Chandler#81 Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 I know it's awful early, but who's with me on expecting a bit of a downturn for the Colts this season? I think they had a huge boost last year with the influx of new blood, but they also got extremely lucky (pun intended). Their QB will be a long term fixture, so they should never be "horrible," but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them miss the playoffs. Yes. We weren't the only team to give away a game to them. This team was 3-13 the year before -challenging 0-16- on merit. Even before last season, it was ALL Manning. Is there an opening in the AFC playoffs???
Saint Doug Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) I think this signals the end of the Dansby talks. We did not draft a 2nd rounder LB to be depth, Kiko's going to start. And it's about time to poop or get off the pot for Nigel and Moats, so they're going to get their chance to shine. Dansby would have relegated one of them to back-up. We did not want them to be back-up, so we grabbed Hughes for this role. Besides, does anyone know if Dansby can play multiple LB positions (which appears to be a prerequisite)? Plus, out of all the QBs in the draft, although he may have the highest ceiling, Manuel is a project. He's not going to be expected to win this year and maybe not even year (depending on if he sees the field this year). There's no point of signing a high priced veteran this year. Edited April 30, 2013 by kas23
Canadian Bills Fan Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 I think this signals the end of the Dansby talks. We did not draft a 2nd rounder LB to be depth, Kiko's going to start. And it's about time to poop or get off the pot for Nigel and Moats, so they're going to get their chance to shine. Dansby would have relegated one of them to back-up. We did not want them to be back-up, so we grabbed Hughes for this role. Besides, does anyone know if Dansby can play multiple LB positions (which appears to be a prerequisite)? Plus, out of all the QBs in the draft, although he may have the highest ceiling, Manuel is a project. He's not going to be expected to win this year and maybe not even year (depending on if he sees the field this year). There's no point of signing a high priced veteran this year. I agree. I think if we were going to sign Dansby it would have happened already CBF
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 I know it's awful early, but who's with me on expecting a bit of a downturn for the Colts this season? I think they had a huge boost last year with the influx of new blood, but they also got extremely lucky (pun intended). Their QB will be a long term fixture, so they should never be "horrible," but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them miss the playoffs. Yeah I'm far from convinced that the Colts are a perennial playoff team. Everything fell right for them last year. However they do have the QB and that's half the battle right there. I honestly don't know if they have the coach or not because I think he only coached 3 games with Arians (now departed) coaching the other 13. I will say that Pagano's battle with cancer was a rallying point for the team last year. It won't be this year. I would be surprised to see Mario playing standup LB except in obvious passing situations. Mario's strength is his strength not his quickness off the edge. Plus he's way too good a run defending DL not to use there, IMO. Also, there would be some serious growing pains starting a rookie like Alonso as the mike but I agree that he does seem like the most likely candidate. In minicamp the Bills apparently lined up in a jumbo 3-man front with Carrington-Dareus-Branch with Mario as an OLB. When you consider Lawson's size on the other side, that's a big front even if they only play a 3-3.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Interestingly, Hughes had Football Outsiders' highest SackSeer projection the year he came out: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2010/introducing-sackseer They've probably tweaked their formula since then (it was the first year they introduced it), but still, it suggests he may have serious upside...
eball Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Yeah I'm far from convinced that the Colts are a perennial playoff team. Everything fell right for them last year. However they do have the QB and that's half the battle right there. I honestly don't know if they have the coach or not because I think he only coached 3 games with Arians (now departed) coaching the other 13. I will say that Pagano's battle with cancer was a rallying point for the team last year. It won't be this year. Agreed; they had a lot of "us against the world" stuff motivating them last season and that dynamic will have completely changed.
Saint Doug Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 The other question I have is why did the Colts decide to let Hughes go after his career best year? Although he didn't have a break-out season or one expected of a 1st round pick, he certainly showed improvement over the previous years. Maybe his numbers were a result of garbage time and/or dumb luck, like Maybin's?
Cash Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Interestingly, Hughes had Football Outsiders' highest SackSeer projection the year he came out: http://www.footballo...ducing-sackseer They've probably tweaked their formula since then (it was the first year they introduced it), but still, it suggests he may have serious upside... He just needs 23 sacks this year to meet his projection! The other question I have is why did the Colts decide to let Hughes go after his career best year? Although he didn't have a break-out season or one expected of a 1st round pick, he certainly showed improvement over the previous years. Maybe his numbers were a result of garbage time and/or dumb luck, like Maybin's? Very good question. And it's for exactly that reason that I expect Hughes to make the team as a backup and not do much when he sees the field. If we get anything more than that, it's a great bonus.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) The other question I have is why did the Colts decide to let Hughes go after his career best year? Although he didn't have a break-out season or one expected of a 1st round pick, he certainly showed improvement over the previous years. Maybe his numbers were a result of garbage time and/or dumb luck, like Maybin's? They signed a free agent from Green Bay and then used their #1 pick on players that play the same position. That said, i don't expect much from Hughes. I expected little to nothing from Sheppard who has no spot on this defense, as the one thing he could be used for he doesn't do well in the NFL. Hughes played the position he was supposed to play for only one year, last year, and he got 4 sacks in 6 starts, although he played in 16 I think. But he wasn't good. It's possible that Pettine can get the most out of his considerable skills but I'm not counting on it. He will likely be our last LB. Edited April 30, 2013 by Kelly the Dog
NoSaint Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 I don't know if they have any former Ravens D coaches but I know they converted Mathis and Freeney to OLBs last year so they're definitely more of a 3-4 team. That's right. isnt their head coach the last ravens DC? Though i just noticed that their DC was from the west coast 34 teams not baltimore. id guess they are pretty close relatives of as far as scheme goes.
Billsguy Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 I don't know if Jerry Hughes can play, but I do know that Kelvin Sheppard can't. Sheppard was AWOL on so many plays it was not surprising how bad the Bills defense was over the last year(s). You need a middle linebacker that is going to be significant and Sheppard was insignificant. The best part of a new coaching staff is looking at the personnel with fresh eyes. The Bills must have looked at the tape and said this guy (Sheppard) doesn't make any plays! I still think the best acquisition the Bills made since last year is Mike Pettine as DC. Hopefully Hughes can play well, but he is a mystery to me.
Leelee Phoenix Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 Sheppard is slow for an NFL MLB and can't cover anyone man-to-man. That's the big reason Pettine wanted to cut him, he does not fit his scheme at all.
KeisterHollow Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 This Hughes trade was sweet! If Hughes were in the draft this year, he'd of been picked within the first 2 or 3 rounds! Sheppard wasn't cutting it here. Now, just because Hughes didn't play great in Indy, it doesn't mean he isn't going to be good for us; and, with our team composed the way it is, all he's going to be expected to do is rush the passer from time to time. He's not expected to be a starter. With his measurables he could EASILY be a 6-8 sack a year type player, who plays maybe 12 plays a game. It was such a no-brainer, no risk move for us, and we got something for a guy we would've dropped anyway. Great move.
die hard bills fan Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 I think it was a good move. My feeling is they would have cut Shep prior to the season. Instead they got something for him now.
eball Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 FWIW, a guy I work with is a big Colts fan. He said Hughes didn't get more play as an edge rusher because he wasn't better than Freeney or Mathis, and he didn't do enough other things to justify staying on the field more. The way I look at this trade is that the Bills weeded out another player who doesn't fit Pettine's scheme, and at least brought in somebody with athletic talent. Not expecting much, but that's also what we got out of Shep.
JohnC Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 FWIW, a guy I work with is a big Colts fan. He said Hughes didn't get more play as an edge rusher because he wasn't better than Freeney or Mathis, and he didn't do enough other things to justify staying on the field more. The way I look at this trade is that the Bills weeded out another player who doesn't fit Pettine's scheme, and at least brought in somebody with athletic talent. Not expecting much, but that's also what we got out of Shep. The scheme issue had little to do with him being traded. He couldn't even play in a simple Wanny scheme. The major problem with Shepperd is his football instincts were atrocious. He couldn't anticipate the play or follow the ball. The MLB is supposed to be the most active player responding to the ball. If you watched the games he was one of the most invisible players playing the most visible position on defense. Systematically the new staff is weeding out non-productive players, of which there were many. Chalk his departure to another one of Nix's high draft choices being wasted. On the positive note the roster is being cleansed of the ineffective players; on a negative note the cycle of having to fix what you thought you already fixed continues.
Sumin Posted April 30, 2013 Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) Best of luck to Kelvin. This move makes sense to me, considering Sheppard never grew into his roles in past defensive schemes and doesn't fit into Pettine's current defense scheme. Don't expect a whole lot from Hughes. One positive about Hughes, however, is that he is versatile and can provide depth at certain positions, something Kelvin could not do This also further reaffirms that the new coaching staff wants to get rid of any nonproductive players, which I like. It makes no sense to retain a player you drafted who has been atrocious in order to preserve your own reputation~ doing that only hurts the team. Edited April 30, 2013 by Sumin
eball Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 The scheme issue had little to do with him being traded. He couldn't even play in a simple Wanny scheme. The major problem with Shepperd is his football instincts were atrocious. He couldn't anticipate the play or follow the ball. The MLB is supposed to be the most active player responding to the ball. If you watched the games he was one of the most invisible players playing the most visible position on defense. Systematically the new staff is weeding out non-productive players, of which there were many. Chalk his departure to another one of Nix's high draft choices being wasted. On the positive note the roster is being cleansed of the ineffective players; on a negative note the cycle of having to fix what you thought you already fixed continues. Good job turning this into another jab at Nix. Yes, I'm sure the Colts wanted to trade away a former 1st rounder for a guy who totally sucks -- and of course, I'm also certain the Colts watched no film of Sheppard and simply took the Bills' word for it that he's a good player. Amazing.
Chandler#81 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Best of luck to Kelvin. This move makes sense to me, considering Sheppard never grew into his roles in past defensive schemes and doesn't fit into Pettine's current defense scheme. Don't expect a whole lot from Hughes. One positive about Hughes, however, is that he is versatile and can provide depth at certain positions, something Kelvin could not do This also further reaffirms that the new coaching staff wants to get rid of any nonproductive players, which I like. It makes no sense to retain a player you drafted who has been atrocious in order to preserve your own reputation~ doing that only hurts the team. The world is a dark place for you, isn't it?
JohnC Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Good job turning this into another jab at Nix. Yes, I'm sure the Colts wanted to trade away a former 1st rounder for a guy who totally sucks -- and of course, I'm also certain the Colts watched no film of Sheppard and simply took the Bills' word for it that he's a good player. Amazing. You are absolutely right that I am taking a jab at Nix and his overall draft record. Shepperd was a third round draft pick who was less than mediocre. He simply couldn't play, regardless of the scheme. The Bills and the Colts were both trading two ineffectual players. Odds are that neither player will be making the roster of their respective teams. Not all high draft picks work out. That's the nature of the business. But when you have a high rate of faillure for your higher picks it is not surprising you end up with a record of 16-32 and an inability to beat teams with winning records. Don't be surprised when Aaron Williams, a second round pick, either doesn't make the final roster or becomes an inconsequential backup and ST player. Chalk that up to another Nix wasted high pick.
Recommended Posts