Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    485

Everything posted by Superman

  1. Something less useful than the Wonderlic...
  2. People who say stuff like that have never watched him. They're charting box scores. I agree with the rest. Love is talented and has a lot of ability, and there's reason to think there's a ton of untapped potential that a good coaching staff can develop. It's hard to imagine him dropping into the 20s. I also wonder if Ballard and Co completed their evaluation and said 'he's not the guy for us.' And that would be fine. I'm super excited by him, but if the Colts moved off of him after a thorough evaluation, then they've done their job. Trading out of #13 is a strong indication that they didn't feel like they had to have him.
  3. It's simply another information point. For football, it's about as important as knowing whether he wears boxers, briefs, boxer briefs, or goes commando. If it were me, I'd want to do well in every evaluation, so unlike Richard Sherman, I'd try to ace the Wonderlic. But preparation for it would be like 19th on my list of 20 things to do to get ready for the combine. And if I were an evaluator, it would be 19th out of 20 on my list of things that matter.
  4. I felt like that was made obvious when he traded #13. For the last month we've kind of been talking our way into believing that he'd still find a way to come away with Love or another of the top five QBs, but it's unlikely. That said, I've rewatched a lot of these QBs over the last few weeks. Love has some special traits. I'm over all the people talking about college stats and win/loss records, who have probably never watched him play. His footwork, his throwing ability, and his work through progressions are all high level. He's athletic, even twitchy at times. His anticipation and his accuracy aren't where they need to be. The accuracy deal is weird, because his footwork is really good; but his upper body mechanics are inconsistent, so lots of reps and work with a pro level guy to tighten up his motion will help there. But his anticipation and tendency to hesitate and double clutch -- and sometimes seeing ghosts in the second level and in the pocket -- will undermine his accuracy. And he's a gunslinger, so he's going to make some amazing plays, and he's going to have some "what the..." turnovers. But any coaching staff that isn't afraid of a challenge would be salivating over a prospect like Love. Bottom line. His traits and playmaking are phenomenal. It would be awesome if Ballard found a way to get him, but I think there's less than a 5% chance it happens.
  5. You already know where my disagreements are going to be here. 1) He didn't know he was going to fire Pagano. If Luck plays that year and we win the division and a playoff game, Pagano would have been kept. 2) He was working with Grigson's scouts and staff, for the most part, and working off of his own info from scouting for KC, while working closely with Pagano's staff. 3) I don't think you understand what the staff wants to do with the defense. That's based on you calling it an outdated Tampa 2. 4) I still think Hooker is a good fit for the defense I believe they want to run. Safety is crucial, especially if you have a ball hawk. 5) Even still, it stands to reason that their idea of how to spend the 15th pick in the draft is different now than it was three years ago. 6) Biggest factor -- if they are considering moving Hooker -- is likely his inability to stay on the field, which makes them uninterested in making a long term commitment to him. Better to get something of value for him than to let him walk and get a 5th round comp pick three years from now. And I'll say again, I'm highly skeptical of these rumors, and I don't want them to trade Hooker.
  6. He didn't have his staff in place, and was drafting for a different coach/defense. I still think Hooker can play in Eberflus' defense, and he's still a big time playmaker when healthy, but it doesn't make sense to hold that pick over the staff's head given all the changes that have taken place since then.
  7. A few things might come into play, though. First, I don't buy the rumor. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen, but the timing of this coming out is odd, and this is lying season. Second, there are some changes to the comp pick formula. I'm not sure what they are or when they'll go into effect, but those changes might make some GMs be a little more proactive in getting value for players they don't intend to sign long term. And the Colts could get better value, sooner, by trading Hooker, than by letting him walk for a comp pick. Third, it seems like safety is one of the strengths of this draft, especially in the 25-50ish pick range. Fourth, there seems to be a refocus on players who stay on the field. Hooker has not been that kind of player so far, and it's probably not likely that he becomes that kind of player. So, all this together makes me think that IF the Colts trade Hooker, it will be about maximizing value for a player that they don't want to make a long term commitment to and that they feel they can replace to a reasonable degree this offseason.
  8. The polish that Pittman has shows up in nuanced ways, like his stacking receivers, body position, hands flashing late in the play, navigating the sideline, etc. Claypool probably runs more routes but I don't see anything in Pittman that would limit his ability to run any pro route.
  9. That seems like it's specific to the game day roster though. And I guess they're mandating 8 OL dressed for every game?
  10. I like Pittman. They don't run any pro routes in that offense, but he looks like he has the feet and balance to be a successful route runner. He has excellent body control and spatial awareness. Not a burner but not slow at all. Great size, obviously. I assume because of his family he understands pro concepts. Not quick, but decent feet. He won't be a separation guy but with his size and hand strength maybe it's not necessary. He's a good prospect. More than just a big body, but has to do more than out jump defenders in the NFL. Your thoughts? I'll get to Van Jefferson.
  11. Good reminder. I really haven't paid a lot of attention to the new CBA details yet.
  12. I don't know the class well enough yet. I haven't watched some of these guys very closely. I like Mims, but I wonder about his hands. I like Justin Jefferson but I'm not sure about his explosiveness; kind of reminds me of AJ Brown in that regard. Several guys I'd be happy to have on Day 2, to be honest.
  13. Well you know how I feel about falling in love with traitsy receivers. Just because they're big and athletic doesn't mean they'll be ready right away, and I think that's what people are anticipating. Especially because 'this is the deepest WR class ever' and all that... I'll be hoping any WR we draft will be able to improve the room. But I think, if healthy, the guys we have now will be productive enough, especially with the upgrade at QB. And again, if we really want someone who will make a difference in 2020, we should grab a veteran. I'm not thrilled about trading for Alshon, but I would expect more out of him than Shenault, for instance.
  14. I think the talk of how good this year's WR class is expected to be is overshadowing how good last year's class was. It's not typical that five Day 2 guys are major contributors at WR, in Year 1. It's obviously possible that anyone will have a strong rookie season. I just think expectations are too high for some of them, maybe all of them. Especially this year, given the circumstances. I think it's a dangerous assumption to expect a Year 1 contributor at WR, especially given where we're drafting.
  15. I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, but does Ballard strike you as a smokescreen kind of guy? Over and over again, he's basically telegraphed his moves, in the draft and free agency. Maybe we should start taking him at his word.
  16. Yeah and to be clear, there will be guys who are drafted in 2-5 who contribute right away. I just resist the idea that anyone in particular is a lock to be a Year 1 contributor, or that drafting a guy at a specific spot means he's going to be the answer to your problem. McLaurin is a great example, he was a mid third rounder. And there will be guys who go in the first and early second who don't do anything, like N'Keal Harry. I would have really like drafting Andy Isabella last year, but he didn't do anything. I'm just saying, it doesn't matter where you draft a guy, it doesn't make him a sure thing. And WRs are easy to fall in love with, traits-wise, and then you wind up assuming that he's going to fit right in, but more often than not it takes at least a couple months for him to get his rhythm, and then you can look for a big leap in Year 2. Those guys you named are major success stories, at a position that has a lot of failures. I'd love an AJ Brown kind of acquisition for us this year (I wanted him last year). Or Scary Terry. I just don't think it's a lock simply because we take a WR at #34 or #44. I think the biggest dividends from any receiver we take will come in 2021 and beyond.
  17. He shuts DD's nonsense down straight away. Like the theory that the Colts knew Luck was going to retire months before he did. Ballard blew that one out of the water, and DD tried to hem and haw his way through a defense, but it was over before it started. Ballard is also a little more raw when he talks to McAfee. It's like there's a friendship with both of those guys and Ballard, so it's a little more real. But still not condescending or standoffish in any way. I think the biggest difference is just that Ballard isn't a jerk (at least not openly), and Polian and Grigson both were. Polian was a great GM, but was still a jerk (and had a long standing reputation as such). Grigson was a bad GM, and also a jerk. I think Ballard is a good GM, but while that's still up for debate (somewhat), he's not a jerk. That's pretty obvious.
  18. Who would we pick at #34 or #44, or any point on Day 2, who will really upgrade the production in 2020?
  19. I think this receiver class is talented, but I think it's been talked up a bit too much, to the point that people are overestimating the ability of some of these players to produce right away. I don't think Claypool or Mims are Day 1 producing guys. Higgins and Pittman have some rawness to them as well. And I think that by the time we're on the clock, the guys who should be expected to contribute right away will be gone already. And I don't support trading up for any receiver in this class. I'm fine with WR being a developmental position. I think if you want someone who can start and produce right away, you need to do better than the 34th pick in the draft, even a deep receiver draft. The fact that Ballard didn't sign or trade for a veteran tells me they're banking on Hilton, Campbell and Pascal being their top three this season, they're going to throw a lot to the backs, and they're going to work the TEs in as well. Because it's not reasonable, IMO, to expect any receiver we draft this season to be a significant contributor this season. Now I'm not saying that would have been my approach; I either would have kept Funchess or signed another vet at that position. But adding a more proficient QB in Rivers and getting our corps healthy is more impactful in 2020 than drafting a Day 2 WR. Any receiver we take in this draft will take some time to be a reliable contributor.
  20. I actually think Polian had real beefs with some of the local guys. Kravitz in particular had serious issues with him, and went on a bit of a crusade during the last few years. And then after the 2009 decision in Week 16, the pitchforks really came out, and Polian handled that about as well as you'd think someone who had a general disdain for local media would. He was just a condescending and impatient interview, which is kind of ironic because he loved being in front of a microphone (and I really miss Polian Corner, btw). Grigson's annoyances I thought came out of the media's persistent picking at some of his failures, especially at OL and DL. By the 2014 draft, any question about the center position was taken as a challenge, and that got worse throughout that season. Then they drafted Dorsett in 2015, and that was a disaster. And somewhere along the way it became obvious that he and Pagano weren't on the same page. I do think there was ill-will with the media in both directions, with both guys. But in Grigson's case, I think it was even worse because a) he didn't have Polian's resume, and a decade of winning football in Indy, b) he didn't have fans among the players, and c) he had issues with other members of the staff. And of course, it didn't help when he started making bad decisions and got defensive every time one of them was brought up. I think a lot of his words were misconstrued by the media and by fans, but he didn't do himself any favors with his media approach. In Ballard's case, he's not making those media mistakes. He's going completely in the opposite direction. It probably helps that there's more social engagement now than there was just a few years ago; the idea of something like "With the Next Pick" would have been seen as radical just ten years ago. So maybe part of it is just him coming along at the right time. But he also has a different personal touch, and it serves him well. His handling of various issues since he came along has been strong, even when they weren't issue issues to address. Most important though is that he's doing a good job. If it turns out that he's not such a good GM, I get the feeling some of his interactions will have a different feel to them.
  21. Ehh. Polian had an open disdain for them, and Grigson was apparently an off-putting personality. Neither of them were fond of reaching out to people in a friendly manner, it seems. And they even treated legitimate questions as inconveniences, like they were being pestered about bad decisions. I don't think the media guys are rude or hard to deal with, in general. I just think they focus on superficial storylines, and tend to beat a dead horse every time there's a main attraction. For me, I'd rather hear about Ballard's thoughts on this draft class, what are it's strengths, is he interested in moving up in the draft, what does he think about the second round, what spots on the roster would he like to improve, which young players does he think will be able to contribute more next year, what's up with Ryan Kelly's contract, etc., etc. I don't want to hear them ask six different ways what they're doing to get ready for a virtual draft. I don't want to hear four times what he thinks about the QB position. And this is a recurring theme. In the 2017 offseason, 2 out of 3 questions were about Luck's shoulder. Last offseason, 3 out of 4 questions were about Luck's ankle. These are legitimate questions, but at a certain point it's like 'asked and answered, let's talk about something else now.' Ballard has a personable approach, and he has a way of not being condescending and giving different flavors when he answers questions. He tells stories about specific instances and past situations, which makes him easy to listen to. It also makes it seem like he's saying more than he really is. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate any insight he gives into his thinking and his process, but I would really appreciate the media people asking more questions about more topics, rather than circling around the same basic topics over and over again. JMO. End rant.
  22. They asked him six different ways about how the shutdown is affecting their draft prep. Another 4 questions were about the QB position. I feel like Colts fans are being done a disservice by local media. It would be nice if these guys would stop asking the same questions.
  23. Rivers might be good at keeping drives alive. He also might kill drives with untimely turnovers. I'm obviously hoping he brings his best to Indy, I'm just nervous he might be done.
×
×
  • Create New...