Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

On 4/13/2021 at 10:19 AM, Myles said:

I think Houston coming back for the Colts would open up the draft for the team.  I'm not 100% convinced that the Colts need to tack a LT in the first 2 rounds.   If Houston is signed back, they also don't HAVE to take a DE which leaves them options depending who is there at 21.  

 

I confess,  the sentence I put into bold has me scratching my head.

 

Can you elaborate?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Rumor is his wife said on him not signing yet, "Houston, we have a problem". 

There’s a joke there, but it’s too easy.  

It's possible we could be looking at Jabaal Sheard 2.0. "Luv ya, buddy.  You're our kind of guy.  Nobody better.  Have a nice life."   But what we have left is truly not gonna cut it. 

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I confess,  the sentence I put into bold has me scratching my head.

 

Can you elaborate?

 

I wouldn't be totally surprised in they did one of these:

Use one of the tackles on the team (Davenport, Tevi)

 

Move Nelson to LT

 

Move Smith to LT

 

I'm not saying that would be a smart decision, but it wouldn't totally surprise me.   If they would bring Houston back, I think Ballards board may change a bit and instead of taking the best LT or Edge rusher, he may choose another position if one of need is a great prospect at 21.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I confess,  the sentence I put into bold has me scratching my head.

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Another thing is that rookie LTs are not necessarily plug and play players.  There is more swing and miss draftees than other linemen.  Even if we do draft early, the dude might not start right away and/or bust.

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

with Clowney only getting 7 guaranteed (looks like 7.5 plus a possible 2.5 in incentives), guessing Houston's value will be a bit lower. 

 

Wonder if Baltimore gave him and offer (to be signed after the May comp deadline). With Irsay chiming in post Balt visit, hope that means Indy and JH are still chatting. 

I think houston should get a little more. His stats are way better.

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

I think houston should get a little more. His stats are way better.

JC missed half the season so his stats wont be good.  He is definitely a risk, but also younger.  His contract wasn't outrageous either, I wish we had signed both for what JC got

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

I don’t think we sign any of the vet edge guys until after the draft.

I think that could also be said for any of the LT’s still out there in FA.  Teams are waiting.  

 

16 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

I think houston should get a little more. His stats are way better.

Stats aren’t the whole story. The Browns didn’t want him.  He’s an aging rotational player now.  Clowney is a every down player when healthy.  They took a chance on getting his upside and he wasn’t expensive.  We will sign Houston and take a chance he can repeat last years performance.  For less money that Clowney received I believe.  You get what you pay for?  Risk/Reward.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think that could also be said for any of the LT’s still out there in FA.  Teams are waiting.  

 

Stats aren’t the whole story. The Browns didn’t want him.  He’s an aging rotational player now.  Clowney is a every down player when healthy.  They took a chance on getting his upside and he wasn’t expensive.  We will sign Houston and take a chance he can repeat last years performance.  For less money that Clowney received I believe.  You get what you pay for?  Risk/Reward.

I expect Houston to get a comparable base salary to Clowney. $7.5 m or so. He’s worth that. Likely for just one year. At this point, I seriously doubt any team will risk two years. Getting old ain’t fair, but fair’s got nothing to do with it. 
I also suspect Houston won’t be signed until after Day 2 of the draft. Teams will take inventory of their draft haul at that point and that’s when I expect the Colts to snag him. Prediction: One year, $7.0m with bonuses to make it $ 7.75m if met. Perhaps a team option for same price in 2022. 

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

I think houston should get a little more. His stats are way better.

Clowney is better vs the run, and youngers. Two very different players in terms of traits, but I think Clowney's market is bit higher. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hoose said:

I expect Houston to get a comparable base salary to Clowney. $7.5 m or so. He’s worth that. Likely for just one year. At this point, I seriously doubt any team will risk two years. Getting old ain’t fair, but fair’s got nothing to do with it. 
I also suspect Houston won’t be signed until after Day 2 of the draft. Teams will take inventory of their draft haul at that point and that’s when I expect the Colts to snag him. Prediction: One year, $7.0m with bonuses to make it $ 7.75m if met. Perhaps a team option for same price in 2022. 

I'd offer him a 2 year deal worth $13 million.  Maybe the majority of the money in year 1.   Maybe he feels too old to think about doing this again next year and starting on a new team.   He's comfortable here and could stay for less.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Myles said:

I wouldn't be totally surprised in they did one of these:

Use one of the tackles on the team (Davenport, Tevi)

 

Move Nelson to LT

 

Move Smith to LT

 

I'm not saying that would be a smart decision, but it wouldn't totally surprise me.   If they would bring Houston back, I think Ballards board may change a bit and instead of taking the best LT or Edge rusher, he may choose another position if one of need is a great prospect at 21.

My votes counts for absolutely nothing, of course.  But I really don’t like the idea of moving Big Q out to tackle.

 

I don’t know what kind of LT he would make.  But I do know that he’s almost certainly the best LG in the league.  So we know we’d be losing the best at one position and likely getting an LT who would be something significantly less than the best in the league.

 

I know it’s not the same thing.  But imagine watching John Stockton perform as one of the best PGs in NBA history and then, because he’s so fantastic and the Jazz decides they need help at SG, moving him there.

 

Moving Smith over there might make some more sense.  At least he’s a tackle, and a pretty good one.  But LT is a big-time specialty on the O-Line.  And we need to get somebody who has the experience and physical attributes to play that position at a high level....without, hopefully, raiding other positions on our line.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, luv_pony_express said:

My votes counts for absolutely nothing, of course.  But I really don’t like the idea of moving Big Q out to tackle.

 

I don’t know what kind of LT he would make.  But I do know that he’s almost certainly the best LG in the league.  So we know we’d be losing the best at one position and likely getting an LT who would be something significantly less than the best in the league.

 

I know it’s not the same thing.  But imagine watching John Stockton perform as one of the best PGs in NBA history and then, because he’s so fantastic and the Jazz decides they need help at SG, moving him there.

 

Moving Smith over there might make some more sense.  At least he’s a tackle, and a pretty good one.  But LT is a big-time specialty on the O-Line.  And we need to get somebody who has the experience and physical attributes to play that position at a high level....without, hopefully, raiding other positions on our line.

Couple things. Smith played guard in college. Auburn had some great OL players those years, so it's not surprising he was able to step outside.

 

Q was recruited as a T in college, and was considered the #5 T in the nation. The timing at ND was interesting as they had 2 other guys at LT already that were drafted and turned out to be Pro Bowl guys (Ronnie Stanley, Mike McGlenchey). 

 

So saying Smith is tackle, isn't really accurate unless you are just referring to his pro career. 

 

I'd probably prefer to leave Q at LG too, but if there is any guy that can make the move, it would be Q. I would not be surprised at all if he ended up being a Pro Bowl type LT. Would he be a better T than G, probably not, but would anyone have expected Smith to be a great RT? And he wasn't considered in the same universe as Q. And not trying to compare Smith to Q. I'm comparing the ability to step outside to T.

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

Couple things. Smith played guard in college. Auburn had some great OL players those years, so it's not surprising he was able to step outside.

 

Q was recruited as a T in college, and was considered the #5 T in the nation. The timing at ND was interesting as they had 2 other guys at LT already that were drafted and turned out to be Pro Bowl guys (Ronnie Stanley, Mike McGlenchey). 

 

So saying Smith is tackle, isn't really accurate unless you are just referring to his pro career. 

 

I'd probably prefer to leave Q at LG too, but if there is any guy that can make the move, it would be Q. I would not be surprised at all if he ended up being a Pro Bowl type LT. Would he be a better T than G, probably not, but would anyone have expected Smith to be a great RT? And he wasn't considered in the same universe as Q. And not trying to compare Smith to Q. I'm comparing the ability to step outside to T.

I’m not saying Q couldn’t make the move at all.  After all, he did play a few snaps there last year when AC went out - and unsurprisingly did fine.  But notice that they found a different solution for the last few games after AC was out for good. 

 

I’m just saying that it’s conceivable that we’d be losing a 98ish guard and gaining an 88ish tackle (or even a 93ish tackle, whatever).

 

Veldheer stepped in for a couple games and did well enough.  Yeah, I know he was at the sunset of his career to begin with.  But the idea was the right one.  And our OL played very well the couple games he was in there IMO.

 

If we don’t pick an LT with one of our first 2 picks, it probably means that the ones they had on the draft board were already plucked.  It seems there are a plethora of good ones available in this draft and it’s too important a position (especially with a heretofore injury-prone QB) to be jerry-rigged.

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

I’m not saying Q couldn’t make the move at all.  After all, he did play a few snaps there last year when AC went out - and unsurprisingly did fine.  But notice that they found a different solution for the last few games after AC was out for good. 

 

I’m just saying that it’s conceivable that we’d be losing a 98ish guard and gaining an 88ish tackle (or even a 93ish tackle, whatever).

 

Veldheer stepped in for a couple games and did well enough.  Yeah, I know he was at the sunset of his career to begin with.  But the idea was the right one.  And our OL played very well the couple games he was in there IMO.

 

If we don’t pick an LT with one of our first 2 picks, it probably means that the ones they had on the draft board were already plucked.  It seems there are a plethora of good ones available in this draft and it’s too important a position (especially with a heretofore injury-prone QB) to be jerry-rigged.

 

I'm not really worried either way. I think we could move Q out, or plug in a 2nd round LT, and still have a top 10ish OL. That's more than fine now that we don't have a statue at QB.

 

And as far as grades are concerned, I think it's more important to have a top 10ish LT, than #1 LG. If Q can be #10, I'd be more than happy if he moved. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

I'm not really worried either way. I think we could move Q out, or plug in a 2nd round LT, and still have a top 10ish OL. That's more than fine now that we don't have a statue at QB.

 

And as far as grades are concerned, I think it's more important to have a top 10ish LT, than #1 LG. If Q can be #10, I'd be more than happy if he moved. 

I'm fine with 2nd round LT but don't want Q at LT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect Houston to get signed by draft day. Whether it's by us or another team. Interestingly enough, I believe he's our last real option at EDGE before the draft. By not signing him yet, I'm thinking Ballard has interest in an EDGE rusher. I've heard we may have some interest in Azeez Ojulari. I like him, but I believe he is more of a 3-4 LBer, and we run a 4-3, so I really don't want to draft him. Seems like it'd be a reverse Bjoern Werner or Jerry Hughes situation all over again. Hoping to get Houston back, and either go Kwity Paye in the 1st and Eichenberg in the 2nd, or trade down all the way to the 2nd and get multiple picks that way (including a future pick), and a 3rd this year as well.

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

I expect Houston to get signed by draft day. Whether it's by us or another team. Interestingly enough, I believe he's our last real option at EDGE before the draft. By not signing him yet, I'm thinking Ballard has interest in an EDGE rusher. I've heard we may have some interest in Azeez Ojulari. I like him, but I believe he is more of a 3-4 LBer, and we run a 4-3, so I really don't want to draft him. Seems like it'd be a reverse Bjoern Werner or Jerry Hughes situation all over again. Hoping to get Houston back, and either go Kwity Paye in the 1st and Eichenberg in the 2nd, or trade down all the way to the 2nd and get multiple picks that way (including a future pick), and a 3rd this year as well.

I think we need to sign Houston and draft one early. Right now our DL aside from Buckner looks extremely meh. Need to add two bookends.

 

Ojulari would be a mismatch IMO. I'd be very surprised if Ballard went that direction.

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

I think we need to sign Houston and draft one early. Right now our DL aside from Buckner looks extremely meh. Need to add two bookends.

 

Ojulari would be a mismatch IMO. I'd be very surprised if Ballard went that direction.

I would sign Houston to 1 year/8.5 Mill and just be done with it, that is a 3.5 mill a yr paycut. He made 12 Mill last yr. Having said that I would guarantee his 8.5 Mill to make him happy in that aspect, it is only 1 year. He was 2nd on the team in sacks with 8 and is still good and fast. We need as much help as we can get regarding pass rush.

  • Like 4
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

    • I doubt we grab Ertz if he is even cut (not looking likely). Plus why so many think Doyle gets cut for this move makes little sense. The coaches and Ballard love him. He gets the first down catches when we need him but more importantly he blocks better than majority of TE’s in the game. We are run heavy team so his value comes a lot more than just catches and yards. If for some reason they grab Ertz if cut then you pair him with Doyle to create a strong group not cut one and create a weakness.    I will say I doubt we grab a TE that will want 8mil per year. Even a 1 year deal doesn’t make sense for us here. After signing Fisher we have roughly 13 mil for the season. Ballard doesn’t like being strapped during the season. 
    • I think it could still happen   Doyle would be the casualty though    
    • Man I really like this signing!  If he can come back 80% as good as he has played I would say we def upgraded our offensive line and that’s no knock on AC I just think this guy can be much better (if healthy). I would put our offensive line up against anyone else’s.  With that said Murphy’s law keeps coming into my mind because we have soo many ifs and question marks for this team that we can literally be 6-10 bad or super bowl bound. I can’t think of any colts team with this many “if” question marks.   If wentZ can prove last year was a fluke and go back to being one of the best up and coming qb in the game than we are sitting pretty. If he plays like he did last year things will be very very ugly.    Then you got this guy. If fisher can come back healthy we can have one of the best lines in football. If he doesn’t play or is diminished we have a huge hole at one of the most important positions.      I don’t know why but I just have this feeling with so many question marks on this team, that the season could go either way. I do fear that  some of These question marks  aren’t going to go our way and we will be hurting. Btw  Some of these other question marks Include , Will Mack be back to his old self?   Was last year a fluke for our new stud RB? Will ty  hilton plAy any better, or will he continue to decline? Was last year a fluke for Xavier Rhodes? Will Paris cambell stay healthy and actually contribute?  How will our rookie DEs play?  Then you have  the question mark that every team has  which is who will stay healthy?  
    • The risk is of opportunity cost, not of losing that money. The risk is that we have now made our bet with the LT position and we are missing on more safe options, so if he doesn't recover or recovers and is not the same, we are very likely left with sub-par performance at LT for the year...     
    • He should have been like "...and my source said ... and I quote 'Look...'"  
  • Members

    • Moe

      Moe 41

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lincolndefan

      lincolndefan 67

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 6

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyD4U

      IndyD4U 809

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Misty_B

      Misty_B 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaColts85

      DaColts85 527

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MPStack

      MPStack 3,631

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Chucklez

      Chucklez 320

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MikeCurtis

      MikeCurtis 2,500

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • bravo4460

      bravo4460 566

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...