Ongoing Colts 2018 draft talk........

[Aluckiswolverine]

11 minutes ago, Myles said:

Trading down a bit and drafting Nelson would be ideal.  

 

Those who want to draft Barkley, have you given up on Mack already?   I recall so many people, early this season, saying Mach should be our starter.   I think that Mack and Gore would be great behind a better line.  

I still think Mack could be a starter so many on this board are writing him off with the limited touches he gets.

 

I never want a player to get hurt especially one like Gore I respect his play. I think if Gore would have gone down 1st game of the season and he was IR’d I’m almost certain Mack’s numbers would be better right now than Gores. 

 

Thats why why I hope we don’t retain Gore next season. Let him play for a contender. Take the training wheels off and let Mack do his thing. 

 

 

[Aluckiswolverine]

Just now, Aluckiswolverine said:

I still think Mack could be a starter so many on this board are writing him off with the limited touches he gets.

 

I never want a player to get hurt especially one like Gore I respect his play. I think if Gore would have gone down 1st game of the season and he was IR’d I’m almost certain Mack’s numbers would be better right now than Gores. 

 

Thats why I hope we don’t retain Gore next season. Let him play for a contender. Take the training wheels off and let Mack do his thing. 

 

 

 

[Myles]

27 minutes ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

I still think Mack could be a starter so many on this board are writing him off with the limited touches he gets.

 

I never want a player to get hurt especially one like Gore I respect his play. I think if Gore would have gone down 1st game of the season and he was IR’d I’m almost certain Mack’s numbers would be better right now than Gores. 

 

Thats why why I hope we don’t retain Gore next season. Let him play for a contender. Take the training wheels off and let Mack do his thing. 

 

 

I don't agree with that.  I think Mack needs a better line to run up the middle.   The outside is his strong suit.   With Nelson and an improved line and Luck back under center, I think the Gore and Mack tandem would be great.

[esmort]

if we draft a guard or rb at #3 we deserve to rot at the bottom of the AFCS. 

[Hoose]

Pass rush. Pass rush. Pass rush. At #3, you get Chubb. Grab him and don't look back. 

[DarkHorse]

The draft all depends on what we do in free agency.  Spend the money, get at least a guard and a tackle, two guards are ideal.  Then we can get Chudd with the first pick

[DarkHorse]

1 minute ago, DarkHorse said:

The draft all depends on what we do in free agency.  Spend the money, get at least a guard and a tackle, two guards are ideal.  Then we can get Chubb with the first pick

 

[krunk]

19 hours ago, Myles said:

Trading down a bit and drafting Nelson would be ideal.  

 

Those who want to draft Barkley, have you given up on Mack already?   I recall so many people, early this season, saying Mach should be our starter.   I think that Mack and Gore would be great behind a better line.  

I don't really see it being a bad thing if they chose to draft Barkley.    I see it as akin to a potential Edgerrin James/Dominic Rhodes combo.   And Mack is a better back than Dominic Rhodes.  Mack blocking wise is on the same level as Dominic Rhodes though.  At least at this point.    I think he'll get better.   Either way I'd only be good with drafting Barkley if we brought in some significant young FA additions to the OL.   We'd have a killer play action game.

[krunk]

18 hours ago, Myles said:

I don't agree with that.  I think Mack needs a better line to run up the middle.   The outside is his strong suit.   With Nelson and an improved line and Luck back under center, I think the Gore and Mack tandem would be great.

Gore is not going to be here next year.  It's pretty certain.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 12/17/2017 at 5:13 PM, dw49 said:

 

No , if we beat Houston , we would pick 3rd in round one and as low as 7th in round 2. This assumes a loss at Baltimore.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

I am confused as to how if you have the 3rd pick in the first round you get the 7th pick in the second round?

[Defjamz26]

19 hours ago, Aluckiswolverine said:

I still think Mack could be a starter so many on this board are writing him off with the limited touches he gets.

 

I never want a player to get hurt especially one like Gore I respect his play. I think if Gore would have gone down 1st game of the season and he was IR’d I’m almost certain Mack’s numbers would be better right now than Gores. 

 

Thats why why I hope we don’t retain Gore next season. Let him play for a contender. Take the training wheels off and let Mack do his thing. 

 

 

I wouldn’t be opposed to drafting a RB outside the first 3 rounds. I haven’t seen the lead back ability in Mack yet. Maybe we do just need to fix the line and play him.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

I am confused as to how if you have the 3rd pick in the first round you get the 7th pick in the second round?

There could be a possible 5 way tie. We pick first of those teams in the 1st round and 5th in the 2nd round of those teams.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

3 hours ago, krunk said:

I don't really see it being a bad thing if they chose to draft Barkley.    I see it as akin to a potential Edgerrin James/Dominic Rhodes combo.   And Mack is a better back than Dominic Rhodes.  Mack blocking wise is on the same level as Dominic Rhodes though.  At least at this point.    I think he'll get better.   Either way I'd only be good with drafting Barkley if we brought in some significant young FA additions to the OL.   We'd have a killer play action game.

Mack is not as good a blocker as Rhodes was. IMO at this point Rhodes was a much better back Mack got to improve to reach Rhodes level!

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

There could be a possible 5 way tie. We pick first of those teams in the 1st round and 5th in the 2nd round of those teams.

Ok I always thought it was based on strength of schedule?

[Yoshinator]

14 minutes ago, krunk said:

I don't really see it being a bad thing if they chose to draft Barkley.    I see it as akin to a potential Edgerrin James/Dominic Rhodes combo.   And Mack is a better back than Dominic Rhodes.  Mack blocking wise is on the same level as Dominic Rhodes though.  At least at this point.    I think he'll get better.   Either way I'd only be good with drafting Barkley if we brought in some significant young FA additions to the OL.   We'd have a killer play action game.

I've only seen 5 complete Colts games this year on TV, but please ease my concern on this. Mack is completely ineffective in running up the middle and can really only do damage on the outside when Gore is also running the ball to make things more unpredictable. As of now to me, he is a Trent Richardson type that is more effective on the outside and that's it. A 4th rounder busting wouldn't be a horrible thing, but I don't see a lot of promise in him without another back taking the pressure off of him, much less any type of bell cow back in the future.

[aaron11]

Just now, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Ok I always thought it was based on strength of schedule?

for the first round it is.

 

then the order reverses in the second

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Ok I always thought it was based on strength of schedule?

 

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

for the first round it is.

 

then the order reverses in the second

Aaron is 100% correct, Horse Shoe Heaven.

[DougDew]

20 hours ago, Rackeen305 said:

My only concern is, Are the Colts drafting in 2017 for BPA. According to Draft History (i.e. FS HOOKER), The Colts always draft BPA. 

 

With that beening said, If RB Barkley is BPA, will the Colts draft RB Barley at #3. 

 

If not, would you as "Colts GM" have drafted RB Zeke Elliott with top 5 pick? (Mainly because Barkley is rated as Elliott production)

But don't look at the Cowboys success last year without considering Dak Prescott.  I still think RBs are a dime a dozen.  Some are definitely better than others but none of them take it to the house from behind the line of scrimmage like they used to.  NFL defenses are too fast for a RB to run past that many defenders when getting the ball three yards behind the LOS.   

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

3 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

I wouldn’t be opposed to drafting a RB outside the first 3 rounds. I haven’t seen the lead back ability in Mack yet. Maybe we do just need to fix the line and play him.

I like Mack but I am not sold yet, he doesn't like to run inside, he is not very physical, he likes to bounce everything outside and at this point teams play him that way. After a year under his belt he may change that habit? Hopefully. I do like his open field ability, and burst though!

[krunk]

14 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I've only seen 5 complete Colts games this year on TV, but please ease my concern on this. Mack is completely ineffective in running up the middle and can really only do damage on the outside when Gore is also running the ball to make things more unpredictable. As of now to me, he is a Trent Richardson type that is more effective on the outside and that's it. A 4th rounder busting wouldn't be a horrible thing, but I don't see a lot of promise in him without another back taking the pressure off of him, much less any type of bell cow back in the future.

You sure do get down on people fast but I do understand your concerns.  #1 our line is pretty bad and #2 he's had some good runs up the middle.  Just going off the top of my head I can name that long run he had against Tennessee as an example and some of the runs he had in the preseason.   He's not scared to go there, but definitely needs work knocking of some of the rookie mistakes and decision making.   Certainly he's a better outside runner than he is an inside runner.   And to me if you know that then you tailor the game more towards his strengths just like we do with Gore. 

 

We don't spend a lot of time trying to run Gore outside because it's not his strength.   I'm totally okay if Mack is better in a committee because we've always gone with the committee style. However I do think it's still very early to make definitive statements on these things.  He's the exact same size and to me the same speed as Jamaal Charles.   I want to see what he looks like with another full offseason adding strength and a little more size.  Not to mention working on that attrocious blocking.  If you're asking me to judge where he's at as of today I'd say he's more of a Running Back By Committee guy and it wouldn't bother me if we brought in another back to add to the mix.  I have no doubts about him being to help us though.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

10 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

for the first round it is.

 

then the order reverses in the second

Boo

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

You sure do get down on people fast but I do understand your concerns.  #1 our line is pretty bad and #2 he's had some good runs up the middle.  Just going off the top of my head I can name that long run he had against Tennessee as an example and some of the runs he had in the preseason.   He's not scared to go there, but definitely needs work knocking of some of the rookie mistakes and decision making.   But definitely he's a better outside runner than he is an inside runner.   And to me if you know that then you tailor the game more towards his strengths just like we do with Gore.  We don't spend a lot of time trying to run Gore outside because it's not his strength.   I'm totally okay if Mack is better in a committee because we've always gone with the committee style. However I do think it's still very early to make definitive statements on these things.  He's the exact same size and to me the same speed as Jamaal Charles.   I want to see what he looks like with another full offseason adding strength and a little more size.   If you're asking me to judge where he's at as of today I'd say he's more of a Running Back By Committee guy.

Krunk I usually agree with what you post, and I do agree about seeing what Mack looks like in another year, but at this point Mack DOES NOT like to run inside that is glaringly apparent to me. He has some size but he does use it yet? He does have a burst and nice open field ability though.

[krunk]

3 minutes ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Krunk I usually agree with what you post, and I do agree about seeing what Mack looks like in another year, but at this point Mack DOES NOT like to run inside that is glaringly apparent to me. He has some size but he does use it yet? He does have a burst and nice open field ability though.

I didn't say he likes to run inside.   What I said was he's had a few good inside runs.  And I said that to say I don't see why he couldn't get better.   And again our line is bad.   The majority of the runs he gets he's usually met in the backfield before he gets anywhere.  I also mentioned that I think as of right now I think he's more of a committee runner.   His major strength is the outside runs, but he's no coward on the inside.  Definitely needs to improve though.   And again I think harping on the inside running is like harping on Gore for not being an outside runner.   Gore is going to the hall of fame for being an inside runner, not an outside runner.  But in saying that we know he hasn't gone his entire career without running on the outside at different points.   You have to do both things but I think you should do more of what your strength is.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, krunk said:

I didn't say he likes to run inside.   What I said was he's had a few good inside runs so I don't see why he couldn't get better.   And again our line is bad.   The majority of the runs he gets he's usually met in the backfield before he gets anywhere.

The problem with this and Mack is that Gore can get some inside runs for decent yardage and Mack can't. I guess Mack has a reputation already for running to the outside and gets stuffed everytime he goes down the middle. Either way, it's not good, and he'll never succeed as anything besides an outside runner and pass catching rb unless he is able to get comfortable as an inside runner as well.

[krunk]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The problem with this and Mack is that Gore can get some inside runs for decent yardage and Mack can't. I guess Mack has a reputation already for running to the outside and gets stuffed everytime he goes down the middle. Either way, it's not good, and he'll never succeed as anything besides an outside runner and pass catching rb unless he is able to get comfortable as an inside runner as well.

We'll see what happens.    I do know he can help us for sure.

Whether he's a lead back or committee guy only time will tell.

I'm anxious to see what he looks like in year 2.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

7 minutes ago, krunk said:

I didn't say he likes to run inside.   What I said was he's had a few good inside runs.  And I said that to say I don't see why he couldn't get better.   And again our line is bad.   The majority of the runs he gets he's usually met in the backfield before he gets anywhere.  I also mentioned that I think as of right now I think he's more of a committee runner.   His major strength is the outside runs, but he's no coward on the inside.  Definitely needs to improve though.   And again I think harping on the inside running is like harping on Gore for not being an outside runner.   Gore is going to the hall of fame for being an inside runner, not an outside runner.  But in saying that we know he hasn't gone his entire career without running on the outside at different points.   You have to do both things but I think you should do more of what your strength is.

I don't harp on Gore he is more of and inside guy with a jump cut occasionally. He good at that. Mack IMO has holes inside and chooses to take it outside. Watch defenses play the Colts when he is in and they scheme him towards that tendency. I don't think he is a coward, but he will need to curb that tendency if he wants to be a complete back, or he could pigeon hole himself into becoming a 3rd down specialist pass catcher to get him into hopefully open field situations were he seems to shine. 

[krunk]

9 minutes ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

I don't harp on Gore he is more of and inside guy with a jump cut occasionally. He good at that. Mack IMO has holes inside and chooses to take it outside. Watch defenses play the Colts when he is in and they scheme him towards that tendency. I don't think he is a coward, but he will need to curb that tendency if he wants to be a complete back, or he could pigeon hole himself into becoming a 3rd down specialist pass catcher to get him into hopefully open field situations were he seems to shine. 

I agree overall.  I think some tendencies take a while to break if you've been getting away with it in high school and college then you don't immediately stop doing it when you get in the pros.  It takes a little while to change those habits.  Hopefully we see the growth in year 2.   Actually I'm hoping to see it beginning with these last two games.  But more than that I'm hoping to see some inprovement with his blitz pick up and pass blocking.  Right now he's not very good at it and the quarterback pays for it.  That's part of why he doesn't get the carries we think he should be getting.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

7 minutes ago, krunk said:

I agree overall.  I think some tendencies take a while to break if you've been getting away with it in high school and college then you don't immediately stop doing it when you get in the pros.  It takes a little while to change those habits.  Hopefully we see the growth in year 2.   Actually I'm hoping to see it beginning with these last two games.  But more than that I'm hoping to see some inprovement with his blitz pick up and pass blocking.  Right now he's not very good at it and the quarterback pays for it.  That's part of why he doesn't get the carries we think he should be getting.

Your right although I have seen some improvement! When he runs inside I would like to see him be more  physical and run with his head up instead of him putting his head down and hoping to get through.  Next year will be a big year for him and he may be fine.  Not sure I want an early round back but I would like to see a big downhill runner or later in the draft   To cover the bases.

[Rackeen305]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

But don't look at the Cowboys success last year without considering Dak Prescott.  I still think RBs are a dime a dozen.  Some are definitely better than others but none of them take it to the house from behind the line of scrimmage like they used to.  NFL defenses are too fast for a RB to run past that many defenders when getting the ball three yards behind the LOS.   

 

Are you answering my question, or stating your own opinion.? My question to the board was:

 

  22 hours ago, Rackeen305 said:

My only concern is, Are the Colts drafting in 2017 for BPA. According to Draft History (i.e. FS HOOKER), The Colts always draft BPA. 

 

In other words, Are the Colts drafting for Best Player Available (i.e. FS Hooker) or drafting for need? If its need, Then the better of the following positions needs to get drafted in Rd1:

 

(not in any order)

Offensive 

OL/OG/RB/WR/TE

 

Defensive

ILB/Rush LB/CB/Safety

 

As you can see, The Colts need the same thing in 2017 as 2016 Draft. Especially ILB/Rush LB and Offensive Line help.

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

But don't look at the Cowboys success last year without considering Dak Prescott.  I still think RBs are a dime a dozen.  Some are definitely better than others but none of them take it to the house from behind the line of scrimmage like they used to.  NFL defenses are too fast for a RB to run past that many defenders when getting the ball three yards behind the LOS.   

Well everyone seems to be of the opinion you shouldn't draft a RB in the 1st. rd.  But there have certainly been quite a few taken in the 1st. round the last few years.   Apparently a lot of GM's aren't thinking that way. 

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

I agree overall.  I think some tendencies take a while to break if you've been getting away with it in high school and college then you don't immediately stop doing it when you get in the pros.  It takes a little while to change those habits.  Hopefully we see the growth in year 2.   Actually I'm hoping to see it beginning with these last two games.  But more than that I'm hoping to see some inprovement with his blitz pick up and pass blocking.  Right now he's not very good at it and the quarterback pays for it.  That's part of why he doesn't get the carries we think he should be getting.

His poor pass blocking and blitz pick up could actually be contributing to his lack of playing time.  He's too much of a liability there where Gore excels at it. 

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

Are you answering my question, or stating your own opinion.? My question to the board was:

 

  22 hours ago, Rackeen305 said:

My only concern is, Are the Colts drafting in 2017 for BPA. According to Draft History (i.e. FS HOOKER), The Colts always draft BPA. 

 

In other words, Are the Colts drafting for Best Player Available (i.e. FS Hooker) or drafting for need? If its need, Then the better of the following positions needs to get drafted in Rd1:

 

(not in any order)

Offensive 

OL/OG/RB/WR/TE

 

Defensive

ILB/Rush LB/CB/Safety

 

As you can see, The Colts need the same thing in 2017 as 2016 Draft. Especially ILB/Rush LB and Offensive Line help.

Both I guess, regarding the issue of RB at #3.

 

There is a marriage between need and BPA that has to make sense.  Combine that with positional value and, IMO, RBs shouldn't be taken at pick #3, or Gs, ILBs, or Ss, for that matter.

 

So if Chubb is close to being the BPA at #3, then the planets align because edge/OLB is also a team need and an impactful position.

[Reboot]

Of the 12 teams who would make the playoffs if they started today, 9 out of the 12 rank in the top 10 in rushing yards this season.  The other three rank 13, 16, and 21.  So 11 out of 12 in the top half of the league.  I'm not suggesting a RB is a priority, but being able to run the ball is still important in the NFL, even if to limit the amount of time a mediocre defense is on the field.  And of the 12 "today" playoff teams, 3 have first round RBs, and 4 second round RBs.  Maybe anecdotal, but I don't think as much has changed in the NFL as everyone loves saying.  It's still a game that is primarily won in the trenches, by those who control the tempo and ball.  I would be just fine with the Colts taking Barkley.  I also know that the line is the priority.  Nothing works without one. 

[Hoose]

But I doubt any of them took a RB with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the draft. Or even close. Elliott for the Cowboys would be the exception as he was, I believe, a top 5-10 pick. 

 

Why would the team not pair up the BPA with their top need? Especially when the caliber of that player cannot remotely be duplicated in later rounds? 

 

If things stay the same in April as they are today, you pick Chubb.  A top pass rusher is the most critical  need for this team. They don't come along often, and Chubb should fall right into their lap. 

[Reboot]

1 hour ago, Hoose said:

But I doubt any of them took a RB with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the draft. Or even close. Elliott for the Cowboys would be the exception as he was, I believe, a top 5-10 pick. 

 

Why would the team not pair up the BPA with their top need? Especially when the caliber of that player cannot remotely be duplicated in later rounds? 

 

If things stay the same in April as they are today, you pick Chubb.  A top pass rusher is the most critical  need for this team. They don't come along often, and Chubb should fall right into their lap. 

Fournette was 4th overall last year, so close.  I completely disagree that a top pass rusher is the most critical need on what likely will end up a 3-13 team.  But that doesn't mean I don't like Chubb.  I do.  But as a 4-3 DE, so what the Colts do defensively next season would determine his value to the Colts to me.  Can't round hole square peg that pick.  There are a lot of really good options for Ballard, led by what we all hope is Luck's healthy return and over $70 million in free agent money, two things that make that pick even more flexible. 

[BOTT]

On 12/15/2017 at 8:35 PM, csmopar said:

We need OL help all along the line. I hate to quote the Blindside movie,  but here it goes

 

 

first check you write is for the mortage(insert franchise QB here), second check is for the insurance(insert OL here) . 

 

Normally im a best player available type of person in the draft. This go around there's two players, both about the same grade level, both are in positions of need, Nelson/Chubb. I feel that as of now, our larger hole is on the OL, so I'd go Nelson.

 

that said, if we get some above average OL players in FA, I'd go away from that view point or if someone else jumps out at the combine or in the bowl games. 

I will quote bill Polian: don't draft guards in the first round.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The problem with this and Mack is that Gore can get some inside runs for decent yardage and Mack can't. I guess Mack has a reputation already for running to the outside and gets stuffed everytime he goes down the middle. Either way, it's not good, and he'll never succeed as anything besides an outside runner and pass catching rb unless he is able to get comfortable as an inside runner as well.

 

It's a phenomenon, but 9 out of 10 of Mack's inside carries get blown up in the backfield, and it has nothing to do with Mack. He doesn't have Gore's vision, anticipation, or feel for where the hole will be, but few do. Mack is a little too anxious to bounce to the outside, but honestly, this is overstated at this point. He's shown that he can stick with the design of the play on inside runs, including critical short yardage downs like last week.

 

In all, the sample size is far too small to make any legitimate determinations about whether Mack can be a load carrying, pace setting lead back. He has never carried the ball more than 11 times in a game for us, half of his carries are designed to go outside, and most importantly, every aspect of our offense is underperforming this season, especially the line, and you can't run effectively with terrible line play (Gore is only averaging 3.6 yards/carry; Mack is at 3.8). I wouldn't pigeon-hole Mack at this point. He hasn't had a real chance to show what he can do.

 

I'm a RBBC advocate, so I'm all for bringing in backs who have different running styles and forming a rotation. And if we get good offensive coaching, that rotation will vary depending on the matchup and the flow of the game. I don't think we need one guy who is the load carrying, pace setting lead back, but if that guy emerges organically, good for us.

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's a phenomenon, but 9 out of 10 of Mack's inside carries get blown up in the backfield, and it has nothing to do with Mack. He doesn't have Gore's vision, anticipation, or feel for where the hole will be, but few do. Mack is a little too anxious to bounce to the outside, but honestly, this is overstated at this point. He's shown that he can stick with the design of the play on inside runs, including critical short yardage downs like last week.

 

In all, the sample size is far too small to make any legitimate determinations about whether Mack can be a load carrying, pace setting lead back. He has never carried the ball more than 11 times in a game for us, half of his carries are designed to go outside, and most importantly, every aspect of our offense is underperforming this season, especially the line, and you can't run effectively with terrible line play (Gore is only averaging 3.6 yards/carry; Mack is at 3.8). I wouldn't pigeon-hole Mack at this point. He hasn't had a real chance to show what he can do.

 

I'm a RBBC advocate, so I'm all for bringing in backs who have different running styles and forming a rotation. And if we get good offensive coaching, that rotation will vary depending on the matchup and the flow of the game. I don't think we need one guy who is the load carrying, pace setting lead back, but if that guy emerges organically, good for us.

I forgot what game it was, but I remember Gore and Mack had around 10 carries each and I believe Mack had something like 9 carries for 90 yds and a td or something (could be a bit off). When you play both somewhat like the Saints did with Ingram and Kamara, it can be very effective. Gore won't be here next year, but I'd like to have someone from this year's draft to team with Mack in the same way the Saints do it, with both on the field at the same time each play.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I forgot what game it was, but I remember Gore and Mack had around 10 carries each and I believe Mack had something like 9 carries for 90 yds and a td or something (could be a bit off). When you play both somewhat like the Saints did with Ingram and Kamara, it can be very effective. Gore won't be here next year, but I'd like to have someone from this year's draft to team with Mack in the same way the Saints do it, with both on the field at the same time each play.

 

The Niners game, 9 carries, 91 yards. He can do things Gore cannot, and if you put him in a timeshare and get him in space with fresh legs, he's a dangerous weapon.

 

Ingram and Kamara are being used masterfully by Brees and Payton (Ingram has 51 catches, Kamara has 68). That's that "good offensive coaching" part I was talking about. I will say they don't typically share the field at the same time, that's more of a specialized package.

 

Not that I'm pushing for it, but I wouldn't mind having Le'Veon Bell... More realistically, Crowell, Darkwa, Hill, Hyde and others are free agents in 2018. A modest contract for a more traditional runner with starting experience makes sense for the Colts.

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's a phenomenon, but 9 out of 10 of Mack's inside carries get blown up in the backfield, and it has nothing to do with Mack. He doesn't have Gore's vision, anticipation, or feel for where the hole will be, but few do. Mack is a little too anxious to bounce to the outside, but honestly, this is overstated at this point. He's shown that he can stick with the design of the play on inside runs, including critical short yardage downs like last week.

 

In all, the sample size is far too small to make any legitimate determinations about whether Mack can be a load carrying, pace setting lead back. He has never carried the ball more than 11 times in a game for us, half of his carries are designed to go outside, and most importantly, every aspect of our offense is underperforming this season, especially the line, and you can't run effectively with terrible line play (Gore is only averaging 3.6 yards/carry; Mack is at 3.8). I wouldn't pigeon-hole Mack at this point. He hasn't had a real chance to show what he can do.

 

I'm a RBBC advocate, so I'm all for bringing in backs who have different running styles and forming a rotation. And if we get good offensive coaching, that rotation will vary depending on the matchup and the flow of the game. I don't think we need one guy who is the load carrying, pace setting lead back, but if that guy emerges organically, good for us.

 

Since you're talking running backs here, I thought I'd join the conversation...

 

Short of finding a flat-out stud,   I too prefer RBBC...    but what I'm curious about from Ballard is this...    will he prefer another back who would contrast with Mack by being more of a power back..    like the Bears Jordan Howard, a 5th round pounder...     OR....    would he prefer to copy the Falcons,  a Dome/Carpet team that has two backs with more similar abilities...   Freeman and Coleman, whose strengths are more speed, quickness, and elusiveness..    would he prefer someone more similar to Mack?     I doubt Ballard will tip his hand until the Colts call the name draft night...    but I'd love to know his preference...