Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
CurBeatElite

depth of this team

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

 

Luck's labrum injury and surgery were football related injuries.  His AC sprain was snowboarding related.  He said his doctors unanimously told him the AC sprain had nothing to do with the labrum.  

 

3 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

I realize this will be an unpopular opinion because it doesnt destroy Grigson but...

You did watch Luck play right? Do you recall how he lacerated his kidney (in addition to the 2 you mentioned)? What do those have to do with Grigson and/or the offensive line? 

 

Im not saying Grigson was the best GM but lets not act like Luck avoided contact, threw the ball away and got down when a hit was coming. 

 

Luck was sacked 41 times as a rookie, 32 times in year 2, 27 times in year 3, 15 times in year 4 (played 7 games, so on pace for over 30 sacks), 41 times in year 5 (15 games).... and then bring in Ballard and he's sacked 18 times in 16 games in 2018.

 

You're right, Luck didn't do the best job at avoiding contact.  He was also running for his life the instant the ball touched his hands from the snap.  If Luck 'got down' when a hit was coming, he would have been sacked 80+ times in his 5th year.

 

As a GM, if you are going to bring in a franchise QB, you better make sure you provide him with protection.  Grigs failed terribly there.

 

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Interesting response...

 

I'd say those backups are good.  But I don’t think they’re as good as the starters.   
 

I think the better, stronger argument is the backups on those great teams are better than our back ups, better than the backups on the other teams.  So when injuries inevitably hit,  the fall off in team play is less on those great teams than the falloff on everyone else.  Us included.

 

Ballard is 4 years in.  3 years if you give him a pass on 17, the Pagano year.  He’s building the starting roster and is trying to upgrade the backups.  Ballard knows he has to do this.  Said so in his year end meeting with the media in early January.   I think what you want is happening right now.

 

Yes, most elite teams have solid depth across the board.


Most elite teams also have very good coaches who can scheme players into good positions.  Take Belichek and his average Joe WRs. Welker did basically nothing as a WR in Miami before he went to NE.  He was 5'9" and ran a 4.65 forty.  He is nowhere near the athlete or physical freak of most NFL WRs.  He had solid hands, he ran crisp routes and he played in a scheme where Belichek could figure out how to get him into open spaces and Brady could find him.  Because of that scheme, Welker is now a border-line HOFer.

 

Most elite teams also have very good 'units.'  Our OL is there or very close to being there.  We have 3-4 pro-bowl caliber players in Castonzo, Q, Kelly and Smith.  Glow is a solid player, but he looks better than he would on other lines because the talent around him can mask deficiencies.  If he went down, we likely wouldn't skip a beat with his backup coming in.  We'd be in a bit more trouble if any of the other guys went down (IMO, especially Q or AC), but the unit is strong enough as a whole that it'd probably be OK, at least for a few games.  The Pittsburgh LB example, they can plug LBs into that scheme because they almost always have a very solid front line and if one LB goes down they almost always have 2 other very solid starting LBs.

 

It's very rare for a team to be able to lose the starting QB and still be in position where they are super bowl caliber.  This takes both a very good team on all fronts and very good coaching, and in most instances, requires the backup QB to be very good.  Reich was in this situation 2x -- once as a player when he backed up Jim Kelly in Buffalo, a team which had HOF RB Thurman Thomas, HOF WR Andre Reed, a solid OL, excellent special teams and a very solid D (lead by HOFer Bruce Smith)... a second time as OC in Philly.  

 

In total, 10 QBs who started the season as backups wound up winning super bowls.  

 

Roger Staubach - SB VI - HOFer

 

Jim Plunkett - SB XV - Plunkett was a former #1 overall pick

 

Doug Williams - SB XXII - Solid player, on  a very good team

 

Jeff Hostetler - SB XXV - Solid player, on a very good team with an unbelievable defense (#1 in the league, lead by LT) and great coaching (Parcells the head coach, Belichek an assistant), and aided by a Scott Norwood missed field goal to start Buffalo's cursed super bowl run

 

Kurt Warner - SB XXXIV - HOFer on a very good team

 

Trent Dilfer - SB XXXV - A game manager QB on a Baltimore team that had arguably the greatest defense of all time

 

Tom Brady - SB XXXVI - we know this story, maybe the best thing that ever happened to Belichek was Bledsoe getting hurt and Brady never giving him his job back

 

Earl Morrall -- Super Bowl V - Johnny U. started this game and got hurt before half time.  Morrall helped the Colts barely squeak by Cowboys

 

Terry Bradshaw - SB IX - HOFer on a great team which wound up winning 4 championships in 6 years.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

So...   this article addresses the shoulder.   But says nothing about the ankle/lower leg.   That’s the injury that led to his retirement.  
 

So there is still nothing that connects  the leg injury to anything other than football.  Nothing that shows the leg injury was due to off the field behavior.    Still looking for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewColtsFan said:

So...   thus article addresses the shoulder.   But says nothing about the ankle/lower leg.   That’s the injury that led to his retirement.  
 

So there us still nothing that connects  the leg injury to anything other than football.  Nothing that shows the leg injury was due to off the field behavior.    Still looking for that.

Exactly. At least as far as national media goes. I’ll try and dig a little further to see if there is anything else written.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So...   this article addresses the shoulder.   But says nothing about the ankle/lower leg.   That’s the injury that led to his retirement.  
 

So there is still nothing that connects  the leg injury to anything other than football.  Nothing that shows the leg injury was due to off the field behavior.    Still looking for that.

 

And that article says his major problem was his labrum, which was a football injury.  The sprained AC joint was from snowboarding, but a separate and totally unrelated injury to the labrum.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

And that article says his major problem was his labrum, which was a football injury.  The sprained AC joint was from snowboarding, but a separate and totally unrelated injury to the labrum.  

Yep, this backs up your statement:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1248195002

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’ve never herd nor read that about the Luck injuries anywhere.   Can you provide a link?   I’d love to read that...

 

Thanks. 

it’s pretty common knowledge that both injuries in ‘17 and ‘19 happened in the offseason while he was snowboarding in Europe. There were stories galore last year. Either way, he’s gone so it’s over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, csmopar said:

it’s pretty common knowledge that both injuries in ‘17 and ‘19 happened in the offseason while he was snowboarding in Europe. There were stories galore last year. Either way, he’s gone so it’s over

Never saw one story.

 

Never even saw a thread discussion here.   Nothing that said why didn’t Luck learn a lesson after the previous snow boarding injury? 
 

And once he retired, there was no story about another snowboarding accident on ESPN or NFL.com.   And no discussion here on this website saying it,  or even hinting at it.  
 

Plus....  Luck himself talked about not wanting to play with pain any more.  The implication is that he played his last season (18) with great pain.  That makes the idea of a snow boarding accident in ‘19 all but impossible. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The team has great depth (except for backup LT); you know it's good when you dread having to possibly part with a few players on inactive gamedays, next offseason, etc.

 

e.g. players like Wilkins, Carrie, Odom, Patmon. In the past, those would be our 1st string starters LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Thanks for your response.  I didn't realize until @C0LT5 pointed out that we haven't resigned Williams at RB.  My guess is we'll keep 4 with Mack, Taylor, Hines and Wilkins -- but either way, if we cut any of those guys they'll wind up on another team (assuming they are healthy).

I spaced that too. I think I commented on him in another thread not being signed. I did read and article or hear a podcast, or something that talked about his situation. It said basically what I said, about him being a better between the T option. Wilkins is a bit of a dancer to me, so I think his value may go down now. His dead cap hit is very small, so if they wanted to flip him for Williams, it would be easy. I like both, so not really a concern.

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

I agree with you on our QB Depth.  We may not be the most talented, but we are very deep.  I wouldn't be shocked if we traded Jacoby (potentially to the Pats, as rumors fly around) for a draft pick.  I would be shocked if we cut Eason, he's got a lot of potential and he's in a very good situation to learn behind Rivers and under the tutelage of Reich.  I wouldn't be shocked if we kept 3 QBs this year with Rivers, Eason and Jacoby/Kelly.  I understand about Newton still being available and Dalton being an unknown... that said, those guys are both going to be way too expensive (and old) for a lot of teams as back-up QBs. 

I really believe Belichick isn't really interested in JB. And I do think we'll keep 3. Out of all the available guys, if I were Belichick, I'd go after Dalton as a bridge. But I wouldn't even fool with any of it if he likes Stidham.

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

Kelly is a cheaper/younger option.  IMO, if he didn't get drunk at Von Miller's party that night and get arrested, he'd probably still be a Bronco.  At worst, he'll wind up on a practice squad somewhere, but if I had to bet, some team will sign him to be 2-3 string QB (lol, and yes, he does seem like someone Belichek could sign and probably turn into a decent starting QB).

I do agree he'd be a Bronco if not for the party. Shame how stupid stuff can impact careers/lives. I really hope he's matured. Hoping he'll continue to keep his head down. This should be his last PS eligible year, so it's pretty critical for future. 

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

On WR -- I agree with TY, Pittman, Campbell, Pascal being locks.  I think we'll keep 6.  He's always had healthy issues, but Marcus Johnson has impressed me in glimpses when he is healthy enough to be on the field -- same with Fountain.  I like Dulin coming out of college, he's very raw but very athletic.  Ballard mentioned him several times last year and how impressed he was with his ST play.  Then Patmon, just because of his size/speed, I think has a legit shot.  Among TY, Campbell, Fountain, and Johnson, my biggest concern at WR is keeping guys healthy.  I think we'll have fantastic competition from 4-5 guys for the last 2 spots, which is a good thing (last year after Funchess and Campbell went down it was kinda the same 4-5 guys fighting for the 2nd and 3rd WR spot -- hopefully it's those guys fighting for the 5th and 6th spot instead this year).

I think we'll absolutely keep 6. Johnson has flashed here and there, I just think he's got an uphill battle and has been around a bit too long without grabbing a spot. IMO, they'll error on the side of the younger guys like Dulin and Patmon. 

 

I really like a lot about Dulin. Athletic, scrappy, etc.. WR, return, and coverage options. I also love the size/speed combo of Patmon. Both have nice upsides, probably higher than the rest except Fountain. I think I'll be happy regardless who make it. And I think our PS WR group should be more solid this year. 

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

Agree on TE and your comment on Nix.  Now, what surprises me, is I know Ballard values STers, and he's said in the past things like 'we kept Q. Wilson as a scratch b/c he can't contribute on STs like some of the other DBs... etc.' -- this is the only year I have heard him say stuff about liking a guy specifically due to his ST talent.  I don't know if the roster expansion is playing a role in that, or what -- but Nix was a solid ST guy... my guess would be, Burton outcompetes him and both can play similar roles.

Just me, but I prefer Burton over Nix. I know Nix can play solid STs, but I think Burton can too, and has more value on O. IMO, he'll be the default if there is Burton vs Nix cut simply because of our TE depth situation. I'm not near as worried about TE now that we have Pittman. Like Funch, he's basically a TE-lite. Pittman running out of the slot will be the same alignment and routes as our TEs on a typical play. And drafting Pittman give us the option to run Pascal out of slot more since he won't have to be the primary X, so that will up the slot size game by default too. 

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

OL, yes, I think Clark can play T/G.  Pinter played T at Ball State but at 6'4" 305, and from his scouting report, he may be the new 'Haeg' of our OL, but it seems like he'd be better suited to play inside as a backup G or C than at T.  I was high on Patterson last year before he got hurt.. if he's healthy, I think we have a very solid backup C with him. Like you said, hard to judge the rest as I've seen very little of them.

Clark's been listed as the #2 T behind both AC and Smith all last year IIRC. I don't want to think of Pinter at T unless it's an emergency. The whole depth situation at OL is just a mystery to me. I hope some of the guys have developed and we just don't about it.

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

On DL, Buckner played outside at times on the SF D -- and I agree, I don't think we see him moving over there often, but on goal line and rush downs, I can see (and agree with your packages).  I think this is 100% the put-up-or-shut-up training camp for Tyquan Lewis. 

I think camp is going to come down to Lewis vs Windsor. If Lewis can't beat him out, he's gone. 

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

What excites me about Cline is that he's a pretty good athlete -- I also read he went from 6'4 ~270 lbs to about ~295 lbs recently and has really added a lot of strength and size.  He's not as big as Stewart, but he reminds me some of Grover due to the fact he is from a small school, but athletic and raw -- I don't think we'll see him be a huge contributor from the start, but could see him spending a year on the PS or stashed on the bench and developing into something pretty solid down the line.  I get that Windsor from PSU has a big motor, but I have a hard time thinking he's got a great shot at making this roster.

I just don't know enough about Cline. Seemed like he wasn't overly productive in the small school setting. Maybe they think they swap his position or something. I'm all for any guy emerging though. Sounds like a PS guy, similar to Windsor, and that's fine to see what happens in a year.

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

For LB -- I think for sure we'll see Leonard, Walker, Okereke and Speed.  I agree, we could probably get away with keeping 5, though we have typically kept 6 under Ballard.  As much as I want to agree with you on Moore, and I thought he'd be a total steal coming out of college (for some reason I still think he is more athletic than Adams/Franklin), he hasn't really produced in the NFL.  Again, Glasgow, I don't see him really contributing as a defender on this team but maybe with roster expansion, Ballard's really serious about him making it just to be a ST ace.

I'd bet we keep 6 too, just for STs value. I like though that we don't have to keep 6 (if there were others in other places that we needed, or could play special teams). I looked at snaps, and was surprised S.Moore didn't play STs. I know he wasn't on the roster the whole year, but was a little surprised. Adams and Franklin had very very little D snaps, but had a ton of STs snaps. Moore did have good production in the SEC, and just seems like a better option that those 2. I have zero idea about Glasgow vs Adams and Franklin. IMO, none of the 3 will see substantial snaps on D. Love the competition for STs though.

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

I agree with pretty much all you say on the secondary.  Though, I think Isaiah Rhodes has a good shot to make it.  Just watching his tape, he is a play maker whether it's returning kicks or on defense.  He plays (on D) well above his size and he is very quick to close on the ball and seems to be good at forcing turnovers.

I'd keep Rodgers solely for STs if he looks good an camp. If he can put on some weight, not lose speed, and potentially develop on D, all the better. He's a "hope trap" for me, and that's OK. At least I'm self aware lol.

20 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

And finally, yes, while Ballard has been perfect (well not every player has made the Colts, but they've all made it somewhere in the NFL) with his drafts, it's going to be harder and harder for him to keep his draft picks on our roster.  This year alone, I imagine Blackmon starts on PUP, I won't be shocked if any/all of our 6th round picks (Windsor, Rodgers, Patmon, Glasgow) don't make the squad.

I'll bet Patmon and Rodgers at minimum make the PS. Not sure about the other two.

  • Like 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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...