Roster Moves 4/15/2019

[JPFolks]

15 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

Fans who want a proven WR besides TY arent going to get it. It's now draft time and any WR we pick up will have to prove himself. 

Fans who want a proven WR besides TY arent going to get it. It's now draft time and any WR we pick up will have to prove himself. 

Well, in a way ALL these guys are "proven" as they have "proven" they aren't good enough to be #1, #2 or #3 yet in their collective careers.  We have Hilton, a Proven #1 and the rest have proven they are not good enough up to this point in their careers.  We have to hope they will change.  The unproven WR's will be any we draft and they can start proving themselves in OTA's and training camp going forward.  

[JPFolks]

16 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

The one I remember the most was the Miami game when luck almost got sacked and he ducked and threw a perfect ball to a wide open Rogers.

That was definitely the play of the game.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Not every player is going to have pro bowl abilities. You need role players also. A team couldn’t exist paying every player high dollar money. Players like Rogers are just as important as a TY. 

[BigQungus]

12 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Well, in a way ALL these guys are "proven" as they have "proven" they aren't good enough to be #1, #2 or #3 yet in their collective careers.  We have Hilton, a Proven #1 and the rest have proven they are not good enough up to this point in their careers.  We have to hope they will change.  The unproven WR's will be any we draft and they can start proving themselves in OTA's and training camp going forward.  

 

We still haven't seen Funchess, Cain, Johnson, and I guess Reece Fountain's full potential. They're in no way "proven"!!

[Matabix]

Some people seem to forget the improvement between rookie year and 2nd year Wideouts. I fully expect Fountain, Ishmael, and Pascal do be alot better. Again Ballard has said he doesn't think our WR position is as bad as what fans think. So maybe 1 WR drafted beyond 4th round.

[Jdubu]

7 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I recently watched some of the highlights from our last several games. I’m with you on Inman. If he’s our #4 or 5, that means we have a heck of a group.  He balled out in those games. 

 

I know he said he wants to stay here. No one has signed him.  I wonder what the issue is?  

I am guessing, as a few have eluded to in here, that CB has spoken to Inman, explained where the team is on a contract and his place on the team and said look, if after the draft you haven’t found a suitable home, we have an offer standing for you, if nothing more than to compete with a potential new draft pick as well as the other guys. Right now, TY and likely Funchess is the only guaranteed starters here, there is room for you but both of us have to be realists here. Good luck Inman if you find a new home, I’ll put in a word if you need one but I’d also love to see you back after the draft if it doesn’t work out elsewhere for you. 

 

I could see CB being that upfront with Inman. Assure him he has a contract after the draft that will give him a chance to beat out younger guys but also make sure he is aware that he isn’t our first choice and we really want to be a younger group.  I hope we see Inman back, he just clicked and caught balls. I don’t need 5 super star wr’s, or even 3, I just want a reliable chain mover. 

[EastStreet]

19 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

You are obsessed.

it's not too obsessive when the team is #3 in drops already, and added another guy with the same issues.

[EastStreet]

14 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Ebron had a worse drop percentage.  We’re keeping him, right?

 

Besides, they think enough of Rogers to give him a 2nd round tender and pay the man.  I think he makes the team.  

i'm a rogers fan, so happy he is coming back. he's not a rock star, but solid enough. 

ebron has drop issues, but no issue with production, and is getting only 6 or 7M. 

comparing their drop rate, one is 8.2 and one is 8.3 (using PP), so almost the same when you consider amount of targets.

[crazycolt1]

15 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

it's not too obsessive when the team is #3 in drops already, and added another guy with the same issues.

I think if you go back since the Funchess signing you will see that 75 or 80% of every post you have made is  have been about drops.

Do you bring anything else to the table?

[HOF19]

Wondering if this guy would be a "Ballard type move " in 5th round >>>>>>  (note predicted round for this player ) WR Emanuel Hall, Missouri (6-2/201)
40: 4.39 sec. (11th; leader – 4.29)
Broad Jump: 141 in. (T-1st)
NFL Draft Scout Rating: Round 5 ………. His 4.39 speed could make him worth looking at !

[EastStreet]

30 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think if you go back since the Funchess signing you will see that 75 or 80% of every post you have made is  have been about drops.

Do you bring anything else to the table?

lol, you're the one that provided incorrect info saying he had 3 or less drops last year. 

i wouldn't have commented had you provided accurate stats. i guess i bring accurate info...

 

sorry, i don't ignore the drop stats... it's a key indicator. yards, catch rate, separation, drops, yac, etc..

 

i think you're being a drama queen once again.

[EastStreet]

9 minutes ago, HOF19 said:

Wondering if this guy would be a "Ballard type move " in 5th round >>>>>>  (note predicted round for this player ) WR Emanuel Hall, Missouri (6-2/201)
40: 4.39 sec. (11th; leader – 4.29)
Broad Jump: 141 in. (T-1st)
NFL Draft Scout Rating: Round 5 ………. His 4.39 speed could make him worth looking at !

good measurables but considered a one trick pony by most. he'd be a project IMO.

 

[HOF19]

6 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

good measurables but considered a one trick pony by most. he'd be a project IMO.

 

I was hoping that we would use a earlier pick on a WR but IMO the Funchess signing may have taken a early pick WR out of the picture .

[crazycolt1]

17 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

lol, you're the one that provided incorrect info saying he had 3 or less drops last year. 

i wouldn't have commented had you provided accurate stats. i guess i bring accurate info...

 

sorry, i don't ignore the drop stats... it's a key indicator. yards, catch rate, separation, drops, yac, etc..

 

i think you're being a drama queen once again.

As far as accurate stats that all depends on what web site you use. They all are different with different numbers. You always use the ones to make your point and disregard any others.

A drama queen?  Now you are being ridiculous.

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, HOF19 said:

I was hoping that we would use a earlier pick on a WR but IMO the Funchess signing may have taken a early pick WR out of the picture .

Honestly I wouldn't put too much stock in a 1 year deal. To me, DF is a multipurpose tool. He can help out at X a little (short to intermediate), slot a little, and in the RZ. He could be here to help Cain get over the injury hump, give them a big slot alternative to Rogers (conventional slot), etc.. In short, I don't think DF is a long term answer, but could find a niche if he performs. I don't think either way that his being here means that Ballard isn't looking in the draft.

[EastStreet]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

As far as accurate stats that all depends on what web site you use. They all are different with different numbers. You always use the ones to make your point and disregard any others.

A drama queen?  Now you are being ridiculous.

I use PP, PFF, Fox, etc. which are all accepted as accurate. I actually provided two which were one off from each other. That's not using one to make my point. It's giving two that both counter your claim of "3 or less", which I have no idea where you got...

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Honestly I wouldn't put too much stock in a 1 year deal. To me, DF is a multipurpose tool. He can help out at X a little (short to intermediate), slot a little, and in the RZ. He could be here to help Cain get over the injury hump, give them a big slot alternative to Rogers (conventional slot), etc.. In short, I don't think DF is a long term answer, but could find a niche if he performs. I don't think either way that his being here means that Ballard isn't looking in the draft.

Ballard said they are looking at him as a long term investment.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Irish YJ said:

I use PP, PFF, Fox, etc. which are all accepted as accurate. I actually provided two which were one off from each other. That's not using one to make my point. It's giving two that both counter your claim of "3 or less", which I have no idea where you got...

NBC sports.

Now is it possible for you to bring something to the table besides drop rates?

If not, carry on. It's what you do.

[EastStreet]

11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Ballard said they are looking at him as a long term investment.

Saying long term and offering a one year deal are a bit counter to each other. 

How many times has a GM or Coach come out and said, "we're signing him to a one year deal because he's a one year band-aid?" I'm sure there are some, but it's rare. Not saying that he won't stick (I hope he turns it around, balls out, and stays), but a one year deal is at minimum a short term "prove it" type commitment. 

[EastStreet]

19 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

NBC sports.

Now is it possible for you to bring something to the table besides drop rates?

If not, carry on. It's what you do.

 

Not that you care, but "STATS" who provides that data to NBC is a wholesale data provider that focuses on surface level type stuff. Not on the same level of PFF, PP, ESB, etc..

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

26 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Saying long term and offering a one year deal are a bit counter to each other. 

How many times has a GM or Coach come out and said, "we're signing him to a one year deal because he's a one year band-aid?" I'm sure there are some, but it's rare. Not saying that he won't stick (I hope he turns it around, balls out, and stays), but a one year deal is at minimum a short term "prove it" type commitment. 

Ballard doesn’t lie. Reich is also very excited to have him. Maybe it was funchess that wanted the one year.

[crazycolt1]

14 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

 

Not that you care, but "STATS" who provides that data to NBC is a wholesale data provider that focuses on surface level type stuff. Not on the same level of PFF, PP, ESB, etc..

I am waiting to see how many drops you mention when the Colts draft a defensive lineman or a cornerback.  Should be interesting.

[EastStreet]

16 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Ballard doesn’t lie. Reich is also very excited to have him. Maybe it was funchess that wanted the one year.

All GMs and Coaches "coach speak" or "GM speak". And they all have to be sales guys. They don't always make perfect decisions, but when they make a decision, they're going to sell it. Reich and Ballard were both playing up the Grant signing last year too. That didn't work out. Ballard was even a little defensive when asked about it on 1070 after last season.

 

Not sure if you've ever coached, or managed people in a corporate environment. If you have, you know that when a kid is on your team, or an employee is yours, you talk them up, regardless of what their long term potential might be. 

 

It's pretty rare for a guy who is a UFA to want a one year deal BTW.

 

 

[EastStreet]

47 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am waiting to see how many drops you mention when the Colts draft a defensive lineman or a cornerback.  Should be interesting.

you reply to a conversation about where to get good/accurate stats, by bringing up drops..... seems you're the one that can't stop talking about drops now.... are you obsessed? lol

 

btw, i've posted about plenty of other things. RBs, Ss, iDLs... none having to do with your favorite word....

[crazycolt1]

48 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

you reply to a conversation about where to get good/accurate stats, by bringing up drops..... seems you're the one that can't stop talking about drops now.... are you obsessed? lol

 

btw, i've posted about plenty of other things. RBs, Ss, iDLs... none having to do with your favorite word....

Sorry you can't recognize sarcasm when you read it.

 

 

[akcolt]

6 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

 

It's pretty rare for a guy who is a UFA to want a one year deal BTW.

 

 

It isn't that rare in the NFL . It happens frequently when FA's think they are worth more then their current market. They take a one year deal hoping to increase their value before signing a longer deal. They call it betting on yourself. 

[Stephen]

On 4/16/2019 at 1:14 PM, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Why would we draft a WR who can’t catch? Not sure that makes any sense! 

Just seems like ballard likes athletic  wrs with drop issues prior to signing with us

[EastStreet]

13 hours ago, akcolt said:

It isn't that rare in the NFL . It happens frequently when FA's think they are worth more then their current market. They take a one year deal hoping to increase their value before signing a longer deal. They call it betting on yourself. 

We don't know what was offered or required by either side, but I'd bet this was more of a Colt's driven contract knowing Ballard, than a DF driven contract. I get the whole betting on yourself thing, but this felt more like a high priced stop gap prove it type deal. Personally I think if Ballard saw this as an obvious long term situation, he would have pressed for that. He had the cap space for a short term gamble, and this doesn't hurt long term if it doesn't work out.

[JPFolks]

On 4/16/2019 at 5:43 PM, BigQungus said:

 

We still haven't seen Funchess, Cain, Johnson, and I guess Reece Fountain's full potential. They're in no way "proven"!!

sigh... you really didn't even read my post... try again. 

[NannyMcafee]

On 4/17/2019 at 12:14 AM, Irish YJ said:

All GMs and Coaches "coach speak" or "GM speak". And they all have to be sales guys. They don't always make perfect decisions, but when they make a decision, they're going to sell it. Reich and Ballard were both playing up the Grant signing last year too. That didn't work out. Ballard was even a little defensive when asked about it on 1070 after last season.

 

Not sure if you've ever coached, or managed people in a corporate environment. If you have, you know that when a kid is on your team, or an employee is yours, you talk them up, regardless of what their long term potential might be. 

 

It's pretty rare for a guy who is a UFA to want a one year deal BTW.

 

 

 

They dont have to sell anything. Never heard Grigson talk up Dorsset... Funchess being signed could indeed keep us from drafting a WR from rounds 1-3. Especially if he chose to go defense early which it's looking more and more possible. 

 

Just because you explain why you signed a WR doesn't mean you're talking it up. You're showing your reasons for signing the player. That's it. Talking up the signing would be making predictions about how good hes going to be on this team. Or making outlandish claims about their abilities. Saying funchess isn't as slow as people think is hardly talking the guy up. 

 

I think you need to let go of the idea that WR is such a high need and the colts will be one dimensional without a WR that you sign off on. Its making you upset. 

[BigQungus]

4 hours ago, JPFolks said:

sigh... you really didn't even read my post... try again. 

 

No I did, I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. You mean proven as in proven to be bad. But the fact is our receivers AREN'T proven to be bad. That's my point

[BigQungus]

13 hours ago, Stephen said:

Just seems like ballard likes athletic  wrs with drop issues prior to signing with us

 

It's not necessarily that he LIKES the fact that they drop passes, he just doesn't think it's a big enough deterrent to sign them. He probably trusts Andrew to give them more catchable balls, thereby decreasing drops, and trusts Coach Reich to coach it out of them. Remember, OC Nick Sirianni was a former WR coach if I'm not mistaken, so he trusts the coaching staff to train it out of them.

[coltsfeva]

   Ballard said he wants to build from the trenches so I’m assuming they will go DLine with 26 (and possibly 34), unless they can get a WR that demands double coverage. 

[crazycolt1]

11 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

   Ballard said he wants to build from the trenches so I’m assuming they will go DLine with 26 (and possibly 34), unless they can get a WR that demands double coverage. 

I am thinking the same thing.

With that said in reality Ballard could go a totally different direction. Does the BPA match what some perceive as the position we need the most?  We are not too far away from finding out.

[NewColtsFan]

On 4/17/2019 at 5:02 PM, Irish YJ said:

We don't know what was offered or required by either side, but I'd bet this was more of a Colt's driven contract knowing Ballard, than a DF driven contract. I get the whole betting on yourself thing, but this felt more like a high priced stop gap prove it type deal. Personally I think if Ballard saw this as an obvious long term situation, he would have pressed for that. He had the cap space for a short term gamble, and this doesn't hurt long term if it doesn't work out.

 

Ballard was interviewed about the Funchess signing.   Said they offered multiple contracts of various length and Funchess and the agent preferred the 1-year deal.    

 

Clearly,  they want to try to re-establish his market value with an Ebron like season and try for a better deal a year from now.   I think Ballard would've preferred a 2-year deal like Ebron,  but was not willing to lose the player over a shorter contract.

 

[JPFolks]

13 hours ago, BigQungus said:

 

No I did, I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. You mean proven as in proven to be bad. But the fact is our receivers AREN'T proven to be bad. That's my point

They all had an opportunity to prove they should be a #2.  They failed.  One due to injury, so he could change things, the others proved they were not ready to be #2.  Not much separation (Pascal seemed to have some potential there I will say), terrible hands as a group, only occasionally being in the right place at the right time like Rogers in the Miami game.  But to be clear, they proved they were not ready to be our #2 which is why we brought in Funchess and why many believe (and hope) that we will be drafting a WR in the draft to also address our underwhelming WR corps.  

 

Even if at some point in the future one of these guys end up as our #2, it doesn't change what they have all demonstrated already.  Cain has not had the opportunity in actual games so he's a question mark, the rest HAVE had a chance and were found wanting.  Odell Beckham Jr. proved immediately he was a #1.  Hilton proved immediately he was a top threat on our team even with Reggie on the team still.   These guys proved they are no Hilton or Beckham Jr. or the myriad of other WR's in the league who proved right out of the gate, whether they were draft picks or undrafted like Antonio Brown, that they were top end WRs.  Our guys have proven otherwise.  

[EastStreet]

14 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

They dont have to sell anything. Never heard Grigson talk up Dorsset... Funchess being signed could indeed keep us from drafting a WR from rounds 1-3. Especially if he chose to go defense early which it's looking more and more possible. 

 

Just because you explain why you signed a WR doesn't mean you're talking it up. You're showing your reasons for signing the player. That's it. Talking up the signing would be making predictions about how good hes going to be on this team. Or making outlandish claims about their abilities. Saying funchess isn't as slow as people think is hardly talking the guy up. 

 

I think you need to let go of the idea that WR is such a high need and the colts will be one dimensional without a WR that you sign off on. Its making you upset. 

If you heard Ballard on 1070, he played up Funchess. Reich did too. You can call it explaining, but when you only talk positives, it's playing it up.

 

Grigson... well he was quiet about most things. And guess what.... he lamented being to quiet and not establishing a relationship with the media. He was horrible and an example of what not to do anyway.

 

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/04/25/ryan-grigson-laments-lack-communication-during-his-time-colts/552149002/

 

Your opinion on needs is your opinion. To say WR is not a high need is your right. Most of the "experts" however see WR in the top rounds. If you follow Mock Mondays on Colts.com, WR was the clear number two in the mock (in the first round). iDL was the first with 14 talking heads picking DT. WR was 2nd with 10 experts. Edge had 4, S and CB both had 3.

 

https://www.colts.com/news/indianapolis-colts-2019-mock-draft-monday-april-15

 

Who knows what Ballard will do, but it's obvious what the "experts" think/predict. Drafts don't always select or reach on needs, but the simple fact is that most place WR as one of the top needs. 

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

If you heard Ballard on 1070, he played up Funchess. Reich did too. You can call it explaining, but when you only talk positives, it's playing it up.

 

So what?  Would you expect Ballard to say Funchess was a bum or something?

Jeez

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Ballard was interviewed about the Funchess signing.   Said they offered multiple contracts of various length and Funchess and the agent preferred the 1-year deal.    

 

Clearly,  they want to try to re-establish his market value with an Ebron like season and try for a better deal a year from now.   I think Ballard would've preferred a 2-year deal like Ebron,  but was not willing to lose the player over a shorter contract.

 

what this tells me, is that Ballard from the get go set his value, and delivered options. likely little to no negotiations. i'm sure Ballard would have preferred a deal with a second year option with lower yearly (I would have too), but the fact a one year was included as an option is pretty telling in itself. and the fact they provided multiple contract versions from the get go, confirms to me that this was Ballard driven. 

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So what?  Would you expect Ballard to say Funchess was a bum or something?

Jeez

no, i don't. i was replying to the context of another poster who said they don't have to sell anything. if they aren't selling, then they are talking about positives and negatives. if they are selling, it's all positive. and as i said, i expect them to sell it. 

 

perhaps read the chain before jumping in with you're usual