Jump to content
KB

Colts sign RB Spencer Ware

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

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

Nice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

well behind our line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

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