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

    • The Colts don't want Wilkins or Taylor to be LeVeon Bell, and they don't want every back to play the same.  Rathman coached Wilkins to play a certain way and coached Mack to be more decisive.  You might think Mack is the best zone runner, and stylistically, he does still hesitate and read more than the other two, but ideally for an every down back, I think they are looking for something closer to what Taylor was by season's end.  
    • This is probably going to go on until we get closer to the season. Now that I think about it I don’t think Ballard would be willing to sign him this early into his recovery. Now the big question is do they go after Leno or wait on Fishers recovery to get further along.
    • Listen don’t forget big grove I the mix to he played some good football for us , like I can see us have like a nascar package if the two de pan out , since they both can play inside and out 
    • huh? Mack is the best zone runner we have by far. Wilkins isn't bad. Taylor really struggled, especially early. He was better late, but he's still not on the level as Mack was. Keep in mind Taylor ran a ton of power at Wiscy.
    • I voted Patmon and Harris, 6, and yes (Campbell will at least play some outside).   I don't see us keeping more than 2 bigs given Pascal's history playing X and big-slot, and Patmon gets the edge on being the second big since he's been here a year already, and has already played pitch and catch a bit with Wentz. Wouldn't shock me though if Strachan beat him out. I chose Harris because I think he provides some upside that Dulin doesn't has. And since Rodgers had a lot of success in the return game, Dulin's STs play may not be as in-need as it was last year.    I think we keep 6, but wouldn't be shocked to see us carry 7 early. I think Campbell's health and how he looks will impact that decision.    On Z/slot, and Campbell moving outside, both CB and FR mentioned that was the plan (Campbell to gradually work outside) when they drafted him. Given his injury luck, moving him out of slot sooner than later might be the plan. The fact TY's time is nearing an end, they need to find that answer anyway.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...