Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    485

Everything posted by Superman

  1. Yup. The Niner's tolerance for risk can be higher at that position because they have a strong DL group. Let's say Kinlaw takes a year or two to really start making a difference for them, that's fine because they already have a pipeline. The Colts wanted -- and really, needed -- an immediate contributor, which is why Buckner makes so much sense for them. Ballard called it a no-brainer, and I pretty much agree. It lined up really well with our needs and the resources we had. And I say that as a guy who would have liked to have Love. But I never wanted Love at #13, and if the team really wanted him they could have had him in the 20s.
  2. I think cap space won't be an issue. There will be a big jump in the cap at some point over the next two years (maybe 2021, but the pandemic might have a drastic effect on revenue). Assume they get Leonard and Nelson done after 2020, which will allow them to spread out some bonuses and cap hits. I think it's less than 50/50 that they re-sign Mack. Not sure about Kelly (mostly because of his injuries), too early to talk about Smith, and it looks like there's a chance they'll decide not to pay Hooker. I'm also still wondering whether they move Brissett, which will add a few million to the rollover. We'll see how 2020 goes, but the cap hit for the QB room should be going way down. Cap space should be fine. I think we have room for two more $15-20m/year guys, to be honest. I wasn't as high on Kinlaw as everyone else. Then the injury situation became more of a concern. In Buckner, you have a proven difference maker at a position that we've never been able to really lock down, and that's worthy of being treated like a core piece.
  3. Buckner's tape coming out was dramatically better than Kinlaw's, IMO. And Buckner has realized his potential as a proven NFL player. With a bunch of cap space, it was a good swing for the Colts. The Niners got good value out of the trade, but any assumption that Kinlaw will be an adequate replacement for Buckner is dangerous, at best. Not to mention the fact that Kinlaw is a medical red flag. It's possible he wouldn't even have been on the Colts board. The Niners have a strong, deep DL, and can better afford the risk.
  4. I would not. We already have #34, and if we wanted another pick in the 30s we could come up from #44. We can probably get the staff's two favorite players still on the board. And I wouldn't base a trade for our future first on the projection that we'll be picking toward the end of the first round. You never know what the future might hold. We could wind up picking in the teens again, and now we've given up a very valuable asset for a second round pick we didn't really need to acquire. As a matter of fact, I think there's a strong possibility of a trade down from #34, given what happened last night. I previously thought there was a remote chance of trading up last night -- we'll never know, but something made the Packers jump up for Love. Now that that didn't happen, I think there's a strong chance we move down.
  5. It was a live interview. I'm sure he says a lot of stuff in interviews that he doesn't think is tweet-worthy, which is understandable. He was asked which teams might move up, and he said 'the Colts have made some calls about moving up. I don't think ultimately they'll wind up doing that.' So there's that.
  6. Having read comments from some teams and GMs, some of them start these conversations in advance. Sometimes they have their deals basically in place, and then pull the trigger at the last minute if their guy is still on the board. John Lynch gave some good info on the trade with the Bears a couple years ago, and how they had been having conversations about that move well before the draft started. I doubt someone like Belichick operates that same way. So I figure there's a range of approaches, depending on the team, and depending on the objective. If you're the Lions sitting at #3 and you want to move down, maybe you want everyone to know that the pick is available. If you're the Jaguars and you're thinking about getting up to #3 or #4 ahead of the Dolphins, Chargers and Panthers, maybe you keep that quiet.
  7. All good! When I saw that I was thinking "Wait, Chad Pennington won an MVP??"
  8. Which league? He came in second to Peyton Manning in 2008 (he received four votes; Manning got 32). He never actually won MVP. He was the MAC MVP in 1999. He also won Comeback Player of the Year, twice. I agree with your point, though. Pennington was a good QB, and his career was undermined by multiple injuries. He never had a particularly strong arm, and then he had serious injuries to his throwing shoulder, and several operations. Colt McCoy was nowhere near Chad Pennington as a QB, ever.
  9. This is a busy offseason.
  10. Who's JMV talking to? I learned a new term from watching JT O'Sullivan -- "Rubik's cube." When the QB takes the snap from shotgun, and flips the ball in his hands to find the laces, and some QBs will flip it more than once. It's like flipping a Rubik's cube back and forth while you're trying to solve it. Fromm does this a lot. That might be what they're talking about. I don't see any issues with Fromm's actual grip, but he would do well to secure his hands on the ball without doing the ball flip. It's one less motion, can help him keep his eyes, hands and feet in sync, and help him get the ball out a little bit faster.
  11. That was Hugh Thornton. Not quite what happened, but yeah he never worked out either.
  12. Jeff Linkenbach, Kyle DeVan, Mike McGlynn, Winston Justice, Johnathan Harrison, the ghost of Gosder Cherilus, a misadventure with Mewhort at RT, etc., etc. And we had Bruce Arians and Pep Hamilton calling plays for some of these people...
  13. I'm not trying to have him cut. Just saying that we can do better than "average," and in line with the OP, there's still improvement that can be made on the OL. I definitely don't want to use past OLs as a bench mark. We had AC (who was far less consistent earlier in his career), and everyone else was awful.
  14. Good post. I'm impressed with his accuracy, and I think the concerns about his arm are overblown. He's no rocket launcher, but his arm is fine. His breakdowns under pressure are the biggest concern, for me. I don't know if he has the ability to improvise, don't know if he's a playmaker (he has some impressive plays on tape, but a lot more falling apart). It reminds me of the Peyton Manning vs Ryan Leaf discussion. No, not comparing anyone to Manning, just saying that Manning was seen as the by the book, super smart and prepared, does everything right, not very athletic or good at improvising when the play breaks down kind of guy, and he remained that kind of guy throughout his career (just watched the 2005 game vs the Pats; pressure was always a problem for him). He just got so good at anticipating what the defense was going to do and figuring out how to beat it that he never had to improvise. From 2003 on, he was nearly unsackable, you couldn't blitz him with any regularity, and he picked his spots to go over the top. Of course, that's Peyton Manning. My point is just that I think because he turned out to be the best ever at beating the defense before the snap, people forget that his limitations were held against him when he was coming out. At least by pundits, if not by NFL evaluators. Back to Fromm, there's a lot to like. Completely different evaluation than the guys with elite physical gifts, though. Protections, adjustments, accuracy, anticipation... I think we would notice a difference from Brissett in just those areas alone.
  15. Would require a very close rewatch, probably with coaches film. My initial reaction is to put that on the QB.
  16. Not really. I'm somewhat okay with Fromm, maybe not at #34 though. I'm off of Eason and Hurts, just not my kind of guys. Gordon, Morgan, etc., I've only seen a little of, but nothing too impressive to me.
  17. Sixth year, then. And I understand everyone loves PFF ratings, but I'm not basing my evaluation of Glowinski's play on what PFF says. He's firmly average, IMO.
  18. That's what the entire conversation has been about. 'If we trade Hooker, it means Ballard messed up his first pick with the Colts!' You didn't say it, but that's what this discussion has been centered around. I'll also add that Ballard doesn't strike me as the kind of person to get caught up in what it might look like if he were to trade the first guy he drafted as a GM.
  19. He's the definitive 'don't let good be the enemy of great' player on our roster. I appreciate him, we could do a lot worse, but RG and RT are the spots where the line could be better. RT is a young guy playing a new position, but RG is played by a 7th year guy who is just about average. I'm not trying to show him the door, but at the least, I'd like to see some serious competition at RG.
  20. He's definitely not alone. The right side of the line could be better, and Glowinski wasn't very good last year.
  21. I don't think it's necessary to make excuses for the 2017 draft. We got at least four good players out of that draft. Even if Hooker isn't turning into the next Ed Reed, he's still a good player. Mack, Walker and Stewart are good players. But when a GM takes over in late January, he's not running his full operation. Just like a director taking over mid-production because the original director got fired. He's trying to salvage whatever he can, with a crew he didn't hire and doesn't normally work with, in a limited amount of time. It's still his movie, but not really. So to say 'if you're willing to trade him now, you shouldn't have drafted him three years ago' is silly. It ignores the fact that, since then, the Colts changed front offices (almost entirely), changed scouting staffs (pretty significantly), and changed the coaching staff and schemes (completely). Pointing that out isn't "blaming it" on anyone, it's just acknowledging that things are different, and it stands to reason that a different process, run by different people, would have yielded a different result. By the way, Ryan Grigson was a jerk. No reason to dance around it. He was also a bad GM. Whether being a jerk made him a bad GM or not isn't certain, but it definitely didn't make him a good one.
×
×
  • Create New...