Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Mack's response to the colts drafting Taylor


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

That’s 1 fumble in every 50 carries 

 

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Marlon has 567 carries, 3 fumbles. Or 1 fumble in every 189 carries. So Taylor’s fumble rate is 10 times that of Mack’s 

 

:scratch:  Just to be fair, your numbers are not 10 times greater.  It's 3.78 times greater.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stephen said:

Mack fumbled at a higher rate than taylor coming in from college  and he didn't  get near as many carries

Source? I couldn’t find Mack’s college stats

57 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

 

 

:scratch:  Just to be fair, your numbers are not 10 times greater.  It's 3.78 times greater.

Correct i screwed up my math

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

It’s pretty clear what kind of team Ballard is building and that’s ball control run it down your throat offense with a defense you can’t run on.  I could easily see them keeping Mack past this year but I could also see them letting him walk.  It also comes down to what the dollar figure is Mack wants.  Ballard isn’t going to way over pay him and not because he has Taylor (although that doesn’t hurt) but because that isn’t his style.  

 

  A good topic.
  Although different backs, i liked the idea of adding Jordan Howard to the fold.
  Like Mack he has talent but is pretty one dimensional. He got $5M per. I was a  little surprided at that # but so be it. Mack might get that or there abouts from someone. Dollar cost averaging for the position would make it good value to have both.  Just sayin'. Seems far off today. I like our RB situation much better now. 
  For guaranteed $$$,  Mack might take a solid 2-3 year offer before the season starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

Yeah. Mack will play the good soldier but he knows with the way RB’s are valued now, he’ll be looking elsewhere for a longer term deal.  We just drafted one of the greatest career statistical runners in NCAA history...

Who fumbles a lot, and has a lot of miles already.  Let's pull back a little. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

It’s pretty clear what kind of team Ballard is building and that’s ball control run it down your throat offense with a defense you can’t run on.  I could easily see them keeping Mack past this year but I could also see them letting him walk.  It also comes down to what the dollar figure is Mack wants.  Ballard isn’t going to way over pay him and not because he has Taylor (although that doesn’t hurt) but because that isn’t his style.  

He paid TY and he paid Castonzo. So don't say it isn't his style. 

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

Who fumbles a lot, and has a lot of miles already.  Let's pull back a little. 


The mileage is overstated, guys one of the most durable backs in all of college football lol.  He’s more durable than Mack.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Narcosys said:

There's college football... then there's the pros. 


He’ll be fine, the guy was a track star, durable, smart, has just as much of a heart and work ethic as any RB in NCAA history.  I doubt he’s worried about his professional capabilities lol.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Who fumbles a lot, and has a lot of miles already.  Let's pull back a little. 

The RB position is so devalued now.  Most teams don’t want to pay a RB long term anyway so his mileage is less important. I think we’re hoping for at least 3-4 years of excellent production. If he explodes then we’ll franchise him to get every last bit of production out of him.  
 

Regardless, coming out he’s clearly the better prospect than Mack was at the same time & most experts are thinking he’ll take the number 1 spot this season.  But we should split their carries to keep both fresh. And I wouldn’t be shocked to see Mack get the “starts” but Taylor be the finisher. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CR91 said:

With how much RBs get low balled, you really think we can't re-sign Mack? 6-9 mil is the best Mack is gonna from any team. That's not breaking the bank. Look at Gordan's deal. He got 8 mil a year and he's been far more productive then Mack.

I said last month (or whenever the Mack thread started) that I would give him 7M/year max I think. I wouldn't really be surprised if we signed him back, but having Taylor might impact the Colts willingness to pay him at all with some big contracts coming up.

 

On Gordon, I agree to an extent. He's a weird situation, only played 12 games a season the last two years, etc. What will matter more than anything (resigning Mack) is the RB market next year. Also, losing snaps to Taylor this year will likely drop Mack's value just in general.

17 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

Thx for making me laugh.

The “pickin’ Peyton” pic is a classic.  I love it.  However, its starting to gross me out.  
  He’s really got ahold of sonething there.... the dude is six knuckles deep!

Peyton always liked to go deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, we always went to a SB every single time we drafted a RB high as the first pick in the draft (2006 Addai, 2009 Donald Brown, 2020 Jonathan Taylor???). Just saying. :dunno:

 

The only issue happened when we traded for 1 with Trent, the first full season with Trent, we went to the AFCCG. 

 

Early drafted RBs are a good luck charm for the Colts. :) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

 

With how much RBs get low balled, you really think we can't re-sign Mack? 6-9 mil is the best Mack is gonna from any team. That's not breaking the bank. Look at Gordan's deal. He got 8 mil a year and he's been far more productive then Mack.

I’d be happy to find a way to keep Mack and pair him with Taylor in a great committee.   But the $$$ have to make sense.

 

Would Ballard give Mack 3/20?   I think so.   But if Mack wants 4/30 or more then we may lose him.   It’s all about the numbers.   And if we lose Mack to a better deal,  we can’t blame the kid and  we can’t blame Ballard.   That’s just life in the NFL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’d be happy to find a way to keep Mack and pair him with Taylor in a great committee.   But the $$& have to make sense.

 

Would Ballard give Mack 3/20?  I think so.   But if Mack wants 4/30 or more then we may lose him.   It’s all about the numbers.   And if we lose Mack to a better deal,  we can’t blame the kid and  we can’t blame Ballard.   That’s just life in the NFL. 

If we could afford it with other contracts  coming up, I'd be all in for 3/20 IF Mack stays healthy and productive this year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

I have a question for some of our resident experts.  Will the amount of games that Mack starts affect the comp value pick we get for him or is it based on his production with his new team?  So would it be better for us to “start” Mack all season though Taylor may be the one that “finishes” more often?  Kinda like Rhodes & Addai Joe’s rookie year?

The formula contemplates more than just playing time.  It values both what you lose and what you gain.  There's also post-season implications in the equation.  It would be very difficult to effectively 'draft manage' a player in a current season to impact compensatory picks the following year, especially your key guys.  The system isn't set up to be manipulated so easily, as I understand it.  PS. It should be noted I'm not am expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chad72 said:

Hey, we always went to a SB every single time we drafted a RB high as the first pick in the draft (2006 Addai, 2009 Donald Brown, 2020 Jonathan Taylor???). Just saying. :dunno:

 

The only issue happened when we traded for 1 with Trent, the first full season with Trent, we went to the AFCCG. 

 

Early drafted RBs are a good luck charm for the Colts. :) 

Well not always.  We took Faulk first in our draft and only went 8-8 that year.  We would go to the AFCCG the next season though...  And we took Edge first and didn't go to the Super Bowl but still went 13-3 that very first season...  You might be onto something here though. 

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

Who fumbles a lot, and has a lot of miles already.  Let's pull back a little. 

The stats tell a different story as another poster brought up.

As far as the fumbles, I am sure Tom Rathman will get those under control. He has 24 years of knowledge and experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Malakai432 said:


He’ll be fine, the guy was a track star, durable, smart, has just as much of a heart and work ethic as any RB in NCAA history.  I doubt he’s worried about his professional capabilities lol.....

I hope he's great and everything we need him to be.  Just concerns. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’d be happy to find a way to keep Mack and pair him with Taylor in a great committee.   But the $$$ have to make sense.

 

Would Ballard give Mack 3/20?   I think so.   But if Mack wants 4/30 or more then we may lose him.   It’s all about the numbers.   And if we lose Mack to a better deal,  we can’t blame the kid and  we can’t blame Ballard.   That’s just life in the NFL. 

Agreed NCF

 

In most cases, the big second contract for RBs doesn’t seem to pay off for the Team

 

I think Mack will leave for greener pastures after the season

 

I wanted Leveon Bell....  he averaged a whopping 3.2 yards per carry, with the Jets, and didn’t gain 800 yards..... I was wrong. 

I bet they wish they wouldn’t have signed the contract

 

I think the new norm for good RBs seem to be rookie contract, then franchise to get additional year, or just let them go off and hope you get comp picks....

 

A great line is more important than a great RB

  • Like 1
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

    • We don't have a qb,  so no we don't need a wr more than a qb
    • My pick for QB would be Michael Gallup. Oh wait, he's a WR. Yeah then I will still take Michael Gallup as we need receivers more than a QB right now.   Send Rock to Dallas for Gallup. 
    • Gus Johnson is a play by play guy.   Romo is color commentator.   They don't have the same job.    Both are very good at what they do,  but they do different things
    • I see many of the draft "experts" talk about what the Colts will do in the draft.   The draft process on the QB position, even with all the improved scouting techniques is a highly flawed .   If you look at history some interesting facts come out. Drafting a QB in the first round is a high risk endeavor    In the past 9 Years 20 QBs have been drafted in the first round.  I wanted to come up with some metrics to see the % that have worked out with the team that they drafted them   I am "measuring" the results with the simple question,   Would the NFL team make the same draft decision, at their position in that years draft, in hindsight - Its a YES/NO decision   For the ones that are still TBD (last few years) I counted these as YES. The selection of Goff as a "NO" is not that he is a horrible QB, but a simple question.... If you could do the pick again would you take Goff at number 1 overall.....  my guess is the Rams would have gone another way   2012 Draft Round 1 1st Andrew Luck - YES 2nd Robert Griffin - NO 8th Ryan Tannehil - NO 22nd Brandon Wheedon - NO   2013 Draft Round 1 16th EJ Manuel - NO   2014 Draft Round 1 3rd Pick Blake Bortles - NO 22nd Johnny Manziel - NO   2015 Draft Round 1 1st - Jameis Winston - NO 2nd Marcus Marriota  - NO   2016 Draft Round 1 1st Jared Goff - NO 2nd Carson Wentz - YES 22nd Paxton Lynch - NO   2017 Draft Round 1 2nd Mitch Trubiski - NO 10th Pat Mahomes - YES 12th Deshaun Watsun - YES   2018 Draft Round 1 1st Baker Mayfield - YES 3rd Sam Darnold - NO 7th Josh Allen - YES 10th Josh Rosen - NO 32nd Lamar Jackson - YES   With this data, drafting a QB in the first round is a 30% hit rate   The folks that want to give up 2 or 3 first round picks to move up to get Fields or Wilson may want to think deeper on this   From my perspective, and looking at the analytics it would appear that drafting the best BPA OL, DL , CB, or even WR,  available at 21 is the safest approach   And going with an extremely low risk/ low cost FA (Winston) or if the deal is decent, offering a trade to get Matthew Stafford. (Stafford route is my first choice), but I wouldnt want to  get fleeced in the trade.   If the right LT isnt there at 21, there are a few FA OTs that we could pick up       Let me know your thoughts...........      
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...