Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Mack and Colts mutually agree to seek trade (Merge)


JediXMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, coming on strong said:

Terrible move I would of thought with all the injuries Ballard would have learned his lesson .  Taylor or Hines goes down we are screwed wilkins is average . Mack is 25 and a 1000 yard rusher we need a running game to have a chance . 

He wants out, Frank don't give the RBs enough looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, coming on strong said:

Terrible move I would of thought with all the injuries Ballard would have learned his lesson .  Taylor or Hines goes down we are screwed wilkins is average . Mack is 25 and a 1000 yard rusher we need a running game to have a chance . 

Wilkins isn't bad at all. We'll probably elevate Deon Jackson from the PS, if needed. His college tape instantly reminded me of Mack. They're very much the same type of runner, although Mack has experience on his side at this point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, twfish said:

I guess I'm really kinda disappointed here. I like Mack and feel he has always worked hard and played hard for this organization. Why we have two 1,000 yard running backs in our back field and Reich is refusing to utilize either one to the point where one is asking for a trade is honestly just adding to my frustration of Reich

This could be true, but I'm not sure that it's entirely true.

 

My read on the situation is that Mack deems himself to be healthy and able to contribute. He has not been given that full opportunity this year, and as such, he has asked for a trade. Since Mack asked for the trade, coach Reich and the Colts organization did not play him this past week in order to avoid the possibility of an injury, (ruining any chance of a successful trade).

 

However, it could be that Mack was a healthy scratch this past week, which prompted his trade request.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shive said:

Wilkins isn't bad at all. We'll probably elevate Deon Jackson from the PS, if needed.

Mack is a beast way better than both of them . Why not just keep him he is paid peanuts just give him more touches . The quality will go down with a injury just like the tackle spots . We are not getting anything for him anyway lucky to get a 6th 

2 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

He wants out, Frank don't give the RBs enough looks.

That’s Frank’s fault with wentz hurt feed all three backs .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Mack and Colts have mutually agreed to seek a trade.

 

Options:

1. A trade agreement is reached where Mack is traded to another team for something of value, (equal value, lesser value, greater value).

 

2. Trade offers have been made. The offers are not sufficient to warrant a trade and Mack remains on the team after realizing that the trade market for him has not materialized into something the Colts find worthy of pursuit. At this point he can rejoin the team and prove himself, or sour on the team and remain with the Colts half-heartedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

This could be true, but I'm not sure that it's entirely true.

 

My read on the situation is that Mack deems himself to be healthy and able to contribute. He has not been given that opportunity this year, and as such, he has asked for a trade. Since Mack asked for the trade, coach Reich and the Colts organization did not play him this past week in order to avoid the possibility of an injury, (ruining any chance of a successful trade).

 

However, it could be that Mack was a healthy scratch this past week, which prompted his trade request.

According to Schefter he sat because they planned on trading him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shive said:

Wilkins isn't bad at all. 

He's the most underrated guy on the roster is what he is (imo). 

Dude runs hard every time he gets the ball. I think it's odd that's he's on a practice squad to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

He's the most underrated guy on the roster is what he is (imo). 

Dude runs hard every time he gets the ball. I think it's odd that's he's on a practice squad to be honest.

He isn't on the PS.  He plays special teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shive said:

All of the reports are that both Mack and the Colts have mutually agreed to seek a trade. That means that Mack (or his agent) approached the team about a trade, that the team agreed to. We didn't just put him on the block in hopes we could get something. There's also reports that there's already early interest as well.

 

I saw that you said should and my point still stands. The team's response to him seeking a trade was to make him inactive, not to play him to try to drive his value up. Why would they make him inactive last week due to seeking a trade, then suddenly do a 180 and force him into the gameplan. That's absurd.

 

This is purely unfounded conjecture, especially since Frank has literally never done this before. You may be upset with Frank right now and not have a high opinion of him, but there is a zero % chance Frank throws him into the lineup to try to up his trade value. Mack's value is what it is. Teams have seen him rush for 1k yards pre-injury, and saw in preseason/early regular season that Mack is healthy (maybe not 100% back to where is was from the mental aspect of the injury). He has his established value in teams' eyes and playing him only risks injury that would crash his trade value to 0.

 

I don't think that was at all what they had planned and until he asked for a trade, I don't think the Colts had any intention of doing so. You're making it sound like this was the plan from day 1, when there's no indication that that's the case. It's very clear the trade talk just occurred between the week 2 and 3 games, hence making him inactive for week 3.

 

You're making a huge assumption that trading him was always the plan, then getting upset that we did a poor job showcasing him to drive up his value, but also getting upset stating that we shouldn't showcase him more to drive up his trade value.

 

You might need to take a step back on this one, because you're contradicting yourself and getting upset over unfounded assumptions.


Yeah, it was a silly decision to bring him back to begin with. Great guy, team loves him, blah blah blah. 
 

It was never any less than crystal clear after last season that Taylor was the new lead, and they love to play Hines as often as they can. Unless they decide not to. You know, like giving him 2 carries and 1 catch in a close game he could have absolutely made a difference in… Or they also regularly do stupid % like giving a guy averaging 6 yards a carry just 10 carries. Yeah, go ahead and keep trying to convince me Frank has any clue just what in the # he’s doing with RBs. I’ll be the first to let you know when you get the job done.
 

Spoiler: You won’t.

 

There was never any room at the inn for Mack. If he came back expecting to get even playing time with Taylor and Hines then he made a mistake. Just like Reich and Ballard bringing him back with intent to play him enough to keep him happy. 
 

Mack was never going to be more than “extra #1” this season. Did they bring him back to play, or did they bring him back to trade him?
 

If we didn’t bring him back to play and/or trade him then exactly what did we bring him back for?  Are his locker room jokes worth a couple million? 
 

That’s my whole point. I’m not upset they aren’t playing him. I don’t want them to start playing him. (Please, read this twice. Slowly. Three times if necessary.)
 

They all ended up with a case of buyer’s remorse after 2 games because the plan they came into the season with, whatever it was, blew up in their faces (and anyone with half a brain shouldn’t be surprised by that) and now they’re trying to trade a player with snake % low value and if some GM doesn’t want to spend a pick on our “sold as is” spare parts he’s just a wasted roster spot until they cut him, or he walks at the end of the season. 
 

All for a guy who didn’t really need to be here to begin with, has little to no value, and is gone a hell of a lot sooner than later whether anyone trades for him or not. 
 

*. Poor. Execution. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

So what’s the reality of value here, a 4th? A 5th? 

 

The Patriots received a 2022 6th round pick and a 2023 4th round pick from the Rams for Sony Michel. Not sure if Mack has as much value but I would think it would be similar.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ar7 said:

 

The Patriots received a 2022 6th round pick and a 2023 4th round pick from the Rams for Sony Michel. Not sure if Mack has as much value but I would think it would be similar.

 

Yep, a Day 3 draft pick, I expect a 6th rounder for Mack and a deal to be done. At best, a 6th rounder and a 7th rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ar7 said:

 

The Patriots received a 2022 6th round pick and a 2023 4th round pick from the Rams for Sony Michel. Not sure if Mack has as much value but I would think it would be similar.

Would they give up a 2023 pick without Mack being under contract next season? Is Michel still under contract in 2023?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, John Waylon said:


Yeah, it was a silly decision to bring him back to begin with. Great guy, team loves him, blah blah blah. 
 

It was never any less than crystal clear after last season that Taylor was the new lead, and they love to play Hines as often as they can. Unless they decide not to. You know, like giving him 2 carries and 1 catch in a close game he could have absolutely made a difference in… Or they also regularly do stupid % like giving a guy averaging 6 yards a carry just 10 carries. Yeah, go ahead and keep trying to convince me Frank has any clue just what in the # he’s doing with RBs. I’ll be the first to let you know when you get the job done.
 

Spoiler: You won’t.

 

There was never any room at the inn for Mack. If he came back expecting to get even playing time with Taylor and Hines then he made a mistake. Just like Reich and Ballard bringing him back with intent to play him enough to keep him happy. 
 

Mack was never going to be more than “extra #1” this season. Did they bring him back to play, or did they bring him back to trade him?
 

If we didn’t bring him back to play and/or trade him then exactly what did we bring him back for?  Are his locker room jokes worth a couple million? 
 

That’s my whole point. I’m not upset they aren’t playing him. I don’t want them to start playing him. (Please, read this twice. Slowly. Three times if necessary.)
 

They all ended up with a case of buyer’s remorse after 2 games because the plan they came into the season with, whatever it was, blew up in their faces (and anyone with half a brain shouldn’t be surprised by that) and now they’re trying to trade a player with snake % low value and if some GM doesn’t want to spend a pick on our “sold as is” spare parts he’s just a wasted roster spot until they cut him, or he walks at the end of the season. 
 

All for a guy who didn’t really need to be here to begin with, has little to no value, and is gone a hell of a lot sooner than later whether anyone trades for him or not. 
 

*. Poor. Execution. 

They're trading him though so what exactly is your grouse?

 

They brought him back as an asset. He wasn't needed last week. He is their asset and they get the chance to get a precious pick for him, i'm not seeing how you can be upset about that. You're acting as if they paid him what they paid Hines or Darius. Dude came dirt cheap for a back who was STARTER before he went down. Cmon!

15 minutes ago, ar7 said:

 

The Patriots received a 2022 6th round pick and a 2023 4th round pick from the Rams for Sony Michel. Not sure if Mack has as much value but I would think it would be similar.

If that's what the Pats got, the Colts can realistically shoot for similar. Michel wasn't a starting back in NE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

They're trading him though so what exactly is your grouse?

 

They brought him back as an asset. He wasn't needed last week. He is their asset and they get the chance to get a precious pick for him, i'm not seeing how you can be upset about that. You're acting as if they paid him what they paid Hines or Darius. Dude came dirt cheap for a back who was STARTER before he went down. Cmon!


Go back and read my original post. 
 

Again. 

 

3 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Probably not a real good market for him honestly. He’s on a 1 year deal, coming off an Achilles injury, and has shown next to nothing. And to be quite honest we’re not in a position where we should be shoehorning him into games to help his value and facilitate a trade. 
 

Whether this was the plan for his return or not the whole thing has been * poorly executed. 


Whatever is is that you and shive don’t understand about that post got you both butthurt and I’ve had to spend the last two hours painfully explaining a simple post. 
 

He didn’t need to be brought back, and now they’re trying to trade him at a tanked value. It’s ridiculous. 
 

If you and shive still need help comprehending what I’ve said ask a (different) adult for help because I’m not drawing it out in crayon for either of you, and that’s the only thing left to do at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

They're trading him though so what exactly is your grouse?

 

They brought him back as an asset. He wasn't needed last week. He is their asset and they get the chance to get a precious pick for him, i'm not seeing how you can be upset about that. You're acting as if they paid him what they paid Hines or Darius. Dude came dirt cheap for a back who was STARTER before he went down. Cmon!

If that's what the Pats got, the Colts can realistically shoot for similar. Michel wasn't a starting back in NE.

Mack is better

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patrick Miller said:

Tbh I'm surprised Hines leapfrogged mack.

Durability. One thing we have seen from Hines and Taylor is they are both durable.

7 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

No but now I would see if we could use him in a package for Ertz.

Hmm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Patrick Miller said:

I've always thought Mack was better than Hines 

 

Mack was a better runner.  It's hard to tell now, he hasn't had many opportunities.  

 

Hines is a better receiver and more versatile.

 

I wish him luck.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Patrick Miller said:

Tbh I'm surprised Hines leapfrogged mack.

I am not Hines is one of the very few guys that scares teams because of his speed and Frank LOVES him some Hines.  A little too much IMO and I am a big fan of Hines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:


Go back and read my original post. 
 

Again. 

 


Whatever is is that you and shive don’t understand about that post got you both butthurt and I’ve had to spend the last two hours painfully explaining a simple post. 
 

He didn’t need to be brought back, and now they’re trying to trade him at a tanked value. It’s ridiculous. 
 

If you and shive still need help comprehending what I’ve said ask a (different) adult for help because I’m not drawing it out in crayon for either of you, and that’s the only thing left to do at this point.

 

Let's dissect everything you just said....

********

Whatever is is that you and shive don’t understand about that post got you both butthurt and I’ve had to spend the last two hours painfully explaining a simple post.  - You ever think maybe it's you doing a poor job explaining your point?

 

He didn’t need to be brought back, and now they’re trying to trade him at a tanked value. It’s ridiculous. - Tanked his value HOW? Explain how exactly his value has tanked. When the Colts re-signed him, the media was awash with comments about how the Colts running game was about to go HAM. All Mack needed to do was show HEALTH, and he's done exactly that even in the short time period. So how exactly has his value been tanked?
 

If you and shive still need help comprehending what I’ve said ask a (different) adult for help because I’m not drawing it out in crayon for either of you, and that’s the only thing left to do at this point. - Well now you're just being unhelpful. If you keep this up, i'll have you go sit in a corner and play quietly with those crayons. Mean kids get a timeout you know... 

 

J/K with the last line but your points make little sense. You're getting upset over something that makes no sense. Essentially you're saying they should have let him go while getting nothing in return. I'm pretty sure i've read folks here screaming about the lack of draft picks. Heck, i'm pretty sure there were threads during draft season talking about potential players the Colts c(sh)ould trade for pick(s) and i'm once again pretty sure Mack was one of those guys. So it's pretty hilarious to see you getting annoyed about what's a good move from Indy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at this back and forth. Fans +ed about drafting Taylor because we had Mack. Their "brilliant" foresight. Damned good thing Ballard did draft him.

 

If Taylor would have gotten hurt in these first 3 weeks?.....none of this "I told you so" stuff gets posted. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

It was never any less than crystal clear after last season that Taylor was the new lead, and they love to play Hines as often as they can. Unless they decide not to. You know, like giving him 2 carries and 1 catch in a close game he could have absolutely made a difference in… Or they also regularly do stupid % like giving a guy averaging 6 yards a carry just 10 carries. Yeah, go ahead and keep trying to convince me Frank has any clue just what in the # he’s doing with RBs. I’ll be the first to let you know when you get the job done.

Your personal gripes with how Reich called plays last week is irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that Reich would force Mack into the line-up to drive his trade value up. Thinking that someone is inept at playcalling isn't the same as saying that they'll willfully sit a starter to try to increase another player's trade value.

 

27 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

There was never any room at the inn for Mack. If he came back expecting to get even playing time with Taylor and Hines then he made a mistake. Just like Reich and Ballard bringing him back with intent to play him enough to keep him happy. 
 

Mack was never going to be more than “extra #1” this season. Did they bring him back to play, or did they bring him back to trade him?
 

If we didn’t bring him back to play and/or trade him then exactly what did we bring him back for? 

He was brought back to be depth. Every season, a handful of RB1's go out with lengthy injuries. Why not bring back a known talent with an unknown injury recovery for next to nothing? Now that he's back and healthy, he thinks he should be playing more snaps and has asked for a trade. If you have a player that is currently RB3, but could be another team's RB1 or RB2, why wouldn't you try to grant that wish and get some draft capital? We've already determined that he won't be getting many touches this season outside of occasionally spelling JT. If another team will give us a draft pick for someone that most likely would've never seen the field much anyhow, why wouldn't we?

 

27 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

That’s my whole point. I’m not upset they aren’t playing him. I don’t want them to start playing him. (Please, read this twice. Slowly. Three times if necessary.)

I have read and do understand that. That's literally the whole reason we got into this. I said it's obvious that we won't be since he was inactive this week.

 

You also went on about how it's ridiculous that we haven't played him more to drive up his value.

 

27 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

They all ended up with a case of buyer’s remorse after 2 games because the plan they came into the season with, whatever it was, blew up in their faces (and anyone with half a brain shouldn’t be surprised by that) and now they’re trying to trade a player with snake % low value and if some GM doesn’t want to spend a pick on our “sold as is” spare parts he’s just a wasted roster spot until they cut him, or he walks at the end of the season.

Again, purely conjecture.

 

27 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

All for a guy who didn’t really need to be here to begin with, has little to no value, and is gone a hell of a lot sooner than later whether anyone trades for him or not. 
 

*. Poor. Execution. 

You have literally made up an entire narrative in your mind and are arguing how this hypothetical situation you've devised is somehow the reality of the situation and why our team has screwed it up all along the way.

 

It's very simple. We brought Mack back as depth on the off-chance he rehabbed well from the injury, then when he wasn't getting the snaps he thought he should, he asked for a trade, the Colts agreed, and here we are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I'm shocked at all the people who are actually upset about this. Mack is not that good. I don't know what you all are seeing here? He is decent, but you all are acting like he's Dalvin Cook or Kamara. I don't get it. 

 

Mack should have never been resigned. NEVER IMHO. Huge waste of a couple mil. Wilkins is a really good back. 

 

I'm not trying to discount anyone's personal liking of Mack, but the reality is he is way expendable!

 

Jets need a back in the worst way at this moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if a team like Vegas or Houston came a calling. 

 

I was hoping Atlanta or Miami wanted him during offseason, but my money would be on the Jets right now

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Would they give up a 2023 pick without Mack being under contract next season? Is Michel still under contract in 2023?

I believe Michel is in the last year of his rookie contract. He was a first round pick in 2018 but I don't believe his 5th year was ever picked up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love me some Wilkins! I’ve always said it from the beginning, he is a beast and not used enough. Unfortunately for him we have Hines and Taylor. If we want to split carries I think we should give Wilkins more opportunities when Taylor isn’t in. Wilkins runs hard and always fines away to get to that hole!

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...