Colts are CLOSE to Contending...

[jet1968]

4 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

We didn't win south last 2 years because of coaching period..

You are correct coaching is terrible. But Pagano isnt the one missing tackles and he isnt the one dropping passes that hit receivers in the hands, and he isnt the one that is missing blocks letting his quarterback get hit 150 times in a year. 

[jshipp23]

Development matters

[Jason_]

8 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

We didn't win south last 2 years because of coaching period..

 

yeah not having Luck for 9 games had nothing to do with missing the playoffs last year.

[jshipp23]

Just now, Jason_S said:

 

yeah not having Luck for 9 games had nothing to do with missing the playoffs last year.

What about this year?

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

Let me ask you this.  Week 1 vs Detroit.  Was the defense healthy? 

 

ah, ok.  I misunderstood.  I didn't realize we were grading the defense's overall potential based on one game... which was their first game of the season... with a new defensive coordinator... and all new defensive coaching staff. 

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

What about this year?

 

This year, a number of factors combined together:

 

1. All new offensive coaching staff minus Chud fully taking over the OC position

2. Chud finally installing his new offense, which likely included all new terminology

3. Philbin installing new blocking schemes for the OL

4. 4 new rookies added to OL unit, which usually only carries 8-10 players on the active roster...so half the OL unit consisted of rookies

5. Frequent and recurring injuries, especially to the OL and secondary.  The constant injuries to the OL prevented them from forming any type of cohesion as a unit.  The constant injuries to the secondary really handcuffed Monachino on how aggressive his playcalling could be.

6. This is probably the biggest factor, imo, and is due to coaching, but specifically Chud.  Other than the Vikings game, I have not been the least bit impressed with his game planning or play calling.  Though for this I could see and agree that Pagano takes some of the blame as well because  he needs to step in and force Chud to use a similar game plan to the Vikings game.

[BullsColtsFan1]

13 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

ah, ok.  I misunderstood.  I didn't realize we were grading the defense's overall potential based on one game... which was their first game of the season... with a new defensive coordinator... and all new defensive coaching staff. 

So injuries?  That's your excuse? Every team deals with injuries.   I didn't only say one game but they were 100% healthy week one and gave up a field goal on a 60 yard drive in less than 30 seconds and 37 points in the game.  That's not really average in my book.  Neither is giving up 30 to the Jags or letting Osweiller score two TD's in two in a half minutes.  It's a pretty awful defense.  Was all year.  I like Morrison, Jackson and Green though, I was glad to see them get some minutes  The Colts need pass rushers, a decent run stopper on the line and a cornerback or two to be an average defense in my opinion. 

[jseg18]

I believe if there is fire hydrant at guard( Pags language), we should think hard about drafting him. Similar to the 9ers when they drafted big Mike Iuipatu, or when Cowboys drafted Zack Martin. Of course, that's if they value him over any player.

*

[Jason_]

8 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

So injuries?  That's your excuse? 

 

1. No

2. I'm not making excuses, but providing reasons. 

4. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I also mentioned that in week 1, that was our defense's first live game under new DC monachino...which was going against a potent and (more importantly) established Detroit offense

5. I like Morrison, Jackson and green as well.  However none of them were ready to be starters this year. They were forced to be starters due to, wait for it....injuries.  Oh and a suspension (dqjax)

[jskinnz]

I don't think the Colts are far away from contending at all largely because they have Luck.  Now he has to play better at critical times but my faith in him as a franchise level QB has not wavered.

 

On offense, other than a RB, I think they are pretty well set.  

 

They do have holes on defense they have holes at all 3 levels.  Every team plays with JAG's to one degree or another.  The Colts had their share but they lack true playmakers.  Having said that, they don't have to replace all 11.  Ridgeway and Anderson on the d'line are capable and should be better next year.  Walden is a guy I would re-sign.  I would not want to go into the season with Jackson & Morrison as my linebackers.  I think they are your 3rd and 4th guys - depth only.  The safeties are in place with Green and Geathers.  I would bring Butler back and make him a full-time safety.  Vontae is not a tier 1 corner any longer but you can certainly win with him.  Another CB is a must.

 

The entire point is 4-5 guys that can be had in either FA and the draft and they can be a reasonable defense next year.

[BullsColtsFan1]

9 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

1. No

2. I'm not making excuses, but providing reasons. 

4. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I also mentioned that in week 1, that was our defense's first live game under new DC monachino...which was going against a potent and (more importantly) established Detroit offense

5. I like Morrison, Jackson and green as well.  However none of them were ready to be starters this year. They were forced to be starters due to, wait for it....injuries.  Oh and a suspension (dqjax)

I understand it being the D coordinators first game but has Detroit scored that much all year since that game?  It was at home too.  I think the defense needs more play makers for sure.  I agree with you about Jackson, Morrison and Green but if they are going to be future players, I am glad they got some time now.  I think Jackson could be one of the starting linebackers next year.  If Adams doesn't re-sign I think Green and Geathers will start at safety.  I do like the fact that the defense is getting younger.  I will tell you that.  I just hope they get some more play makers on that side of the ball either in free agency or the draft. 

[coltsfeva]

32 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

Let me ask you this.  Week 1 vs Detroit.  Was the defense healthy? 

 Butler, Davis, Anderson and Geathers were out...so, that wood be a big fat NO.

[jet1968]

The Colts are a Coach and General Manager shy of contending

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

I understand it being the D coordinators first game but has Detroit scored that much all year since that game?  It was at home too.  I think the defense needs more play makers for sure.  I agree with you about Jackson, Morrison and Green but if they are going to be future players, I am glad they got some time now.  I think Jackson could be one of the starting linebackers next year.  If Adams doesn't resign I think Green and Geathers will start at safety.  I do like the fact that the defense is getting younger.  I will tell you that.  I just hope they get some more play makers on that side of the ball either in free agency or the draft. 

 

I agree with this completely.  Defense definitely needs more playmakers.  At full health, I do believe the Colts current defense can be an average to above average "no name" type defense, but it also requires the offense to be consistent.  But yeah, we definitely need playmakers.

 

And just to reiterate, I like Green, Jackson and Morrison a lot...as well as Anderson, Ridgeway and Geathers.  Parry I'm still on the fence about but honestly, I think he's been better than many are giving him credit for.  I also think that's partly because some people still seem to be stuck on the notion that the Colts are trying to run a 2-gap defense and that, imo, is simply not the case from what I've seen, which is why Parry works in our defense.  Doesn't mean he can't be upgraded, but that also doesn't mean that we need a 350 lb space eater either.  We did a couple of years ago, but after last year's draft when Anderson and Parry were brought in along with Kendall Langford, the switch to a 1-gap scheme was obvious.

 

****WAIT A MINUTE*****

 

The Colt defense was absolutely NOT healthy week 1 against Detroit.  Henry Anderson, Darius Butler, Vontae Davis and Clayton Geathers were all OUT that game.  3 of our starting 4 in the secondary (4 out of 5 if you include Nickel CB) were out that game.  They had just signed guys like Morris, Melvin and Milton practically off the street just to be able to suit up an actual secondary unit.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2016/09/11/detroit-lions-indianapolis-colts/90216700/
 

Quote

The Lions are one of the healthiest teams in the NFL entering Week 1, with no player even listed as questionable on their injury report. The Colts are in quite a different place as they’ll be without three of their top five defensive backs today.

 

 

[Jason_]

7 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

 Butler, Davis, Anderson and Geathers were out...so, that wood be a big fat NO.

 

Thank you!  I remembered that about halfway through the last post I was working on. LOL

[BullsColtsFan1]

2 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

I agree with this completely.  Defense definitely needs more playmakers.  At full health, I do believe the Colts current defense can be an average to above average "no name" type defense, but it also requires the offense to be consistent.  But yeah, we definitely need playmakers.

 

And just to reiterate, I like Green, Jackson and Morrison a lot...as well as Anderson, Ridgeway and Geathers.  Parry I'm still on the fence about but honestly, I think he's been better than many are giving him credit for.  I also think that's partly because some people still seem to be stuck on the notion that the Colts are trying to run a 2-gap defense and that, imo, is simply not the case from what I've seen, which is why Parry works in our defense.  Doesn't mean he can't be upgraded, but that also doesn't mean that we need a 350 lb space eater either.  We did a couple of years ago, but after last year's draft when Anderson and Parry were brought in along with Kendall Langford, the switch to a 1-gap scheme was obvious.

 

****WAIT A MINUTE*****

 

The Colt defense was absolutely NOT healthy week 1 against Detroit.  Henry Anderson, Darius Butler, Vontae Davis and Clayton Geathers were all OUT that game.  3 of our starting 4 in the secondary (4 out of 5 if you include Nickel CB) were out that game.  They had just signed guys like Morris, Melvin and Milton practically off the street just to be able to suit up an actual secondary unit.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2016/09/11/detroit-lions-indianapolis-colts/90216700/
 

 

I agree.  You are right about the defense not being 100% healthy week one but that's not the only game the defense was terrible in.  They were terrible against the Jags week 4 and terrible against the Texans week 6.  I am pretty sure Vontae, Geathers, Anderson and Butler played in those games or at least one of them. 

[BullsColtsFan1]

14 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

 Butler, Davis, Anderson and Geathers were out...so, that wood be a big fat NO.

Did they play against Houston week 6 or the Jags week 4?  My point is the defense was pretty bad all year except for the Texans game at home and the Vikings game, healthy or not.  The team needs more play makers, mainly a pass rush.  I don't know many teams defenses who will stay 100% healthy through out an entire season. I think I read the Colts were 27th in yards given up and 24th in points or vice versa?  That's pretty bad in my book.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, ztboiler said:

Since we'll only ever get partial information....not sure what there will be to revisit....but sure, I love a good exchange of ideas...

 

I think the only thing you and I may disagree on is why we may miss out on big names.  You seem to indicate it's because we can't, where as I'm suggesting it's because we won't.  

 

Silly money will chase the first 5 guys or so...then we'll get a couple of "bargains" in the $10 - $15M per year range.

 

History simply isn't on the side of those that "win" free agency.  Strategic exceptions do occur ie. Bronchos of 2015 winning the Superbowl in 2016.  Yet...they didn't go out and sign Ndamokong Suh.  

 

We all know this.

 

 

 

 

 

Well...    with respect,  I think you have some contradictory viewpoints in this post.

 

"Silly money will chase the first 5 guys or so...then we'll get a couple of "bargains" in the $10 - $15M per year range".

 

I agree we won't get the top guys,  even if we wanted to.

 

But I have no idea why you think we're going to be buying guys in the 10-15 Mill per range?    First,  that's still silly money.    8 figures per year is silly money.    And second,  we've never bought one of those type of players under this administration. 

 

Not one.

 

7 Mill per is the most we've spent on any free agent.     That's it.      Never spent more than 7.    What makes you think we're going to suddenly go up by 50-100 percent?    I don't see that happening.     Maybe it does.   But I think it's more likely we'll move up to the 8-10 Mill per range.     Over 10 is hard for me to see.

 

As for History not being on the side of big spenders in free agency,  we agree.      But JS appears to think your viewpoint supports him.  Spend, spend, spend!      I think you've straddled the fence a bit...

 

We'll know more in 3 months....

 

[Jason_]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

But I have no idea why you think we're going to be buying guys in the 10-15 Mill per range?    First,  that's still silly money.    8 figures per year is silly money.    And second,  we've never bought one of those type of players under this administration. 

 

Not one.

 

7 Mill per is the most we've spent on any free agent.     That's it.      Never spent more than 7.    What makes you think we're going to suddenly go up by 50-100 percent?    

 

The fact that we're actually in a position now that we have a lot of the role players and depth that we need, so we actually can target one or two higher prices FAs rather than having to buy a whole defense in FA.

 

I'm not saying they will or wont bring in a high prices guy, but I definitely dont think that past tendencies give any indication of what they will do now because the situations are very different. Theyve actually gotten a number of young, talented players in the past 2 drafts and the OL appears to be set now, at least for the most part. 

[Reboot]

3 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

I'm not saying they will or wont bring in a high prices guy, but I definitely dont think that past tendencies give any indication of what they will do now because the situations are very different. Theyve actually gotten a number of young, talented players in the past 2 drafts and the OL appears to be set now, at least for the most part. 

I would agree with this part - well said.  I think this is a different year. 

 

If Grigson is kept, doesn't pressure increase to do whatever necessary to win now?  There won't be a third pass on an 8-8 year, right?  My guess is that this of all years may see spending, maybe crazy spending on one target, to try to make something happen.  If it's a new front office, they'll want to make their statement, and if it's the one here, I can't imagine he thinks he has a lot of time left to win.  I think either way there may be reasons pointing to spending. 

[Jason_]

34 minutes ago, BullsColtsFan1 said:

I agree.  You are right about the defense not being 100% healthy week one but that's not the only game the defense was terrible in.  They were terrible against the Jags week 4 and terrible against the Texans week 6.  I am pretty sure Vontae, Geathers, Anderson and Butler played in those games or at least one of them. 

 

At least one of them?   Lol. So, since all of the projected starters got to play once together, and they were bad in that game, that means theyd have been bad all season? I dont think so.

 

This isnt madden....and I hate saying that but so many people act like it is whether they realize it or not. 

 

Again, new scheme, many new teammates...they have to play together a little but to gel and build chemistry and trust in each other. You cant just insert 11 players on the field and expect them to be able to work together as a cohesive unit. 

 

And yes, every team deals with injuries, its part of the game. Thats nothing new. But not every team has to deal with injuries to 4 of their 5 top defensive backs at the same time.  Not every team is forced to make adjustments to their starting OL on an almost weekly basis.  

 

Team A that has 12 players on IR, but no more than 1 player per position group is in a far better situation than team B that also has 12 guys on IR, but all 12 of them being offensive linemen and defensive backs. 

[BullsColtsFan1]

7 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

At least one of them?   Lol. So, since all of the projected starters got to play once together, and they were bad in that game, that means theyd have been bad all season? I dont think so.

 

This isnt madden....and I hate saying that but so many people act like it is whether they realize it or not. 

 

Again, new scheme, many new teammates...they have to play together a little but to gel and build chemistry and trust in each other. You cant just insert 11 players on the field and expect them to be able to work together as a cohesive unit. 

 

And yes, every team deals with injuries, its part of the game. Thats nothing new. But not every team has to deal with injuries to 4 of their 5 top defensive backs at the same time.  Not every team is forced to make adjustments to their starting OL on an almost weekly basis.  

 

Team A that has 12 players on IR, but no more than 1 player per position group is in a far better situation than team B that also has 12 guys on IR, but all 12 of them being offensive linemen and defensive backs. 

I never said it was madden lol.  When your 27th in yards allowed and 24th in points allowed your not very good regardless of what the excuse/reason is.  So in your opinion how long or how many years will take for them to mesh since they are new?  Didn't the dolphins clean house after last year?  They made the playoffs with a new staff.  Same with the Giants, they cleaned house and are sitting at 10-5 with a new staff? Numbers don't lie.  My main point is the defense needs more play makers (which we agree on) we can leave it at that. 

[jshipp23]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

I don't think the Colts are far away from contending at all largely because they have Luck.  Now he has to play better at critical times but my faith in him as a franchise level QB has not wavered.

 

On offense, other than a RB, I think they are pretty well set.  

 

They do have holes on defense they have holes at all 3 levels.  Every team plays with JAG's to one degree or another.  The Colts had their share but they lack true playmakers.  Having said that, they don't have to replace all 11.  Ridgeway and Anderson on the d'line are capable and should be better next year.  Walden is a guy I would re-sign.  I would not want to go into the season with Jackson & Morrison as my linebackers.  I think they are your 3rd and 4th guys - depth only.  The safeties are in place with Green and Geathers.  I would bring Butler back and make him a full-time safety.  Vontae is not a tier 1 corner any longer but you can certainly win with him.  Another CB is a must.

 

The entire point is 4-5 guys that can be had in either FA and the draft and they can be a reasonable defense next year.

Jskinns we got us an elway..We need a top 15 defense which is doable

[jshipp23]

You c it..we aren't enemies

[ztboiler]

42 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well...    with respect,  I think you have some contradictory viewpoints in this post.

 

"Silly money will chase the first 5 guys or so...then we'll get a couple of "bargains" in the $10 - $15M per year range".

 

I agree we won't get the top guys,  even if we wanted to.

 

But I have no idea why you think we're going to be buying guys in the 10-15 Mill per range?    First,  that's still silly money.    8 figures per year is silly money.    And second,  we've never bought one of those type of players under this administration. 

 

Not one.

 

7 Mill per is the most we've spent on any free agent.     That's it.      Never spent more than 7.    What makes you think we're going to suddenly go up by 50-100 percent?    I don't see that happening.     Maybe it does.   But I think it's more likely we'll move up to the 8-10 Mill per range.     Over 10 is hard for me to see.

 

As for History not being on the side of big spenders in free agency,  we agree.      But JS appears to think your viewpoint supports him.  Spend, spend, spend!      I think you've straddled the fence a bit...

 

We'll know more in 3 months....

 

No, nothing contradictory at all.  "Bargain" was in quotes and facetious by intent.  After last year's data, and the steadily rising cap, silly money has really become $15+M per.

 

To help the defense, we're going to have to shop at Nordstroms this year.  I think these guys are ready to do that selectively while maintaining the build through the draft focus. It's a blip on the radar, not a departure from core values.  We have enough young talent in the pipeline that it doesn't make sense to bring in mid-level starter contracts in bulk like we did in 2013 - no matter how cap friendly their structure.

 

We have 2 positions where a big name free agent could make sense.  CB and EDGE.  I think we'll purchase 1 of each, and that there is enough in the market to pick from after the silly money goes first.  

 

After that, I think we'll bring in a mid-level starter at ILB on a cap friendly structure, since there are several in the market that could make sense if they aren't re-signed by their current teams.  Along the way we'll re-sign Butler and Doyle, and then may even take a look at Mewhort and Moncrief over the summer.

 

We can bid with anybody in the league on 2 positions...if we choose to, but I think we'll still be relatively responsible about it even if it seems like a big jump from prior fiscal behavior.

 

[Stephen]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

You hit the nail on the head there with those statements. That's similar to what I was saying in my post. None of the Young's guy scout people are praising really show franchise level talent. 

 

Like at ILB. People talk about Edwin Jackson as if he's a star in the making. He's a nice depth guy to have but that's about it. I wouldn't not look at guys like Reuben Foster, Raekwon McMillian, etc... because "Oh we got Edwin Jackson". As you said we need playmakers, guys who can make game changing plays. Specifically on defense. Geathers has flashed that ability but that's it.

 

And you can't get all of those type of players in one draft or FA signing. It takes time. Thats why the Colts are still awhile away.

This team could go from 8-8 to 12-4 just by changing the coach. I don't beleive we are as far away as you think.  Elite rb good pass rusher great ilb super bowl

[jshipp23]

1 minute ago, ztboiler said:

No, nothing contradictory at all.  "Bargain" was in quotes and facetious by intent.  After last year's data, and the steadily rising cap, silly money has really become $15+M per.

 

To help the defense, we're going to have to shop at Nordstroms this year.  I think these guys are ready to do that selectively while maintaining the build through the draft focus. It's a blip on the radar, not a departure from core values.  We have enough young talent in the pipeline that it doesn't make sense to bring in mid-level starter contracts in bulk like we did in 2013 - no matter how cap friendly their structure.

 

We have 2 positions where a big name free agent could make sense.  CB and EDGE.  I think we'll purchase 1 of each, and that there is enough in the market to pick from after the silly money goes first.  

 

After that, I think we'll bring in a mid-level starter at ILB on a cap friendly structure, since there are several in the market that could make sense if they aren't re-signed by their current teams.  Along the way we'll re-sign Butler and Doyle, and then may even take a look at Mewhort and Moncrief over the summer.

 

We can bid with anybody in the league on 2 positions...if we choose to, but I think we'll still be relatively responsible about it even if it seems like a big jump from prior fiscal behavior.

 

Not bad

[jshipp23]

1 minute ago, Stephen said:

This team could go from 8-8 to 12-4 just by changing the coach. I don't beleive we are as far away as you think.  Elite rb good pass rusher great ilb super bowl

Preaching to the choir. .This year is a blessing in disguise 

[gspdx]

Just my 2 cents.

 

Not sure what you are saying we are close to contending for.  The AFC South Division - sure, we are close.  A Superbowl title - I don't think so.  I would love to be proved wrong next year though!

 

Sometimes its hard to remember that every other team in the league is trying to improve too.  So just because we pick up a few promising draft picks and a couple of decent free agents does not make us a contender.  The mental aspect of making it to the playoffs and then winning a Superbowl is a huge part of the puzzle and sometimes it just takes experience to get there.  By next year there will be a lot of guys on this team that have not been put in that position.  They have to rebuild the culture.  Might take some time.

[jshipp23]

2 minutes ago, gspdx said:

Just my 2 cents.

 

Not sure what you are saying we are close to contending for.  The AFC South Division - sure, we are close.  A Superbowl title - I don't think so.  I would love to be proved wrong next year though!

 

Sometimes its hard to remember that every other team in the league is trying to improve too.  So just because we pick up a few promising draft picks and a couple of decent free agents does not make us a contender.  The mental aspect of making it to the playoffs and then winning a Superbowl is a huge part of the puzzle and sometimes it just takes experience to get there.  By next year there will be a lot of guys on this team that have not been put in that position.  They have to rebuild the culture.  Might take some time.

We r closer than u think

[gspdx]

2 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

We r closer than u think

Maybe.  I'll believe it when I see it. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Jason_S said:

 

The fact that we're actually in a position now that we have a lot of the role players and depth that we need, so we actually can target one or two higher prices FAs rather than having to buy a whole defense in FA.

 

I'm not saying they will or wont bring in a high prices guy, but I definitely dont think that past tendencies give any indication of what they will do now because the situations are very different. Theyve actually gotten a number of young, talented players in the past 2 drafts and the OL appears to be set now, at least for the most part. 

 

You may be right,  but I still think our roster is painfully thin....

 

We struggled the first 4-5 weeks because we had lots of injuries and not enough talent behind them.

 

[jshipp23]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well...    with respect,  I think you have some contradictory viewpoints in this post.

 

"Silly money will chase the first 5 guys or so...then we'll get a couple of "bargains" in the $10 - $15M per year range".

 

I agree we won't get the top guys,  even if we wanted to.

 

But I have no idea why you think we're going to be buying guys in the 10-15 Mill per range?    First,  that's still silly money.    8 figures per year is silly money.    And second,  we've never bought one of those type of players under this administration. 

 

Not one.

 

7 Mill per is the most we've spent on any free agent.     That's it.      Never spent more than 7.    What makes you think we're going to suddenly go up by 50-100 percent?    I don't see that happening.     Maybe it does.   But I think it's more likely we'll move up to the 8-10 Mill per range.     Over 10 is hard for me to see.

 

As for History not being on the side of big spenders in free agency,  we agree.      But JS appears to think your viewpoint supports him.  Spend, spend, spend!      I think you've straddled the fence a bit...

 

We'll know more in 3 months....

 

Spend on 2, diamonds in the rough on the rest.

[jshipp23]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

You may be right,  but I still think our roster is painfully thin....

 

We struggled the first 4-5 weeks because we had lots of injuries and not enough talent behind them.

 

Any franchise would struggle not just us

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

No, nothing contradictory at all.  "Bargain" was in quotes and facetious by intent.  After last year's data, and the steadily rising cap, silly money has really become $15+M per.

 

To help the defense, we're going to have to shop at Nordstroms this year.  I think these guys are ready to do that selectively while maintaining the build through the draft focus. It's a blip on the radar, not a departure from core values.  We have enough young talent in the pipeline that it doesn't make sense to bring in mid-level starter contracts in bulk like we did in 2013 - no matter how cap friendly their structure.

 

We have 2 positions where a big name free agent could make sense.  CB and EDGE.  I think we'll purchase 1 of each, and that there is enough in the market to pick from after the silly money goes first.  

 

After that, I think we'll bring in a mid-level starter at ILB on a cap friendly structure, since there are several in the market that could make sense if they aren't re-signed by their current teams.  Along the way we'll re-sign Butler and Doyle, and then may even take a look at Mewhort and Moncrief over the summer.

 

We can bid with anybody in the league on 2 positions...if we choose to, but I think we'll still be relatively responsible about it even if it seems like a big jump from prior fiscal behavior.

 

 

This is where you and I disagree.     The line I put in bold.

 

I don't think we have a lot of talent in the pipeline.     I think we have more than we used to,  but not nearly as much as we're going to need.      I think our roster is thin....      I think we're more than just two $10+ mill dollar players away from making a deep run in the playoffs.     I don't think adding two difference makers to this defense makes us a top-12 defense.      I think we're roughly 28th.      I think maybe it makes us a top-16-20 defense.      Is that good enough?     Good enough to win the South, sure.     But good enough to do much more?     I doubt it.

 

As always in these circumstances,  I'd love to be wrong.    I'd be happy if a year from now people were saying....   "See?!    I told you so!"       I can live with that.

[jshipp23]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You may be right,  but I still think our roster is painfully thin....

 

We struggled the first 4-5 weeks because we had lots of injuries and not enough talent behind them.

 

We are not thin on depth,  we r rhin on difference makers. We get a few legit guys we r winning. Draft or free agency..We r real close

[jshipp23]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This is where you and I disagree.     The line I put in bold.

 

I don't think we have a lot of talent in the pipeline.     I think we have more than we used to,  but not nearly as much as we're going to need.      I think our roster is thin....      I think we're more than just two $10+ mill dollar players away from making a deep run in the playoffs.     I don't think adding two difference makers to this defense makes us a top-12 defense.      I think we're roughly 28th.      I think maybe it makes us a top-16-20 defense.      Is that good enough?     Good enough to win the South, sure.     But good enough to do much more?     I doubt it.

 

As always in these circumstances,  I'd love to be wrong.    I'd be happy if a year from now people were saying....   "See?!    I told you so!"       I can live with that.

You r in la la land..U live on LA area?

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, jshipp23 said:

You r in la la land..U live on LA area?

 

Perhaps.

 

But the majority of people in and out of football share my view and not yours.

 

Your view is a fans view.      The same kind of viewpoints that has some fans calling Grigson and Pagano "incompetent" as one fan did this morning.        There isn't ANY place within the NFL world where either of those guys is incompetent.       Just more disgruntled fan boy talk.

 

[Defjamz26]

26 minutes ago, Stephen said:

This team could go from 8-8 to 12-4 just by changing the coach. I don't beleive we are as far away as you think.  Elite rb good pass rusher great ilb super bowl

Nah we have to many "okay" players. Not enough playmakers. The Broncos had Miller, Ware, Talib, Ward, DT (granted he's overrated), and Harris Jr.

 

We've got Andrew Luck and T.Y. Hilton...the next top tier players we have are both kickers.

 

We don't need a top 10 everything but our Run and pass D need to improve to at least 15th. All our Offense needs is an elite RB and I guarantee they'd be a top 5 scoring offense every year.

[ztboiler]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This is where you and I disagree.     The line I put in bold.

 

I don't think we have a lot of talent in the pipeline.     I think we have more than we used to,  but not nearly as much as we're going to need.      I think our roster is thin....      I think we're more than just two $10+ mill dollar players away from making a deep run in the playoffs.     I don't think adding two difference makers to this defense makes us a top-12 defense.      I think we're roughly 28th.      I think maybe it makes us a top-16-20 defense.      Is that good enough?     Good enough to win the South, sure.     But good enough to do much more?     I doubt it.

 

As always in these circumstances,  I'd love to be wrong.    I'd be happy if a year from now people were saying....   "See?!    I told you so!"       I can live with that.

Whether the young talent is all that good or not is yet to be determined, but that they exist and occupy the roster spots that mid-level starters would previously have been brought in for is not really in dispute.  As such, their presence affects the off-season approach.