This game shows the obvious needs we need on Offense next year...Ballard needs to act../Bell (merge)

[Lawrence Owen]

3 minutes ago, BOTT said:

The colts face a lot of 8 man boxes because they play more 2&3 tight end formations than anyone in the league.....so it's not really a "stacked box" Mack is facing.

Those are short yardage formations though. Not really meant to break big gains.  So still to average that with those formation is impressive.

If we had a 2nd stud WR, we'd be able to spread the defense out more..have less big bodies on the defense and Mack would have more open space to run.  Still say a big time WR is a better way to go.

[Lawrence Owen]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

10-12 mil?   He turned down more than that from the Steelers.   

Exactly my point.  I'd not spend 17+mil on any RB.  Some people seem to think because of the interest he's shown in coming to the Colts, he settle for a lot less.  I don't think so myself, I just think he see's our cap space and thinks he can cash in.

If he'd sign for 10-12 mil, then it would show he actually wants to be here, and  not hurt the Colts build a team that has a chance to be super bowl contenders for years to come.  (I just don't think he would).

[BOTT]

Just now, Lawrence Owen said:

Those are short yardage formations though. Not really meant to break big gains.  So still to average that with those formation is impressive.

If we had a 2nd stud WR, we'd be able to spread the defense out more..have less big bodies on the defense and Mack would have more open space to run.  Still say a big time WR is a better way to go.

They are probably playing less 3 TE sets after Doyle got hurt,  but having, Ebron, Doyle and Cox on the field at the same time presents some major problems for the defense.

Having said that, colts do need another legit threat at WR.

[HectorRoberts]

I like Mack a lot but I think having a weapon like bell could be a big help to the passing game I’m not going to advocate for bell but if he ends up in Indy I wouldn’t hate it.

[MPStack]

1 minute ago, HectorRoberts said:

I like Mack a lot but I think having a weapon like bell could be a big help to the passing game I’m not going to advocate for bell but if he ends up in Indy I wouldn’t hate it.

I like Mack a lot but I think having a weapon like bell could be a big help to the passing game I’m not going to advocate for bell but if he ends up in Indy I wouldn’t hate it.

EIEIOOOOO

[Calmack]

5 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

 

You've said he is not durable enough and can not break tackles. that he has not "proven" he can.  That Reich won't workhorse him because he is afraid of him getting injured. 

My response was he can do all of this, but has not because Reich calls the plays as he sees them. If he needs to throw because of how the game is going, that's what he does.  8-man boxes will divert him from running because that is what coaches do. make play call's to what the defense is showing.  It has nothing to do with durability.

Reich and Mack i think proved yesterday that this is not the case.  Mack carried it 27 times for 139 and 2 TD's.  5.1 YPC.  As I said, the more you run it, the BETTER he will get. He was still able to run the ball late in the game because they wore down the Cowboys defense. he was steady from start to finish.  AND he was breaking arm tackles the entire game, getting 2-3 extra yards/carry. 2 plays to watch, The one where he put his hand on the back of the blocking o-lineman and followed him up the sideline was actually very Bell-ish.  And that goal-line run from 4 yards out was impressive. Broke 4 arm tackles getting in.  Mack is just fine as our main back to run the ball.  

I honestly only trust mack with Kelly at C. He clears lanes like no one else

[richard pallo]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Exactly my point.  I'd not spend 17+mil on any RB.  Some people seem to think because of the interest he's shown in coming to the Colts, he settle for a lot less.  I don't think so myself, I just think he see's our cap space and thinks he can cash in.

If he'd sign for 10-12 mil, then it would show he actually wants to be here, and  not hurt the Colts build a team that has a chance to be super bowl contenders for years to come.  (I just don't think he would).

He can see the Jets cap space too.  Also the Browns.  He just wants to get paid what he's worth.  Once he's a FA the market will dictate his worth and he will pick his team.  Who knows maybe the Jets offer him 17m and we offer him 16m and he chooses us.  Maybe we pay him 15m but with more guaranteed money than anyone else.  It's not black and white you know.  Everyone loves Ballard so let him work it out if he thinks Bell is the playmaker we need.  He said himself any FA signing has to be a win for the player and the team.   Trying to say that signing him is going to hurt our chances of building a SB team for years to come is just silly.  I don't buy that reasoning at all.  I think Ballard knows how to plan for the future.  

[Lawrence Owen]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

He can see the Jets cap space too.  Also the Browns.  He just wants to get paid what he's worth.  Once he's a FA the market will dictate his worth and he will pick his team.  Who knows maybe the Jets offer him 17m and we offer him 16m and he chooses us.  Maybe we pay him 15m but with more guaranteed money than anyone else.  It's not black and white you know.  Everyone loves Ballard so let him work it out if he thinks Bell is the playmaker we need.  He said himself any FA signing has to be a win for the player and the team.   Trying to say that signing him is going to hurt our chances of building a SB team for years to come is just silly.  I don't buy that reasoning at all.  I think Ballard knows how to plan for the future.  

Oh, i'm a Ballard truster.  I just not sold he'll sign Bell for that kind of $$.  Not with what he's preached.  I think if Ballard brings him in, see's his character and works him out. (still need to do that after such a big drop in YPC his last year) and likes what he sees, He may give him a proposal. Whether Bell likes it or not, or if Ballard & Bell can come to an agreement on $$ remains to be seen.

I am just saying that I like Mack as our main RB.  I think he's done pretty good considering.  8th in the NFL in yards /game, and 6th in YPC for RB's over 150 carries is good production.

[Lawrence Owen]

I just went and looked. Indy is 5-0 When Mack gets 15 or more carries in a game this year.  That says a lot.

[jszfunk]

Stick with Mack. He is a little younger than Bell,less wear and tear. I don't want a head case here. Mack is proving he is productive behind this O Line.

We need another WR to go along with TY. That's were the focus need a to be. 

[akcolt]

I don’t think there is any chance CB pays Bell. I wouldn’t He may look to add another RB. I think he will look at the draft if that’s the case. I wouldn’t expect an early selection In fact my guess is we stick with the 3 RB’s that have been drafted in the last two drafts. 

[SteelCityColt]

9 hours ago, aaron11 said:

bell could be that target, the free agent WR market never has anyone special.  mack is 21st in yards too, i care more about that than ypc

 

im not even worried about cap space when we have 120 million that has to be spent soon.  there is plenty to bring in bell or anyone else 

 

 

 

You care more about total yards than YPC or YPG.. why?

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

You care more about total yards than YPC or YPG.. why?

My thoughts exactly. Strange one. 

[Dingus McGirt]

11 hours ago, HectorRoberts said:

I like Mack a lot but I think having a weapon like bell could be a big help to the passing game I’m not going to advocate for bell but if he ends up in Indy I wouldn’t hate it.

You would ... soon after he's signed and the media circus starts.  Diva Diva Diva.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

You care more about total yards than YPC or YPG.. why?

because ypc numbers are not as impressive if its over a small sample size

 

macks ypc does look good, but hes 21st in rushing and the colts are 20th in team rushing.  i think we need more from our lead back and im still not convinced hes the guy to do it.  

 

[aaron11]

double post

[aaron11]

42 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

My thoughts exactly. Strange one. 

i would rather have 1000+ yards at 4 ypc instead of 500 yards at 5 ypc.  its about sample size and season long production from our first string RB

[Yoshinator]

18 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i would rather have 1000+ yards at 4 ypc instead of 500 yards at 5 ypc.  its about sample size and season long production from our first string RB

That is so wrong. In the first scenario, it takes 250 carries to achieve 1,000 yards. In your second scenario it takes 100 carries to achieve 500 yards. Add 100 carries and you have 200 carries for 1000 yards on average. That leaves 50 plays (run or pass) to add added production of any kind from anyone in the run or pass game. That's why your logic is wrong.

[aaron11]

13 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

That is so wrong. In the first scenario, it takes 250 carries to achieve 1,000 yards. In your second scenario it takes 100 carries to achieve 500 yards. Add 100 carries and you have 200 carries for 1000 yards on average. That leaves 50 plays (run or pass) to add added production of any kind from anyone in the run or pass game. That's why your logic is wrong.

its not wrong, you are assuming that mack or whoever can actually keep those ypc numbers up over a bigger sample size.

 

its easier to have a higher average with fewer attempts.  look at wilkins, do you really think he is one of the best backs to ever play with his 5.6 ypc, or is that due to small sample size?  i think its the latter 

 

i dont think wilkins is better than AP or sanders or payton.  this is where my logic came from and i think its sound

[aaron11]

its about team production too, we are 20th in rushing as a team and our lead back is 21st.  see the correlation there?  

 

ypc doesnt mean much over a small smaple size

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

its not wrong, you are assuming that mack or whoever can actually keep those ypc numbers up over a bigger sample size.

 

its easier to have a higher average with fewer attempts.  look at wilkins, do you really think he is one of the best backs to ever play with his 5.6 ypc, or is that due to small sample size?  i think its the latter 

 

i dont think wilkins is better than AP or sanders or payton

Ok, I'll go on. Even if Mack can't keep it up, it doesn't matter. I'm using your example here. 250 carries for 1000 yards Vs 100 carries for 500 yards. To do this, you would also be assuming that those 1000 yards would be worth more than the 500 yards from mack and 150 random snaps (pass and run). Lets divide that up 75/75 pass and run to be fair. Add 300 yards rushing to be fair (Mack would decline from 5 YPC to 4 in this scenario), you still have 75 pass attempts from Luck. He will EASILY surpass 200 yards in 75 pass attempts. The overall production from those 250 snaps with Mack AND Luck as opposed to just an elite back in Bell is HUGE! If Luck completes 50/75 of those passes for 400 yards (being conservative), that's 1200 yards with Luck and Mack compared to 1000 with Bell in the same amount of snaps.

 

Sometimes less is more.

[aaron11]

12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Ok, I'll go on. Even if Mack can't keep it up, it doesn't matter. I'm using your example here. 250 carries for 1000 yards Vs 100 carries for 500 yards. To do this, you would also be assuming that those 1000 yards would be worth more than the 500 yards from mack and 150 random snaps (pass and run). Lets divide that up 75/75 pass and run to be fair. Add 300 yards rushing to be fair (Mack would decline from 5 YPC to 4 in this scenario), you still have 75 pass attempts from Luck. He will EASILY surpass 200 yards in 75 pass attempts. The overall production from those 250 snaps with Mack AND Luck as opposed to just an elite back in Bell is HUGE! If Luck completes 50/75 of those passes for 400 yards (being conservative), that's 1200 yards with Luck and Mack compared to 1000 with Bell in the same amount of snaps.

 

Sometimes less is more.

  4 ypc is more than enough to move the chains consistently, do that for a 1000+ yards a season and thats a lot of first downs.  every time you rush it tires out the line and linebacker making it easier to pass

 

your argument is that we dont need rushing yards if we can just pass instead?   we dont need to pass that much if we can run with more consistency and run out the clock 

[Yoshinator]

Just now, aaron11 said:

  4 ypc is more than enough to move the chains consistently, do that for a 1000+ yards a season and thats a lot of first downs.  every time you rush it tires out the line and linebacker making it easier to pass

 

your argument is that we dont need rushing yards if we can just pass instead?   we dont need to pass that much if we can run with more consistency 

My argument is that the combined rushing yards with Mack and the passing yards with Luck in the same amount of snaps that you gave an example with of Bell (250) is more productive than 250 solo carries with Leveon Bell. Luck isn't just a random QB either. He's borderline elite and can be relied on to put those stats. As long as Kelly is back, Mack will continue to put up similar numbers as well. He's the catalyst to run the ball. Luck and Mack>Bell in 250 snaps.

[aaron11]

the simplest way for me to put this is id like to see us higher than 20th in team rushing.  mack isnt getting us there, someone like bell or another more consistent back could do that 

[SteelCityColt]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

because ypc numbers are not as impressive if its over a small sample size

 

macks ypc does look good, but hes 21st in rushing and the colts are 20th in team rushing.  i think we need more from our lead back and im still not convinced hes the guy to do it.  

 

 

So on the one hand your saying that YPC on a small sample size can be misleading (valid) but the offer up total yards (a blinking volume stat) without applying the same context. It’s a tad.. illogical. 

 

Given our team make up, I’d rather we were higher in YPC than total yards. Being able to efficiently run the ball when we choose makes Luck oh so much more dangerous. 

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

So on the one hand your saying that YPC on a small sample size can be misleading (valid) but the offer up total yards (a blinking volume stat) without applying the same context. It’s a tad.. illogical. 

 

 

 you dont often see backs go over 1000 without being in the ball park of 4 ypc.  i was assuming they would be around there rather than some unrealistic number like 1000 yards off 2 ypc 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

i would rather have 1000+ yards at 4 ypc instead of 500 yards at 5 ypc.  its about sample size and season long production from our first string RB

That makes sense when looking at the team as a whole.  But when looking at the effectiveness of a RB, yards per carry is a more accurate measuring stick.  The RB is not the one that makes the call on when he gets to carry the ball.  Basically in your scenario the RB has to carry the ball 150 more times and that is out of the RBs' hands.

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

That makes sense when looking at the team as a whole.  But when looking at the effectiveness of a RB, yards per carry is a more accurate measuring stick.  The RB is not the one that makes the call on when he gets to carry the ball.  Basically in your scenario the RB has to carry the ball 150 more times and that is out of the RBs' hands.

i get that, i just question if mack can even carry a heavy load.  i do like the guy i still think he would be better as a back up.  he has big games here and there, and then goes quiet for a while

 

the coaches seem to stop feeding him when he is struggling, while backs like AP or bell always want a lot of carries and they produce more often than not.  fwiw i was hoping they would sign peterson last year, he would be good compliment to mack and wasnt expensive like bell

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, aaron11 said:

i get that, i just question if mack can even carry a heavy load.  i do like the guy i still think he would be better as a back up.  he has big games here and there, and then goes quiet for a while

 

the coaches seem to stop feeding him when he is struggling, while backs like AP or bell always want a lot of carries and they produce more often than not.  fwiw i was hoping they would sign peterson last year, he would be good compliment to mack and wasnt expensive like bell

So, when Mack is struggling, you think the Colts stop giving him the ball because, unlike AP or Bell, mack doesn't want a lot of carries?

[SteelCityColt]

27 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

 you dont often see backs go over 1000 without being in the ball park of 4 ypc.  i was assuming they would be around there rather than some unrealistic number like 1000 yards off 2 ypc 

 

But you’ve now provided context to you total yards number by using... YPC. This is why it didn’t seem a very logical position you initially took. 

 

Volume stats can be hugely misleading. See 2015 Blake Bortles.

 

No one here will say Bell isn’t a great player, but his price tag is a lot and you can get that production through other means for much much cheaper. 

[aaron11]

Just now, Coffeedrinker said:

So, when Mack is struggling, you think the Colts stop giving him the ball because, unlike AP or Bell, mack doesn't want a lot of carries?

i dont think he can handle a lot of carries.  we all know that peterson can

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

No one here will say Bell isn’t a great player, but his price tag is a lot and you can get that production through other means for much much cheaper. 

regarding this, he doesnt actually have a price tag now.  he has to accept what hes offered or hes out of the league.  what happens if  hes offered 10-12 million and thats it?

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, aaron11 said:

i dont think he can handle a lot of carries.  we all know that peterson can

Ok, I think he can and he's proven that several games this year

[SteelCityColt]

Just now, aaron11 said:

regarding this, he doesnt actually have a price tag now.  he has to accept what hes offered or hes out of the league.  what happens if  hes offered 10-12 million and thats it?

 

He walked away from more this year so who knows.. I’d say it’s unlikely he signs for less than 12. 

 

Besides contract value is smoke and mirrors, it’s rhe guaranteed money that’s the bit I’m interested in. Cousins may have set a new precedent there. 

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Ok, I think he can and he's proven that several games this year

hes missed games this year and been ineffective a few times too.  hes  inconsistent and hasnt shown much durability.  no running back can fill the stat sheet every single week, but mack has been boom or bust  

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

hes missed games this year and been ineffective a few times too.  hes  inconsistent and hasnt shown much durability.  no running back can fill the stat sheet every single week, but mack has been boom or bust  

The variable with Mack is that he's boom when Kelly is in and bust when he's out. That's not the best thing to rely on Kelly's health, but it is relatively consistent. Who knows how Bell will do if we sign him and Kelly gets hurt again.

[KB]

Anyone notice that Conner was out against the Patriots? Anyone see that the RB they used was someone they just drafted and was a TE. Had a great game running the ball.

 

Bell was a product of the Steelers, not the other way around. Not worth the money or headache. We can draft a 4 round rb this year and he better off in the long run.

[ColtStrong2013]

I've been an advocate of at least entertaining the idea of Bell. But after seeing this unit run over the #1 run defense, and then seeing players talk about the unselfishness of the team and how wonderful it is... i'm not sure I see Ballard even entertain it. I was never a believer in a player like Bell being an issue in the lockerroom, if he brings the talent and proves he's worth the money he held out for... but I'm starting to think it could be for this young roster. Ballard might stay away just to send a message to his team that those antics are unacceptable for this organization. It will be interesting. We'll know if Ballard is in the mix or not...

[hoosierhawk]

Locker room, locker room, locker room. Locker room>Bell.

[aaron11]

7 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Locker room, locker room, locker room. Locker room>Bell.

he did mess up the steelers locker room, but im not sure that would follow him here.  he wont come to indy if hes not happy with the contract.

 

i think they miss him more than people realize too.  they are running well without him, but imagine what they could do with him as a receiver in the back field, while having brown and JJ taking the coverage downfield