Maybe now Colts can have a proper rebuild

[DaColts85]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

I don't think you grasp what I said. Minus 39 million does not give you any room to make free agent moves. You say half the roster was gone but Grigson still had to build a total team. He did manage it and that is what won him GM of the year.

And how did he manage to build the roster?  With a few Free Agency moves correct?  How are you not grasping what I am saying?

[DougDew]

19 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

Rebuild properly and allow for your offensive line to be a support and not a constant down fall.  Oh and do not spend your 2nd and 3rd pick both on Tight End's.  That would be a good start as well.

To your point, the Colts had no TEs on the roster at the time and to get (what was supposed to be) a seam splitting TE in the 2nd round was a good strategy.  Fleener was (supposedly) good value at a position of need.

 

If you remember, the comment about DA was that he was chosen because obviously BPA at the time....but not so much a need since the Colts just drafted a TE.  This is where drafting clear BPA is NOT the correct strategy...when there are so many other needs on the roster at positions that are more important. 

 

You can also say the same thing about drafting a FS at 15 when there are so many more holes at more important positions.  Obvious BPA doesn't justify a pick. 

 

 

[DougDew]

19 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

Yeah. 

 

This off-season will be fun. We are likely picking top 3 and we'll also have money to spend in free agency. 

 

I believe that with good improvements (and a healthy Luck), we could win 10 games - which might win the division in 2018. Our division is getting stronger though. Not the laughing stock of the NFL anymore.

 

If we trade our first back (staying in the top 10) then we could realistically have 4 of the top 42 picks in the 2018 draft. I would like to see what Chris Ballard could do with that kind of draft position. I also want to see how Ballard and the new coach works together. A GM listens to his coaching staff to draft what they need. That could open up some new topics of discussion, such as "do we go back to 4-3", and offensive style of play. 

 

Interesting, and could be fun times.  

So you're hoping Pagano, the Baltimore defensive specialist is fired?  Or do you want another TJ Green, Djoun Smith, and Bjoern Werner?

[DaColts85]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

To your point, the Colts had no TEs on the roster at the time and to get (what was supposed to be) a seam splitting TE in the 2nd round was a good strategy.  Fleener was (supposedly) good value at a position of need.

 

If you remember, the comment about DA was that he was chosen because obviously BPA at the time....but not so much a need since the Colts just drafted a TE.  This is where drafting clear BPA is NOT the correct strategy...when there are so many other needs on the roster at positions that are more important. 

 

You can also say the same thing about drafting a FS at 15 when there are so many more holes at more important positions.  Obvious BPA doesn't justify a pick. 

 

 

I can see drafting 1 of the TE's I guess.  I was not a fan of either pick really.  

 

Your last point I disagree with.  #15 picking a FS was still a needed spot as we had nothing to build off of there.  Butler is not a building piece.  So BPA just happened to be a solid athlete at FS.

[BlueShoe]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So you're hoping Pagano, the Baltimore defensive specialist is fired?  Or do you want another TJ Green, Djoun Smith, and Bjoern Werner?

 

Pagano will be fired. I can see no logical way we keep him around, and I also believe it’s time. We have given him every opportunity. 

 

The next coach will have the GM’s ear, and his scheme will dictate the type of players we bring in. Hopefully that relationship brings in players that can play well in the new coaching staffs system. 

[DougDew]

18 hours ago, dgambill said:

I think a lot were happy with it because they thought we were a player or two away from maybe winning the conference and the fact that we hadn't had a great rb since Edgerrin was here and they remember what he did for Peyton in those early years. Add the fact that it was expected to be a late first rd pick, Cleveland had already paid his signing bonus etc so his contract was very affordable, and I believe Vick Ballard had just got injured we thought that his early struggles were a result of Clevelands ineptitude......we didn't realize it was the start of our own. I don't hate Grigson for the move...we really could have benefited if it had worked out...right idea...just poorly executed...like so many of Grigson's moves. I was more upset that we never fixed the OL and the fact that we spent a 2nd and 3rd rd consecutive picks on TEs...I never was on the Fleener train.

Ballard, who was a stud that Grigson drafted, was indeed hurt and Donald Brown got nicked up again.  The Colts were off of an 11-5 season and needed a RB.  Since Brown was not in the future plans, kill 2 birds with one stone and fill the immediate need while also securing the future by trading a 1st round pick (low since you're winning) for the bell cow TR was thought to be.

 

Based on who was available in September, the alternative was to rent Toby Gerhart for the rest of the season for a 3rd round pick, so the rumors had it.

 

Given the circumstances, the correct decision was made.  But it didn't work out and here we are still in need of another RB.

[Jason_]

17 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I can't recall any one member in this forum that thought the trade for Richardson was not a good one at the time. A very late round #1 pick and his signing bonus paid for. All he cost was the rookie contract. I know hindsight can say we wasted a pick but who is to say our pick would not have been a bust now that we know Grigsons track record?  

 

There were a few and I was one of them.  I had no problem with them acquiring Richardson but hated that they gave up a 1st for him.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

I can see drafting 1 of the TE's I guess.  I was not a fan of either pick really.  

 

Your last point I disagree with.  #15 picking a FS was still a needed spot as we had nothing to build off of there.  Butler is not a building piece.  So BPA just happened to be a solid athlete at FS.

Yeah, but the roster is full of holes and FS is not a high priority position in any defense no matter how good the FS is.  JMO.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Pagano will be fired. I can see no logical way we keep him around, and I also believe it’s time. We have given him every opportunity. 

 

The next coach will have the GM’s ear, and his scheme will dictate the type of players we bring in. Hopefully that relationship brings in players that can play well in the new coaching staffs system. 

My point was that the last coach had the GMs ear.  That's how you get defensive players like Werner, Smith, and Green drafted so highly.  I'm sure the previous GM did not override his former DC's suggestion and drafted those players over his objections.  The problem with the former GM is that he didn't meddle in the decisions of Pagano enough...at least not on draft day.

 

I want the GM to listen to the HC on draft day.  But you first have to have a HC that understands college talent better.

[DaColts85]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, but the roster is full of holes and FS is not a high priority position in any defense no matter how good the FS is.  JMO.

What?  This is a huge position.

 

Eric Berry, Earl Thomas, Malcolm Jenkins, Tyrann Mathieu, and Devin McCourty to name a few off the top of my head playing now.

 

Ed Reed....game changer!

[dgambill]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard, who was a stud that Grigson drafted, was indeed hurt and Donald Brown got nicked up again.  The Colts were off of an 11-5 season and needed a RB.  Since Brown was not in the future plans, kill 2 birds with one stone and fill the immediate need while also securing the future by trading a 1st round pick (low since you're winning) for the bell cow TR was thought to be.

 

Based on who was available in September, the alternative was to rent Toby Gerhart for the rest of the season for a 3rd round pick, so the rumors had it.

 

Given the circumstances, the correct decision was made.  But it didn't work out and here we are still in need of another RB.

I think at the time most here had just watched Trent just dominate at Alabama and figured he was on a terrible team in Cleveland and that he would benefit from having less defenders in the box (I think there was some info out there that said he ran against 8 man box more than any other rb his rookie year) so we thought..great..we basically have the best two players in the 2012 draft. Nobody...I think nobody thought he would be a bust...they maybe just didn't approve of a first rd pick on a rb...but I think everyone can agree...when we got him we all thought he would be a good rb if not great....then he proceeded to find the back of the linemans jerseys and proceed to run right into it for a couple years before eating his way out of the league.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, dgambill said:

I think at the time most here had just watched Trent just dominate at Alabama and figured he was on a terrible team in Cleveland and that he would benefit from having less defenders in the box (I think there was some info out there that said he ran against 8 man box more than any other rb his rookie year) so we thought..great..we basically have the best two players in the 2012 draft. Nobody...I think nobody thought he would be a bust...they maybe just didn't approve of a first rd pick on a rb...but I think everyone can agree...when we got him we all thought he would be a good rb if not great....then he proceeded to find the back of the linemans jerseys at proceed to run right into it for a couple years before eating his way out of the league.

At the time, I did not like the idea of trading a first round pick for a RB, any RB (just like I don't like the idea of selecting a FS at 15, any FS).  At the time, it would have been a perfect decision to get TR for a second.

 

What we don't know is if Grigson was eager to trade the 1, or was reluctant to trade the 1 but had to because Cleveland knew we need a RB.  I think the latter but most of the forum believes the former.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

What?  This is a huge position.

 

Eric Berry, Earl Thomas, Malcolm Jenkins, Tyrann Mathieu, and Devin McCourty to name a few off the top of my head playing now.

 

Ed Reed....game changer!

Nah.  All of those teams have a heck of a pass rush and some pretty good CBs.  A FS just has to wait for the QB to toss one up, like Palmer did against us.  Ballhawking FS is overrated. 

[DaColts85]

Just now, DougDew said:

Nah.  All of those teams have a heck of a pass rush and some pretty good CBs.  A FS just has to wait for the QB to toss one up, like Palmer did against us.  Ballhawking FS is overrated. 

Well I disagree, but yet I will say there are other positions that are more important.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Nah.  All of those teams have a heck of a pass rush and some pretty good CBs.  A FS just has to wait for the QB to toss one up, like Palmer did against us.  Ballhawking FS is overrated. 

Coaches and front offices disagree with you

[aaron11]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nah.  All of those teams have a heck of a pass rush and some pretty good CBs.  A FS just has to wait for the QB to toss one up, like Palmer did against us.  Ballhawking FS is overrated. 

i disagree, picking a FS was fine but i am worried about his durability though 

 

what rookie defender taken after hooker made more impact than he did?  before he was hurt that is

 

his ints were not just gimmies by the QBs either.  he earned that one against palmer and the seattle one was also a great play by him 

[BlueShoe]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My point was that the last coach had the GMs ear.  That's how you get defensive players like Werner, Smith, and Green drafted so highly.  I'm sure the previous GM did not override his former DC's suggestion and drafted those players over his objections.  The problem with the former GM is that he didn't meddle in the decisions of Pagano enough...at least not on draft day.

 

I want the GM to listen to the HC on draft day.  But you first have to have a HC that understands college talent better.

 

The former GM was fired for meddling in Pagano’s coaching decisions. 

 

There is no perfect science to this. If it were that easy then every team would have a great draft history. 

 

You get two people together, and they start adding a staff. All we can do after that is hope for the best. It takes time to know if the right decisions were made.

 

If Chris Ballard finds a new coach who can work with him, and their ideas compliment each other then we will have something.

[Aluckiswolverine]

19 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

What claimed it was great?  Probably.

I loved the trade when it happened I thought Trent was going to be one of the best backs in the league. He was a monster in college and his rookie year he was great. I don’t understand what happened to that kid. I despise Grigson but I can’t blame him for the Richardson trade. What if he would have turned into a stronger better  Ladainian Tomlinson? 

[azcolt]

2 minutes ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

I loved the trade when it happened I thought Trent was going to be one of the best backs in the league. He was a monster in college and his rookie year he was great. I don’t understand what happened to that kid. I despise Grigson but I can’t blame him for the Richardson trade. What if he would have turned into a stronger better  Ladainian Tomlinson? 

If he was great as a rookie, why did the Browns dump him?

[Aluckiswolverine]

Just now, azcolt said:

If he was great as a rookie, why did the Browns dump him?

 Don’t know buddy but look at his rookie year numbers. If we had a back on the team in 2012 with his numbers we would have hyped him to no end. I’m not trying to get into a pissing contest with you. All I’m trying to say is I fell for the Richardson hype and I don’t think I was the only one. 

[dgambill]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

At the time, I did not like the idea of trading a first round pick for a RB, any RB (just like I don't like the idea of selecting a FS at 15, any FS).  At the time, it would have been a perfect decision to get TR for a second.

 

What we don't know is if Grigson was eager to trade the 1, or was reluctant to trade the 1 but had to because Cleveland knew we need a RB.  I think the latter but most of the forum believes the former.

I'm with you...RB, TE, and S to me are three positions I evaluate entirely different from the rest...like it isn't an equal value. I don't know I would take any in the first rd unless I thought they were like once in decade type talent. They just have to overwhelm me with their talent and play. I feel like you can find quality replacements much later in the draft and in FA and not see a significant decline in production. Granted I'm not a coach and I could just be stupid for thinking it but I've just have a hard time getting excited to draft one. There are always exceptions of course but I do understand where you are coming from. If that was a 2nd we traded for Trent I think even to this day nobody would be saying much about Grigson just saying Trent failed. The fact was Trent was a top 5 pick...his value was easily a first in the market...especially an expected late first. If Trent turned into even a solid starter I think people would have let it go...if he had turned into a star (what most expected when he came into the league) it would have been a steal....sadly neither happened. I was optimisitic because of his talent...plus he cost very little because of his contract status and we saved from paying him a bonus plus the first rd bonus we would have for a future player....we just never turned him or any of those savings into anything worth while unfortunately. But I don't think your alone on the RB in the first rd thing. It is one thing if an AP is sitting there or your one player away and its integral to your system....but I think many feel the same way....I just know how I felt....I thought Trent was going to be special...and it was a late first already paid for...so I thought good move.

[dgambill]

4 minutes ago, azcolt said:

If he was great as a rookie, why did the Browns dump him?

Hard to tell with the Browns during that tenure...they were a mess and had no direction....but I bet they were seeing what we soon learned...he was lazy and probably thought paying a first for a rb was a mistake lets see if we can get our 1 back...then used it on a horrible qb. We couldn't know all his personal issues...but I think his tape up until that point was promising enough to back up his college ability. I think its safe to say that Richardson is perhaps one of the biggest RB busts of all time....and there have been many...but his fall was FAR and GREAT.

[lollygagger8]

We are a heckuva lot closer to a good rebuild with Ballard at the helm than Griggles. 

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i disagree, picking a FS was fine but i am worried about his durability though 

 

what rookie defender taken after hooker made more impact than he did?  before he was hurt that is

 

his ints were not just gimmies by the QBs either.  he earned that one against palmer and the seattle one was also a great play by him 

Yet our pass defense sucks.  He can do a lot as a FS, but a FS can't do a lot in a defense...relative to having studs in the positions that matter more.

 

No chance to hawk a ball when the defense cant cover a short crossing route.

 

 

[aaron11]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yet our pass defense sucks.  He can do a lot as a FS, but a FS can't do a lot in a defense...relative to having studs in the positions that matter more.

 

No chance to hawk a ball when the defense cant cover a short crossing route.

 

 

the corners that were on the board have not made any more impact than hooker though.  

 

you cant just lock in on one position in the draft and say we have to take a corner in the first or im disappointed 

 

well i guess you can, but its not what real teams do.   there were no great pass rushers or oline there.  it was a weird draft class, deep in running backs and DBs

[BR-549]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the corners that were on the board have not made any more impact than hooker though.  

 

you cant just lock in on one position in the draft and say we have to take a corner in the first or im disappointed 

 

well i guess you can, but its not what real teams do

Yeah, BPA.... all positions matter.  Some more than others, but they all have to be addressed.  So our staff thought Hooker would make the most impact right now based on what was still available at any position.

 

Cant fix everything in one pick or one season even.  I am sure there is a plan to address the linebackers and pass rushers in some fashion this year... along with the OL.  Pass defense will improve because each piece that affects it will be improved as time goes on.

 

Stick to the plan

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Coaches and front offices disagree with you

Nah, coaches and FOs agree with me.  They want the FS to also come equipped with other elite skills, like man coverage abilities, etc.

 

So my statement that ballhawking FSs are overrated is correct.  We're talking about Hooker, who had nothing elite on his college resume other than his ability to hawk.

[BR-549]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yet our pass defense sucks.  He can do a lot as a FS, but a FS can't do a lot in a defense...relative to having studs in the positions that matter more.

 

No chance to hawk a ball when the defense cant cover a short crossing route.

 

 

Six in one half dozen in the other... so to do it this way we can cover short crossing routes but nothing deep and we get beat over the top.... who knows when a FS with Hooker's ability comes along again so you take him when we did.

 

Not disagreeing really, just justifying the pick.

[DougDew]

6 hours ago, aaron11 said:

the corners that were on the board have not made any more impact than hooker though.  

 

you cant just lock in on one position in the draft and say we have to take a corner in the first or im disappointed 

 

well i guess you can, but its not what real teams do.   there were no great pass rushers or oline there.  it was a weird draft class, deep in running backs and DBs

The Hooker pick was fine.  I would have held my nose and picked the FS at 15 if I had to also.  Sometimes drafts are weird like that.   But I wouldn't kid myself that I thought a player at that position would have a huge impact on a defense that has a bunch of holes.

 

And the pick was made better by the fact we got a good player at a more important position, of man cover CB, in the next pick.

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, BR-549 said:

Six in one half dozen in the other... so to do it this way we can cover short crossing routes but nothing deep and we get beat over the top.... who knows when a FS with Hooker's ability comes along again so you take him when we did.

 

Not disagreeing really, just justifying the pick.

Never really got beat over the top much with Adams or Butler. Of course the crossing route defense has been bad for a while, so who knows for sure.  I think we should do better than Adams or Butler, but high impact isn't in my vocabulary when talking about ballhawking FS.  No such thing unless the opposing QB frequently puts the ball in the air long enough.

 

A FS like Hooker wouldn't have much impact against a team like NE

[BR-549]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Never really got beat over the top much with Adams or Butler. Of course the crossing route defense has been bad for a while, so who knows for sure.  I think we should do better than Adams or Butler, but high impact isn't in my vocabulary when talking about ballhawking FS.  No such thing.

I think turnovers are impactful.  If Hooker increases our chance of that because of his abilities, then at some point it would be high impact.

 

Adams is old and Butler is on again off again... never know what you get with him.

 

But yeah, the whole route crossing issue is getting pretty old.  Now it seems teams (any team) can do it at will.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, BR-549 said:

I think turnovers are impactful.  If Hooker increases our chance of that because of his abilities, then at some point it would be high impact.

 

Adams is old and Butler is on again off again... never know what you get with him.

 

But yeah, the whole route crossing issue is getting pretty old.  Now it seems teams (any team) can do it at will.

I edited my previous post.  The opposing QB has to put the ball in the air long enough on a frequent basis for any centerfielding FS to have a chance at a pick. I would think that ballhawking FSs have little impact against a team like NE.  But Pagano might see it differently.

[azcolt]

5 hours ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

 Don’t know buddy but look at his rookie year numbers. If we had a back on the team in 2012 with his numbers we would have hyped him to no end. I’m not trying to get into a pissing contest with you. All I’m trying to say is I fell for the Richardson hype and I don’t think I was the only one. 

OK I just looked in case my memory was wrong but it turns out my memory was fine. Trent averaged 3.6 yards per carry in that great rookie season. And he was slightly worse 3.4 when early in his second season the Browns dumped him. That may have excited you and others but I thought we were getting pretty much what we did. 

[throwing BBZ]

21 hours ago, il vecchio said:

Fixing things as rookies?  Not likely.  Fixing things in year 3?  Much more likely.

 

 He is one of those that picked us to go 10-6 11-5 and anything can happen?
 You know them. Basham is a bust, Wilson sucks.

[Aluckiswolverine]

1 hour ago, azcolt said:

OK I just looked in case my memory was wrong but it turns out my memory was fine. Trent averaged 3.6 yards per carry in that great rookie season. And he was slightly worse 3.4 when early in his second season the Browns dumped him. That may have excited you and others but I thought we were getting pretty much what we did. 

His rookie year he set the record for most rushing yards and TD’s at the time. That was impressive to me. Thought we where getting and instant game changer at the RB spot. You do understand this is all my opinion at the time right? I’m really happy your football knowledge was able to predict he was going to bust because mine didn’t.