-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
By EastStreet · Posted
2/3, or 4/6 is good for me. If you're taking up 25% for your top picks every year for 11% of your roster, some areas of your roster will simply be imbalanced. It also depends on what you do with in FA, and especially your strategy for other high end positions. Not saying that's a bad financial strategy, but it is a bad locker room strategy. Not talking specifically about JJSS, just in general. If you're known as an organization that discards after rook contracts, players view you as a factory. I know it's a business, but you have to have to consider it. It would be like us moving away from Leonard, or others, after they perform well and exhaust their cheep rookie contracts. Houston was stupid to give him up. Considered one of the biggest boneheaded moves of the years. It's why a certain coach has a bad rep. It's a position that's rotated for sure, but a lot of positions are. DL, DB, TE, RB, etc are all highly rotated. Only QB and OL are positions with little to no rotation. In Indy, we don't rotate Leonard, or some other thin positions that much, but that hurts us long term. Anyway, you have to look at averages. Just like TEs. You often list 2 starting TEs along with 3 WRs, but you don't have 2+3 on the field. You average ~1.5+2.5ish. If you're going to use 3 WR with that logic, you have to use 2 TEs, etc. and now your adding to your "22" total to normalize. I think we both value the position the highly. We just differ on acquisition strategy. I think you have to look at all high priced and strategic positions, and have a better mix for a healthy roster. It doesn't really matter if they are drafts, UDFA, FAs, etc. so long as you have a good age, cost, experience, and skill mix. For example, Ballard has probably over drafted early/mid DEs (2nd and 3rd) round and failed. And looking at the DL in general, only one of the starting 4 are draft picks (which is the cheapest one), and the drafted depth don't look capable of stepping up. So we're in a position end of year where both starting DEs need renewal or replacement. It's a position/area where we've invested both heavy in draft capital, but have had to spend a bunch in FA as well. Anyway, give me 2 early/mid WRs every 3 years, and 1 FA every 3 years, and some late round or UDFA project lottery tickets every year. That's what we've done. Only injury has gotten in our way from some very potent starting 3s. -
Exactly right, play action from under center also lends itself to taking the big shots. We're way too shotgun heavy for a team that wants to lean on the run game and set up play action. That's part of the reason we're not getting the deep ball as much as we like. Some people think that we need faster receivers, that's not the issue. It's two fold, it's what Rivers wants (shotgun) so we cater to it because he's the qb and he's so slow afoot by the time he hits his drop in play action the short route windows have already expired, meaning crossers and slants have entered the coverage zone, too slow. Right now the totality of this offense is driven by one guy, I've said from week one, this team will go as far as Philip can take it. What offenses fail to realize is zone read is totally pointless if the QB is neve going to keep it. That makes it easier for the defense to read and react as well. So not only is it easier for Philip to read a defense but its also easier for the defense to read Philip. I'll close by saying, I never wanted Rivers here but now that he is, I do like him personally, and he can still be wildly effective when protected. That scenario will only take us so far. I have a strong suspicion who our QB may be for 2021 but I'm going to sit on that for a bit... -
.thumb.jpg.ffc6dad925a32fa3da70aa3bff19d25a.jpg)
By Jared Cisneros · Posted
No idea you are a woman, always thought you were a guy. Learned something today on the forum! -
so the only Colt impacted is Nelson? So do I have this right - now teams could release a 5th year option player after year 4 and not be on the hook for the contract unless he got hurt in in that 4th year? If that is right, seems a minimal impact rule to me. -
By AwesomeAustin · Posted
Using Mahomes as an example is kinda an exercise in futility. Of course you trade multiple picks for the best QB in the game. I would give up 3 first round and two 2nds for Mahomes and a third any day of the week. That trade is the exception and not the rule. The real expectation level should be set at what should we do for a QB like Matt Ryan, D Watson or Matt Stafford. All three are good solid QBs but not in the conversation as the best. This is most likely the ceiling of whatever QB we would get. You can build teams around them and compete in the playoffs but if you miss on other parts of the roster it can make you miss the playoffs. I would not trade more than two first round picks to move up for a QB of this caliber. They aren’t good enough to overcome multiple deficiencies on a team. They are good enough to take an average team and put them in the playoffs tho. Combine that with a good coaching staff and you have a shot at making a run in the playoffs. This team has upcoming needs at premium positions: Tackle, DE and corner and we need the draft picks to get replacements to start grooming. Kinda in no mans land right now so something will have to be sacrificed unless we get lucky. This decision will make or break Ballards career and I’m sure he knows this. I appreciate his willingness to be patient and search for the right guy. I hope it pays off and he finds him.
-
-
Members
-
.thumb.jpg.ffc6dad925a32fa3da70aa3bff19d25a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.