everyone. Probably aren't re-signing Mack or Hooker, right? AC might retire soon. Kelly, Autry, Houston, all kind of 50/50 depending on how 2020
  5. Reich has heaped praise on Kelly, calling him the best center in the league. Hyperbole, for sure, but the new regime likes him. If he stays healthy this year, I definitely value him over Smith or Glowinski.
  6. I'm not projecting anyone to be a HOFer. I used those guys because of their status, just to point out that top notch LBers get paid in this defense. So if Leonard is "top notch," then I think the conversation needs to be about more than base positional value. I think both were better tacklers than he is. For a guy that makes so many stops, he isn't an imposing tackler. He's less physical at the point of attack. I don't know how he'll hold up over the next couple of seasons. But he's faster and has more length than both of them. The game has changed, so everyone is faster, but Leona
  7. I understand that some positions aren't high priority in this defense. But I don't think good/great players are disposable at any position. There's a cost/benefit analysis to be made, and while a big part of that is based on the importance of the position, an even bigger element is how good the player is. Look at Leonard's physical/athletic profile, and look at his rare statistical production. He's not just 'a linebacker.' He's pretty freakin' good. I wouldn't draft a CB or a NT in the first round for this defense. Maybe not a LB. That doesn't mean that if you draft and develop a r
  8. I definitely would have hit Hooker with the option. I stated all the reasons earlier, but the biggest one is that the value was for half of what top tier safeties are making in FA right now. And it's only guaranteed for injury. Hooker can be a big playmaker. I think between his injuries, the scheme change, and the Colts having a so-so pass rush, his ability to impact the game has been seriously hampered. Even if you don't want to make a long term commitment to him -- which is totally understandable -- just securing one more low-to-moderate- risk season seemed like a really good dec
  9. Didn't we have a safety win DPOY in '07? I forget his name... Bob something???
  10. I agree that there are options. The only option that went away is the one they declined. Just seems like that decision is a really strong indicator as to what they intend to do. And the last time I said 'odds are the Colts do X,' was right before the second day of the draft, when I said I thought it was probable that they would trade down from one of their second round picks. They traded up. So I don't know anything.
  11. I guess that goes without saying. We don't have any first round LBers, haven't since Rob Morris in 2000. Leonard was a second, Okereke was a third. But you can find any player at any position outside of the first round. So what's your criteria for offering a player a top of market contract? Do you have specific positions where you're okay with it, and if a player isn't one of those positions, you just won't do it? Are there exceptions to be made, and if so, when? I'm just curious how you're coming to this determination. I mean, basically anyone is replaceable if you j
  12. I think odds are they let him walk after 2020. The fifth year option wasn't very expensive, I think it was about $7m, which is very reasonable. And it's not fully guaranteed, only for injury. I will say though, maybe his injury history made them think it was too risky to exercise the option, because if he's injured at the end of the season his option would be guaranteed. If he has a great year and they have to tag him, it would be over $11m. And then that's your starting point for an extension. I think this signals that they're ready to let him go. They could still cha
  13. I'm not trying to short change him. He's a very good prospect, and there are multiple factors that would have contributed to him lasting until the fourth round this year, and maybe in other drafts he would have gone much sooner. The biggest one is probably that the QB market is suddenly flooded with viable options. As a comparison, I think Eason is a much better passer than Josh Allen was coming out. Sometimes we talk about the draft as if there's a wide, undisputed consensus on how good the players are and where they should be drafted. I think that's obviously not the case. And at
  14. Not a whole lot of QBs drafted by the Colts, especially since Manning in 1998. The last QB we drafted was Chandler Harnish (2012). In the Indy era -- 36 years -- just three first round QBs. Eason is a 4th rounder, which should lower expectations significantly. Not a whole lot of 4th round QBs become foundation players. For Eason to be a starter for a long time would be a major success.
  15. If the Colts wanted Clowney instead of JB, they could cut JB and sign Clowney. It's pretty obvious that even if they do want Clowney -- which, I don't think they do -- they won't want him instead of JB. And by the way, if they wanted Clowney and Brissett, they could make that happen today. Two year contract, $36m, $14m signing bonus, $6m salary, 2020 cap hit would be $13m, and Clowney would make $20m in Year 1. Year 2 has a player/team mutual option. If he opted out and signed elsewhere, the Colts could get a 2022 comp pick. That structure would leave the C
  16. I think they view him as a good backup. A really good backup. That's what he is. I've always said, if the starter gets hurt for a month, I want a backup that gives us a chance to go 2-2. JB can do that. He did that last year. And we've seen some really bad backup QB play over the years in Indy, right? So we know how bad it can get. Now, I don't see full time starter potential in JB, but he's in the upper echelon of backups. What makes the situation with the Colts different is that he's being paid like an entrenched starter. It's unlikely, I think, but if R
  17. I believe the play calling was a byproduct of the QB play, not the other way around. Reich had a bad game or two, but it was pretty obvious that they were trying to keep JB on track and not ask too much of him.
  18. I don't know why so many people are convinced that there's something wrong with having three QBs.
  19. My entries: PUP, FS, will not play in 2020. ACL is a 12 month recovery; counting on anything better than that is a roll of the dice. I just watched whatever I could on him last night. Not a lot online from his FS experience in 2020, so I even watched some of his corner play in previous years. Really good ball skills. Ballard talks about defenders who can create turnovers, I see that in Blackmon. I don't know that he has the range to play FS, he seemed a little late getting over on some plays (including the big Pittman play against USC). I don't think his body type will work at SS;
  20. For sure, and I got why he used it. I felt he was trying to shut down the hype, because it was like 'hey, you drafted a QB, you must think he's the guy right?' He drafted a QB in the fourth round. And he has two veterans ahead of him. He's not solving all of our perceived issues at QB, especially not in Year 1. Let's slow everything else down. That's what I got from Ballard's response.
  21. I didn't think it came across harsh the other night. They had just asked him three or four questions in a row about Eason, and Ballard was just saying 'he's a 4th rounder, we have a starter and a backup already, at best he's QB3, and we'll see what happens, let's move on.'
  22. Agreed, for sure. I think there's value in evaluating the entire offseason. I just do so independently of "draft" grades. As for your thoughts on the GM/coaches and how they evaluate and grade their players, that's all the biggest part of building a roster, IMO. That's why I appreciate when Ballard says he includes the coaches in player acquisition -- FAs and draft picks -- because he wants the staff to have a plan for the player. He also said in his first year that his evaluation of Pagano and his staff would include player development; it seems safe to assume that it's a major pa
  23. The BYU game was better, but that breakdown is behind a paywall. This is a pretty good game, though. He has some bad ones. But I think there's plenty of good with him, and he has a chance to be a solid NFL QB.
  24. Try to take the time to watch this. Or at least 10 minutes of it.
×
×
  • Create New...