Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Kevin Thomas


atapcl

Recommended Posts

A while ago I claimed that Kevin Thomas wasn't that great, and just didn't seem to have great potential either, I got blasted for that pretty badly. Now everyone's eyes are starting to open.

I don't think that one poster means that eveyone's eyes are starting to open.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Really? See, I would not have got that from the not getting any younger comment.

But let me ask you something in all seriousness because you want to be a scout. A scout's job is not to go to the GM or coach and say, "This is a great player I think we should draft/sign him." A scout's job is to talk with the coaches and find out what skills, attributes, intangibles, etc they think are important and find players that are highly rated in the most important categories. So, with that in mind, if the coach has made comments about Freeney, what a difference maker he is, how the coach wants to use him, the role the coach envisions for him, why would you insist he is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? Here is a quote from Coach about Freeney and Mathis

Doesn't sound like a square peg in a round hole at all. Game wreckers is a strong phrase for a player, sounds like he is going to use them at what they are best at doing.

LOVE what you said. Pretty much usually do.

I swear, fans of this day and age think that some of this stuff is rocket science. The coaches aren't asking Freeney to play cornerback. They're not asking him to play NT. They're not asking him to be our RB. They'd be asking him to start out standing up instead of with a hand in the dirt from time to time. They'd be asking him to contain on a running play before pursuing the QB, from time to time. And, occasionally, they'd ask him to drop back into a zone as a surprise for the unsuspecting QB.

I have absolutely no doubt that Pagano will use Freeney in the right way. Just as he had indicated that if he was dropping Suggs back into coverage, he likely wouldn't have kept his job for very long, the same is true of Freeney.

One more time, absolutely loved what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you Gavin. For my part it is nothing personal. I enjoy talking about this with you. But I know some people take my posts as being sharp or too direct. And think it is personal. Not the case with you.

Oh no I agree nothing personal and everything regarding this debate or discusion we are having that you have said on your part and we will see what we truly have in this new system, I think where we really might disagree is not necessarily needs or what needs we have but seemingly how the Colts will go about improving those areas in one way or the other, debate is good and I dont take anything you said personal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they might not. Regardless, a lack of movement is not an indication that we're waiting until next year...it can just as easily (and logically) be explained as a reflection of the fact that the Coaching staff and GM know there is not a big a need at DB.

You should not expect that at all. Because we do not draft position. The GM of the Indianapolis Colts and the Man in Charge of our draft (the only person whose opinion matters on this) is on the record as saying we draft BPA.

Nothing personal but the seemingly absolute cerebral/emotional/pet rock bondage many fans operate in can be scary.

"Reality be darned! I want a CB!"

BPA is a farce. It really, really is. The reality of BPA speak is basically that a team has certain needs. They identify those needs. And then, they evaluate a crop of players a determine which ones will benefit the team the most.

So, hypothetically, the Colts will be in need a promising young corner, a promising young 3-4 OLB, and a promising young wide receiver next year. Hypothetically, they pick at number 2, with Barkley going #1 overall.

Sitting there for the taking is:

Barkevious Domingo - OLB

Robert Woods - WR

David Amerson - CB

Tyler Wilson - QB

Hypothetically, they have Domingo rated as a Ware type of player, 98/100. Hypothetically, they have Robert Woods rated as a Steve Johnson type of player, 92/100. Hypothetically, they have Amerson rated as a Ladarius Webb type of corner, 91/100. Hypothetically, they have Wilson rated as a Luck type of player, 98/100. Hypothetically, they're sitting on Mathis and Hughes, losing Freeney to contract. They like the setup, and it worked well when Hughes saw time the prior season. They have Wayne, Hilton, and Brazil, losing Collie to FA. They performed ok, but they could use a WR upgrade. Then, hypothetically, they have the corner position, which is filled with UDFA no names who performed poorly last season. And, they have Luck, who performed to expectation the prior season, and looks to be a superstar on the rise.

BPA dictates that, despite having a solid core at OLB (hypothetically), you take Domingo and pass on Amerson, despite really needing a corner. The reality is, that is a good move, because if they fully believe that Domingo will be a dominate OLB, and only believe that Amerson will be an above average corner, they will have improved their defense more by drafting a better player with higher upside. That is the complete reality of BPA. You take the player you feel has the higher upside, despite having a solid rotation on your roster. Solid is not good enough in the NFL. If you can take solid and turn it into spectacular, you do it, despite being mediocre in a different position. Going from mediocre to solid is nice, but not as good as going from solid to spectacular. Spectacular means you have difference makers who will account for your deficiencies elsewhere.

There are obvious differences at positions of limited spots. IE - You don't take a RB in the top 5 if you're Minnesota, despite how good you feel about the guy. You trade the pick, or pick the next BPA, because you already have spectacular on your roster.

But as far as BPA, if the Colts, in my above (completely hypothetical) scenario, had rated Wilson as a 99/100 prospect, but they have absolutely no need for the guy, they simply don't draft him. The biggest thing with BPA is to not pass on a sure thing just because you have good/solid depth on your roster. Had Amerson been rated as a 97/100 vs Domingo's 98, it is quite possible that the team simply will take Amerson as he would provide the biggest impact now (and a big enough impact in the future) vs. what you have on the current roster. That may later prove to be a mistake, but at that point, you're comparing apples to oranges, wheras in the earlier scenario (91 vs 98), you're talking about a superstar vs. really good player. In that point, you take the superstar every day of the week, unless you already have your superstar in place.

And if it wasn't completely obvious, that entire scenario was... wait for it... hypothetical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that one poster means that eveyone's eyes are starting to open.

I'm as big as a colts fan as the next guy. But there comes a point where you guys have to realize that just because we took him in the third round doesn't mean he'll be good. He's done NOTHING to show that he'll be good, he has shown that he'll be average, AT BEST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as big as a colts fan as the next guy. But there comes a point where you guys have to realize that just because we took him in the third round doesn't mean he'll be good. He's done NOTHING to show that he'll be good, he has shown that he'll be average, AT BEST.

Matt Stafford, prior to last season, had shown nothing that he would be good. 19TDs, 20INTS. 54.5% completion percentage.

I'll give you a hint, he didn't suck last year.

I am not saying that Kevin Thomas will do the same, but simply saying, a player's first 1 or 2 years is not an absolute measure of how they'll stack up as an NFL player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BPA is a farce. It really, really is. The reality of BPA speak is basically that a team has certain needs. They identify those needs. And then, they evaluate a crop of players a determine which ones will benefit the team the most.

So, hypothetically, the Colts will be in need a promising young corner, a promising young 3-4 OLB, and a promising young wide receiver next year. Hypothetically, they pick at number 2, with Barkley going #1 overall.

Sitting there for the taking is:

Barkevious Domingo - OLB

Robert Woods - WR

David Amerson - CB

Tyler Wilson - QB

Hypothetically, they have Domingo rated as a Ware type of player, 98/100. Hypothetically, they have Robert Woods rated as a Steve Johnson type of player, 92/100. Hypothetically, they have Amerson rated as a Ladarius Webb type of corner, 91/100. Hypothetically, they have Wilson rated as a Luck type of player, 98/100. Hypothetically, they're sitting on Mathis and Hughes, losing Freeney to contract. They like the setup, and it worked well when Hughes saw time the prior season. They have Wayne, Hilton, and Brazil, losing Collie to FA. They performed ok, but they could use a WR upgrade. Then, hypothetically, they have the corner position, which is filled with UDFA no names who performed poorly last season. And, they have Luck, who performed to expectation the prior season, and looks to be a superstar on the rise.

BPA dictates that, despite having a solid core at OLB (hypothetically), you take Domingo and pass on Amerson, despite really needing a corner. The reality is, that is a good move, because if they fully believe that Domingo will be a dominate OLB, and only believe that Amerson will be an above average corner, they will have improved their defense more by drafting a better player with higher upside. That is the complete reality of BPA. You take the player you feel has the higher upside, despite having a solid rotation on your roster. Solid is not good enough in the NFL. If you can take solid and turn it into spectacular, you do it, despite being mediocre in a different position. Going from mediocre to solid is nice, but not as good as going from solid to spectacular. Spectacular means you have difference makers who will account for your deficiencies elsewhere.

There are obvious differences at positions of limited spots. IE - You don't take a RB in the top 5 if you're Minnesota, despite how good you feel about the guy. You trade the pick, or pick the next BPA, because you already have spectacular on your roster.

But as far as BPA, if the Colts, in my above (completely hypothetical) scenario, had rated Wilson as a 99/100 prospect, but they have absolutely no need for the guy, they simply don't draft him. The biggest thing with BPA is to not pass on a sure thing just because you have good/solid depth on your roster. Had Amerson been rated as a 97/100 vs Domingo's 98, it is quite possible that the team simply will take Amerson as he would provide the biggest impact now (and a big enough impact in the future) vs. what you have on the current roster. That may later prove to be a mistake, but at that point, you're comparing apples to oranges, wheras in the earlier scenario (91 vs 98), you're talking about a superstar vs. really good player. In that point, you take the superstar every day of the week, unless you already have your superstar in place.

And if it wasn't completely obvious, that entire scenario was... wait for it... hypothetical.

I believe that, as long as other teams had Wilson rated as highly as the Colts, they would trade the pick. Would be a St. Louis scenario...I'm sure St. Louis had RGIII rated BPA and instead of drafting him, they traded the pick. So again, BPA is not a farce...essentially St. Louis went BPA, but instead of acquiring the player, they leveraged him for multiple picks.

The Dwayne Allen pick this year is a classic example of BPA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill put it this way, if Amerson was available, Barkley was available, Brandon Jenkins, Devin Taylor was available then Id look at the grades I had for those players and take my chances I could get one of them two linebackers in the 2nd round and draft Amerson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas is fast and has good size but he will have to show what he has this year. Fact is we have way to many holes to shore all of them up. TE was a cheap easy fix to replace a number 3 blocking TE. Basically one vet min for another. Starting CB is a whole other subject. Starting CBs in this league usually get paid pretty good money. We can't afford that. So what would be the use of bringing in a vet CB at the league minimum to take a position away from our young DBs that need playing time to improve and show what they have so we can move forward with them or without.

Outside a rash of injuries I would be very surprised to see a veteren CB come in and replace what we have. I'm not sold on our unit but we have to give them a shot to prove they can handle this new scheme or we go into next year certain we need an upgrade. We have to do this with so many positions this year. We have question marks all over the field. Our starting saftey big Z....lol...whatever he couldn't stay on the field in Baltimore...journeyman Pollard beat him out. No one knows if he will be good. Our linebackers we think will be ok but this is a new scheme for them too. Opposite DE of Redding? Freeney and Mathis...we like that they will be able to rush the passer but they will be doing it a different way...could be good could fail. Our makeshift OL. Our running game?

Point is we aren't expected to be good because they don't know what to expect. So you forfeit to what you were...and that was 2-14. Sure I think we can win 2 or 3 times as many games but I don't think every single move we make will be successful. We play our season. We play hard and we make sure everyone knows this is a team we expect to win our division...and we will bring in players to do that if you don't get your job done. We play....some fail...I bet a couple surprise. No telling who those will be yet and once we have finished our season we can evaluate and make the changes necessary with the cap space and draft picks.

Kevin Thomas is auditioning for his future with this team like many other players. Step up and play better than he has or play special teams and sit the bench...it will be that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge he never has payed man to man coverage. He played cover 2 last year, and was a press coverage corner at USC. Press coverage in a deeper cover 2. Im not feeling very confident about him, but I hope he proves me wrong.

A CB that never played man to man coverage that's laughable that even popped in your head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that, as long as other teams had Wilson rated as highly as the Colts, they would trade the pick. Would be a St. Louis scenario...I'm sure St. Louis had RGIII rated BPA and instead of drafting him, they traded the pick. So again, BPA is not a farce...essentially St. Louis went BPA, but instead of acquiring the player, they leveraged him for multiple picks.

The Dwayne Allen pick this year is a classic example of BPA...

I guess the farce part, for me, is that teams don't consider what they have on their roster. The only thing BPA really means is that a team should not pass on a superstar in favor of a really good player simply because they have a solid player where the superstar fits. However, if a team has a superstar, such as what we expect Luck will be, we absolutely do NOT draft the next superstar QB, even if we are in a position to do so. At that point, you trade or draft the next highest player on your board.

But, in no way is BPA as cut and dry as some like to portray it. Especially later in the draft, as information is considerably more cloudy on players who have far less tape and scrutiny than potential top 10 picks. At later points in the draft, the BPA concept may still apply, but a team won't simply rate 300 players, and then draft 7 CBs because they are the highest on their list when they draft.

In addition, a team's evaluation would definitely take need into account. The Colts were likely less than interested in Luck prior to the beginning of last season. All that changed when they realized they'd be drafting first. A team invests more heavily in college scouting of a certain player on a certain college team when they have a perceived need in a position and feel that the guy can be a fit.

The team absolutely will forgo a position and BPA if they already have a better (or as good) player in that spot. That's the farce. If we had bookend tackles in the form of Jake Long AND Joe Thomas, we absolutely would not draft DJ Fluker if he was the highest rated player on our board, even if we couldn't trade the pick.

If teams actually drafted BPA, the draft would last a total of 1 or 2 hours. It'd be as simple as a team grabbing the name on the top of their list at the beginning of their pick and calling it in. They don't do that. They still make a quick evaluation of what they have, what they've already drafted, and what they need as to who they pick at the current spot. If it was simply BPA, they'd know who they were picking and there would be no debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BPA is a farce. It really, really is. The reality of BPA speak is basically that a team has certain needs. They identify those needs. And then, they evaluate a crop of players a determine which ones will benefit the team the most

I agee to a point. Every team takes the best player available in the draft. It is what they use as a criteria for BPA that makes the difference and they weight they give to that criteria that determines the BPA. For example, let's say a team looks at the following criteria ( this example is overly simplefied) (Criteria/Grade/Weight/Total)

Player A

Speed/92/1/92

Agility/95/.95/90.25

Intelligence/95/1.0/95

Strength/93/.9/83.7

Team need/50/.5/25

Player grade = 77.19

Player B

Speed/89/1/89

Agility/92/.95/88

Intelligence/95/1.0/95

Strength/87/.9/78

Team need/90/.5/45

Player grade = 79

So the draft board would read

Player B = 79

Player A = 77.19

Soi even though player A is slightly better in every category except team need, Player B would still be the BPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are some of the corners in recent history (last three years) that Pagano had at his disposal. All of them were considered to be 'busts' on their first team and were signed as free agents with the exception of Webb who came from a small school and developed unfer Pagano and Smith who had TONS of talent with a shady background. Anyways, the moral of this story is that with the right coaching or the right system in place to maximize the talents of the players on your roster, players CAN improve or actually play up to AND beyond their abilities! Let's give Rucker and Thomas the benefit of the doubt as fans just as the coaching staff did by not drafting any corners.............even if they said they wanted to but missed out on two of them!

Lardarius Webb - 3rd Round - Nicholls State -

Chris Carr - UDFA (by the Raiders) - Boise State -

Cary Williams - 7th Round (by the Titans) - Washburn -

Jimmy Smith - 1st Round - Colorado -

Josh Wilson - 2nd Round (by the Seahawks) - Maryland -

Fabian Washington - 1st Round (by the Raiders) - Nebraska -

Dominique Foxworth - 3rd Round (by the Broncos) - Maryland -

Frank Walker - 6th Round (by the Giants) - Tuskegee -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BPA dictates that, despite having a solid core at OLB (hypothetically), you take Domingo and pass on Amerson, despite really needing a corner. The reality is, that is a good move, because if they fully believe that Domingo will be a dominate OLB, and only believe that Amerson will be an above average corner, they will have improved their defense more by drafting a better player with higher upside. That is the complete reality of BPA. You take the player you feel has the higher upside, despite having a solid rotation on your roster. Solid is not good enough in the NFL. If you can take solid and turn it into spectacular, you do it, despite being mediocre in a different position. Going from mediocre to solid is nice, but not as good as going from solid to spectacular. Spectacular means you have difference makers who will account for your deficiencies elsewhere.

There are obvious differences at positions of limited spots. IE - You don't take a RB in the top 5 if you're Minnesota, despite how good you feel about the guy. You trade the pick, or pick the next BPA, because you already have spectacular on your roster.

You have done a nice job of building the case for BPA in the real world. BPA is really a determination of relative value to your roster in building your winning formula....and first round picks must have a high contribution margin to the winning formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agee to a point. Every team takes the best player available in the draft. It is what they use as a criteria for BPA that makes the difference and they weight they give to that criteria that determines the BPA. For example, let's say a team looks at the following criteria ( this example is overly simplefied) (Criteria/Grade/Weight/Total)

Player A

Speed/92/1/92

Agility/95/.95/90.25

Intelligence/95/1.0/95

Strength/93/.9/83.7

Team need/50/.5/25

Player grade = 77.19

Player B

Speed/89/1/89

Agility/92/.95/88

Intelligence/95/1.0/95

Strength/87/.9/78

Team need/90/.5/45

Player grade = 79

So the draft board would read

Player B = 79

Player A = 77.19

Soi even though player A is slightly better in every category except team need, Player B would still be the BPA.

I agree, and I didn't put it as well as you did, but the basic reality is that need fits into the equation. BPA, to me, means BPA. Whether there is need or not, he is the BPA. In your illustration, you're taking a lesser player who is of greater need, and not the actual BPA. But, that is what I was trying to get at, at many points, need is used in the equation, which makes the whole BPA concept something of a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and I didn't put it as well as you did, but the basic reality is that need fits into the equation. BPA, to me, means BPA. Whether there is need or not, he is the BPA. In your illustration, you're taking a lesser player who is of greater need, and not the actual BPA. But, that is what I was trying to get at, at many points, need is used in the equation, which makes the whole BPA concept something of a farce.

Yes, that's all I'm trying to say as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He cant stay healthy and even coming out of college he was a Zone Corner not Man Corner, also not a guy thats going to get ya many interceptions

Whether he has injury issues or not isn't pertinent. He looked good when he was on the field last season. And he looked best when he was in man coverage, which wasn't often. He also played plenty of man coverage at USC, so I'm not sure why you're calling him a zone corner. I don't know whether he's going to get you a lot of interceptions or not, but that's just one metric by which to grade a cornerback. I'm much more interested in his catches allowed and passes defensed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and I didn't put it as well as you did, but the basic reality is that need fits into the equation. BPA, to me, means BPA. Whether there is need or not, he is the BPA. In your illustration, you're taking a lesser player who is of greater need, and not the actual BPA. But, that is what I was trying to get at, at many points, need is used in the equation, which makes the whole BPA concept something of a farce.

I don't think the BPA concept is as dogmatic as it's made out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether he has injury issues or not isn't pertinent. He looked good when he was on the field last season. And he looked best when he was in man coverage, which wasn't often. He also played plenty of man coverage at USC, so I'm not sure why you're calling him a zone corner. I don't know whether he's going to get you a lot of interceptions or not, but that's just one metric by which to grade a cornerback. I'm much more interested in his catches allowed and passes defensed.

I hope he does stay healthy and provides us with at least a good nickel corner but to say his injuries arent pertinent is a bit silly, given that is the whole reason why he dont get much playing time, sure he played for I believe it was for one year injury free year at USC but he missed his rookie year do to injury and only played 9 games last year, its really simple, if he can play then great he is a decent Corner when healthy but how longs it been since he was healthy enough to really be any type of a force for us on defense,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that Moala would be given every chance to win the starting job as he actually played some DE in USC's 3/4 defense, so he has familiarity on his side?

I think I saw something about Moala being moved to end for the reasons you said. Honestly he's a little undersized for a DT in the NFL so he might work very well as a 3-4 end.

I think the plan is to keep Nevis at DT for now probably when we play the 4-3 in our 4-3 hybrid part of the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether he has injury issues or not isn't pertinent. He looked good when he was on the field last season. And he looked best when he was in man coverage, which wasn't often. He also played plenty of man coverage at USC, so I'm not sure why you're calling him a zone corner. I don't know whether he's going to get you a lot of interceptions or not, but that's just one metric by which to grade a cornerback. I'm much more interested in his catches allowed and passes defensed.

Also just to be clear I don't think Thomas had any injury issues last year. I know he missed his rookie year and had injury issues in college but knock on wood maybe he's moved past that. That happens for players at times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I saw something about Moala being moved to end for the reasons you said. Honestly he's a little undersized for a DT in the NFL so he might work very well as a 3-4 end.

I think the plan is to keep Nevis at DT for now probably when we play the 4-3 in our 4-3 hybrid part of the defense.

Moala has experience at DE in USC's 3/4 and prototypical size for the position, 6'4" 303....hopefully he finds his niche there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope he does stay healthy and provides us with at least a good nickel corner but to say his injuries arent pertinent is a bit silly, given that is the whole reason why he dont get much playing time, sure he played for I believe it was for one year injury free year at USC but he missed his rookie year do to injury and only played 9 games last year, its really simple, if he can play then great he is a decent Corner when healthy but how longs it been since he was healthy enough to really be any type of a force for us on defense,

It's absolutely not pertinent to the discussion, which is whether or not he played well last season. He did, or at least better than most fans give him credit for. On top of that, Thomas wasn't hurt last season, despite the fact that he was only dressed for nine games.

And he's only got one year under his belt. He was a rookie last season, and we're passing judgment on him?

I don't get why so many fans are so down on the Colts players. We completely misused the majority of our guys, especially on defense, and especially at corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's absolutely not pertinent to the discussion, which is whether or not he played well last season. He did, or at least better than most fans give him credit for. On top of that, Thomas wasn't hurt last season, despite the fact that he was only dressed for nine games.

And he's only got one year under his belt. He was a rookie last season, and we're passing judgment on him?

I don't get why so many fans are so down on the Colts players. We completely misused the majority of our guys, especially on defense, and especially at corner.

Alright my mistake he didnt get injured last season, wonder why he only played in 9 games though
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright my mistake he didnt get injured last season, wonder why he only played in 9 games though

If I remember correctly , he was on the inactive list for about the first 5-6 games and then he got his first start. No injury issue , just went from not being good enough to make the active list to being a starting CB. Must have had a heck of a practice week. Not only did a lot of the players have bad years but the Polians and coaching staff did also. Anyway , I think that explains why he only played in 9 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polian was a real maestro with 3rd round picks: Green, Burlesworth, Bird, Jefferson, Strickland, Gardner, Hartsock, Sweet Pea Burns, Hughes, Pitcock, Thomas.

Was always a brutal round for Polian. Did anyone se the interview with him on draft day. He gave an explanation of why he tought this was the "toughest round." I guees in your list , you can't blame him for Burlsworth and Strickland and Hughes contributed fairly well for other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright my mistake he didnt get injured last season, wonder why he only played in 9 games though

Do you also wonder why we stuck with Curtis Painter for so long? Do you wonder why we released Justin Tryon and kept starting Jacob Lacey? Do you wonder why we benched Mike Pollak for Jeff Linkenbach in 2010?

The previous coaching staff and front office made a lot of, let's say ... curious decisions the past couple seasons. I'm assuming the new regime will be a little more upfront about their decision making.

As it pertains to Thomas, what matters is that, when he got on the field, he played reasonably well, particularly in man coverage, where he looked his best (and better than any other corner on the team).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also wonder why we stuck with Curtis Painter for so long? Do you wonder why we released Justin Tryon and kept starting Jacob Lacey? Do you wonder why we benched Mike Pollak for Jeff Linkenbach in 2010?

The previous coaching staff and front office made a lot of, let's say ... curious decisions the past couple seasons. I'm assuming the new regime will be a little more upfront about their decision making.

As it pertains to Thomas, what matters is that, when he got on the field, he played reasonably well, particularly in man coverage, where he looked his best (and better than any other corner on the team).

anywhere I can look at games from last season, I barely remember him playing is why, so I'd like to see
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also wonder why we stuck with Curtis Painter for so long? Do you wonder why we released Justin Tryon and kept starting Jacob Lacey? Do you wonder why we benched Mike Pollak for Jeff Linkenbach in 2010?

The previous coaching staff and front office made a lot of, let's say ... curious decisions the past couple seasons. I'm assuming the new regime will be a little more upfront about their decision making.

As it pertains to Thomas, what matters is that, when he got on the field, he played reasonably well, particularly in man coverage, where he looked his best (and better than any other corner on the team).

lol.....I still can't believe that Bill Polian put us in position where we had no choice but to start Jacob freaking Lacey in numerous NFL games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anywhere I can look at games from last season, I barely remember him playing is why, so I'd like to see

I just rewatched every game from last season, some of them twice. I looked particularly hard at how the play of the corners and defensive line affected each other. It was an interesting exercise, and I found that a lot of the memes prevalent on this board and among the media are either overstated or completely inaccurate. Most notable is the idea that we have no corners. We're thin and young, and our best guy is small and often injured, but Thomas and Rucker are worthy of a chance in a new scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just rewatched every game from last season, some of them twice. I looked particularly hard at how the play of the corners and defensive line affected each other. It was an interesting exercise, and I found that a lot of the memes prevalent on this board and among the media are either overstated or completely inaccurate. Most notable is the idea that we have no corners. We're thin and young, and our best guy is small and often injured, but Thomas and Rucker are worthy of a chance in a new scheme.

where did you watch them? I cant find them, and we will see in this new system what they do, Im hoping the Colts get Amerson next year, hes a game changer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge he never has payed man to man coverage. He played cover 2 last year, and was a press coverage corner at USC. Press coverage in a deeper cover 2. Im not feeling very confident about him, but I hope he proves me wrong.

Your knowledge is incorrect he was a COVER CORNER. Thats what he does best!

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...