ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion
Register FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 03-07-2019, 09:41 PM
Butter's Avatar
Butter Butter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,490
Thanks: 1,036
Thanked 2,599 Times in 1,346 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coltsalr View Post
In other news, Brad Wells is still a retard:

@BradWellsNFL
Tweeting this late, but I do agree with many of you followers that Landon Collins would be great in Indy. However, signing Collins to a huge deal would be Ballard admitting that Malik Hooker isn’t the answer at safety. I don’t see him doing that.
Holy shit, I always knew Wells was stupid, but he clearly has no understanding of football at all. Hooker and Collins really do not play the same position at all.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Butter For This Useful Post:
smitty46953 (03-08-2019)
  #72  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:17 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,498
Thanks: 1,466
Thanked 3,854 Times in 2,150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
He and Amos are very close for me. I'd rate Amos lower, but also expect he'll sign for significantly less (say $9-10m vs $12-13m AAV).
I would be ok with Amos. He can lay the wood and play deep safety. He is a different kind of safety than Collins though and can play more deep coverage. If they went after Amos instead of Collins that would tell me they expect more coverage out of the position and less in the box run defense. Depends what kind of 4-3 we are emulating, something like the Seattle defense, or something like the Cowboys or old Bucs.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:18 PM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,400
Thanks: 115
Thanked 2,036 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butter View Post
Holy shit, I always knew Wells was stupid, but he clearly has no understanding of football at all. Hooker and Collins really do not play the same position at all.
Exactly. FREE safety and STRONG safety are two distinct positions, especially in this defense. Much like Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor played two completely different positions, Landon Collins would play a completely different position than Malik Hooker. Hopefully the latter duo turns out as well as the former if the Colts sign Collins.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dam8610 For This Useful Post:
Butter (03-07-2019)
  #74  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:34 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,498
Thanks: 1,466
Thanked 3,854 Times in 2,150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
Exactly. FREE safety and STRONG safety are two distinct positions, especially in this defense. Much like Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor played two completely different positions, Landon Collins would play a completely different position than Malik Hooker. Hopefully the latter duo turns out as well as the former if the Colts sign Collins.
Wells was arguing that safety positions are indistinguishable from each other in their responsibilities now. But that isn't quite the case with our D. Which he should know. Sometimes they do mix it up with Hooker and Geathers, but most of the time they wanted Hooker to play the deep defense.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:35 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,498
Thanks: 1,466
Thanked 3,854 Times in 2,150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence Owen View Post
Funny, because 90% of Well's stance is PFF stats,..Yet PFF rated Hooker VERY high last year...you don't see him posting that all over twitter...lol
He is just a weird dude. Even going back to his stampede blue days. He would get in these weird arguments with fans all the time. Guy is just a strange angry ginger.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post:
Lawrence Owen (03-08-2019)
  #76  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:36 PM
VeveJones007 VeveJones007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,111
Thanks: 1,209
Thanked 1,114 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
I would be ok with Amos. He can lay the wood and play deep safety. He is a different kind of safety than Collins though and can play more deep coverage. If they went after Amos instead of Collins that would tell me they expect more coverage out of the position and less in the box run defense. Depends what kind of 4-3 we are emulating, something like the Seattle defense, or something like the Cowboys or old Bucs.
Don’t forget the importance of open field tackling on short passes. Consistently taking away those yards will make QB hold the ball longer and give the pass rush more time.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:37 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,498
Thanks: 1,466
Thanked 3,854 Times in 2,150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007 View Post
Don’t forget the importance of open field tackling on short passes. Consistently taking away those yards will make QB hold the ball longer and give the pass rush more time.
Collins is by far the better tackler. Guy is a machine. PFF even wrote an article saying he should be moved to linebacker.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:39 PM
Puck's Avatar
Puck Puck is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Fort Wayne
Posts: 7,991
Thanks: 1,796
Thanked 2,843 Times in 1,411 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007 View Post
Erickson chimes in .

Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt
I have no issue bringing in Collins if Ballard thinks he is an upgrade. Safety isn’t a top need like Puck thinks
.


Apparently I’m on to something
__________________
Gonna win it all.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-08-2019, 11:17 AM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 858
Thanks: 336
Thanked 666 Times in 285 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007 View Post
1) The Giants thought enough of Collins to make him a co-captain of the defense. This is strictly a decision from the GM, who I might point out drafted a RB in the top 10 each of the last two years and ignored the QB position in favor of Eli Manning last draft. I don't give their hesitancy to extend Collins any credibility.

#2 and #3 really play together, so I'll address them that way. You have to view this through the prism of the Colts scheme. After pass rusher, a slashing SS is the biggest need on this defense. Collins is a perfect fit in that regard and there isn't a pass rusher available who justifies a premium investment. Thus, Collins should be considered.

However, after that, it all comes down to value. If Ballard and Eberflus think Collins is worth $9MM/year to them and he signs somewhere for $12MM, then they'll address the position in another manner.
Thank you. As far as your first point is concerned, to be fair the RBs Gettleman drafted (Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey) have worked out pretty well, so it's hard to fault him for those picks - particularly if he wasn't enamored with any of the available QBs in last year's draft. If the guy was making wild picks and reaching for players instead of taking obvious upgrades, then I'd place less weight in his decision making. So while I don't question that you're right that this decision comes from the GM, it doesn't really address my original question of whether the decision he made (not to tag Collins) causes any concern. From what I've read (and admittedly it's a fairly small amount of info - I knew next to nothing about Gettlemen until this thread was created), the guy isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions, but they are often proven right in retrospect. So I remain concerned about this.

As far as the importance of the safety position in our defense, I'll defer to you and others who are more knowledgeable than me about the X's and O's. I can accept that a good SS may be more valuable to us than to other teams, but that should mean that the other teams won't be willing to pay top dollar for him, and we should be able to get him more cheaply. Ultimately, it's really a question of how much to pay, rather than whether to sign him. Here's an article I came across when looking up Gettleman info which makes the observation that 7 of 8 best paid safeties are free safeties and that strong safeties are usually paid much less:

https://www.bigblueview.com/2019/3/6...dave-gettleman

So by paying Collins as one of the best paid safeties in the league, we'd be shattering precedent more than most realize. It bears noting that this sort of thing worked out pretty well when we drafted Nelson, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-08-2019, 11:35 AM
Dam8610 Dam8610 is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,400
Thanks: 115
Thanked 2,036 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Thank you. As far as your first point is concerned, to be fair the RBs Gettleman drafted (Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey) have worked out pretty well, so it's hard to fault him for those picks - particularly if he wasn't enamored with any of the available QBs in last year's draft. If the guy was making wild picks and reaching for players instead of taking obvious upgrades, then I'd place less weight in his decision making. So while I don't question that you're right that this decision comes from the GM, it doesn't really address my original question of whether the decision he made (not to tag Collins) causes any concern. From what I've read (and admittedly it's a fairly small amount of info - I knew next to nothing about Gettlemen until this thread was created), the guy isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions, but they are often proven right in retrospect. So I remain concerned about this.

As far as the importance of the safety position in our defense, I'll defer to you and others who are more knowledgeable than me about the X's and O's. I can accept that a good SS may be more valuable to us than to other teams, but that should mean that the other teams won't be willing to pay top dollar for him, and we should be able to get him more cheaply. Ultimately, it's really a question of how much to pay, rather than whether to sign him. Here's an article I came across when looking up Gettleman info which makes the observation that 7 of 8 best paid safeties are free safeties and that strong safeties are usually paid much less:

https://www.bigblueview.com/2019/3/6...dave-gettleman

So by paying Collins as one of the best paid safeties in the league, we'd be shattering precedent more than most realize. It bears noting that this sort of thing worked out pretty well when we drafted Nelson, of course.
Shattering precedent? The Colts made Bob Sanders one of the highest paid safeties in the NFL.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omahacolt View Post
i was wrong.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dam8610 For This Useful Post:
VeveJones007 (03-08-2019)
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.