Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
mirobi48

Next Ed Reed

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Give RYS some time. Played more snaps than anyone on D. He's making rookie type mistakes, not mistakes because he's "limited". From a DB perspective, guessing SS/Box is the easiest to come in and make an impact, whereas it typically takes CBs a while. 

Sure, I'm rooting for him too, he has some real issues to work through per one of my  previous posts.

Share this post


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

 

As an aside, since a deep FS isn't covering anybody, he's not really the one being targeted.  Its the CB generally, if not simply a great WR.  QBs might not be throwing it deep because the CBs are stride for stride with the WR, or playing off coverage and allowing the short and middle throws.  Saying Hooker isn't being targeted has a different meaning , IMO.

 

I'm not being critical of Hooker.  He's part of a secondary that's probably ascending in terms of making plays.  All I'm saying is that Freeney was the 11th pick, and had basically nobody playing around him, yet he made his impact.  Mathis was there, but nobody else.  And Mathis lead the NFL in sacks during Grigson years, so I assume you would be saying its because RG built a great defensive roster around Mathis. And as safeties go, Sanders elevated the whole secondary, if not the whole defense at SS.

 

I'm not excusing the lack of playmaking because of who plays around him.  It matters yes, but if it matters a lot, then maybe it simply means that other positions are more important than FS.  

 

Whenever I talk to you about Hooker, you always make it sound like he just sits in the end zone waiting to save a touchdown. That's not how it works. And no, safeties can be targeted. If you throw it to a safety, you're targeting him. Yes I understand your point about how it's easier to be a lockdown safety than a lockdown corner, because safeties and corners aren't very equivalent, and what that means is that "coverage stats" like yards given up and stuff will probably be automatically higher for the average corner than the average safety, but your conclusion that a safety isn't or can't be targeted is simply not warranted by the supporting statements.

 

Well of course they may not be throwing it deep because we're allowing short and middle throws, but more likely they may not be throwing it deep because of Hooker. A 4 yard check down isn't normally the first option unless the QB is Tom Brady. If a good safety shuts down the deep pass, then the QB will be forced to check it down. Yes, our zone coverage allows for more short throws, but short throws aren't usually the first option. The deep throws being shut down when Hooker is on the field, versus the offense throwing deep when he's off the field indicates that he does make an impact on a QB's decision to go deep.

 

Hooker doesn't elevate our secondary? Just check whenever he gets injured, they throw all over us, with the exception of the Chiefs game. He allows us to devote less resources to defending the deep and intermediate pass, so we can blitz and play up more

 

Like LCF said, that's the way football works. Most positions are dependent on others. That doesn't make the position less valuable. Andrew Luck couldn't do jack when he had a crap O-line. That doesn't make the QB position less valuable just because you need a good O-line to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Yup. That's why I've been pretty consistent about the need for improving the DL. I think Hooker, Desir, RYS, Willis, Moore, would all look much better if we spent some coin on one or two more legit pieces up front.

 

Yep. It is not an easy position to play, DL at the NFL level. So FA coin spent will be worth on experienced proven talent on the DL or even OL side. The Packers spent a LOT on that DL side, wanting to stretch the home stretch of Aaron Rodgers with still a few prime years left., IMO, now that QBs play close to 40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yep. It is not an easy position to play, DL at the NFL level. So FA coin spent will be worth on experienced proven talent on the DL or even OL side. The Packers spent a LOT on that DL side, wanting to stretch the home stretch of Aaron Rodgers with still a few prime years left., IMO, now that QBs play close to 40.

Again we'll lead the league in cap space. I'd love to know the reasons not to spend... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our defense is way better with him.  Even if he's not a pro-bowler he's close enough that he was well worth the 1st round pick.  

 

Teams not throwing his way honestly is the best indicator of what he does for this defense.  A guy who plays that many snaps and see's so few targets coming his way doesn't happen by accident.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 9:27 PM, Mr.Debonair said:

I dont Remember him being called that. However, I agree that I am waiting for him to make more plays than he has made. I see people call him elite and I dont see it 

i dont either , not a game changer just average

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's more Antoine Bethea than Ed Reed, and that's fine.  Bethea was fine.  We won a lot of games and a SB with Bethea. 

 

But Polian found Bethea in the 6th round and he used his first round picks on pass rusher and receivers and RBs and cornerbacks (Marlin Jackson)  And used high seconds on the SS and the other CB (Hayden).  We didn't win it all until we had a lot of talent in a lot of other positions.

 

But Polian built his team having the GOAT at QB.

 

Ballard is going to have to build his team probably without having the GOAT at QB, so we'll see how he does it and if it ends up being much different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw that hit that Malik Hooker laid on that WR in todays game I thought for certain that was Clayton Geathers!  I said Geathers knocked the mess out of that dude.  And to my surprise when the smoked cleared the jersey said "Hooker" and I said What The Hell!  I haven't ever seen Hooker make a hit like that.  I was very surprised!

Share this post


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

When I saw that hit that Malik Hooker laid on that WR in todays game I thought for certain that was Clayton Geathers!  I said Geathers knocked the mess out of that dude.  And to my surprise when the smoked cleared the jersey said "Hooker" and I said What The Hell!  I haven't ever seen Hooker make a hit like that.  I was very surprised!

They've been having Hooker playing closer to the line the last few weeks.  So the contact plays are happening quicker & he's showing a willingness to stick his nose in there.  I think bringing him up a few more yards will lead to  him being tested more.  He had a chance at 2 today vs Foles.  Maybe a 3rd on that one Moore broke up late in the game.  I believe, if we keep him in position to get those kind of opportunities, he'll start cashing them in like he did his rookie season. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I personally don't like Gordon, I think he doesn't have the arm strength for the NFL. I've looked at his throws over 20 yards and they look bad
    • At Senior Bowl Gordon was 6'2.2" 199lbs Love was 6'3.5" 223lbs   So roughly 24 lbs different and an 1inch   https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/senior-bowl-weigh-in-results  
    • First, you didn't ask that. You'd asked if I would still want a QB if we were "9-7 and xxx"...    If we were 9-7, and JB still had the same QBR, same AVG, same Comp%, etc., and same issues with field vision and progressions, than I'd absolutely still want a QB....   Bad is bad. You wouldn't ask that question if we were talking about any other position if they were performing badly, so why ask it about a QB. If your WR can't catch, would you still want to draft one if we were 9-7???   You have to spend draft capital on every pick regardless of position. A "reach" is a subjective term. Teams trade up every year to get players. What if Love is available late 1st or early 2nd like in some mainstream mocks? Is that still a reach. Taking Gordon in the second, is that still a reach?   I get it, you want to see JB get another shot. That's great, but most of us are moving on and would want a QB regardless of record. We simply are satisfied with our evaluation of JB's ceiling, and we think he's capped at mediocre. I'd take Burrow, Herbert, Love, Gordon, Eason, Hurts, Kelly, and Carr all over JB. And if it didn't work out, I'd be fine with that, and look for the next guy.
    • yeah i always prefer the power back becuase if the colts are running the ball we enough even in the 4 qrt the other team does not want to tackle anymore
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...