Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

With Raiders rebuilding, should we make a run a D.McFadden?


Darren Mcfadden?  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. With one year left on his contract, if he's cheap, is he worth it?

    • No - This is unnecessary, not feasible, and is not worth fantazing about.
    • Yes - If he's healthy, and we can get him in a Colts uni for cheap.
    • Colts Grill serves good food(Detour)


Recommended Posts

This NFL.com column, suggest that the Raiders should get rid of C.Palmer & D.McFadden in order to put them in a better position to rebuild a struggling franchise that's under new management.  I think you know what im about to ask....minus C.Palmer...........should we????

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000154846/article/carson-palmer-darren-mcfadden-holding-back-oakland-raiders

 

 

darren-mcfadden-raiders.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we need a Rb though, Im not asking to be a smart- a. I am being serious, I see alot of people talking about us grabbing a Rb. Does Ballard not fit our new scheme or something?

Ballard fits perfectly. It's the other RB's not being able to stay healthy that's the problem. But I see us taking a RB in this draft. Brown & Carter are good, but they can't stay healthy for nothing. That's why everyone keeps bringing up RB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard fits perfectly. It's the other RB's not being able to stay healthy that's the problem. But I see us taking a RB in this draft. Brown & Carter are good, but they can't stay healthy for nothing. That's why everyone keeps bringing up RB

I understand what your saying. I dont think brown fits the new scheme that well, and Carter has had his issue with injuries. With Ballard being a solid number 1 and I can see why we would need a solid number 2. Im not sold on taking a rb in the first like I have seen a few people suggest, we need a G, Dl, Olb, and Wr first I think 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what your saying. I dont think brown fits the new scheme that well, and Carter has had his issue with injuries. With Ballard being a solid number 1 and I can see why we would need a solid number 2. Im not sold on taking a rb in the first like I have seen a few people suggest, we need a G, Dl, Olb, and Wr first I think 

DLine will not be  addressed in the first, with we our starters in place along with OLB, unless someone surprising falls. Colts FO thinks they have the starters in place and will be more for depth in those positions in later rounds. Im looking at OG, WR, and ILB, and i wouldnt be disappointed in a RB either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what your saying. I dont think brown fits the new scheme that well, and Carter has had his issue with injuries. With Ballard being a solid number 1 and I can see why we would need a solid number 2. Im not sold on taking a rb in the first like I have seen a few people suggest, we need a G, Dl, Olb, and Wr first I think

RB in the 1st is highly unlikely. I was thinking 3rd round maybe Laveon (spellcheck) Bell from Michigan State.

OG will probably be the 1st pick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard fits perfectly. It's the other RB's not being able to stay healthy that's the problem. But I see us taking a RB in this draft. Brown & Carter are good, but they can't stay healthy for nothing. That's why everyone keeps bringing up RB

Brown average 12.5 games per year. Not bad for a running back.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

People that know my posting history knows that IMO RB is the absolute most over rated position in football. I have probably repeated that at least 400 to 500 times. Trading anything higher than 6th rd. picks or players at a position you're extremely deep at for RB's is an absolute waste. They are so injury prone and have such a short career span, that it's like throwing picks in the toilet. And don't bring up AP, he is a very rare exception and players like him are far and few between. McFadden is already injury prone the way it is. IMO, we do not need another RB anyway, but if they did add one, it will be a late rder or UDFA. They are a dime a dozen and very few teams have a feature back anyway. Using a RB by committee is the way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People that know my posting history knows that IMO RB is the absolute most over rated position in football.

 

I think that has more to do with how RBs are built these days. If you get an Edge/Alexander type back. That is a real asset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that has more to do with how RBs are built these days. If you get an Edge/Alexander type back. That is a real asset.

 

 

 

That may be true, but those kind of guys are just not available very often. It's becoming more apparent that teams are not valuing the RB position anymore. They are very rarely taken in the 1st rd and when they are, it's usually a bad organization that falls in love with a RB and makes a bad decision to draft them early(Cleveland). Not saying Richardson is a bad player, but most of the better organizations would not have drafted him that early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that has more to do with how RBs are built these days. If you get an Edge/Alexander type back. That is a real asset.

Meh, the colts easily replaced Edge with a rookie and a journeyman. Even during the Harbaugh era Faulk was injured during the playoff run and the colts plugged in a couple guys and didn't miss a beat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anymore, I'd only go for rookie RBs. Their careers are not typically long for 1. If you try to get a very good 1 coming off their rookie contract they want too much money for a injury prone position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem here no one has mentioned.....

 

McFadden makes over $5 Million per year.....    even if we could work out a trade for a draft pick,  McFadden sees himself as a starter,  making big-time starter's money.

 

The Colts would want him to restructure his deal for much, much less.    We're not going to pay our RB five million dollars.

 

That makes this deal undoable all the way around....

 

And by the way,  all the other points made here are good as well.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep and that is where having a great agent comes in as I posted above. 
    • Why is it that they report it like that? Is it because the cap is always uncertain?
    • Yeah to me Montana like Peyton at worse is top 3. The era Montana played in was brutal and he got 4 Rings out of it with pretty good stats for back then.
    • No insult, I know Philly is one of the rare areas with its extremely high passion for one sport above all the sports in the area. I feel Philly and Green Bay are those areas for football. Everything else is just something to kill some time.   I cant count last year because of the pandemic which is an extreme rarity and skews the numbers. But yes a small drop the last few years for the SB BUT still a huge amount and way above any other sport. When your still looking at 98-111 million viewers for the SB your talking elite numbers.    Finals- Baseball avg around 10-12 mill , Basketball 13-18 mill, Hockey 3-8 mill. Im not even counting 2020 numbers due to the pandemic.    Reg season- So yes last year it was down a ton, but all sports were down a ton. In 2019 they were on a big upraise actually increasing 1.9 mil. to a  avg viewers a week. The highest year ever 2015 for viewers was only 1 mill more then the 2019 number. So it really was not on the decline 3-4 years. 2015 the high point at 17.9 avg a week then it drops 2 years to 3 mill less a week from 2016-2017, then back up again two years in a row 2018-2019 to record numbers again to 16.5 mill a week avg and then the pandemic happens. So they were actually on a upraise again.    Lets also not forget overall TV ratings have dropped almost 10% as well. Not sports rating, overall ratings. So its not a football issue or a sports issue.    So even in a "down" slide it by far destroys every other sport. The NFL reg season avg per week is higher then most of any other sports finals viewer numbers. Maybe this does not get more money in a contract, but it will not get then much less. Once this pandemic is over, I see this jumping up dramatically and I think the NFL will use that in there favor. 
    • He responded already, but the key is $67m in "new money," divided by four additional years = $16.75m average. That's how these contracts get reported and ranked, even though it doesn't work that way on the cap.
  • Members

    • IndyD4U

      IndyD4U 714

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dw49

      dw49 713

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Narcosys

      Narcosys 531

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,351

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DeathByEagle

      DeathByEagle 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • krunk

      krunk 4,171

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • RollerColt

      RollerColt 2,518

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Moe

      Moe 31

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Sumo63

      Sumo63 600

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 2006Coltsbestever

      2006Coltsbestever 21,916

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...