Marlon Mack / Le'Veon Bell

[throwing BBZ]

17 minutes ago, Calmack said:

He will be overpriced yeah. No doubt on that. But we will have a boatload of cap space. If he can do what Mack can't (which is break tackles, be a consistent receiving weapon, and find the whole every time) then I don't care what he'll cost. Hines and Wilkins are good role players. Give them a featured role and I doubt they'd be nearly as effective as they have been. You have no idea now much cap space we have. And we have to use a certain amount of it anyways. 

 

It makes more sense to add someone in the 4th or 5th round. That is how far you are out of touch on this subject.

[Calmack]

1 minute ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

It makes more sense to add someone in the 4th or 5th round. That is how far you are out of touch on this subject.

Please explain. A 4th or 5th rounder will be comparable to Bell? Or am I understanding you wrong. I'm not deying he's going to sign for more than he's worth. What Im saying is we have so much cap, and have to use a certain amount, that he wouldnt be a bad target in the offseason. 

[Hoose]

No Bell. Defense is needed far more. And another top caliber WR. 

[Superman]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000922000/article/colts-gm-freeagent-price-tags-pushed-focus-to-draft

 

Chris Ballard in March: "We looked in free agency, and we just didn't feel like we were at a point to where we wanted to add some of the guys at the price that they were at."

 

Colts fans since: "Ballard should sign a declining player at a non-premium position and make him the highest paid at that position in the history of the NFL!" 

 

I get that a lot of this is just message board talk to fill the time, but seriously, I think we all know that Chris Ballard is not going to make a play for Le'Veon Bell in free agency. Just full stop, it's not gonna happen.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, Calmack said:

Please explain. A 4th or 5th rounder will be comparable to Bell? Or am I understanding you wrong. I'm not deying he's going to sign for more than he's worth. What Im saying is we have so much cap, and have to use a certain amount, that he wouldnt be a bad target in the offseason. 

 

 Yes, a 4th or 5th rounder will be comparable to Bell. We need another Mack for depth/development.

Great question. Yes, 4 backs that can get it done for $2.5M is FAR better for roster building than what Bell offers for what he expect$. Simple ____! You clearly don't get the meaning of Connor being one of the top statistical RB's in the NFL for Pitt this season. They have the top rated O-Line. WOW! Imagine that Bell. 

 We DO NOT have to use ANY of our Cap next off season. We will of course for what our GM believes are Priority needs, and maybe extensions for our own. And it will be great to have a bundle rolled over into 2020 to sign More of our own or fill in holes cauded by injuries..
The fan fun part of this is, Players are going to want to come here because we look like WINNERS.  Maybe your Bell comes for $5M. I would do that on a one year Prove It deal.  

[richard pallo]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000922000/article/colts-gm-freeagent-price-tags-pushed-focus-to-draft

 

Chris Ballard in March: "We looked in free agency, and we just didn't feel like we were at a point to where we wanted to add some of the guys at the price that they were at."

 

Colts fans since: "Ballard should sign a declining player at a non-premium position and make him the highest paid at that position in the history of the NFL!" 

 

I get that a lot of this is just message board talk to fill the time, but seriously, I think we all know that Chris Ballard is not going to make a play for Le'Veon Bell in free agency. Just full stop, it's not gonna happen.

Chris Ballard this coming March after a surprising playoff run: " We are looking into free agency, and I feel we are at a point where we can now take advantage of our resources and add some young playmakers that can help us fill in the missing pieces to get us where we want to be."   

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Chris Ballard this coming March after a surprising playoff run: " We are looking into free agency, and I feel we are at a point where we can now take advantage of our resources and add some young playmakers that can help us fill in the missing pieces to get us where we want to be."   

 

Declining player... Non-premium position... Highest paid in NFL history.

 

You set the odds on this, since you're one of the prime advocates for signing Bell. How likely do you think it is that Ballard does this? Do you think there's a 1 in 100 chance of it happening?

[#12.]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Chris Ballard this coming March after a surprising playoff run: " We are looking into free agency, and I feel we are at a point where we can now take advantage of our resources and add some young playmakers that can help us fill in the missing pieces to get us where we want to be."   

 

That might be true, but it won't be Bell.  If we make the playoffs and play the Pats/Chiefs/Steelers we'll get a better idea about what we need to compete at that level.  I'm pretty happy with our backs, though.  In fact, I would like to see Wilkins get a few more carries.  We need to get Hewitt back, too.  

[richard pallo]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Declining player... Non-premium position... Highest paid in NFL history.

 

You set the odds on this, since you're one of the prime advocates for signing Bell. How likely do you think it is that Ballard does this? Do you think there's a 1 in 100 chance of it happening?

"Declining player" he's going to be 27 and he didn't take a hit this year,  "Non-premium position" I think all of the top teams have a top tier RB.  It makes sense to have a balanced attack you have to game plan for,  "Highest paid in NFL history"  Not that big a deal.  There are highest paid records set every year.  It's the new norm for the elite players.  How likely is it that Ballard signs him?  Like I said in my post it depends on how our running game finishes out the year.  Will they improve and get better to the point where a team has to worry about them or will they muddle along, misread holes, drop passes etc.  If it wasn't for Wilkens breaking some long runs on a few carries their YPC would be pretty low.  If we make a run and get close but the running game remains below avg. then I think Ballard will definitely make a run at Bell and Irsay will be all in.  If the running game, and Mack in particular, get going then the likelihood gets smaller.  Right now it's 50:50 until the season plays out.  In addition Bell would really generate excitement and help get those season ticket sales moving again.  Very important consideration for a small market team. 

[richard pallo]

9 hours ago, #12. said:

 

That might be true, but it won't be Bell.  If we make the playoffs and play the Pats/Chiefs/Steelers we'll get a better idea about what we need to compete at that level.  I'm pretty happy with our backs, though.  In fact, I would like to see Wilkins get a few more carries.  We need to get Hewitt back, too.  

I truly do not understand the underutilization of Wilkens.  I don't get that one at all. 

[aaron11]

the premium positions to me are QB, LT and edge, but running backs are still important

[Hoose]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I truly do not understand the underutilization of Wilkens.  I don't get that one at all. 

I think that will change in time. He's a solid player and a long term Colt IMO. 

But....to finish off this discussion: no Bell, please. He may be at the peak of his powers, but he's going to cost a mint and won't be the missing link for this team. And his decline, like seemingly all RBs except Frank Gore, will be swift. History shows us that. The Colts should and will go for other playmakers who will put the team over the top. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

"Declining player" he's going to be 27 and he didn't take a hit this year,

 

At the most physically demanding skill position. His stats are already declining, he's no longer a big play threat (57th in yards/attempt among RBs alone), and his high volume of touches doesn't result in a lot of TDs. We all know that 27 is dubious for a high usage RB, and we all know that Bell's decline has started already.

 

Quote

"Non-premium position" I think all of the top teams have a top tier RB

 

And only the Rams are paying a RB on a second contract, and he's still in Year 4 and 3 years younger than Bell.

 

Quote

 It makes sense to have a balanced attack you have to game plan for

 

There's no sense in paying top money for a RB when you can deploy a stable that is both more productive and more efficient at a fraction of the cost. And yes, our backs are on pace to be more productive overall (yards, catches, TDs) and more efficient per touch (yards/carry, yards/catch, TD %) than Bell was in 2017.

 

And we have a stable of JAGs, to be honest. We could easily upgrade at RB without giving a declining player a top market contract. We could add a RB who is more talented than all three of our current guys, keep four of them, and still be paying a third of what it would take to sign Bell.

 

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

 Right now it's 50:50 until the season plays out

 

I've got a bridge to sell you. Ballard isn't going to spend elite money on Le'Veon Bell.

[richard pallo]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

 

At the most physically demanding skill position. His stats are already declining, he's no longer a big play threat (57th in yards/attempt among RBs alone), and his high volume of touches doesn't result in a lot of TDs. We all know that 27 is dubious for a high usage RB, and we all know that Bell's decline has started already.

 

 

And only the Rams are paying a RB on a second contract, and he's still in Year 4 and 3 years younger than Bell.

 

 

There's no sense in paying top money for a RB when you can deploy a stable that is both more productive and more efficient at a fraction of the cost. And yes, our backs are on pace to be more productive overall (yards, catches, TDs) and more efficient per touch (yards/carry, yards/catch, TD %) than Bell was in 2017.

 

And we have a stable of JAGs, to be honest. We could easily upgrade at RB without giving a declining player a top market contract. We could add a RB who is more talented than all three of our current guys, keep four of them, and still be paying a third of what it would take to sign Bell.

 

 

I've got a bridge to sell you. Ballard isn't going to spend elite money on Le'Veon Bell.

I don't know about that.  After watching that pin ball NFL game last night the odds for signing Bell just might have gone up.  The Colts can score 30 points a game but they can't score 40 - 50 or more with our RB's?  I think the answer is No.   They could with Bell.  We have the elite QB and the elite WR and the elite TE's and now an elite OL.  But we have JAG's at RB as you stated.  That's the big difference between us and the Rams, Chiefs, and Saints.  They all have elite dual threat RB's.  The new NFL is all tilted toward the offense and if we want to be in the conversation we need an elite RB.  Ballard has done a good job with adding good young players to both sides of the ball.  They should only get better and I'm sure he will add a few more.  This years team is good and has gotten better.  And with Luck we should be favored to win the rest of our games.  Just QB vs. QB. gives us an advantage.  We have a good shot at the playoffs but we will find it hard to keep up with the scoring if we ever have to face the good teams in the playoffs.  We are not that far away.  I think Ballard will see that.  I think he knows our RB's are the big weakness of our offense.  And an elite RB is now available.  It's pretty obvious the NFL is all about offense and the better teams are all loaded with offense.  I think the rebuild everyone is on board with is just about over.  One more draft and FA and it will be over.  We will be SB contenders if we aren't already.  As you know I am hoping we add a few real good young playmakers is FA.  Bell, IMO, would be a good place to start.   Fill that glaring weakness and move on to defense. 

[Lawrence Owen]

13 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don't know about that.  After watching that pin ball NFL game last night the odds for signing Bell just might have gone up.  The Colts can score 30 points a game but they can't score 40 - 50 or more with our RB's?  I think the answer is No.   They could with Bell.  We have the elite QB and the elite WR and the elite TE's and now an elite OL.  But we have JAG's at RB as you stated.  That's the big difference between us and the Rams, Chiefs, and Saints.  They all have elite dual threat RB's.  The new NFL is all tilted toward the offense and if we want to be in the conversation we need an elite RB.  Ballard has done a good job with adding good young players to both sides of the ball.  They should only get better and I'm sure he will add a few more.  This years team is good and has gotten better.  And with Luck we should be favored to win the rest of our games.  Just QB vs. QB. gives us an advantage.  We have a good shot at the playoffs but we will find it hard to keep up with the scoring if we ever have to face the good teams in the playoffs.  We are not that far away.  I think Ballard will see that.  I think he knows our RB's are the big weakness of our offense.  And an elite RB is now available.  It's pretty obvious the NFL is all about offense and the better teams are all loaded with offense.  I think the rebuild everyone is on board with is just about over.  One more draft and FA and it will be over.  We will be SB contenders if we aren't already.  As you know I am hoping we add a few real good young playmakers is FA.  Bell, IMO, would be a good place to start.   Fill that glaring weakness and move on to defense. 

First off, We are a good running team in the NFL.  Only 14th in Yards per game 112, but we average 4.5 YPC as a team. I do not see our RB's as a weakness at all. 

As for needing to score 40-50 points to win a game...please.  Our defense is made (scheme wise) to make QB's throw short and march down the field, not give up big plays like the game you just watched.  There were 9 plays of 35+ yards total in that single game.  Indy has given up 1 single play all year of 40+.  Your not scoring 50+ in a game unless you get huge chunk plays.  Even though I've never been a zone scheme lover, I can definitely get behind not letting teams get behind our defense.

I think signing Bell to big $$ would be an absolute waste of resources.  Rather have a top corner, or edge rusher over a RB when our running game is more than adequate.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Lol....Are we already starting this dialogue again about RB's not being a premium position and not worth high draft/$$$ capital? It's not even offseason yet!

[Lawrence Owen]

7 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Lol....Are we already starting this dialogue again about RB's not being a premium position and not worth high draft/$$$ capital? It's not even offseason yet!

I think decent $ for a RB is fine.  But not for Bell, and not for Indy.  Our stable is pretty darn good IMO.  Could it be better? sure.  But are we really willing to pay 15 mil/year for an extra 20 horses on an engine that's running 250? I think that's a waste.

[richard pallo]

47 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

First off, We are a good running team in the NFL.  Only 14th in Yards per game 112, but we average 4.5 YPC as a team. I do not see our RB's as a weakness at all. 

As for needing to score 40-50 points to win a game...please.  Our defense is made (scheme wise) to make QB's throw short and march down the field, not give up big plays like the game you just watched.  There were 9 plays of 35+ yards total in that single game.  Indy has given up 1 single play all year of 40+.  Your not scoring 50+ in a game unless you get huge chunk plays.  Even though I've never been a zone scheme lover, I can definitely get behind not letting teams get behind our defense.

I think signing Bell to big $$ would be an absolute waste of resources.  Rather have a top corner, or edge rusher over a RB when our running game is more than adequate.

I disagree, our running games is adequate and that's it.  You don't even have to game plan or worry about them when playing the Colts.  They are average RB's not an elite RB/WR which changes everything.  You always have to account for and game plan against an elite RB.  So our defense is designed to give up short throws versus the deep throw.  So it takes a few extra throws to get to the red zone and boom we're in trouble.  Why do you have to choose one position over the other?  We have needs at all three and the draft and cap space to do it.  You just have to pick where to use it.  And which players become available can determine where to use it.  Elite players don't become available every year and most years we don't have the resources to compete.  Good players can become available but elite rarely.  This year we can compete.  I didn't say we are going to need to score 40-50 points to win every game.  But when we have to compete agains the big boys it looks like we will.  And right now we don't have the horses to go to do it.  We are primarily a one dimensional passing team with a running game no one really has to worry about.  

[MikeCurtis]

Since I put myself on "posting hold" about this particular player who may not be named.......

 

I look forward to Thanksgiving

 

I am thankful I am in a country where my big concern is what player the Colts may or may not take next year.........

 

My family is safe and healthy! My guts says (literally and figuratively) that I eat well!

 

Go Colts, and may God continue to bless the Colts nation!

  

[Superman]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

 I think he knows our RB's are the big weakness of our offense.  ...   Fill that glaring weakness and move on to defense. 

 

So I disagree with your stance and most of your post, but I'm focusing in on this part because I think maybe this is a more productive angle for us to discuss. 

 

Why do you think the Colts RBs are a weakness? Not to mention the biggest weakness on the offense? 

 

We're 14th in rushing yards, 12th in yards/attempt, and we have big play ability. We have three backs with varied but overlapping skill sets, which allows us to use all three of them in a variety of ways and settings. We can use them as receivers, we can convert in short yardage, and two of the three are capable pass protectors. In no way have our current backs restricted our offense this season, especially not when they've all been healthy.

 

Mack and Wilkins are near the top of the league in yards/attempt. Hines is near the top of the league in catches, targets, and catch percentage (among qualifying backs). 

 

What's wrong with our RBs?

 

Quote

That's the big difference between us and the Rams, Chiefs, and Saints.  They all have elite dual threat RB's. 

 

Last thing, while we'll probably never see eye to eye on this and it's probably not even worth mentioning... but that barn burner last night featured two top ten backs, and they were both nearly afterthoughts. Gurley didn't score a TD for the first time in 14 games, and Hunt's TD was a catch and run. The two teams combined for over 1,000 yards, scored more than 100 points, and ran almost 150 plays, and neither back got close to 100 yards or could even be considered a deciding factor in the outcome.

 

That game was won on the strength of dynamic passing attacks and playmaking defenses, not elite dual threat RBs. And only one of those teams spent a high draft pick on a back and/or is paying a back elite money (and it just so happens the Rams are the only team to do either). 

 

But again, that's not my sticking point here. I wonder why you think the Colts backs are such a weakness for this team.

[NewEra]

Bell is still a no for me

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

We are primarily a one dimensional passing team with a running game no one really has to worry about.  

 

I wonder what makes you think this. I guarantee our last three opponents have been concerned with stopping our rushing attack, and I get the feeling Miami is going to have trouble with our run game this week also.

[Lawrence Owen]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I wonder what makes you think this. I guarantee our last three opponents have been concerned with stopping our rushing attack, and I get the feeling Miami is going to have trouble with our run game this week also.

Agreed 100%  Our TE's blew up vrs the Jags because they focused on stopping the run and T.Y., Then Titans tried to by filling the box as well, but instead of T.Y., they focused on the TE.  We have a good (maybe not elite) RB stable that other teams absolutely have to respect.  Otherwise there would not be 7-8 in the box almost every snap.  How defenses are playing us right now says everything about our run game.

The reason they stack the box is because of what we did to the Bills and Raiders on the ground.

[Superman]

Even if the Colts absolutely need an upgrade at RB, the Saints and Chiefs both got their guy in the third round, and have them on cheap rookie deals for a couple more seasons.

 

How is it a good use of resources to spend $15m/year or more on a declining RB?

[Lawrence Owen]

52 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I disagree, our running games is adequate and that's it.  You don't even have to game plan or worry about them when playing the Colts.  They are average RB's not an elite RB/WR which changes everything.  You always have to account for and game plan against an elite RB.  So our defense is designed to give up short throws versus the deep throw.  So it takes a few extra throws to get to the red zone and boom we're in trouble.  Why do you have to choose one position over the other?  We have needs at all three and the draft and cap space to do it.  You just have to pick where to use it.  And which players become available can determine where to use it.  Elite players don't become available every year and most years we don't have the resources to compete.  Good players can become available but elite rarely.  This year we can compete.  I didn't say we are going to need to score 40-50 points to win every game.  But when we have to compete agains the big boys it looks like we will.  And right now we don't have the horses to go to do it.  We are primarily a one dimensional passing team with a running game no one really has to worry about.  

Just because a team scores 50 on another doesn't mean they'll do it against you.  This is a farce from the get go. schemes play as much of a role if not more than personnel. I will agree great scheme with elite personnel makes for more impactful plays, but I have yet to see anything to think we'd need to score 50 (or that we couldn't do it vrs that team if needed) vrs elite teams.  We are by no means a 1 dimensional passing team.  Look at the passing to running snap count  the past 5 games. Almost dead even.  This means we've been effective running the ball enough that we don't need to pass constantly.  When there is 7-8 men in the defensive box nearly the entire game, they are selling out to stop the run. So yeah, they ARE game planning against it.  It scares teams more than our passing attack.  Everyone would rather get beat by a 300 yard passing day, than a 200+ running day.  Because effectively running the ball puts the ball in your control. you control the rhythm of the game.  And they've been stacking the box to stop that.  

[Lawrence Owen]

On 11/19/2018 at 10:25 AM, richard pallo said:

"Declining player" he's going to be 27 and he didn't take a hit this year,  "Non-premium position" I think all of the top teams have a top tier RB.  It makes sense to have a balanced attack you have to game plan for,  "Highest paid in NFL history"  Not that big a deal.  There are highest paid records set every year.  It's the new norm for the elite players.  How likely is it that Ballard signs him?  Like I said in my post it depends on how our running game finishes out the year.  Will they improve and get better to the point where a team has to worry about them or will they muddle along, misread holes, drop passes etc.  If it wasn't for Wilkens breaking some long runs on a few carries their YPC would be pretty low.  If we make a run and get close but the running game remains below avg. then I think Ballard will definitely make a run at Bell and Irsay will be all in.  If the running game, and Mack in particular, get going then the likelihood gets smaller.  Right now it's 50:50 until the season plays out.  In addition Bell would really generate excitement and help get those season ticket sales moving again.  Very important consideration for a small market team. 

I just want to say something, and i really hope you don't take this in a bad way. 

The way you have been talking Bell up this entire year you remind me of someone from a few moons back.

Remember when Mike Ditka said he would give anything for Ricky Williams? Then flat out gave away every draft capital he had to the Redskins (8 picks, including 2 1st rounders) to go from the 12th pick, to the 5th pick to draft him. 

I am afraid this is the kind of tunnel vision you may be going through.  I do not disagree Bell is an elite RB.  But give give away so much resources for what i believe to be less than equal upgrade is not a healthy way to look at things.  Just my opinion.

[LockeDown]

No to Bell. I like the idea of a stable of RBs.  Fresh legs, young, etc

[braveheartcolt]

We are fighting for a wild card because of a relatively weak recieving corp, not because of our running backs. We should have made a pitch for K. Mack if we were going to splash out.  

[Lawrence Owen]

Just now, braveheartcolt said:

We are fighting for a wild card because of a relatively weak recieving corp, not because of our running backs. We should have made a pitch for K. Mack if we were going to splash out.  

While i agree with you. We don't know if Ballard did/or did not make a play for him and just got beat out.

[braveheartcolt]

1 minute ago, Lawrence Owen said:

While i agree with you. We don't know if Ballard did/or did not make a play for him and just got beat out.

I believe he did not bid, but I have no evidence to back it up.....

[stitches]

This might be a sacrilege for some here, but IMO Mack leaves yards on the field every week. He has very poor contact balance and gets taken down very easily by the slightest of arm tackles... and even sometimes trips himself up. 

 

This is not an endorsement of giving Bell a ton of money. If I had to choose to give Bell 15+ or have Mack be the starter for us I'd choose Mack relatively easily and acquiring a RB is definitely not high on the priority list for me, but I personally don't have high level of trust in Mack being the long-term solution for us and I think we can and should be looking for even better options at the position. For example if Montgomery somehow drops to round 3 in the draft I'd be pretty happy with picking him. Or if Tevin Coleman doesn't get a ton of money, I'd be happy with giving him a 1+1 type of deal(similar to Ebron's). 

[stitches]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

Even if the Colts absolutely need an upgrade at RB, the Saints and Chiefs both got their guy in the third round, and have them on cheap rookie deals for a couple more seasons.

 

How is it a good use of resources to spend $15m/year or more on a declining RB?

Would you give someone like... Tevin Coleman Ebron type of contract(1+1, around 7 per year)? 

[Yoshinator]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

This might be a sacrilege for some here, but IMO Mack leaves yards on the field every week. He has very poor contact balance and gets taken down very easily by the slightest of arm tackles... and even sometimes trips himself up. 

 

This is not an endorsement of giving Bell a ton of money. If I had to choose to give Bell 15+ or have Mack be the starter for us I'd choose Mack relatively easily and acquiring a RB is definitely not high on the priority list for me, but I personally don't have high level of trust in Mack being the long-term solution for us and I think we can and should be looking for even better options at the position. For example if Montgomery somehow drops to round 3 in the draft I'd be pretty happy with picking him. Or if Tevin Coleman doesn't get a ton of money, I'd be happy with giving him a 1+1 type of deal(similar to Ebron's). 

I 100% agree with the bolded. He has what I like to call "Madden RB syndrome". The same thing happens to any RB on the game when you make any sort of contact with a defender and you either fall down, trip, or have to fight to break a tackle. I hope this subsides with Mack.

[Lawrence Owen]

Also a stat for people to realize Mack and Wilkins have seen 8 man box's over 24% of the season. As opposed to say Gurley, who has seen it just over 8 %.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Also a stat for people to realize Mack and Wilkins have seen 8 man box's over 24% of the season. As opposed to say Gurley, who has seen it just over 8 %.

That sounds really counter-intuitive. Why would teams stack the box Vs Mack and Wilkins, and not Todd Gurley? Are we really that predictable?

[Lawrence Owen]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That sounds really counter-intuitive. Why would teams stack the box Vs Mack and Wilkins, and not Todd Gurley? Are we really that predictable?

Because we have had 2-220+ Yard rushing games maybe?  Or maybe it's because they are actually afraid of our run game vrs Luck's ability to shred them in the air with our Limp-noodled QB and no quality receivers?

But if you want the link...here :

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/rushing#percent-eight-defenders

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

This might be a sacrilege for some here, but IMO Mack leaves yards on the field every week. He has very poor contact balance and gets taken down very easily by the slightest of arm tackles... and even sometimes trips himself up. 

 

This is not an endorsement of giving Bell a ton of money. If I had to choose to give Bell 15+ or have Mack be the starter for us I'd choose Mack relatively easily and acquiring a RB is definitely not high on the priority list for me, but I personally don't have high level of trust in Mack being the long-term solution for us and I think we can and should be looking for even better options at the position. For example if Montgomery somehow drops to round 3 in the draft I'd be pretty happy with picking him. Or if Tevin Coleman doesn't get a ton of money, I'd be happy with giving him a 1+1 type of deal(similar to Ebron's). 

 

I said before the season and still believe, Wilkins is our most traditional back. He struggled early in the season, partly because the line play was bad but also because he didn't seem to be able to get to the second level, but he's shown serious big play ability each of the last two games.

 

Part of why I felt Wilkins is more complete is his one-cut nature. Mack is a bouncer and sometimes gets off balance, like you mentioned. Wilkins reminded me of Arian Foster in college, and I think he's shown a lot of that lately. He's also done a great job in pass pro. I'd like to see more balance between Wilkins and Mack, but Mack had those two great games and kind of took over a feature back role, with Wilkins being left on the bench. Reich has said they want to get Wilkins more touches, and I hope they do.

 

I probably wouldn't spend considerable money on a veteran RB, period. I'm okay with drafting another back, but I'm also okay with our current group.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That sounds really counter-intuitive. Why would teams stack the box Vs Mack and Wilkins, and not Todd Gurley? Are we really that predictable?

 

The Rams have better receivers and a more explosive passing attack. The Colts are more likely to go with a 3TE or 6OL set and run the ball into a heavier box.

[Lawrence Owen]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The Rams have better receivers and a more explosive passing attack. The Colts are more likely to go with a 3TE or 6OL set and run the ball into a heavier box.

This is very true. It was obvious and staring me right in the face for weeks now and never put 2 and 2 together. thanks

Still, IMO it says a lot that we run the ball with big formations and multiple TE sets well.   And well enough that opposing teams respect the run even though they know our TE's and ball.

[Dingus McGirt]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Owen said:

I just want to say something, and i really hope you don't take this in a bad way. 

The way you have been talking Bell up this entire year you remind me of someone from a few moons back.

Remember when Mike Ditka said he would give anything for Ricky Williams? Then flat out gave away every draft capital he had to the Redskins (8 picks, including 2 1st rounders) to go from the 12th pick, to the 5th pick to draft him. 

I am afraid this is the kind of tunnel vision you may be going through.  I do not disagree Bell is an elite RB.  But give give away so much resources for what i believe to be less than equal upgrade is not a healthy way to look at things.  Just my opinion.

Was.