Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Indianapolis Colts GM Era Comparisons


John Hammonds
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good post, @John Hammonds. A welcome perspective on Chris. Is he the best? Absolutely not. Is he the worst? Absolutely not. I have to remind myself, he's still learning on the job with all this stuff. He definitely has a strength in seeing the diamonds in the mid rounds. But, and I'm sure he knows this, his area of improvement is the top 50. Gotta get that 60% to a higher number. Needs to find players who can make an impact right away. 

 

There will some who argue about Bill, but when he was on, he. was. on! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Polian said top 12 GMs have 64% or more of their draft picks become starter worthy and contribute to wins. That’s 4.5 out of 7 in a draft.  Bottom 20 GMs are in the 57% and under range. 
 

So the difference is consistent playoff organizations have 4-5 players a draft and the rest have 3-4 players. Goes to show there isn’t much separation between a wildcard team and a 7-10 team. All it takes are 4-5 misses over a 4yr period and you are out of the playoffs. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Trev Alberts wasnt a bust?

 

I think Tobin was a solid GM but you arent being honest here. You are being critical of Ballard and just blatantly ignoring other GMs poor picks.

 

For Polian, seriously? He was GM way past 2006, but you already knew that and wanted to leave it out because it didnt fot your agenda here.

 

Jerome Pathon was worth a high 2nd round pick?

 

Idrees Bashir was worth a high 2nd round pick?

 

Larry Tripplett was worth a 2nd round pick?

 

Mike Doss? Anthony Gonzalez? Tony Ugoh? Mike Pollak? Donald Brown? Fili Moala? Rob Morris?

 

Thats just off the top of my head. Polian had some huge hits, but he was about as hit and miss as you could possibly get. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

Bill Polian said top 12 GMs have 64% or more of their draft picks become starter worthy and contribute to wins. That’s 4.5 out of 7 in a draft.  Bottom 20 GMs are in the 57% and under range. 
 

So the difference is consistent playoff organizations have 4-5 players a draft and the rest have 3-4 players. Goes to show there isn’t much separation between a wildcard team and a 7-10 team. All it takes are 4-5 misses over a 4yr period and you are out of the playoffs. 

I would love a link to him making that statement because I think that is absolutely absurd. 

 

4-5 starter worthy players every single draft? 

 

I have never seen a GM that prolific at drafting players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work @John Hammonds

 

Very good stuff. 

 

The only thing I'd add is the win %, playoff appearances, and AFCS titles. 

 

I love Ballard's chances (his picks) to improve his status, but also can't assume either. He's got a lot on the line with a few guys still proving themselves. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

And how good Polian would have been had Manning suddenly quit.

 

While I agree to an extent, with QB (an ultra prime position of need), it's as much about what you do when either you don't have a good QB, or when you have a good one, and he leaves. 

 

Ballard has done a lot of great things. Solving long term for QB is not one of them. Yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post about alberts and Morris also. That along with some of the other mentioned picks changes the rankings of the op. A prime starter is just a opinion so not really a statistical comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

While I agree to an extent, with QB (an ultra prime position of need), it's as much about what you do when either you don't have a good QB, or when you have a good one, and he leaves. 

 

Ballard has done a lot of great things. Solving long term for QB is not one of them. Yet.

What is concerning for Ballards picks is that he has a lot of misses on his early picks when it comes to skill players. Add  that to the stats and I wonder how he wand he  would actually grade out? I think he is just an average GM , but  hopefully he can grow.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff.

However, when a GM doesn't dabble much in FA, ala Polian & Ballard, he will obviously have more draftees be starters. I don't remember much about how active the others were in FA but I know those two  didnt much....in fact I think Polian's ego wanted every player on his roster to be his Draft Pick lol.

 

But without a doubt Polian is Tops, and not just in Indy but with two other organizations as well. 

The GM who built the '95 team, Tobin I guess, deserves major props too. That team was special and full of talent, especially on Defense. 

I remember listening to a Miami sports talk radio and ex dolphin Mandich was really concerned how good  our team was.

It was a shame they didn't stay together long but that's the Colts. But not all bad, it eventually led to drafting Manning :banana:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

What is concerning for Ballards picks is that he has a lot of misses on his early picks when it comes to skill players. Add  that to the stats and I wonder how he wand he  would actually grade out? I think he is just an average GM , but  hopefully he can grow.

He's much much better than average, when it comes to picks. 

His biggest area of challenge is easily DE. He's been more than fine in every other area.

Paye could change that. If Dayo comes on too, he could turn that around and look like a genius. 

 

Regardless, I think our pass rush scheme sucks. Even obvious talents like Defo look only good or average. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job summarizing that. I'd like more clarity on some definitions... for example what is considered prime starter? 

 

But yeah... I also want to point out that Ballard actually has a strategy that relies on increased number of picks to provide more value and more hits(purely number wise) rather than increased quality of picks. So even though the %s might be lower than Polian, Ballard is trading back relatively frequently and accumulating more shots at the dart board. This is a conscious decision and one that relies ot the total numbers rather than on %(in other words - 6 out 10 is better than 5/7... rough numbers but you get the point) . Worth noting that even with that strategy and with him trading 2 1st round picks he still gets to respectable(IMO) 60% hit rate in the first 50. That's why you won't ever hear me bash him for his draft trading strategy. I think this is actually a good strategy over the long run. I just wish he would value the skill positions and defenders of the skill positions more. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Great work @John Hammonds

 

Very good stuff. 

 

The only thing I'd add is the win %, playoff appearances, and AFCS titles. 

 

I love Ballard's chances (his picks) to improve his status, but also can't assume either. He's got a lot on the line with a few guys still proving themselves. 

I agree.  I would also add significant free agent moves, both the good and the bad.  (Eric Dickerson, Jim Harbaugh, Brandon Stokely, Vontae Davis, Trent Richardson, Gosder Cherilus, Eric Ebron, Mark Glowinski, Devin Funchess, DeForest Buckner, Carson Wentz.)  But I didn't have the patience to go that deep.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RollerColt said:

Good post, @John Hammonds. A welcome perspective on Chris. Is he the best? Absolutely not. Is he the worst? Absolutely not. I have to remind myself, he's still learning on the job with all this stuff. He definitely has a strength in seeing the diamonds in the mid rounds. But, and I'm sure he knows this, his area of improvement is the top 50. Gotta get that 60% to a higher number. Needs to find players who can make an impact right away. 

 

There will some who argue about Bill, but when he was on, he. was. on! 

Thanks.  The hardest part was judging the tweener players.  Were Steve Emtman and Quentin Coryatt busts or not?  Jack Mewhort had injury issues that kept him from achieving his full potential, but he was still one of the best linemen on the team.  Jerry Hughes never started for us, but did have a successful career in Buffalo.  Is Parris Campbell a bust?  We don't know yet.  So what bucket do you put him in?  Lots of those kinds of decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

I would love a link to him making that statement because I think that is absolutely absurd. 

 

4-5 starter worthy players every single draft? 

 

I have never seen a GM that prolific at drafting players. 

Just to go a little further with this.  Positions to watch this offseason:

OT, G, C, DE, DT, WR, TE, FS, SS, MLB, K and QB. 


Those are 12 positions we may see changes at.  Can’t fill them all with FAs and trades so could easily have 4-5 guys from multiple drafts be elevated to starting roles. Will also have injuries and depth players will be needed to fill holes.  Some players will obviously stay. I’m not sure what the actual percentage is but I would like to know how many starters change year to year on most teams. I believe for the entire roster the average is 25% so 13 new players each year. Between roster movement and injuries, 8-9 new starters a year doesn’t seem far fetched.  A good GM should be able to fill half of those spots or more with draft picks and UDFAs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

So Trev Alberts wasnt a bust?

 

I think Tobin was a solid GM but you arent being honest here. You are being critical of Ballard and just blatantly ignoring other GMs poor picks.

 

For Polian, seriously? He was GM way past 2006, but you already knew that and wanted to leave it out because it didnt fot your agenda here.

 

Jerome Pathon was worth a high 2nd round pick?

 

Idrees Bashir was worth a high 2nd round pick?

 

Larry Tripplett was worth a 2nd round pick?

 

Mike Doss? Anthony Gonzalez? Tony Ugoh? Mike Pollak? Donald Brown? Fili Moala? Rob Morris?

 

Thats just off the top of my head. Polian had some huge hits, but he was about as hit and miss as you could possibly get. 

 

 

I tried to reserve the Bust status for those who truly were terrible.  I didn't want to say either you're in the HoF or your a Bust.  Nothing in between.

Had 5 colored buckets:  RED status = pro bowl, ORANGE status = significant starter, GREEN status = lesser starter or backup with staying power, BLUE status = just another guy, GRAY status = bust

Trev Albers played portions of 3 years in Indy as a starter, but had injury issues.  "Green" status.

In the last years of Polian's tenure, he let his son Chris make a lot of the decisions.  And it showed.  Proof was in the pudding.

Jerome Pathon played 4 years in Indy, mostly as a starter, two years having more than 500 yards.  "Green" status.

Idrees Bashir played 4 years in Indy, and started every game he played in.  He wasn't amazing, but he started.  "Green" status is kinda low for a 2nd round pick.

Larry Tripplett had 4 years in Indy and 2 years in Buffalo.  Most of them as a starter.  Never great.  "Green" status.

Mike Doss started his rookie year and made 75 solo tackles.  Played most of 4 years.  "Green" status.

Anthony Gonzalez played 5 years, and started his first 2, getting over 500 yards each.  But never started again.  I gave him a "Bust" status, although he probably doesn't deserve it.

Tony Ugoh played terribly for the 3 years he was here, never was a replacement for Tarik Glenn, and I gave him a "Bust" status.

Mike Pollack was a 2nd round choice that played some, but never worked out.  "Blue" status.

Donald Brown played 5 years in Indy, sharing the backfield and never fully starting.  "Green" status.

Fili Moala was a late 2nd round choice.  He started nearly every game he played in.  Had injury issues late, and never had gaudy stats.  I gave him an "Orange" status because he was a significant starter while he was here.  But he could also easily be a "Green".

Rob Morris had an 8 year career with the Colts.  In 2 of his first 3 years, he had over 100 combined tackles each.  After Dungy's arrival and the installation of the Tampa-2, Morris didn't fit the scheme.  He played a "forward" style, filling gaps and stopping runs.  The scheme requires the MLB to play "back" in the deep middle.  Even though he didn't fit, he did what he could, playing Sam backer and special teams.  I gave him a "Green" status, but he probably deserves more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, stitches said:

Good job summarizing that. I'd like more clarity on some definitions... for example what is considered prime starter? 

 

But yeah... I also want to point out that Ballard actually has a strategy that relies on increased number of picks to provide more value and more hits(purely number wise) rather than increased quality of picks. So even though the %s might be lower than Polian, Ballard is trading back relatively frequently and accumulating more shots at the dart board. This is a conscious decision and one that relies ot the total numbers rather than on %(in other words - 6 out 10 is better than 5/7... rough numbers but you get the point) . Worth noting that even with that strategy and with him trading 2 1st round picks he still gets to respectable(IMO) 60% hit rate in the first 50. That's why you won't ever hear me bash him for his draft trading strategy. I think this is actually a good strategy over the long run. I just wish he would value the skill positions and defenders of the skill positions more. 

No doubt, the decision to place a player in this bucket and not that one is a subjective one.  Especially when it's close.  What do you do with Nyheim Hines?  Talented 4th round player that has the ability to be a difference maker, and got paid like one.  But in a backfield dominated by JT, he doesn't always get the playing time.  So...  Is he an "Orange" significant player?  Or a "Green" non-starter contributor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the Tobin was a better GM than Polian.  He built a playoff team quickly, but was never in position to get a franchise QB like Polian was.  Tobin made good decisions for the most part.

 

And stood up for Indy when it was the laugh stock of the NFL.  That was the point of that scene with Kiper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polian had a lot of busts, few of them already named here, not accurate.

 

And Peyton raised the level of a lot of players during his time, a great QB that's also a great leader changes all.

 

Ballard will find his, it's just not Wentz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this over and over, unless a GM or coach has a franchise QB or a QB that can be clutch in the playoffs to help his team's strengths, they won't look near as good as they are. Give me a call when Bill Belichick wins a SB without Tom Brady, it will never happen and people consider him the GOAT.  Polian had Peyton which was a no brain #1 pick in 1998 - without him we wouldn't won a SB, he had Jim Kelly in Buffalo as well. Grigson had Luck when Luck was at his best, look who Ballard has had?  Luck for 1 year and we won a playoff game - that was easy. Rivers was good but ready to retire. Why do you think Elway went after Peyton? He knew without Peyton he wasn't winning a SB no matter how great his D was. Brock would not of won with that D, no way he beats the Pats in an Championship situation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

Just for the heck of it...  Ohhhh, ok, who are we kidding?  I do data analysis for a living, so I just couldn't help myself.  I graded the draft history of all six periods of "Indianapolis" Colts history, and ranked them based on five measures:

  1. Picks in the Top 50 - Percent of Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters to Top 50 picks
  2. Picks in the Top 50 - Percent of Busts to the Top 50 picks
  3. Pick in the Top 100 - Percent of Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters to the Top 100 picks
  4. Pro Bowlers - Percent of Pro Bowlers to all picks
  5. Hall Of Fame - Bonus points for picks that went to the Hall of Fame

 

Here is how they rank

 

  1. Bill Polian Era (1998 - 2006) from Peyton Manning to the Superbowl
    1. 77% of the Top 50 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    2. 0% of the Top 50 were Busts
    3. 45% of the Top 100 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    4. 17% of all draft choices were Pro Bowlers
    5. Bonus - 2 Hall of Fame choices (and counting) - Manning and James
  2. Bill Tobin Era (1994 - 1997) from Marshall Faulk to Tarik Glenn
    1. 75% of the Top 50 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    2. 0% of the Top 50 were Busts
    3. 54% of the Top 100 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    4. 16% of all draft choices were Pro Bowlers
    5. Bonus - 2 Hall of Fame choices - Faulk and Harrison
  3. Chris Ballard Era (2017 - present) from Malik Hooker to Kwity Paye
    1. 60% of the Top 50 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters (and counting)
    2. 20% of the Top 50 were Busts (and counting)
    3. 41% of the Top 100 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters (and counting)
    4. 7% of all draft choices were Pro Bowlers (and counting)
    5. No HOF (yet)
  4. Ryan Grigson Era (2012 - 2016) from Andrew Luck to Ryan Kelly
    1. 40% of the Top 50 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    2. 40% of the Top 50 were Busts
    3. 29% of the Top 100 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    4. 8% of all draft choices were Pro Bowlers
    5. No HOF
  5. Jim Irsay Era (1984 - 1993) from Leonard Coleman to Sean Dawkins
    1. 38% of the Top 50 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    2. 19% of the Top 50 were Busts
    3. 27% of the Top 100 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    4. 6% of all draft choices were Pro Bowlers
    5. No HOF
  6. Chris Polian Era (2007 - 2011) when Bill let his son drive
    1. 33% of the Top 50 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    2. 33% of the Top 50 were Busts
    3. 19% of the Top 100 were Pro Bowlers and Prime Starters
    4. 3% of all draft choices were Pro Bowlers (just P Pat McAfee)
    5. No HOF

 

I think 2007-11 belongs as part of the Polian era. Bill doesn't get a pass for that. Not only was it his son, but he was still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DiogoSales said:

Polian had a lot of busts, few of them already named here, not accurate.

 

And Peyton raised the level of a lot of players during his time, a great QB that's also a great leader changes all.

 

Ballard will find his, it's just not Wentz.

Here are the players I gave "bust" status to, from the Top 100 Picks of the 1998-2006 Polian years:

1998 round 4 pick 98 - Steve McKinney

1999 round 3 pick 63 - Brandon Burlesworth

1999 round 4 pick 96 - Paul Miranda

2000 round 3 pick 91 - David Macklin

2005 round 3 pick 92 - Vincent "Sweet Pea" Burns

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly would take Ballard over all of the GM's we have had. He never had a Peyton and had Luck for 1 year and we won a playoff game when he had him. Ballard got dealt a crap hand when Luck retired. Ballard has had some great moves, to move up to get Taylor was genius. Drafting Leonard at 36 in the 2nd round was genius. Taking Nelson in the 1st round at 6 instead of a defensive player that may have great potential was genius. Our O.Line was average to bad when Luck was here so Ballard corrected that. Trading for Defo was genius. He just needs to find a QB that can win when it counts. Tough to do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I will say this over and over, unless a GM or coach has a franchise QB or a QB that can be clutch in the playoffs to help his team's strengths, they won't look near as good as they are. Give me a call when Bill Belichick wins a SB without Tom Brady, it will never happen and people consider him the GOAT.  Polian had Peyton which was a no brain #1 pick in 1998 - without him we wouldn't won a SB, he had Jim Kelly in Buffalo as well. Grigson had Luck when Luck was at his best, look who Ballard has had?  Luck for 1 year and we won a playoff game - that was easy. Rivers was good but ready to retire. Why do you think Elway went after Peyton? He knew without Peyton he wasn't winning a SB no matter how great his D was. Brock would not of won with that D, no way he beats the Pats in an Championship situation. 

 

Which is why a lot of this other stuff isn't as important until they find one. And you keep looking until you find one even if you just wasted resources. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

Which is why a lot of this other stuff isn't as important until they find one. And you keep looking until you find one even if you just wasted resources. 

 

 

 

Exactly.

If you don't have a elite or at least a franchise QB(not sure exactly what defines that) then that should be your #1 goal is to acquire one asap and keep trying until you do. The rest of the roster is secondary if you don't have one.

 

But Ballard on day said the exact opposite, he said "it's NOT about one player". If he meant what he said then I think he thinks differently now, at least I hope so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work, @John Hammonds!  The Colts appear to do well in the draft. Even Grigson does not appear too bad.

 

In my line of work, I would ask how do you operationalize a "bust" or a "prime starter". Who drafted Jeff George? I liked the guy when he played for the Vikings but he may be considered a "bust" in the eyes of many. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

Thats not really what he said. He never said starters, just used a wierd term "winning players". 

 

11 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

I tried to reserve the Bust status for those who truly were terrible.  I didn't want to say either you're in the HoF or your a Bust.  Nothing in between.

Had 5 colored buckets:  RED status = pro bowl, ORANGE status = significant starter, GREEN status = lesser starter or backup with staying power, BLUE status = just another guy, GRAY status = bust

Trev Albers played portions of 3 years in Indy as a starter, but had injury issues.  "Green" status.

In the last years of Polian's tenure, he let his son Chris make a lot of the decisions.  And it showed.  Proof was in the pudding.

Jerome Pathon played 4 years in Indy, mostly as a starter, two years having more than 500 yards.  "Green" status.

Idrees Bashir played 4 years in Indy, and started every game he played in.  He wasn't amazing, but he started.  "Green" status is kinda low for a 2nd round pick.

Larry Tripplett had 4 years in Indy and 2 years in Buffalo.  Most of them as a starter.  Never great.  "Green" status.

Mike Doss started his rookie year and made 75 solo tackles.  Played most of 4 years.  "Green" status.

Anthony Gonzalez played 5 years, and started his first 2, getting over 500 yards each.  But never started again.  I gave him a "Bust" status, although he probably doesn't deserve it.

Tony Ugoh played terribly for the 3 years he was here, never was a replacement for Tarik Glenn, and I gave him a "Bust" status.

Mike Pollack was a 2nd round choice that played some, but never worked out.  "Blue" status.

Donald Brown played 5 years in Indy, sharing the backfield and never fully starting.  "Green" status.

Fili Moala was a late 2nd round choice.  He started nearly every game he played in.  Had injury issues late, and never had gaudy stats.  I gave him an "Orange" status because he was a significant starter while he was here.  But he could also easily be a "Green".

Rob Morris had an 8 year career with the Colts.  In 2 of his first 3 years, he had over 100 combined tackles each.  After Dungy's arrival and the installation of the Tampa-2, Morris didn't fit the scheme.  He played a "forward" style, filling gaps and stopping runs.  The scheme requires the MLB to play "back" in the deep middle.  Even though he didn't fit, he did what he could, playing Sam backer and special teams.  I gave him a "Green" status, but he probably deserves more.

 

None of the guys I mentioned were good players. I dont care if they started. Lack of better options doesnt make you a viable pick.

 

You also labeled Steve McKinney as a bust in another post. Steve McKinney was an excellent guard who started 133 games in the NFL. He was very good for us but we couldnt afford to keep him.

 

Also, I dont buy for one second that Bill Polian allowed his son to make picks. Chris Polian was given a GM title out of pure nepotism and Bill was the top dog his entire tenure with the Colts. Even if Chris wanted those players, Bill signed off. Which means they are just as much his picks as anyones. It was ultimately his decision. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:

Just to go a little further with this.  Positions to watch this offseason:

OT, G, C, DE, DT, WR, TE, FS, SS, MLB, K and QB. 


Those are 12 positions we may see changes at.  Can’t fill them all with FAs and trades so could easily have 4-5 guys from multiple drafts be elevated to starting roles. Will also have injuries and depth players will be needed to fill holes.  Some players will obviously stay. I’m not sure what the actual percentage is but I would like to know how many starters change year to year on most teams. I believe for the entire roster the average is 25% so 13 new players each year. Between roster movement and injuries, 8-9 new starters a year doesn’t seem far fetched.  A good GM should be able to fill half of those spots or more with draft picks and UDFAs.  

Its just not realistic. That would be a great draft.

 

You list a bunch of positions, but the team isnt gonna have that many new starters. Thats a complete overhaul. Its just not gonna happen.

 

That only happens on teams who are rebuilding. We arent rebuilding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

Its just not realistic. That would be a great draft.

 

You list a bunch of positions, but the team isnt gonna have that many new starters. Thats a complete overhaul. Its just not gonna happen.

 

That only happens on teams who are rebuilding. We arent rebuilding. 

 I literally said some will obviously stay.  I don’t think we will change all those position. Each position does have reasoning a new starter could be in play.  Who knows what direction the front office will decide to go.  
 

Like I said in my in my original post, 4-5 players who are starter worthy and contribute to wins.  They could be elevated bc of their play, previous player is a cap casualty or they were injured. Average roster turns over 25% a year then you add in injuries during the year, so it’s not far fetched to think a great GM is able to fill 4-5 open spots from previous 4 years of drafts. Yeah, that means you have to draft extremely well to do that and why only the top 12 are grouped into that category. The majority  of teams aren’t able to. So while it may seem absurd to you, that’s bc it is extremely hard.  
 

FYI, This year Ballard did such a thing. Okereke, Rodgers, Paye, Taylor and Pittman all were elevated to full time starters. Next year we may see Dayo, Pinter, Pryor(was acquired with a 6th), Gransen and who ever we draft this spring see increased roles.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2022 at 10:36 PM, EastStreet said:

He's much much better than average, when it comes to picks. 

His biggest area of challenge is easily DE. He's been more than fine in every other area.

Paye could change that. If Dayo comes on too, he could turn that around and look like a genius. 

 

Regardless, I think our pass rush scheme sucks. Even obvious talents like Defo look only good or average. 

Yes but when u run a defense thats  success hinges on the  D line and your  picks at that position suck that is a huge problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Yes but when u run a defense thats  success hinges on the  D line and your  picks at that position suck that is a huge problem.

Last season we had Defo (obvious talent), and 2 guys that graded and stat'd very nice this season (Autry and Houston). Why didn't those 3 look better together last year...... It's because the scheme sucked lol.... And we even had AQM and Lewis last year, who both looked decent this year. Why did we suck so bad last year lol... 

 

Autry just looked like a beast again tonight (2 sacks, 2 QB hits, and even a PD...)... 

 

Not sure who would look good in our conservative scheme. It's overly reliant on vanilla..... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Last season we had Defo (obvious talent), and 2 guys that graded and stat'd very nice this season (Autry and Houston). Why didn't those 3 look better together last year...... It's because the scheme sucked lol.... And we even had AQM and Lewis last year, who both looked decent this year. Why did we suck so bad last year lol... 

 

Autry just looked like a beast again tonight (2 sacks, 2 QB hits, and even a PD...)... 

 

Not sure who would look good in our conservative scheme. It's overly reliant on vanilla..... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Teams  in the past who excelled had excellent D fronts. I can think of Seattle, Tampa, SanFran bit they  were loaded up front.

All with different schemes, and a higher blitz %... 

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...