With all the talks surrounding Peyton and Luck. We are forgetting that Freeney is in the last year in his huge contract. With the colts switching to a 3-4, maybe the colts should try to trade Freeney! Just like the Pats did with Seymour. The Bucs, Jags, and Falcons all need a D.E. and they all have plenty of cap space. The Bucs and Jags have great first round pick. I think the Colts should be able to get a 1st or more for a HOF DE. What does everyone else?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.
0 recs | 78 comments
Doubtful
I really doubt that a 32-year-old DE scheduled to make $19 million will attract a 1st round pick, much less a top 7 pick.
But I really don’t mind the Colts getting rid of Freeney. Yes, he’s one of the best pass rushers in the league. Yes, he’s our best defensive player. But he doesn’t fit in with a 3-4 hybrid. He doesn’t fit with the Colts’ rebuilding plans. His cap number is atrocious. He’s a liability against the run. And even as an effective 4-3 pass rusher, he can easily be gameplanned against (running at him, roll outs away from him, keeping a TE to block, having a RB chip his outside).
I wouldn’t mind trading him, but I doubt it’ll return a 1st round pick. I’d still pull the trigger on a high 2nd rounder though, giving the Colts 3 picks in the first ~40 picks. Grab Luck, either a stud DT or CB (Minnefield or Poe), and a top TE (Fleener or Dwayne Allen). Now that’s a great start to rebuilding a franchise.
kmbryant09 - February 16, 2012
wrong
freeney can fit in any defense. and his cap number should be reduced by extending him. not cutting him
he isnt necessarily a liability against the run. it depends on how they play him. i expect to see one of his best years next year.
we dont need a te. we especially dont need one early
omahacolt - February 16, 2012
I don't know about a 3-4 defense for Dwight
Guy is amazing and a great work ethic, so I’m definitely not saying it won’t work, but it’ll be a big difference for him. I have my doubts but I hope he can fit.
stonewall12345678 - February 16, 2012
of course you dont know
because you dont know how they will use him.
freeney will be fine. any dc (worth his salt) could work with his talents in any system
omahacolt - February 16, 2012
You're so cute when your overly-critical for no reason
I just want to give you a squeeze
stonewall12345678 - February 16, 2012
Problem is
They aren’t bringing in a few new coaches to work with our personnel.
We’ve brought in a new General Manager in charge of player evaluation. We have a new Head Coach who brings about an entirely new philosophy. We have an entirely new coaching staff surrounding him, all of the defensive coordinators have a 3-4 background.
We’re bringing in a new front office to start over from scratch. The GM brings in his coaches. His coaches bring in their own assistants. And they all bring in their own players. Will we see 53 new players next year? Of course not. But don’t expect our new coaching staff to cater their schemes 100% around our current personnel.
That’s just not how rebuilding works in the NFL.
kmbryant09 - February 16, 2012
dude
i love freeney as much as anyone…hell i own a freeney jersey and not even a peyton jersey. but he does not fit in 3-4 scheme. He is too small for 3-4 DE. he would need to be a space eater at DE which he is not. And he needs his hand on the ground as a pass rusher because his finest tool is his low center of gravity. He gets under blockers then around them. If he’s standing he would have trouble with that. Sure he could still be ok maybe because he is a great great nfl player but if you’re asking me or even a true nfl expert…no one says freeney works in 3-4.
Bradman721 - February 17, 2012
Agree
But I don’t think we can get any high picks a for him. I say a 3rd rounder! Doesn’t worth to trade him. We should keep him for his last year, thank him for everything he has done and let him walk next year. But find a proper 3-4 rushing OLB this year to replace him
Also as much as I want Robert Mathis back I think he will get max contract somewhere else…
Nojan - February 17, 2012 via mobile
agree agree
right i wasnt saying trade him because i dont think we can get any value with him. i was just proving a point that he’s not a 3-4 guy. If we could trade him for say a 4th rounder possibly the unlikely 3rd somehow I’d be happy. (still gonna be hard to say goodbye obviously)
Bradman721 - February 17, 2012
not really true
Mario Williams played upright. you’re discounting freeneys other moves. Suggs lines up 50/50 at olb and de. pagano coached the ravens D and our new d coordinator is from the wade Phillips 3-4 system, where Williams excelled. either mathis or freeney can play 3-4 olb. since the system is going to be a hybrid at worst, you’d be stupid to get rid of both
BigBrueShoe - February 21, 2012 via Android app
You need to understand that not every player is a fit in every system
There’s no doubt that Freeney is talented, and some of his talents would certainly translate to any defensive system.
But Freeney NEEDS his hand in the ground to be a successful pass rusher, which means we’d be in a 4-3 defense every single snap that he plays on defense. It does not sound like Grigson, Pagano, or Manusky plan to keep a lot of 4-3 looks on defense.
Extending him certainly is an option. But he’d still count $10-12 million for the next few years, which is still a hefty amount to pay a 32-year-old DE. He’ll be leaving his prime in the next 2-3 seasons, which is precisely when the rest of our team should (hopefully) start competing for serious playoff runs. If we weren’t in re-building mode, I’d be all for retaining Freeney at a reduced price.
He isn’t necessarily a liability against the run? What fockin games have you been watching? Freeney and Mathis combined for 6 tackles in a 4 week stretch. Mathis has actually improved against the run (still below average), but Freeney doesn’t give a sh!t about playing the run. I love the guy, he’s an absolute beast of a pass-rusher, but how many times do you see him explode up field only to open up a HUGE lane for the RB.
TE is certainly not our most pressing need. But Dallas Clark has regressed, and hasn’t stayed healthy for 2 seasons. He’s also old, and costs a lot of money for a team in re-building mode. If he isn’t cut this season, he’ll be gone next year. Jacob Tamme is a Free Agent, and is mediocre at best (A great backup, solid #2, but nothing more).
kmbryant09 - February 16, 2012
i understand that
of course not every player fits every scheme
1) if we trade him then fine, but he can fit in the new scheme. it can work. saying otherwise is a bit foolish. remember, i think any coach coming in and trying to make this a 3-4 team when we have de’s like freeney and mathis (if resigned) and the shit linebackers is foolish anyway. moving to the 3-4 makes zero sense to me when almost half the teams are running a 3-4
2) you are confusing what we had freeney do to what he can do. the huge lane for the rb was scheme. thats just a fact. look at the 06 playoff run. freeney played the run during those games. when we asked him to actually play the run. he did it. i am not saying the guy was great at it, but he wasnt a liability.
3) clark has regressed? thats a bit premature to be saying that. it is all the rage on football boards to say but i am not buying it. we need a good te for luck. and clark is that guy. i dont give a damn either way about tamme. that kid is way overhyped among colts fans. we dont need to draft a te this year. work on that at a later time unless we grab a guy later to develop
omahacolt - February 17, 2012
Good response...
1) I’m not saying Freeney can absolutely not play in a 3-4, but why is it foolish to suggest that his skills won’t translate, when you’re simply suggesting that his skills will translate without any problems? Why isn’t that latter statement foolish? If anything, it sounds like he doesn’t even want to play in a 3-4.
Also, you might think moving to a 3-4 is foolish, you are entitled to think that. But why do you think Pagano was hired as the Head Coach, and Manusky hired as the D.C.?? They are both 3-4 guys. They weren’t brought in to fit their system to our players. That’s not how rebuilding works.
2) I highly doubt that Freeney can be solid against the run. Not at 32. Not after a few injuries. And not after doing NOTHING against the run in 5 years. If a system change is all that was needed, I will eat crow. But he did not even attempt to stop the run at all for the past few seasons. Can some of it be attributed to coaching/scheme? Probably, but not 100%.
3) C’mon now. Clark absolute has regressed. He’s visibly been a step slower each of the past 2 seasons, both straight line speed and quickness in and out of breaks. He’s also looked disinterested this past season without Manning throwing him the football. Not to mention his horrendous case of the drops early in the season. Not to mention he’s 32. Not to mention he’s due a lot of money the next 2 years. Even if Clark stays healthy and performs at a high level (big if’s), he’ll 100% be gone in 2 seasons. Agreed that Tamme isn’t anything special.
We don’t NEED to draft a TE this year. But that’s because it’s not our BIGGEST need. It most definitely is a need…considering Clark’s performance, age, and contract…and as you admitted – Tamme is nothing special. I think our biggest priority (ignoring QB) is NT, followed by CB (hopefully a lot is fixed by scheme), then WR/TE. I don’t really see a difference maker being available at #34 at the WR position, but I can easily see Dwayne Allen or Coby Fleener being available, and I believe both will be difference makers in the NFL.
kmbryant09 - February 17, 2012
ok
1) because they will use him in a way that he will be just rushing the passer. i think freeney is much more athletic than given credit for. they are not going to use him as a new england type 3-4 olb. also, i am under the impression that we are far away from running a base 3-4. only a moronic coach is going to force the 3-4 on this team this year. probably not next year either.
go back and watch the tape of the 06 playoff games. watch the difference in how our ends played. freeney played the run. and played it fine. watch in 2010, on our way to the playoffs. our run d got better. freeney played it better. if our coaches held him to his gap, he wouldnt be such a liability. and he wasnt. i dont want to hear about tackles. they are irrelvant.
2) clark looked disinterested? give me a fucking break. that is just retarded. clark is fine for the next couple years. if we want to run a 3-4 then we need to get some dlineman and linebackers. taking a te would not be in the best interest of the team
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
2) Well according to you, we are a few years away from running a 3-4, so we can afford to take a TE, right?
But seriously, don’t call my observation of Clark as retarded. How can you honestly think he played like the same Dallas Clark this past season? That’s a fucking joke.
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
clark had a rough year.
that doesnt mean he was “disinterested”
thats an insult to his character and i think it is unwarranted and retarded. saying he had a down year makes sense.
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
I'm saying
His effort level, his competition level, his overall effort seemed lackadaisical. It’s somewhat understandable given the team’s level of success.
When most 30+ year-old’s have 2 injury-plagued seasons with declined production, that’s not usually considered “a down year”. Typically, we call that regressing/aging/declining/etc.
But call it whatever pleases you. He had a horrible 2011, and a ho-hum 2010. He developed a serious case of the drops. He’s had 2 serious injuries each of the last 2 seasons. He’s battled injuries (albeit minor) throughout his entire career. He’s due a ton of money the next 2 seasons. And the team is in rebuilding mode.
And TE isn’t a need?
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
no
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
yes
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
what do we need more
a defensive tackle
or a tight end?
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
Can you read?
I’ve stated MULTIPLE TIMES that TE is not the most pressing need.
In fact, your reading comprehension must be extremely low, because I SPECIFICALLY STATED that a NT was our biggest need.
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
then stop
talking about drafting a te in the 2nd round.
jesus man.
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
You change your argument way too much
Conveniently as soon as your argument is proven wrong.
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
i didnt change my argument
just trying to explain to you that te is not a big concern right now.
and you agree but are arguing with me anyway for some insane reason.
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
No
You argued TE is not a need, and that Dallas Clark has not shown signs of regressing over the past few seasons.
I proved your points wrong, and you go from saying that TE is not a need – to DT is a bigger need, which is something that I’ve been saying all along.
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
wait a second
you proved me wrong? no you didnt
te is not a need. you said clark has regressed. that is easy to say when the guy was hurt. he is only 32 and has plenty of gas in the tank
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
It's easy to say...
Because Clark has been injured and his production has declined each of the past 2 seasons. And at the age of 32, that’s not considered a “down year”. That’s considered regression.
And are you too stupid to recognize the difference between a NEED and a TOP PRIORITY?!?!? TE is not a top priority, but it is a need. When your only semi-competent TE is a 32-year-old coming off of 2 injury-plagued, disappointing seasons on a team that is in complete rebuilding mode…then TE is a need.
TE, Center, Offensive Guard, and Wide Receiver (we have 0 starting-caliber WR’s under contract) are all needs. But they probably won’t be addressed this offseason because of the more pressing needs – QB, NT, CB, SS. That doesn’t mean those other positions aren’t needs.
Learn the difference before you insult people.
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
when did i insult you?
you are the one saying idiot and too stupid and just generally being a douchebag.
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
oh and here is a hint
when a player gets hurt for a couple years, his production usually goes down.
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
Even when healthy?
I didn’t realize that a 32-year-old coming off of 2 injury-plagued seasons WITH declined production ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD is given a free pass and dismissed as “an off year”.
Oh, and you originally called one of my ideas retarded.
As for Freeney – you first said that he’d fit in any system. Then you suggest that they’ll cater the system to him.
As for Clark – first you said it’s not a need. Then you gave Clark a pass for 2 bad seasons. Then you seemed to admit that TE is a need, just not as big of a need as DT (something I’ve repeatedly said).
As for Bush – First you said he’s awful. Plain and simple. Then you said he would’ve cost too much money – when we gave an equal amount of money to Joseph Addai. Then you argued he wouldn’t have helped our team (which is pretty moronic). Then you argued that it didn’t make sense to sign him since we had 2 1st-round-draft-picks on our roster (which not only wasn’t true since Addai wasn’t signed, but our other 1st rounder, D. Brown, was a complete bust…something I guarantee you said coming into this season.
Often times you are right. Sometimes you are wrong. When you’re wrong, instead of simply admitting to such, you try and twist your argument and throw random facts out there in hopes that they support your ever-changing argument. Sounds like you can’t admit when you’re wrong.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
how was i wrong at all
everything i said is correct.
and i didnt call you retarded. just your idea. there is a difference
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
You said we had 2 1st rounders on our roster when we discussed Reggie Bush.
That was wrong.
Let’s start with that.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
fair enough
you got me. sorry for being incorrect. i do hope you will accept my apology.
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
And
You were wrong about Reggie Bush being awful.
When’s the last time an awful player has rushed for 1,100 yards with a 5.0 average? Not becoming the feature back until week 7, which coincidentally saw an 0-7 team finish 6-3 down the stretch.
Saying Reggie Bush was an awful football player proved to be wrong.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
reggie bush is awful
he had his best year but that doesnt mean he is good.
matt moore playing well and the defense made them go 6-3 down the stretch.
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
Just to clarify...
If a RB rushes for 1,086 yards, a 5.0 average, catches 43 passes and scores 7 TD’s – all while only being the feature back for 9 games. Rushing for 90+ yards in 6 of those 9 games, including 4 100+ yard game to finish out the season, including a 200+ yard performance………………..He’s awful?
WRONG.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
correct
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
You're awful
And wrong.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
We had...
1 performance of 90+ yards from a running back. Our 4th highest rushing output came from Curtis Painter.
And you think Reggie Bush wouldn’t have helped this team.
WRONG.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
correct
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
bush
would have been no help to us and it would have been beyond retarded to bring him in as a colt.
polian agreed with me and so does the world. well, almost the world.
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
The rest of the world?
Who else is saying Reggie Bush is awful?
Who else is saying he wasn’t better than Donald Brown, Joseph Addai, and Delone Carter?
You’re too stubborn to admit when you’re wrong. I’m done proving you wrong. Whatever helps you sleep at night man, you should be a GM with how often you’re right and how spot on your player analysis was with Bush.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
i disagree
and i admitted i was wrong. how you think bush is a good fit for us is beyond me.
again. bush on the dolphins isnt the same as bush on the colts
omahacolt - February 19, 2012
You're awful
And wrong.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
And
You pulled the same shit about the Reggie Bush argument.
First you said Bush is “awful”.
Then you said he would cost too much money.
Then you said, after his phenomenal season, that he wouldn’t have helped the Colts.
You just don’t like to acknowledge when you’re wrong – I guess that way you always get to be right!
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
wait a second
1) reggie bush is awful. that was not a phenomenal season. you have low expectations if you think that was phenomenal
2) he would have cost too much money. we also have 2 first rounders at rb on the roster and just drafted a 4th rounder. yet you wanted to waste money on another rb. how on earth does that make sense? it didnt then and it doesnt now
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
Hmm, where to start...
Reggie Bush is awful? He rushed for nearly 1,086 yards (11th in the league). he averaged 5.0 yards per carry (11th in the league – of the 10 players ahead of them…they were ALL either part-time backs, injured, or QB’s). He also caught 43 passes, and scored 7 TD’s.
Also, did I mention that he didn’t become the feature back until week 7??
That’s awful?? You’re fuckin’ stupid.
He signed a 2 year/$9 million contract, a similar contract to Joseph Addai’s. Addai rushed for 433 yards, a 3.7 average, and only scored 1 TD. And he was also injured and missed 4 games.
And to top it all off – your argument was never about money, or competition/playing time. Your one and only argument was the Reggie Bush sucked. And he (and my argument) proved you wrong this season.
And p.s. – at the time of the argument – the Colts had exactly 1 first round RB under contract, and he was a COMPLETE BUST. Don’t try and twist facts to support your argument.
kmbryant09 - February 18, 2012
big deal
the guy is horrible and shouldnt be on the team.
you also cant pretend like those numbers would have been the same on the colts
the guy is horrible
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
You're horrible.
kmbryant09 - February 19, 2012
miamis offense was pretty comparable to indys
BigBrueShoe - February 21, 2012 via Android app
They don't run the ball
toward Freeney’s side very often which tells me that offensive coordinators aren’t necessarily on the Freeney sucks against the run band wagon. Even so, with the DTs generally tripping over their shoelaces and everyone in the back seven out of place, you would be asking Freeney to cover half of the field, which is impossible. In the times the team was playing well, like the ‘06 playoffs, it wasn’t Freeney changing anything that made the Colts D impossible to run against. It was the back 7 deciding to play with discipline and the DTs winning a little in the middle.
The Patriots have a plan when they trade someone like Seymour. I’m not completely against trading Freeney, but there is nobody else on the roster that can play his spot. If we had a Justin Tuck II in the offing, maybe. This defense isn’t going to be all-new this coming season. That would be a disaster. It would be like replacing rotten boards in your boat’s hull—in the middle of the pond. The bad ones are better than none. You have to morph it and turn it, not throw it out and replace it. You don’t get 20 new defensive players this year. If you are going for a QB with the first pick, you don’t get Dwight Freeney, Mario Williams, etc defenders. You get a second round pick defensive lineman, which will be a player none of the other 31 teams thought was a top defender. These D-line guys are tough to find elite. The new staff will have to make tough choices and it’s my guess we’ll see the 4-3 back with some 3-4 packages and a draft that leans more toward 3-4 players. We’ll see all kinds of stuff in training camp and the pre-season while they figure out who goes where. I think we’ll see Freeney in his usual spot, maybe even rushing with his hand down outside of another DE.
wcwills - February 16, 2012
Duhhhh
That’s why we drafted Jerry Hughes!
kmbryant09 - February 16, 2012
Why did we draft Hughes?
I guess I’m to stoopid to see where your remark fits.
wcwills - February 17, 2012
Your line about
“I’m not completely against trading Freeney, but there is nobody else on the roster that can play his spot. If we had a Justin Tuck II in the offing, maybe”.
It was a joke.
kmbryant09 - February 17, 2012
I've seen...
…some people talking about how the colts need a lot of components of the 3-4, and how the switch will necessitate a lot of new defensive personnel. I can’t disagree more! I think Freeney is 100% ideal for the 3-4 OLB role. A monster pass-rusher. Quickness and athleticism up the ying-yang. About 260 lbs, which is prototypical. Mathis is a little small at around 240 lbs, but he’s so fast and athletic that I think he’ll fit great too. Wheeler was a pass rusher in college, so he could come back as a back-up, and Hughes could get a new life there. Besides, all of our DTs would be great 3-4 DEs, particularly Nevis. The ONLY thing we lack is a 325 lb. DT, which we can take care of in FA and the draft. I’m getting excited about adding a 3-4 D, especially after the Texans implemented it so well in their 1st year (with less to work with IMHO).
Hetfield - February 17, 2012
To pull a OmahaColt
Wrong.
Freeney isn’t ideal for the 3-4 OLB role. He’s never played a single snap of it.
We do have some candidates for DE’s, but every lineman is either too small (Nevis), or lacks talent (Moala, A. Johnson).
kmbryant09 - February 17, 2012
To pull a Kmbryant09
Wrong.
Y’know, Mario Williams hadn’t played a snap of it before last year, and he did alright. I say that Freeney’s skill set is perfect for the 3-4 OLB…
Hetfield - February 17, 2012
Quite honestly neither of you are wrong
Opinions can’t be wrong, so therefore it’s rude to say so. We’ll find out over the next couple of months whether or not Dwight will even be on this team and then go on to see if he can switch positions. One side note though for Hetfield, do note that Dwight is not the athletic freak that Mario Williams is, just food for thought.
stonewall12345678 - February 17, 2012
I can't really speak about Mario Williams
But Freeney is a hell of an athlete. When he came into the league he was ran sub 4.5 40 and probably had one of the fastest if not the fastest time 0-10 yards of any DE ever. The fact that Freeney was even on the board when we picked him at like #13 if I’m not mistaken was only due to the beleif by a lot of teams that he was under sized. Hell, Freeney was the Centerfielder on his high school baseball team. That is athletic man.
modern_day_warrior - February 17, 2012
To suggest that
Freeney is a perfect fit for a 3-4 OLB is a ridiculous statement. That statement suggests that he’s been playing the wrong position as a 4-3 DE all of his career.
Mario Williams was what, 25 when he made the switch? He also didn’t rely solely on 3 moves as a pass-rusher. Freeney uses speed (burst with his hand in the ground) and spin move (counter to the speed rush) and bull rush (when he thinks the OT is dropping back too much). It’s nearly impossible to gain the same burst without your hand in the ground.
Freeney has also suggested (via his friend, Bullock) that he has no interest in changing positions at this point in his career.
kmbryant09 - February 17, 2012
We'll see
you might be right. Freeney may not be any good standing up but I don’t think it will have anything to do with his pass rushing techniques. I could have a lot more to do with how he moves in space and as you say, if he can generate the burst that he does now when his hand is on the ground.
modern_day_warrior - February 17, 2012
have you seen wares pass rushing techniques?
Freeney would do pretty well as a 3-4 OLB
BigBrueShoe - February 21, 2012 via Android app
Don't must have Freeney playing ROLB.
You can still have Freeney at RDE like he plays in the 4-3 position right now, but move to an odd formation, much like what the Baltimore Ravens do with Cory Redding at LDE and Terrell Suggs at ROLB but many times in a 3 point stance like a RDE. Cory Redding is bigger than Freeney, but it’s the general formula, Freeney can still play at 9-tech, 6-tech, and 7-tech and occasionally play in a 2 point stance. Though this way, Jerry Hughes would still be useless as he would have to be in 3 point stance. But it is always an option.
KBUnitz - February 17, 2012
If we take on Pagano's old defense in Baltimore, our base D will look like this:
Notice that the ROLB is listed as ‘B’ in this scheme because that player primarily has his hand in the ground and rushes from the nine tech – which is exactly what he does now. How hard is it to believe that Freeney will be able to on occasion fall back into coverage and be able to be replaced by a more pure 3-4 OLB when he takes his normal, regular rest.
Mathis has always had more of a prototypical 3-4 OLB body than a 4-3 DE. If there is a short list of the best candidates in the NFL to move from 4-3 DE to 3-4 OLB Mathis would be near the top.
Freeney and Mathis should and could be our OLB in a hybrid 3-4 scheme.
Also notice all three down linemen are play a two gap technique meaning both middle linebackers can be smaller and instinctive (read Angerer, Brackett or Connor). This is not true in a Bum Phillips or San Diego type 3-4 as the three down linemen shoot one gap each and the middle linebacker have to be big enough to maintain a gap by themselves.
bbxxj - February 17, 2012
good post
If Pagano and Manusky are worth a squat they will find a place for Freeney to play that will still allow them to use his strengths
modern_day_warrior - February 17, 2012
You know there is one-gap 3-4 too?
Ty46 - February 18, 2012
True,
but the version he is explaining is the one Chuck ran before
stonewall12345678 - February 18, 2012
Of course I do. It’s right there in the last paragraph. I don’t see why Pagano would install that as he didn’t run it when he was in Baltimore.
bbxxj - February 18, 2012 via mobile
Options
Either restructure/extend his contract to ease his cap hit, or trade him for a middle round pick. The worst scenario would be to pay him $19million to try him out in a new system, then let him go for nothing but a compensatory pick the next year.
Touchdown.Jesus - February 17, 2012
Too late to restructure
He is in the last year of his contract so there aren’t any years to spread a restructure over. The Colts will most likely play him this year with his $19m cap hit,
modern_day_warrior - February 17, 2012
Freeney Can't Play 3-4
He isn’t a 2-gap DE, and even if he could learn how to be a LOLB at 32, he doesn’t want to, nor should he be forced to. This is totally unlike Albert Haynesworth declaring that he didn’t want to be an NT (though the Skins actually did want him to play a lot of DE and rush the passer) right after signing that $100 million contract. Freeney is in – or near – the last year of his contract, and more importantly has put in his time with the NFL and the Colts (10 years, 100 sacks) and has the right to have his preferences in the scheme that he is going to play in. Plus, how effective would a 6’1", nearly 270 lb guy be at OLB? I know I said that he could make the transition in an earlier comment, but now … naaah. The Colts pretty much knew when they hired their HC/DC that it meant saying goodbye to Freeney.
And no, Freeney won’t get much in a trade because of the combination of age and salary. You’d be picking up a guy that most folks figure would only have 3-4 good years left at most.
an_auburn_fan - February 17, 2012
Nicely put...
This is going to be his last year as a colts. He will be missed. One of the best pure pass rushers ever
Nojan - February 17, 2012 via mobile
freeney isn't a hall of famer..
BLOODontheTRACKS - February 17, 2012
How Many Guys With 100 Sacks Aren't In The Hall of Fame?
Plus he still has 3 good years left in him. He could easily end up with 135 sacks.
But his resume right now: 7 time Pro Bowler in 10 years, and one of the years that he didn’t go he only played 9 games due to injury. Another year he didn’t go was his rookie year when he had 13 sacks. 3 time first team all pro. Not a Hall of Famer my foot.
More important: the best player on what was considered to be an average defense on a longtime contender that went to 2 Super Bowls and 14 overall playoff games. Had he played on a better defense, say with guys at DT and LB that teams actually cared about blocking, who knows what his stats would have been.
an_auburn_fan - February 17, 2012
this is a colts site...did you really think you had to tell me his history?
mark gastineau, sean jones, greg townsend, pat swilling, jim jeffcoat, william fuller all have 100 sacks or more and aren’t in the hof.
to me freeney is just too one dimensional. his career high in tackles is almost jared allen’s career low. he might make the hall, but he isn’t the shoe in every colt fan thinks… especially if he has more seasons like the one he just had.
BLOODontheTRACKS - February 18, 2012
Well
I think if freeney was healthy in the superbowl we would have won! There was absolutly no goddam pressure on drew brees…
That game still hunts me to this day
Nojan - February 18, 2012 via mobile
that game hunts you?
haha.
omahacolt - February 18, 2012
meh..
brees went to a 3 step drop and the db’s gave their usual cushion so i don’t think freeney would have made a huge difference.
BLOODontheTRACKS - February 18, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Stampede Blue to post a comment.