Looks like the trade for Billy Winn has worked out so far ..

[gacker65]

So if the coaching staff has a different plan than you that means its the players fault? And why is your plan better than theirs? Also why does it make said player a bust?

Question, has it helped the time to get to the Super Bowl this year?????  Isn't that the ultimate goal each year?????  Do you want to see Luck go 10 years before he gets a Super Bowl??????

 

i want to see the Colts get to and WIN it all long before Luck starts thinking about retirement.  Those are my expectation and should be your.

[gacker65]

Did you even read what I posted?

 

RECEIVERS usually take 3 years to reach maximum potential in the league, regardless of draft stock.  That is just the way receivers work around 75% of the time. Other positions specifically RB and QB can contribute right away. You are harping on the fact that Grigson took a project in the first to which we are telling you that simply isn't correct.  He took a first round talent receiver.   BUT receivers usually take 3 years regardless of their talent level to really get it going in the NFL how hard is that to understand?  

 

Also your black and white approach to the draft is ridiculous btw.  What if the talent pool is extremely shallow?  For example the very draft you are talking about there was close to no chance of us grabbing a starter at the end of the first.  Regardless of what you think.  So no matter what we would have been getting depth, but because you want a result now you would've said it was a failed draft pick regardless.  That is a very shallow view and you will never be happy with any draft of any team for that matter unless the draft falls exactly perfect every year.   

 

tldr: Your argument makes no sense.

Yes, I read what you posted and disagreed.

 

You tell me that a 1st round WR needs 3 years to be ready Some one else told me TEs need 3 years.  Some one else said, O-linemen, D-linemen. OLBs, ILBs, CBs, and Safeties need 3 years.  When is the team going to be ready for a Super Bowl????

 

We have started 2 TEs, 2 O-linemen (3 if you count Harrison), and 2 D-linemen in their respective rookie years.  None of them were 1st rounders.  So you expect less from a 1st rounder????

 

As far as the draft, you could say I tend to be black and white.  Grey areas get you into trouble.  

As has been discussed on this forum, there are 3 ways to draft:

1st is need.  You draft the 1st player that fills a position that you are weak in, no matter where they are ranked.  Does work out very often.

2nd is BPA (Best Player Available).  This taking the best player on the board at the time of your pick.

3rd is Need/ BPA.  You take the best player at a position of need.  Cause a lot of moving up in the draft and IMO, costs more than it is worth.  Though Need and BPA can connect with out moving.

 

The draft is never shallow at all positions.  Yes, some positions maybe shallow, but other positions will make up for that.

 

Do I want our 1st rounders to start, yes, let's see if they were worth what we spent.

 

As for others drafted after our pick, off the top of my head, I believe a DT named Goldman- starts and is doing decent (Was in on of the 1pm games this past Sunday).  One player is enough to prove my case that there was better choices available when we drafted Dorsett.

 

Do I expect our 1st rounders to start, yes.  Is it shallow, NO.  We are not a complete team yet.  Still need help at other positions besides WR.  

.

[Jonathan24]

Hey man invest in the NFL gamepass trust me man its legit

 

 

Thanks,  just signed up for it.

[Surge89]

Yes, I read what you posted and disagreed.

 

You tell me that a 1st round WR needs 3 years to be ready Some one else told me TEs need 3 years.  Some one else said, O-linemen, D-linemen. OLBs, ILBs, CBs, and Safeties need 3 years.  When is the team going to be ready for a Super Bowl????

 

We have started 2 TEs, 2 O-linemen (3 if you count Harrison), and 2 D-linemen in their respective rookie years.  None of them were 1st rounders.  So you expect less from a 1st rounder????

 

As far as the draft, you could say I tend to be black and white.  Grey areas get you into trouble.  

As has been discussed on this forum, there are 3 ways to draft:

1st is need.  You draft the 1st player that fills a position that you are weak in, no matter where they are ranked.  Does work out very often.

2nd is BPA (Best Player Available).  This taking the best player on the board at the time of your pick.

3rd is Need/ BPA.  You take the best player at a position of need.  Cause a lot of moving up in the draft and IMO, costs more than it is worth.  Though Need and BPA can connect with out moving.

 

The draft is never shallow at all positions.  Yes, some positions maybe shallow, but other positions will make up for that.

 

Do I want our 1st rounders to start, yes, let's see if they were worth what we spent.

 

As for others drafted after our pick, off the top of my head, I believe a DT named Goldman- starts and is doing decent (Was in on of the 1pm games this past Sunday).  One player is enough to prove my case that there was better choices available when we drafted Dorsett.

 

Do I expect our 1st rounders to start, yes.  Is it shallow, NO.  We are not a complete team yet.  Still need help at other positions besides WR.  

.

 

No you didn't disagree you didn't even reference to my post, let me explain.

 

You are telling me that "others" have told you 3 years wait on other positions.  I have not.  It as widely known acceptable expectation that receivers take 3 years to really get going in the NFL.  I could care less what anyone else had told you about any other position as most other positions have a relatively better chance of having immediate impact than receiver (which is one of the longest).

 

We have started those because of the state of the current roster.  And you may be surprised but yes I do expect our 1st rounder to start if there is no one on the roster currently better. 

 

I'm not going to touch your tirade about drafting as BPA is relative to team needs and therefore much more complicated than what you have explained. 

 

Again you didn't read my post very well.  Being shallow at a position can be explained with this very draft. There was no one available that we would have been able to draft at our pick that would have started over any of the current team.  Even the Goldman example is extremely biased as that is just proof of how awful that D-Line is in Chicago. In our team Goldman wouldn't have started over Arthur Jones, Kendall Langford (pre-draft) nor would he have started over Hendry Anderson (post-draft).  He may have taken snaps from Parry but even that isn't likely as Anderson has more chemistry with Parry.  

 

Now you might be surprised but I do agree with you that there were better picks than Dorsett.  But I'm not saying that Dorsett was a bad pick.  Dorsett had the talent to be taken at the end of the 1st and deserved to be there.  My issue is the efficiency of the pick.  If you have an elite caliber QB you do not need 1st round receivers all over the place.  I'd have been much more satisfied getting a backup (potential starter) in the ILB, S, C, and/or O-Line spots than a WR.   So again I agree that there was more than likely a better pick but I don't agree that Dorsett was a "project" nor a bad pick.

 

I disagree that we are not a complete team.  We have legitimate starters at the D-Line, OLB, ILB, C, S, QB, WR, RB (aged), TE positions and most of the O-Line.  We had a great opportunity to grab a great depth position this draft. 

 

You can't go into it thinking you are grabbing a pro bowl players in the first round guaranteed.  The draft doesn't work that way. 

[Superman]

That's what I don't understand. What in the world does overdrafted mean? So if Kendricks is taken at 29 and is a probowler he's still over drafted? That's nonsense. Just like me and Dustin saying literally the whole process that Darby was a first round deserving corner but yet you still say it would've been a reach if we took him. Even though you have seen he can not only produce but most likely produce at a high level in the NFL. Reaching for a draft pick is literally in the eye of the beholder and using it like you do is just seems like it's an excuse for GMs. And here's the kicker you say Anthony was over drafted but mainly because he's starting right away and he's raw. (Hypothetical) If he gets picked up by us and is groomed for 3 years comes out and plays like the next Ray Lewis would you still say he was over drafted? That statement annoys me to no end. Drafting talent is relative to your team regardless if a player is there with a higher grade on other people's boards or a majority. As for Dorsett I've never said it's a reach and I do agree he had talent to equate to our pick area, but the fact is when you have an elite QB you really don't need a bunch of first round receivers and therefore in relation to our team it was not an effecient draft pick.

 

You're ignoring draft value. If everything you've looked at tells you a player like Kendricks is going to be drafted high in the second round, then taking him at #29 is a waste of draft resources. If you really, really want him, then do it and don't look back. Otherwise, trade back and get him in a more acceptable range. What happened is Grigson stuck to his board, which you may or may not agree with, but to him, Dorsett was a better prospect than Kendricks. Case closed.

 

Your personal scouting might have said that Darby was a first rounder. That wasn't general consensus. I think it would have been a reach. And I say the same about Stephone Anthony, not because he's struggling, but because general consensus had him as a second rounder, and because I personally didn't think he was worthy of a first round pick. These statements are based on my view of the players, and the impression I had of where players would most likely be drafted. In Randall's case, I had a feeling he'd go in the first round, but I didn't think he was good enough to go that high. (I might be wrong; he's doing okay at corner, and had a HUGE play to put the game away for the Packers last week.)

 

And by the way, I liked all the players we're talking about right now. But draft equity is still an important consideration. Henry Anderson was one of my very favorite players in the draft. If we had taken him in the first, I feel like that would have been a bad use of draft equity, despite the fact that he was a better prospect than Goldman, Brown, probably Phillips, etc. Same with Tyler Lockett. 

 

To the first bolded, it's not an excuse for GMs. I believe in sticking to your board and not reaching for need, because the draft is about adding talent, not targeting needs. If Grigson had drafted Malcom Brown, I'd be plenty critical of him, because I think Brown is whack. If he had drafted Jake Fisher, I'd be critical, because he reached for need (and because Fisher has some flaws to his game). 

 

To the second bolded, it's interesting that you're talking about grooming a player for three years, when in conjunction with this topic all anyone wants to talk about is what player would have immediately filled a position of need, and had more impact through six games than Dorsett. 

 

To the third bolded, we don't have a bunch of first round receivers. We have one. And no matter who your QB is, there's nothing wrong with drafting a WR in the first round. It probably wasn't the most efficient use of the pick, but I prefer taking the player you really like to reaching for a player you don't think as highly of because he presumably fills a need. 

[GOCOLTS_ROLLTIDE]

Thanks, just signed up for it.

yea I been in Asia I have to stay up but I don't miss a beat

[gacker65]

No you didn't disagree you didn't even reference to my post, let me explain.

 

You are telling me that "others" have told you 3 years wait on other positions.  I have not.  It as widely known acceptable expectation that receivers take 3 years to really get going in the NFL.  I could care less what anyone else had told you about any other position as most other positions have a relatively better chance of having immediate impact than receiver (which is one of the longest).

 

We have started those because of the state of the current roster.  And you may be surprised but yes I do expect our 1st rounder to start if there is no one on the roster currently better. 

 

I'm not going to touch your tirade about drafting as BPA is relative to team needs and therefore much more complicated than what you have explained. 

 

Again you didn't read my post very well.  Being shallow at a position can be explained with this very draft. There was no one available that we would have been able to draft at our pick that would have started over any of the current team.  Even the Goldman example is extremely biased as that is just proof of how awful that D-Line is in Chicago. In our team Goldman wouldn't have started over Arthur Jones, Kendall Langford (pre-draft) nor would he have started over Hendry Anderson (post-draft).  He may have taken snaps from Parry but even that isn't likely as Anderson has more chemistry with Parry.  

 

Now you might be surprised but I do agree with you that there were better picks than Dorsett.  But I'm not saying that Dorsett was a bad pick.  Dorsett had the talent to be taken at the end of the 1st and deserved to be there.  My issue is the efficiency of the pick.  If you have an elite caliber QB you do not need 1st round receivers all over the place.  I'd have been much more satisfied getting a backup (potential starter) in the ILB, S, C, and/or O-Line spots than a WR.   So again I agree that there was more than likely a better pick but I don't agree that Dorsett was a "project" nor a bad pick.

 

I disagree that we are not a complete team.  We have legitimate starters at the D-Line, OLB, ILB, C, S, QB, WR, RB (aged), TE positions and most of the O-Line.  We had a great opportunity to grab a great depth position this draft. 

 

You can't go into it thinking you are grabbing a pro bowl players in the first round guaranteed.  The draft doesn't work that way. 

I don't know what to tell you.  I answered all your questions and concerns.  So now what??  You continue to say the same thing over and over as If I'm not saying anything.

 

As for us being a complete team, just rewatch the 2nd half of the Pats game.  Then tell me that.

 

Other than that I have nothing else to say.

[dgambill]

I really really like what grigson has done on the defensive side of the ball. If we just had a legit pass rush I think this team would be lights out if we got healthy. Honestly Winn, Langford, Anderson, perry and just imagine if we had a healthy Arthur jones....then he added a more athletic lb in moore and a solid one in Irving. Honestly if the secondary was healthy like last year and we had a healthy jones....just a little pressure from Cole, new some, and Mathis we would be scary good on that side of the ball. Maybe then we wouldn't abandon the run or luck wouldn't press so much if we had confidence in our d.....we might be SB contenders. While I do think grigson needs to get off the philly love fest I think he has given us enough talent to win....some bad luck (and bad Luck) injuries and some questionable game planning I think is only thing holding us back.

[krunk]

I'm interested to see if we leave Kerr on the inactive list again this week and go with T.Y. Mcgill now that it seems he's more up to speed on the defense.  I keep getting this feeling they are phasing Kerr out.

[Surge89]

You're ignoring draft value. If everything you've looked at tells you a player like Kendricks is going to be drafted high in the second round, then taking him at #29 is a waste of draft resources. If you really, really want him, then do it and don't look back. Otherwise, trade back and get him in a more acceptable range. What happened is Grigson stuck to his board, which you may or may not agree with, but to him, Dorsett was a better prospect than Kendricks. Case closed.

Your personal scouting might have said that Darby was a first rounder. That wasn't general consensus. I think it would have been a reach. And I say the same about Stephone Anthony, not because he's struggling, but because general consensus had him as a second rounder, and because I personally didn't think he was worthy of a first round pick. These statements are based on my view of the players, and the impression I had of where players would most likely be drafted. In Randall's case, I had a feeling he'd go in the first round, but I didn't think he was good enough to go that high. (I might be wrong; he's doing okay at corner, and had a HUGE play to put the game away for the Packers last week.)

And by the way, I liked all the players we're talking about right now. But draft equity is still an important consideration. Henry Anderson was one of my very favorite players in the draft. If we had taken him in the first, I feel like that would have been a bad use of draft equity, despite the fact that he was a better prospect than Goldman, Brown, probably Phillips, etc. Same with Tyler Lockett.

To the first bolded, it's not an excuse for GMs. I believe in sticking to your board and not reaching for need, because the draft is about adding talent, not targeting needs. If Grigson had drafted Malcom Brown, I'd be plenty critical of him, because I think Brown is whack. If he had drafted Jake Fisher, I'd be critical, because he reached for need (and because Fisher has some flaws to his game).

To the second bolded, it's interesting that you're talking about grooming a player for three years, when in conjunction with this topic all anyone wants to talk about is what player would have immediately filled a position of need, and had more impact through six games than Dorsett.

To the third bolded, we don't have a bunch of first round receivers. We have one. And no matter who your QB is, there's nothing wrong with drafting a WR in the first round. It probably wasn't the most efficient use of the pick, but I prefer taking the player you really like to reaching for a player you don't think as highly of because he presumably fills a need.

Technically I'm not ignoring draft value I'm belittling it. Because I see BPA as a relative term and what other teams have rated shouldn't effect mine. Also I know Grigson stuck to his board and I agreed with him that Dorsett had comparable value to our pick. The thing is the efficiency of a 1st round receiver doesn't equal the efficiency of other picks that were available. (Imo)

Your 2nd paragraph is a summary of our disagreement. I don't understand why general concensus should have any say in my drafting strategy. Because as you say in your next paragraph it's about drafting talent. If you draft the best talent available that suits your team you can't ever go wrong even if people consider him a round lower or higher.

Reaching for a need is the part that makes no sense to me. But I assume we won't understand each other here.

I find it odd you are lumping me with everyone else when since the draft process I've been adamant that we wouldn't be finding a starter in this 1st round of the draft. (Remember I was pushing for an ILB even though we had 2 solid set starters)

We completely agree with your last paragraph. I have never thought Dorsett was a bad player I just feel the efficiency is lost because by nature our QB will inflate the WR position.

[OLD FAN MAN]

 

DQ is leading the NFL in tackles.

how many for a gain? how many for a loss? total tackles does not mean a lot imo. is he leading in tackles for a loss? then he is good.

[Superman]

Technically I'm not ignoring draft value I'm belittling it. Because I see BPA as a relative term and what other teams have rated shouldn't effect mine. Also I know Grigson stuck to his board and I agreed with him that Dorsett had comparable value to our pick. The thing is the efficiency of a 1st round receiver doesn't equal the efficiency of other picks that were available. (Imo)

Your 2nd paragraph is a summary of our disagreement. I don't understand why general concensus should have any say in my drafting strategy. Because as you say in your next paragraph it's about drafting talent. If you draft the best talent available that suits your team you can't ever go wrong even if people consider him a round lower or higher.

Reaching for a need is the part that makes no sense to me. But I assume we won't understand each other here.

I find it odd you are lumping me with everyone else when since the draft process I've been adamant that we wouldn't be finding a starter in this 1st round of the draft. (Remember I was pushing for an ILB even though we had 2 solid set starters)

We completely agree with your last paragraph. I have never thought Dorsett was a bad player I just feel the efficiency is lost because by nature our QB will inflate the WR position.

 

Obviously BPA is relative. My board is different than yours, yours is different than another's, etc.

 

But that's where general consensus comes into play. GMs and personnel guys pay attention to the chatter, and they use it to inform their expectations of where players will get drafted. Guys like Peter King, whose opinion on football players means little to me, hears a lot of information directly from personnel staff, and when he releases a mock draft, it has some merit. When he says guys like Andrus Peat and Arik Armstead are flying up draft boards, it's probably because that's what he's heard.

 

And that information can help a GM (and even casual draftniks like us) get an idea of where someone like Kendricks is going to be drafted. Maybe the Vikings were in love with Kendricks, and he was their #10 guy, but Wayne's was thir #5. They have a feeling that Kendricks will still be there at #45, they take Waynes, and come back for Kendricks. That's when having an idea of what others are thinking helps.

 

I'm not lumping you in with everyone else. I'm illustrating that there are a lot of differing ideas about draft strategy. Some are dead wrong, but for some of these ideas, we're just talking about perspective. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

I think Grigson did pretty well to replace that whole defensive line with 2 rookies and 3 free agents. 2 of them coming at the last minute in Winn and Mcgill. I still maintain that Grigs is a pretty good GM when it comes to personnel. I just don't think you build an elite roster in 3 and a quarter seasons. First couple years when the cupboard was bare you kind of have to live off free agents. Some will be hits and many wont work out. The Richardson deal was the worst but at least he has learned from it. That's how it is on many teams. Now we are getting to the phase where you have to shed some of those FA with draft picks and I think he did a real good job with the 2015 draft. In 2016 if Irsay isn't silly enough to fire him we can focus almost the entire draft on defense and some OL. Roster should be stacked next year in my mind.[/quote

I agree we need to get more talent on D. Pass rush and CB have to improve. I expect the draft to reflect that.

Grig's hasn't done a bad job. The 2013 class is starting to come around a bit. The other 3 drafts look good.

I think we might take a RB I don't see Robinson being anything special.. I like Davante Booker from Utah. He can catch the ball run it between the tackles but has the speed to get to the edge. Maybe 3rd round depending on who comes out.

he replaced his previous mistakes on the d-line. which is good he admitted his mistakes.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Like what i have seen so far, liked him at Boise St coming out!

[krunk]

Question, has it helped the time to get to the Super Bowl this year?????  Isn't that the ultimate goal each year?????  Do you want to see Luck go 10 years before he gets a Super Bowl??????

 

i want to see the Colts get to and WIN it all long before Luck starts thinking about retirement.  Those are my expectation and should be your.

 

What is your definition of helping?  Are you willing to say he hasn't contributed to any of our wins?   The portion size might not be to your liking, but to say he hasn't would be dishonest.

 

Again the question was how does them taking it slow with him make the player a bust?  This is one of the bigger statements you made.  I mean surely the coaches have got to have better incite into the situation than you.  A bust is someone who has been given every opportunity to succeed and can't.  It's utterly silly of you to be arguing something like that after 6 games and a purposeful limitation of the guys snaps.  

 

And your reasoning gets worse with your 10 years statement sadly enough.  So because a rookie receiver plays an initially small sample size of snaps with the intent of increasing the snaps as the season progresses that will result in Luck having to wait 10 years to see a Super Bowl?  Is this the flawed logic you are trying to get me to accept?   

 

I'm okay with the line of logic that says let's get the kid more snaps as that is balanced mature thinking. However where's the evidence to call the guy a bust?   And even if they don't how does  that guarantee the Colts won't make the Super Bowl?  If the Colts don't make it then it's because of the team not one player.  As Superman always says the draft is for stockpiling raw talent that must be molded.  It's great if they come in and play like a 10 year vet, but more than likely there is some transition time whether you like it or not.  Shame on the coaches for understanding that huh?

[Surge89]

Obviously BPA is relative. My board is different than yours, yours is different than another's, etc.

But that's where general consensus comes into play. GMs and personnel guys pay attention to the chatter, and they use it to inform their expectations of where players will get drafted. Guys like Peter King, whose opinion on football players means little to me, hears a lot of information directly from personnel staff, and when he releases a mock draft, it has some merit. When he says guys like Andrus Peat and Arik Armstead are flying up draft boards, it's probably because that's what he's heard.

And that information can help a GM (and even casual draftniks like us) get an idea of where someone like Kendricks is going to be drafted. Maybe the Vikings were in love with Kendricks, and he was their #10 guy, but Wayne's was thir #5. They have a feeling that Kendricks will still be there at #45, they take Waynes, and come back for Kendricks. That's when having an idea of what others are thinking helps.

I'm not lumping you in with everyone else. I'm illustrating that there are a lot of differing ideas about draft strategy. Some are dead wrong, but for some of these ideas, we're just talking about perspective.

Ah well yes I assume that the basic board manipulation is standard work. I do take it into effect and I see your point.

My wife would heavily disagree with you that we are "casual" draftniks lol! She thinks there should be some type of rehab for the way I spend some of my time on sports :-)

[BlueShoe]

how many for a gain? how many for a loss? total tackles does not mean a lot imo. is he leading in tackles for a loss? then he is good.

 

Good Grief. 

[BlueShoe]

Shows you the worth of that stat.

 

If it were a worthless stat then the NFL would not keep it.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have heard it all from people against the stat. I am on the record that it's a ridiculous argument. 

 

Carry on.

[Defjamz26]

Did you even read what I posted?

RECEIVERS usually take 3 years to reach maximum potential in the league, regardless of draft stock. That is just the way receivers work around 75% of the time. Other positions specifically RB and QB can contribute right away. You are harping on the fact that Grigson took a project in the first to which we are telling you that simply isn't correct. He took a first round talent receiver. BUT receivers usually take 3 years regardless of their talent level to really get it going in the NFL how hard is that to understand?

Also your black and white approach to the draft is ridiculous btw. What if the talent pool is extremely shallow? For example the very draft you are talking about there was close to no chance of us grabbing a starter at the end of the first. Regardless of what you think. So no matter what we would have been getting depth, but because you want a result now you would've said it was a failed draft pick regardless. That is a very shallow view and you will never be happy with any draft of any team for that matter unless the draft falls exactly perfect every year.

tldr: Your argument makes no sense.

After RB, WR is the easiest transition to make from college. It's been awhile since there wasn't a 1,000 yard rookie receiver.

But hypothetically speaking , pretty much all players reach maximum potential in 3 years. That curve is not specific to WRs. If Jadeveon Clowney isn't getting 8+ sacks a year by the end of the 2016 season, than the Texans drafted a bust. Only QBs sometimes take longer to develop.

I feel like you're trying to use a curve that applies to almost everyone to curb expectations of Dorsett. I feel like he'll be good but if he isn't getting at least 600+ yards next season and starting by 2017, then the Colts made a mistake, even if it's because we don't use him enough.

[Dustin]

If it were a worthless stat then the NFL would not keep it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have heard it all from people against the stat. I am on the record that it's a ridiculous argument.

Carry on.

The NFL doesn't keep it. It's an unofficial stat.

[dudeski]

If it were a worthless stat then the NFL would not keep it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have heard it all from people against the stat. I am on the record that it's a ridiculous argument.

Carry on.

so you were told the truth and still believe that stat has merit?

Wow. That's sad.

[BlueShoe]

The NFL doesn't keep it. It's an unofficial stat.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=TACKLES&conference=null&season=2015&seasonType=REG

[BlueShoe]

so you were told the truth and still believe that stat has merit?

Wow. That's sad.

 

Hyperbole much?

[Dustin]

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=TACKLES&conference=null&season=2015&seasonType=REG

Again, the NFL stat department does not record tackle numbers. They are independently tracked by teams. Thus, why they are unofficial.

[NewColtsFan]

Hyperbole much?

 

Yeah,  he does.....     always has....

[BlueShoe]

Again, the NFL stat department does not record tackle numbers. They are independently tracked by teams. Thus, why they are unofficial.

 

I have heard all of this before. Too many times.  

 

It is still not a useless stat. 

 

I have had this debate way too many times to have any desire of putting any more effort into it. If you want to believe what you believe then do so. I will have my own opinion as well.

 

No matter what someone believes, it is a subjective opinion.

[dudeski]

Hyperbole much?

not at all

You hear the facts and choose to ignore them for no reason.

That is insane

[dudeski]

I have heard all of this before. Too many times.

It is still not a useless stat.

I have had this debate way too many times to have any desire of putting any more effort into it. If you want to believe what you believe then do so. I will have my own opinion as well.

No matter what someone believes, it is a subjective opinion.

what is to debate? Tackle stats are wildly inaccurate. That is a fact.

There is no other way to look at it

[BlueShoe]

not at all

You hear the facts and choose to ignore them for no reason.

That is insane

 

LOL.

 

Sure.

 

Find someone else to go down the rabbit hole with you today. My time is way too valuable for your nonsense.

[dudeski]

LOL.

Sure.

Find someone else to go down the rabbit hole with you today. My time is way too valuable for your nonsense.

The truth is nonsense?

[BlueShoe]

The truth is nonsense?

 

Have a good day Dude.

 

[rock8591]

Tackles is a great stat for DLs to have, because it implies that they are stopping plays close to the line of scrimmage (and not upfield).

 

For DBs, it's a horrible stat to have. e.g. Laron Landry and his 134 tackles during his time here, 2 PD, 0 INTs.

[gacker65]

What is your definition of helping?  Are you willing to say he hasn't contributed to any of our wins?   The portion size might not be to your liking, but to say he hasn't would be dishonest.

 

Again the question was how does them taking it slow with him make the player a bust?  This is one of the bigger statements you made.  I mean surely the coaches have got to have better incite into the situation than you.  A bust is someone who has been given every opportunity to succeed and can't.  It's utterly silly of you to be arguing something like that after 6 games and a purposeful limitation of the guys snaps.  

 

And your reasoning gets worse with your 10 years statement sadly enough.  So because a rookie receiver plays an initially small sample size of snaps with the intent of increasing the snaps as the season progresses that will result in Luck having to wait 10 years to see a Super Bowl?  Is this the flawed logic you are trying to get me to accept?   

 

I'm okay with the line of logic that says let's get the kid more snaps as that is balanced mature thinking. However where's the evidence to call the guy a bust?   And even if they don't how does  that guarantee the Colts won't make the Super Bowl?  If the Colts don't make it then it's because of the team not one player.  As Superman always says the draft is for stockpiling raw talent that must be molded.  It's great if they come in and play like a 10 year vet, but more than likely there is some transition time whether you like it or not.  Shame on the coaches for understanding that huh?

My definition of helping for Dorsett is: Catching passes, Blocking on run plays, and Making his presence felt on the field.

 

I can not say he hasn't contributed, because of the TD that helped win the Titans. game.  You are right, I don't like the portion size Dorsett is getting.  As I said, I wont say he hasn't contributed, but he has gotten most of his yardage in "garbage" time.

 

If you have to bring a 1st rounder along slow, then maybe he wasn't a 1st rounder.  Our team is not complete enough to draft a project or depth player in the 1st round.  We need our 1st rounders, at this time, to start not sit on the bench.  As I said of Werner, it has nothing to do with his talent down the road, but where he was drafted.  No a bust, for a 1st rounder, can be for the lack of playing time in their 1st year due to not being good enough to break into the line-up.

 

I got carried away with the 10 year thing.  I see us use 1st round picks to get project players while other positions are give after thought players.  IMO, that keeps setting us back.  Best example is this year, Toler and Butler gets injuried, we have to switch to Zone coverage, which we are not good at.  Excuse, young players.  Well if you don't draft properly, then you are asking for the kind of play we are having.  If you continue to draft non starting 1st rounders, your chance of getting to the Super Bowl goes down.  now add in player contracts, losses to FA, and over paying FAs and you get a team that is never getting over the hump (to the Super Bowl).  Keep drafting 1st round project players and this is what you get.

 

I agree that Dorsett should get more snaps.  The evidence is that Dorsett can't win a starting position.  I don't know if the Staff is holding him back or he needs a couple of years to get ready.

 

You are correct saying it takes a team to go all the way, but one player can be the catalyst to make the difference.

 

I have great respect for Superman, as I do for you, but that doesn't mean we can't disagree.  Superman and I don't all

ways agree and i believe it will be the same with us. 

 

As for 10 year vet vs rookie, I'll take the rookie who can beat the 10 year vet every time.  Rookie will be with the team longer. 

[dudeski]

Tackles is a great stat for DLs to have, because it implies that they are stopping plays close to the line of scrimmage (and not upfield).

For DBs, it's a horrible stat to have. e.g. Laron Landry and his 134 tackles during his time here, 2 PD, 0 INTs.

i don't think you get it

[mirobi]

You gotta get a trade sometime

[rock8591]

i don't think you get it

 

?

[BOTT]

Moncrief his having a great year FYI.

And if you are thinking there was a starter there at the end of the 1st there wasn't. It would've all been depth.

You know that after 6 games?

[Surge89]

You know that after 6 games?

What? I don't need the whole year to be able to see if we were gonna have an immediate starter from the end of the first round... they all would've been depth right now... now that would change in the future of course exactly the reason why I wanted other players but that isn't what I'm talking about in my previous post.

[BOTT]

What? I don't need the whole year to be able to see if we were gonna have an immediate starter from the end of the first round... they all would've been depth right now... now that would change in the future of course exactly the reason why I wanted other players but that isn't what I'm talking about in my previous post.

Fair enough. I though you meant now and in the future.