I would take a total different approach to the preseason with the Colts

[BlueShoe]

Tom Brady = fodder

 

He was the backup and Drew got hurt. In my system he would have been even more ready to take over. 

[Coffeedrinker]

My idea is not the same way they do it now. 

 

Players who don't get in the game - sorry about their luck. In my mind, it is just not worth it. Get the second team ready to step up and don't worry about the fodder. I know it sounds cold, but it is a business of fielding the best football team. Somewhere along the way teams have forgotten that. 

So, why would any "fodder" player sign with the Colts if they know they don't have a chance to play or make the roster?

[Coffeedrinker]

He was the backup and Drew got hurt. In my system he would have been even more ready to take over. 

Actually he was inactive most of his first year and was 4th on the depth chart.  In your system he never would have got a chance.

Same with Terrell Davis, who was sixth on the depth chart but impressed coaches in the 2nd preseason game on special teams.

 

Or from the Colts the following players would never have been given a chance:

 

J. Freeman

M. Pollard

G. Brackett

 

 

Numerous others around the league.  Your way would force teams to make decisions based on contract rather than who would be best for the team.

[BlueShoe]

So, why would any "fodder" player sign with the Colts if they know they don't have a chance to play or make the roster?

 

Because he doesn't believe he is fodder. 

[BlueShoe]

Actually he was inactive most of his first year and was 4th on the depth chart.  In your system he never would have got a chance.

Same with Terrell Davis, who was sixth on the depth chart but impressed coaches in the 2nd preseason game on special teams.

 

Or from the Colts the following players would never have been given a chance:

 

J. Freeman

M. Pollard

G. Brackett

 

 

Numerous others around the league.  Your way would force teams to make decisions based on contract rather than who would be best for the team.

 

It all comes down to a philosophy. Do teams want to spend a bunch of time finding a rare diamond in the rough, or do they want to get a team ready to play?

 

This is my point. I would choose to get the team ready to play. Obviously most NFL teams disagree with me as they spend more time digging for Gold. 

[Coffeedrinker]

It all comes down to a philosophy. Do teams want to spend a bunch of time finding a rare diamond in the rough, or do they want to get a team ready to play?

 

This is my point. I would choose to get the team ready to play. Obviously most NFL teams disagree with me as they spend more time digging for Gold. 

That statement is incorrect.  ALL NFL teams disagree with you.  Not because they want to find the rare diamond in the rough but because your method is not the best way to get a team ready to play.

[Coffeedrinker]

Because he doesn't believe he is fodder. 

That is an ignorant answer and not based on the reality of the world at all.

[BlueShoe]

That is an ignorant answer and not based on the reality of the world at all.

 

Look man, I respect a lot of what you say on here, but you do have a problem calling people ignorant who do not agree with you.

 

That is not cool, and is completely unnecessary. 

 

Now as far as your point of view, I told you that I see what you are saying, however, I do not agree with you. 

[BlueShoe]

That statement is incorrect.  ALL NFL teams disagree with you.  Not because they want to find the rare diamond in the rough but because your method is not the best way to get a team ready to play.

 

I like thinking outside of the box sometimes. I believe the ways of doing things in the NFL are old and worn out. 

 

I have a hypothetical situation for you. What if the way I have described was the way the NFL did things, and instead I was offering a suggestion for the way they do it now? How would you feel about that?

[Gavin]

That is an ignorant answer and not based on the reality of the world at all.

There is just players out there that are just camp fodder, All players believe they have a chance to at least crack a roster spot(Just like there are players that are going to not be picked up that can crack a roster spot and add better depth then the player ya cut) and almost all believe they can start, The fact is though many are camp fodder.....Prime example...Chandler Harnish, Some players are just brought in because they are familiar with the coach and scheme(especially QB) to. But still more often then not the reality of it is they have no business being on the field so ya stick em at 3rd string or lower at other positions and hope it don't get so bad injury wise that he has to play

[jvan1973]

He was the backup and Drew got hurt. In my system he would have been even more ready to take over.

Actually that's not true. He was third string entering that season

[jvan1973]

There is a reason zero teams take this approach

[Coffeedrinker]

Look man, I respect a lot of what you say on here, but you do have a problem calling people ignorant who do not agree with you.

 

That is not cool, and is completely unnecessary. 

 

Now as far as your point of view, I told you that I see what you are saying, however, I do not agree with you. 

I'm not calling you ignorant just THAT particular response to that particular question.  Many people think ignorant and dumb are the same thing... they are not.  Ignorant means lacking knowledge, dumb means unable to understand or grasp knowledge. Another way of saying it is, a person is ignorant until they learn something, a person is dumb when they are unable to learn.

 

I don't think you are dumb at all, I just thought that answer was ignorant because that is not how the real world works.  No matter how good someone thinks they are they will not go to a place where they have very little chance of making the team unless they get lucky with some injuries to other players.  

[BlueShoe]

No matter how good someone thinks they are they will not go to a place where they have very little chance of making the team unless they get lucky with some injuries to other players.  

 

People take chances every day, and players would still come to Indy to try and make the team.

[Coffeedrinker]

I like thinking outside of the box sometimes. I believe the ways of doing things in the NFL are old and worn out. 

 

I have a hypothetical situation for you. What if the way I have described was the way the NFL did things, and instead I was offering a suggestion for the way they do it now? How would you feel about that?

I'd probably say that in football the only way you know how someone is going to react is to put them in the line of fire and it's ridiculous that teams don't put half their team in the line of fire during the preseason and therefore have no idea how they are going to react.  And that your way makes a lot more sense. 

[Coffeedrinker]

People take chances every day, and players would still come to Indy to try and make the team.

No they wouldn't.  Because the environment you are creating would give them an almost non existent chance of making the team because they would never have the chance to show that they can take what they learn in practice and apply it to the game.

 

You have blinders on because it's your idea but you are assuming the people will react the same way even though you are taking away their chance.  

 

Mod edit: No politics.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Superman

[BlueShoe]

No they wouldn't.  Because the environment you are creating would give them an almost non existent chance of making the team because they would never have the chance to show that they can take what they learn in practice and apply it to the game.

 

You have blinders on because it's your idea but you are assuming the people will react the same way even though you are taking away their chance.  It's like a liberal saying, "well we'll just tax cigarettes more and make more money."  Then they are shocked when people quit smoking because it's too expensive and now the govt. is bringing in less cigarette tax money.

 

Every player would have a chance to earn a spot in camp, and that would not change. Once the lineup is set, it is still dynamic.

 

With my idea, the best players play and get the experience needed for when their number is called.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Superman

[esmort]

People take chances every day, and players would still come to Indy to try and make the team.

 

The only players that would come here under your scenario are the players no other team wanted. If we implemented your system we may as well not even bother calling the top UDFAs after the draft because we would be at the bottom of every players list. One of the reasons we get a lot of high quality FAs/UDFAs is because we have a reputation for giving long shots, players with maybe a questionable red flag or two, and those 3rd/4th string guys a legitimate shot. 

[crazycolt1]

They would have to win it in camp or be ready if an injury occurs. 

That's crazy. Camp practice is not game play.

[crazycolt1]

It all comes down to a philosophy. Do teams want to spend a bunch of time finding a rare diamond in the rough, or do they want to get a team ready to play?

 

This is my point. I would choose to get the team ready to play. Obviously most NFL teams disagree with me as they spend more time digging for Gold. 

If you don't dig for gold you never find it.

[BlueShoe]

If you don't dig for gold you never find it.

 

And if you are constantly digging for new Gold then you cannot invest with the Gold you already have.

[crazycolt1]

And if you are constantly digging for new Gold then you cannot invest with the Gold you already have.

It's real apparent you don't seem to get anything that anyone else is trying to explain to you. I am sorry to inform you that your ideas on changes on the way teams do their camps and determine who stays and who goes is plain wrong. You are bound and determined to argue even though quite a few forum members have more than explained how and why teams do what they do. Why is it that hard for you to realize that there is a strong possibility you are wrong?

[BlueShoe]

It's real apparent you don't seem to get anything that anyone else is trying to explain to you. I am sorry to inform you that your ideas on changes on the way teams do their camps and determine who stays and who goes is plain wrong. You are bound and determined to argue even though quite a few forum members have more than explained how and why teams do what they do. Why is it that hard for you to realize that there is a strong possibility you are wrong?

 

It is real apparent that I have already given this a lot of thought, and thought about everything that has already been said. And I have come to the conclusion that this is the way I would do it.

 

It is not about me coming out right or wrong. It is a philosophy that I would implement. There will be different opinions, and you must learn to deal with it. I am okay with others having their own opinion about this. Are you?

[jvan1973]

It is real apparent that I have already given this a lot of thought, and thought about everything that has already been said. And I have come to the conclusion that this is the way I would do it.

It is not about me coming out right or wrong. It is a philosophy that I would implement. There will be different opinions, and you must learn to deal with it. I am okay with others having their own opinion about this. Are you?

There is a reason zero teams go this route. You can't evaluate a player on practice alone.

[BlueShoe]

There is a reason zero teams go this route. You can't evaluate a player on practice alone.

 

Name all of the teams and the routes they go.

 

They don't all do things exactly like we do. There is not a one-size fits all approach.

[jvan1973]

Name all of the teams and the routes they go.

They don't all do things exactly like we do. There is not a one-size fits all approach.

Every team plays their third and fourth string players in preseason games

[BlueShoe]

Every team plays their third and fourth string players in preseason games

 

And some play the 2's too.

[jvan1973]

And some play the 2's too.

Yes, all teams play the first and second string as well. I didn't think that needed to be pointed out

[throwing BBZ]

Granted my idea will likely never happen, but this is something I have thought about for quite a few years, and who better to share my thoughts with than other fellow Colts fans?

 

I believe NFL teams get it right by not playing starters in week 4 of the preseason. I also believe teams get it right with how week 3 is approached, by using it as a measuring stick and also a fine tuning tool to get the starters ready.

 

The changes I would make are simple. Why play the third and fourth team at all? It doesn’t make much sense really. Most of the players will not make the team and the experience is very valuable for the actual second team.

 

My approach would be to play my starters for a short period of time in weeks 1 and 2, and then play the second string the entire rest of the way. In week 3, I would play my starters through the first half and have them open the third quarter. Then I would finish week 3 with the second team.

 

In week 4, I would play my second team the entire way. If the third and fourth stringers want to play then they can earn a spot on the second team.

 

Will we take more chances with players getting hurt? Sure we will. However, the experience that a second teamer gets will be worth the risks, because we never know when it will be next man up.

 

I am sure this idea will receive some scrutiny. That said, really think about it before responding.

 

 I know our starters should have played in the 4th game. Seattles did. And other teams.

 Andrew looks a bit lost.

[crazycolt1]

It is real apparent that I have already given this a lot of thought, and thought about everything that has already been said. And I have come to the conclusion that this is the way I would do it.

 

It is not about me coming out right or wrong. It is a philosophy that I would implement. There will be different opinions, and you must learn to deal with it. I am okay with others having their own opinion about this. Are you?

There are only two opinions about this. It's you and everyone else. You are welcome to have your opinion on anything you choose. If you choose to have a me against the whole world mentality then be my guest.

[BlueShoe]

There are only two opinions about this. It's you and everyone else. You are welcome to have your opinion on anything you choose. If you choose to have a me against the whole world mentality then be my guest.

 

Do you often feel that you are against the world? Because I certainly do not feel that just because a few people on a message board disagree with me, that it is me against the world. Your statement says something about you; not me. Try not to get that confused.

[crazycolt1]

Do you often feel that you are against the world? Because I certainly do not feel that just because a few people on a message board disagree with me, that it is me against the world. Your statement says something about you; not me. Try not to get that confused.

A few? OK, if you say so.