Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Mack and Colts mutually agree to seek trade (Merge)


JediXMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I am wondering if they have agreed to reverse course.  The Colts made him a major part of the game plan and he was getting the caries at the end.

Hope so, but doubt it. Just more likely they are trying to up the value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor also had a bad knee. They said he had fluid buildup earlier in the week. Maybe just making sure they didn’t push him too much. As long as Mack did his job and helped them win it’s all good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Taylor also had a bad knee. They said he had fluid buildup earlier in the week. Maybe just making sure they didn’t push him too much. As long as Mack did his job and helped them win it’s all good. 

He had 15 carries, which is about perfect IMO. 

Let's him bell cow a bit in a series based situation, but keeps him fresh.

Just glad we didn't see Hines up the gut and in full series. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

He had 15 carries, which is about perfect IMO. 

Let's him bell cow a bit in a series based situation, but keeps him fresh.

Just glad we didn't see Hines up the gut and in full series. 

 

We were veery balanced on offense today. I know that won’t happen every game but that is a good blue print to strive for every week.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wentzszn said:

We were veery balanced on offense today. I know that won’t happen every game but that is a good blue print to strive for every week.

32 passes, 33 rushes. 

Although 5 rushes were Wentz. I think only one was a called QB run. Maybe 2.

But yes, nice balance. And both phases efficient.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

19 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Well this sure aged like milk in an outhouse in the Gobi desert. 
 

And we’re only at the 2 minute warning in the first half. 

More information came out after we had that exchange, so it's not surprising that my original take wasn't correct. We learned that he was inactive due to needing to have more ST players active, then the trade request came from that. I was working off of the assumption that it came before he was inactive and that was the reason, because at that time, there was little to no information on the situation. I have no problem saying I was wrong about it with new information coming to light. That doesn't make your tantrum about the perceived mishandling of Mack's trade value any more valid though.

 

It's interesting that you chose to call me out for my take aging poorly, when your take aged just as well. You were so confident that trading Mack was always the plan and that the team had done such a "* poor job" of handling the situation with him not getting sufficient game snaps in preseason to drive his value up. 

 

On 9/28/2021 at 1:44 PM, John Waylon said:

And don’t you dare think for a minute that Frank wouldn’t give Mack 15+ carries and let Taylor and Hines rot on the bench Sunday trying to inflate some value into Mack. He absolutely would, and he’d get a thrill out of doing it.

Mack was used pretty much in-line with how he was used previously, to spell JT. He certainly didn't take away meaningful carries from JT. I think they used Mack well, allowing him to contribute and show what he can do, without negatively impacting our offense.

 

I have no problem saying that both of us were wrong on our initial takes, but I'm not sure that you would be willing to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, EastStreet said:

He had 15 carries, which is about perfect IMO. 

Let's him bell cow a bit in a series based situation, but keeps him fresh.

Just glad we didn't see Hines up the gut and in full series. 

I feel like they may not have used Hines as much this game because his biggest value is as a pass catcher out of the backfield, creating mismatches with LBs. Jerome Baker is a really athletic LB that excels in coverage, so they probably recognized that and opted to go with our more between the tackles RBs like JT and Mack.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

So do we know if Mack is staying now since he got carries yesterday?? lol I highly doubt he would have played and risked injury if there was any chance of an impending trade

No word as of yet, but I assume that nothing has changed. He may see getting snaps in a game as an opportunity to increase interest in a potential trade. It seems his goal is to get more carries and another team is most likely his best option, but it may take him getting carries with us for another team to feel comfortable pulling the trigger on a trade for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shive said:

I feel like they may not have used Hines as much this game because his biggest value is as a pass catcher out of the backfield, creating mismatches with LBs. Jerome Baker is a really athletic LB that excels in coverage, so they probably recognized that and opted to go with our more between the tackles RBs like JT and Mack.

I think it's a combo of stuff.

1, Miami is a bad run D.

2, Frank got torched in the media for not running much against TN's bad run D.

3, they wanted to stimulate value/interest for Mack

4. the muff likely impacted things a bit

 

he did have a very nice snag in the seam though

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shive said:

We learned that he was inactive due to needing to have more ST players active, then the trade request came from that.

Mack doesn't play ST, and he doesn't really catch passes.  He takes handoffs only, but despite that being his only apparent skill, he's not big enough to be a short yardage back.

 

He's a good runner, but he has limited value.   Which is why he was/may be inactive more than Wilkins, and why his trade value is not very high.  He'll present the same limited value roster spot for another team, IMO.

 

He should have always been used more as a pass catcher, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Mack doesn't play ST, and he doesn't really catch passes.  He takes handoffs only, but despite that being his only apparent skill, he's not big enough to be a short yardage back.

 

He's a good runner, but he has limited value.   Which is why he was/may be inactive more than Wilkins, and why his trade value is not very high.  He'll present the same limited value roster spot for another team, IMO.

 

He should have always been used more as a pass catcher, IMO.

I don’t think he was drafted to be a short yardage back.  He was drafted to be an all purpose back.   He is not elite but he is good.  He is a good blocker and he can catch the ball when given the chance.  He is a starting caliber back when healthy.  I think he is the best available back right now from FA agents currently available to poaching a practice squad player.  This should come down to supply vs. demand and how much a team needs a starting caliber RB.  IMO opinion his trade value increases as the RB injuries increase and the season gets deeper.  Especially as the trade deadline gets closer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wentzszn said:

No. But it makes sense since we were playing the clock with a lead. Not sure Hines is that guy.

I don’t mind using Mack at all.   But we used Hines way, way too little.   It’s like having a weapon and choosing not to use it.    I know there’s a question that maybe he got banged up — in which case that explains it.   But short if that,  his usage, which has been spotty this year, is a question mark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t mind using Mack at all.   But we used Hines way, way too little.   It’s like having a weapon and choosing not to use it.    I know there’s a question that maybe he got banged up — in which case that explains it.   But short if that,  his usage, which has been spotty this year, is a question mark. 

I can absolutely agree that he's been underutilized at times, but I honestly think Jerome Baker on the other side was part of the reason we didn't see Hines much, especially in the passing game. He's a smaller WILL that's great in coverage, but a larger back will give him trouble. This is purely speculation btw.

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

14 hours ago, Shive said:

  

More information came out after we had that exchange, so it's not surprising that my original take wasn't correct. We learned that he was inactive due to needing to have more ST players active, then the trade request came from that. I was working off of the assumption that it came before he was inactive and that was the reason, because at that time, there was little to no information on the situation. I have no problem saying I was wrong about it with new information coming to light. That doesn't make your tantrum about the perceived mishandling of Mack's trade value any more valid though.

 

It's interesting that you chose to call me out for my take aging poorly, when your take aged just as well. You were so confident that trading Mack was always the plan and that the team had done such a "* poor job" of handling the situation with him not getting sufficient game snaps in preseason to drive his value up. 

 

Mack was used pretty much in-line with how he was used previously, to spell JT. He certainly didn't take away meaningful carries from JT. I think they used Mack well, allowing him to contribute and show what he can do, without negatively impacting our offense.

 

I have no problem saying that both of us were wrong on our initial takes, but I'm not sure that you would be willing to do the same.


You just don’t get it. I’ll explain it to you again for the…

 

Christ I don’t even know how many times this will be. 
 

He shouldn’t have been brought back. Whether it was to trade him, or to play him. It doesn’t matter what their plan was, it was dead on arrival. Taylor was clearly going to be the workhorse this season, Hines was already here, and they were already working on an extension for him, so trying to force a 3rd RB who wasn’t going to be here beyond this season meaningfully into that mix (again, for any reason,) was ridiculous. 
 

I never said they didn’t give him snaps to drive his value up.
 

I said (Read. This. Slowly.) forcing him onto the field to do so while Hines and/or Taylor stood on the sidelines would be a ridiculous move at 0-3 with this team showing as many issues as it has. 
 

Regardless. Of. The. Reason. 
 

And guess what? Hines sat on the bench for most of the day yesterday because they wanted to force Mack into the game instead. 
 

It’s ridiculous regardless of the reason for it. 

 

Hopefully Hines sat there coming up with ways to spend that easy money he made yesterday because he clearly didn’t have a whole hell of a lot else to do. 
 

Which is just a phenomenal way to use him. I mean all great coaches keep one of their best offensive players on the sidelines. 
 

It doesn’t matter why he’s here or why he’s out there or what they want to do with him. 
 

He shouldn’t be. We’ve got our guys for the future here already (Spoiler: Mack ain’t one of them.) so give them the rock cut out the cute nonsense games. 
 

For whatever reason. 
 

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Good day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Waylon said:


You just don’t get it. I’ll explain it to you again for the…

 

Christ I don’t even know how many times this will be. 
 

He shouldn’t have been brought back. Whether it was to trade him, or to play him. It doesn’t matter what their plan was, it was dead on arrival. Taylor was clearly going to be the workhorse this season, Hines was already here, and they were already working on an extension for him, so trying to force a 3rd RB who wasn’t going to be here beyond this season meaningfully into that mix (again, for any reason,) was ridiculous. 
 

I never said they didn’t give him snaps to drive his value up.
 

I said (Read. This. Slowly.) forcing him onto the field to do so while Hines and/or Taylor stood on the sidelines would be a ridiculous move at 0-3 with this team showing as many issues as it has. 
 

Regardless. Of. The. Reason. 
 

And guess what? Hines sat on the bench for most of the day yesterday because they wanted to force Mack into the game instead. 
 

It’s ridiculous regardless of the reason for it. 

 

Hopefully Hines sat there coming up with ways to spend that easy money he made yesterday because he clearly didn’t have a whole hell of a lot else to do. 
 

Which is just a phenomenal way to use him. I mean all great coaches keep one of their best offensive players on the sidelines. 
 

It doesn’t matter why he’s here or why he’s out there or what they want to do with him. 
 

He shouldn’t be. We’ve got our guys for the future here already (Spoiler: Mack ain’t one of them.) so give them the rock cut out the cute nonsense games. 
 

For whatever reason. 
 

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Good day. 

 

Now, here's a genius post.

 

I'll explaIn why it's so bad.    Read slowly, so you can understand.

 

It says, for all the world to see.....    "I am smarter than the General Manager!"

 

The Colts brought Mack back to be depth.    Did you know,  did ANYONE know if any of our RB's would be hurt?   No.  Of course not.    We're now a month into the season.    We have a better idea of the depth on the roster.   Mack has a better idea of how many/few touches he's going to get.    We did him a solid bringing him back.   Now, we're trying to do another solid for him by trading him.    These are the little things Ballard does that score points in the locker room while trying to help his team.    Mack would look good about now if Taylor or Hines or Wilkins had gone down for any length of time.   Now we feel good enough to move him, so we will try.

 

In other words,  this is not that big a deal to the masses.    But this is a good thing internally for the Colts.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Now, here's a genius post.

 

I'll explaIn why it's so bad.    Read slowly, so you can understand.

 

It says, for all the world to see.....    "I am smarter than the General Manager!"

 

The Colts brought Mack back to be depth.    Did you know,  did ANYONE know if any of our RB's would be hurt?   No.  Of course not.    We're now a month into the season.    We have a better idea of the depth on the roster.   Mack has a better idea of how many/few touches he's going to get.    We did him a solid bringing him back.   Now, we're trying to do another solid for him by trading him.    These are the little things Ballard does that score points in the locker room while trying to help his team.    Mack would look good about now if Taylor or Hines or Wilkins had gone down for any length of time.   Now we feel good enough to move him, so we will try.

 

In other words,  this is not that big a deal to the masses.    But this is a good thing internally for the Colts.

 

 

 

 


Has Wilkins been a bad player? Absolutely not. There’s been plenty of “best 3rd string RB in the league!” talk surrounding him here, and he’s not a guy that fans or coaches dread seeing in a game in the slightest. We had depth already. 
 

But we still brought back Mack and then when things weren’t as rosy as he expected it was suddenly time for a trade. Did he honestly come back here expecting to get the same amount of playing time as Taylor and Hines? That’s absurd. He was a great player pre-injury and maybe he still is, but a 3 RB rotation isn’t going to work. The proof of that is already in the pudding. It hasn’t resulted in anything other than 1 of them watching the other 2 play from the sidelines to this point. If we really had some kind of genius master plan to create a 3 man rotation wouldn’t it have been an ideal time to do just that when our QB has two sprained ankles and needs all the pressure taken off him the he can get? They’re either not creating a 3 man rotation, or doing a * poor job of it. Take your pick. Clearly just being here for depth isn’t something that sits real well with Mack or else he wouldn’t be seeking a trade. 
 

And it wasn’t all that hard to see the situation playing out exactly like that coming into this season. Surely he didn’t want to come back from his injury just to be lost in the shuffle as depth after being a starter and a rising star since he took over, but there was never any way he was going to get the playing time he wanted over Hines and Taylor.
 

We put ourselves in an entirely avoidable situation of having to either accommodate him in the gameplan or on the trade block that now becomes yet another issue we have to contend with when we have more than enough of those as is. 
 

All for depth. That doesn’t want to be depth. 

When we already had depth to begin with. 
 

The only place you can find Wilkins these days is on the side of a damn milk carton. And coincidentally on the other side of that milk carton is this week’s 3rd wheel RB, whoever it winds up being. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Waylon said:


Has Wilkins been a bad player? Absolutely not. There’s been plenty of “best 3rd string RB in the league!” talk surrounding him here, and he’s not a guy that fans or coaches dread seeing in a game in the slightest. We had depth already. 
 

But we still brought back Mack and then when things weren’t as rosy as he expected it was suddenly time for a trade. Did he honestly come back here expecting to get the same amount of playing time as Taylor and Hines? That’s absurd. He was a great player pre-injury and maybe he still is, but a 3 RB rotation isn’t going to work. The proof of that is already in the pudding. It hasn’t resulted in anything other than 1 of them watching the other 2 play from the sidelines to this point. If we really had some kind of genius master plan to create a 3 man rotation wouldn’t it have been an ideal time to do just that when our QB has two sprained ankles and needs all the pressure taken off him the he can get? They’re either not creating a 3 man rotation, or doing a * poor job of it. Take your pick. Clearly just being here for depth isn’t something that sits real well with Mack or else he wouldn’t be seeking a trade. 
 

And it wasn’t all that hard to see the situation playing out exactly like that coming into this season. Surely he didn’t want to come back from his injury just to be lost in the shuffle as depth after being a starter and a rising star since he took over, but there was never any way he was going to get the playing time he wanted over Hines and Taylor.
 

We put ourselves in an entirely avoidable situation of having to either accommodate him in the gameplan or on the trade block that now becomes yet another issue we have to contend with when we have more than enough of those as is. 
 

All for depth. That doesn’t want to be depth. 

When we already had depth to begin with. 
 

The only place you can find Wilkins these days is on the side of a damn milk carton. And coincidentally on the other side of that milk carton is this week’s 3rd wheel RB, whoever it winds up being. 

We signed Mack for cheap and he is great depth.  In no way was it a bad move.   In fact, it was a great move. Less wear on Taylors legs and it is much nicer seeing Mack run up the gut than Hines.  Signing Mack gave the Colts a very strong RB crew.  

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

20 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I don’t think he was drafted to be a short yardage back.  He was drafted to be an all purpose back.   He is not elite but he is good.  He is a good blocker and he can catch the ball when given the chance.  He is a starting caliber back when healthy.  I think he is the best available back right now from FA agents currently available to poaching a practice squad player.  This should come down to supply vs. demand and how much a team needs a starting caliber RB.  IMO opinion his trade value increases as the RB injuries increase and the season gets deeper.  Especially as the trade deadline gets closer.

Not sure what you're reading.

 

He wasn't drafted to be a short yardage back.  He has no value as one.  He's not big enough.

 

He hasn't been used much as an APB.  That's what Hines does.  He's been mainly used as a handoff runner between the tackles or just off tackle.

 

He doesn't play ST. 

 

He's not a short yardage back.  He's not an APB in that he has not been asked to catch many passes.  All he does is run off tackle and in between.  He's used a lot like TN uses Derrick Henry, and that's weird for a RB as small as Mack. 

 

Its's not very valuable.  JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John Waylon said:


You just don’t get it. I’ll explain it to you again for the…

 

Christ I don’t even know how many times this will be.

Let me make this very clear. There is not a lack of understanding or comprehension of what you're typing.

 

9 hours ago, John Waylon said:

He shouldn’t have been brought back. Whether it was to trade him, or to play him. It doesn’t matter what their plan was, it was dead on arrival. Taylor was clearly going to be the workhorse this season, Hines was already here, and they were already working on an extension for him, so trying to force a 3rd RB who wasn’t going to be here beyond this season meaningfully into that mix (again, for any reason,) was ridiculous. 

I've said it multiple times to you in this thread that he was brought back to be depth. Why wouldn't you bring back a previous 1k yard rusher for pennies to provide depth, especially when our team utilizes a RBBC? Everyone was excited last season at the prospect of us have a "3-headed monster" at RB, even with him and Hines in contract years. It's not like we have some young budding stars sitting on our PS that Mack is keeping from seeing the field. For the team, you bring back Mack and one of 2 things happen. He comes back from his injury and is able to play at a high level, which gives you an extremely talented RB room, or he doesn't and you cut him, which would cost you next to nothing. It was an extremely low risk, high reward situation. The only point at which it became a problem was when he requested a trade. If anything, it's on Mack for re-signing, knowing he wouldn't get the lion's share of the snaps, then requesting a trade when he didn't.

 

9 hours ago, John Waylon said:

I never said they didn’t give him snaps to drive his value up.

  You absolutely did:

On 9/28/2021 at 1:44 PM, John Waylon said:

If the whole point of bringing him back was to try and trade him then they should have done more to feature him and build some actual value in him than they have to this point instead of the * poor throwing him out there after three weeks with 1 healthy scratch like some kind of “all sales final” spare parts at a yard sale. 
 

If you’re comfortable with getting anything less than a 4 out of Mack that’s foolish. He was worth a hell of a lot more than that before the injury, and it’s highly likely he could still be worth more than that if they had actually put any effort into showing where he’s at as a player.

 

They brought him back, and then didn’t do % to raise his tanked value.

Maybe you wouldn't feel the need to be so condescending if you went back and read what you previously typed, because it seems like maybe you're the one that doesn't quite understand.

 

Also, if a team re-signs a player for next to nothing on a 1 year deal for depth, then is able to get a draft pick for him, you've essentially spent a little bit of salary $$ to get draft capital. Most teams would love to be able to do that.

 

9 hours ago, John Waylon said:

I said (Read. This. Slowly.) forcing him onto the field to do so while Hines and/or Taylor stood on the sidelines would be a ridiculous move at 0-3 with this team showing as many issues as it has. 
 

Regardless. Of. The. Reason. 
 

And guess what? Hines sat on the bench for most of the day yesterday because they wanted to force Mack into the game instead. 
 

It’s ridiculous regardless of the reason for it.

 

Hopefully Hines sat there coming up with ways to spend that easy money he made yesterday because he clearly didn’t have a whole hell of a lot else to do. 
 

Which is just a phenomenal way to use him. I mean all great coaches keep one of their best offensive players on the sidelines. 
 

It doesn’t matter why he’s here or why he’s out there or what they want to do with him. 

There were reports that Hines took a shot to the ribs and was held out for a lot of the game. I also speculated that Miami having an very good coverage LB in Jerome Baker also reduced Hines' value as a mismatch in the passing game. Baker is a smaller LB though, so it made more sense to run it with JT and Mack.

 

You have no clue why Hines didn't play as much and until Reich or Brady tell us, you're firing yourself up over nothing.

 

9 hours ago, John Waylon said:

He shouldn’t be. We’ve got our guys for the future here already (Spoiler: Mack ain’t one of them.) so give them the rock cut out the cute nonsense games. 
 

For whatever reason. 

At the end of the day, can Mack still contribute? Yes. Will he continue to get playing time? Yes.

 

From what I do understand, your position is that we shouldn't have re-signed him in the first place, but since we did, we should have played him more in the preseason to boost his trade value, and now that he's asked for a trade, we should no longer play him. Am I getting that correct or do I need to go back and re-read yet again?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shive said:

Let me make this very clear. There is not a lack of understanding or comprehension of what you're typing. I 

 

I've said it multiple times to you in this thread that he was brought back to be depth. Why wouldn't you bring back a previous 1k yard rusher for pennies to provide depth, especially when our team utilizes a RBBC? Everyone was excited last season at the prospect of us have a "3-headed monster" at RB, even with him and Hines in contract years. It's not like we have some young budding stars sitting on our PS that Mack is keeping from seeing the field. For the team, you bring back Mack and one of 2 things happen. He comes back from his injury and is able to play at a high level, which gives you an extremely talented RB room, or he doesn't and you cut him, which would cost you next to nothing. It was an extremely low risk, high reward situation. The only point at which it became a problem was when he requested a trade. If anything, it's on Mack for re-signing, knowing he wouldn't get the lion's share of the snaps, then requesting a trade when he didn't.

 

  You absolutely did:

Maybe you wouldn't feel the need to be so condescending if you went back and read what you previously typed, because it seems like maybe you're the one that doesn't quite understand.

 

Also, if a team re-signs a player for next to nothing on a 1 year deal for depth, then is able to get a draft pick for him, you've essentially spent a little bit of salary $$ to get draft capital. Most teams would love to be able to do that.

 

There were reports that Hines took a shot to the ribs and was held out for a lot of the game. I also speculated that Miami having an very good coverage LB in Jerome Baker also reduced Hines' value as a mismatch in the passing game. Baker is a smaller LB though, so it made more sense to run it with JT and Mack.

 

You have no clue why Hines didn't play as much and until Reich or Brady tell us, you're firing yourself up over nothing.

 

At the end of the day, can Mack still contribute? Yes. Will he continue to get playing time? Yes.

 

From what I do understand, your position is that we shouldn't have re-signed him in the first place, but since we did, we should have played him more in the preseason to boost his trade value, and now that he's asked for a trade, we should no longer play him. Am I getting that correct or do I need to go back and re-read yet again?

Told You So Mic Drop GIF by FullMag

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like having the groceries and food in your refrigerator but you refusing to use it or cook with it, and then you watch them go bad. I see that happening a lot with the talent assembled on our team - from Hines to Jack Doyle to Parris Campbell, IMO. It is becoming slightly clear Ballard is less of a problem than Frank Reich to me towards the maximum/proper utilization of personnel on our team. I am not just talking about the Miami game.

 

Otherwise it would be like Jeff Fisher trying to use Vince Young in a way he cannot be used, instead of Andy Reid not forcing pocket passing on Mahomes and letting him do this thing. That is what good coaches do, adapt their play calling and usage to the personnel more than making them conform to their system in a stubborn way.

 

On Mack's front, Marlon Mack is FAR MORE useful to the Colts than what his market value will fetch in a trade which would be no more than a 6th rounder. So we might as well let him spell JT in a breather role and use him well.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shive said:

Let me make this very clear. There is not a lack of understanding or comprehension of what you're typing. I 

 

I've said it multiple times to you in this thread that he was brought back to be depth. Why wouldn't you bring back a previous 1k yard rusher for pennies to provide depth, especially when our team utilizes a RBBC? Everyone was excited last season at the prospect of us have a "3-headed monster" at RB, even with him and Hines in contract years. It's not like we have some young budding stars sitting on our PS that Mack is keeping from seeing the field. For the team, you bring back Mack and one of 2 things happen. He comes back from his injury and is able to play at a high level, which gives you an extremely talented RB room, or he doesn't and you cut him, which would cost you next to nothing. It was an extremely low risk, high reward situation. The only point at which it became a problem was when he requested a trade. If anything, it's on Mack for re-signing, knowing he wouldn't get the lion's share of the snaps, then requesting a trade when he didn't.

 

  You absolutely did:

Maybe you wouldn't feel the need to be so condescending if you went back and read what you previously typed, because it seems like maybe you're the one that doesn't quite understand.

 

Also, if a team re-signs a player for next to nothing on a 1 year deal for depth, then is able to get a draft pick for him, you've essentially spent a little bit of salary $$ to get draft capital. Most teams would love to be able to do that.

 

There were reports that Hines took a shot to the ribs and was held out for a lot of the game. I also speculated that Miami having an very good coverage LB in Jerome Baker also reduced Hines' value as a mismatch in the passing game. Baker is a smaller LB though, so it made more sense to run it with JT and Mack.

 

You have no clue why Hines didn't play as much and until Reich or Brady tell us, you're firing yourself up over nothing.

 

At the end of the day, can Mack still contribute? Yes. Will he continue to get playing time? Yes.

 

From what I do understand, your position is that we shouldn't have re-signed him in the first place, but since we did, we should have played him more in the preseason to boost his trade value, and now that he's asked for a trade, we should no longer play him. Am I getting that correct or do I need to go back and re-read yet again?

 

 Shive you have done a great job explaining this. Simply, it was a very good signing for depth. Period!
 You have hit a :wall:  brick wall on the subject. This time.
Mack has earned respect and got it. And we should wish him success in life and on the field. The guy is among real friends as a Colt.

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

1 hour ago, Shive said:

Let me make this very clear. There is not a lack of understanding or comprehension of what you're typing.

 

I've said it multiple times to you in this thread that he was brought back to be depth. Why wouldn't you bring back a previous 1k yard rusher for pennies to provide depth, especially when our team utilizes a RBBC? Everyone was excited last season at the prospect of us have a "3-headed monster" at RB, even with him and Hines in contract years. It's not like we have some young budding stars sitting on our PS that Mack is keeping from seeing the field. For the team, you bring back Mack and one of 2 things happen. He comes back from his injury and is able to play at a high level, which gives you an extremely talented RB room, or he doesn't and you cut him, which would cost you next to nothing. It was an extremely low risk, high reward situation. The only point at which it became a problem was when he requested a trade. If anything, it's on Mack for re-signing, knowing he wouldn't get the lion's share of the snaps, then requesting a trade when he didn't.

 

  You absolutely did:

Maybe you wouldn't feel the need to be so condescending if you went back and read what you previously typed, because it seems like maybe you're the one that doesn't quite understand.

 

Also, if a team re-signs a player for next to nothing on a 1 year deal for depth, then is able to get a draft pick for him, you've essentially spent a little bit of salary $$ to get draft capital. Most teams would love to be able to do that.

 

There were reports that Hines took a shot to the ribs and was held out for a lot of the game. I also speculated that Miami having an very good coverage LB in Jerome Baker also reduced Hines' value as a mismatch in the passing game. Baker is a smaller LB though, so it made more sense to run it with JT and Mack.

 

You have no clue why Hines didn't play as much and until Reich or Brady tell us, you're firing yourself up over nothing.

 

At the end of the day, can Mack still contribute? Yes. Will he continue to get playing time? Yes.

 

From what I do understand, your position is that we shouldn't have re-signed him in the first place, but since we did, we should have played him more in the preseason to boost his trade value, and now that he's asked for a trade, we should no longer play him. Am I getting that correct or do I need to go back and re-read yet again?

Well said.

It was a very smart move to sign him.   Like you said low risk/ high reward.   There is no negative.  Even if we trade him we get something in return.   That would be a positive as well.   Absolutely nothing negative with the signing.  People so often complain about lack of depth.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shive said:

Let me make this very clear. There is not a lack of understanding or comprehension of what you're typing.

 

I've said it multiple times to you in this thread that he was brought back to be depth. Why wouldn't you bring back a previous 1k yard rusher for pennies to provide depth, especially when our team utilizes a RBBC? Everyone was excited last season at the prospect of us have a "3-headed monster" at RB, even with him and Hines in contract years. It's not like we have some young budding stars sitting on our PS that Mack is keeping from seeing the field. For the team, you bring back Mack and one of 2 things happen. He comes back from his injury and is able to play at a high level, which gives you an extremely talented RB room, or he doesn't and you cut him, which would cost you next to nothing. It was an extremely low risk, high reward situation. The only point at which it became a problem was when he requested a trade. If anything, it's on Mack for re-signing, knowing he wouldn't get the lion's share of the snaps, then requesting a trade when he didn't.

 

  You absolutely did:

Maybe you wouldn't feel the need to be so condescending if you went back and read what you previously typed, because it seems like maybe you're the one that doesn't quite understand.

 

Also, if a team re-signs a player for next to nothing on a 1 year deal for depth, then is able to get a draft pick for him, you've essentially spent a little bit of salary $$ to get draft capital. Most teams would love to be able to do that.

 

There were reports that Hines took a shot to the ribs and was held out for a lot of the game. I also speculated that Miami having an very good coverage LB in Jerome Baker also reduced Hines' value as a mismatch in the passing game. Baker is a smaller LB though, so it made more sense to run it with JT and Mack.

 

You have no clue why Hines didn't play as much and until Reich or Brady tell us, you're firing yourself up over nothing.

 

At the end of the day, can Mack still contribute? Yes. Will he continue to get playing time? Yes.

 

From what I do understand, your position is that we shouldn't have re-signed him in the first place, but since we did, we should have played him more in the preseason to boost his trade value, and now that he's asked for a trade, we should no longer play him. Am I getting that correct or do I need to go back and re-read yet again?

Unless Mack starts catching passes and running routes much more than he did in the past, he's not really a back up for Hines.  Maybe he is now, but he's never been thought of as being interchangeable with Hines in the past.

 

And Wilkins plays special teams.  

 

So when Ballard resigned Mack, the only thing Mack could really do (unless expanding him to a backup APB) was to back up JT.  So he would be on the roster as the 4th RB, and many teams keep only 3, with the 4th on the PS.  

 

I don't agree with everything @John Waylonis saying, but Mack kinda soaks up a roster spot for minimal contribution, unless he's going to start catching passes like Hines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some things to consider... 

 

  • Miami blitzes a lot (2nd most in the league 36%), so zone running with any back is a roll of the dice with guys shooting gaps. Power gap run is what a lot of teams do vs high % blitzing teams. Mack is a better zone runner than power gap. JT is a better power gap than zone. Hines is tiny lol and is not as good as Mack is zone running or as good as JT is in power.
  • Baltimore is a top 5 blitzing team too, so Mack, if used as a zone runner, will likely not have a great AVG. JT, if used in power gap should have a good AVG.
  • Mack hasn't really been used in the passing game since his first year. After that, he was more bell cow. Not sure he's cut out for the APB type role. Maybe he can, and just needs more reps as a target. But his catch % is pretty putrid (68.3%) compared to JT (92.2%) and Hines (79%). 
  • Wilkins is a solid depth guy, but keep in mind he is normally playing late in games when opposing front 7s are worn down.
  • Mack was, and likely is still, a better RB2 option that Hines (or Wilkins). Unless you're talking about sweeps and hard edge runs. Hines is a better APB option.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shive said:

From what I do understand, your position is that we shouldn't have re-signed him in the first place


There it is.
 

Finally. 
 

Stop. 
 

Full stop. 
 

Hard stop. 
 

Permanent stop. 
 

No mas. 

 

Do not proceed. 
 

End of story.

 

They brought him back to be depth when clearly that doesn’t sit well with him (and again, it was never going to, and rightly so) all the while being unnecessary on our end because we already had depth. Now they have to try and trade him (or shoehorn him into games at the expense of Taylor or Hines even though they’re both clearly in the future plans for this team while Mack is literally a lame duck waiting to move on as soon as the timer strikes 0. Or sooner, if he has his way,) despite not being able to show teams what they were buying (at least until they put Hines on the milk carton for him this week) after a major injury because they didn’t need to force him into games to show what value he had, nor did they need to force him into games at the expense of the Hines/Taylor combo that wasn’t broken and didn’t need fixing. Or even altering.  
 

They shouldn’t have brought him back to let him waste away on the bench as some kind of “break glass in case of emergency” depth option. 

 

They shouldn’t have brought him back to force him into games to try and increase any value in him to facilitate a trade.

 

They shouldn’t have brought him back at the expense of either Taylor or Hines not being used to their abilities. 
 

They shouldn’t have brought him back. 
 

Period. 
 

But they did. 
 

And now it’s an issue. The 4th RB in the room has become an issue. As if we didn’t have enough of those already, and wouldn’t be better off not having to juggle this whole % show. 

 

What if Hines doesn’t appreciate being the third man out? What if it happens to Taylor? We’re really gonna take a chance on pissing off guys we’re going to rely on in the future for a guy who is gone literally as soon as he’s allowed to go, any way he’s allowed to go? 
 

Now we’re rostering 4 RBs for “depth” when we have 2 quality starting caliber RBs in Taylor and Hines and a high quality 3 in Wilkins while injuries ravage other parts of our roster. 
 

It wasn’t depth, we already had depth. It was luxury. And one of them gets % on for it every single week, and there’s no way to avoid it. 
 

One of them is already unhappy about it.
 

Who’s next?

 

And it was all avoided by not bringing him back to begin with.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Unless Mack starts catching passes and running routes much more than he did in the past, he's not really a back up for Hines.  Maybe he is now, but he's never been thought of as being interchangeable with Hines in the past.

 

And Wilkins plays special teams.  

 

So when Ballard resigned Mack, the only thing Mack could really do (unless expanding him to a backup APB) was to back up JT.  So he would be on the roster as the 4th RB, and many teams keep only 3, with the 4th on the PS.  

 

I don't agree with everything @John Waylonis saying, but Mack kinda soaks up a roster spot for minimal contribution, unless he's going to start catching passes like Hines.

Nobody said Mack was a back-up for Hines, so their differing skillsets aren't really relevant here. Mack backs up JT and allows us to limit the wear on him and keep him fresh. With how many RB's go down each year with significant injuries, having great depth at the position is absolutely a positive. 

 

You're trying to say that because he doesn't offer anything different than anyone else on the roster, he's not worth having on the team, but sometimes just providing high quality depth is all you need. If JT goes down and is out for the rest of the season, are you comfortable with Hines and Wilkins being RB1 & RB2? Neither are bellcow RB's and Mack has proven to be one in the very recent past.

  • Like 3
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...