Colts sign Devin Funchess (Merge)

[Coltsfan66]

As already noted earlier in this thread, I like his measurables and hope he can come in and pull an "Ebron".

[NewColtsFan]

On 4/5/2019 at 3:53 PM, Irish YJ said:

Mocks are just mocks. They're an indicator. I don't play fantasy football, but I do keep an eye on their mocks. Why? Because several of them have been more accurate than the two guys you listed, Kiper in McShay. ESPN is more entertainment and politics these days than substance. Kiper promised to retire several years ago if his prediction about Jimmy Clausen was wrong. It was very wrong yet he's still here lol. He's had a lot of whiffs. 

 

In short, I think you put too much stock in guys like Kiper and McShay. Neither one made the top 10 in accuracy last year. Kiper didn't make the top 20. Who filled out the top 10? A lot of fantasy analysts and what you refer to as secondary sites. Out of the old guard, only Mayock of NFL.com made the top 10 at 7th. McShay a respectable 12th, and Kiper 23rd. I like Zierlein but he waffles a lot and is always bullish on lines (which is fine).

 

The ratings/rankings I'm referring too take into account 4 categories and is pretty thorough. I've added the link to the mock accuracy ratings below. Kiper needs to spend less time on his hair and more time revisiting his mock technique :-). 

 

Not trying to offend you, but I'm a logic based guy. I too like the old guard and the old way of doing things, but I can't ignore that the new guys are dong a better job these days when it comes to mocks.

 

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accuracy/mock-drafts.php

 

Apologies again....    it's more than 48 hours since you posted and I'm just now getting back to you.   Sorry,  wasn't deliberate.    Life has been getting in the way WAY too much lately.  

 

This was an interesting study you linked.   I've not heard or seen it before.   Is this the first time someone has done this?    Or has this been going on for some time?    Just curious.

 

You can imagine my what my eyes and chin did when I read that Walter Football was listed as 2nd.    I'm not a fan, and so I'm sure my face did this....           Typically when WF talks about players, it'll give a player roughly a 2/3-round window of being drafted.    It might say,  could be drafted in rounds 1/2.   Or 2/3.    Or,  and here's where they really get me...   rounds 2-4,  or rounds 3-5, 4-6.     A three round spread is more than 100 picks.   It takes almost no skill to get close to that window.   You could throw darts blindfolded and do as well.    So, I'm a little fuzzy how they did so well on this testing?

 

Put another way,  I joined here in May of 2012,  but since 2013,  I've been putting out my top-32 players....     and in every draft,  that's six,  I've gotten a minimum of 24 players right in the first round.   NOT, to their specific team,  but that they were drafted in the first round.   That's 75%.   And one year,  I got 28 out of 32.   And two that I missed were guys that had drug problems and fell to the 2nd round.   I think Randy Gregory was one of them.    Now,  that's doesn't mean I could be the GM of the Colts.   I don't think anyone here would sleep well if I were the GM of the Colts.  Heck, I'm not sure I would sleep well.   In fact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.

 

I guess this is just my way of saying I'm not sure these results mean what you think they mean.   We may have to agree to disagree on this.     Again,  sorry for the delay.

 

 

 

[EastStreet]

56 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Apologies again....    it's more than 48 hours since you posted and I'm just now getting back to you.   Sorry,  wasn't deliberate.    Life has been getting in the way WAY too much lately.  

 

This was an interesting study you linked.   I've not heard or seen it before.   Is this the first time someone has done this?    Or has this been going on for some time?    Just curious.

 

You can imagine my what my eyes and chin did when I read that Walter Football was listed as 2nd.    I'm not a fan, and so I'm sure my face did this....           Typically when WF talks about players, it'll give a player roughly a 2/3-round window of being drafted.    It might say,  could be drafted in rounds 1/2.   Or 2/3.    Or,  and here's where they really get me...   rounds 2-4,  or rounds 3-5, 4-6.     A three round spread is more than 100 picks.   It takes almost no skill to get close to that window.   You could throw darts blindfolded and do as well.    So, I'm a little fuzzy how they did so well on this testing?

 

Put another way,  I joined here in May of 2012,  but since 2013,  I've been putting out my top-32 players....     and in every draft,  that's six,  I've gotten a minimum of 24 players right in the first round.   NOT, to their specific team,  but that they were drafted in the first round.   That's 75%.   And one year,  I got 28 out of 32.   And two that I missed were guys that had drug problems and fell to the 2nd round.   I think Randy Gregory was one of them.    Now,  that's doesn't mean I could be the GM of the Colts.   I don't think anyone here would sleep well if I were the GM of the Colts.  Heck, I'm not sure I would sleep well.   In fact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.

 

I guess this is just my way of saying I'm not sure these results mean what you think they mean.   We may have to agree to disagree on this.     Again,  sorry for the delay.

 

The mocks are graded every year, but most sites do an oversimplified or very bad job of it. As you'll note on the one I linked, it's a thorough grading system giving points for multiple areas.

 

I'm not sure how else you can take the results though..... The big time talking heads simply aren't as good as you think. The fantasy stuff is a huge business. The competition within fantasy football is cut throat. The guys that lead those sites live and breath it, and their financial well being depends on it. Guys like Kiper are living off the ESPN brand and holding on to their rep from 10+ years ago. I'm not saying Kiper sucks, but he's not as good as many others. I doubt he's half as hungry as the others. 

 

Another guy I want to mention, is Bucky Brooks. He gets all kinds of face time on NFL.com with his mocks, and he's been awful. Just goes to show you, big name and big network doesn't mean accuracy. 

 

I'm not a big fan of Walter either. But for different reasons. I hate he website (resource hog, too many ads). His boards and ranges have big spans, but his actual mocks are pretty decent. 

 

In short, I'm open to guys that are accurate outside of the big networks and traditional talking heads. If you're poo-pooing them just because they are "fantasy" experts, then that's a little silly when they're consistently more accurate than the fading guys like Kiper. I still enjoy Kiper, but I don't put him up on a pedestal anymore.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 3/29/2019 at 6:40 PM, Irish YJ said:

I've been clear that I'll be happy if he hits 800, unhappy if not.....

 
I could care less about stats.  The Colts could rush for 300 yds and throw for only 10 yds to the FB in a win, and I'd be happy.  If Funchess blocks well for the RBs in a win, then he's earning his paycheck.

 

The only stat that matters is in the W-L column.

 

I'll be happy if the Colts win games. 

[EastStreet]

11 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 
I could care less about stats.  The Colts could rush for 300 yds and throw for only 10 yds to the FB in a win, and I'd be happy.  If Funchess blocks well for the RBs in a win, then he's earning his paycheck.

 

The only stat that matters is in the W-L column.

 

I'll be happy if the Colts win games. 

That's all great, and you can say things like the above about one game, or even a few, but on the season we need an 800+ yard guy. The Colts WR position group aside from TY was one of the worst in the league in terms of individual rankings.  Luck had to work way too hard to do what he did, and he simply needs another legit guy. If we get that via the draft, or via DF I'll be happy. But, someone needs to be that guy. Luck is a sports car driving on only two high performance tires.

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

That's all great, and you can say things like the above about one game, or even a few, but on the season we need an 800+ yard guy. The Colts WR position group aside from TY was one of the worst in the league in terms of individual rankings.  Luck had to work way too hard to do what he did, and he simply needs another legit guy. If we get that via the draft, or via DF I'll be happy. But, someone needs to be that guy. Luck is a sports car driving on only two high performance tires.

Individual rankings?

I will take team concepts every time.

Luck is not driving the sports car, he is the sports car that is being driven be those team concepts.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

10 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

but on the season we need an 800+ yard guy.

 

The Falcons and Bucs both had three WRs with 800+ yards and missed the playoffs.  The Giants had a "WR2" with 800+ yds and it didn't win them many games.

 

Guess what teams didn't have a "WR2" with 800+ yds?  Pats, Saints, Bears, Chargers, Ravens, Cowboys, Seahawks, Texans, Chiefs, Eagles, and the COLTS.  That's 11 of the 12 playoff teams.  The Rams are the ONLY team that had more than one WR with 800+ yds and made the playoffs.

 

So no we don't.  Your 800 yard happiness is just an arbitrary number with nothing to back it up.  You're going to be very unhappy if a second WR with 800+ yds is your threshold for happiness.

[Superman]

On 4/5/2019 at 5:16 PM, Moosejawcolt said:

I am sensing a trade up.

 

I have no sense. Just ask my mom.

 

But I was thinking that a trade back from #26 might make sense, with a potential move back up from #34 to #31 or #32 if they like someone that's still there at the end of the day. Moving back is easier to swallow because they can more easily get back into the first round if they want.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

49 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The Falcons and Bucs both had three WRs with 800+ yards and missed the playoffs.  The Giants had a "WR2" with 800+ yds and it didn't win them many games.

 

Guess what teams didn't have a "WR2" with 800+ yds?  Pats, Saints, Bears, Chargers, Ravens, Cowboys, Seahawks, Texans, Chiefs, Eagles, and the COLTS.  That's 11 of the 12 playoff teams.  The Rams are the ONLY team that had more than one WR with 800+ yds and made the playoffs.

 

So no we don't.  Your 800 yard happiness is just an arbitrary number with nothing to back it up.  You're going to be very unhappy if a second WR with 800+ yds is your threshold for happiness.

Everyone forgets Ebron had almost 800 yards. It doesn’t really matter where the production comes from.

 

I was watching a pat mcafee YouTube video yesterday. They were saying the same thing. You need receivers and pass catchers. Not necessarily wide receivers.

[crazycolt1]

17 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Everyone forgets Ebron had almost 800 yards. It doesn’t really matter where the production comes from.

 

I was watching a pat mcafee YouTube video yesterday. They were saying the same thing. You need receivers and pass catchers. Not necessarily wide receivers.

Just to be clear Luck threw for 4,595 YDs, 39TDs to 16 different receivers.

Personally I don't care about individual stats. The only stat that matters to me is the win column.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

On 4/5/2019 at 6:53 PM, Irish YJ said:

 

 

 Kiper needs to spend less time on his hair and more time revisiting his mock technique :-). 

 

 

I'm deeply offended by this post! I totally disagree! Mel needs to spend more time getting that beautiful head of hair ready for the draft. Haha

[Four2itus]

I love it when fans state that a player has to reach (blank), team has to get (blank) many wins, or I'll be unhappy. It seems pretty obvious that unhappy already exists by the mere existence of the post. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The Falcons and Bucs both had three WRs with 800+ yards and missed the playoffs.  The Giants had a "WR2" with 800+ yds and it didn't win them many games.

 

Guess what teams didn't have a "WR2" with 800+ yds?  Pats, Saints, Bears, Chargers, Ravens, Cowboys, Seahawks, Texans, Chiefs, Eagles, and the COLTS.  That's 11 of the 12 playoff teams.  The Rams are the ONLY team that had more than one WR with 800+ yds and made the playoffs.

 

So no we don't.  Your 800 yard happiness is just an arbitrary number with nothing to back it up.  You're going to be very unhappy if a second WR with 800+ yds is your threshold for happiness.

Pats had Edelman with 800+ in only 12 games, Gordon with 700+ with only 11 games, Gronk with almost 700 with all his injuries, and a rb (White) with almost 800 receiving yards. Their depth (Hogan) had over 500 yards. Aside from Ebron, the Colts didn't have another guy above 500 yards.

 

Out of the teams you listed, I've listed anyone (their rank) in the top 100 receiving. 

 

Better receiving corps than the Colts

Pats 28, 46, 53, 84 (even with injuries) + #5 Rushing Team

Chargers 15, 56, 58. 96 + #9 D

Rams 13, 14, 71, 77 + #3 Rush

Eagles 16, 29. 41, 87

Chiefs 4, 10, 86, 

Ravens  48, 60, 66, 81 (even with a bad QB) + #2 Rush + #1 D

Bears 36, 52, 75 (even with Trubisky) + #11 Rush + #3 D

 

On par receiving corp with Colts

Colts 12 TY, 39 Ebron, 99 Rogers

Cowboys 43, 54, 76, 89, + #10 Rush + #7 D (you could argue they are better/deeper)

Saints 6, 49, + #6 Rush

 

Perhaps worse than Colts

Seahawks 22, 64, + #1 Rush

Texans 2, 90 (Fuller who got injured) + #8 Rush

 

800 is absolutely just a number. I'll take a couple WRs that hit 700, or even 600. 800 was a number I pulled as it's represents top 32 production. We're paying DF as a top 20 guy (top 13 if he hits a 1000). PF ranked us as the 22nd best receiving corp going into last year. NFL.com lists us as one of the teams that require a true #2. 

 

I'll be happy to win a SB in any fashion. I don't however see it happening with our current WR unit given our rushing attack. Luck is Ferrari. He's a franchise guy you build a team around, and give tools too. 

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

I'm deeply offended by this post! I totally disagree! Mel needs to spend more time getting that beautiful head of hair ready for the draft. Haha

I think he should let his hair make the picks :-)

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Just to be clear Luck threw for 4,595 YDs, 39TDs to 16 different receivers.

Personally I don't care about individual stats. The only stat that matters to me is the win column.

In general, I agree with you, wins are everything.

 

But, more specifically...   there are two Luck stats that I care about and follow closely.

 

The first, is interceptions.   He had 16 last year.  Way too many.  I think Siriani said he’d like that number below 10 if possible.   That top QBs are typically,  but not always, under 10.

 

The other stat I follow is total passing yards.  275 per game is 4400 in a year.  I think that’s a reasonable number to expect.   It’s a good number to represent a solid offense.    Below that number and I’d be concerned.   Same for too many.  

 

In July and August there are typically threads about predicting stats for Colts players.   And, inevitably, someone predicts Luck with over 5,000 yards.   And I’m left to explain that we don’t want that.  That would represent an offense out of balance.   Not enough of a successful running game.   Too many come from behind games. 

 

Its like Goldilocks.   You don’t want too much.   You don’t want too little.  You want it juuuuusst right!     

[Lucky Colts Fan]

20 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

Better receiving corps than the Colts

Pats 28, 46, 53, 84 (even with injuries) + #5 Rushing Team

Chargers 15, 56, 58. 96 + #9 D

Rams 13, 14, 71, 77 + #3 Rush

Eagles 16, 29. 41, 87

Chiefs 4, 10, 86, 

Ravens  48, 60, 66, 81 (even with a bad QB) + #2 Rush + #1 D

Bears 36, 52, 75 (even with Trubisky) + #11 Rush + #3 D

 

On par receiving corp with Colts

Colts 12 TY, 39 Ebron, 99 Rogers

Cowboys 43, 54, 76, 89, + #10 Rush + #7 D (you could argue they are better/deeper)

Saints 6, 49, + #6 Rush

 

Perhaps worse than Colts

Seahawks 22, 64, + #1 Rush

Texans 2, 90 (Fuller who got injured) + #8 Rush

 

You're nitpicking individual stats.  The Colts had the #6 Passing attack in the NFL last year, so the entire receiving group was 6th best, better than the Pats, Chargers, Eagles, Ravens, and Bears, who you try to claim had a "better" receiving corps.  As @crazycolt1 pointed out, Luck just distributed the ball around to more receivers.

 

Add the Colts top-10 defense to the #6 Passing attack, and we are looking pretty good.  If Reich gets us into the top-10 in rushing as well, that's a recipe for a SB.

 

In reality, only four teams can say they had a better season than the Colts:  Pats, Rams, Chiefs, and Saints.  Our passing attack and defense are already on par with those teams, we just need a running game on their level (not an 800+ yd WR), and we'll be right there with them.

[EastStreet]

8 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You're nitpicking individual stats.  The Colts had the #6 Passing attack in the NFL last year, so the entire receiving group was 6th best, better than the Pats, Chargers, Eagles, Ravens, and Bears, who you try to claim had a "better" receiving corps.  As @crazycolt1 pointed out, Luck just distributed the ball around to more receivers.

 

Add the Colts top-10 defense to the #6 Passing attack, and we are looking pretty good.  If Reich gets us into the top-10 in rushing as well, that's a recipe for a SB.

 

In reality, only four teams can say they had a better season than the Colts:  Pats, Rams, Chiefs, and Saints.  Our passing attack and defense are already on par with those teams, we just need a running game on their level (not an 800+ yd WR), and we'll be right there with them.

It's not nitpicking. If you think it's OK not to have a legit compliment to TY, then I don't know what to tell you. It's why everyone who graded the Colts WR corp,  ranked them in the bottom half of the league. Just because Luck was brilliant in making do with what he has, doesn't mean our WR group is not subpar. He simply shouldn't have to work that hard. Not having a second WR over 500 yards simply not good. Ebron saved our butts last year plain and simple. And not having a legit compliment was the reason KC shut us down by double covering TY. And, had it been ok, why would they go out and spend top 20 money on a WR that was 82nd in the league?

[stitches]

On 4/9/2019 at 6:05 PM, Superman said:

 

I have no sense. Just ask my mom.

 

But I was thinking that a trade back from #26 might make sense, with a potential move back up from #34 to #31 or #32 if they like someone that's still there at the end of the day. Moving back is easier to swallow because they can more easily get back into the first round if they want.

The thing I noticed in one of Ballard's interviews is when he said he recouped the picks he used to move up for Lewis by trading down earlier in the 2nd. To me it's a clear sign that he's cognizant of the general number and area of the picks he wants to end up with. IMO if we trade back from 26, trading up either in the second or in the 3d by using some of the capital gained by a trade back is a real possibility. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

To me it's a clear sign that he's cognizant of the general number and area of the picks he wants to end up with.

 

This really is more the standard than the outlier. It's just some GM's/scouts are better at it. IE: setting up boards that also predict what other teams will target. Thus approximate where and when  players will land.  Thus, if 'you' want a guy (because of scheme fit, character, special talent, etc...), you basically know where you'll have to land to be ahead of the wave, and that affects when and to what spot(s)  'you' trade up/down to.

 

Ballard seems very smart about this.  Showed me this in his trade down last year from 3 to 6. Still got 'his guy', picked up extra draft slots to be able to go get another of 'his guys'.