Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Is it time to make some changes? (merge)


Thunderbolt
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

And why aren’t we competitive against the best teams?  I would dare say it’s coaching.  Sure we had some key injuries to deal with at the start of the season but we have a large group of very skilled players on our team.  I think our coaching is letting us down.  IMO Flus is not a good DC and Reich should have given up the play calling a long time ago.  Rating them average is being nice.  I think we have the talent to compete and make the playoffs but advancing is going to take good coaching and strategizing.  I don’t have the confidence our coaches are up to the task.  There is still time to right the ship and make a run but I fear the coaching is our Achilles heel more so than the players.

The 43 zone keeps plays in front of the back seven.  Its going to give up completions and yardage.

 

It needs a pass rush from its front 4, AND, runstopping from its front 4, or else the entire defense doesn't work. 

 

And once the pass completion happens, the LBers and DBs have to be right on the receiver to make the tackle.  

 

Its not a scheme issue.  The Colts defense looks like a 43 zone defense that has no pass rush and average talent elsewhere.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any team that has the position group that it has invested super heavily into (OL) that has as many injury issues as we do to that group, is going to struggle mightily.  If you have the leagues best WR group with health equivalent to our OLs this early season, your passing game is going to look like garbage.  Now, the coaching is doing nothing to help us out.  As for the GM.... This team had to be turned completely over.  There are something like 3-5 guys still in the LEAGUE from the roster he inherited.... It's easier to replace total losers with competent guys, than it is to upgrade from competent to high end or all star....  We're still likely headed the right direction.  

 

This season is likely not our year.  Sucks, but it looks like it.  

 

Changes likely need to be made.... I expect we'll see turnover in the position coach and possibly coordinators positions.... (Eberflus) unless it continues to just go completely pear shaped.... Then Reich might be at risk.  

 

I can't imagine Irsay will be very happy if we have a total crap season, and his staff surrenders a first round pick in exchange for a seven win or worse season.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DeathByEagle said:

Again you have a QB that didnt play in the preseason and was barely even in camp. It takes time to start to gel. They are pretty much in there preseason stage right now. You will know by mid point what this team really is. Too early to see what it is right now.

People are not panicking about wentz …. It’s about how the defense went from number 2 against the run to bottom 5 in a year . The defense went backwards and so did the running game and offensive line . Rivers was a game manager last year only putting up 24 touchdowns to 12 picks . We won games by running the ball and defense . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SchlicterSZN said:

 

I can't imagine Irsay will be very happy if we have a total crap season, and his staff surrenders a first round pick in exchange for a seven win or worse season.

Surely, if we’re headed toward a <=7 win season, they’ll figure out a way to keep Wentz off the field enough to maintain the high First round pick, right?

 

If they don’t, that would be unforgivably stupid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SchlicterSZN said:

. It's easier to replace total losers with competent guys, than it is to upgrade from competent to high end or all star..

Exactly.  And our 43 defense had total losers because we came from a 34 defense.  There were no 43 zone players, so by default, Ballard started out the defense with a bunch of "losers".  Because drafted players start and make plays does not mean they made the team because they are better than average. 

 

Average players will make plays and accumulate stats if they are on the field, but that doesn't mean that they can make plays against playoff teams or any other team when it matters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

Surely, if we’re headed toward a <=7 win season, they’ll figure out a way to keep Wentz off the field enough to maintain the high First round pick, right?

 

If they don’t, that would be unforgivably stupid.

Didn't Doug Pedersen get roasted by just about everybody for apparently doing just that last year?

 

The problem is that trade included a conditional first round pick.   That was always too high, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Didn't Doug Pedersen get roasted by just about everybody for apparently doing just that last year?

 

The problem is that trade included a conditional first round pick.   That was always too high, IMO.

Yes, he did, and I think rightly so.

 

The Colts have to figure out how they want to handle their similar situation this week, in my opinion.  If they feel the season is slipping away and they're not going to make the playoffs and have a possible run for the SB (which both are looking pretty doubtful as of today) then they would be justified in sitting Wentz for the next few weeks and rolling with Eason to see if he can become at least a backup in this league or not.

 

No one could say we were tanking to save our draft choice since Wentz has a legit injury which is preventing us from rolling him out there.  We also get to evaluate Eason and see if we have to invest in another QB or not.  Heck, we may even evaluate Ehlinger since we have the chance if he returns quickly.

 

Personally, I didn't mind the draft pick in the trade.  I figured Wentz would either return to top QB form and we would be making a decent run in the playoffs or that he would really stink up the joint and we would retain the #1.  I just never really thought we would be this nightmare scenario where we would miss the playoffs and still give up the #1.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Didn't Doug Pedersen get roasted by just about everybody for apparently doing just that last year?

 

The problem is that trade included a conditional first round pick.   That was always too high, IMO.

Pederson benched Wentz because Wentz was playing poorly.  And his doing so almost certainly dampened Wentz’s trade value.  The Eagles gained nothing from Wentz’s benching, it probably cost them.

 

We’d lose a lot if we didn’t bench him.

 

So it’s not so much an apples and oranges thing as a black or white thing.  Our situation isn’t just different than Philly’s, it’s polar opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

Yes, he did, and I think rightly so.

 

The Colts have to figure out how they want to handle their similar situation this week, in my opinion.  If they feel the season is slipping away and they're not going to make the playoffs and have a possible run for the SB (which both are looking pretty doubtful as of today) then they would be justified in sitting Wentz for the next few weeks and rolling with Eason to see if he can become at least a backup in this league or not.

 

No one could say we were tanking to save our draft choice since Wentz has a legit injury which is preventing us from rolling him out there.  We also get to evaluate Eason and see if we have to invest in another QB or not.  Heck, we may even evaluate Ehlinger since we have the chance if he returns quickly.

 

Personally, I didn't mind the draft pick in the trade.  I figured Wentz would either return to top QB form and we would be making a decent run in the playoffs or that he would really stink up the joint and we would retain the #1.  I just never really thought we would be this nightmare scenario where we would miss the playoffs and still give up the #1.

Not the next few weeks.

 

This is something that would be done in the last 4-5 weeks of the season.  As of now, if Wentz is healthy, he should and will play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

Yes, he did, and I think rightly so.

 

The Colts have to figure out how they want to handle their similar situation this week, in my opinion.  If they feel the season is slipping away and they're not going to make the playoffs and have a possible run for the SB (which both are looking pretty doubtful as of today) then they would be justified in sitting Wentz for the next few weeks and rolling with Eason to see if he can become at least a backup in this league or not.

 

No one could say we were tanking to save our draft choice since Wentz has a legit injury which is preventing us from rolling him out there.  We also get to evaluate Eason and see if we have to invest in another QB or not.  Heck, we may even evaluate Ehlinger since we have the chance if he returns quickly.

 

Personally, I didn't mind the draft pick in the trade.  I figured Wentz would either return to top QB form and we would be making a decent run in the playoffs or that he would really stink up the joint and we would retain the #1.  I just never really thought we would be this nightmare scenario where we would miss the playoffs and still give up the #1.

The time to make those decisions is when a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.  It can be better justified then, and is generally more appropriate timing.

 

I assume the first round pick by both sides was the assumption that the Colts would be near playoff bound.  Both felt like the pick would be a mid to late rounder.  

 

I assume that Ballard could have convinced the Eagles to take a second rounder if it was going to be a top 15 pick.  I doubt that the Eagles would have demanded a top 15 first round pick.  Both teams probably over estimated the Colts level of talent based upon last year's 10-6 and Bills playoff game performance.

 

There was a point in the negotiations where the media was reporting that more players could be involved.  I was hoping that Ballard would have thrown in Oke AND Wills to save draft capital.  That's looking like a better idea than giving a top 15 1st round pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, shasta519 said:


It’s a narrative that just defies logic. Luck was my favorite player of all time…but his overall performance wasn’t exactly incredible those first 3 years. Those teams also beat other good teams. Not to mention his playoff stat line was really meh.

 

I didn’t like Grigson, but he must have done something that wasn’t terrible to get the results they got.

 

The fact is if you list their accomplishments/results with no names attached and had to pick one - 100% of people would pick Grigson. 100% guarantee. The only way to say Ballard is better is to attempt to add context that isn't intuitively apparent in the results. All of that context has to lead to a better result at some point or you have to accept the added context is irrelevant.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

Pederson benched Wentz because Wentz was playing poorly.  And his doing so almost certainly dampened Wentz’s trade value.  The Eagles gained nothing from Wentz’s benching, it probably cost them.

 

We’d lose a lot if we didn’t bench him.

 

So it’s not so much an apples and oranges thing as a black or white thing.  Our situation isn’t just different than Philly’s, it’s polar opposite.

I was referring to Pedersen getting criticized for benching Hurts in favor of Sudfeld during a Monday Night game, which was viewed as tanking the game for a higher first round pick.  Similar to some saying that we hold back Wentz to save the first round pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I was referring to Pedersen getting criticized for benching Hurts in favor of Sudfeld during a Monday Night game, which was viewed as tanking the game for a higher first round pick.  Similar to some saying that we hold back Wentz to save the first round pick.

Ok.  But it’s still a very different situation.  His move (if it was done to improve draft position) might’ve moved the Eagles up a spot or two.

 

Our situation means a difference of 32 picks.  And it’s written in ink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

The Colts would  sit Wentz before giving up the 1st rounder, which is looking like they maybe in  contention for the #1 overall pick lol. 

If they were going to sit him then they would have on Sunday--two sprained ankles, playing with the mobility of a statue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

 

The fact is if you list their accomplishments/results with no names attached and had to pick one - 100% of people would pick Grigson. 100% guarantee. The only way to say Ballard is better is to attempt to add context that isn't intuitively apparent in the results. All of that context has to lead to a better result at some point or you have to accept the added context is irrelevant.

 

Yep. And I don't even think Grigson was better. But for some reason (and it wasn't just Luck, pun intended), Grigson got good outcomes for the most part. So it does defy logic and intuition to say that he was a horrible GM. His teams had winning records with Luck and even without Luck. He must have done something that worked.

 

I just think he isn't nearly worthy of the vitriol that he gets now. His drafting was crap, no doubt. But under-performing draft picks are definitely not unique to him (many teams, including this one, are full of them).

 

Not to psycho-analyze, but it seems like fans are much more extreme when it comes to both GMs these days. Luck retiring was a huge catalyst I think. But it seems like Grigson has to be evil and Ballard has to be great...like they balance out each other. When the reality is somewhere in between (as it often is).

 

Many Colts fans have taken to the "process over outcome" mindset because they like Ballard and that's how he operates. He is very disciplined and focuses on what he can control. And it's fine to respect the approach he takes, but one also has to wonder when/where the desired outcome is going to be. And since that outcome appears dubious right now, perhaps we should examine the process a little more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to be interesting how Ballard and Reich respond in the offseason if this continues down this road. Will they stand Pat or take a hard look in the mirror and make the necessary changes. Ballard should give a quarterly update after the dolphins game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wentzszn said:

Going to be interesting how Ballard and Reich respond in the offseason if this continues down this road. Will they stand Pat or take a hard look in the mirror and make the necessary changes. Ballard should give a quarterly update after the dolphins game.


There should  be a real “since of urgency” if the Colts don’t make the playoffs, come this off-season. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, masterlock said:

If they were going to sit him then they would have on Sunday--two sprained ankles, playing with the mobility of a statue.

Isn’t it obvious that people are talking about late in the season…when/if our playoff hopes are officially dashed?  The contract doesn’t state which 75% of the snaps he has to take, or why he missed 25% of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The time to make those decisions is when a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.  It can be better justified then, and is generally more appropriate timing.

 

I assume the first round pick by both sides was the assumption that the Colts would be near playoff bound.  Both felt like the pick would be a mid to late rounder.  

 

I assume that Ballard could have convinced the Eagles to take a second rounder if it was going to be a top 15 pick.  I doubt that the Eagles would have demanded a top 15 first round pick.  Both teams probably over estimated the Colts level of talent based upon last year's 10-6 and Bills playoff game performance.

 

There was a point in the negotiations where the media was reporting that more players could be involved.  I was hoping that Ballard would have thrown in Oke AND Wills to save draft capital.  That's looking like a better idea than giving a top 15 1st round pick.

 

The orgs seem to have a good relationship. But why would Roseman agree to be fine with a 2nd round pick because the structure backfired on the Colts?

 

The way the deal was structured seemed to be in a way that would prevent a playoff-bound IND from benching Wentz for the final game of the season (in the event that Wentz was nearing that 75% threshold). So in the spirit of that, I can't imagine PHI is cool with having a non-playoff IND team bench Wentz for multiple games to avoid it as well.

 

Besides, NFL teams don't really operate like that. And the optics on it are so bad, especially if Wentz is actually healthy enough to play. The guy is a warrior and playing for his career at this point, so I doubt he's going to just go along with that plan, especially since that pick could be used a replacement.

 

If Wentz misses the threshold, I think it will be due to injuries. Otherwise, the Colts will play out the season with him to see if he can be that guy. IF he isn't, they will have to take their medicine. If he is, then it's really no different than using that pick on a QB.

 

But I am just speculating, so who knows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

Ok.  But it’s still a very different situation.  His move (if it was done to improve draft position) might’ve moved the Eagles up a spot or two.

 

Our situation means a difference of 32 picks.  And it’s written in ink.

My point is that Pedersen got a bunch of flak for influencing one half of one game where both teams were way out of the playoffs.  Some are suggesting that the Colts should go into multiple games for the purpose of altering draft position, where our lack of competitiveness could impact the playoff chances of teams throughout the league.

 

I'm simply saying that if Pedersen caught that much flak for such a minor deal, imagine how the Colts would look if they were as deliberate as Pedersen was (thought to be) when the impact to other teams and the NFL is so much greater. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

The orgs seem to have a good relationship. But why would Roseman agree to be fine with a 2nd round pick because the structure backfired on the Colts?

 

The way the deal was structured seemed to be in a way that would prevent a playoff-bound IND from benching Wentz for the final game of the season (in the event that Wentz was nearing that 75% threshold). So in the spirit of that, I can't imagine PHI is cool with having a non-playoff IND team bench Wentz for multiple games to avoid it as well.

 

Besides, NFL teams don't really operate like that. And the optics on it are so bad, especially if Wentz is actually healthy enough to play. The guy is a warrior and playing for his career at this point, so I doubt he's going to just go along with that plan, especially since that pick could be used a replacement.

 

If Wentz misses the threshold, I think it will be due to injuries. Otherwise, the Colts will play out the season with him to see if he can be that guy. IF he isn't, they will have to take their medicine. If he is, then it's really no different than using that pick on a QB.

 

But I am just speculating, so who knows.

I think its simply both teams coming together with a mutual understanding of Wentz value.  Roseman needs to accurately assess Wentz's value before he asks the moon for him.  He can't hold out for the top pick in the draft because he would know that no team would trade for Wentz at that price. 

 

I think both GMs came together and realized that Wentz value was somewhere around pick 20 if we make the playoffs and somewhere around pick 45 if we don't, considering the $22M salary cap baggage that came with the trade.

 

Nobody figured Wentz should be compensated by pick 5, if that's how this season goes. 

 

Based upon last year's 10-6 performance. they both figured that our roster was good enough that if Wentz played 75% of the snaps, we'd be giving up close to pick 20, not pick 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My point is that Pedersen got a bunch of flak for influencing one half of one game where both teams were way out of the playoffs.  Some are suggesting that the Colts should go into multiple games for the purpose of altering draft position, where our lack of competitiveness could impact the playoff chances of teams throughout the league.

 

I'm simply saying that if Pedersen caught that much flak for such a minor deal, imagine how the Colts would look if they were as deliberate as Pedersen was (thought to be) when the impact to other teams and the NFL is so much greater. 

OK.  And I’m sure we’d get flak for it.  But most of it would be coming from other teams.  And of course they don’t want us having a higher draft position.

 

There’s nothing that I’m aware of that would make benching Wentz a breach of contract.  Nor is there any league rule I’m aware of that would preclude us from doing so.

 

Flak, on the other hand, is fleeting and of no real consequence.  What’s going to mean more to us…a few days of disparaging words from Stephen A. Smith or picking 32 spots higher?

 

The Eagles signed the deal and there are no stipulations about missed snaps having to be attributed to Carson’s health.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

how so?

His answers were the exact same as they were after the Steelers loss when they quit running the ball. The backup QB answer wasn’t followed up by the media. They just let it go. They should of followed it up with then why is Eason the backup or why didn’t Hundley get more preseason snaps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think its simply both teams coming together with a mutual understanding of Wentz value.  Roseman needs to accurately assess Wentz's value before he asks the moon for him.  He can't hold out for the top pick in the draft because he would know that no team would trade for Wentz at that price. 

 

I think both GMs came together and realized that Wentz value was somewhere around pick 20 if we make the playoffs and somewhere around pick 45 if we don't, considering the $22M salary cap baggage that came with the trade.

 

Nobody figured Wentz should be compensated by pick 5, if that's how this season goes. 

 

Based upon last year's 10-6 performance. they both figured that our roster was good enough that if Wentz played 75% of the snaps, we'd be giving up close to pick 20, not pick 5.

 

I bet HOU didn't think Tunsil was worth a top 5 pick either, but that's what they had to surrender this year due to the trade they made.

 

We will just have to see it play out. Long ways to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

Yep. And I don't even think Grigson was better. But for some reason (and it wasn't just Luck, pun intended), Grigson got good outcomes for the most part. So it does defy logic and intuition to say that he was a horrible GM. His teams had winning records with Luck and even without Luck. He must have done something that worked.

 

I just think he isn't nearly worthy of the vitriol that he gets now. His drafting was crap, no doubt. But under-performing draft picks are definitely not unique to him (many teams, including this one, are full of them).

 

Not to psycho-analyze, but it seems like fans are much more extreme when it comes to both GMs these days. Luck retiring was a huge catalyst I think. But it seems like Grigson has to be evil and Ballard has to be great...like they balance out each other. When the reality is somewhere in between (as it often is).

 

Many Colts fans have taken to the "process over outcome" mindset because they like Ballard and that's how he operates. He is very disciplined and focuses on what he can control. And it's fine to respect the approach he takes, but one also has to wonder when/where the desired outcome is going to be. And since that outcome appears dubious right now, perhaps we should examine the process a little more.

matthew bingo GIF

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, luv_pony_express said:

OK.  And I’m sure we’d get flak for it.  But most of it would be coming from other teams.  And of course they don’t want us having a higher draft position.

 

There’s nothing that I’m aware of that would make benching Wentz a breach of contract.  Nor is there any league rule I’m aware of that would preclude us from doing so.

 

Flak, on the other hand, is fleeting and of no real consequence.  What’s going to mean more to us…a few days of disparaging words from Stephen A. Smith or picking 32 spots higher?

 

The Eagles signed the deal and there are no stipulations about missed snaps having to be attributed to Carson’s health.

I don't disagree that the Colts should consider the draft pick when making decisions about Wentz.  I think that the appropriate time would be after they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

 

Relax, that might be in about 6 or 7 more weeks.

 

Also, I think NFL coaches and players have much more understanding that games are won and lost by preparation and execution, not so much metrics analysis and talent disparities.  We may say that they have no chance, but the Colts pulling Wentz is basically saying that the team is so bad that we can't even win with the one player who is actually playing pretty well.  I could see where that pretty much cannibalizes the notion that players need to work hard every moment of the season.  If they already have no chance to win, why bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I bet HOU didn't think Tunsil was worth a top 5 pick either, but that's what they had to surrender this year due to the trade they made.

 

We will just have to see it play out. Long ways to go.

 

I don't think Tunsil had a snap count assumption in his trade deal.  He was viewed as being a very good player in an important position that would play every snap.  Besides, I think most thought that the price for him was too high anyway.

 

The point of the snap count for Wentz is that if he starts 75%, we should be a good enough team to get to the playoffs and give up about pick 20.  Philly agreed.  

 

OTOH, if Wentz doesn't play 75% then his injury history prevails and we are starting the backup.  Because of availability, his value is now only a second rounder.

 

Left out of the possibilities that Wentz starts 75% of the snaps and we go 7-10 or worse.  I don't think Ballard was thinking that was likely given his opinion of the roster and how he said that it was "close". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Okay after seeing this and that Reich plans to continue to play Wentz makes me really question him. At what point will Irsay or someone step in to overrule Reich’s decision to play Wentz when he’s clearly hobbled out on the field?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/09/27/frank-reich-carson-wentz-came-out-ok-from-sundays-game/

Reich said he will be 100% in a week or two. Said he is in a better spot then he was last week. Said he should practice Thursday and Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Okay after seeing this and that Reich plans to continue to play Wentz makes me really question him. At what point will Irsay or someone step in to overrule Reich’s decision to play Wentz when he’s clearly hobbled out on the field?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/09/27/frank-reich-carson-wentz-came-out-ok-from-sundays-game/

If he is healthy enough to play,  why wouldn't he play?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

His answers were the exact same as they were after the Steelers loss when they quit running the ball. The backup QB answer wasn’t followed up by the media. They just let it go. They should of followed it up with then why is Eason the backup or why didn’t Hundley get more preseason snaps.

 

 

HAVE.  please, I beg you..... It's all I have left this season..... Should have..... Could have ... Or should've, could've, would've......lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ojsglove said:

LOL Nobody else seems to be having a problem?

I once seen Lawrence Taylor get ran over by John Frank when he was actually standing up right going at him, A thin TE that played for the 49ers. Crap happens and he is the best LB of all-time. I really can't recall Leonard getting ran over when standing up right and going full speed at someone but I am sure it has happened a couple of times. 

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...