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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:34 AM
Oldcolt Oldcolt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 767
Thanks: 781
Thanked 548 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
John Simon made a key play in the Superbowl, think NE is glad they picked him up? You can't predict who would give you a championship. That's why you try to round your roster out the best you can. McCoy was a free agent that fit exactly what we like to run on D. We don't have a lot of high end talent on the line. McCoy hasn't had less than 5 sacks the last seven seasons. I don't blame him for going to the Panthers, that line is absolutely stacked now, then you have Kuechly roaming behind them. But our line is not a strength, and I find that odd considering how much Ballard preaches about the lines. Looks like we are moving forward with what we have. But we had an opportunity, motive, and means. I hope we won't regret it.
You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
__________________
Nelson a steal at 6
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:55 AM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 573
Thanked 1,054 Times in 642 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
And enough with the moving target stuff. You and that Chromeburn dude are the same Ė I answer your argument, and then you act indignant and pretend that your argument was something else all along.

Whatever dude. Iíll take you at your word. And if youíre implying that my posts are too long (and I assume you are), then Iíd invite you please stop reading them.
You're projecting. This is actually what you do. Often ignoring counterpoints altogether to regurgitate your own, or incorrectly interpreting my point which I would repeatedly have to correct. This is why people get frustrated because the arguments do not progress and simply go over the same points again and again. People understand your position the first time, just some disagree. I used to think what you were doing was intentional and you were more interested in being right and 'winning' the argument, or perhaps you were trolling. We've had trolls here who were more interested in just wasting people's time than anything. However, now I think you just don't correctly process what you read or perhaps you internalize everything. You are not an idiot, do you have a reading disability?

Case in point: The second line quoted. RM was just saying his own post was getting too long. You incorrectly inferred he was criticizing you when he was just attempting to keep his own post concise.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:02 PM
Racehorse's Avatar
Racehorse Racehorse is offline
Poster Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: God's green Earth
Posts: 9,387
Thanks: 5,567
Thanked 1,371 Times in 841 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldcolt View Post
You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
Good post. Not overly emotional and stated your opinion succinctly. Some could learn from your style.

Also, you made valid points. It comes down to philosophy. You (and I) like Ballard's philosophy because it has a vision. Others do not like the vision he has, but prefer to add more expensive pieces. If we were one piece away from being SB champs, then we should spend what it takes. However, most who think we need Suh, McCoy, et. al. are the same ones who say we have a severe lack of talent on the roster.

mods, can we close this thread and make those guys above get a room?
__________________
It's okay to complain, but if you only complain, nobody is going to take you seriously, Chicken Little.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:25 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 573
Thanked 1,054 Times in 642 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldcolt View Post
You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post:
Luck4Reich (06-11-2019)
  #225  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:03 PM
Oldcolt Oldcolt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 767
Thanks: 781
Thanked 548 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.

First let me say that this is not black and white. We are essentially arguing about degrees, ie. we both agree we need free agents we just seem to disagree on the amount. I don't think we are in a re-build per say but we are definitely building. By that I mean part of the team is ready to compete and part we are not certain about. I'm not saying that people should have known how good or bad we were going to be, just that most of us don't really know. McCoy was and is a close call. I would just rather see the guys we have at 3 technique get the snaps to see what they can do.

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.
__________________
Nelson a steal at 6
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:05 AM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 525
Thanks: 212
Thanked 348 Times in 150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
You're projecting. This is actually what you do. Often ignoring counterpoints altogether to regurgitate your own, or incorrectly interpreting my point which I would repeatedly have to correct. This is why people get frustrated because the arguments do not progress and simply go over the same points again and again. People understand your position the first time, just some disagree. I used to think what you were doing was intentional and you were more interested in being right and 'winning' the argument, or perhaps you were trolling. We've had trolls here who were more interested in just wasting people's time than anything. However, now I think you just don't correctly process what you read or perhaps you internalize everything. You are not an idiot, do you have a reading disability?

Case in point: The second line quoted. RM was just saying his own post was getting too long. You incorrectly inferred he was criticizing you when he was just attempting to keep his own post concise.
Alright dude – in an effort to prevent this discussion from going even further off the rails, and despite my doubts, I’ll take your post seriously and tell you how it looks from this side. Despite your assertions to the contrary, it seems like you guys are having a hard time following what I’m saying. I don’t say that to be insulting or degrading, but it’s just how it appears to me.

I know you say that “people understand your position the first time,” that I just make the same points over and over, but your comments repeatedly reflect a basic lack of understanding of many aspects of what I’m saying. A few quick examples come to mind: (1) your concern that we will be perpetually $50M million under the cap, (2) your belief that I’m against signing any free agents, (3) RM’s belief that hoarding cap space is a strategy designed to expose other team’s weaknesses. Either you guys are just being difficult, or you aren’t understanding what I’m saying, so don’t blame me if I respond by providing further explanation.

Also, I’ve tried to provide several analogies as I’ve gone alone, but in your zeal to prove me wrong you’ve taken a ridiculously literal view of them. In describing the Colts’ approach under Ballard as businesslike, it was in the context of paragraphs of surrounding explanation, none of which mentioned money or profit - so to me, there simply is no reasonable way that you can conclude that I meant that the Colts should be going for profit, rather than excellence on the field. Yet, that’s exactly what you suggested. Similarly, RM has criticized as “asinine” my reference to the casino industry in describing the value that an edge can provide. This is because the NFL doesn’t have predefined statistical advantages like a casino. That may be true, but can you really not get what I’m saying there? Or does it look more like just an attempt to make a pointless distinction without any meaningful difference? To me, these kind of comments suggest that you guys are the ones who just want to “win” the argument at any cost.

And more fundamentally, when think through some of the things you guys have been saying, they simply don’t make sense or they would lead to absurd larger conclusions. RM says it is a “fool’s errand” to think that the Colts can outdraft their opponents and thereby create an engine leading the Colts to a dynasty. Does anyone really believe this, RM included? Are you saying success in the draft is totally random? Plenty of teams have proven they are demonstrably better at drafting than their opponents, and the Colts current regime is off to a pretty good start on this point. Combine it with the kind of excellent cap management I’m talking about and, to me, you have the makings of a huge advantage and, by extension, the possibility of a dynasty.

RM also says the NFL rules are designed to prevent any team from becoming too dominant, creating an atmosphere so competitive that “you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best.” Honestly, when I think about this statement, I don’t even know what it means. Is he saying the only viable strategy is a “pop and drop” approach where you go all out for a season or two, and then have to recharge for a while before making a charge forward again? That’s silly - lots of teams have shown you can be dominant for long periods of time, even in the context of our current rules. We need look no further than our own Manning-led Colts. They only won one SB, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have won several others despite the current rules.

Then there’s the contradictions. I’ve covered your reactive vs. proactive stuff so I won’t belabor the point. But then there’s RM saying referring to the “Moneyball BS” in one sentence, and then later saying it’s actually an effective component of a winning strategy. And RM’s theory that the current rules somehow allow long term success, but prevent dynasties. Many others. Enough said.

Lastly, my suspicion that RM was taking a crack at my post length. I'll take RM at his word, and point out that I did admit that I was implying that from his post. But I guess that one’s on me, as I’ve become accustomed to seeing such comments here about my posts.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:19 AM
JAFF JAFF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,230
Thanks: 520
Thanked 468 Times in 283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldcolt View Post

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.
And I would like to add, put money into what you value. There's no cap on coaches, scouts and player developement execs. The Eagles lose one of their front office guys to the Jets, they have someone who they have trained to step in. You want to develop and grow from the draft, you will need a bunch of them who know what the team is looking for on both sides of the ball. You are training your front office people to be GM's. Same for the coaching staff. You want guys who want to be head coaches.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JAFF For This Useful Post:
Oldcolt (06-12-2019)
  #228  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:38 AM
Racehorse's Avatar
Racehorse Racehorse is offline
Poster Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: God's green Earth
Posts: 9,387
Thanks: 5,567
Thanked 1,371 Times in 841 Posts
Default

Since this thread is about McCoy...

1. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy is not a good player.
2. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy would not improve our front seven.
3. I don't think anyone would be upset if we had signed McCoy.

That said, the issues are as follows:

1. Do we think McCoy would be the piece that wins us the SB? I don't think he is.
2. Will we be contenders without McCoy? Possibly, but the NFL is hard to predict. I think we will have about the same record without McCoy that we would have had with him, but that is just me.
3. Will we need to spend the cap dollars on someone anyway? This is where the water gets murky. Maybe Sherck can tell us where we are as it relates to the cap floor, but I think we are right at it and can get close with tweaking current contracts. As to the penalty for not hitting the floor, it is merely paying the difference to the players association. Maybe we have to pay $5M, but that is just a guess and we may actually be at the average now. Ballard knows, but I cannot recall him explaining it besides being cryptic about it.
4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.
5. I know I am missing a key issue, so fill it in here, lol.
__________________
It's okay to complain, but if you only complain, nobody is going to take you seriously, Chicken Little.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:28 AM
rm1369 rm1369 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 374
Thanks: 106
Thanked 176 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Chaka,

Let me ask this - what is your definition of a dynasty? You seem to think Iím being inconsistent with suggesting it is possible to be very good for a long time (Polian Colts), but a fools errand to believe you can build a dynasty using your method in the modern NFL. I donít see those two things as inconsistent at all and honestly I donít see whatís so hard to understand. Perhaps we simply have a different view of what a dynasty is.

With a franchise QB and sound management I believe you can be and should be one of the top teams in the league year in year out. Is that a dynasty? To me itís not. To me a dynasty is multiple Championships (3 or more) in some short period (6-7 years?). And I donít believe that is a worthy goal for any team to plan around. To me the time frame is to long for how quickly things change. Iím not suggesting you shouldnít be aware of the long term. Iím not suggesting that you shouldnít be planning to always be a winner. Iím simply saying you shouldnít always be prioritizing tomorrow over today as I believe that plan requires.

As you are so quick to point out with any potential signing, there is a cost to every move. You are great about pointing out what it could cost the team 3-4 years from now, but you never express a concern about the cost to the team now of not making a move. As a fan, I donít want my teams goal to be really good over a lot of seasons. I want their goal to be to win titles. Where you see being really good for a long time leading to those multiple titles, I see the sacrifices necessary to maintain that high level of performance coming at the cost of being the best in a given year. Hence my comment about peaking in smaller windows. Iím not sure why you would find the idea of that ridiculous. Itís simply about the prioritization of resources.

Maybe Iím jaded by the Polian Colts because I subscribed to the slow steady approach and thought the Colts would win more titles by virtue of being really good for a long time and catching some breaks. I kept waiting for NE to crumple because they constantly had turn over, constantly took chances on players. But with a franchise QB and great coaching they find a way to be the best. That to me is a better, more realistic model. Itís the one Iíd prefer my team to follow. Without Luck in place Iíd probably agree with your approach. But Iím willing to take a down year or two for some ramped up shots at a title. And with Luck in place the reload can happen very quickly. Look at last year for example. Could the Colts have won a title with a competent WR2 and a better pass rush? Maybe, but probably not. The turn around sure as hell happened quickly though. Of course everything is a matter of degree. Iím not suggesting they should go all in this year, every year. But I donít believe they will build a dynasty by always pushing resources until tomorrow at the expense of today.

And if Ballard can draft better than any GM in NFL history, then it almost doesnít matter what philosophy they follow - theyíll be successful. But I wouldnít bet on it. Thatís not a knock on Ballard, itís simple a realistic view of what can be expected of him. If you are all about the statistics then do some research on the success of GMs drafting over the long term. Any evaluation I have ever seen (with enough sample size) shows guys falling back to the pack. Especially as they start drafting in the 20s and 30s instead in the top 10 and there is more competition at spots on the team.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:
Colt Classic (06-12-2019)
  #230  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:40 AM
Maniac's Avatar
Maniac Maniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Home
Posts: 1,248
Thanks: 608
Thanked 897 Times in 484 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse View Post
4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.
People keep arguing that it will delay the development of the younger guys but I think that's complete bs. There is a rotation. There is plenty of playing time and practice time for everyone. Depth is not a bad thing. If the young guys can't develop, it won't be because of one more decent player on this team. it will be because they simply aren't good enough, and then you'll be glad to have that experienced player on the roster.

You can't assume every draft pick is going to develop and work out. We know what McCoy offered, and it would have been nice to have that depth and some more interior pass rush. Doesn't matter much now. We'll see if it was the right move or a mistake in time.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Maniac For This Useful Post:
Racehorse (06-12-2019)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.