Sign in to follow this  
Jdubu

Honey Badger

Recommended Posts

Seeing we need a safety if we move away from Geathers, what is the thought of bringing in the honey badger? Does he fit this scheme? Is he durable? What is his worth gonna be? Weakens a foe. 

 

Whats the thought here as all I see is many point to the giants safety FA to be guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not followed his play at all this year so all I knew was he has been a talent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I belie Mathieu has had mostly a good solid season for Houston.   The reports I've seen say they expect him to be re-signed by the Texans.

 

But Mathieu is 185 pounds.    Gaethers is 220.     One is not going to replace the other.

 

We could use him,  but likely not at the Gaethers spot.    Suspect he'll want far more money than Ballard would want to pay him.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never thought much of him in the NFL. He's looked bad in the 3 games they've played the Colts this year. 

 

I agree we may need a new SS but I would lean toward drafting one. Farely is a RFA I believe so could be easily brought back for depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boiler_Colt said:

I've never thought much of him in the NFL. He's looked bad in the 3 games they've played the Colts this year. 

 

I agree we may need a new SS but I would lean toward drafting one. Farely is a RFA I believe so could be easily brought back for depth.

I have really liked Farley. Health is his issue too though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want Mathieu but I've been putting some thought into Clowney.   I always have wondered what he'd be like if they left him in the same 4-3 defense he was in in college.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to Mathieu. Clowney is a talent but won't likely be available. But I wouldn't be unhappy with the Colts making a run at him. I think the untapped potential in that guy is large. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 7:25 PM, Hoose said:

No to Mathieu. Clowney is a talent but won't likely be available. But I wouldn't be unhappy with the Colts making a run at him. I think the untapped potential in that guy is large. 

I think the biggest win on signing Clowney would be taking him away from the Texans the next 5-10 years. I don’t see the Texans letting him go, at least not this offseason. He likes it in Houston, and I think he resigns knowing his numbers will be greater playing opposite JJ Watt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You see how that's a conflation of two separate issues? (With a sprinkling of a third issue, tbh.)   1) Team A picking at #15 might have a problem with Hockenson, maybe their evaluation of his talent or character or whatever. Maybe they have a second round grade on him. Team B picking at #26 might have Hockenson as a top ten player on their board. And maybe a handful of other teams between those two have higher grades on different players that align with their needs, or maybe they aren't disciplined in their approach or have different draft philosophies. Maybe some of those teams don't see positional value in TEs, so they pass on Hockenson, leaving him available at #26. Again, the point is that not every team has the same board, and there are many reasons why that might be the case.   2) You're adding in the quality of the evaluation. Team B might think more highly of the player than anyone else, and maybe they're right and he turns out to be a stud. Maybe they're wrong, and he's a dud. But that's a question of player evaluation, not draft strategy.   3) Gronk was a second rounder himself. And he's turning out to be one of the best TEs in NFL history. Anyone saying 'Hockenson is the next Gronk' isn't being an honest evaluator, and I don't want my GM drafting players because he's convinced they'll be the next HOF player at any position. The odds stacked heavily against that. (I said the same last year to everyone claiming Barkley was a guaranteed HOFer who would singlehandedly elevate any offense to the top of the league.) That's a way to rationalize drafting a player you're in love with. It's not a disciplined draft strategy.
    • Agreed. My over arching point to BPA vs needs discussion is that the terms themselves can have different meanings, so the various good points made can get lost in the wash.   But I do think the preponderance of thinking lists BPA agnostic of attributes for a given scheme, which is how the national websites tend to do it.  So when GMs pick the 45th ranked player with pick 33, many criticize the pick as "reaching" for a need because they they don't stop to think that 5 or 6 players ranked in between weren't even considered a good fit for the team to begin with.   
    • Him and Lewis will elevate that draft class even higher. 
    • You're putting your own "spin" on this.  It has everything to do with what Ballard chose to do.   Ballard could have prevented his players from hitting free agency at all by overpaying them in the first place.   He doesn't want to overpay, so he "allows" them to hit free agency, find out that no team will overpay, then "brings" them back at their true value.
    • Yes I know, I wasn't going to list all possibilities.  I just listed one possibility to illustrate there is more to it than one person "letting" him test the market then "bringing" him back.     My point was about the tone of the comment coupled with the lack of substance supporting the tone of the comment.   But I see throughout the thread that typical sensitivities about broader things have surfaced so y'all carry on.
  • Members

    • Scott Pennock

      Scott Pennock 1,184

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CamMo

      CamMo 705

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 85

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyD4U

      IndyD4U 2,926

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dr. T

      Dr. T 266

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfansince65

      coltsfansince65 1,217

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chad72

      chad72 9,138

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,669

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtsBlueFL

      ColtsBlueFL 5,128

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DougDew

      DougDew 2,945

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active: