Jump to content
TKnight24

With the 36th & 37th pick, Indianapolis Colts select Darius Leonard & Braden Smith

Recommended Posts

On 4/20/2019 at 3:47 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry, Jared...    I'm not trying to be difficult,  but this post is mostly false.    And full of the frustration that a disappointed fan can have.

 

Grigson's 2012 draft,  his first,  was judged at the time to be the 9th best in the history of the draft.    And yet,  a number of years down the line most of the players flamed out...   either they got hurt,  (Fleener,  Chapman,  Ballard) or their performance tailed off for variouis reasons. (Allen, Brazil)    Some things are just out of a GM's hands.  

 

You are what your record says you are...  11-5, 11-5 and 11-5 and further in each round of the playoffs in his first three years..   His two worst years while he was GM were 8-8.   But, the roster got old, slow and less talented on his watch.   But that doeesn't make him 32 out of 32 GM's.   So, no, I don't think Luck wasted the first 5 years of his career.   Certainly not the first 3.    Of course,  IMO,  Grigson IS responsible for Ballard's 4-12 first year.   That was Grigson's mess that Ballard had to clean up.

 

And I don't think people who supported Grigson in his early years should be taking a hit.   Not from you or anyone else.    Ultimately he was not good at his job.   He deserved to be fired.   But people were calling for his head in year 3, when we went to the AFC Championship game.    Those fans weren't right because Grigson ultimately lost his job.    That's like saying someone who always proclaims it's 12 o'clock is some genius because he's right twice a day.    Fans didn't know what was coming in 2014.    The fact that they were right was more fluke than anything else.  Those of us who supported Grigson had good reason to do so.   Those of us who stopped supporting Grigson also had good reason to do so.   He stopped being good at his job.

 

Fans weren't very impressed with Ballard after his first year.   One year later,  and he's a genius.   Fans are emotional and fickle.   They love you when your winning and not so much if you're not.

After Ballard's great draft last year,  you  say he deserves the benefit of the doubt.   Great, I agree with you.    But in your previous sentence you felt the need to qualify it by saying  "barring a positional reach or bad positional draft early..."     You're already ready to pounce should Ballard do something you think is wrong and stupid and he hasn't even done it yet.   But you're ready to proclaim that the current smartest guy in the room is suddenly not.    The honeymoon would be over.

 

That's what fans do.   Grigson is not as bad as you think.   And Ballard will make his share of mistakes.   Not because I doubt him,  but because everyone in the personnel business does sooner or later.   The job is much harder than you think it is.  Things are rarely as obvious as they seem.  

 

Yes he had 2 very very good drafts in 2011-2012. But after 2014 I wanted him gone.

 

When you draft Bjoern Werner one year with your first pick and then next year trade your 1st rounder for Trent Richardson, I think you deserve to be fired

 

Those are 2 very egregious offenses.

 

Hindsight right now, I wouldn't have fired him simply because we wouldn't have gotten Ballard if we fired him so soon. But we still should've fired him sooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J@son said:

 

See Brandon weeden and margus hunt. It's rare, but it does happen :P

Yeah that is true. Weeden made me laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

Did I say anything dumb in here?  Is there any way to search without going through all 5 pages?

 

Just assume you did, it's easier that way...

 

I didn't even post in this thread until a few days ago, so I'm safe. I made my own thread after the draft to combine all my stupidity in one place.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigQungus said:

Hindsight right now, I wouldn't have fired him simply because we wouldn't have gotten Ballard if we fired him so soon. But we still should've fired him sooner

 

Probably not, but maybe. Ballard was in the rotation for at least a couple years, getting interviews, declining interviews, etc. He was a finalist for the Bears job in 2015. I found the article linked below to be very enlightening, especially looking at how Ballard has operated since joining the Colts.

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-greg-gabriel-chris-ballard-ryan-pace-20150108-story.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 3:21 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I do.  Saying anything except "the jury is out until year 3" is premature drivel from either side.

 

We can look back now and say Nelson, Leonard, and Smith were great picks, but even that is premature because it's only been one year.

 

This entire "HoF" 2018 draft class might completely $#!+ the bed this year (God, I hope not), in which case, Ballard didn't "nail it" and hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

So far, so good, but the jury is out until 2021.  :hat:

 

Well....   to be fair,  the 3-year rule is not typically applied to rookies who show they can quickly play at this level.

 

No one was saying let's not judge Andrew Luck until after 3 years.    We knew after year 1 that he was special.      And I'd say the same applies to Nelson and Leonard.      I think it DOES apply to Smith.   He's learning a new position on the fly at the NFL level.    Never easy.

 

Our young kids who haven't fully demonstrated just how good they will be have a few more years to get better.     Ballard talked about that today in his presser.    These young kids need time.   

 

That said,  the best of the best,  the cream of the crop,  they show themselves pretty quickly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 9:06 AM, Chloe6124 said:

I remember Luck in his presser last week said he wants more TD. That’s good for Ebron and funchess. I do think we can expect funchess and Ebron to each get around 8 TD. I will be shocked if either gets double digits.  If they do that means luck will have had a career year and might get mvp. I also won’t consider it a failure for Ebron if his TD are half and funchess gets the other half. It doesn’t really mean he wasn’t as important. Teams are going to have a hard time covering all 3 in the red zone. 

 

I'm not sure when Luck made that comment that he's talking about more TD passes....   He's talking about more touchdowns for the overall offense.     Fewer field goals,  and more touchdowns.    Let's get 7 points on the drive instead of 3 points.

 

We might get many more touchdowns this year,  but a number of them could possibly be from the running game....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Just assume you did, it's easier that way...

 

I didn't even post in this thread until a few days ago, so I'm safe. I made my own thread after the draft to combine all my stupidity in one place.

 

True but I generally pride myself in not presuming that draft picks will work out poorly before the ball is even snapped.

 

I might say that I would have preferred one guy over another.  But that's about as bad as it gets.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • IMO this is the wrong way to look at it. IMO the reason they drop 7-8 is not because they don't fear the run game - it's because they fear the pass game much more than they fear the run game. This is especially true when you have a combination of 1. Exceptional QB with great receivers and 2. bad running game. In general the level of fear that teams should show is:   1. Fear of great passing attack 2. Fear of bad passing attack 3. Fear of great running attack 4. Fear of bad running attack.    And the distance between 1 and 4 should be light years! And when you get on your team both great passing attack and horrible running attack this forces opponents to send more help to cover.    It is not a coincidence that teams with great running backs like KC(before Hunt got banished) and the Saints(Kamara) and the Rams(Gurley) faced the least amount of stacked boxes ... this goes directly against what you would assume teams would do in a situation where they face elite running backs. The reason is - they just feared those teams passing games MUCH MORE! The passing game dictates how many people you send to cover much more than the running game.    And at the same time teams like Dallas, TEN, JAX had most stacked boxes - it's because the opponents didn't fear their passing game. I'm using just anecdotes here but the data overall supports that. The passing game strength overall dictates coverage vs run support much more than the quality of the run game. The weaker your pass game is the more stacked boxes you will see almost regardless of how good your RB/running game is.    I said 'almost' above because I can see a situation where you need to have some base level of a threat from the run. You need to at least be a threat to run it.   The short answer is ... weak passing game. Notice that this is all relative. No team will 100% leave 8 in the box and not team will 100% leave 8 in coverage. We are talking about percentages. The weaker the passing game, the more attention your run game will get from the defense pre-snap. This is alignment based... now once the snap is made the defenders have to read run and pass keys in order to know whether they should choose optimal strategy for run defense or pass-defense. In general the reason play-action(and RPO) works is because of the THREAT of the run, not the success of the run(it doesn't matter if you run it for 4.2yards a run(where we were last year) or 4.7yard a run(where Reich wants us to be). So ... my point is not that you have to completely ignore the run. You don't ignore it. You still have to keep the threat that you will run it(by running it often enough) in order to make the defenders still read the keys and give you the extra second or so that running the play action gives you while the defenders are reading the run key you are giving(faking to) them. You just don't generally care much if you run for 4.7 or 4.2 when it comes to your passing game or your play-action game. Teams react the same way to 4.7y teams as they do to 4.2y teams when it comes to play action as long as you keep the threat that you will run high enough to make defenders still read their run keys. (now this is another thing I have not seen yet, but expect at some point in the future- some defensive coordinator will say - just screw it - play the pass 100% and don't read the run keys... play the run on your way to the passer and I don't know what will happen then)      Well, that quote is a bit of an exaggeration to bring the point across. You won't really wait for the old timers to die out. Just... the more young blood comes in(Shanahan, McVey, etc.) and tries the new stuff and succeeds with it against the old strategies the more the old timers that are unable to adjust will lose their jobs to the new kids and so on. This pretty much already happened in the NBA. It's a new league now compared to just 5-10 years ago. It didn't happen because the old timers died out, it happened because the new strategies proved better and more efficient and even some of the old timers borrowed from them and incorporated them into their game plans. IMO similar things are happening and will continue to happen in the NFL. It probably will take longer because in general the NFL seems more conservative of a league but IMO it will happen sooner or later.    In 20-30 years I think we will be laughing at things like "establish the run" or "first we need to stop the run", just like we would be laughing at statements like "what this team really needs is more post ups for their center" or "this guy should have just taken one dribble into the 2p range and taken the shorter 20 feet jumper instead of the 24 feet open 3" in the NBA-context right now. 
    • Thats a bummer.  She is talented and her and Matt Taylor worked well together. 
    • "But really what is going to set the tone for us is going to be how we run the football. That is not going to change. We have to run the football. Our goal is going to be a top-five rushing football team. That will set up our play-action pass. That will set up all the big chunk plays. To me that will get us where we want to go.” https://www.colts.com/news/top-takeaways-frank-reich-on-otas-day-1     Just as Reich has stated above I do believe a good ground game opens up more favorable passing opportunities because teams have to committ more personnel than they would like to run defense. That in itself sets up more opportunities for you to get one on one coverage down the field.  I think you get less of those opportunities if you can't run.   If I want more one on one coverage down field I'd like to know how I'm supposed to do that if I don't need to run? I guess maybe you'd say screens or something?  I'm sure he's saying this based off what he's experienced during games and what he's seen on film.
    • One of my issues and I belive Princeton Tiger brought it up also was when your running game is not very effective.  For example in Peytons last years in Indy our run game was abysmal and teams literally ignored all of our play action fakes. Or you can even look at some of our seasons under Pagano.  They dropped 8 and rushed three a large majority of the time because they had little fear that we could do anything on the ground.  Do you think that happens to us with a successful rushing attack? I personally don't believe so.   I think when you are able to run it forces the defense to leave less defenders in coverage.   I don't want to turn this into a long drawn out debate but I believe your contention was it isnt the amount of times you run but more of the effect of the play action itself.  So when the defense is ignoring the play action then what is it that would cause them to honor it again? I believe you would have get some kind of success from your running game which enhances those play action fakes.  It's not just the play action fakes themselves.  I don't really think you need any type of data during a game to tell you that if the defense is committing 8 men or more in the box you've got a better chance of completing passes on the defense.  What causes the defense to committ 8 to 9 men in the box?  A successful running game gets them to do that more often than not.  I think it creates more opportunities for you to face lighter numbers of defenders when you want to pass the ball.   I got to be honest here and say I can't go toe to toe with you on all that stat crunching, but there's just a few things I will just never buy about that data.   And if you're waiting for bodies(us old school thinkers) to die it's going to be a long, long, long time before that happens in the game of football.........
    • He could "beast", and still be a bad addition to the locker room in the long run. 
  • Members

    • stitches

      stitches 5,226

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CamMo

      CamMo 769

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • John Hammonds

      John Hammonds 365

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • newb767

      newb767 27

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewEra

      NewEra 3,602

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • erock

      erock 25

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Buck Showalter

      Buck Showalter 3,770

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Legend

      Legend 3,586

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jskinnz

      jskinnz 5,163

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 451

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...