Camio
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Camio
-
-
Btw, Collins wont touch the 10M in base salary for 2012. That realy makes that a 4m for a year, the 4M being guaranteed basically (his 2011 base salary plus signing bonus) but instead of having the cap hit over the 2011 season only, the cap hit of the signing bonus will be over 2 seasons.
As for getting a pick for him, he has 0 value (and wont have any value either no matter how he performs) so dont expect anything.
-
Sorry guy. I just thought that was a hilarious arrangement of words : "you state these facts as proof". C'mon guy, it was funny.
I am getting pulled away from my only true point regarding the 3-4 vs Manning by some serious nonsense and redundant misfires.
I am not saying Manning can't move the ball effectively against the 3-4. I am not saying that Manning cannot score TD's effectively vs a 3-4. I am pointing out his history of inopportune INTS that cause loses disproportionately coming against 3-4 schemes. I am only truly meaning to refer to turnovers. I have been saying this since the first page.
How in the blue heck can you say PM is 1-5 vs 3-4 in the playoffs, therefore, he cant beat 3-4 and then, come up with something that totally contradicts the 1-5 stats you yourself brought up and used to attempt to make your argument?
PM threw for over 300 and 400 yards in 2 of those losses, vs the Chargers that is, with a crappy running game on top of that. I dont see how inopportune INTS as you put it is the reason why the Colts lost.
Seriously, get real.
-
The patriots ran a modified version of the 3-4 in that game, known as the "Fairbanks-Bullough" 3-4 system. MR Kahursky was apparently only stating Manning's record against a BASE 3-4, and you are correct in pointing that out. Good eye, bud.
However, that only changes the W-L record to 2-5, still not lookin good.
Only 2-5, because he's stuck with a GM that hasnt fixed the running game and defense in years (say 07-10). How is it PM's fault for losing to the Chargers in those 2 games? 300+ and 400+ yards, having the lead in both games with 5 mins and 1 min left in the 4th.
How can you even dare say its due to PM?
Really, you have nothing to prove your point. You're using the w-l of a team (Colts) to prove how 1 single player is (PM) vs something (3-4).
Its my turn then: Dilfer was a better QB than Marino ever was. Reason being, Dilfer won a SB and Marino didnt, therefore Dilfer>Marino.
Lets play some more! Aikman was a better QB than PM because 3 ringggggggzzzz>1.
Now, will you stop basing yourself off teams records and focus about the individual and how he actually performed in those games?
-
Those are nice stats but they arent accurate: Colts have beaten the Pats and Jets in the playoffs. This means PM cant be 1-5 vs the 3-4 in the playoffs.
Besides, the person who did that article is clueless. He has no idea what he was talking about and simply used the W and L to make an argument without even watching the games.
Anyone with a head above their shoulders could see PM isnt the reason why the Colts lost to the Chargers twice in the playoffs. How can someone then use the "Colts lost vs a 3-4 D" to make it "...therefore PM cant beat 3-4".
Thats silly and totally foolish.
I'm sorry but if this is the only thing you can bring up to back up your argument, then we might as well stop here. If anything, this proves that:
-many journalists/writters/bloggers who do NFL articles and stuff are clueless but that, we knew that already
-that despite PM being the best NFL player in the last 30 years (with Rice), even he cant overcome the deficiencies and weaknesses of his team and beat a stronger SD team, despite having 2 great games.
As I said before, the fact there has been bad decision making in the management level (this means BP btw) shouldnt be held against PM and certainly shouldnt be used to make an argument, whatever it may be, against PM, just for the sake of trying to prove a point.
If anything, it proves PM is amazing, but not God. That, we knew already
Edit: how in the blue heck is it PM's fault the Colts lost to the Jets last year? Does that mean PM has troubles vs the 3-4? No. It means we got an average, at best, head coach.
That was a nice usage of a timeout right there: "hey, lets help out the other team so we lose to a 3-4 team and then, we can say PM cant beat 3-4"
This, along with poor kickoff coverage (poor special teams for the Colts since years really, besides the kickers.
It goes back to bad management and has nothing to do with PM tho.
Edit²: this thread can now be closed
-
That odd point doesn't support your argument. Why even say such an odd comment?
That was in response to one of your comment:
You have to stop trying so hard to be right and listen, or rather read and comprehend the message I send.I was simply stating that apparently, I'm not the only one who hasnt been agreeing with the "PM has troubles with 3-4" thingy you've been rolling with all over this thread. The difference is, instead of not bothering replying to the thread when I saw you making your claim, and after seeing 1 person replying he didnt agree, and after seeing your lack of argument, I decided to jump in. This shouldnt be held against me. Make your argument or move along
As for the rest, nothing new you're bringing up that hasnt already been discussed.
We all know about PM bad strech last year as well as the 6 INTs game in the rain, but it was mostly due to the 3-4 than the rain!
After all, it was raining in the SB the Colts won vs the Bears but PM didnt threw 6 picks, making it obvious that 3-4>rain. You see, I can revert to funny and flawed arguments too
I like tho how you brought up a game where PM had to throw 55 times or something. If anything, that supports something I brought up earlier: "PM's asked to do more for his team than any other player in the NFL, by a big margin."
The greatness that is PM, which comes with good and sometimes bad, due mostly to bad decision making in the management (like lack of a competent running game for a few years now), shouldnt be held against him.
Of course, on some rare occasions, even PM himself cant overcome odds. Yes, even PM cant! That has nothing to do with 3-4 tho. Its just that some teams happen to be better than the Colts, happen to have great Ds (3-4 or 4-3) or are better managed than the Colts (because yes, this is also the reality).
Basically, there's been great 3-4 and 4-3 Ds, both of which have given PM and other good qbs problems. Not because its 4-3 or 3-4, but because that what great Ds do. Its the purpose.
-
Actually, I don't care for the 3-4. It is too highly reliant on talented players to make it feasible. Without an extraordinarily cerebral captain, it fails. I care not for it due to its reliance on highly specialized player. Why are you extrapolating that I am some flag waiving 3-4 fanboy? Where did you get this idea?
Here is where I'm going to destroy you, and I'll do so with emphasis.
I mentioned in an earlier post, apparently you glazed over it, that QB's regularly post 300-400 YD games when they are losing. So don't quote me yardage totals as if they infer that he's picking the 3-4 apart in losing efforts. The end result quantifies the performance.
The last time Manning saw SD and their 3-4, Manning tossed the game away with 4 INTS, thats roughly 1/4 of the INTs he threw all season. The 3-4 accomplished this while holding the Colts to a mere 24 YDS rushing. For his career against this one manifestation of the 3-4 (SD), Manning stands at 17 TDS and 22 INTS and a 4-5 W/L record.
If you dig through his career, and this is what I'm preaching concerning Manning and the 3-4, he throws gobs and gobs of INTs against 3-4 schemes with regularity. Forget the YDS, they matter not. YDS don't win games, INTS, however, lose games with demonic speed.
It is this FACT that caused our only viable division rival (Houston) in 2011 to switch to the 3-4, as well as the most notable 3-4 coach available, Wade Phillips.
You have to stop trying so hard to be right and listen, or rather read and comprehend the message I send. That is, Manning turns the ball over to the 3-4 at a far far disproportionate rate than he does against other schemes. You can quote me yardage totals until your fingers become gangrenous, it matters not. Wins and losses are all that matters, yards don't win games, turnovers lose games. Do like Blues Clues and put the pieces together.
Side note: Please understand that I say all this in the spirit of friendly debate. I mean not to be disrespectful. We all have a wide array of opinions, and I am simply stating mine.
I bolded the interesting part. Thing is, I'm apparently not the only one who didnt agreed with you, but I guess you missed that part eh?
As far as stats, I recall last year. You mean the stretch where PM was off for a few games, with 2nd stringers in? Oh, that strech? Lets base PM's career over that short period!
I mentioned in an earlier post, apparently you glazed over it, that QB's regularly post 300-400 YD games when they are losing. So don't quote me yardage totals as if they infer that he's picking the 3-4 apart in losing efforts. The end result quantifies the performance.Actually, you did so a few posts above after I said PM has had 300+ and 400+ games vs the Chargers. Your awnser was "because they were trailing" or something, which I kinda killed when I said "Colts were leading late in the 4th, both games".
Nicely tried tho...
-
Do you not see how inherently backward it is of you to say what you are saying?
Essentially you are stating "The 3-4 isn't what gives Manning trouble, its the fact that these defenses were better defenses".
These "better defenses" are 3-4 defenses. So WTH?
I'll help you out: you can be a good defense and be a 3-4 or 4-3, thats irrelevant. Buccs and Bears had top notch defenses and got to the SB with a 4-3. You're too stuck up to the 3-4 for some reason, I'm not sure why. Its not "better" or anything, its just that 4-3 and 3-4 are different. You do know the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, Jets and other teams that used the 3-4 have missed the playoffs a few times just like they did the playoffs in some other years.
You are tauting yardage totals while seemingly purposely ignoring the increase in turnover. The increase in turnover is directly tied to the scheme and the prototype player for the scheme.Don't ignore the elephant in the room.
Actually, the elephant says over 300 and 400 yards in back-to-back postseason games vs the Chargers in 07 and 08 and both times, PM had great games passing the ball with incompetent running game. Wanna talk about the Ravens not being able to beat the Colts since years? How about PM's success vs the Jets? How about all those nice games vs the Pats?
Peyton does better against 4-3, why? They are easier to read pre-snap, along with the cover-2 schemes often attached to the 4-3 line-up.You're the one saying that. I could post stats here where PM has had over 400 yards passing vs 3-4, just like he's had bad games vs the 4-3. There has however been a trend, in the last few years, of a few teams moving to the 3-4 because it was the "hot thing", due to Pats and Steelers success. Therefore, there has been more 3-4 defenses and some of the good/great defenses in the NFL in the last decade have been 3-4 defenses.
A great defense, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3, will be a great defense. Offenses are, vs those great defenses, expected to have some troubles. Coming out here and trying to make a point because PM has had some bad games vs some great defenses, I dont see your point.
In reference to the big yardage numbers you posted;It is common knowledge and not unusual at all for QB's that are losing by multiple scores to end up with 300-400 YDS. Because they abandon the run game and moderate range passing in lew of stretching the field. Hence why Matt Schaub pounded out 4k+ YDS in each of the last two seasons. A talented QB, an upper echelon WR and a porous defense resulted in constant downfield passing.
Actually, the Colts were leading both games late in the 4th (with 5 mins left or so in the 4th, and with 1 min left in the 4th, and it got into OT).
Bottom line: Chargers couldnt stop, in both games, Colts passing attack, despite the Colts having incompetent running game in both games and despite both games being close ones, where Colts had the lead in both games.
You shouldnt be saying stuff without verifying first
-
You're missing my point. Many of his greatest failures have been against the 3-4. Peyton has chewed up and spit out all manner of defense at one point or another. But the 3-4 schemes have presented him with his most flawed performances ever. To his credit, he always figures them out to some extent.
I may be wrong, if I am please holler at me for it, but wasn't SD running a 3-4 against Manning during that 6 INT belly-flop several years ago? We all know about the 05 AFCCG against Pitt. Lebeau had him scrambling in panic to figure out his blitz schemes.
Please note I'm not championing the 3-4 as a magic bullet against Manning. I'm only stating that this has been the most consistent scheme in unraveling Manning's game.
As jskinnz said, The 3-4 thing is indeed a myth.
Back in 01-04 (mostly), Peyton had troubles vs 1 team and it was the Pats who were using a 3-4. Thing is, every teams in the NFL had troubles vs the Pats and really, it was because of BB.
Since then, if you look at the last 6-7 years or so, Chargers, Steelers and Ravens have had good to great defenses (in the AFC). These teams have been using the 3-4. Now ask yourself, is it really Manning having troubles vs the 3-4 or vs good/great defenses?
If anything, the games Manning has had since about 5 years (if you look at it as a whole) vs the good/great defenses of the AFC (all pretty much using 3-4) shows exactly the 3-4 thing and PM having problems is a myth: Chargers, Pats, Steelers, Jets, Ravens.
The stats Manning has had in those games speak volume. 400yards + passing in some of those games, without 0 running game, that really tells you how much PM's having trouble vs the 3-4.
For the record, that 6 ints game vs the Chargers was in the rain, with a useless OL and no run game.
For that 6 ints game, I could give you the example of that Chargers game in the playoff, which the Colts lost but PM had over 400 yards passing. You're mixing the fact the Colts have had 0 running game and a poor defense with "PM has had troubles vs the 3-4 because the Colts have been ending up losing". The Colts lost to a better team. PM dominated that D in that game but the rest of the Colts team (running game and defense) was so poor it couldnt managed to just play decent and win that game vs the Chargers.
What would be more accurate to say would be "PM has been able to keep the Colts in games where they didnt had a business being in".
The fact he's the only player in the NFL to be able to do so shouldnt be held against him, and certainly not used to make an argument against him.
-
Simon was far from damaged goods. He was a 28 year old DT only 2 seasons removed from the Pro Bowl with only 2 missed games in his career. He was still at a high level. Only reason the Colts got him was because he refused the Eagles franchise tag.
When he got with the Colts, he was out of shape. He was out of shape when he reported to TC with the Eagles, duh.
-
Polian could have done better at tackle. Much better. Doesn't mean he ignored the issue, though. He clearly didn't. The team was snake-bit at defensive tackle through 2008, between injuries, defections and retirements. Not excusing Polian's missteps, but like Coffee said, things could have been a lot better if not for some unforeseen occurences. Using a first rounder on a defensive tackle isn't the only way to address the problem, and pretending that because he didn't means that he did nothing is far-fetched, to say the least.
I'll also add that for years, Dungy wasn't concerned with what we had at tackle. Gap integrity were the only two words out of his mouth. And now that I understand line play a little better, he was right about gap integrity. But that doesn't mean we couldn't have added some size and talent in the middle of our line. Playing Dawson and Foster at tackle in 2008 was sinful.
Retrospectively, there's a lot we could have done in the past two or three years to improve the defensive tackle spot, including drafting Ziggy Hood instead of Donald Brown. But Hood is a three-tech (actually plays five-tech end in the Steelers 3-4), so that wouldn't have fixed our need for a good nose tackle.
Nobody said that because he didnt used a first, this means he did nothing.
What I said was, he didnt do much (besides 05-06). The awnser I usually get from BP apologists is "top DTs are only available in early 1st round (top 10) and we draft late in first".
Anyone who knows a bit about football will know there are good DTs available later in the trade and via UFA. I also pointed out that anyway, if good DTs were only available in the top 10-15 (which isnt true anyway), nothing prevents BP from trading up anyway.
-
If Bob Sanders was able to stay healthy, we'd be talking about a future hall of famer. He'd be our John Lynch. The impact he made when present on our defense is undeniable. And as to Ugoh, you do recall that Tarik Glenn was retiring that year correct? The LT position is one of the most important positions in football, even more so for an offensive team built around the pass. I know you want a DT, but I don't see how you can fault Polian for drafting Tarik Glenn's successor.
Ok, so we trade up. Lets assume that we find a willing trade partner (which we actually can't assume but for the sake of argument lets say we can.)
Who you picking? The closest DT off the board when we drafted Gonzo was at pick 16 Justin Harrel. The next closest was at 10 Amobe Akoye. Harrell is still a free agent and Akoye just got cut from the Texans as well. We could sign both those guys as free agents now if we wanted to. Those were the only two DTs taken in the first round. I won't even go into what we would have had to have given up to move from 32 to 16 or 10. We'd have traded over half our draft.
Who could have possibly traded up in 2009 to get? Well we could have traded up 3 spots to get Peria Jerry. Of course he's done nothing so far in the NFL (to be fair, he was hurt) The next possible spot would be to trade up to 9 to get BJ Raji. Again though, do you have any idea what we'd have had to give up to get Raji? And he's a 3-4 nose tackle. That would be beyond silly to trade our entire draft (and probably some of 2010s as well) to get a guy who doesn't even fit our system.
2004, 08 and 09?
What about 03, 05, 06, 07, 10? Btw, drafting Sanders in the 2nd round doesnt mean BP couldnt draft a DT in the later rounds.
You mean like when we went after Corey Simon or traded for Booger?I know you know both were damaged goods. Dont make it sound like either of them was always gonna be the permanent fix.
Ok, so we go after a free agent. Who are you cutting to make cap room? There is only so much money to spread around. So who don't we re-sign that frees up money for this mythical free agent? And once you've figured out who we're cutting, then you need to say who we're signing. It's easy to say that we should have signed "someone!" but who? Stud Defensive tackles don't grown on trees (remember, the trunks aren't strong enough) and usually when a team gets a good one (especially one who can pass rush which is what we need) they tend to hang on to them and the ones that don't command a small fortune in free agency.Who said the Colts needed stud dts? All the Colts need is average/above average DT play, thats all. If they can find good/very good/great DTs, thats even better. Fact is, with the defensive scheme, Frathis plus a top 5 offense year-in year-out, the Colts dont need dominant DTs.
No need to try and make it sound like there wasnt any DTs available (capable ones) to be picked up either via trading, in the late rounds of the draft or via free agency in the last decade (besides 05-06).
You seem to think I'm talking about DTs like Wilfork, Sapp, Randle or Jenkins. I'm not. I'm talking about average to above average DTs. There's plenty of them around and has been plenty of them around over the years.
Heck, I named several who were selected in the later rounds since 03.
And how many of them have enjoyed anywhere close to the level of success we've had since Polian has been here? The reason we've had that level of success is because we didn't pull a Ditka chasing after a position of need. That cripples a team ESPECIALLY a team that builds primarily through the draft.And your point is what? That BP never meesed up? I'm not sure whats your point but if anything, thats a silly attempt to say that BP never messes up, or what he has had more success than Ditka and therefore, cant mess up and is perfect.
I dont look at it this way, sorry. You can tho, feel free to do so.
We have drafted, traded for, and signed free agent defensive tackles. Polian has made more than one attempt at addressing the defensive tackle position, and as a result we might actually have it figured out this year.Stop making it sound like BP traded for tons of them, signed tons of DTs UFAs and stuff. You can hardly make a point so you gotta revert to that? C'mon, we both know the list of players that fit the above criterias you just mentionned is slim, very slim.
It's not spin. It's reality. Instead of talking in vague generalities, tell us who you think we should have gotten. What free agent should we have signed or what player should we have drafted that we did not?Ok, so this year, few guys were signed to help out on the DL. Why has it not been the case every other year or so sicne a decade (besides 05-06, duh) when it was obvious the DT spot was a huge problem, the biggest weakness on the Colts roster.
You're making it sound like there's no Sapp, Jenkins, Wilfork or Randle available so therefore, there's no DT available at all that could help out the Colts.
Thats just being silly and refusing to admit something, sorry.
-
What does Joe MaddOn have to do with the Colts?
Actually, I'm sure he'd be an upgrade as an HC for the Colts
-
That's not the only argument. Polian has been correct in his decision making at least 90% of the time. The Hughes pick was also celebrated when it happened because the Super Bowl taught us a few things: namely, when either member of Team Frathis goes down, we suffer. The FO stated that Hughes was expected to alleviate both men, while also coming in to provide additional pressure by standing or sliding to the outside. Finally, the Mathis contract issue is a huge deal. He's going to want big money that we may not have. Since D-Linemen typically take a year or two to develop in this scheme, Hughes will likely have grown into his expected potential by this time should Mathis become a pain in the but in the off-season. All indications suggest that he's going to go totally WR-Diva on us.
There are so many factors that play into the Hughes pick that you, and most dim-witted armchair critics just never see. Would taking Saffold have been a more useful, if short-term selection? Perhaps. But our pass protection hadn't exactly been bad to that point, and we certainly didn't expect the Lilja departure, the suckage of Ugoh, and a smattering of O-line injuries. Not to mention playing RB's #4 and 5 to protect against the blitz for most of the season.
Besides, I am far happier with Castonzo and Ijalana as our linemen picks than I would have been with Saffold and... no one else.
Cute.
But, you really sure BP's right 90% of the time?
Sounds to me like you're throwing up a number (false one shall I add) just to make you feel better. History has taught us that 90% is far, very far, from the truth.
-
Speaking of which... A little recap of DTs drafted in the last few years...
2003: Robertson (top 5), Kennedy and Joseph (1st rounders, injuries riddled), Adams (2nd), Franklin (5th),
2004: Harris (top 15), Dockett, Starks, Williams (3 from 3rd round on): I left out Tank Johnson and Marcus Tubbs, 2nd and 1st rounders, who played in the NFL but had various issues.
2005: Castillo (#28 in first), Patterson (#31 in first), Cody (#37 in second), Babineaux (late 2nd), Pouha (middle 3rd), Canty (4th).
2006: Ngata (#12), Bunkley (#14), Peko (4th), Cofield (4th), Kyle Williams (5th), Jolly (6th), Golston (6th).
2007: Okoye (top 10), Mebane (3rd), Thomas (4th), Landri (5th). Besaides Mebane, not much in this draft, DT wise.
2008: Dorsey and Ellis (both top 10), Laws (2nd), Sims (3rd), Rubin (6th - a steal).
Some nice DTs who got drafted past the first round. 2 were also selected late in the first round and ended up having nice careers.
I'm sure there were a few in 02 too, as well as 09-10. I didnt bothered checking those years.
-
Well in 04 and 08 we didn't have 1st round picks.
04=traded down, finally got Sanders. Colts did have a 1st, they simply used it to get a SS in the 2nd round.
In 08, the Colts had a 1st. It was Ugoh, selected in the 2nd in 07.
A SS and a LT instead of a DT.
And I'll assume you wouldn't be willing to give up Dallas Clark or Joseph Addai (remember we'd just let edge go the year we drafted Addai and NEEDED a RB.) So that leaves Gonzo, Brown, or Marlin Jackson as the odd man out. You'll probably say Gonzo right? I also thought that was a wasted pick. But who was there? Alan Branch was available. But who does he play for now? (I bet you don't know, I didn't until I looked it up) What's he done lately? The next DT to come off the board was pick 81 in the middle of the 3rd round.So that's out.
Nope, thats not out.
I'm fine with Marlin btw as a pick because the Colts needed CBs. However, a WR and a HB were 2 wasted #1 picks (Gonzo, Brown). If nobody was available when the Colts turn came in the 1st, then why had they not already traded up?
Besides, what disables BP from trading a pick(s) during the season or off-season to get a proven commodity at DT if he cant get anything done during the draft?
I'll assume Donald Brown would be next on the chopping block? He would be for me. Now here you might have a case that the pick should have gone DT. Ziggy Hood went to the Steelers @ 32 and then the Pats drafted Ron Brace at 40. The next DT off the board was the one we drafted who "appears" to be working his way up. Brace is a 3-4 DT and wouldn't really fit our system (although I do like him, even if he is a dirty patriot) So that pretty much leaves Ziggy Hood. He's a better fit for our system than Brace is, but I don't see him as that much better than Moala.Same as above. If you dont think anyone will be available when its your turn and you really need a position fixed, trade up or trade during the season/off-seaosn or use UFA.
So that leaves Marlin. Except maybe then we don't pick off Tom Brady in the 2006 AFCCG and we're still wondering when will we ever win a superbowl. Would you give up that moment for a DT? I sure wouldn't (and btw, the ones drafted near him haven't set the world on fire either)I'll never question Marlin's selection, not because of what he did as a Colt, but because his selection was warranted due to the position he played and the need the Colts has for that position at the time. He coulda been a bust, been always injured, thats irrelevant for me when it comes to this: Colts needed CBs bad so they picked a CB in the first round.
Well first off, it takes two to tango. It's very easy for you and I to say that Polian should have traded down or up. Or packaged picks and gone after a blue chipper. But neither you or I have any idea if that would even be a possibility. Or maybe it was and they were looking to bend him over in the process?I've been hearing that for years now. Sadly tho, other teams have been able to dance. Why?
The other fact is that as a team who builds almost entirely through the draft (and UDFA) trading several picks to move up to get one player could potentially cripple the team if the guy you do draft doesn't pan out. Not to mention we do have other needs.I agree. How the heck can you fix a problem tho if you dont trade and dont draft to fix that problem when its your turn because "no good prospect are left". Something here makes no sense
I'll be the first to say that Gonzo and Brown were wasted picks. Gonzo has been good when healthy but we had no need at WR then or in the foreseeable future. But again, there wasn't really anyone available at DT that year. Same thing with Brown although I do agree it was a wasted pick since we already had Addai and the issue wasn't the running back it was the offensive line.Issues were DT and OT mainly. Drafting a WR and HB to serve as #3 wr and #2 hb when you're offense is consistently top 3 in the NFL year-in year-out yet your D is consistently in the bottom 5 makes 0 sense.
I dont care how its spun. There's no way BP didnt had any opportunity to get a good/great DT during all those years, either thru trading up, trading during the season/off-season or via UFA.
Trust me, I want a stud defensive tackle as much, if not more than anyone on the forum. But you have to understand they don't grow on trees (the trunks bend from the weight and up getting uprooted. It's a terrible terrible mess) and reaching for players or mortgaging the future on one guy is a surefire way to end up screwed.Colts dont need great DTs. Most teams do need great DTs to win games with a good/great D in the NFL because they dont have the offense the Colts have. The Colts only need competent DTs who are actually just average to good.
I am cautiously optimistic though, that our fortunes may be looking up this year at the tackle position. Moala should be better. I like Drake Nevis (well, what I've seen from him) and Harris as the potential (notice I said potential) to be exactly what we need.I have nothing to say against what has been done to the DT position this off-season. I'll also never complain, say in about 6 months, that Harris/Anderson/Nevis/whomever else were bad signings or bad picks.
There was an issue at DT and they tried to fix the issue.
Something they didnt tried to do for most of the past decade. Its good to see things seem to be different in this new decade
-
He did... signing simon, trading for Booger, taking a chance of Ed Johnson, then taking a 3rd chance on Ed Johnson. Signing Monte Reagor, drafting of Trip (and Trip was only ever good for the first two games of the season and then one more at some point during the season). Taking a chance on Pitcock. They have done a lot to try and fix it, it's just nothing (other than Reagor) solved the issue for more than one year.
Pitcock was a 3rd rounder. Thats hardly an attempt to fix the situation. Same for Reagor and Johnson. Ed was signed as an undrafted FA. C'mon, Colts are known to sign a ton of them yearly.
Reagor wasnt bad in Indy (there's been worst) but, considering he was a DE in Denver, didnt do much there and they've let him go and he was signed for cheap, I wouldnt say that he had any chance of being the solution to all the DT problems.
Simon and Booger: both were true attempts at fixing the DT issues. You also gotta consider both had injuries issues. Also, Simon had weight issues, was out of shape and had issues with the coaches coming into camp.
Thats the best BP could do in the last decade or so
I wasn't arguing the importance of the DT position. Going by your train of thought the Ravens should have drafted a NT before Ngata, Bucs should have drafted Sapp's replacement a year after he retired, Panthers should not be struggling now they should have fixed their DT problems long ago. The point is problems cannot always be fixed as soon as they become problems. With the Colts they have tried to fix the DT position ever since Dungy became the Colts. None of the solutions have worked out. Just think if Simon and played for 4 years (he was 28 when the Colts signed him so that's not unreasonable) would we be talking about DT being a long standing weakness? What if Booger had played 3 (he was 29 or 30 when the Colts got him) how would that have improved the DT? What if Ed Johnson had not decided to go back to his girlfriend, mary jane, and improved upon his rookie season? What if Pitcock had not retired and played for years like he did in the last few games of his rookie season? So, rather than going through that same thing with the DE position they took a guy to help reduce those issues if something happened. The strategy makes perfect sense.I dont see it. At all.
-
I understand where you are coming from. We've needed our Warren Sapp since Tony took over the defense and installed the Tampa 2.
Hm, yes
However just because you need a DT doesn't mean you automatically draft one if the player doesn't warrant the pick. Obviously Polian didn't believe there was anyone on the board at that position worth picking in the first round. You might disagree, but I'll ask you who was available when we drafted Hughes who would be considered worthy of a first rounder at the defensive tackle position? It's one thing to say he should have picked a player at a certain position, it's another to actually say who that player was.You're using the 2011 as an example. I'll give you that one.
I'll ask you one question tho: how about 03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10. Those are the years after Freeney (02, 1st rounder). Since then, there has been plenty of DTs drafted late in the first round, in the 2nd round and later in the draft, by all NFL teams, that became good to pretty good DTs.
Why hasnt BP drafted just 1 of them, besides in the 2nd round in 09? What happened during all those other years?
I'll play along with you tho and say everytime the Colts turn came up late in the first round since 03, there was no good prospect playing DT available. Then, my question is this: why not trading up?
Another question would be: why not trading down and draft 1 or 2 DTs with the extra picks?
Another question would be: instead of the draft, why not involving that #1 or a 2nd or 3rd (or a combination of picks) and go get a good/very good/great DT?
Those are/were feasible options. The fact is BP did neither.
Another thing is that Freeney and Mathis aren't getting any younger. I'm not saying they're old by any stretch but guys whose games are based on speed tend to age in a hurry. First and foremost of important in a Cover/Tampa 2 defense is the ability to get pressure on the QB from the front 4. If that isn't happening the whole defense falls apart as evidenced by Billy Volek carving us up like a turkey on thanksgiving.I totally agree with you on this. Maybe a DT would've been better instead of using that pick on Gonzo or Brown then?
You still keep your beloved 1st rounder backup DE and I get my 1st rounder DT
-
I'm hoping we're getting the Harris of that time. Dear god, Freeney and Mathis' sacks and hurries would increase by at least 100%!
What you can do then is this:
1) fire up your PS3 or XBox 360
2) Insert Madden
3) Trade Harris to Colts
4) Edit his ratings, making him a 95 ovr or so (pass rushing DT with strenght) to reflect his 05-06 form
There you have it, as close as it'll get
-
You're getting me all hot and bothered... Stop it.
Dont worry, we're not getting Harris from 05-06
I was merely naming dominant Ds and what all have in common: good to dominant DTs.
-
Do you remember the playoff game against San Diego where Freeney was out with a hurt foot and Philip Rivers jacked his knee up?
And their backup comes in, has days to throw and shreds our defense like Dan Marino in the regular season.
That's why they spent a first round pick on a defensive end.
I do. Thing is, you need something else then Frathis on D
I never said losing either was a good thing. I'm simply saying, having both plus a 1st rounder DT (or any competent DTs) would be much better than having Frathis plus 2 scrubs DTs and a 1st rounder DE waiting on the bench, in case Frathis gets injured.
Thats all I'm saying.
-
Simon and Booger were never on the team at the same time and 06 was one of the worst years of D we ever had - we had a HISTORICALLY bad run defense (not just bad but I mean HISTORICALLY bad) that limped into the play-offs having been overrun by everyone (Ron Dayne looked like Jim Brown) ..they got lucky that they played 3 inept offenses in the play-offs and also get hot for 4 games.
Otherwise I agree - at the very least he has to be an upgrade over Eric Foster
Hm, yes. Thats why I said 05 and 06.
You dont recall how 06 ended? I mean, players coming back late in the season, healthy, just in time for the playoffs?
-
Umm, are you really saying that no QBs stepped up into the pocket against the Colts before Brady started doing it?
In 05 and 06, that tactic didnt worked as well vs the Colts. Thats the 2 years where the Colts had the most production out of the DT position.
And it's been discussed many times on the message boards... the Colts have done more things out of the ordinary to try and fix the DT position and it hasn't worked out. It's frustrating but it's not from lack of trying. They've signed a high profile free agent, spent high draft picks, signed guys of questionable character, made in season trades (completed one and not the other).Since 2000, only 2 DTs were drafted in the first 2 rounds by the Colts (Tripplett 02 and Moala 09). Besides that, Simon and Booger were acquired in 05-06 and both had injuries/weight issues and thats why they were dealt.
Thats the only things they did to really try and fix the situation besides what happened since 2 days or so. Tripplett never was a great DT but he had his best year and started playing good (or rather, looked good) the minute he was playing next to an overweight/out of shape Simon. Check that week 1 game vs the Ravens, Tripplett looked like a good DT in that game.
The opposing teams couldnt play Simon 1 on 1 that year so they had to double him pretty often and when they did, either Mathis or Freeney were 1 on 1. Thats a win-win situation for the Colts.
You dont have that with the DTs currently on the roster.
You're making it sound like BP tried to fix the siatuation with all kinds of moves and picks. It just never happened.
But a lot of teams believe in stacking up on their strengths. Baltimore has been able to maintain a great D in large part because they always stack up at LB so if one goes down or they lose one to FA another can step in with very little, if any drop-off. Steelers has done the same thing with their LBers. Colts are doing it with their DE. They were in a position where there was no need to draft an immediate starter in the first round. They went with the BPA that filled a need and would be in position to take over if; one of the players got injured or one was not given a new contract. Now if the Colts don't sign Mathis after this season, rather than relying on a rookie draft pick to be a starter they will have a 3 year veteran. Makes perfect sense.Lewis himself was complaining about 6 years ago about being doubled/tripled on every single plays (obviously, he was exagerating) and what did the Ravens do? They drafted Ngata and that fixed the D. The Steelers have Hampton. The Buccs had Sapp. The Panthers in 03-04 has Jenkins. The Bears, in their best years, had a dominant Harris. All are DTs.
-
People say his knees are jello and he isn't effective anymore, but I certainly think the potential is still there and he can be a solid player for us. I can't wait to see how he (and all our other players) do in the pre-season
Regardless of whether he's lost a step or not, he's an improvement over anything the Colts had on the roster at DT and the last time the Colts had DTs as good, it was back in 05 and 06 (Simon and Booger) and those were basically the 2 best defenses the Colts have had in the last decade.
-
Re: drafting Hughes, I pretty much agree with what was already said. With the draft boards at the time, Hughes was easily the BPA, projected to go in the early-mid 1st round. I don't remember exactly, but I don't think there were any 1st round caliber DT/OTs still available at the time.
Then, if that DE spot wasnt realy a position of need for the Colts, why not either trade up to get a DT, trade down to get multiple picks (and therefore, maybe a DE and DT?) or simply go get a DT via UFA or trade for it using a 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
Collins' Deal Is Actually 2Y/14M
in Colts Football
Posted
2 things:
-Collins wont be leading the NFL thru 4 games, assuming PM cant play the first 4. He isnt that good, never was and never will be.
-Even if he was leading the NFL at that point, a 4 games span wouldnt erase the amount of years Collins has played in the NFL.
The Colts, as well as the whole NFL (yes, this includes even the guy selling peanuts in each stadiums), all knows what Collins is. He isnt gonna reinvent himself at 38. The Colts didnt signed Warner, but rather Collins.
No matter how you slice it, he has and will have 0 value regardless of his performance.
This isnt Madden 2012, sorry