Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

So this is the WR group that’s going to hold up the next month lol ?????


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, a06cc said:

No we are not thinking unrealistic.  You look around the league. Other teams Rookie WR’s are doing well. He can get that inside slant all day because of his size. I’m not talking negative about him be any means. Once he returns he has to help out TY and be that number 2 guy. 

 

5 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

Right now 2 rookies are in the top 7 for receiving yards with approximately 500 yards each. 5 rookies are in the top 45 in receiving yards. Right now the Colts have 73 yards from their rookie. 

 

Last year there were 5 rookies with more than 700 yards. The Colts got 127 yards from their rookie.

 

Given where the Colts players were drafted is it unreasonable to expect more? 

Campbell was hurt the whole year last year.  The rookie this year played only 2 games.  

 

Campbell looked pretty good in the one game.  There is a lot of context Mitch.  We had JACOBY BRISSETT as QB last year.  

 

Your stat analysis is pretty primitive if you don't recoginze that being injured for over half the season and having a non NFL type starter as QB is going to effect production negatively, as in Campbell's case.

 

Now if you know something that could have predicted his injury last year then you would have a nice argument.  But right now as Luck would have it (pun intended) we have not gotten much data on Campbell.  Boy he looked pretty good running those crossing routes earlier though.

 

The last two rookies haven't been on the field enought to analyze them statistically.  There are other things to criticize, but looking at just bottom line numbers is a bit ridiculous.  

 

And I am not saying they are the right choices.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This has to be a joke right ??? Please tell me they make a trade !!! No move we maybe win 8 games tops .Bargain Basement shopping and we are suppose to buy in ? Not a chance !!! Either Give Rivers som

I agree with the OP. Look at last week, only 371 yards through the air. Joint best in the league. Pathetic, none of our catchers can catch. 

People probably said the same or worse about reggie wayne his rookie year

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

Campbell was hurt the whole year last year.  The rookie this year played only 2 games.  

 

Campbell looked pretty good in the one game.  There is a lot of context Mitch.  We had JACOBY BRISSETT as QB last year.  

 

Your stat analysis is pretty primitive if you don't recoginze that being injured for over half the season and having a non NFL type starter as QB is going to effect production negatively, as in Campbell's case.

 

Now if you know something that could have predicted his injury last year then you would have a nice argument.  But right now as Luck would have it (pun intended) we have not gotten much data on Campbell.  Boy he looked pretty good running those crossing routes earlier though.

 

The last two rookies haven't been on the field enought to analyze them statistically.  There are other things to criticize, but looking at just bottom line numbers is a bit ridiculous.  

 

And I am not saying they are the right choices.  

This makes no sense. Why can’t our guys stay on the field is the problem. Pittman also played 3 games not two Mr Calling people out for stats. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nickster said:

Your stat analysis is pretty primitive if you don't recoginze that being injured for over half the season and having a non NFL type starter as QB is going to effect production negatively, as in Campbell's case.

 

You call it primitive, I call it bottom line results.

 

Sure there are reasons, injury being one, but that doesn't change the fact that there are WR's all over the league producing and ours aren't. If we accept injury as a reality for the lack of production (because it happened) isn't it also fair for me to say the other WRs drafted are just better because they're producing (because it happened).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, a06cc said:

This makes no sense. Why can’t our guys stay on the field is the problem. Pittman also played 3 games not two Mr Calling people out for stats. 

Well you may have a point there with the availability, but I don't know of anything that indicated that either Campbell or Pittman was going to be injury prone

 

Campbell's injury this year was just an awkward play and then Pittman got some syndrome that only 20000 people in the US per year get.

 

I am not sold on either guy BTW.  

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

 

You call it primitive, I call it bottom line results.

 

Sure there are reasons, injury being one, but that doesn't change the fact that there are WR's all over the league producing and ours aren't. If we accept injury as a reality for the lack of production (because it happened) isn't it also fair for me to say the other WRs drafted are just better because they're producing (because it happened).

I couldn’t agree more. 

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

 

You call it primitive, I call it bottom line results.

 

Sure there are reasons, injury being one, but that doesn't change the fact that there are WR's all over the league producing and ours aren't. If we accept injury as a reality for the lack of production (because it happened) isn't it also fair for me to say the other WRs drafted are just better because they're producing (because it happened).


OK then primitive.

We have no idea how good these guys are from producuction.   I am just going to have to part company with you there.  If you can't see that there is going to be a difference in the bottom line when you have Jacoby Brissett as a QB and Ben Roethlisberger then I don't know man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nickster said:

Well you may have a point there with the availability, but I don't know of anything that indicated that either Campbell or Pittman was going to be injury point.

 

Campbell's injury this year was just an awkward play and then Pittman got some syndrome that only 20000 people in the US per year get.

 

I am not sold on either guy BTW.  

Availability is the best ability in the NFL. I honestly don’t care if you’re not sold on them or not. Your replies made no sense at all. Mitch Conners roasted you with fact! 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, life long said:

People probably said the same or worse about reggie wayne his rookie year

No I’m not saying anything negative about him. He needs to show us more like the return Picksburgh is getting from Claypool. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, a06cc said:

I know Pittman is injured FYI. Again the games he has played he has done nothing. Claypool is balling out though...

 

Meanwhile Rivers continues to spread the ball around. 

 

I've watched Pittman just running routes, blocking, playing with energy. All of that encourages me. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NannyMcafee said:

 

Meanwhile Rivers continues to spread the ball around. 

 

I've watched Pittman just running routes, blocking, playing with energy. All of that encourages me. 

Yes that’s all fine and dandy. We want a guy with high energy, gets called for blocks in the back, and run around the field not getting open unless it’s an inside slant route... Seriously?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, a06cc said:

Yes that’s all fine and dandy. We want a guy with high energy, gets called for blocks in the back, and run around the field not getting open unless it’s an inside slant route... Seriously?

 

Come to think of it, I've never seen a WR in Franks offense ball out like youre asking for. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

Come to think of it, I've never seen a WR in Franks offense ball out like youre asking for. 

This is the first season we’ve made WR a priority that’s why. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, a06cc said:

This is the first season we’ve made WR a priority that’s why. 

 

I just think youre being too harsh on pittman. Theres no guarantee anyone else would be doing better here other than proven great/elite players. Comparing him to other rookies isn't a fair shake.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting upset about a rookie not putting up massive numbers in a offense that spreads it out and tends to favor the TE while using short throws as compared to a Pittsburgh offense that throws it down the field. You’re comparing apples to oranges here and wanting something different. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

Getting upset about a rookie not putting up massive numbers in a offense that spreads it out and tends to favor the TE while using short throws as compared to a Pittsburgh offense that throws it down the field. You’re comparing apples to oranges here and wanting something different. 

The injury bug prevents us from seeing how they would be doing on the field.  

Outside of Claypools 1 big game he hasn't done much.  His catches in the other 4 games were 2,3,1,4.  

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

 

Thank you Captain and Lieutenant Hindsight.

Honestly  most of us were hoping  for claypool  in the draft. Nothing  to do with hindsight  just like we hoped for brown and metcalf the year before. The only one that is hindsight to me is mclaurin  had no idea he'd  be that good

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

If we accept injury as a reality

Interesting. I am not sure what "if we accept" really means? Do you mean for you personally?.....or are you suggesting that others think as you do? I guess it's the "We" part that caught me off guard. 

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

 

I just think youre being too harsh on pittman. Theres no guarantee anyone else would be doing better here other than proven great/elite players. Comparing him to other rookies isn't a fair shake.

You’re nuts with this comment here. How it’s unfair comparing rookies to other rookies?  Are they all in their first year? I also haven’t said anything negative about him. I would just like to see more productivity. That’s all I was asking for. 

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

People probably said the same or worse about reggie wayne his rookie year

He has been injured haha he has played in 3 games. He looked really good in his last game. How do you even judge him off that lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

He has been injured haha he has played in 3 games. He looked really good in his last game. How do you even judge him off that lol

I wasn't judging him...

 

I was pointing out that Reggie Wayne did not light it up his rookie year at all. If anything I believe Pittman will do much better than Reggie did as a rook.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WR #2 (or #1???) was lost for the season in the 1st quarter.  WR #1 has been doubled.  WR #3 has been out the last few games.  So now we're relying on Paschal and a WR that was called up in Johnson.  wth did you expect?  Most of the problems have been injury related, not so much talent related.  Guys can't help if they aren't playing.

 

Sure, you can try to go get a guy, but that will likely entail giving up a draft pick and this GM has been pretty brilliant at finding guys in the mid to late rounds who can help.  Then when guys get healthy you have to let someone go.  I wouldn't be opposed to getting the right guy at the right price, but there are consequences.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

To me, that stuff doesn't fall into the definition of trolling. Just hot takes lol... A troll typically takes counter positions on multiple topics. He's limited to for the most part to one topic. He does seem to be getting a reaction from you lol... Recommend just ignoring or blocking lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 1:15 AM, EastStreet said:

I wouldn't mind a WR pick up, but to say we're going to go 3-7 without a move is pretty silly. 

 

Pittman is a rook, and has been injured. Incredibly silly to write him off so soon. Johnson, aside from the one drop, played very very well last game. We've had several guys look the part at times, but injuries have slowed/stunted development. Mo coming back, Pittman coming back, Burton finally did something, etc. to go along with Doyle, TY, and Pascal. I wish they'd move TY to slot and stop trying to make him the centerpiece of the O. Way too many 1st read forces to him. 

 

Anyway, we have a lot of big contracts coming up, and a huge ? at QB still, so I don't see Ballard going big short or long term for a WR. If he were to do something, it would be someone looking to escape, a team wanting to deal, or simply a #2 or #3 type of guy. If anything, I'd think he'd wait for the draft and go 2nd or 3rd round. 2021 draft class is supposed to be high quality again for WRs.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/zach-pascal-22405/market-value/
 

i can’t believe Pascal’s perceived contract value is being shown at 8.4 million avg and 4yrs. That is a lot of money for a guy who really hasn’t put together an entire season or even really half of a season with numbers that make you feel he has more to his ceiling. He at times has made some plays and looked like is he breaking out and then he levels back out. He is a usable 4/5th receiver imho but nowhere near 8 million $/yr. wow! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jdubu said:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/zach-pascal-22405/market-value/
 

i can’t believe Pascal’s perceived contract value is being shown at 8.4 million avg and 4yrs. That is a lot of money for a guy who really hasn’t put together an entire season or even really half of a season with numbers that make you feel he has more to his ceiling. He at times has made some plays and looked like is he breaking out and then he levels back out. He is a usable 4/5th receiver imho but nowhere near 8 million $/yr. wow! 

That's on the upper end of WR2 money. Gonna say their calcs are off lol...

Pascal is a great depth guy, but IMO he's too much of a tweener. Runs great routes, but isn't fast, and lacks some of the measurables. If he was faster, he'd make a great slot or Z. If he were bigger, he'd make a great X. He's just caught in between as a small X or slow/big slot. I'd say he's more 3/4, than 4/5. I'd love to keep him as that 4 guy. Just my opinion, but I think he'd make a good possession slot. Burton is getting those reps now. Will be interesting to see the re-shuffle once Pittman gets back at X.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 4:54 PM, Four2itus said:

Interesting. I am not sure what "if we accept" really means? Do you mean for you personally?.....or are you suggesting that others think as you do? I guess it's the "We" part that caught me off guard. 

 

When you look at whats happening in a career or what's happened in a career injuries are irrelevant to the conversation the way they are typically applied.

 

Im simply saying whether we include the injuries "Campbell is not producing because hes injured" or we dont include the injuries "Campbell is not producing" the common denominator is "hes not producing." 

 

Sure thats an oversimplification but most often injuries are an excuse for a past action - "Ballard made the right choice with Campbell because he didnt know he'd be injured." At this point, with what we know, thats simply not true but we sure like to act like it is.

 

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

 

 

Sure thats an oversimplification but most often injuries are an excuse for a past action - "Ballard made the right choice with Campbell because he didnt know he'd be injured." At this point, with what we know, thats simply not true but we sure like to act like it is.

 

he didn't have a long history of injuries in college, so it IS true.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballards just needs to continue drafting a WR in rounds 2-4 every year. I think that's really how you build a good young WR corps. The attrition rate is really high to begin with...and there are so many variables you can control...so accept that some might miss...but there needs to be a constant flow of talent. Ballard has approached other positions this way...but it's especially critical with WR...where most of the talent goes early in the draft (typically gone by the end of Day 2...sometimes early into Day 3).

 

Unfortunately, that process only began last year...and the two they have drafted are hurt...so we have to wait and see for now.

 

But while drafting late round WRs and bringing in UDFAs is low-risk...it's a complete crap shoot and not very effective. The NFL is littered with these WRs...many that are fighting to be on a PS somewhere. In addition to the miss rate being incredibly high...it typically take a long time for them to develop and make an impact. And if they finally do make a huge impact...it's probably just in time for their 2nd deals...which most teams don't want to give WRs (because WRs are expensive).

 

JMO...but I don't think the WR group is close to where it can (and will be) in a year or two.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

When you look at whats happening in a career or what's happened in a career injuries are irrelevant to the conversation the way they are typically applied.

 

Im simply saying whether we include the injuries "Campbell is not producing because hes injured" or we dont include the injuries "Campbell is not producing" the common denominator is "hes not producing." 

 

Sure thats an oversimplification but most often injuries are an excuse for a past action - "Ballard made the right choice with Campbell because he didnt know he'd be injured." At this point, with what we know, thats simply not true but we sure like to act like it is.

 

False.   Campbell had no history of injuries in college.   In fact he rarely missed time at all.   Think he played nearly 40 games in three years.   There was no way to know Campbell would be injured as much as he has.   This is just an unfortunate situation for the Colts.

 

But this is not a reflection of a draft mistake.  Just bad luck.  

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

False.   Campbell had no history of injuries in college.   In fact he rarely missed time at all.   Think he played nearly 40 games in three years.   There was no way to know Campbell would be injured as much as he has.   This is just an unfortunate situation for the Colts.

 

But this is not a reflection of a draft mistake.  Just bad luck.  

 

1 hour ago, Myles said:

he didn't have a long history of injuries in college, so it IS true.  

 

His injuries and injury history are IRRELEVANT to his production results and that's my point. Production and Potential are two very very very different things.

 

Is Campbell producing this year? Did he produce last year? Has he produced at a level consistent with his peers? How many yards should we deduct from Hollywood Browns stat sheet in 2019 to account for Campbell injuries just so the comparison is fair? 

 

Who had more receiving yards in week 5 for the Colts - Fountain or Campbell? It doesnt matter the reason - they both had 0 yards and have done nothing to help this team.

 

Its comical that the meritocracy angle on the forum only applies sometimes to some players in some situations. 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Ballards just needs to continue drafting a WR in rounds 2-4 every year. I think that's really how you build a good young WR corps. The attrition rate is really high to begin with...and there are so many variables you can control...so accept that some might miss...but there needs to be a constant flow of talent. Ballard has approached other positions this way...but it's especially critical with WR...where most of the talent goes early in the draft (typically gone by the end of Day 2...sometimes early into Day 3).

 

Unfortunately, that process only began last year...and the two they have drafted are hurt...so we have to wait and see for now.

 

But while drafting late round WRs and bringing in UDFAs is low-risk...it's a complete crap shoot and not very effective. The NFL is littered with these WRs...many that are fighting to be on a PS somewhere. In addition to the miss rate being incredibly high...it typically take a long time for them to develop and make an impact. And if they finally do make a huge impact...it's probably just in time for their 2nd deals...which most teams don't want to give WRs (because WRs are expensive).

 

JMO...but I don't think the WR group is close to where it can (and will be) in a year or two.

I agree you need to take WRs regularly, but you can't take a WR in R2-4 every year. And I agree 2-4 is a good sweet spot, just not sure you can prioritize the position in those rounds ever year. Just doesn't work out logically (prioritization) or mathematically. If you say on average there are average 2.5ish WRs playing on any given down, that's roughly 11% of your starting 22. 11% of 6 (draft picks) is around 0.68 WRs per year (regardless of round), or 2 taken every three years. So let's say we skip every 3rd year, or grab a FA every 3rd year lol. Need to spread those early/mid round picks around. It's also a sweet spot for DBs, OL, and LBs.

 

Top WR pay is expensive, but the AVG WR pay is a little under the league average. Given the changes in CFB, the influx of improved talent, and the turnover, the average has become normalized. 3T, DE, QB, LT, LG, C, CB1, OLB, etc are all the roughly the same or higher. The only positions that are still devalued under the median are MLB, S, NT, TE, and RBs. WR though seems to be trending a bit like RB lately though, especially W2 and WR3s.

 

Here's a good look at AV by position, by round if interested. 

paine-datalab-nfldraft1.png?w=575

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

 

His injuries and injury history are IRRELEVANT to his production results and that's my point. Production and Potential are two very very very different things.

 

Is Campbell producing this year? Did he produce last year? Has he produced at a level consistent with his peers? How many yards should we deduct from Hollywood Browns stat sheet in 2019 to account for Campbell injuries just so the comparison is fair? 

 

Who had more receiving yards in week 5 for the Colts - Fountain or Campbell? It doesnt matter the reason - they both had 0 yards and have done nothing to help this team.

 

Its comical that the meritocracy angle on the forum only applies sometimes to some players in some situations. 

 

 

How is being injured IRRELEVANT to his production?   They go hand in hand.   You can’t produce if you’re hurt.   Why is this hard to understand?   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

 

His injuries and injury history are IRRELEVANT to his production results and that's my point. Production and Potential are two very very very different things.

 

Is Campbell producing this year? Did he produce last year? Has he produced at a level consistent with his peers? How many yards should we deduct from Hollywood Browns stat sheet in 2019 to account for Campbell injuries just so the comparison is fair? 

 

Who had more receiving yards in week 5 for the Colts - Fountain or Campbell? It doesnt matter the reason - they both had 0 yards and have done nothing to help this team.

 

Its comical that the meritocracy angle on the forum only applies sometimes to some players in some situations. 

 

 

Sorry, IMO that makes no sense.

Production and potential can't be judged or measured for any player who is injured. 

They were both drafted for potential so that has been already established. 

They can't produce without health. 

 

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

I agree you need to take WRs regularly, but you can't take a WR in R2-4 every year. And I agree 2-4 is a good sweet spot, just not sure you can prioritize the position in those rounds ever year. Just doesn't work out logically (prioritization) or mathematically. If you say on average there are average 2.5ish WRs playing on any given down, that's roughly 11% of your starting 22. 11% of 6 (draft picks) is around 0.68 WRs per year (regardless of round), or 2 taken every three years. So let's say we skip every 3rd year, or grab a FA every 3rd year lol. Need to spread those early/mid round picks around. It's also a sweet spot for DBs, OL, and LBs.

 

Top WR pay is expensive, but the AVG WR pay is a little under the league average. Given the changes in CFB, the influx of improved talent, and the turnover, the average has become normalized. 3T, DE, QB, LT, LG, C, CB1, OLB, etc are all the roughly the same or higher. The only positions that are still devalued under the median are MLB, S, NT, TE, and RBs. WR though seems to be trending a bit like RB lately though, especially W2 and WR3s.

 

Here's a good look at AV by position, by round if interested. 

paine-datalab-nfldraft1.png?w=575


A team could skip a year here and there...and of course it’s dependent on the draft class as well (especially for which round a WR is taken). But in the course of a 5-year stretch...it should take 4 early WRs picks to build a truly strong corps...unless the first 3 are all HRs...and then you decide to pay them.

 

But that’s pretty unlikely. Even PIT...who has a great trio...missed on a few. But by drafting so many WRs...they can potentially move on from JuJu...which will save a lot of cap space.
 

Of course there are also trades for established talent...so that would just replace the need to draft one for that given year...ala Hopkins in ARI. 
 

I would consider WR to be 3 of the starting 22...if that team runs 1-1 sets 2/3 or greater of the time. But 4-5 are getting good snaps typically. 
 

All of this is to say...WR is a position I value highly. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shasta519 said:


A team could skip a year here and there...and of course it’s dependent on the draft class as well (especially for which round a WR is taken). But in the course of a 5-year stretch...it should take 4 early WRs picks to build a truly strong corps...unless the first 3 are all HRs...and then you decide to pay them.

2/3, or 4/6 is good for me. If you're taking up 25% for your top picks every year for 11% of your roster, some areas of your roster will simply be imbalanced. It also depends on what you do with in FA, and especially your strategy for other high end positions. 

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

But that’s pretty unlikely. Even PIT...who has a great trio...missed on a few. But by drafting so many WRs...they can potentially move on from JuJu...which will save a lot of cap space.

Not saying that's a bad financial strategy, but it is a bad locker room strategy. Not talking specifically about JJSS, just in general. If you're known as an organization that discards after rook contracts, players view you as a factory. I know it's a business, but you have to have to consider it. It would be like us moving away from Leonard, or others, after they perform well and exhaust their cheep rookie contracts. 

 

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

Of course there are also trades for established talent...so that would just replace the need to draft one for that given year...ala Hopkins in ARI. 

Houston was stupid to give him up. Considered one of the biggest boneheaded moves of the years. It's why a certain coach has a bad rep.

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

I would consider WR to be 3 of the starting 22...if that team runs 1-1 sets 2/3 or greater of the time. But 4-5 are getting good snaps typically. 

It's a position that's rotated for sure, but a lot of positions are. DL, DB, TE, RB, etc are all highly rotated. Only QB and OL are positions with little to no rotation. In Indy, we don't rotate Leonard, or some other thin positions that much, but that hurts us long term. Anyway, you have to look at averages. Just like TEs. You often list 2 starting TEs along with 3 WRs, but you don't have 2+3 on the field. You average ~1.5+2.5ish. If you're going to use 3 WR with that logic, you have to use 2 TEs, etc. and now your adding to your "22" total to normalize.

 

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

All of this is to say...WR is a position I value highly. 

I think we both value the position the highly. We just differ on acquisition strategy. I think you have to look at all high priced and strategic positions, and have a better mix for a healthy roster. It doesn't really matter if they are drafts, UDFA, FAs, etc. so long as you have a good age, cost, experience, and skill mix. For example, Ballard has probably over drafted early/mid DEs (2nd and 3rd) round and failed. And looking at the DL in general, only one of the starting 4 are draft picks (which is the cheapest one), and the drafted depth don't look capable of stepping up. So we're in a position end of year where both starting DEs need renewal or replacement. It's a position/area where we've invested both heavy in draft capital, but have had to spend a bunch in FA as well. 

 

Anyway, give me 2 early/mid WRs every 3 years, and 1 FA every 3 years, and some late round or UDFA project lottery tickets every year. That's what we've done. Only injury has gotten in our way from some very potent starting 3s.

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

    • This may be the best football interview I have ever seen.  Must see for Colts, Packers or any other football fan!   Rodgers is the most candid I've seen and he's really funny.      
    • Correct. And we need to win that game because if we lose, it is highly unlikely we win the last 5, but I think it is likely they win at least 3 since they play Hou. Jax and a floundering Det.  And they may even be favored against Cle.  That leaves GB for them to upset to sweep into the playoffs and could make it very tough for us to get in at all with our tie breaker status.  This is the more important than any further game this season.  Win and our path to the playoffs is so much more wide open.  But we will still likely need to win at least 3 games to get in unless TN craters somehow.  Those tiebreakers are really going to challenge us in wildcard scenarios.    I could see Hou winning one against us, they usually do and they are on a major upswing.  Their offense is no joke and they do not depend at all on the run so our run defense is less effective obviously.  Pitt and the Raiders are also no joke and both games are away.  This is a critical one if we hope to win the division. If we lose, finishing 9-7 is realistically still in play and I don't see TN losing 3 out of 5.  In fact, I don't see them losing more than 2 of 5.  If we win they'll likely have to win 4 of 5 or sweep to catch us for the division.  I called the Raiders game as being key to make the playoffs and go 10-6 before the season started. With a loss, the desperate WC tie breaker situation, that is especially true.  It's possible for a 10-6 team to miss the playoffs even with the extra team.  Cleveland will almost surely get 10 wins with their easy finish.  Baltimore is also likely.  (Their divisional matchups are really favorable this time around).  Then again maybe we'll sweep the season and get the #1 seed.  Pitt still has to play 5 current playoff teams in their final 6 and KC has to play 3.     Just speculation as always, but that is the fun of a football message board.  Go Colts!
    • ^This^   Another way to look at it is this:  considering the production that Ballard is getting out of his draft picks while they're still on their rookie contracts... why over-spend on re-signing anybody?   If Ballard can continue hitting on draft picks the way he has, then it's almost better to just keep accumulating draft picks, draft well, and let the young guys go out and make plays.   Let other teams over-spend on proven talent while Indy keeps providing an opportunity for young hungry players to prove their talent.   Save the money for slam-dunk moves like Buckner.
    • I bet you are 1000% wrong.   Nelson is the biggest name in the league at G, and it's not even close.  A "bad" Nelson (that gets called for ticky-tack holds that happen on every single NFL play) is still better than 90% of the guards in the NFL.   Your hot-take posts are getting very tiresome.  
    • They have contributed as much their rookie year as the entire group maybe by end of the season, but I doubt there's even a tiny chance of 2 all pros. Even 1 is a major stretch.  I am not sure we have any all pro's on the team since the most deserving one is Buckner (who I count as our first round pick in every way) has impact but no stats to wow anyone not intimately aware of his impact. If he misses this game we may painfully see how valuable.  But their collective impact has certainly added up. 4 starters and 2 solid special teamers in a so far playoff level team is quite a haul for any draft pick class in history.  It is at least adjacent to 2018, unless you don't count Buckner in any way.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...