Indianapolis and Buenos Aires,
ColtsAuthority.com, home of the best Colts commentary on the web.
@spurwhisperer "He could have very literally forced Irshay to keep him by simply making some concessions on the money end."
This is where you are 100% wrong.
Irsay asked Manning to curtail his snaps with the first string offense to accommodate Luck. He wanted to be sure Luck got extra practice and game time.
THAT (not the money) is what was the deal breaker. Your understanding of what the central issues were is just not right.
The poison pill forced the decision, but it wasn't the actual obstacle.
Keeping both quarterbacks wouldn't have made sense. Luck's high possible trade value was before the draft ever took place. For Indy to keep both would have ensured a lower return on the initial investment.
Keeping both was easily the worst possible option. It's not even close.
14 hours, 59 minutes ago on Eight Myths Surrounding Peyton Manning's Departure from the Colts
@Bobman1 I would put the order thusly: NYJ, TEN, Pitt, Balt, MIA, SD. I'm always going to put the teams the Colts lost two last. But yes, they are all similar.
1 day, 3 hours ago on Who to Root For: Week 14
@hankster Next wednesday
1 day, 7 hours ago on Who to Root For: Week 14
@DougEngland I'm not sure I agree. Miami already won in Indy, so it makes it difficult to want to see them again.
1 day, 11 hours ago on Who to Root For: Week 14
@hankster Yes, that is possible. I subjugate beauty to wining, but all else being equal, you'd prefer an interesting offense to a boring one.
1 week ago on Behind Enemy Lines: Tom Gower of Total Titans and the Football Outsiders Take Two
@MxPx @Nate Dunlevy @bjg Wasn't trying to lecture you, I apologize. I felt like you were taking a cheap shot and misrepresenting my position.
You are correct that "winning now" does add extra value to Davis. He didn't really help them win any more last year, but he still could this year. If he does, the trade can still swing in Indy's favor.
Advanced stats don't play into this, but in general I agree with you. Their value is to help correct obvious bias. The "eyeball test" is just not trustworthy. People don't even know what they are watching half the time.
Snarky is fine. It sounds like we don't disagree that much. I just misread your tone and that's my fault.
1 week, 6 days ago on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Ryan Grigson
@MxPx @Nate Dunlevy @bjg Come on. Let's have a real discussion.
1. PFF ratings aren't junk and I didn't say they were. What I said was that if you dig into PFF's ratings, you see they don't support the notion that Davis is a good corner.
I'm encouraging people to take PFF seriously and study their data, not to disregard it.
2. AV is far from gospel, which I think you know. However, it does give you a good general idea of a player's expected value. You don't have to buy that Davis is a 5 or an 8 or a 15 player. However, the concept that the average player taken where the Colts would have selected would be a roughly a two-year starter who played a few seasons aside from that is valuable and not particularly controversial.
So, be snarky or actually try to interact with the ideas.
Whatever you like.
@Payton @Nate Dunlevy @Coltsheadben I actually looked that one up and still got it wrong. Sigh.
1 week, 6 days ago on Eyes in the Backfield: Cardinals
@AChoohoohoo For the Indy D, I'm looking for turnovers forced, not big plays allowed. I was unclear.
The problem is they have no pass rush to "turn on". Other than Mathis, this is a team that doesn't rush the passer well at all.
@bjg @Nate Dunlevy The nice thing is that we don't have debate the value of of a second-round pick. Profootballreference already gives us the average value of all picks. The AV of the pick the Colts gave up would have been around 22.
Davis was worth about a five or six last year, and won't be much better this year.
Objectively speaking, Indy got fleeced. The reason is that they only got two years of Davis versus the four to five years they would have got from a second.
This debate is a confluence of people not valuing picks highly enough, but importantly, overrating Davis. He's not a "good" corner. He's at best a slightly above average one.
In some ways, he's the worst kind of goodish player, because he's rarely just solid. He has games where he's incredible, but also many games where he's one of the worst players on the field (Rams, Texans).
On the balance, he hasn't been good, not bad, but not good. Certainly nowhere near a second-round value.
A second rounder should give you two years of solid starter play, PLUS two other year of solid backup play.
Indy got the first, not the second, and that's why it was a bad investment.
@smonroe V SF: 2 points on a safety, three scoring drives that started in Cardinals territory, including two inside the AZ 15.
Seattle: Had a drive start on the AZ one yard line after a turnover.
Defense didn't have it's best game that week, but wasn't nearly as bad as it looked. Offense killing them week after week.
2 weeks ago on Eyes in the Backfield: Cardinals
@Coltsheadben Geeze. Spell check hated my spelling so much it just quit.
@smonroe Their DVOA is insane. They also did a nice job on the Panthers and they are hamstrung by a really bad offense which isn't helping them.
Don't be fooled. Their D is very good. They are 29th in the league in turnovers on offense and 4th on defense. That's how they are 6-4.
@Roofio @Nate Dunlevy No argument there on passer rating, however, even when you dig into to PFF's ratings, you see how bad he's been more often than not. Their scout grades hinge on two games (Denver and Jacksonville), I don't believe those grades are all that useful as cumulative stats.
When you start digging into the numbers, you see he's bee quite poor more often than not, and has seven passes defended versus 6 TDs allowed, and has faced more targets than any other Colts CB, so there's no element of "Yeah, but teams avoid him!".
No one avoids him at all. He's just a guy.
No player I've covered has there ever been a bigger disparity between fan opinion and his actual level of play. He's an average corner. He was certainly not worth a second round pick.
2 weeks ago on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Ryan Grigson
I would put Davis in the bad column. His passer rating against is around 100. By no metric is he one of the better corners in the NFL.
@Bobman1 I agree with your ideal seeding, but I consider it highly unlikely. I think Indy is more likely to get the four than KC the one, so I'm rooting for Denver to get the one, because I don't want any piece of them in round one.
2 weeks, 1 day ago on Who to Root For: Week 12
@7IHd SoV is such a minor thing, I'd rather them lose. But I get your point.
I just think, what if Luck got hurt...
@mattshedd I almost made a tier for him. Seriously.
2 weeks, 2 days ago on Wilson, Newton, Luck and Kaepernick: Do Teams Still Need an Elite Quarterback to Win the Super Bowl?
@lucktab @couvy @Nate Dunlevy @travismj33 "The CA needs to admit when they make a mistake."
What is the mistake that has been made?
I admit I'm wrong all the time. This comes to mind: http://www.coltsauthority.com/18-to-88-2010-archives/september/an-open-letter-to-austin-collie.html
"This Colts team can play in any environment."
Based on WHAT? What evidence is there of that?
This team is just as one-dimensional as ever. Exactly what about them makes you think they can "win in any environment". Beyond that, what do you think that even means?
Also, what makes you think there is anything special about the playoffs that means winning the regular season wouldn't translate? There's no evidence that "playoff football" exists with any special formula.
Playoff football is EXACTLY like regular season football except for one thing: the sample sizes are smaller so there is more randomness in the results.
Stanford beat Oregon because of big plays. Not because of "toughness" or "style" or any of the dozen other idiot things commentators said about that game.
3 weeks, 6 days ago on Eyes in the Backfield Rams