ponyboy
-
Posts
739 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ponyboy
-
-
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just not sold on Good as RT. I think it's a risk to go into 2016 with just AC, Reitz, and Good as tackles. You have to be prepared for either AC/Reitz to miss time due to injury. If you're not prepared for some significant time lost to injury, you're rolling the dice and hoping for the best.
If Good is an option at RG then I think that's great, but I think we still need quality depth at T. Reitz could be the quality depth if we brought in a FA or used a #1 on Conklin or Decker. Or, somebody like Conklin could be the quality depth (and eventual replacement for Reitz) while also being available for RG.
I don't think it's out of the question that a RT could be taken with #1 or #2.
-
If he was still there in top portion of the 2nd round (let's say 2nd round pick #10ish), who would be in favor of trading the 2017 #1 to get him and let him sit out 2016? Bobby Beathard (Redskins GM at the time) used to trade his next years #1 for a high-mid #2 almost every year.
This allows you to keep all the picks this year and get a high first round talent for your 2017 pick which could well be a playoff level pick (>#20). A couple downsides to that scenario:
- You would only have 3 playing years before he becomes an UFA (no 5th year option).
- Risk that he doesn't fully recover.
If the team was confident that he could fully recover then it think this might be an interesting option. But the fact is, if he fell that far in the draft, it's likely because of doubts about a full recovery.
-
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I just cant see the reasoning behind getting rid of Jackson. Is it his age? He is a great tackler and all over the field. Please enlighten me.
If you put any stock into PFF ratings, DQ rated horrible in run defense and pass rush last year.
If it meant signing Freeman and letting DQ go, I'd do have no problem cutting DQ. I always felt he was signed for two years anyway the way his contract was structured.
-
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
The Spotrac speculation on Luck is, frankly, embarrassing.
They blame Luck for most of his troubles and not the Colts.
The have Luck getting the same average annual value as Sam Bradford and LESS THAN Tyrod Taylor.
One would have to be incredibly drunk to have to try and make that argument.
I think there's a misunderstanding about what these numbers mean. They list two numbers -- the CALCULATED number, which is a "fair market value" based solely on the quarterbacks ratings (Passer rating, QBR, and possibly the PFF rating), and the EXPECTED number which is the realistic number.
The calculated number will of course be low since Luck had such poor ratings last year (one of the lowest rated quarterbacks last year in any of the rating systems). If the calculated number is based solely on performance relative to peer performance and their respective contracts, then you'll get the absurd results like Luck having a FMV less than Tyrod Taylor.
But that's not what they are speculating that he would actually make. Sportrac's expected number would be their speculation -- and they state in the article he is a $100+ million dollar talent and will be shooting for at least $22M/year. Although, they actually punted on the expected number which they stated wouldn't happen in 2016.
I hope the Colts do extend Luck this off season and he's in the $22M range long term.
-
2 hours ago, BProland85 said:
http://horseshoeheroes.com/2016/01/22/spotrac-projects-andrew-luck-and-coby-fleeners-next-contracts/
I think they're a little low on Luck's contract, but a little high on Fleener's deal. They say that Fleener is a good blocker, which we all know isn't true. That fact alone bumps his value down a little. Not to mention his numbers took a big hit this past year.
FWIW, PFF has Fleener as the top rated Colts TE blocker this year.
RunBlock
Fleener: 70.2/100
Doyle: 63.6/100
Allen: 33.1/100
PassBlock
Fleener: 76.9/100
Allen: 61.0/100
Doyle: 35.0/100
I was surprised by these numbers. The most surprising is how low Allen was in run blocking. Those combined scores would put Fleener in approximately the top 10 or 12 of TEs in the league for blocking -- which surprised me too.
-
44 minutes ago, SDakColts said:
If we drop 6-7 spots I would hope we would get an extra 2nd instead of a 3rd.
Dropping 6-7 spots from #18 would likely get you a 3rd. Dropping 6-7 spots from #12 would probably get you a 2nd.
Unless you have a highly motivated trading partner who willing to overpay.
-
In a few years the 2016 draft will be considered a weak draft class. At this point it kind of feels kind of like 2013 to me -- where there were a few hits and a lot of misses in the top rounds. I hope I'm wrong.
-
7 hours ago, BProland85 said:
Why is getting a 2nd after moving down 6 spots ridiculous?
As stated above, you're proposing a trade where Cincinnati gives up 340 value points and gains only 160 by moving up from 24 to 18. The more realistic trade would be getting their 3rd rounder (150 value points) plus maybe a lower round pick.
Here is the trade value chart. -
Getting closer to realistic with this one. But the proposed trade may not be realistic (gaining 340 trade value points and giving up 160).
-
On 1/4/2016 at 11:50 AM, Narcosys said:
Not if the owner didn't want to. That is what I don't get. The owner knows we were practically out of the playoffs, given that the Texans were not going to lose to the jags, and the likelihood of 9 games going our way. So why would he not be ok with getting a better draft pick, and communicating this to the coaching staff. Rest our starters for half the game, give those that you need to evaluate more play time. There were teams already doing that, it was mentioned in our game that Tenn was doing it. So it is not unlikely that we could have done the same and ensure a better draft pick.
How about integrity of the game?
Think about it. If throwing the game is the right thing to do, wouldn't Miami and Tennessee be even more motivated to throw since they have even fewer wins then the Colts? Should they just agree to award a loss to the winner of the pre-game coin flip and call it a day? /sarcasm
and BTW, I think it would have been #11 and not #8 if Colts ended up 6-10.
-
5 minutes ago, ztboiler said:
1:15, no timeouts, length of the field and have to score a touchdown. Things happen, and they did, but that is absolutely game in hand. If you doubt that, then why did the Packers go for it on 4th down from their own 25 to yield the field position? Because the Packers knew it was their best, really only, chance to win. Game in hand.
1:15 and Rodgers, down by 7. IMO, that situation is not *absolutely* in hand. Our opinions differ -- no big deal.
-
40 minutes ago, ztboiler said:
Love Arians. Love his edge, love his unapologetic fearlessness. I'm sure his players do to.
However, winners write the history books. If that game doesn't turn out the way it does in heroic overtime, the story is about how Arians cost them a game that was absolutely in hand...and it would have been true.
I assume you're talking about passing on the last drive vs. running which gave Rodgers 1:55 to work with instead of about 1:15. He risked 40 extra seconds for Rodgers vs. putting the game away with a 1st down (or touchdown). It was a risk but not totally unreasonable, IMO.
I don't think it's fair to say the game was absolutely in hand in that situation.
-
Can we have Aaron Donald too, along with the fans?
-
6 hours ago, Gavin said:
It wasn't for a lack of trying. Your also ignoring that Luck has had a hand in a number of those hits/sacks over the years do to his hitching and hanging onto the ball. Yes Grigson has made some bad O Line moves (Louis. Satele. Mcglynn)
Trying and failing is about as bad as not trying for a GM. Protect #12 was Irsay's task for Grigson following 2012 and I think it's safe to say Grigson has not succeeded. -
#TheShoe
#KeepOnBuckin
-
1 minute ago, weslo1812 said:
What were Travathan #s like?
#8 overall. Compared to Freeman...
Overall: Freeman 90.6 vs. 87.6
Run: Freeman 97.9 vs. 85.1
Coverage: Freeman 78.8 vs. 84.8
Pass Rush: Freeman 84.9 vs. 77.4
In case you're curious how they grade -- it's here
-
FWIW, PFF has an elite overall grade on Freeman (90.6/100) for the 2015 season. Their elite category is a grade of 90-100. Freeman is ranked #6 overall, and #2 overall in run defense (behind only Luke Kuechly).
Huge difference between Freeman an DQ in run defense per PFF grades.
Kuechly: 98.4/100 (#1)
Freeman: 97.9/100 (#2)
DQ: 39.0/100
Freeman has slight edge over DQ in coverage at 78.8 vs. 70.1
Freeman has a huge edge over DQ in pass rush at 84.9 vs. 35.9
I thought these were interesting.
-
3 hours ago, lester said:
We all thought Trent was the right thing to do. All of us. Hindsight is 20/20.
Not true. Many who saw him play in Cleveland were not overly excited about the move. The 12 TDs were impressive but there was a high percentage of <2 yard gains in Cleveland just like you saw in Indy.
-
Looks good.
I too would like to keep Fleener and let Allen walk. I would think Arians might offer Allen more than the $1.5 you've got slotted for him. How much do you think Fleener will get? $4M/year?
Also, maybe keep Freeman and use one of the two higher picks on a RT. Reitz and Castanzo are good but there is no depth behind them. I'd like to see a third quality OT on the team to be prepared for an injury at that position (DG was better than expected but still below average and a risk to only have him). If the new RT had potential to fill in at RG that would be good too.
-
Pagano isn't under contract for next year, but does anybody know when his contract for this year actually ends? Is he no longer under contract as of today or does it run until the league year starts for 2016?
-
22 minutes ago, DougDew said:
LTs are the only position on the oline worthy of a pick at 18...not RTs. So unless people want to move AC to the right side, we won't be drafting a T at 18. And Gs aren't either...so it looks like a defensive player in round one.
There may not be any interior linemen in this draft worthy of the 18th overall pick, but in past drafts mid-late 1st round is an area where some of the better interior linemen get drafted. The way this draft is looking, a RT could be a possibility at #18. Colts spent this entire season with no depth at tackle and it hurt when AC was out. Reitz was good this year and actually stayed healthy, but they really need to get a 3rd quality tackle. Reitz could continue to be the starter or be great depth depending on how a rookie RT was developing. I think RT at #18 is not out of the question.
-
1 minute ago, BProland85 said:
You'd rather have them make the playoffs and be embarrassed and 1 and done? Then on top of that picking about 4 spots lower?
Why do you assume they would be embarrassed in the playoffs?
-
Well thank goodness they didn't make the playoffs and have to pick 21st. /sarcasm
Still SMH at all the tanking talk of the last three weeks.
-
19 hours ago, aaron11 said:
i am not against tanking when we are not a contender and it gives us a better chance to improve
<sarcasm>
With this logic Tennessee should be even more motivated to tank next week.
I can see it now -- a 0-0 tie. Tennessee has the ball with 2 seconds left in overtime, takes the snap and sprints backward toward it's own goal line. Butler streaks down the field and gets a shoestring tackle just short of the goal to prevent the safety and a 2-0 Colts win. Tankers rejoice until they realize the tie hurts the draft position a couple slots. Maybe the winner of the coin toss should just be awarded the loss.
</sarcasm>
Colts not looking at Tackle, we're looking Center/Guard....
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
Regarding Pagano's statement about interior OL.. of course he's right about the need to seriously upgrade interior OL, but it doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't be targeting a RT if the value was there at their pick.
Coaches and GMs never tip there hand as to what they're targeting pre-draft, which is why I don't think Pagano's statement says anything about #18 pick.