Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Mack and Colts mutually agree to seek trade (Merge)


JediXMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, John Waylon said:


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.

 

I'm pretty sure Mack understood full well he was going to be RB2. 

The writing was on the wall the moment Indy used a 2R pick on JT IMO.... 

And there's just little chance he believed he'd be the feature back coming back from injury. 

 

It's a lot more likely he just didn't like being an inactive, or simply assumed a higher snap count.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Shive said:

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.

Spot on.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2021 at 9:17 PM, EastStreet said:

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.

 

There were 5 or so garbage time rushes to Mack too that aren't necessarily part of the game plan.  We had around the same 40/60 split we always do until then.  This week a little more in favor of the run but not much.  

Miami is very weak it looked like to me.  We will see if we have run heavy offense this week v. Baltimore. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 9:54 AM, 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.

He is a good enough receiver and pre injury was deadly in the open field.  Perplexing.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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)

 

Except that mack willingly signed the new contract KNOWING TAYLOR IS THE STARTER AND HE (MACK) WAS GOING TO BE DEPTH.  

 

What he presumably didn't expect was ever being a healthy scratch, but since he doesn't contribute on ST he absolutely should have expected that. 

 

Good God man you are making a mountain out of a bump that could only be seen under a damn microscope. 

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

18 minutes ago, Shive said:

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.

I'm aware that he is not a backup for Hines.  He's only a backup for JT.  

 

I'm saying that he has limited value if all he is is a backup to when we run Derrick Henry type of plays....without the short yardage size.....doesn't even play ST.

 

Its between him and Wilkins for the 3rd RB spot.  Apparently, Ballard chose Wilkins because of more versatility.

 

Yes, its great to be able to have 4 RBs on the roster and 4 active on every game day, if that's what you're saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

He is a good enough receiver and pre injury was deadly in the open field.  Perplexing.  

Absolutely perplexing.  Like I said, if he caught more passes, which I think he is good at, he could be a more versatile backup.

 

And don't blame Frank for this, Ballard was going to help him seek a trade instead of meddling with Frank to use Mack in space more.  Frank hasn't used Mack in space much since he was drafted.  I'd think Ballard would point that out by now if he had a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Absolutely perplexing.  Like I said, if he caught more passes, which I think he is good at, he could be a more versatile backup.

 

And don't blame Frank for this, Ballard was going to help him seek a trade instead of meddling with Frank to use Mack in space more.  Frank hasn't used Mack in space much since he was drafted.  I'd think Ballard would point that out by now if he had a problem with it.

If he is or ever gets fully healthy, I think a team is going to get a damn good RB.  He is also top tier in pass pro.   That is huge in today's game. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nickster said:

There were 5 or so garbage time rushes to Mack too that aren't necessarily part of the game plan.  We had around the same 40/60 split we always do.  This week a little more in favor of the run but not much.  

Miami is very weak it looked like to me.  We will see if we have run heavy offense this week v. Baltimore. 

 

lol.. come on Nick. Everyone knows that garbage runs as you call them are part of every team's average, especially ones that win. It's a built in part of the number and assumption.

 

We're at 59% (pass) this year. 2020 was 56%. 2019 was 54%. Median in the league runs about 59%.

The point is though, you run more vs bad run Ds. TN and Miami are both mediocre run Ds. 

A 37/18 (65%) with just 18 rushes vs TN's iffy run D, especially with a severely immobile QB was just dumb.

A near 50% mix vs Miami was smart.

Baltimore is top 5ish or 10ish in run D, and bottom 10 in pass D.... so doubt we'll run as much. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, John Waylon said:


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.

I think you are wrong in every way. 

Why do you think this is an "issue".   Mack is not holding out.   It's possible when he signed his cheap deal, he told them that he'll see how fast he can get up to speed and then they can trade him.  From everything I have seen, he is not being a jerk about it.   We have a proven back up RB that is on a cheap contract.   If we trade him, we just bought draft capital.   Great move Ballard.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Absolutely perplexing.  Like I said, if he caught more passes, which I think he is good at, he could be a more versatile backup.

 

And don't blame Frank for this, Ballard was going to help him seek a trade instead of meddling with Frank to use Mack in space more.  Frank hasn't used Mack in space much since he was drafted.  I'd think Ballard would point that out by now if he had a problem with it.

Mack was more a part of the passing game in his first year. His catch % is just not good at all when compared to JT or Hines.

He's just not the best, or second best, option in terms of receiving RBs go for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

If he is or ever gets fully healthy, I think a team is going to get a damn good RB.  He is also top tier in pass pro.   That is huge in today's game. 

Oh, I think he's fine.  It comes down to value, in-season when other teams have their rosters set.

 

This was always gonna be the case when we drafted JT, so the resigning of Mack was kinda weird.  

 

Its not like Ballard didn't know what he has in Wilkins, so the same game-day dynamics to make him inactive is not that different from the dynamics of the roster when he was resigned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

I'm pretty sure Mack understood full well he was going to be RB2. 

The writing was on the wall the moment Indy used a 2R pick on JT IMO.... 

And there's just little chance he believed he'd be the feature back coming back from injury. 

 

It's a lot more likely he just didn't like being an inactive, or simply assumed a higher snap count.

 

 

Spot on.


I’m sure they did tell him they’d make sure to keep him involved. That’s why when they didn’t it became an issue. But that still doesn’t solve the problem of necessity. 
 

They value Hines. They love to use him (unless they inexplicably don’t) and when they use him right he’s a hell of a weapon. He can take it to the house any time he has the ball in his hands. Run, pass, or punt. He’s a change of pace player that a defense absolutely has to take into account whenever he’s on the field wherever that winds up being. 
 

They value Hines so much they gave him 6 million a year over the next 3 to stick around. But now we’re going to shuffle him down the board to 3rd string at that price? Yikes. I hope we don’t start giving other players we consider 3rd stringers 6 million annually for Sunday cameos. 
 

If they really view Hines as the 3rd stringer and Mack as the second why did they not resign Mack to a multi-year deal instead of Hines? Or, if they tried and Mack said “no” and Hines said “yes” then why are we giving Mack opportunities at the position when he declined over the guy who didn’t decline? What exactly is the endgame in that?

 

There’s just no reason to be in this situation. The Taylor/Hines combo we saw in 2020 didn’t leave little to be desired (outside of shotgun runs up the gut, but that’s not a Hines issue. Or even a personnel issue.) Hines is a guy who is going to be here for the foreseeable future, but he’s being cast aside for someone gone no later than by the end of this season. 
 

Unless they really get wild and resign Mack to a multi-year deal to rival or eclipse Hines’, in which case

Harrison Ford I Give Up GIF by The Academy Awards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

lol.. come on Nick. Everyone knows that garbage runs as you call them are part of every team's average, especially ones that win. It's a built in part of the number and assumption.

 

We're at 59% (pass) this year. 2020 was 56%. 2019 was 54%. Median in the league runs about 59%.

The point is though, you run more vs bad run Ds. TN and Miami are both mediocre run Ds. 

A 37/18 (65%) with just 18 rushes vs TN's iffy run D, especially with a severely immobile QB was just dumb.

A near 50% mix vs Miami was smart.

Baltimore is top 5ish or 10ish in run D, and bottom 10 in pass D.... so doubt we'll run as much. 

 

Oh I'm not talking average.   I am talking game plan.  When we were trying to gain the lead we weren't particularly run heavy.  

We were a little more run heavy than last week but like I posted to you last week, in most of the context of the game last week we weren't particularly pass heavy until we started chasing the game late.

 

Then East if you put those two games together, you get, well, average, which is somewhere around 60/40 which is also right around league average.  One game we pass more often chasing the lead and one game we run more often with the lead.  One game we have a weak running D, we run a little more, the next week, a strong running D we pass a little more.  

 

I didn't realize last week how poor Miami was in the run game.  You had mentioned it, but they looked weak.

 

I am totally against smashmouth.  I just totally reject the ole pound the rock theory and don't see any statistical analysis or anecdotal evidence that this is a winning strategy.    But we ran a variety of running stuff last week and we did the week before too. 

 

So all I am saying is we are about a 40/60 team game plan wise week in week out.  Game plan wise, we might have a 35-45/65-55 range depending on the opposition strengths, but that's usually it.  But sometimes you scrap your gameplan and other times you chase or try to retain a lead. 

 

Yeah, we ain't going to be able to run very effectively against Balt unless we establish the pass IMO.  But if we do, we definitely need to look into trading Q because he truly doesn't make much of a difference if that was the case.  (Tangential point here, not a meander IMO.  Because it is a statement made not to discuss Q but to actually bolster a point about the running game;.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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.

1. If he re-signed knowing he would be a depth piece and it wouldn't sit well with him, that's on Mack, not the team.

2. Who is our depth if JT goes down? Wilkins?

3. This whole "lame duck" reasoning is ridiculous. You're essentially saying if a player is on a one-year deal, they shouldn't play because they're obviously not in the team's future plans. Unless we're retaining an old player over a budding young talent (ie: If we brought back Houston at the expense of our younger pass rushers), there's no problem here.

4. Reich has already stated multiple times how they intend to use Mack and they've stuck to that. He said the goal is to get JT about 20 carries, Mack 5, and Hines 5, with the flow of the game dictating any variance from that.

5. The bottom line here is that is a talented player is on your roster, whether they're on a 1 year deal or not, if they can help the team, they should be on the roster and should play.

 

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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.

That's your opinion.

 

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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. 

It's an issue for literally just you.

 

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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?

You're making assumptions that players share the same frustration you do and there's been nothing to suggest that's the case. From everything we've heard, the other RB's really like Mack and have publicly stated 

 

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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.

I love Hines, but he's no bellcow RB1 like JT or Mack.

 

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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?

Again, you're projecting your frustration and assuming the other RB's feel the same way.

 

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

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

At least we can agree every bit of your argument stems from your belief that we never should have re-signed him, so I think this is a great place to end this back and forth. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, John Waylon said:


I’m sure they did tell him they’d make sure to keep him involved. That’s why when they didn’t it became an issue. But that still doesn’t solve the problem of necessity. 
 

They value Hines. They love to use him (unless they inexplicably don’t) and when they use him right he’s a hell of a weapon. He can take it to the house any time he has the ball in his hands. Run, pass, or punt. He’s a change of pace player that a defense absolutely has to take into account whenever he’s on the field wherever that winds up being. 
 

They value Hines so much they gave him 6 million a year over the next 3 to stick around. But now we’re going to shuffle him down the board to 3rd string at that price? Yikes. I hope we don’t start giving other players we consider 3rd stringers 6 million annually for Sunday cameos. 
 

If they really view Hines as the 3rd stringer and Mack as the second why did they not resign Mack to a multi-year deal instead of Hines? Or, if they tried and Mack said “no” and Hines said “yes” then why are we giving Mack opportunities at the position when he declined over the guy who didn’t decline? What exactly is the endgame in that?

 

There’s just no reason to be in this situation. The Taylor/Hines combo we saw in 2020 didn’t leave little to be desired (outside of shotgun runs up the gut, but that’s not a Hines issue. Or even a personnel issue.) Hines is a guy who is going to be here for the foreseeable future, but he’s being cast aside for someone gone no later than by the end of this season. 
 

Unless they really get wild and resign Mack to a multi-year deal to rival or eclipse Hines’, in which case

Harrison Ford I Give Up GIF by The Academy Awards

 

They don't view Hines as a 3rd stringer. He's viewed as APB1, not as a "RB". As much as Reich talks about our RBs being interchangeable, they're simply not.

 

BTW, I love Hines and was singing his praise from his rook year when he almost set rook records, and at times when he wasn't used with JB much and folks were poo pooing him. That said, I don't think you pay an APB top 10ish RB money unless they are better runners.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Oh I'm not talking average.   I am talking game plan.  When we were trying to gain the lead we weren't particularly run heavy.  

We were a little more run heavy than last week but like I posted to you last week, in most of the context of the game last week we weren't particularly pass heavy until we started chasing the game late.

 

Then East if you put those two games together, you get, well, average, which is somewhere around 60/40 which is also right around league average.  One game we pass more often chasing the lead and one game we run more often with the lead.  One game we have a weak running D, we run a little more, the next week, a strong running D we pass a little more.  

 

I didn't realize last week how poor Miami was in the run game.  You had mentioned it, but they looked weak.

 

I am totally against smashmouth.  I just totally reject the ole pound the rock theory and don't see any statistical analysis or anecdotal evidence that this is a winning strategy.    But we ran a variety of running stuff last week and we did the week before too. 

 

So all I am saying is we are about a 40/60 team game plan wise week in week out.  Game plan wise, we might have a 35-45/65-55 range depending on the opposition strengths, but that's usually it.  But sometimes you scrap your gameplan and other times you chase or try to retain a lead. 

 

Yeah, we ain't going to be able to run very effectively against Balt unless we establish the pass IMO.  But if we do, we definitely need to look into trading Q because he truly doesn't make much of a difference if that was the case.  (Tangential point here, not a meander IMO.  Because it is a statement made not to discuss Q but to actually bolster a point about the running game;.)

 

I'm not a fan of smash mouth either. I'm a fan of balance. But I am a fan of smash mouth when it makes sense. And it makes sense vs a mediocre run D when your QB has two flat tires. 

 

You keep saying in the context of the game (relative to the TN game).... I reject that all together. We should have been run heavy early (we were pass heavy early). We passed 5 times the first two drives vs 2 runs. And one of those runs went 23 yards... and was our only 1st down in those drives. We should have been pounding early instead of having our flat tire QB toss it 71% the first couple of drives. Not that hard. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

I'm not a fan of smash mouth either. I'm a fan of balance. But I am a fan of smash mouth when it makes sense. And it makes sense vs a mediocre run D when your QB has two flat tires. 

 

You keep saying in the context of the game (relative to the TN game).... I reject that all together. We should have been run heavy early (we were pass heavy early). We passed 5 times the first two drives vs 2 runs. And one of those runs went 23 yards... and was our only 1st down in those drives. We should have been pounding early instead of having our flat tire QB toss it 71% the first couple of drives. Not that hard. 

 

maybe, but running with a 3.3 ypc which is what Taylor had in the 1st 2 weeks does not necessarily indicate run heaviness early being all that effective.  

 

Thing is East.  I think we agree more than you allow me too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

maybe, but running with a 3.3 ypc which is what Taylor had in the 1st 2 weeks does not necessarily indicate run heaviness early being all that effective.  

 

Thing is East.  I think we agree more than you allow me too.  

Rams and Seattle historically are great run Ds. 

Both top 5 last year.

 

So 3.3 shouldn't shock anyone given it's likely both teams were not as worried about a gimpy Wentz and keying at times on our run.

 

LAR's current numbers don't look great because they have  played 2 top 10 running teams (Bears/Cards). Seattle has played 3 good ones too (TN/SF/MN).

 

TN and Miami were bottom half in 2020, close to bottom 10, both giving up 4.5 YPC...

 

You just don't say "hey, we couldn't run vs two top 5 run Ds, so we shouldn't try vs a bottom half run D".... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

They don't view Hines as a 3rd stringer. He's viewed as APB1, not as a "RB". As much as Reich talks about our RBs being interchangeable, they're simply not.

 

BTW, I love Hines and was singing his praise from his rook year when he almost set rook records, and at times when he wasn't used with JB much and folks were poo pooing him. That said, I don't think you pay an APB top 10ish RB money unless they are better runners.

 


I think with better coaching/game planning Hines could be even more effective. There’s things that he’s just not suited for. Like runs up the gut out of the shotgun on 3rd and 1. Which by now is clear to everyone not on wearing a headset. I’d love to see what Bruce Arians, or Sean McVay could do with a guy like Hines. Shanahan is a coach who could really draw up some advantageous stuff for Hines. There are ways to make him a more effective runner, but that’s just not a luxury that we can afford with Reich, so it’s up the gut on 3rd and short until… I guess just forever at this point. 
 

I’m just not a fan of weapons sitting on the sidelines. It’s already worked against us in the Rams game. That was a game where Hines could have absolutely made a difference. Especially with the way Wentz was under pressure basically on the snap play after play after play. Instead he was on the milk carton, we lost a close one, and Wentz took a ton of abuse. 
 

We can’t even get Reich to use a combo of Hines with Taylor/Mack/Wilkins/any other RB on the same play with any kind of regularity. Even the TV announcers pointed out on Sunday that we don’t use two of them on the same play enough. And that’s not a new anomaly, it was the same way before Taylor was drafted when it was just Mack and Hines. 
 

It’s frustrating to be 1-3 with our season in a real bad spot early on and guys who could help out being missing from games entirely for inexplicable reasons. 
 

On pass plays who would you legitimately want to throw to over Hines?
 

Pittman for sure. He’s arrived, top dog, #1. 

Pascal? Ok. Let’s try it. 

 

Campbell? Nah. 
 

Doyle/MAC? Eh. You’re gonna have some say sure, and situationally that will sometimes be the case. But on 4th and 7 at midfield needing a first down to keep the game alive are you gonna throw to them over Hines? Doubtful. At the very least you’re probably not going to call a play where they are the primary option(s) over Hines. 
 

They already struggle to use him to our advantage. More bodies meaning less plays is just a waste IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Rams and Seattle historically are great run Ds. 

Both top 5 last year.

 

So 3.3 shouldn't shock anyone given it's likely both teams were not as worried about a gimpy Wentz and keying at times on our run.

 

LAR's current numbers don't look great because they have  played 2 top 10 running teams (Bears/Cards). Seattle has played 3 good ones too (TN/SF/MN).

 

TN and Miami were bottom half in 2020, close to bottom 10, both giving up 4.5 YPC...

 

You just don't say "hey, we couldn't run vs two top 5 run Ds, so we shouldn't try vs a bottom half run D".... 

3.3 is pretty low man. That is a full half yard below LA and SEA last year.  That's a lot.  And this year Seattle and LAR are yielding 4.6 and 4.7 ypc including the game agaisnt us!   

 

But I'm certainly not disagreeing with the obvious idea that we should run more (if Possible) v. weak running teams.  and pass more v. strong running Ds.  

 

But I still think in 90+ % of NFL games not being played by Baltimore, the pass generally establishes the run.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Waylon said:


I think with better coaching/game planning Hines could be even more effective. There’s things that he’s just not suited for. Like runs up the gut out of the shotgun on 3rd and 1. Which by now is clear to everyone not on wearing a headset. I’d love to see what Bruce Arians, or Sean McVay could do with a guy like Hines. Shanahan is a coach who could really draw up some advantageous stuff for Hines. There are ways to make him a more effective runner, but that’s just not a luxury that we can afford with Reich, so it’s up the gut on 3rd and short until… I guess just forever at this point. 
 

I’m just not a fan of weapons sitting on the sidelines. It’s already worked against us in the Rams game. That was a game where Hines could have absolutely made a difference. Especially with the way Wentz was under pressure basically on the snap play after play after play. Instead he was on the milk carton, we lost a close one, and Wentz took a ton of abuse. 
 

We can’t even get Reich to use a combo of Hines with Taylor/Mack/Wilkins/any other RB on the same play with any kind of regularity. Even the TV announcers pointed out on Sunday that we don’t use two of them on the same play enough. And that’s not a new anomaly, it was the same way before Taylor was drafted when it was just Mack and Hines. 
 

It’s frustrating to be 1-3 with our season in a real bad spot early on and guys who could help out being missing from games entirely for inexplicable reasons. 
 

On pass plays who would you legitimately want to throw to over Hines?
 

Pittman for sure. He’s arrived, top dog, #1. 
 

Campbell? Nah. 
 

Doyle/MAC? Eh. You’re gonna have some say sure, and situationally that will sometimes be the case. But on 4th and 7 at midfield needing a first down to keep the game alive are you gonna throw to them over Hines? Doubtful. At the very least you’re probably not going to call a play where they are the primary option(s) over Hines. 
 

They already struggle to use him to our advantage. More bodies meaning less plays is just a waste IMO. 

I agree he's a weapon. But he's not a better RB than Mack.

 

And I think you might be overestimating his receiving ceiling. Not because he can't catch or has bad hands, but because he's 5-9 with a moderate to mediocre vertical, 3-cone, and shuttle. Pittman at 6-4 has a better vert and agility scores.

 

Hines is a linear guy that lacks size. Great speed though. Could he run slants or verts, sure (I'd personally love to see it), but those are simple/limited routes. He'll never be a possession type target, and likely too limited to be a full route tree type WR. In short, RB type passes or an occasion slant/vert are likely his ceiling.

 

And given his limitations running between the tackles, he's just not near the level of "weapons" like McCafferey, Kamara, Cook, Ekeler, etc.. He's a tier 2 weapon/APB IMO. Not trying to poo poo him, just being factual. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Nickster said:

3.3 is pretty low man. That is a full half yard below LA and SEA last year.  That's a lot.  And this year Seattle and LAR are yielding 4.6 and 4.7 ypc including the game agaisnt us!   

Did you miss the part where I explained LAR's and Seattle's results this year? 

 

You keep trying to go back to 3.3... lol.. 

It's just not an argument.

 

Miami and TN both have the same level of run D.

You seem to want to die on the TN hill, when it's obvious by our numbers we ran against them, and also won the next game by going heavy run vs the same level of run D...

27 minutes ago, Nickster said:

But I'm certainly not disagreeing with the obvious idea that we should run more (if Possible) v. weak running teams.  and pass more v. strong running Ds.  

And add in the QB with two flat tires, and it's foolish for us to not run more vs TN.

27 minutes ago, Nickster said:

But I still think in 90+ % of NFL games not being played by Baltimore, the pass generally establishes the run.  

It's a pass first league which nobody is denying. That doesn't erase the simple logic in game plans when you're playing a bad run D or with a QB who has two sprained ankles on top of still healing from foot surgery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Did you miss the part where I explained LAR's and Seattle's results this year? 

 

You keep trying to go back to 3.3... lol.. 

It's just not an argument.

 

Miami and TN both have the same level of run D.

You seem to want to die on the TN hill, when it's obvious by our numbers we ran against them, and also won the next game by going heavy run vs the same level of run D...

And add in the QB with two flat tires, and it's foolish for us to not run more vs TN.

It's a pass first league which nobody is denying. That doesn't erase the simple logic in game plans when you're playing a bad run D or with a QB who has two sprained ankles on top of still healing from foot surgery. 

You are being dramatic again East.  We are talking game planning here.  

 

What is funny is

1.  Neither one of us believes in Smashmouth

2.  Both of us think you should game plan to the strengths/weaknesses of the opposition

 

So I am really not sure what we are arguing about, other than you don't seem to agree that we weren't overly pass heavy v. TN until we were chasing the game, and we weren't overly run heavy v. MIA until we had the lead.  That's all East, not a big disagreement here.   You can find things to support what you want to support.  

 

Like Twain said there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.  Stats can often are manipulated.  But I am not sure what you feel so passionate about in this particular discussion.  The difference between 

 

If you'd take the time and go back and look at the game flows, I'd guess you'd see what I've been  illustrating to you.  Even though the end of game numbers looked pass heavy v. TN the game plan wasn't necessarily pass heavy.  For instance in the first 4 drives in the 1st half before the last drive with 45 secs, we ran on 1st down to start 2 of them.  I am pretty sure you are not advocating running the ball on 1st every time.  On the first drive we ran on 2nd down after the INC, so that certainly doesn't seem to be a passing based gameplan to run on 2nd and 10.  On the other pass  CW grounded it setting up a 2nd and a mile.  So on 50 % of the 1st 4 drives we ran on first down, then on one of them we ran on 2nd after and incompletion.  This does not suggest to me a run heavy game plan, just circumstances dictating passing.

 On those 1st 4 drives we ran 8 times and passed 11.  That is a 42/58 ratio.  So I don't see any relevant evidence that the game plan was run heavy as you suggest.  

 

In the 2nd half on the first drive on which we scored a FG we ran 6 out of 11 times until we got 1st and Goal at the 9.  Most analytics will suggest that running from and goal from the 9 is not usually successful.  So yeah we ended up passing 3 times unsuccessfully from the 9, but still what evidence is there that we weren't running enough?  SO again in our First 30 plays of the game (not including the end of the 1st half  with 45 secs left that we scored a FG) we RAN THE PALL 14 TIMES AND PASSED THE BALL 16 TIMES.  HOW IS THAT A RUN HEAVY GAME PLAN EAST?

 

 I am not sure that my calcs are exactly correct, but they are close enough to support the point I am making IMO.

 

Now if you want to argue that we should just pound JT on 1st and 2nd down, well I saw enough of that crap with the Bears post Payton, and that is largely why I am now  Colts fan since 95.

 

I love running FB too BTW. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

You are being dramatic again East.  We are talking game planning here.  

 

What is funny is

1.  Neither one of us believes in Smashmouth

2.  Both of us think you should game plan to the strengths/weaknesses of the opposition

 

So I am really not sure what we are arguing about, other than you don't seem to agree that we weren't overly pass heavy v. TN until we were chasing the game, and we weren't overly run heavy v. MIA until we had the lead.  That's all East, not a big disagreement here.   You can find things to support what you want to support.  

 

Like Twain said there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.  Stats can often are manipulated.  But I am not sure what you feel so passionate about in this particular discussion.  The difference between 

 

If you'd take the time and go back and look at the game flows, I'd guess you'd see what I've been  illustrating to you.  Even though the end of game numbers looked pass heavy v. TN the game plan wasn't necessarily pass heavy.  For instance in the first 4 drives in the 1st half before the last drive with 45 secs, we ran on 1st down to start 2 of them.  I am pretty sure you are not advocating running the ball on 1st every time.  On the first drive we ran on 2nd down after the INC, so that certainly doesn't seem to be a passing based gameplan to run on 2nd and 10.  On the other pass  CW grounded it setting up a 2nd and a mile.  So on 50 % of the 1st 4 drives we ran on first down, then on one of them we ran on 2nd after and incompletion.  This does not suggest to me a run heavy game plan, just circumstances dictating passing.

 On those 1st 4 drives we ran 8 times and passed 11.  That is a 42/58 ratio.  So I don't see any relevant evidence that the game plan was run heavy as you suggest.  

 

In the 2nd half on the first drive on which we scored a FG we ran 6 out of 11 times until we got 1st and Goal at the 9.  Most analytics will suggest that running from and goal from the 9 is not usually successful.  So yeah we ended up passing 3 times unsuccessfully from the 9, but still what evidence is there that we weren't running enough?  SO again in our First 30 plays of the game (not including the end of the 1st half  with 45 secs left that we scored a FG) we RAN THE PALL 14 TIMES AND PASSED THE BALL 16 TIMES.  HOW IS THAT A RUN HEAVY GAME PLAN EAST?

 

 I am not sure that my calcs are exactly correct, but they are close enough to support the point I am making IMO.

 

Now if you want to argue that we should just pound JT on 1st and 2nd down, well I saw enough of that crap with the Bears post Payton, and that is largely why I am now  Colts fan since 95.

 

I love running FB too BTW. 

Running FB is as smash mouth as you can get.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

You are being dramatic again East.  We are talking game planning here.  

 

What is funny is

1.  Neither one of us believes in Smashmouth

2.  Both of us think you should game plan to the strengths/weaknesses of the opposition

 

So I am really not sure what we are arguing about, other than you don't seem to agree that we weren't overly pass heavy v. TN until we were chasing the game, and we weren't overly run heavy v. MIA until we had the lead.  That's all East, not a big disagreement here.   You can find things to support what you want to support.  

 

Like Twain said there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.  Stats can often are manipulated.  But I am not sure what you feel so passionate about in this particular discussion.  The difference between 

 

If you'd take the time and go back and look at the game flows, I'd guess you'd see what I've been  illustrating to you.  Even though the end of game numbers looked pass heavy v. TN the game plan wasn't necessarily pass heavy.  For instance in the first 4 drives in the 1st half before the last drive with 45 secs, we ran on 1st down to start 2 of them.  I am pretty sure you are not advocating running the ball on 1st every time.  On the first drive we ran on 2nd down after the INC, so that certainly doesn't seem to be a passing based gameplan to run on 2nd and 10.  On the other pass  CW grounded it setting up a 2nd and a mile.  So on 50 % of the 1st 4 drives we ran on first down, then on one of them we ran on 2nd after and incompletion.  This does not suggest to me a run heavy game plan, just circumstances dictating passing.

 On those 1st 4 drives we ran 8 times and passed 11.  That is a 42/58 ratio.  So I don't see any relevant evidence that the game plan was run heavy as you suggest.  

 

In the 2nd half on the first drive on which we scored a FG we ran 6 out of 11 times until we got 1st and Goal at the 9.  Most analytics will suggest that running from and goal from the 9 is not usually successful.  So yeah we ended up passing 3 times unsuccessfully from the 9, but still what evidence is there that we weren't running enough?  SO again in our First 30 plays of the game (not including the end of the 1st half  with 45 secs left that we scored a FG) we RAN THE PALL 14 TIMES AND PASSED THE BALL 16 TIMES.  HOW IS THAT A RUN HEAVY GAME PLAN EAST?

 

 I am not sure that my calcs are exactly correct, but they are close enough to support the point I am making IMO.

 

Now if you want to argue that we should just pound JT on 1st and 2nd down, well I saw enough of that crap with the Bears post Payton, and that is largely why I am now  Colts fan since 95.

 

I love running FB too BTW. 

 

I've looked at the game flows, and I've actually provided specifics in a few areas (so please don't be obtuse), like 5 pass vs 2 runs in our first two drives vs TN... And just so happens, one of the two runs was our only 1D those first two series... It was very clear even then what worked and what didn't... 

 

In short this whole game flow and game context narrative is nonsense. You're trying to die on hill because last week you defended a bad game plan, that just about everyone in the media questioned. 

 

I'm not going to keep circling the rabbit hole here. It boils down to this... 

  1. Run vs bad run Ds
  2. Run when your QB needs a walker to get around.

The TN game fit both those criteria. It's just not that hard dude.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

 

It just doesn’t work in today’s NFL.  I love it.  It is just bad strategy with the current rules.

 

It hasn’t been done successfully in years with true contenders that don’t have Jackson.  TN is the possible exception two years ago, but they barely made the playoffs and one of the wins was v. Balt, and we don’t have a back of Henry’s caliber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 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. 

There wasn’t a market for Mack this past off-season.    We did him a solid.   That gets noticed by players and agents.    
 

It worked while it did, and now Mack wants a different/better opportunity.   I don’t see any harm either way.   We will try to make a trade,  if we can’t, we will release him after the trade deadline and he’ll find a new team on his own.   And we’ll save a few bucks in the process.   But it was worth a shot.   This isn’t the kind of situation that happens every year.  A one-off. 
 

I think this is mostly win-win for both sides.   No harm done….   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

There wasn’t a market for Mack this past off-season.    We did him a solid.   That gets noticed by players and agents.    
 

It worked while it did, and now Mack wants a different/better opportunity.   I don’t see any harm either way.   We will try to make a trade,  if we can’t, we will release him after the trade deadline and he’ll find a new team on his own.   And we’ll save a few bucks in the process.   But it was worth a shot.   This isn’t the kind of situation that happens every year.  A one-off. 
 

I think this is mostly win-win for both sides.   No harm done….   

I agree with most of what you said.    I'm just not sure the Colts will release him after the trade deadline.  Depends on how the season is going.  If he starts running really well and we are still in a playoff race I think they keep him.   If Taylor or Hines get banged up, I think we keep him.  

It sure is a nice cheap insurance policy. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Myles said:

I agree with most of what you said.    I'm just not sure the Colts will release him after the trade deadline.  Depends on how the season is going.  If he starts running really well and we are still in a playoff race I think they keep him.   If Taylor or Hines get banged up, I think we keep him.  

It sure is a nice cheap insurance policy. 

 

Agreed. If they can't trade him I think they keep him and let him hit FA in the off-season to try to get a comp pick.  This is another reason it was smart to bring him back. A 1 year prove it deal is all he was going to get this past off-season so no chance for a comp pick out of that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Show casing" of Mack took touches away from Taylor and Hines...and for an absolute abysmal pay off:

 

10 carries for a whoping 22 yards.

1 catch for 1 yard.

 

Stop!  If you want to win, please try to stop show casing him....

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, WentzinRome said:

The "Show casing" of Mack took touches away from Taylor and Hines...and for an absolute abysmal pay off:

 

10 carries for a whoping 22 yards.

1 catch for 1 yard.

 

Stop!  If you want to win, please try to stop show casing him....

 

They ran Mack on end runs which got mostly nothing all game regardless of who ran them. Mack got one nice one, so did JT. The passes to Mack were sniffed out. 

 

The only part of the OL that was getting good run blocking push was LG/Reed, and JT got most of the carries there. I don't think Mack got one carry over LG.

 

Hines really didn't do much when he was in. 

 

But I agree, at least in the passing game, Mack shouldn't be much of a target. But he really didn't get a lot of passing targets, and the ones he did the D was all over (not his fault).

 

 

  • Like 1
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...