Rally5
-
Posts
1,201 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Rally5
-
-
5 hours ago, JPFolks said:
I think if Inman resigns it means drafting a high profile receiver is VERY unlikely. Agree or disagree?
That means we are rolling with:
Hilton, Inman, Funchess, Cain, Pascal and Rogers. Not sure what all the contracts are, but it seems unlikely these guys don't have guaranteed money or that they would (re)sign all of them only to guarantee there isn't room for one of them. They could nuke Pascal or Cain, but I hope they keep developing and stay with us.
Just listen to Ballard, he'll tell you he doesn't like to draft WR high. I expect us to go Dline and DB early and I wouldn't be surprised with an OT selection. If a big-time talent WR falls you never know but I think you have it right. The WR corp with Inman will be largely settled and be super competitive.
-
1
-
-
For years on this forum I've argued that the BPA draft philosophy is just a smokescreen for GM's, code for "were not showing our cards." The Houston signing to me fills all positions of critical need. We essentially have every offensive starter signed plus Funchess and if we close Geathers we retain all of our defensive talent +Houston. We go into the draft, in the first time I can recall, where we can truly take the best talent on the board that fits our schemes and culture. My instinct (not that it matters) is we go DLine and DB early but not only can we play the opportunist be we can also field all sorts of calls for our first pick on top of round two (people always panic buy after having a night to think about who's still on the board). This free agency has required patience and discipline and we're really seeing the fruits of that labor and the beauty is this isn't done paying dividends! Color me happy!
-
5
-
-
49 minutes ago, DerekDiggler said:
I hope you're right. But I think by the time we draft BPA will not be Dline.
Could be, no telling how the draft will fall, I just listen to Ballard and he tends to be pretty transparent. Great news is, we have depth so we can truly look for the best deal on the board and do whatever drives value and need, I like how we're positioned very much.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
Good post...
Where we disagree is that I think there will be a DL of some type that Ballard will value enough at pick 26. There’s quality AND quality to this DL class. I hope Ballard can grab one at 26.
And while I’d prefer this player at pick 34 I’d even be willing to grab DT Jeffrey Simmons at 26 if all the other targets are gone. I’d be willing to wait until 2020 to get him on the field. (Forgive the Man-Crush) But I want him!
You could bank the farm last year we were going Oline, you can just about bank the farm this year we're going Dline unless there's a huge run on talent.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Exodus said:
I'm 100% right here with you Superman. People on this forum only have a short term memory. We're talking about a fourth round pick who couldn't even start for the Browns....THE BROWNS. He was then signed and cut by two other teams. He was an absolute liability in coverage in 2017, and was a liability at some points last year. He's not "under rated" at all, he's just rated.
No one wants to admit that he just played well down the stretch last year, and played when it counts (for one year). I was hoping he'd walk, SIMPLY because I knew he had a market, and I'm really high on the CB's in this coming draft.
First thing, how he played with the Browns and his draft position matter absolutely 0% to his current value to this team at this time. By re-signing Desire Ballard allows himself increased draft flexibility, it's similar to the Funchess deal, he's positioning his draft flexibility while at the same time fulfilling a cultural proposition that states "we take care of our own in Indy." That makes his word matter and position Indy as a destination of choice, so re-signing Glow, Desir, Hunt are all very good for the team. Now, to your concern, this in no way precludes us from drafting a CB or a WR in the first three rounds, in fact, it allows us to move up and down the board and jump on opportunities without being oppressed by 'position of need' which is a perfect draft position.
This entire process isn't nearly as linear as it appears. Getting hyped up about big names in FA is the same mistake many posters made during last years draft when we picked a Guard early or guys nobody heard of or no-name school players and completely flipped out. This a sophisticated game of positioning and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone do it as well as Ballard.
So, think beyond the obvious nature of the move, look around the corners and I think at the end of the entire process I bet you like what you see. Go Colts!
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
In general, not only do I agree with this argument, I actually make this argument here and elsewhere in my life in all sorts of situations. The majority is not right simply because they're the majority. In the long view of history, the majority is often proven to be wrong.
But here on this website, Superman is not tops just because he has the most "likes"... I believe he's the most important poster because he's one of the few posters who can come to a thread that's already started.... and the OP has started with a bad premise... and the first 10-15 posters have bought it and fall in line with the OP. Superman is one of the few posters who can join that thread, disagree with the OP and take the thread in a 180 degree different direction and suddenly those who join the conversation are now agreeing with Superman and disagreeing with the OP's position.
The first group wasn't overthrown by a mob. The first group was shown the error of their ways by a better argument and conceded the point. Superman can change the discussion by making good arguments. There are other posters who can do this, but not a lot. And no one does this as often and as persuasively as Superman, IMO.
Superman also has more knowledge about more areas that we discuss over the course of the 12 months than most posters. He can talk football in great details. He can discuss all aspects of Free Agency, including player evaluations and, salary cap, market value, and so on. He can discuss the draft in all aspects. There is no area where he can't make a topic of discussion more interesting.
Doesn't mean he's right all the time. And I've knocked heads in disagreement with him plenty of times. But on balance, he's the most important poster, and the rest of us are good and important in our own way.... but Superman is in a league of his own.
Full Disclosure: Superman is a personal friend of mine. We've met several times. And I can promise you he will NOT be happy with my post here. I made it on my own accord in response to another poster. These are my views only, not his. He'll be a little annoyed at me for writing this. Oh well... another poster I've * off!
Good Stuff!
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, stitches said:
IF this is correct (??? couldn't find anything on Rapoport's twitter feed) then it's not a bad price.
I take that deal all day long! Good job on this CB and I think we still hunt a corner early in the draft! So far so good!
-
4 hours ago, Superman said:
If it's three years, $30m like stitches predicts, I'm with you. If it's 3/18-ish, I'm fine with it.
I'd be surprised if it's 10M. Ballard sets a value, I don't see it at 3/30. 3/21-24 feels right to me.
-
3 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:
We threw 10 million at a big-bodied stop-gap until Ballard finds "his guy",probably thru the draft. I havent looked, but it wouldnt surprise me if next year has a good WR day aft class. Ballard works the strengths in draft classes which is smart because better players are acailable at all picks because of more quality and layers at the position.
We benefitted last year with OL and arguably rb and LB.
i remember last year thinking "ballard will go dl NEXT year (this coming draft)" because i kept hearing how much depth at dl there was. DL was a need last year along with OL, rb, wr, LB, etc. i feel Ballard is smart "lining up" available talent (FA and draft, and an occasional trade) to depth of quality at each position. Its a supply and d mand thing that affects both availability and price. That, coupled with his past actions, along with refusing to pay over his "value limit", i think gives us a very clear picture of his style.
He tried (like last year) to sign certain "big name" guys but the price just got out of control (again). So, like last year, he'll wait until the next round, and so on. Stick to the plan, it IS Working.
I wont be surpris d if a deal or two was made and we'll hear about it when the "real" FA begins.
Spot on.
-
19 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
These guys-
Kevin Rogers - Director of Pro Personnel
Todd Vasvari - Senior Player Personnel Scout
Jon Shaw - Assistant Director of Pro Scouting
Joey Elliott - Pro Scout
Brian Decker - Director of Player DevelopmentI want to know who (and how many within that group) pounded the table, and convinced Reich/Ballard to look at tape and see if they see what he/they see in Funchess, and how he fits and Reich/Sirianni can use him?
I know for fact Chris didn't say- 'Hey fans want a WR, so let me put my finger down on one on this receiver list and see what name comes up.' And I know they looked at tape (good and bad) before making an offer. And did the agent convince them to go up with other teams potential offers?
I can't wait for the next press conference for his reasoning. He is not without reasoning and a plan. I thought it was a bit rich for even for first wave FA, and Ballard is not loose with the cap space. So...
Good post. I don't think you'll get the full open heart confessional at the presser either as I suspect Funchess (as previously stated) is an insurance policy with a high premium. He's not a long term solution (right now) or it wouldn't be a 1 yr deal. Ballard can't say that...
-
5 minutes ago, Superman said:
It's as much of a WR draft as it is a DL draft, and I actually like the WR value on Day 2 better than the DL value on Day 1.
My hunch is Ballard agrees with you and that's part of the Funchess signing. Funchess is a 10M insurance policy in case the draft doesn't fall the way he expects and there's no receivers in R2 or R3 that meet the WR2 standard.
-
13 hours ago, Superman said:
He was a second rounder. And he hasn't lived up to that selection, either. But that's not my problem.
My problem is I think we could have signed a better receiver for the same -- actually, less -- money. And that's my opinion of this player and his fit for the team, vs the rest of the market and their fit for the team.
But even if I liked the player, and the price, the 'we have a lot of cap space' argument falls short. As Doc Brown always told Marty McFly: You're not thinking fourth dimensionally. You don't determine a player's value on the basis of how much cap space you have. Just like you don't determine how much you're going to pay for gas on the basis of how much extra money you have. Gas has value; you don't pay an extra forty cents/gallon just because you had a few extra bucks.
And of course I defer to Ballard and Reich and their staffs, but this doesn't fit my thoughts on what we needed, and what we should have paid.
I think you're right on the fourth dimension bit (not the band). If I'm Ballard I go ahead and secure a need pre-draft so I'm not held hostage to drafting a receiver which I don't really want to do (at least not in desperation). This is a D-Line draft and Ballard is pretty transparent about wanting DLineman. This to me takes Harry off the board as a first-rounder and frees up Ballard on draft day at basically zero risk in a one-year deal, if Funchess performs, great and if he doesn't we move on. So, my hunch is this is about draft flexibility in some ways.
I'm not in love with the deal mind you, but I think I get it. He's also looking to the future, we have cornerstone guys we need to re-sign next year as well, so we as fans need to understand some of the bigger picture at play here. All the conversations so far are 'need receiver/pay receiver' and I think Ballard is playing more chess than checkers at the moment and I'm really good with that.
All that said, if we spend long term real money somewhere it will be at pass rusher not receiver.
-
On 2/21/2019 at 11:18 AM, throwing BBZ said:
Our D desperately needs a good shutdown corner don't be _____ about it folks.
It is about winning Playoff games and the SB not beating the other 22 Joe's.
That is expected.
Fuller is younger, better, with a different level of expectations so the comp is IFFY.
And he got a poison pill offer from GB with $18M fully guaranteed. His $1M 1st year salary and his signing bonus.
Fuller had a 81 PFF grade last year #7 CB. Desir 77 and #18 CB.
Jaylen Collins had a 81 grade once. CB was more than kicking tires?
My Guesstimate for Desir is his 1st year also guaranteed set up similar to Fuller's, but no more than 8-10M, if that, and a roster bonus in year 2 of a Milliom or two paid in March 2020, leaving his buyer with an option to move on. A 3 yr deal.
I definitely thought his game got really good in the 2nd half of the season,
He didn't turn the ball over like we could use, so Collins and the draft are strong possibilities i am sure.I agree with all of this!
-
On 1/17/2019 at 3:37 PM, coltsfeva said:
This video was a little hard to watch. It wasn’t so much that we lost but how we lost.
I kept waiting for the game to swing our way but alas...
Here’s some lessons learned and I’m sure the Colts will use this to get better. Mahommes and the Cheifs (barring injuries) will be around for the foreseeable future.
We may need another Olineman
We need a solution to stop TEs
We need to start fast
We need to make better in-game adjustments
We need more weapons
Feel free to add anything that comes to mind.
Here’s the vid:
Oh, the last couple of comments are encouraging
I can't stand Trey Wingo.
-
The entirety if this thread is high quality. Good job Colts forum!
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Superman said:
So here's one of the areas of offensive balance and efficiency that I think is critical: Can you run effectively out of 11 personnel against nickel and dime defenses? The Rams can, and that's probably the crux of their offensive efficiency.
So if a defense has no respect for my run game and goes nickel or dime more than usual, my offense has to be effective at exploiting that advantage. (We have a big time receiving threat at TE, so we can even do this out of 12 personnel, theoretically.) If you can't run against a five or six man front, I think you have bigger problems than the RB.
Absolutely, analytics can be useless without context. There are different kinds of play action, and I think people get wrapped up in the 'back to the defense, drawn out play fake' kind of play action, but now we have teams running RPOs, we see shotgun play action is effective in most situations, etc. Some play callers are better than others, some teams have better personnel at key positions, some teams have flawed fundamentals and tipped their play calls (the Chargers said they picked up on alignments and foot positions to figure out some of the Ravens plays), etc.
But I do think the argument that you have to run the ball, and effectively, to be successful with play action, has been debunked.
Much appreciated.
You win! Keep killing it!
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
This is the part that I don't agree with. Play action doesn't require a good rushing attack or even a good back to be successful.
I think people have this idea burned in of a QB drawing a defender out of position with a play action fake, then hitting a big pass play over the top of the defense. The majority of successful play action passes aren't for big plays, and the majority of play action passes are successful in getting defenders out of position, which is the entire point of play action. And there's no correlation between successful rushing and successful play action.
If you want to go tumbling down the rabbit hole on this:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/further-research-play-action-passing
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/situational-play-action-passing-nfl
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-nfl-coaches-overuse-play-action-they-havent-yet/
This type of research supports the conclusion that play action is under-used across the board, including situationally. It also supports the conclusion that play action success isn't dependent on rushing success.
I totally get your point on play action is a weapon unto itself and doesn't require the run game to be competent to do so. I can buy into that, my opinion would be, by the numbers I can agree. However, if you play defense against a team where you have no concern or respect for that run threat and it can be handled by the front four/five then your passing lanes get real tight because I'm slow to commit, as a backer I start to I cheat the pass, this becomes pick city! So, the offense will find itself in a chokehold, passing lanes get tight, can't run, game over. Death by gridlock! The same holds true in reverse by the way which is why people always talk about making teams one dimensional which is why all the Baltimore Raven hype is just that until the guy can throw...no matter. So, it's kinda like you can drown in a puddle of averages if that's all you look at but I would agree on balance the argument has merit and makes sense, I would just caution to leave room for exceptions, I'm not sure I would view it as a universal truth. Great stuff as always, man, good to see you delivering content again!
-
On 1/14/2019 at 1:08 PM, Superman said:
Oh, you're playing a zero sum game.
Offense played bad + defense didn't give up 50 = defense played well?
Or wait, now you're saying they "held their own"?
The defense was awful, with the exception of a handful of plays. Our defense was no match for the Chiefs offense, from the first drive of the game. Just because they didn't run up the score on us doesn't mean the defense played well. We can't win consistently with this defense, and Saturday was the perfect example.
And then look across the conference at the other matchup. The Pats marched on a better defense just like they marched on our defense in October, and just like the Chiefs marched on us.
And look at the Rams vs the Cowboys, another 'statistically good' defense that played an easy schedule this year. The Cowboys were 31st I think in opponent ranking (we were 32nd), based on a study posted here last week. And as soon as the Rams clicked, it was like a hot knife through butter.
The Saints played a defense that's actually good, not just statistically good, and had to fight for their lives for 20 points, at home, in a dome.
These are the kind of teams the Colts will have to compete with to win a Super Bowl. "Good enough" isn't good enough. Our defense isn't good enough, and was downright bad on Saturday.
And that's true even though they got zero help from the offense. It's not either/or.
It's like someone dug you up out of a long slumber, look at you go!
-
16 hours ago, DougDew said:
Cut out the noise and it comes down to this:
If Ballard said he didn't say last year's line was deficient in talent, he then fails to corroborate the notion it sucked from a talent perspective.
If Ballard did say it was deficient in talent, he then threw the players under the bus and he fails to corroborate the notion that he is a classy guy.
I find that conflict interesting...and not problematic for me. Simple as that.
Whys are you so passionate about meaningless stuff. The whole world knows the line in aggregate was terrible last year (several years) yet a couple players remain and he's trying to respect that while being honest with fans, it's not hard to understand. This is not even a story.
-
21 hours ago, shastamasta said:
To be fair...it's not unusual for most draft picks to be on the roster and contributing two years after being drafted. The 2017 teams had a bunch of guys from the 2016 draft like Clark, Morrison and Green playing a lot of snaps.
The 2017 draft currently has three starters...Hooker, Mack and Walker. Hooker and Mack are good. Walker is a decent starting ILB...though Ballard hasn't really invested in the MIKE position. So if an opportunity to updgrade MIKE presents itself...I don't think they should hesitate. That might not be a popular opinion...just how I see it.
That's a decent enough draft...especially given the circumstances. I don't think it says much about Ballard either way. It always hurts to miss out on Day Two picks...but what's done is done.
This upcoming draft will be very interesting...as the Colts first pick will be in the mid 20s. Does Ballard sit back and let the draft come to him? Does he trade back and to go crazy on Day Two again? Does he trade up if someone slips?
I only know two things about this upcoming draft...a DL player will be taken AND I will be there to see Day Two and Day Three.
I appreciate a draft post that understands the reality of these situations. Thanks, some of the draft posts are astonishing to me. You're right about the Mike and the Dline, look for another olineman as well, note, this doesn't contemplate FA acquisitions and losses.
-
4 hours ago, BOTT said:
I would let slauson walk. I don't want a backup that gets hurt after a few starts. Maybe talk to him about getting into coaching.
1Slauson on a one year deal as a back up is smart if he's healthy.
-
9 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:
Ballard did say he wants to be 2 deep on the Oline, but with Dline and WR being our biggest 2 needs, and the influx of talent we can get at the end of the first and start of the second, I think that's where we go.
If we re-sign Slausen and Glowinski along with Haeg and Boehn I like our depth. We need speed at CB, and a WR with hands and route running ability and an edge rusher. I'd put edge rusher as #1 priority. DO NOT be surprised if we draft OLINE/DLINE again early. That's Ballards montra, I'm ok with it frankly but I see needs in other places as well. I imagine we will align the talent available with the needs of the team. Should be a fun draft and FA season!
-
25 minutes ago, Smonroe said:
Yes, it’s realistic to do better than 5 losses. But the goals should be:
1. Win the division
2. Win home field for the playoffs
So, what did we learn from this loss? Need upgrades at WR, and better DBs, as well as a good edge rusher? And, I’ve been advocating a power RB.
I’d say all that, as well as a better game plan and in game adjustments. All can be achieved. The future is bright, get your sunglasses ready.
1This!
-
8 minutes ago, DougDew said:
You are assuming that it was Ballard's personnel decisions that created achievement and not just getting Luck back healthy, liberating the roster from bad coaching, and changing schemes.
We paid a premium price to buy pancaking and ball hawking, and buying those unneeded commodities hinder the ability to buy the other stuff we need.
I hope that stops happening, but I don't necessarily trust that it will.
1Is this one of those joke threads that I don't get right away only to find out 10 responses later you're just trolling?
Are we well positioned?
in Colts Football
Posted
Right on, I think we have to expect the first three picks to compete for starting jobs no matter what the position. In that respect, this team has built depth at an incredible rate. If we're able to essentially retain all of our starting talent and add say 5 upgrades (draft /FA) plus organic improvements of year two in new systems and rookie development...I have to say I like it a lot.