Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Spending Unwisely like the Packers


Recommended Posts

16 years

183 million dollars

 

That is what the Packers shelled out in free agency for the following:

 

OT Billy Turner

LB Za'Darius Smith

LB Preston Smith

SS Adrian Amos

 

3 of the 4 were free agent targets of the Colts.

 

Did you guys REALLY want to spend that kind of money in free agency this year?

 

That is 4 players...... For the same cash we could sign 8-10 solid veterans to more modest deals and lets not pretend that Sheard, Simon, Woods, Desir, Hunt have not worked out to varying degrees. 

 

Let Ballard, Dodds and Hogan do their thing on draft day and sign mid-tier free agents and solid contributors from cut down day like Muhammad, Phillips and Moore II....

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

16 years

183 million dollars

 

That is what the Packers shelled out in free agency for the following:

 

OT Billy Turner

LB Za'Darius Smith

LB Preston Smith

SS Adrian Amos

 

3 of the 4 were free agent targets of the Colts.

 

Did you guys REALLY want to spend that kind of money in free agency this year?

 

That is 4 players...... For the same cash we could sign 8-10 solid veterans to more modest deals and lets not pretend that Sheard, Simon, Woods, Desir, Hunt have not worked out to varying degrees. 

 

Let Ballard, Dodds and Hogan do their thing on draft day and sign mid-tier free agents and solid contributors from cut down day like Muhammad, Phillips and Moore II....

Actually, I don't think the Amos contract was outrageous. In this new world of the growing NFL cap, his contract will look pretty decent in the not too distant future. He's one guy I was really hoping the Colts would sign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, runthepost said:

Yea let’s keep targeting mid tier guys that get exposed against the top tier teams in this league. 

Who was exposed? Those defensive lineman maintained a very good run game control all year....and did a decent job pressuring the QB.

 

It seems as though that you are reacting from an emotional place versus a rational place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Pennock said:

Who was exposed? Those defensive lineman maintained a very good run game control all year....and did a decent job pressuring the QB.

 

It seems as though that you are reacting from an emotional place versus a rational place.

Receivers the whole defense against the chiefs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, runthepost said:

Receivers the whole defense against the chiefs

 Andrew Luck was bad that game too. So was our entire elite offensive line.

 

In fact, the few players that DID play good, were Ballards FA and draft gems. Autry, Moore, Leonard, heck even Najee Goode made plays that game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

16 years

183 million dollars

 

That is what the Packers shelled out in free agency for the following:

 

OT Billy Turner

LB Za'Darius Smith

LB Preston Smith

SS Adrian Amos

 

3 of the 4 were free agent targets of the Colts.

 

Did you guys REALLY want to spend that kind of money in free agency this year?

 

That is 4 players...... For the same cash we could sign 8-10 solid veterans to more modest deals and lets not pretend that Sheard, Simon, Woods, Desir, Hunt have not worked out to varying degrees. 

 

Let Ballard, Dodds and Hogan do their thing on draft day and sign mid-tier free agents and solid contributors from cut down day like Muhammad, Phillips and Moore II....

Could is the key in all of this. But at this rate, we aren’t even doing the could. We’re doing the opposite. Nothing. Eric Weddle was available for 2yrs/10.5M. Ijs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Could is the key in all of this. But at this rate, we aren’t even doing the could. We’re doing the opposite. Nothing. Eric Weddle was available for 2yrs/10.5M. Ijs.

Could = they were in on the bidding and fell short on either money or years. Doesn't mean they are not trying to land these players. And outside of re-signing our own veterans the front office has made it clear that they won't invest in older players.....as is the case with Weddle.

 

If however we are the proverbial 1 player away, I'm betting they would then.....

 

This is still ONLY year 3 of the rebuild and even though they exceeded most peoples standards last year there are still haps to fill with young, homegrown players.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Could = they were in on the bidding and fell short on either money or years. Doesn't mean they are not trying to land these players. And outside of re-signing our own veterans the front office has made it clear that they won't invest in older players.....as is the case with Weddle.

 

If however we are the proverbial 1 player away, I'm betting they would then.....

 

This is still ONLY year 3 of the rebuild and even though they exceeded most peoples standards last year there are still haps to fill with young, homegrown players.

So you are saying sign a guy for the cheap who fits a need once we are 1-2 players away? Im not buying it. Because the money/age of the player isn't the problem. And by the time we sign "our own", we wont have the luxury of keeping all of them so then we are still forced to drink from the well called FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorthernBlue said:

 Andrew Luck was bad that game too. So was our entire elite offensive line.

 

In fact, the few players that DID play good, were Ballards FA and draft gems. Autry, Moore, Leonard, heck even Najee Goode made plays that game.

Ya it was a bad game for most of the team but the reciever's couldn't get separation on the worst secondary in football what does that tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

So you are saying sign a guy for the cheap who fits a need once we are 1-2 players away? Im not buying it. Because the money/age of the player isn't the problem. And by the time we sign "our own", we wont have the luxury of keeping all of them so then we are still forced to drink from the well called FA.

Well you have your concepts and they have theirs..... If you're a fan you'll just have to learn to accept it I suppose. 

 

Or...drop your resume and see if Irsay will hire you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott Pennock said:

Well you have your concepts and they have theirs..... If you're a fan you'll just have to learn to accept it I suppose. 

 

Or...drop your resume and see if Irsay will hire you!

Ill be sure to ping you for a scouting gig should the opportunity arise! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Who was exposed? Those defensive lineman maintained a very good run game control all year....and did a decent job pressuring the QB.

 

It seems as though that you are reacting from an emotional place versus a rational place.

If they aren't exposed, then how did we get beat? Apparently the Chiefs and Patriots did something to beat us. Can you explain it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aavmarine said:

If they aren't exposed, then how did we get beat? Apparently the Chiefs and Patriots did something to beat us. Can you explain it?

It's easy. We didn't play the Patriots in the playoffs and the Chiefs out-performed, out-coached and out-gameplanned us (especially in that first quarter) and the better team won that day. 

 

It's not rocket science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2019 at 7:23 PM, Scott Pennock said:

16 years

183 million dollars

 

That is what the Packers shelled out in free agency for the following:

 

OT Billy Turner

LB Za'Darius Smith

LB Preston Smith

SS Adrian Amos

 

3 of the 4 were free agent targets of the Colts.

 

Did you guys REALLY want to spend that kind of money in free agency this year?

 

That is 4 players...... For the same cash we could sign 8-10 solid veterans to more modest deals and lets not pretend that Sheard, Simon, Woods, Desir, Hunt have not worked out to varying degrees. 

 

Let Ballard, Dodds and Hogan do their thing on draft day and sign mid-tier free agents and solid contributors from cut down day like Muhammad, Phillips and Moore II....

 

I think the only "unwise" spending was Za'Darius...   and while I like the player,  I think he signed for ridiculous money.    The spending on the other Smith and Amos I thought were not unreasonable.

 

Turner, I'm neither here nor there with.    Is he coming on board as a starter, or back-up?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2019 at 12:24 PM, NorthernBlue said:

 Andrew Luck was bad that game too. So was our entire elite offensive line.

 

In fact, the few players that DID play good, were Ballards FA and draft gems. Autry, Moore, Leonard, heck even Najee Goode made plays that game.

 

And our run game was nonexistent, not because it wasn't there, but because we were down in the count and bailed on the run... That likely won't happen again, ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packers have been great with their pickups. Amos is going to be a stud for them and his contract is not outrageous like Collins. 

 

Both Smiths are great additions to that defense too. Excited to see how they do this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 12:24 PM, NorthernBlue said:

 Andrew Luck was bad that game too. So was our entire elite offensive line.

 

In fact, the few players that DID play good, were Ballards FA and draft gems. Autry, Moore, Leonard, heck even Najee Goode made plays that game.

It's so easy to watch that game (against KC) and conclude that Luck had a stinker. That game was way more on the receiving corps than Andrew. Our two worst games of the season: JAX & KC, were our worst because the lack of dynamism in that group; they could get no separation. I don't think we can afford to not take a WR w/ one of our first 3 picks (even with Funchess and Cain returning)

 

I got to the end of this response before realizing that this has nothing to do with this thread :sorry:. Just caught my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 07dleigh said:

It's so easy to watch that game (against KC) and conclude that Luck had a stinker. That game was way more on the receiving corps than Andrew. Our two worst games of the season: JAX & KC, were our worst because the lack of dynamism in that group; they could get no separation. I don't think we can afford to not take a WR w/ one of our first 3 picks (even with Funchess and Cain returning)

 

I got to the end of this response before realizing that this has nothing to do with this thread :sorry:. Just caught my attention.

As you said, For the sake of not detailing this thread, I’ll try to keep this short.

 

But as bad as the recieving core was, Luck was bad too. He had a bad game. Doesn’t matter how bad everyone else was. He was bad too. The L wasn’t his fault, and I know full well that Luck will rebound, but you can’t pin that loss on just 1 unit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2019 at 2:19 PM, jameszeigler834 said:

Ya it was a bad game for most of the team but the reciever's couldn't get separation on the worst secondary in football what does that tell you.

It tells me the gameplan was terrible. Everyone knew the best way to exploit that secondary was across the middle and the seams. We did neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2019 at 2:19 PM, Rackeen305 said:

So you are saying sign a guy for the cheap who fits a need once we are 1-2 players away? Im not buying it. Because the money/age of the player isn't the problem. And by the time we sign "our own", we wont have the luxury of keeping all of them so then we are still forced to drink from the well called FA.

 

 You are lost sir. It is like you have NEVER seen a team remain competitive for a long period of time.
 This is understandable for novices. It is simple. 
Over time Ballard will build a deep roster. When he anticipates he may lose a player in FA, he will have his replacement on the roster a year ahead of time.
 Or with his 1st couple pics each draft he can add someone he thinks can do the job.  If he is concerned enough he can fill a spot or two with FA.
Wash, rinse, repeat. 

  Most of all NOW, our guys need Experience. And we have a slew of Rookies coming this off season that will need motivated and coached up to be our future starters and roll playing depth. 
 We should be really talented and experienced by 2021, and SB contenders for a number of years. Enjoy the Wait ya'll. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The Colts part in the podcast is from 9:50 til about 13:40, so it is a short listen. He said LT is a big question. Struggled at that position since Castanzo left. Raimann has not really panned out. Need the position to be solidified. Like the Oline man from Pitt and there is a belief that he can play LT. It could mean nothing but teams do draft for next years free agent market. I believe Raimann is up for a contract and could give the Colts some flexibility if Raimann wants huge money and/or if they don't really think he is he answer moving forward and Conclaves shows something. Let be honest,  Cosell could be totally opposite of what the Colts think of Raimann as a LT.  
    • Agree in that he may have used the incorrect words in trying to get his point across.   I would have to listen to it again but I believe he did say that the Colts have basically not found their starting LT.
    • Not unless they feel that one of the Oline men they drafted could develop into a LT. They used a 3rd a 4th on Oline this year and that is what they used on Raimann when they drafted. I am not saying Raimann is trash. Like I said, a lot of people on this forum and the media are high on him and Cosell is not.  He could be some where in the middle in how the Colts feel about them. If that is true, then  I would tend to believe that he has not cemented himself as the franchise LT moving forward.
    • If he said something like 'Raimann isn't a franchise LT, but he's serviceable,' I probably wouldn't bat an eye. If he said 'they could probably improve at LT because I'm not sure Raimann will hold up,' my ears would perk up a little, but that's still a defensible opinion. Saying he has not panned out is a different story. I interpret that as meaning he thinks Raimann has played poorly, which is objectively not true.   Like you said, we can disagree on a draft prospect, and only time will tell. If someone has doubts about how someone on the team will perform in the future, that's fair. But saying Raimann has not panned out is based on what we've already seen, and in this case, I think Cosell is just wrong.    Maybe I'm taking his comment too literally. I listened to the interview, it was just one line in a broader discussion, and maybe if he was going to clarify he'd state his position differently. 
    • We would have to pick pretty high to move on from Rainmann. That would mean a bad season and that isn’t happening.  I doubt they would pay a LT in FA. That’s too much money.
  • Members

    • Superman

      Superman 21,032

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DynaMike

      DynaMike 162

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 21,461

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • G8R

      G8R 54

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Snakeman

      Snakeman 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TheNewGuy

      TheNewGuy 53

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • John Hammonds

      John Hammonds 5,033

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,881

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • KB

      KB 1,152

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chad72

      chad72 18,384

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...