Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Oh come on the guy's versatility speaks for itself and he tackles well something we could use.

 

Completely ridiculous.

 

In a year where there is at least a modicum of uncertainty about the QB position, the Colts are not going to give up a # 1 pick for Fitzpatrick.   They sure as hell are not going to give up a 1 and a 2 for him, of this I am 10,000% sure.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

 

In a year where there is at least a modicum of uncertainty about the QB position, the Colts are not going to give up a # 1 pick for Fitzpatrick.   They sure as hell are not going to give up a 1 and a 2 for him, of this I am 10,000% sure.

 

 

I agree with this.......  we will see if JB is our QB of the future..... but we dont know that ...... YET

 

A 2021 first MIGHT be worthy, but a 2nd might be a better fit

 

This is IF.... a BIG IF........  if CB wants this player, 

 

He played FS and slot mostly in college

 

I would think we are in positions of strength in both

 

I put the odds of ANY trade at less than 5%

 

The guy looked good in college.... really good

 

 

It just "feels" like there is more to this story

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could Quincy Wilson and a 2nd get it done?  If they're having a fire sale and we're doing Madden trades, I'd send them Desir, Quincy, and a 2nd for Fitzpatrick (Minkah not Fitzmagic) and Xavien Howard the cornerback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I doubt that MIA is interested in anything else except high draft picks or a lot of draft picks. 

 

Sending a player along with a less draft capital won't do it, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see this move if we could get him for a second round pick, but with that being said, I just do not see where he fits in our defense. We're loaded at CB, and he has been very vocal about not wanting to play SS. 

 

As others have said, he's a perfect "Ballard" guy, but who loses their job to get him on the team? I just don't see anyone in the rosters current state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Exodus said:

I'd love to see this move if we could get him for a second round pick, but with that being said, I just do not see where he fits in our defense. We're loaded at CB, and he has been very vocal about not wanting to play SS. 

 

As others have said, he's a perfect "Ballard" guy, but who loses their job to get him on the team? I just don't see anyone in the rosters current state

We have alot of CB but none better than him.  You make moves at CB and Start Minkah. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We have alot of CB but none better than him.  You make moves at CB and Start Minkah. 

I agree.  He's the perfect "Ballard" guy.  Unlike some of the FA's he looked at or other players that have become available he fits all of his boxes and he's signed through 2020.  An inexpensive addition.   A young proven player and a difference maker IMO for an unproven draft pick.  No doubt in my mind.  Ballard should go and get him.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I agree.  He's the perfect "Ballard" guy.  Unlike some of the FA's he looked at or other players that have become available he fits all of his boxes and he's signed through 2020.  An inexpensive addition.   A young proven player and a difference maker IMO for an unproven draft pick.  No doubt in my mind.  Ballard should go and get him.  

 

The perfect Ballard guy is one he drafts.  Not one that he has to give up draft picks to get.  This will sink in eventually.

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

The perfect Ballard guy is one he drafts.  Not one that he has to give up draft picks to get.  This will sink in eventually.

 

 

Yeah unless it's someone who wasn't available for Ballard to draft in the first place

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Why?? It's his natural position

dude I wouldn't even argue with her. some of her reasoning for stuff is way way out there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Horseshoelife19 said:

Kelly is our future at Qb. Go get Fitzpatrick!!!!!!!!

I like the potential of Kelly as much as the next guy, but JB had a very good day

 

No ints

 

We will know by mid to late year if JB is our guy or not

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Miami wants too much in return

I think a 1 is not unreasonable on a guy who was a first round pick just a year ago, has lived up to his reports and has much of the money he is due paid up front already. We need more for the team with our number one pick next season than we would as a “where do we put this talented kid at” luxury currently. If they were willing to take a second and a choice of some players we would offer up, I’d do it. Would Willis be a kid plus the 2? Would Tell and the 2 be enough? A 2 and Wilson or another guy, idk, it’s worth exploring but I’m not crazy in giving up a 1. Had we not resigned Moore and Desir this past offseason, yeah, I could be down with 3 years of solid control of a possible All pro talent ( in theory). 

 

Id be very shocked if we went there though. The asking price is just not too far out there for this kid, in fact I’m shocked the asking price wasn’t two 1’s

Share this post


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

 

The perfect Ballard guy is one he drafts.  Not one that he has to give up draft picks to get.  This will sink in eventually.

 

Let’s just play this game, if Ballard had 2 #1’s in the same draft with Biq Q and this kid, would CB have taken him if he had the #11 pick as well? Idk, I’m just asking and it’s only one year out so it’s not like he is a burnt out draft pick. 

Share this post


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

Let’s just play this game, if Ballard had 2 #1’s in the same draft with Biq Q and this kid, would CB have taken him if he had the #11 pick as well? Idk, I’m just asking and it’s only one year out so it’s not like he is a burnt out draft pick. 

 

No clue how his board was ranked but I am aware that he is a quality young player. 

 

But I am also aware of the investments, both financially and in picks, that Ballard has put into the secondary.  I am also aware of the value he places on picks, particularly first round picks.  He is simply not going to invest more into a position group that seems pretty stocked right now with young talent.  That 2020 first rounder will 1) stay in Indy and 2) would be willing to bet is placed in something other than a DB.

Share this post


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

You could move Geathers and Wilson off the roster without much change in how we play. Odum and Willis could do what Geathers is currently doing.  Wilson just hasn't ever grabbed control of that #1 or #2 spot outside yet.   You could let Marvell Tell take over the role Wilson is currently doing. 

Exactly Tell wont learn much sitting on the bench or being inactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DougDew said:

Nah.  Just looking at the traits and attributes of all of the safeties that were taken in round 1 lately, and realizing that between Minkah, Derwin, and Hooker, we got the least bang for our buck.  But I doubt MIA would give us a good enough deal to unwind that mistake.

 

In the past you've said we spent too much draft capital on Hooker due to his role in our defense (deep zone).  Now you want to trade him away and get Fitzpatrick to replace him (in the deep zone role) by trading significant draft capital to MIA, because drafting Hooker was a "mistake"...  :scratch:  Derwin and Minkah aren't going to play the deep zone any better than Hooker does.  They are "do-everything-safeties" that are great closer to the line of scrimmage.  Doesn't make any sense.  Unless you're also advocating an entire scheme change to accommodate Fitzpatrick?  :dunno:

 

I don't understand why you do this with certain players:  you say we could have had a slightly-less-talented safety to play the deep zone instead of Hooker, plus another player, with the draft capital we used on Hooker (you've been saying this for over two years now).  You say we could have had a slightly-less-talented guard (like Hernandez) plus another player, instead of Nelson, with the draft capital we used on him (I noticed you haven't brought that up much since he was selected All-Pro).  You say we could have gotten the same production from a slightly-cheaper "big body" TE/WR type than Ebron (and you spent about 40 pages over 3 threads defending this point last year).  :facepalm:

 

The same could be said for literally ANY player.  The Browns could have had a different QB and extra players instead of Mayfield, a different DE and extra players instead of Garrett.  The Colts could have had a different QB and extra players instead of Luck, or even Manning for that matter.  The Chiefs could have had a different QB and extra players instead of Mahomes.  The Cowboys could have had a different RB and extra players instead of Zeke.  The Redskins could have had a handful of players for what they paid Landon Collins.  Literally ANY player could be replaced with a slightly-less-talented version of themselves plus extra players/draft capital, but you have something in your craw for Hooker...  :thinking:

 

Maybe it's just a coincidence, and I'm sure you'll deny it, but to the regulars on this site, it APPEARS that you only feel this way about a select group of players:  the players that Ballard invests a lot in and gets praised for making Colts.  :sip:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it feels like Doug likes to be different just for the sake of being different. Everybody could like a certain player and in Dougs head he knows the player is good himself, but he just can't help taking a swipe at the guy anyway just to be different from the rest of the crowd. It doesn't always feel like the concern is legitimate.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

In the past you've said we spent too much draft capital on Hooker due to his role in our defense (deep zone).  Now you want to trade him away and get Fitzpatrick to replace him (in the deep zone role) by trading significant draft capital to MIA, because drafting Hooker was a "mistake"...  :scratch:  Derwin and Minkah aren't going to play the deep zone any better than Hooker does.  They are "do-everything-safeties" that are great closer to the line of scrimmage.  Doesn't make any sense.  Unless you're also advocating an entire scheme change to accommodate Fitzpatrick?  :dunno:

 

I don't understand why you do this with certain players:  you say we could have had a slightly-less-talented safety to play the deep zone instead of Hooker, plus another player, with the draft capital we used on Hooker (you've been saying this for over two years now).  You say we could have had a slightly-less-talented guard (like Hernandez) plus another player, instead of Nelson, with the draft capital we used on him (I noticed you haven't brought that up much since he was selected All-Pro).  You say we could have gotten the same production from a slightly-cheaper "big body" TE/WR type than Ebron (and you spent about 40 pages over 3 threads defending this point last year).  :facepalm:

 

The same could be said for literally ANY player.  The Browns could have had a different QB and extra players instead of Mayfield, a different DE and extra players instead of Garrett.  The Colts could have had a different QB and extra players instead of Luck, or even Manning for that matter.  The Chiefs could have had a different QB and extra players instead of Mahomes.  The Cowboys could have had a different RB and extra players instead of Zeke.  The Redskins could have had a handful of players for what they paid Landon Collins.  Literally ANY player could be replaced with a slightly-less-talented version of themselves plus extra players/draft capital, but you have something in your craw for Hooker...  :thinking:

 

Maybe it's just a coincidence, and I'm sure you'll deny it, but to the regulars on this site, it APPEARS that you only feel this way about a select group of players:  the players that Ballard invests a lot in and gets praised for making Colts.  :sip:

Why are you obsessed over my view of Hooker?  As I have said, Hooker is fine.  I certainly wouldn't cut him, but if another team highly values what he does, they can have him for the market price.  In a thread about a versatile FS becoming available, certainly the thought of moving Hooker is valid. 

 

One of our safeties excels at the deep ball.  The other one is supposed to cover the TE, cover the RB, tackle both, play in the box, occasionally blitz.  Which one would you want to invest a lot of capital on, as opposed to, say, a 4th round pick?  Frankly, Derwin James makes more sense for this D as opposed to Hooker, but we spent the 6th pick on a G instead of trading down to get the S we need.  (I suppose you'll now say I hate Nelson?)

 

As far as I'm concerned, if Hooker continues to make interceptions every game, one great play per game, but yet the defense isn't very good, gives up easy first downs, my view wouldn't change.  If he makes a few splash plays, but the D isn't great, then obviously there is no advantage in having a guy who can make a few splash plays.

 

You intentionally fail to acknowledge that I have a noncomplex common sense based view and instead pretend that my position is based upon having some hang up over Ballard, just so you have something to say to me.

 

Would TJGreen be a great athletic FS if he also wasn't a great tackler, wasn't asked to cover, was never asked to play in the box, was never asked to blitz, but had better ball skills and was 3 inches shorter? 

 

What do you think we could get back for trading a FS like that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DougDew said:

Why are you obsessed over my view of Hooker?

 

You repeatedly bring up Hooker, I simply point out your nitpicking of Hooker because it's annoying.  You're free to express your opinion, and I'm just as free to express my opinion of your opinion.  :D

 

The question is why are you obsessed with Hooker?  :thinking:  You went out of your way to say you'd "be all for" Minkah replacing Malik at FS on the first page of this thread, but in our system, wouldn't Fitzpatrick make more sense at SS or even slot CB due to his versatility?

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

Frankly, Derwin James makes more sense for this D as opposed to Hooker

 

Wouldn't BOTH make more sense?  Hooker at FS and James at SS?  Why do you want to replace Hooker at FS with guys that make a better SS in our system?

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

As far as I'm concerned, if Hooker continues to make interceptions every game, one great play per game, but yet the defense isn't very good, gives up easy first downs, my view wouldn't change.  If he makes a few splash plays, but the D isn't great, then obviously there is no advantage in having a guy who can make a few splash plays.

 

What?  What's the point of this scenario?  If the rest of the D isn't making plays, then the rest of the D is the concern, not the play-making safety...  it's like you are looking for ways to nitpick the guy in made-up scenarios in your head...  :loco:

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

You intentionally fail to acknowledge that I have a noncomplex common sense based view

 

My main issue is that you don't do this with ALL players.  Leonard, for example, is basically the opposite of Hooker:  great at the line of scrimmage but a bit of a liability in deeper coverage.  TY is great at getting separation on deep balls, but isn't great at stuff like the slant when you just need a 1st down.  Tom Brady is elite at most things, but he's not very good as a runner when the play breaks down.

 

If you're going to apply your "common sense" to Hooker, then apply it to ALL players.  All players have parts of their game that can be nitpicked, but you are obsessed with Hooker and repeatedly find ways to nitpick him.  You want to "move on" from the "mistake" of drafting Hooker...  :bored:  Fine, keep spouting that opinion, but I'll keep pointing out that I think you're wrong.  :hat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the record that I think it would be shortsighted to spend any premium asset for non-long-term QB while there is a question about our QB position. We might need those picks to trade up in the draft for a QB Ballard and Reich love. Until we are certain one way or another in our long-term QB position we should not be trading those picks for players. And even then we should still be prudent in how we spend our picks. Multiple round 1 and round 2 picks for strong safety/slot CB is not my idea of prudent use of our picks. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stitches said:

I'm on the record that I think it would be shortsighted to spend any premium asset for non-long-term QB while there is a question about our QB position. We might need those picks to trade up in the draft for a QB Ballard and Reich love. Until we are certain one way or another in our long-term QB position we should not be trading those picks for players. And even then we should still be prudent in how we spend our picks. Multiple round 1 and round 2 picks for strong safety/slot CB is not my idea of prudent use of our picks. 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  THIS  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thank you, Stiches!  Thank you!   :hat:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stitches said:

I'm on the record that I think it would be shortsighted to spend any premium asset for non-long-term QB while there is a question about our QB position. We might need those picks to trade up in the draft for a QB Ballard and Reich love. Until we are certain one way or another in our long-term QB position we should not be trading those picks for players. And even then we should still be prudent in how we spend our picks. Multiple round 1 and round 2 picks for strong safety/slot CB is not my idea of prudent use of our picks. 

I do agree with the premise of your take.  I can't imagine Ballard will trade away "multiple round 1 and 2 picks for a safety/CB".  I could see him trading one of those picks though.  For all we know they feel certain about Jacoby being our long term QB.  We really don't know.  I think today will be another part of the evaluation process.  Hopefully he does well and we get a win.  Rap sheet said today there has been a lot of interest in Minkah and there should be.  I would dare say, knowing Ballard has done it in the past, that we probably have had a conversation with the Dolphins.  But if there has been a lot of inquiries than that could drive the price beyond where Ballard would go.  With that much interest I don't see him becoming a Colt.  We should know this week.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Rap sheet is reporting he has been traded to the Steelers for their 1st. rd. pick.  Oh well.

Darn!   I was still holding out hope that the Colts may get him.   

Miami did OK with this as the Steelers pick may end up being a top 10 pick.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was the 11th pick in the draft LAST YEAR and played up to it. Most of his money is already paid out, so you have a very talented CB at a very low salary for the next 3 years with an option for the 4th and most think giving up a #1 was too much? If he was available in the draft this past year he would be a top 10 pick, the Steelers got a great value..

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.

×
×
  • Create New...