Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bravo4460

Free Agent Visits

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Just like there are different types of WRs, there are different types of RBs. You have every down backs, short yardage backs, hybrid or all purpose backs. Sproles was absolutely a hybrid/APB. He had a lot more yards catching the ball than he did rushing. ~4800 receiving vs 3400ish running. So should we think of him more as a WR than a RB? 

 

Hines had 80ish rushing attempts and 80ish WR targets. He had more yards catching than rushing. 

The same way you have Interior OL/DL and Edge players

Share this post


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

 

 
 Frank likes something about him, no matter what Gase or his soccer coaches thought.  

 

That might be true, but whatever it is that Frank likes, it's not his bruising style, if people think that's why he would be brought in - to be thunder to Mack's lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The same way you have Interior OL/DL and Edge players

Tons of "tweener" positions in football. You can even add in OLBs to the Edge DE conversation in certain schemes. And toss in Ss, Rovers, nickel and dime Ds. 

 

Hines in fantastic in his rookie year. I can see his targets and/or touches expanding in 2019 now that he has a year under his belt.

 

That's another reason why I wanted another WR (WR2) that stretched the D. If we had two stretch WRs, underneath would be crazy open for guys like Hines and Ebron. Funchess will just be another intermediate guy, but I'd bet the majority of his targets will be intermediate on the perimeter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Just like there are different types of WRs, there are different types of RBs. You have every down backs, short yardage backs, hybrid or all purpose backs. Sproles was absolutely a hybrid/APB. He had a lot more yards catching the ball than he did rushing. ~4800 receiving vs 3400ish running. So should we think of him more as a WR than a RB? 

 

Hines had 80ish rushing attempts and 80ish WR targets. He had more yards catching than rushing. 

 

So Sproles has more receiving than rushing yards.  And yet he’s a running back.   If you walked up to him and asked him what position does he play, what answer do you think he’d give?

 

The fact he’s an all purpose back doesn’t mean he’s not a running back.

 

Hines is also a RB.  I suspect the positional meeting room he participates in is the RB room and nit the WR.

 

This is just a game of semantics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So Sproles has more receiving than rushing yards.  And yet he’s a running back.   If you walked up to him and asked him what position does he play, what answer do you think he’d give?

 

The fact he’s an all purpose back doesn’t mean he’s not a running back.

 

Hines is also a RB.  I suspect the positional meeting room he participates in is the RB room and nit the WR.

 

This is just a game of semantics.  

It has at lot to do with the NFL # Rules that mandates what numbers can run the ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

So Sproles has more receiving than rushing yards.  And yet he’s a running back.   If you walked up to him and asked him what position does he play, what answer do you think he’d give?

 

The fact he’s an all purpose back doesn’t mean he’s not a running back.

 

Hines is also a RB.  I suspect the positional meeting room he participates in is the RB room and nit the WR.

 

This is just a game of semantics.  

nobody is saying sproles and hines aren't RBs. but they are of the hybrid/APB family, and they should not be compared with an every down back, or a short yardage back. that's the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

It has at lot to do with the NFL # Rules that mandates what numbers can run the ball

Huh?

 

Don’t overthink this.   He plays where he does because his real value is that he has two distinct skill sets.   We didn’t draft him to be a pure wide receiver.   We want both sets.   If we wanted him to be a WR only, that’s where he’d be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone wants a Gurley and yet even he came up short in the playoffs and SB.  But the year before Reich’s RB. by committee was successful and won a SB.  I think that’s what he wants and that’s what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

nobody is saying sproles and hines aren't RBs. but they are of the hybrid/APB family, and they should not be compared with an every down back, or a short yardage back. that's the point. 

I never compared Hines with a conventional back.

 

I responded to Princeton who declared he didn’t consider Hines a RB.  So the ball is in Princeton’s court.   The issue is his, not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Huh?

 

Don’t overthink this.   He plays where he does because his real value is that he has two distinct skill sets.   We didn’t draft him to be a pure wide receiver.   We want both sets.   If we wanted him to be a WR only, that’s where he’d be.

Sorry if I see everything as a coach

 

    And it is not we

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I never compared Hines with a conventional back.

 

I responded to Princeton who declared he didn’t consider Hines a RB.  So the ball is in Princeton’s court.   The issue is his, not mine.

And did you see why I said that it was because someone said the team does not need 4 RBs

6 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Everyone wants a Gurley and yet even he came up short in the playoffs and SB.  But the year before Reich’s RB. by committee was successful and won a SB.  I think that’s what he wants and that’s what we have.

Agreed but I come from a Wing T backup which by definition is a RB by committee system 

Share this post


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

This doesn't really move the needle for me. Seems like a guy who would start the season on PUP and then maybe add something to the rotation later in the year when the other backs are maybe nicked up. I'm not against it, but if we sign him it would be for depth more than anything. 

I feel like they are just bringing him in to see where hes at coming off the ACL. I dont think they will sign him. Probably going to work him out to get an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, krunk said:

I feel like they are just bringing him in to see where hes at coming off the ACL. I dont think they will sign him. Probably going to work him out to get an opinion.

I think they might sign him if medicals and rehab check out but if not they put him in the Rolodex 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I never compared Hines with a conventional back.

 

I responded to Princeton who declared he didn’t consider Hines a RB.  So the ball is in Princeton’s court.   The issue is his, not mine.

PT should had said that Hines was not a "prototypical" RB, instead of a "true" RB. We all knew what he meant though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

PT should had said that Hines was not a "prototypical" RB, instead of a "true" RB. We all knew what he meant though.

Coaching terminology sorry

 

  I added Hybrid in my later posts 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

@Irish YJ

    Since I can only type with one hand when I can I use easier typed words

i short cut too lol. i understood you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably won't be much notable Colts news for a few days, so why worry?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Sorry if I see everything as a coach

 

    And it is not we

 

Huh?

 

I used the “we” in reference to the Colts...   I wouldn’t read anything else into the comment other than that.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

And did you see why I said that it was because someone said the team does not need 4 RBs

Agreed but I come from a Wing T backup which by definition is a RB by committee system 

Yeah....

 

Except the Colts think of him as a RB.  And Hines thinks of him as a RB.  The person who sees him as something different....    is you.

 

And all these exchanges later I still don’t understand your argument?

 

So I’m comfirtable moving on from here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see Danny Shelton here. I think he could bolster our NT position and would be reasonable in price.  He’s my offseason sleeper for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

PT should had said that Hines was not a "prototypical" RB, instead of a "true" RB. We all knew what he meant though.

I didn’t know what he meant.   Or I certainly didn’t know WHY this was such a big deal to him?

 

And the fact he isn’t a prototypical RB I think is pretty obvious on its face.   It feels like he’s dancing around the issue in circles.  

 

At thus point since we’re only the smallest bit of irogress,  I’m willing to move on and call it a day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I didn’t know what he meant.   Or I certainly didn’t know WHY this was such a big deal to him?

 

And the fact he isn’t a prototypical RB I think is pretty obvious on its face.   It feels like he’s dancing around the issue in circles.  

 

At thus point since we’re only the smallest bit of irogress,  I’m willing to move on and call it a day. 

 

Honestly, I think it was only yourself making a big deal out of it. I think everyone else got what @PrincetonTiger meant. Quite a lot of of how a player positions in the NFL are semantics, even more so these days. However there are technical rules that have to be complied with too. 

 

I mean look at Leonard and the Pro Bowl vote. In fact, a lot of the Pro Bowl position set is pretty archaic now IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Honestly, I think it was only yourself making a big deal out of it. I think everyone else got what @PrincetonTiger meant. Quite a lot of of how a player positions in the NFL are semantics, even more so these days. However there are technical rules that have to be complied with too. 

 

I mean look at Leonard and the Pro Bowl vote. In fact, a lot of the Pro Bowl position set is pretty archaic now IMO.

Interesting....   you think the problem was mine...   I’m shocked...   (sarcasm)

 

You think “everyone” else got it.   It was a conversation with basically three people...  me, PT, and Irish.   

 

You say it was semantics?   Funny..   I used that precise word.

 

Did you even notice that I tried to stop the conversation a number of times?   I’m guessing not.

 

But thanks for bringing up the Pro Bowl!   An aspect of football so bad, that the NFL has practically canceled it!   That was helpful.

 

I’m stepping out of this issue.   If anyone still cares about they can carry on.   I’m more than done.   Especially after this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Interesting....   you think the problem was mine...   I’m shocked...   (sarcasm)

Come on, you know my intention isn't to have a dig so there's no need to get like this. 

 

You think “everyone” else got it.   It was a conversation with basically three people...  me, PT, and Irish.   

I wasn't involved in the conversation yet I could comprehend what PT was getting at and see the disconnect with your replies. 

 

You say it was semantics?   Funny..   I used that precise word.

Exactly you acknowledged it, but yet you continued to dig your heels in when clearly you hadn't understood, or unintentionally misconstrued what PT meant initially. When you're argument in reply is the "Colts say he's a RB therefore he is one", while factually correct, completely missed the nuance. 

 

Did you even notice that I tried to stop the conversation a number of times?   I’m guessing not.

Then you guess wrong, but it came across as I'm trying to stop the conversation on MY terms because I'M right. 

 

But thanks for bringing up the Pro Bowl!   An aspect of football so bad, that the NFL has practically canceled it!   That was helpful.

Do you truly not get how the Pro Bowl having a very rigid way of setting it's roster is pertinent to this conversation? The whole point is that yes Hines is classed as a RB, but like many role players he is not truly a RB in the traditional sense. You could make the argument that there are more than enough teams employing these hybrid backs that you could make it a stand alone position, say for Pro Bowl voting.  I mean there are probably more players like Hines on rosters now than there are true FBs for instance. 

 

I’m stepping out of this issue.   If anyone still cares about they can carry on.   I’m more than done.   Especially after this. 

Again there's no need for the attitude, I was having a conversation with you, you know yourself that you can react badly to things on here at times. I was merely providing some outside perspective as to how it was coming across. 

 

 

 

Hopefully this explains a bit better so that we don't derail completely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figured there would be more visits coming in. Especially after the big names got signed...

 

However this doesn’t seem to be the case. Lol Colts are REALLY quiet this go around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Thanks for the read

If we sign him I guess that means we have some decent doubt about Wilkins/Hines and whoever else ability to be the #2 guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, krunk said:

If we sign him I guess that means we have some decent doubt about Wilkins/Hines and whoever else ability to be the #2 guy.

 

Could be. I wouldn't put Hines in the same bracket as the other RBs as he's used in schematically specific ways more than the others. However, it could just be the case that we've got the chance to kick the tyres on a proven RB in the league and he could offer a value signing. 

 

I mean if the price and length is right and we have some confidence about his projected rehab why not sign him? If you end up cutting him it's not a major blunder. 

 

I am biased in that I've always liked Ajayi though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, krunk said:

If we sign him I guess that means we have some decent doubt about Wilkins/Hines and whoever else ability to be the #2 guy.

 

I also wouldn't call this doubt necessarily.

 

It is certainly no reflection on Mack or on Hines.

 

If anything, it is a reflection (ever so slightly) on Wilkins.

 

I see Ajayi as being looked at for the Robert Turbin role. Looking for a guy who can handle the tough yards between the tackles, short yardage plays, and can fill in and be versatile on all types of situations especially if injuries arise.

 

Turbin was our "big" back. Once he went down that became Wilkins.

 

Turbin was 5'10", 225.

Wilkins is 6'1", 216

Ajayi is 6'0", 223

 

So these guys are all fairly comparable in size. I would say if Ajayi is signed it is ultimately more as the Turbin replacement. At one point last year they carried 4 RBs with Mack, Hines, Wilkins and Turbin. All were not always active on gameday, though.

 

Could be similar if we sign Ajayi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

 

I also wouldn't call this doubt necessarily.

 

It is certainly no reflection on Mack or on Hines.

 

If anything, it is a reflection (ever so slightly) on Wilkins.

 

I see Ajayi as being looked at for the Robert Turbin role. Looking for a guy who can handle the tough yards between the tackles, short yardage plays, and can fill in and be versatile on all types of situations especially if injuries arise.

 

Turbin was our "big" back. Once he went down that became Wilkins.

 

Turbin was 5'10", 225.

Wilkins is 6'1", 216

Ajayi is 6'0", 223

 

So these guys are all fairly comparable in size. I would say if Ajayi is signed it is ultimately more as the Turbin replacement. At one point last year they carried 4 RBs with Mack, Hines, Wilkins and Turbin. All were not always active on gameday, though.

 

Could be similar if we sign Ajayi.

Ajayi is not too far removed from a 1500 yard season.   I think they are looking for more than a Turbin.  They are looking for a guy who can handle the load if Mack goes down.  Im not sure if they feel anybody behind Mack currently can do that.  Ajayis injuries concern me some though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, threeflight said:

Not sure why we need him.  Seems to be filling space just because.

 

If we weren't going to get Bell, I was fine with Mack, Wilkins, and Hines.

 

I don't get the infatuation with Le'Veon Bell. No good teams wanted him, that's why he's on the Jets. As far as Ajayi goes, Frank Reich coached him in Philly, & he was a big part of their SB run, so he knows exactly how to use him. What else do you need to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DerekDiggler said:

I have never been a fan of Mack as the #1 back.   I have said multiple times that we could and should upgrade the position,    I posted in another thread that I did not think Ballard would upgrade the RB position because Mack did gain a lot of yards at the end of the season. BUt he missed games.  And someone responded that is why we need to upgrade.  Whoever you are you seem to be onto something.

 

And I couldn't be happier.  

 

Aside from goal line situations, signing Ajayi would not effect Marlon Mack's snap count in the slightest. He's clearly our RB1 despite the opposition of some in our fanbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Aside from goal line situations, signing Ajayi would not effect Marlon Mack's snap count in the slightest. He's clearly our RB1 despite the opposition of some in our fanbase.

So true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I seriously doubt signing Ajayi would mean anything for Mack. He's very talented but he also might be one of the biggest injury risks in the NFL right now. Bone on bone issues coming out of college, multiple torn ACL's, played through a fractured back...I doubt we're bringing him in to rely heavily on him.

Share this post


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

Why would the #Colts have interest in Jay Ajayi? Taking a closer look, there are several reasons:

 

https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/report-jay-ajayi-visit-indianapolis-colts

 

Ajayi has the Reich connection and will be cheap...and can probably be had on a one-year deal. That seems to fit...especially if they are just looking for depth.

 

But those comments make it sound like RB in general is in fact somewhat of a priority this offseason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I don't get the infatuation with Le'Veon Bell. No good teams wanted him, that's why he's on the Jets. As far as Ajayi goes, Frank Reich coached him in Philly, & he was a big part of their SB run, so he knows exactly how to use him. What else do you need to know?

 

And with his injury history, he'd be a very reasonably priced pickup. 

 

I've wanted a Turbin like, short yardage guy for a while.  I was hoping Williams was the answer but I've never seen him play.  We know Ajayi has the experience, we're just not sure if he still has the talent or durability.

Share this post


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

If we sign him I guess that means we have some decent doubt about Wilkins/Hines and whoever else ability to be the #2 guy.

 

Yeah...those quotes make it sound like they are anything but content with their current group...especially as it pertains to Reich's desire to have a top tier rushing attack (which is pretty newsworthy in its own right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 1. I think the Bears franchise Trubisky for 1 year. 2. Broncos like what they see in Drew Lock and will give him a couple of years. 3. Giants did not give up on Daniel Jones, he has a high ankle sprain due to which Eli is starting 4. Panthers most likely might franchise Cam Newton for 1 year because they have seen his ceiling, when given a good O-line, that he could get them to the SB, you just don't give up on that quickly. But they will draft a QB. 5. Winston will be gone and they will draft a QB. 6. Carr won't be gone but they will draft a QB. 7. Rivers won't be gone but they will draft a QB. 8. Tom Brady and Drew Brees are not going anywhere, Bridgewater will be re-signed for another 2-3 years, IMO close to $10-12 mil. a year making him the highest paid backup QB. 9. Brissett will stay and they will draft a QB.   Outside the obvious Bengals and Dolphins, I have 5 other teams I believe will draft a QB - Panthers, Bucs, Raiders, Chargers and Colts. 
    • If you want an under the radar QB prospect with mobility who is much better in the pocket, go look at Utah's Tyler Huntley... 
    • I put the list in another thread but at some point or another, we have had the top 6 targets all out, plus others.  Yes, some overlap, some don't but the point stands.  That point being that we've had a revolving door at WR this year.     As for who they were. TY Funchess Campbell Rogers Fountain Ebron. Those guys were at the top of the depth chart for pass catchers.
    • A lot of the things are still the same. I completely disagree about him being able to throw with anticipation and his ability to reads of coverages, although he says that he's slow with his reads... which I guess is one way to parse what's happening. I think his ball placement and footwork have become better and I think his movement in the pocket and climbing up the pocket has become better. 
    • I'd bench both Cook and Mattison, and play Hunt and Guice.   Mainly because Baker has a sore thumb, so I think he will check down to Hunt a lot vs the Bengals, plus Chris Thompson is out and hence Guice will be more involved in a game vs Packers who should score better than the Panthers thus reducing Adrian's impact. I have a good feeling that the combination of Hunt and Guice will give you the SAME production as the combination of Cook and Mattison.   But if you want to play one of Cook or Mattison, and one of Hunt and Guice, based on game flow, I feel play Mattison and Guice.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...