Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    485

Everything posted by Superman

  1. 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 QB, team's don't usually spend a high pick on a position where you're already set. So let's say the Eagles had a high grade on Eason, but preferred Hurts because of his versatility. Or maybe the Panthers liked him, but feel like Bridgewater is a franchise QB. But I think there are guys like this every year, who drop below where everyone assumes they should be drafted based on their talent level. Just not usually at QB, unless there are major red flags. But it's important to recognize that guys like Cousins, Wilson and Prescott are exceptions. Especially at QB. There are a lot of mid round QBs who never do anything in the NFL. And if a team that has a need at QB -- like the Colts did -- decides to wait until the fourth round to draft a QB, it probably indicates that they don't necessarily view him as a lock to be a future starter for them. Then when that team comes out and directly says 'let's pump the brakes, he's not coming here to be a savior, he's a fourth rounder and he has to earn his spot on the team as a QB3,' it would seem like people would accept that there's plenty of reason to temper expectations. There's a lot of reason to be optimistic with Eason, and he's in a great situation for a young QB who isn't ready to start yet. But I don't know if we should be looking at him like he's our next franchise QB. Maybe it works out that way, but again, guys drafted in the fourth round don't usually go on to be franchise QBs.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 Colts with approximately $10m cap space in 2020. I'm just a guy on the Internet. I took a minute to figure out the new CBA rules for comp picks / player options, went to OTC and figured out the contract structure, and plugged it in. The Colts have Mike Bluem, who is a professional cap manager. They know that if they wanted to add Clowney, they could. They also know that if they wanted to cut JB, they could. This tells me that the Colts don't want Clowney. Whether they don't want to pay him what he's asking, or don't think he fits the team, or don't think he's so much better than their own guys to be worth that kind of money... if they wanted him, they could have him. So they must not want him. And that has nothing to do with JB.
  4. 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 Rivers is one and done and we want to move on to Eason in 2021, JB would be a good backup option for us. I think he'll want another chance to be a starter, but the NFL isn't desperate for QBs like they were in years past. Jameis Winston led the league in yards and was second in TDs, and he's now basically QB3, making minimum salary. So if he was willing to take a moderate backup contract and stay in the mix for the Colts, I'd be fine with that.
  5. 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.
  6. I don't know why so many people are convinced that there's something wrong with having three QBs.
  7. 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; I guess that depends on what his real weight was in 2019. His play at corner shows that he likes to take risks -- probably too much to play nickel for me -- but he does a good job tracking the ball, closing, and clicking down to make a tackle after the catch. I like some of what I see. I have questions about other parts, but I don't have a whole lot of video or data to work with here (no combine, no pro day). I'm writing him off for 2020, anything he gives us this year is a bonus.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.'
  10. 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 part of his continued evaluation of his coaching staff. So in a year, or two years, when they go back over how players have developed, a major touchstone should be 'you said this player fit your scheme, and would be used this way; what happened?' So if they're using him exactly how they said they were, and he's not working out, maybe that's more on the scout's projection. Or if they're not using him like they said -- like if you take a boundary corner and move him to nickel -- then the coaches have to answer for that. And it's never black and white, probably. Quincy Wilson, they probably knew he wouldn't be great on special teams, but the scouting staff might have said 'it won't matter, he's going to lock down CB1/2 in a year anyway.' And then the coaching staff said 'he's not ready to start, and we want him to earn it on teams.' Now you have a player being used in a way that doesn't match the original plan. Kind of 50/50 blame in that situation. Add in injuries, staff/scheme/position changes, etc., and you probably can never nail this down with absolute certainty. But I do think a team should be using a lot of self-evaluation, documenting what their intentions are, and cross-checking it with what actually happens, and seeing where some issues can be tightened up. That's why I think it matters when the coaching staff and the scouting staff appear to be properly aligned with one another, speaking the same language, because then they can hold everyone accountable and keep getting better.
  11. 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.
  12. Try to take the time to watch this. Or at least 10 minutes of it.
  13. The bolded assumes that once you reach a certain amount of use on a ligament, it will necessarily suffer a significant tear. And I think we all know that's not true. I also think the use of the word "overuse" should be explained. And again, this is anecdotal, and does not, by itself, establish a correlation. It's true that there's a correlation between age and likelihood of injury, because the older we get the more we lose tissue and muscle. But that won't start happening for Taylor for another 8-12 years or so (assuming he's like average male humans, but it's possible that his physiological makeup is above average). I also think the importance of the number of carries a player has -- assuming no previous injury history -- is overstated. Playing a football game at RB is physically punishing, but practice can be physically punishing. Offseason training can be physically punishing, especially if you account for different conditions (heat, surface, equipment, fatigue, etc.) How a person approaches recovery is relevant. Alcohol consumption, hydration, quality of sleep, etc., all relevant. But we don't track any of that stuff. We just say 'if a player has X number of carries, he has less tread on his tires.' I think that's a limited and highly inconclusive approach. And I think it's possible that a player with more in game carries, but a higher quality approach to practice, training, recovery and conditioning could be less likely to suffer future injury than a person with fewer in game carries, but a lower quality approach to the other areas. What I'm saying is that I don't think the data shows a clear positive correlation between number of carries and likelihood of future injury, especially once you account for other relevant variables (injury history, etc.), and exclude catastrophic circumstantial injury. So until/unless that correlation is shown in data, it seems inappropriate to state that it definitely exists. That said, if we could erase 40% of Taylor's college carries, I wouldn't complain.
  14. I'm not dismissing mileage. I'm saying there's good mileage and not so good mileage. Anecdotally, we can find people who have lingering pain from old situations, and we can find people who had similar circumstances but no lingering pain. There isn't necessarily a correlation between having worked a year lifting boxes and developing lingering elbow pain. At least, one person's experience doesn't establish a correlation.
  15. This is a good post, and it's all a perfectly reasonable approach. Like I said, this is all similar to the approach I use when I evaluate the offseason as a whole. And like you said, there's no consistency among "graders" in methodology or even explaining their methodology. Another reason I don't really care about their grades to begin with. My approach is meant to evaluate the quality of the players selected in the draft, because what's important to me in this specific evaluation is whether a team does a good job of identifying good pro prospects. I believe that is automatically adjusted for when you review the players. If Team A has three first rounders, the players they pick will likely have a higher grade than Team B that has no first rounders. And if a team trades around and adds good value, then drafts a lot of solid players, that's reflected as well. But when you add in players that were not part of the draft class -- and while it's true that we spent our first rounder on Buckner, he is not part of the 2020 draft class, and that's reflected in his age, his contract, and his proven history as an NFL player -- you're evaluating more than just whether the team can identify good players in the draft. That matters to me; it's the whole point of a draft grade, so I'm excluding veterans added using draft picks. Other people might have different objectives, but I think methods that include veteran players are muddying the waters. And to your point about a team like the Packers giving up value to draft Love, that's reflected in an evaluation of the group of players they drafted. They could have had a player rated similarly to Love at #30, plus another solid player at #136. It's also reflected when evaluating what New England did; they added value by moving down from #23 to #37 and adding #71. One more thing about muddying the waters, we're not accounting for the Patriots adding Sanu in 2019 by giving up their second round pick in 2020. I don't think we're including Dee Ford in the Niners draft haul, right? In general, when grading the 2020 draft, we're not accounting for every veteran player added by using a 2020 draft pick. Just the ones the grader remembers and wants to add in. It just adds more inconsistency to the evaluation. (And it has little to do with a team's ability to scout and project draft prospects.) So for me, I'm only looking at the actual draft class -- the rookie players added using 2020 picks, because I want to have a feel for the quality of the players that were drafted in 2020. And I think that approach sufficiently accounts for value added/lost in pick trades. I think veteran players added are accounted for in a different evaluation.
  16. Someone posted something a couple days ago suggesting that "mileage" isn't as big a factor as you might think, particularly at a young football age. If a player doesn't sustain injury, then simply having a lot of carries doesn't mean he's worn down. It's not like tread on a tire. It's more like a misaligned tire, where the misalignment represents an injury (or some other deficiency or physical imbalance). The more you drive in that condition, the faster the tire will wear. If everything is aligned properly, you should have a normal life span on your tires. Anyone can suffer a catastrophic injury, and it has nothing to do with prior usage, or anything else. It's just a matter of circumstance (in most cases). But I don't know that there's a true positive correlation between number of carries and likelihood of injury, especially if you account for variables like prior injury history and exclude catastrophic injuries that are specific to circumstance.
  17. Agreed to the first point. And in theory, I agree with the second point. But you have to admit you're focusing on need to a great extent. 'They needed a WR, so why take a developmental QB?' I think it's just about them really liking a player at a really important position, and being willing to give up a mid round pick to secure him, just in case someone else liked him as much as they did. They also may have had him much higher rated than any other QB on their board, while another team -- like the Eagles, for instance -- would be okay with another remaining QB, but might still have drafted the one player the Packers really wanted. So there doesn't have to be a consensus on the player for a team to feel justified in moving up. I know everybody knows all this, I'm just pointing out that whether the Packers bought into unwarranted hype about the Colts or not, what matters is that they got their guy, and it didn't cost them a whole lot. Now, I agree they probably should have gone with Patrick Queen or whoever they had at the top of their board. Or traded down. That would have maximized their value, still secured them a really good player, and probably checked off a serious need or two. But if Love winds up being the real deal and they move on from Rodgers in two years, then they come out just fine.
  18. I think if you focus on need, you'll get wrapped up in the nonsense. (For example, I have no problem with the Packers moving up for Jordan Love... besides the fact that it deprived the Colts of him. I have no problem with the Eagles drafting Jalen Hurts; my thoughts on the player himself are a different story.) So if someone focuses on the Colts' perceived needs, the Taylor pick looks problematic. We have a 25 year old RB who hit 1K last year, and a really good run blocking OL. We didn't need another "bell cow" back. But if you focus on the quality of the player -- and extra credit if you account for the auxiliary considerations, like usage, contract status, etc. -- then drafting a player of Taylor's pedigree at #39 is a winning move. If you focus more on value, maybe it's 50/50. Maybe too high for a RB, plus we traded up, plus we have a starter already... but Taylor is more gifted than anyone we have, he's a difference-making, TD scoring prospect, and our coach wants to run the living daylights out of the ball. I think most people's opinions of our draft hinges on the Taylor pick, and most people focus on perceived need. So since it's a low value position that wasn't a high need and we used our second pick of the draft on him, it's going to affect how people view our draft.
  19. I don't include Buckner in my grade. We didn't have a first, that drops the quality of the players we could draft. Same as it does for any other team that came into the draft without their full complement of picks. And if a team like the Niners or Dolphins comes away with a greater amount of quality players from the draft because they had more picks, it bumps up the quality of their grade. That's my approach. My grade is about who we drafted. If we traded our second for OBJ, I wouldn't count him in my draft grade. I'm probably in the minority. I intend to give my thoughts on the entire offseason at a later date. That will include a grade for trades and FAs and all that, and there I'll account for acquiring Buckner. But my draft grade is all about who we drafted. Again, JMO.
  20. Got it. Didn't mean to be harsh or rude. Every team only has 46 active players on Sunday, usually two QBs. With the new CBA, there will be 48 active players on Sunday. So you might see some teams actually dress three QBs (although I think that will be rare). Also, with the new CBA, teams have a little bit more freedom with the practice squad, so it will effectively be like you have a 55 man roster, instead of 53. I think a lot of teams will use that added flexibility to carry a third QB during the season. Instead of 15ish, maybe low 20s. Maybe more. Ideally, I'd want to have one rock solid starting QB, and one rock solid backup. Peyton Manning and Jim Sorgi; Andrew Luck and Matt Hasselbeck. If we had a true "future of the franchise" QB I assume that's what the Colts would be shooting for. But given Rivers age and JB's (supposed) lack of a future as our starting QB, I think you'll see the Colts carry three QBs in 2020. It allows for a game day backup who's ready to play (Brissett), and a younger guy who needs some time before he's ready to play (Eason). And that's not as rare as some people think.
  21. I think the fact that Blackmon was new to safety was a major factor. Apparently he bounced back pretty strongly from that game the very next week.
  22. His workout and H/W/S profile put him in the same range as Calvin Johnson. Clearly not an evidence of future greatness; Stephen Hill was in the range as well. But yeah, athletically, Moncrief was seriously gifted.
  23. This is a really bad post. I shouldn't respond. As of last November, 15 of 32 teams had three QBs on the active roster. The Niners, Chiefs, Saints, Ravens, Patriots and Eagles made the playoffs. That's half of the 12 teams that made the playoffs, and it includes the two SB teams. There's no correlation. And by the "logic" in the bolded statement above, you shouldn't even have a backup QB. Lastly, to go back to the post I first responded to, where you said no team carries three QBs... The fact is lots of teams carry three QBs. About half, as a matter of fact.
  24. They have a CEO, Mark Murphy. He reports to the board of directors.
×
×
  • Create New...