Colts sign RB Spencer Ware

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

4 hours ago, tweezy32 said:

I feel like I'm the minority here but I believe Wilkins is the better running back then Hines honestly and hope he gets the ball more this year.  I think he was really good last year while splitting the carries between two other backs and still produced good numbers. 

If your looking at just a RB your right. I think Hines strengths are pass catching out of the backfield and screen plays.

[Coltsman1788]

 

Loving the physicality that he runs with.  Looking forward to seeing this guy  running behind Big Q and our Oline.  

[Dark Superman]

Spencer Ware is exactly what this offense needs!

[Douzer]

I like it! Quality player, quality signing!

[Two_pound]

In my opinion, no way Wilkins gets cut. Mack, Hines and Wilkins will all make the team.

[PhillyCOLTSfan]

6 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

May I ask why?

i live in philly so ive seen all of ajay games im not a fan he always hurt, he cant catch that why he was never full time starter they would bring in clement and smallwood and sproles when healthy, he can play if he has a nice size hole im not saying he a super bum but im more confident in ware abilities

[jvan1973]

3 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Even if Gurley is a Superhero the Colts are in better shape

 

    Of the current Rams backups I knew one and that is because he played at Tennessee 

 Look,   I love our backs.   But Gurley is better than all of them.   His production speaks for itself.    I would trade all of our backs for him.  We don't have a game changer at RB.  He is a game changer

[jvan1973]

3 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Gurley did nothing in the playoffs. He was worn down from regular season. Too much wear and tear. He will never be the same. Got out played by CJ Anderson. You know you suck when a RB off the street takes your carries

You mean like Marshall Faulk in 1995 when Zach Crockett was the man? 

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

 Look,   I love our backs.   But Gurley is better than all of them.   His production speaks for itself.    I would trade all of our backs for him.  We don't have a game changer at RB.  He is a game changer

They have nothing to go with him and that is the problem

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

9 hours ago, w87r said:

Williams definitely the odd man out imo. I actually think Wilkins might still take thd spot over Ware. We shall see how camp turns out.

 

Good signing regardless. Competition everywhere.

This is ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE!!

[JPFolks]

9 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

The best off season in Colts history, has somehow became even better. Ware gives the Colts, by far, the best RB group in the NFL.

By far? Really? I mean I like our guys.. but I think you may be a little too excited... I am a fan of Ware though.  I hope he still has some of the juice he had when he filled in the first go round when their all world back went down.  (Can't even think of his name??)  That guy went from all world to pretty much gone amazingly fast and then Ware got hurt too and next thing you know they had Hunt.  I thought maybe KC would resign him, but maybe he didn't want to go back.  I can't think of many better FA options than Ware.  Ajayi couldn't sustain his production at all.  He was either amazing or nothing or hurt.  

[JPFolks]

2 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

 

Loving the physicality that he runs with.  Looking forward to seeing this guy  running behind Big Q and our Oline.  

THAT'S the Spencer Ware I remember! 

[EastStreet]

3 hours ago, Two_pound said:

In my opinion, no way Wilkins gets cut. Mack, Hines and Wilkins will all make the team.

I'm up in the air on this but tend to agree. Williams will be the odd man out.

 

We now have 

Mack as RB1

Wilkins as back up to Mack

Ware as Power Back (he can do more than just be the power back)

Hines as APB receiving back.

 

That's pretty nice. Will love seeing Ware punish some worn out DLs and LBs late in games, keeping Mack fresh.

[neug3246]

First off I am also a Wilkins fan. Second I remember Gore talking about when Ajayi got traded to philly from the dolphins and the things he had to say about him. I trust Gore knows what he is about when it comes to running back. Third good for ware but I am with some other posters in that I hope the depth chart is Mack Wilkins Hines and Ware if we carry 4 RBs.

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

By far? Really? I mean I like our guys.. but I think you may be a little too excited... I am a fan of Ware though.  I hope he still has some of the juice he had when he filled in the first go round when their all world back went down.  (Can't even think of his name??)  That guy went from all world to pretty much gone amazingly fast and then Ware got hurt too and next thing you know they had Hunt.  I thought maybe KC would resign him, but maybe he didn't want to go back.  I can't think of many better FA options than Ware.  Ajayi couldn't sustain his production at all.  He was either amazing or nothing or hurt.  

 

Mack was 6th last year if you normalized for his early injury. Hines had a great first year as an APB. Wilkins is a decent back up with a good average ypc. Ware fills the power back + hole that we were missing big time late in games, and in short yardage situations. If all stay healthy, wouldn't be shocked at all to see them top 5. Good get.

[TYtheGHOST]

4 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

 

Loving the physicality that he runs with.  Looking forward to seeing this guy  running behind Big Q and our Oline.  

looks like he plays very well vs SD hopefully he does the same week 1

[King Colt]

All Colts RBs will do fine with an OL than can open holes.

[Trueman]

Nice stuff. I really love how Ballard approaches free agency. 

Tons of value to find if you're just patient and smart.

[Dark Superman]

I would prefer a healthy Ware over Ajayi.

[Barry Sears]

Defenses beWARE!!!

[throwing BBZ]

  

 Ballard got who he wanted, signed him early so he can have all 4 months to fit in.

Nice.

[stitches]

 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

 

Wow, that is getting him for cheap.   I would've thought he would have been sought after a bit more.  

 

On second thought, I guess it is market value.   The Lions signed Anderson for $1.5 million.   I wish we would have signed Anderson.   Ware is a good consolation prize.  

[dodsworth]

Good vision, balance and power in a small frame. He will do

well behind our line.

[Hoose]

On 5/1/2019 at 1:42 AM, Trueman said:

Nice stuff. I really love how Ballard approaches free agency. 

Tons of value to find if you're just patient and smart.

Exactly. This should be a good reminder to people that the FA game goes on long after the first week. Ballard waited; got quality; never overpaid. 

[Dark Superman]

Ware would look sick wearing 44 in Indy.

[Myles]

18 minutes ago, Legend said:

Ware would look sick wearing 44 in Indy.

Well I hope they find him a different number.   I want him healthy.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Well I hope they find him a different number.   I want him healthy.

 

Yeah it is too Bradshaw could not stay healthy. He and Luck had nice chemistry.

[EastStreet]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

 

Great value. RBs are so devalued it's not even funny. 

 

Won't take it to the house of juke any one's jock off, but is patient and will hit the hole hard.

Not many will be arm tackle this guy. He's like a bowling ball, and is exactly what we needed in a power back. If he can keep his weight in check and keep away from the smokey smoke, he's going to have a great year punishing tacklers.

 

Our power success rank (Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer.) was 28th last year out of 32 teams. I'd bet we'll easily be top 15 this year.

[krunk]

Im not writing Jonathan Williams off like that. Wait till the pads get on. Hes a pretty good back..

[JPFolks]

On 4/30/2019 at 10:18 PM, Irish YJ said:

I'm up in the air on this but tend to agree. Williams will be the odd man out.

 

We now have 

Mack as RB1

Wilkins as back up to Mack

Ware as Power Back (he can do more than just be the power back)

Hines as APB receiving back.

 

That's pretty nice. Will love seeing Ware punish some worn out DLs and LBs late in games, keeping Mack fresh.

I can't recall, do we always keep 4 RB's or is it sometimes only 3? If it comes down to an extra lineman, an extra WR, an extra TE or an extra RB, which would (or anyone else) choose? It seems like one or more of these areas have to cut it deeper than the others.  I think I would lean towards an extra TE and an extra OL. Those are Andrew Luck security blankets.  In a catastrophic injury scenario, I'd rather he have time and protection to throw to lessor WR's or hand off to lessor RB's (and often there are veterans you can bring in ala Inman) over guys who need time to gel with blocking schemes/personnel and protection packages that a back up level guy is better filling than a guy off the streets. 

 

What are your (or anyone's) thoughts on that? 

[JPFolks]

11 minutes ago, krunk said:

Im not writing Jonathan Williams off like that. Wait till the pads get on. Hes a pretty good back..

Good to hear you say.  I am unfortunately under informed about him.  Can you offer any more info/opinion of what you know about Williams? 

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, krunk said:

Im not writing Jonathan Williams off like that. Wait till the pads get on. Hes a pretty good back..

I like Williams too, I just like Ware more. Both are short yardage backs, but Ware is faster, IMO, and more physical. I don't see us keeping two short yardage guys.

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

I can't recall, do we always keep 4 RB's or is it sometimes only 3? If it comes down to an extra lineman, an extra WR, an extra TE or an extra RB, which would (or anyone else) choose? It seems like one or more of these areas have to cut it deeper than the others.  I think I would lean towards an extra TE and an extra OL. Those are Andrew Luck security blankets.  In a catastrophic injury scenario, I'd rather he have time and protection to throw to lessor WR's or hand off to lessor RB's (and often there are veterans you can bring in ala Inman) over guys who need time to gel with blocking schemes/personnel and protection packages that a back up level guy is better filling than a guy off the streets. 

 

What are your (or anyone's) thoughts on that? 

Yup, 4 RBs are pretty standard. Depending on the scheme, they may even keep 5. RBs make great ST's players too. I'm guessing with our O, the design is:

 

2 similar standard down backs (RB1 Mack and Back up Wilkins)

1 short yardage back (guessing the Ware sign is bad for Williams)

1 all purpose back (Hines) who can flex to slot if needed.

 

RB is another position that's often kept on the 10 man practice roster.

 

If you think about it, there's 22 standard positions, plus K, P, and LS specialists. If every standard position gets a back up, that's 44. Then 47 when you count the 3 specialist. Now you have 6 slots to go deeper, and 10 practice team slots. So reallly you have 63.  It's not that simple, as OLs and DLs can play multiple positions, and DBs, DLs, LBs, WRs, and other can be highly specialized based on down and distance, scheme, etc..

 

Here's a decent/simple article on roster anatomy if interested. There's better/deeper articles out there, but this is light and hits the basics.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1640782-the-anatomy-of-a-53-man-roster-in-the-nfl

[BOTT]

On 4/30/2019 at 7:48 PM, jvan1973 said:

You mean like Marshall Faulk in 1995 when Zach Crockett was the man? 

That's when I started questioning the value of running backs.

[JPFolks]

1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

Yup, 4 RBs are pretty standard. Depending on the scheme, they may even keep 5. RBs make great ST's players too. I'm guessing with our O, the design is:

 

2 similar standard down backs (RB1 Mack and Back up Wilkins)

1 short yardage back (guessing the Ware sign is bad for Williams)

1 all purpose back (Hines) who can flex to slot if needed.

 

RB is another position that's often kept on the 10 man practice roster.

 

If you think about it, there's 22 standard positions, plus K, P, and LS specialists. If every standard position gets a back up, that's 44. Then 47 when you count the 3 specialist. Now you have 6 slots to go deeper, and 10 practice team slots. So reallly you have 63.  It's not that simple, as OLs and DLs can play multiple positions, and DBs, DLs, LBs, WRs, and other can be highly specialized based on down and distance, scheme, etc..

 

Here's a decent/simple article on roster anatomy if interested. There's better/deeper articles out there, but this is light and hits the basics.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1640782-the-anatomy-of-a-53-man-roster-in-the-nfl

Okay, I wasn't very clear on my question.  I know often it comes down, at the end, to extra depth at certain positions.  So, using your example, we'd have 4/6 WRs, (Depending on 3 WR dominant or 2 TE dominant lineups) 2/4 TEs, 10OLs, 2RBs, 2QBs.  That gives us 3 more guys (if we give 3 to the D and 3 to the O and our base WR is 5 and base TE is 3) on the O to add as depth.  Where do you spend those extras?  Is is ALWAYS a certain way, or is it open to strategy or is it based on the best talent available (or for that matter, the weakest starting talent needing more back up)? 

 

That's the general nature of my question.  When you get to decide if you want 6WRs or (fill in the blank) # of guys, which do you prefer, or is it just a standard that nearly all teams use? Or, are 4 or 5 of those on Defense more often?  You hopefully get where I am going.  Where do you all put the luxury depth players? 

[krunk]

1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

I like Williams too, I just like Ware more. Both are short yardage backs, but Ware is faster, IMO, and more physical. I don't see us keeping two short yardage guys.

Williams isnt a short yardage back. Hes more of a 3 down back. I look at him as competition for Wilkins. In some ways i think hes better than Wilkins.  Wouldnt be surprised if it turned into a Robert Turbin situation in that you have a guy travel around the league a little bit then find a home.

[krunk]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Good to hear you say.  I am unfortunately under informed about him.  Can you offer any more info/opinion of what you know about Williams? 

Was projected as a 2nd rd pick out of Arkansas a couple years back but fell to the 4th or 5th rd due to injury and something else. Drafted by the Bills but it didnt work out. Went to the Saints but they had a crowded backfield. Has 3 down RB ability and good feet along with the type of size youre looking for. I think he runs about 4.4 to 4.5.

 

Hes got good enough ability to make the squad. I sort of like him more than Wilkins. Want to see him run behind our line. We brought him up to the Regular Roster from the PS during the season but he didnt get to play. Hes good enough to beat Wilkins imo.

 

 

[Scott Pennock]

On 4/30/2019 at 6:48 PM, jvan1973 said:

You mean like Marshall Faulk in 1995 when Zach Crockett was the man? 

I believe that was a rather painful turf toe injury he had. But yes, Crockett had an especially great game against the Chiefs that playoff year!

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, JPFolks said:

Okay, I wasn't very clear on my question.  I know often it comes down, at the end, to extra depth at certain positions.  So, using your example, we'd have 4/6 WRs, (Depending on 3 WR dominant or 2 TE dominant lineups) 2/4 TEs, 10OLs, 2RBs, 2QBs.  That gives us 3 more guys (if we give 3 to the D and 3 to the O and our base WR is 5 and base TE is 3) on the O to add as depth.  Where do you spend those extras?  Is is ALWAYS a certain way, or is it open to strategy or is it based on the best talent available (or for that matter, the weakest starting talent needing more back up)? 

 

That's the general nature of my question.  When you get to decide if you want 6WRs or (fill in the blank) # of guys, which do you prefer, or is it just a standard that nearly all teams use? Or, are 4 or 5 of those on Defense more often?  You hopefully get where I am going.  Where do you all put the luxury depth players? 

it's open to strategy/scheme, competition, injury, but also draft/FA pick ups (guys you might not need but want to give time). If you have a position that's struggling and you're trying to upgrade, you might carry more. If you have a position with injury issues, you might carry more. If you draft players in a position where the comp is close, you might carry more.

 

Last year's initial 53 man roster vs the anatomy article standards (or NFL avg).

QB - 2 / 2

RB - 4 / 4

WR - 5 / 6 (-1)

TE - 4 / 3 (+1)

OL - 10 / 9 (+1)

DL - 9 / 9

LB - 6 / 7 (-1)

CB - 5 / 5

S - 5 / 5

ST - 3 / 3

 

Areas where we weren't average

WR - during the year we carried 5 to start and 6 some weeks. I'd bet we carry 6 this year to start given Cain is coming back from injury and we drafted PC.

TE - doubt we carry 4 this year if Doyle is healthy. 

OL - we carried +1 last year because we drafted 2 guys who were in the mix quickly. may not carry 10 this year.

LB - We drafted a few, so I can see us going back to 7.

 

In short, it's all fluid and year to year based on the things I listed (and more).