Would you trade for Antonio Brown?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

7 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

 

mack is 16th why lie

I made a mistake. I read something and misinterpreted it. I wasn’t lying. It was a honest mistake and I apologize.  

 

It still doesn’t change my opinion we don’t need either one of them.

[shasta519]

45 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I don't see Ballard trading draft picks for a 30 year old diva WR and making him the 2nd largest paid player on the team.

 

I don't think he would either. But the question was "would you trade for AB?...and I think I would.

 

A late 2nd round pick or 3rd round pick is nothing to give up for three years of an elite WR. 

 

I get that he has shown mercurial behavior...but people are overvaluing a draft pick and undervaluing Brown. Over the past five years, his average AV is ~15. To put that in perspective, TY's average AV over the same time (including his monster 2016 season) is barely above 10. That means AB has provided roughly 50% more value over the past five seasons. 

 

And if traded, AB would only cost <$200k more than TY each year. The difference is negligible. AB is a year older...but if you are comfortable paying TY for his age 29-31 seasons, you should be comfortable paying AB for his age 30-32 seasons.

 

I don't think AB's skill set is one that will suddenly deteriorate. He's not some big WR whose leg injuries will take a toll or who will lose the ability to separate...or some burner who will lose a step. He's an incredible, crafty route runner who can catch. Sounds a lot like a Colts WR who played with Luck...and look at what he was able to do after age 30. And AB is arguably a better WR.

 

Let's also not forget how good AB (like TY) has been in the playoffs. Over the past six games, Brown has averaged ~113 yards/game and has 4 TDs. That type of production in the biggest games is worth a pick by itself.

 

Again, Ballard probably won't go for it...and that's fine. But I would do it...especially if I felt my team was in a position to win a Super Bowl (which the Colts probably should be heading into next season). AB helps maximize the upcoming 2-3 year window...at the end of which it will be time to start paying players and Hilton will likely be gone.

 

But it's just a thought exercise.

 

[TheMiz]

Next year will be AB's age 31 season. I wouldn't argue that he's not worth the money, he's been one of the best in the game for a while. I would argue that he's a diva and a cancer and wouldn't want him anywhere near my young team.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The minute someone else got all the touches in a game he would go off.  We are a team that distributes the ball over a bunch of players. He is not a good fit and I would never take a chance of him blowing up and ruining my team. It’s one thing to want the ball it’s another to walk out on your team. Then to trash your coach on Instagram during his press conference. That is unacceptable.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

Andrew Brandt is a great follow on Twitter.  He had a really interesting take regarding AB yesterday.

 

1) His cap hit to Pittsburgh next year makes it a near certainty that he won't be traded.

 

2) The time when he can actually be traded is not for another 60 days which gives all this current furor time to die down and become if not a non-story, certainly a diminished story.

 

As to would the Colts do it were it realistic.

 

1) I see a trade for AB upsetting the culture that Ballard and Reich have created.

2) I don't see any way that Ballard would give up the necessary draft capital necessary to get AB from the Steelers.

3) I think Ballard wants to give the truly big contracts to guys who are Colts.  It is virtually impossibly for me to see him bringing in someone from outside 56th Street who will be the highest or 2nd highest paid player on the team.  

 

Yeah...the dead cap hit makes it not worth it. But on the flip side, it gives the team trading for AB a great deal. Considering guys like Watkins are getting $16M/year and Cooper will probably get closer to $18M/year this offseason...getting AB for <$13M/year and minimal gtd money is a steal.

 

On #3...I would hope there are exceptions. Not that there won't be Colts players deserving...but because it is going to be a long while before any current Colts player will need to be made the second-highest paid player on the team.

 

If a legit Pro Bowl or All Pro player became available in FA (or cheap in trade), I would hope Ballard is willing to pull the trigger. For example, if DAL lets Lawrence get to FA...Irsay should send Ballard and Eberflus on the private jet the first chance they get.

 

But who knows if they will get that chance or any. I just think that all of that cap space gives Ballard a ton of fleixibility to take advantage of situations.

[jskinnz]

45 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yeah...the dead cap hit makes it not worth it. But on the flip side, it gives the team trading for AB a great deal. Considering guys like Watkins are getting $16M/year and Cooper will probably get closer to $18M/year this offseason...getting AB for <$13M/year and minimal gtd money is a steal.

 

On #3...I would hope there are exceptions. Not that there won't be Colts players deserving...but because it is going to be a long while before any current Colts player will need to be made the second-highest paid player on the team.

 

If a legit Pro Bowl or All Pro player became available in FA (or cheap in trade), I would hope Ballard is willing to pull the trigger. For example, if DAL lets Lawrence get to FA...Irsay should send Ballard and Eberflus on the private jet the first chance they get.

 

But who knows if they will get that chance or any. I just think that all of that cap space gives Ballard a ton of fleixibility to take advantage of situations.

 

I think the chances of Lawrence hitting free agency are virtually non-existent.

 

I sincerely doubt that the Colts will be players for the high dollar free agents.  I think they will be selective again and pursue the Autry's and Ebron's of the 2019 class.  I could be wrong on that but I think we see a repeat of the 2018 free agent class.

[crazycolt1]

39 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the chances of Lawrence hitting free agency are virtually non-existent.

 

I sincerely doubt that the Colts will be players for the high dollar free agents.  I think they will be selective again and pursue the Autry's and Ebron's of the 2019 class.  I could be wrong on that but I think we see a repeat of the 2018 free agent class.

I am not sure of when the Colts cap money has to be spent. Superman may have that answer but they cant just keep rolling over big money. It has to be spent sometime or take a chance of losing some of it.

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am not sure of when the Colts cap money has to be spent. Superman may have that answer but they cant just keep rolling over big money. It has to be spent sometime or take a chance of losing some of it.

i think its after next season.  this is a good time to start spending, rather than going into next year needing to spend almost all of it

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i think its after next season.  this is a good time to start spending, rather than going into next year needing to spend almost all of it

Yeah it's nice to have a big amount to spend but finding the right players in free agency may be a problem?

[colts8718]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[shasta519]

19 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i think its after next season.  this is a good time to start spending, rather than going into next year needing to spend almost all of it

 

I think it's a great time to spend. There is like a 2-3 year window where they don't have any incumbent players that need to be paid...outside of AC and Kelly after next year. And who knows...maybe they look for AC's replacement in one of the next two drafts.

 

With cleverly constructed contracts...the Colts could easily cycle through much of the gtd money and not miss a beat. The problem is having the right guys to spend it on.

 

The new CBA is a WC though.

[BleedBlu8792]

2 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I think it's a great time to spend. There is like a 2-3 year window where they don't have any incumbent players that need to be paid...outside of AC and Kelly after next year. And who knows...maybe they look for AC's replacement in one of the next two drafts.

 

With cleverly constructed contracts...the Colts could easily cycle through much of the gtd money and not miss a beat. The problem is having the right guys to spend it on.

 

The new CBA is a WC though.

 

To the bolded, this was exactly why I felt going after Khalil Mack made sense. A ton of money, no players to re-up, and a team deficient of top tier talent. However, you have to be contenders or it doesn't make sense to add top tier talent /sarcasm, and what do you know - here we are heading to the playoffs. Granted I don't think Oakland would have traded Mack to anyone within the AFC barring a team getting stupid and offering a ridiculous amount of picks, but to your point, if there is ever a time to look at adding top-end players without sweating the $$$, NOW is the time. 

[WoolMagnet]

I guess you were watching Housewives of Hollywood.

or was it womens bowling?

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

To the bolded, this was exactly why I felt going after Khalil Mack made sense. A ton of money, no players to re-up, and a team deficient of top tier talent. However, you have to be contenders or it doesn't make sense to add top tier talent /sarcasm, and what do you know - here we are heading to the playoffs. Granted I don't think Oakland would have traded Mack to anyone within the AFC barring a team getting stupid and offering a ridiculous amount of picks, but to your point, if there is ever a time to look at adding top-end players without sweating the $$$, NOW is the time. 

 

People won't want to admit it...but there are a lot of parallels between this season and Grigs' first season.

 

- A draft that looks great and produces immediate impact giving the Colts cheap talent under contract for years to come. Check.

- Savvy FA signings/re-signings. Check.

- Lots of cap space. Check.

- Hardly any incumbent players to spend it on for a few years. Check.

 

Grigs proceeded to be an awful GM and waste a bunch of money in FA...but at least he went for it. And despite all of this wasted money, his team still made it to the AFC Championship game...and the Colts were never in cap trouble.

 

Imagine what a savvy GM like Ballard can do.

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

People won't want to admit it

 

I don't see why anyone would have a problem admitting that. I've been saying it since the draft.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

To the bolded, this was exactly why I felt going after Khalil Mack made sense.

 

The problem with going after Mack was giving up premium picks when we still need to restock our roster.

 

Don't let this awesome two months fool you, this roster still has a lot of holes, and it's still going to take a couple more drafts to get it right.

[throwing BBZ]

7 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

I don't think he would either. But the question was "would you trade for AB?...and I think I would.

 

A late 2nd round pick or 3rd round pick is nothing to give up for three years of an elite WR. 

 

I get that he has shown mercurial behavior...but people are overvaluing a draft pick and undervaluing Brown. Over the past five years, his average AV is ~15. To put that in perspective, TY's average AV over the same time (including his monster 2016 season) is barely above 10. That means AB has provided roughly 50% more value over the past five seasons. 

 

And if traded, AB would only cost <$200k more than TY each year. The difference is negligible. AB is a year older...but if you are comfortable paying TY for his age 29-31 seasons, you should be comfortable paying AB for his age 30-32 seasons.

 

I don't think AB's skill set is one that will suddenly deteriorate. He's not some big WR whose leg injuries will take a toll or who will lose the ability to separate...or some burner who will lose a step. He's an incredible, crafty route runner who can catch. Sounds a lot like a Colts WR who played with Luck...and look at what he was able to do after age 30. And AB is arguably a better WR.

 

Let's also not forget how good AB (like TY) has been in the playoffs. Over the past six games, Brown has averaged ~113 yards/game and has 4 TDs. That type of production in the biggest games is worth a pick by itself.

 

Again, Ballard probably won't go for it...and that's fine. But I would do it...especially if I felt my team was in a position to win a Super Bowl (which the Colts probably should be heading into next season). AB helps maximize the upcoming 2-3 year window...at the end of which it will be time to start paying players and Hilton will likely be gone.

 

But it's just a thought exercise.

 

 

 Me thinks you and Ballard have a much different code.   

I don't think you Could Build a contending TEAM, if so yad yada.  
 

[shasta519]

16 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Me thinks you and Ballard have a much different code.   

I don't think you Could Build a contending TEAM, if so yad yada.  
 

 

Maybe. Then again, Ballard signed a guy who had been suspended 4 times...was instrumental in drafting a guy that was kicked off his college team...and played a role in drafting a guy who was convicted of domestic violence. Seems like his code includes taking chances on talented players. 

 

Like probably all of us...I couldn't build a contending team. But guys who can/have...would trade for Antonio Brown I think. If Kevin Colbert keeps him, that means at least something. 

 

Besides, the question was "would you" not "should the Colts"...so my qualifications as an NFL GM shouldn't really matter. Brown is incredibly talented and valuable...and if he is producing like he has over the course of the regular season and playoffs...the Colts are a better team.

 

 

 

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't see why anyone would have a problem admitting that. I've been saying it since the draft.

 

Probably not. I just think it's interesting...that even though Grigs was so bad at that the job...the Colts were still in the AFC Championship.

 

If Ballard contines to draft well...it won't matter if he overspends a piece or two in FA...like Grigs did. So I am all for being a bit more aggressive this offseason and next. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Probably not. I just think it's interesting...that even though Grigs was so bad at that the job...the Colts were still in the AFC Championship.

 

If Ballard contines to draft well...it won't matter if he overspends a piece or two in FA...like Grigs did. So I am all for being a bit more aggressive this offseason and next. 

 

I don't think it was obvious yet even at the AFCCG that Grigson was that bad at his job. Richardson already was a bust for us, but the jury was still out on Werner, and there had been some good moves. Looking back it's obvious that he was doing a terrible job, and some were already anti-Grigson at the time, but I always thought people magnified the bad and ignored the good. 

 

As for spending in free agency, overspending isn't the whole problem. It's overspending on players who aren't good that causes trouble. Grigson overspent on Cherilus, Landry, Jones, etc., who were all disappointments for us. If Ballard overspends on a mid-level WR who gives us 65 catches and 900 yards, that won't hurt us. If he gives up a Day 2 pick for that guy, plus a big contract, that's a problem. 

 

But I think Ballard is more likely to underspend than overspend, based on the last two seasons. And he's shown he's not against cutting bait early if a guy isn't working out or isn't cost effective. They cut a veteran punter last year to keep Rigo, they didn't waste any time with Howard, and they cut Hankins because his projected role didn't justify his salary. There are other examples as well, but Ballard has shown he believes in his valuations and will stand by them.

 

Along those lines, I thought the Ebron contract was a little rich at the time. Wrong...

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

Maybe. Then again, Ballard signed a guy who had been suspended 4 times...was instrumental in drafting a guy that was kicked off his college team...and played a role in drafting a guy who was convicted of domestic violence. Seems like his code includes taking chances on talented players. 

 

Like probably all of us...I couldn't build a contending team. But guys who can/have...would trade for Antonio Brown I think. If Kevin Colbert keeps him, that means at least something. 

 

Besides, the question was "would you" not "should the Colts"...so my qualifications as an NFL GM shouldn't really matter. Brown is incredibly talented and valuable...and if he is producing like he has over the course of the regular season and playoffs...the Colts are a better team.

 

 

 

 

Big difference signing roster fodder like Collins and a 6th rounder like Cain vs giving up premium pics/$$$$ for Brown.

[shasta519]

12 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Big difference signing roster fodder like Collins and a 6th rounder like Cain vs giving up premium pics/$$$$ for Brown.

 

Maybe...but AB is also a proven elite talent. It's not like we are talking about rolling the dice on a player who could/should be good. Brown is one of the best in the game...and will be for the next couple of years.

 

Marcus Peters was a mid 1st round pick...that's a top pick AND a gtd rookie contract. There's not a lot of difference between that and trading a late Day Two pick for AB. If anything, Peters was a bigger risk. 

 

I doubt Ballard trades for Brown...I just don't think we can automatically assume he wouldn't because of some code/mantra/whatever...at least not if we are looking at Ballard's history objectively. 

 

Going to be a fun offseason, either way.

[BleedBlu8792]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The problem with going after Mack was giving up premium picks when we still need to restock our roster.

 

Don't let this awesome two months fool you, this roster still has a lot of holes, and it's still going to take a couple more drafts to get it right.

 

We still could have restocked AND had Mack on the roster. Not to speak in hindsight, but picks in the mid to late 20's are hard to value as premium (1-15'ish is premium in my opinion), and that's what Oakland would have got in return. along with a 3rd and a 6th. We still would have had 11 of the 15 picks over the next 2 years, excluding any comp picks we might have received in that span.

 

The question is do you want proven top tier talent now or do you hold your cards and hope they cash in later? Again, I don't think Ballard had anything to lose with being aggressive and bringing in a guy who could have helped our roster on day one. As a side note, there may be 5 players (all on defense) in the entire league that I wouldn't have a problem with Ballard being aggressive to get if the opportunity were there and Mack was one. 

 

Regardless, it didn't happen, so it's water under the bridge... I like where we are heading and feel like we have an excellent foundation to build upon whether it be the draft or trades/FA.

 

 

[Matthew Gilbert]

I'd say the chances of Ballard trading any draft pick above the fifth round are somewhere between slim and none.

Just now, Matthew Gilbert said:

I'd say the chances of Ballard trading any draft pick above the fifth round for another player are somewhere between slim and none.

 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

We still could have restocked AND had Mack on the roster. Not to speak in hindsight, but picks in the mid to late 20's are hard to value as premium (1-15'ish is premium in my opinion), and that's what Oakland would have got in return. along with a 3rd and a 6th. We still would have had 11 of the 15 picks over the next 2 years, excluding any comp picks we might have received in that span.

 

The question is do you want proven top tier talent now or do you hold your cards and hope they cash in later? Again, I don't think Ballard had anything to lose with being aggressive and bringing in a guy who could have helped our roster on day one. As a side note, there may be 5 players (all on defense) in the entire league that I wouldn't have a problem with Ballard being aggressive to get if the opportunity were there and Mack was one. 

 

Regardless, it didn't happen, so it's water under the bridge... I like where we are heading and feel like we have an excellent foundation to build upon whether it be the draft or trades/FA.

 

I don't restrict the premium designation to high first round picks. I think we've seen plenty of evidence that teams that draft well are able to find quality starters in the first two or three rounds. Star players mostly come at the top of the draft, but the Colts still need 7-9 quality starters. Giving up two first rounders would have hurt our ability to add those starters, and would have definitely hurt our ability to go get a star.

 

And it is a little hindsight-ish to say 'those pick would wind up being in the 20s,' as if it would be prudent for the Colts to project picking in that range back in August/September.

 

To the bolded, the question in my mind is do you surrender picks and a huge contract for a star level difference maker, when you know you still have considerable roster building to do?

 

You say Ballard had nothing to lose, but I think there's considerable risk to giving up multiple first rounders and $90m guaranteed, even if you already have a well-stocked roster. The Colts don't have a well-stocked roster, and we hadn't seen the promise from some of the young guys yet.

 

There are players I wouldn't mind being aggressive to get, but giving up two firsts would be a nonstarter for me.

[Goatface Killah]

22 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yeah...the dead cap hit makes it not worth it. But on the flip side, it gives the team trading for AB a great deal. Considering guys like Watkins are getting $16M/year and Cooper will probably get closer to $18M/year this offseason...getting AB for <$13M/year and minimal gtd money is a steal.

 

On #3...I would hope there are exceptions. Not that there won't be Colts players deserving...but because it is going to be a long while before any current Colts player will need to be made the second-highest paid player on the team.

 

If a legit Pro Bowl or All Pro player became available in FA (or cheap in trade), I would hope Ballard is willing to pull the trigger. For example, if DAL lets Lawrence get to FA...Irsay should send Ballard and Eberflus on the private jet the first chance they get.

 

But who knows if they will get that chance or any. I just think that all of that cap space gives Ballard a ton of fleixibility to take advantage of situations.

You think Brown is a bargain at 13?

 

You think he is gonna let whatever team gets him get away with actually pay him that? He is gonna be asking for a new deal the second the trade is complete.

 

 

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, GoatBeard said:

You think Brown is a bargain at 13?

 

You think he is gonna let whatever team gets him get away with actually pay him that? He is gonna be asking for a new deal the second the trade is complete.

 

 

 

 

Yes...when Sammy Watkins is getting $16M/year...AB at $13M is a bargain. Just watch what Cooper gets this offseaon (if they ink the deal this offseason). AB is one the best 2-3 WRs in the NFL. 

 

You might be right about the last part. But I would think any trade that would happen would be done after speaking to Brown (or his agent) and getting everyone on the same page. If a team knows he is going to pull a stunt like that...they won't trade for him.

[Goatface Killah]

6 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yes...when Sammy Watkins is getting $16M/year...AB at $13M is a bargain. Just watch what Cooper gets this offseaon (if they ink the deal this offseason). AB is one the best 2-3 WRs in the NFL. 

 

You might be right about the last part. But I would think any trade that would happen would be done after speaking to Brown (or his agent) and getting everyone on the same page. If a team knows he is going to pull a stunt like that...they won't trade for him.

He isn't gonna say that beforehand and destroy his leverage. And you cant take him for his word regardless.

 

 

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't restrict the premium designation to high first round picks. I think we've seen plenty of evidence that teams that draft well are able to find quality starters in the first two or three rounds. Star players mostly come at the top of the draft, but the Colts still need 7-9 quality starters. Giving up two first rounders would have hurt our ability to add those starters, and would have definitely hurt our ability to go get a star.

 

And it is a little hindsight-ish to say 'those pick would wind up being in the 20s,' as if it would be prudent for the Colts to project picking in that range back in August/September.

 

To the bolded, the question in my mind is do you surrender picks and a huge contract for a star level difference maker, when you know you still have considerable roster building to do?

 

You say Ballard had nothing to lose, but I think there's considerable risk to giving up multiple first rounders and $90m guaranteed, even if you already have a well-stocked roster. The Colts don't have a well-stocked roster, and we hadn't seen the promise from some of the young guys yet.

 

There are players I wouldn't mind being aggressive to get, but giving up two firsts would be a nonstarter for me.

Could you imagine this team with Khalil Mack on it right now? We are probably the scariest team in the playoffs with a very average pass rush, Mack would take us to elite. 

 

I dont think we have considerable roster building to do at all. I think we are a piece or two away, at most and if that. I think we have a legitimate shot this year, without Mack. 

 

 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I dont think we have considerable roster building to do at all. I think we are a piece or two away, at most and if that.

 

That's a major point of disagreement between us.

[Mitch Connors]

On 1/3/2019 at 11:20 AM, MFT5 said:

 

mack is 16th why lie

 

Hes #6 in yards per game though. The problem with Mack isnt talent, its being availalbe. Look at the carries, yds per carry, TDs, and yards per game by the guys around him.

 

Mack is WAY closer to elite than anyone seems to give him credit for.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingYardsPerGame

[jskinnz]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't restrict the premium designation to high first round picks. I think we've seen plenty of evidence that teams that draft well are able to find quality starters in the first two or three rounds. Star players mostly come at the top of the draft, but the Colts still need 7-9 quality starters. Giving up two first rounders would have hurt our ability to add those starters, and would have definitely hurt our ability to go get a star.

 

And it is a little hindsight-ish to say 'those pick would wind up being in the 20s,' as if it would be prudent for the Colts to project picking in that range back in August/September.

 

To the bolded, the question in my mind is do you surrender picks and a huge contract for a star level difference maker, when you know you still have considerable roster building to do?

 

You say Ballard had nothing to lose, but I think there's considerable risk to giving up multiple first rounders and $90m guaranteed, even if you already have a well-stocked roster. The Colts don't have a well-stocked roster, and we hadn't seen the promise from some of the young guys yet.

 

There are players I wouldn't mind being aggressive to get, but giving up two firsts would be a nonstarter for me.

 

Maybe this is a question for the off-season, but would be very curious of who those 7-9 starters that need replacing are in your mind.

 

On offense, I want Inman back but I view WR as a position in need of upgrading.  The only other starter on offense that could / should be replaced is Glowinski.  And that is a maybe to me.

 

Assuming they re-sign who they want to, who needs to be replaced as a starter?

 

To me, that is a short list - Muhammed (if you consider him a starter), Franklin and probably a corner.

 

I believe it is much shorter list.  

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, GoatBeard said:

Could you imagine this team with Khalil Mack on it right now? We are probably the scariest team in the playoffs with a very average pass rush, Mack would take us to elite. 

 

I dont think we have considerable roster building to do at all. I think we are a piece or two away, at most and if that. I think we have a legitimate shot this year, without Mack. 

 

 

 

There is one area on this team that is probably set...and that's OL. But that also assumes that the Colts either extend AC (likely) and/or draft an OT. 

 

If we are operating under the larger assumption that it's about competing year-in, year-out for Super Bowls....then I think this team needs (in no order) at least an impact DE, a disruptive DT, a WR, another athletic LB that can cover, a CB and a top tier S. That's a handful of players right there.

 

Beyond that...an argument can be made for another RB, additional depth at WR, S, and DL.

 

So there's a lot this team needs...and more that they could use. Fortunately, they have the resources to get these pieces sooner than later.

 

Mack is an elite player...but CHI is able to capitalize on that because of the talent on defense. The Colts aren't in that position...yet...and definitely weren't at that time. Those two 1st round picks that were needed will go a long way toward getting the Colts there. Plus, this upcoming draft is loaded with DL talent...and now Ballard has all kinds of flexibility.

 

I can definitely agree with paying Mack his contract...but the draft cost would have turned my stomach (like I am sure it did Ballard).

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Maybe this is a question for the off-season, but would be very curious of who those 7-9 starters that need replacing are in your mind.

 

On offense, I want Inman back but I view WR as a position in need of upgrading.  The only other starter on offense that could / should be replaced is Glowinski.  And that is a maybe to me.

 

Assuming they re-sign who they want to, who needs to be replaced as a starter?

 

To me, that is a short list - Muhammed (if you consider him a starter), Franklin and probably a corner.

 

I believe it is much shorter list.  

 

 

On offense, I think we need another starter at WR. I'll take Inman back, but not as a #2, and remember he's a free agent. Depending on how you view it, we could call a slot receiver a starter, or at least a heavy usage player, and I think we need an upgrade there as well. I think we also would be well served to upgrade the right side of the OL, either a guard or a tackle. So that's 2-3.

 

On defense, we need a strong safety, two corners, Sam backer, and right end. That's another 5.

 

I know there will be some disagreement, but I'm not convinced that either of our boundary corners are good enough to win with; maybe Wilson becomes that guy, but that's not a known commodity at this point. 

 

I'm not willing to continue to rely on Geathers; he can't play more than four games in a row without missing a game or two. Not his fault, but we need a more reliable player.

 

I'm not a Franklin fan, Goode hasn't been good either. Sam backer might not be considered a starting position using the "high usage" criteria I mentioned for slot receiver, but it's a position that needs an upgrade.

 

Turay is probably the only potential speed rusher on the roster, and he's very raw, and probably will be at his best in a rotational role.

 

Then there's the matter of depth, almost across the board.

 

And then over the next two years, we have expiring contracts for AC, Sheard, Hunt, Ebron, and Doyle; those are just the guys who are not currently on rookie contracts, but are starters or major contributors.

 

Internet GMs say 'sign these 5-7 guys, and we're a contender right now.' But A) that's obviously not Ballard's viewpoint or his approach, and B) there's a preponderance of evidence to suggest that approach is generally not successful.

 

So whether we need 7-9 new starters, or 4-6, or whatever, we're not one offseason away from having a well-stocked roster. And for sustained success, we need to have a pipeline of good, young players coming up in our system. 

[jskinnz]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

On offense, I think we need another starter at WR. I'll take Inman back, but not as a #2, and remember he's a free agent. Depending on how you view it, we could call a slot receiver a starter, or at least a heavy usage player, and I think we need an upgrade there as well. I think we also would be well served to upgrade the right side of the OL, either a guard or a tackle. So that's 2-3.

 

On defense, we need a strong safety, two corners, Sam backer, and right end. That's another 5.

 

I know there will be some disagreement, but I'm not convinced that either of our boundary corners are good enough to win with; maybe Wilson becomes that guy, but that's not a known commodity at this point. 

 

I'm not willing to continue to rely on Geathers; he can't play more than four games in a row without missing a game or two. Not his fault, but we need a more reliable player.

 

I'm not a Franklin fan, Goode hasn't been good either. Sam backer might not be considered a starting position using the "high usage" criteria I mentioned for slot receiver, but it's a position that needs an upgrade.

 

Turay is probably the only potential speed rusher on the roster, and he's very raw, and probably will be at his best in a rotational role.

 

Then there's the matter of depth, almost across the board.

 

And then over the next two years, we have expiring contracts for AC, Sheard, Hunt, Ebron, and Doyle; those are just the guys who are not currently on rookie contracts, but are starters or major contributors.

 

Internet GMs say 'sign these 5-7 guys, and we're a contender right now.' But A) that's obviously not Ballard's viewpoint or his approach, and B) there's a preponderance of evidence to suggest that approach is generally not successful.

 

So whether we need 7-9 new starters, or 4-6, or whatever, we're not one offseason away from having a well-stocked roster. And for sustained success, we need to have a pipeline of good, young players coming up in our system. 

 

Completely fair.  WR and a RG I agree with.  BTW on WR, there is much on Twitter today about the quality of the Colts' 2018 draft, which is obvious.  But then Gil Brandt chimed in and said Deon Cain is going to be special as well.

 

Geathers - I believe is a good player but can't stay healthy.  if they go another direction I get it.

 

Franklin to me is the most obvious spot in need of an upgrade.

 

I think another corner is needed but I have more faith than you in the guys they have now.  I believe Wilson, Desir and Moore are good enough to win with.  If they can upgrade, great.  I get it.

 

And on the depth front, agree as well.  The Hunt, Sheard, et al crowd will need to be replaced but that is a discussion for 2020.  For 2019, I really like where this roster is now and where it is headed.  

[richard pallo]

3 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

Could you imagine this team with Khalil Mack on it right now? We are probably the scariest team in the playoffs with a very average pass rush, Mack would take us to elite. 

 

I dont think we have considerable roster building to do at all. I think we are a piece or two away, at most and if that. I think we have a legitimate shot this year, without Mack. 

 

 

I have to agree with you.  This years draft hit it out of the park.  Ebron was a steal in FA.  We are already in the playoffs and might go deeper.  Ballard just needs one more good draft and another couple of good signings in FA.  We don't need all pro's at every position.  This is a young roster that should get better.  We are going to be a FA destination team.  Depth is addressed every year.  That's to be expected.  I'm expecting a great off season to finish the job.  Future drafts beyond 2019 will keep the pipeline going.  

[Superman]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

Gil Brandt chimed in and said Deon Cain is going to be special as well.

 

I like Gil Brandt, and I like Deon Cain. I just don't like players coming back from ACL injuries, but he's definitely in the mix for us.

 

And overall, I definitely like where we're headed. I hope I don't come across as pessimistic or skeptical in any way. I'm very much on board and excited about what they're doing. 

 

But me saying that I think we need several quality starters is just my sincere appraisal of what we have. A team doesn't have to be stacked at every position to win; no team ever is. But we have several spots where we're relying on replacement level players as starters, and no real depth behind them.

 

And they aren't all young guys who are getting better. Desir probably just played the best two months of his career, he'll be 29 at the start of next season, and he's a free agent. Do we re-sign him, or try to upgrade that spot? I'd upgrade, if possible.

 

And other examples exist. I'm just trying to be realistic about where our roster is, and where it needs to be, before any big time moves are even remotely in range.

[Colts_Fan12]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

On offense, I think we need another starter at WR. I'll take Inman back, but not as a #2, and remember he's a free agent. Depending on how you view it, we could call a slot receiver a starter, or at least a heavy usage player, and I think we need an upgrade there as well. I think we also would be well served to upgrade the right side of the OL, either a guard or a tackle. So that's 2-3.

 

On defense, we need a strong safety, two corners, Sam backer, and right end. That's another 5.

 

I know there will be some disagreement, but I'm not convinced that either of our boundary corners are good enough to win with; maybe Wilson becomes that guy, but that's not a known commodity at this point. 

 

I'm not willing to continue to rely on Geathers; he can't play more than four games in a row without missing a game or two. Not his fault, but we need a more reliable player.

 

I'm not a Franklin fan, Goode hasn't been good either. Sam backer might not be considered a starting position using the "high usage" criteria I mentioned for slot receiver, but it's a position that needs an upgrade.

 

Turay is probably the only potential speed rusher on the roster, and he's very raw, and probably will be at his best in a rotational role.

 

Then there's the matter of depth, almost across the board.

 

And then over the next two years, we have expiring contracts for AC, Sheard, Hunt, Ebron, and Doyle; those are just the guys who are not currently on rookie contracts, but are starters or major contributors.

 

Internet GMs say 'sign these 5-7 guys, and we're a contender right now.' But A) that's obviously not Ballard's viewpoint or his approach, and B) there's a preponderance of evidence to suggest that approach is generally not successful.

 

So whether we need 7-9 new starters, or 4-6, or whatever, we're not one offseason away from having a well-stocked roster. And for sustained success, we need to have a pipeline of good, young players coming up in our system. 

I'm hoping a good OT will fall to us in the 1st or our early 2nd 

[Goatface Killah]

3 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

There is one area on this team that is probably set...and that's OL. But that also assumes that the Colts either extend AC (likely) and/or draft an OT. 

 

If we are operating under the larger assumption that it's about competing year-in, year-out for Super Bowls....then I think this team needs (in no order) at least an impact DE, a disruptive DT, a WR, another athletic LB that can cover, a CB and a top tier S. That's a handful of players right there.

 

Beyond that...an argument can be made for another RB, additional depth at WR, S, and DL.

 

So there's a lot this team needs...and more that they could use. Fortunately, they have the resources to get these pieces sooner than later.

 

Mack is an elite player...but CHI is able to capitalize on that because of the talent on defense. The Colts aren't in that position...yet...and definitely weren't at that time. Those two 1st round picks that were needed will go a long way toward getting the Colts there. Plus, this upcoming draft is loaded with DL talent...and now Ballard has all kinds of flexibility.

 

I can definitely agree with paying Mack his contract...but the draft cost would have turned my stomach (like I am sure it did Ballard).

Idk man, I dont totally agree with your list......but it still isnt a lot to me. 

 

I basically want a good #1 receiver with size on offense, and possibly a replacement for Ebron, depending on whether or not he has truly gelled in the locker room.

 

On defense I want a true #1 pass rusher (deprh os fine with me), a replacement for Geathers and a good zone corner.

 

We are seeing this year what kind of impact top level guys can make. Anthont Walker looks a whole lot better playing next to Leonard. Castonzo looks much better next to Nelson, etc. I feel like you add 2-3 more elite players to this team and the entire league is gonna be very afraid.

[throwing BBZ]

57 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I like Gil Brandt, and I like Deon Cain. I just don't like players coming back from ACL injuries, but he's definitely in the mix for us.

 

And overall, I definitely like where we're headed. I hope I don't come across as pessimistic or skeptical in any way. I'm very much on board and excited about what they're doing. 

 

But me saying that I think we need several quality starters is just my sincere appraisal of what we have. A team doesn't have to be stacked at every position to win; no team ever is. But we have several spots where we're relying on replacement level players as starters, and no real depth behind them.

 

And they aren't all young guys who are getting better. Desir probably just played the best two months of his career, he'll be 29 at the start of next season, and he's a free agent. Do we re-sign him, or try to upgrade that spot? I'd upgrade, if possible.

 

And other examples exist. I'm just trying to be realistic about where our roster is, and where it needs to be, before any big time moves are even remotely in range.

 

 Desir has looked better as the season has come along. Playing in this system better as he gains experience. PFF 16th rated CB. I hope Jalen Collins appeals now?
Glowinski has gone down in the ratings the longer he played. He is only the 10th rated guard. We will see of course.
 But be careful what we ask for correct?
  I am gonna predict CB is ok this off season with his plans for outside receiver.
I certainly could see him going for a Paris Campbell type.
 The 1st 2 picks for the front seven.
 A couple solid pickups in FA from the outside, and draft help at LB, S, RB , TE. in rds 2- 4. I like his odds for next off season.