| Welcome to Coltpower. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Grading free agency | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 25 2014, 09:04 PM (163 Views) | |
Bent20
|
Mar 25 2014, 09:04 PM Post #1 |
|
Headed to Retirement
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One fan's (bleacherreport) take: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2004351-best-and-worst-moves-the-indianapolis-colts-made-in-free-agency B+ feels like a fair grade. |
![]() |
|
| CanadianColtsFan | Mar 26 2014, 09:13 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Pro Bowl'er
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have to agree with the Safety thing. They are on record saying S in this draft is deep, and they can address is there, and that is a good thing. This team needs to address more holes in the draft than it has the first 2 years, we can't be FA buyers every year. However, Clemons is an excellent cover S, what they need, and he is still on the market. He can be had for a 1 or 2 year deal, for what I assume is very reasonable money. I don't see why the Colts wouldn't sign him. I've heard before that the Colts consider the two S safety positions interchangeable, so maybe Clemons isn't as good against the run as they would like, but playing with two Landry types starting at S is not a recipe for success I don't think. |
![]() |
|
| errsay | Mar 26 2014, 10:27 AM Post #3 |
|
Pro Bowl'er
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As proven last year...Clemons is regarded as weak v.s. the run. Reason I selected Bucannon as our pick in round 2, was for these very reasons. Need, fit and value.
Edited by errsay, Mar 26 2014, 10:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| CanadianColtsFan | Mar 27 2014, 10:12 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Pro Bowl'er
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He certainly is weak against the run, this is a passing league though, and having a Centerfield type S like him to go with our man to man CB style would be helpful I think. I am no coach, or GM. If they think having two in the box types is best, then fine, I just don't see it. |
![]() |
|
| errsay | Mar 28 2014, 08:58 AM Post #5 |
|
Pro Bowl'er
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I certainly see your point and agree that we need a viable ballhawking Safety to offset Landry's limited range. Now was that limited range due in part to injury? Dunno... |
![]() |
|
| AustinColtsFan79 | Mar 28 2014, 10:24 AM Post #6 |
|
Pro Bowl'er
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ed Reed has never been a safety who lays people out and he did fine in a Pagano style system. |
![]() |
|
Bent20
|
Mar 28 2014, 11:13 AM Post #7 |
|
Headed to Retirement
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A quality safety can do both. I would hope that's what we're looking for in the draft. Some of the best safeties over the years have played in 3-4 defenses. We need a stud safety. |
![]() |
|
| errsay | Mar 28 2014, 11:16 AM Post #8 |
|
Pro Bowl'er
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Currently our most pressing need... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · 12th Man · Next Topic » |


Bent20




8:48 PM Jul 10