We've all been wondering how the Colts were planning on sorting out the bevy of wide receivers on the roster.  With the news that Caldwell is contemplating four wide sets, Kuharsky wonders how the division will cope.  This may well be the 'tweak' that was referenced when discussing how Christensen will affect the new offense.  BBS wondered if that didn't mean more running plays, but what if it means fewer?

The Colts percentage of run plays has been steadily declining for some time.  Granted, the run offense has been getting worse, so it has made sense to run less.  However, with the way the game in the NFL is in constant flux, and with teams challenging the Colts to score with fewer possessions than ever through chicanery, maybe Caldwell is signalling a dawn of a truly dynamic wide open attack in Indy.  I'm not saying we are going to go run and shoot or anything, but it could well be the run/pass percentage could keep dropping.

It's not hard to see why such a strategy would be appealing.  Why run the ball for only 3.8 yards a pop when the passing game regularly averages twice that much?  The problem with spreading out to four wides is that either Clark or Addai has to come off the field.  I can certainly envision instances where such a move could pay dividends, but over the long haul you want both of those guys on the field as much as possible.

There are two offenses in the NFL.  One is the offense you wish you could run, and the other is the offense that fits your personell.  The Colts may or may not dream of being a power run team that picks up third and ones with ease.  However, to build that kind of offensive line will take time.  In the mean time, the offensive brain trust would be wise to continue to find ways to utilize the skills the team does have.

If you can't do what you want, get the most out of what you've got.

Four wides sounds like a good start.

Last Friday night, I participated in my fantasy league's annual draft.  We've been playing together as a league for a decade now, starting with the 2000 season. I think I had a good draft, that is to say I followed my rules.

You see, I'm a great fantasy baseball player, but a terrible drafter.  I make tons of mistakes every year, but I try to make the kinds of mistakes that you can recover from, more on that in a moment.  I manage to finish in the top three of a competitive league every year because I don't wind up with a sunk team from the start.

For the record we play a 5X5 Roto league with keepers.  We have 10 teams and 25 man rosters with one bench and DL slot.   Each team gets five keepers based on the previous year's draft position.  You can keep any player without penalty for two years, and then he advances 10 slots every year until it costs you a first round pick to keep the player.  This year, my keepers were Tulowiski (8th round), Youklis (18th), Pedroia (20th), Pablo Sandoval (24th), Ian Kinsler (25).  The last to players were waiver wire pickups from previous years.

Here are my infallible rules for drafting.  You may not have a great draft if you follow these rules, but you will have a well constructed team that will let you erase mistakes later on:

1.  Don't take a pitcher in the first round

Listen, most of the time the elite Cy Young type pitchers have fluctuation in their seasons.  It's good to draft pitchers early, just not right away.  In a conventional draft (without keepers), focus on a big power bat that will cover RBIs, HRs, and average.  There aren't a lot of those guys, so take one early.

2. Do take pitchers in the early rounds

Don't be afraid to load up on starting pitchers in rounds 2-5.  This year my staff consists of Halladay, Felix Hernandez, Peavy, and Vasquez.  Personally, I focus on guys with a good WHIP.  Wins are too unpredictable, and ERA can be fluky.  WHIP and Ks are stats you can count on.  Get several really good top shelf pitchers in the beginning rounds and then stay away from most of the mid level guys.  They are too variable.  Sometimes they pay off, but generally they blow up and kill your numbers.  The only mid level guy I took this year was Scott Baker.

3.  Don't take a closer before the 9th or 10th round.

Don't do it.  Let some other schumck take Rivera.  You don't need him.  Saves are the easiest stat to vulture.  Once the 9th round rolls by, make a run on closers.  Take at least five, generally in a row.  Often the 20th ranked closer provides about as many saves as the 8th.  Scoop them all up.  Here's why:  Saves are easy to trade.  Someone always needs them. If you have five to seven closers on your roster, you have the capital you need to avoid mistakes.  The best part is that you will have a feel for how they are doing.  If a guy looks shaky, you should be first in line to scoop his replacement off the wire.  Fill all bench slots with closers or potential closers.  By the end of the draft you should have seven or eight possible closers on your roster. Closers don't have the same kinds of innings

4.  Punt batting average

It's too hard to trade for.   That means you can't get it if you need it, and if you have it, no one wants it.  It doesn't always lead to runs or steals the way home runs tend to yield RBIs.  I don't even consider average.  My teams always finish at or near the top of the league, but I'm perennially 9th or 10th in batting average.

5.  Don't take a catcher until the last 5 rounds.

After Joe Mauer, catchers are all basically the same.  Don't waste a high pick on a guy unless he's super elite.  Even if he is, he probably won't play much more than 130 games a year. Stay away from the Brian McCann's of the world.  They cost too much and don't typically pay off much better than some guy you can have in the 20th round.

6.  Fill your bench slots with pitchers.

Early in the season, fill your bench with potential closers and starters who might pan out.  A few bad starts can ruin your WHIP and ERA for months, so don't necessarily start dicey pitchers, but have them around just in case.  To win the league, you'll need a guy or two to come out of nowhere.

Everyone misses on some players.  Some guy you pick will bust.  What this system does is create a roster that has players with value that can be moved in trades.  Closers, steals, and home runs tend to bring back more value in deals than what they are really worth.  This way if you get crushed with injuries or just make some bad picks, you'll have the ammunition necessary to restock.

Everyone loves to whine about the East Coast Bias, but after watching the NCAA tournament this weekend, the whiners certainly had a complaint.  All season, I heard the talking heads yammer endlessly about how great the Big East was.  The conference put 8 teams in the tournament, almost all of which had superior seeds.  Louisville was the lowest seeded Big East team with a 9.  The Big East had two 2s, two 3s, and a one seed.  They should have dominated the Sweet 16.

Instead, they advanced just Syracuse (their one) and West Virginia (a two).  Meanwhile, the lowly Big 10 slapped three teams into the Sweet 16.  What's really impressive is that two of those teams advanced despite losing arguably their best player (Lucas for MSU, Hummel for Purdue).  If the Big East was located 1000 miles from Bristol, CN, I wonder if they would have gotten the same attention.

It's also fascinating to note all the coaches with Indiana ties that are advancing.  This is not a criticism of IU hiring Tom Crean.  He was the right hire, and needs at least 5 years before we can judge his work.  He took over what was essentially a death penalty program.  This is more a commentary on how bad the Kelvin Sampson hire was.  Still when you see Matta, Painter, Drew, and Stevens all in the Sweet 16 it makes you wonder why someone like Sampson was ever brought in.  Shoot, New Mexico had a rough second round, but Alford is proving he can coach too.  It hurts having a Hoosier-free March. Well, not really Hoosier-free as much as "full of ex-IU players and ex-potetial IU coaches all having success at other schools" March.

I'll just have to keep pulling for the Bulldogs to uphold Hoosier pride and also to keep making the Big East look fraudulent.

The new overtime is still a long way from a done deal.  24 NFL teams have to agree to adopt it, and that will likely be a close vote.  The Colts have played two overtime playoff games this decade, and on the surface neither would have been affected.  However, this is a case where had the rules been different everything might have changed.  Let's look at the two games and see what could have happened.

2000 Playoffs  Dolphins 23  Colts 17

The Colts opening drive of overtime stood at the Dolphins 42. On third and 12, Manning hit Harrison for 11 yards down to the 'Fins 31.  There was also a five yard offsides on the Dolphins.  Faced with a fourth and 1 or a third and 7, Colts coach Jim "0-6 in the playoffs for my career" Mora opted to go for a game winning 49 yard field goal with Mike Vanderjagt.  Vandy missed the FG badly. The Colts defense, already exhausted from a 14 play drive to give up a 7 point lead at the end of regulation got run over by the Dolphins who scored the winning touchdown on the next drive.

Why the rule doesn't apply:  The Colts won the toss

What would have changed? Maybe everything.  In fact, the rule would likely have saved Jim Mora from himself.  No coach would have declined a penalty in that situation if he knew that that a long field goal would not actually win the game.  Surely, Mora would have had the common sense to either go for the fourth and one or more sanely, accept the penalty and take a 3rd and 7 from the 37.  Given another play, the Colts could have either moved the ball into more makeable range (which for Vandy was about 25 yards if the kick mattered at all), or driven for the game winning touchdown. Honestly, I don't believe rules should save coaches from making idiot decisions, but then again, I hope never to have another coach like Jim Mora.

2008 Playoffs  Chargers 23  Colts 17

The Chargers won the toss.  They then converted two critical third downs. The first was on a screen pass that should have been stopped.  The second was a questionable illegal contact call.  They also fumbled on the drive.  Still, on 2nd and 12 from the 22, Darren Sproules rambled for 22 yards and a touchdown to win the game.

Why the rule doesn't apply:  The Chargers scored a touchdown.  Under the new rules, the game would have ended without the Colts touching the ball.

What would have changed?  Part of the reason teams give up 15-20 yard touchdown runs in overtime is because the defense is overplaying and trying to strip the running back.  That's what happened on this play.  The Colts defense knew that there was little difference between a zero yard gain by the Chargers and a 22 yard touchdown run.  Everyone is playing to force a loss on the play or force a fumble.  If the defense had the luxury of knowing that a field goal wouldn't end the game, they would have played differently.  The Chargers had already turned the ball over deep in Colts territory twice in the game.  If the Colts could have played their red zone defense straight up, they possibly would have stopped the Chargers. Forcing the Chargers to try and score a touchdown might have actually prevented their touchdown.

***

While I'm not as opposed to this rule change as I was when it was first explained as "first team to six wins", I'm still not a fan.  I don't like having different rules for the playoffs than for the regular season.  I don't care if a coin flip affects the game, especially because there is already so much luck involved with overtime anyway.  The coin flip is 'fair'.  That's really all that matters to me.  However, I will admit that this rule could have changed the Colts' fate twice in the past decade.

Today's nailbiter that put Butler in the Sweet 16 was as enjoyable a basketball game as you can watch. If you care about coaching and matchups, the narrow win over Murray State was a thriller.  It reminded me of why I used to love college basketball so much.

Indiana needs you Butler.  Don't stop now.

Tom Moore is still coaching for the Indianapolis Colts.

But for the first time since joining the staff in 1998, his title won’t include “offensive coordinator.”

Moore, the Colts’ offensive coordinator from 1998-2008 and the senior offensive coordinator this past season, now will hold the title of senior offensive assistant, with Clyde Christensen — a Colts assistant since 2002 — being promoted from assistant head coach/wide receivers to offensive coordinator and Pete Metzelaars being promoted from offensive quality control/assistant offensive line to offensive line coach.

Well, I didn't see that coming.  That's a cool move, however, and typical of the egoless way the Colts seem to operate.  Moore hangs around, but gives up the title.  The Colts still benefit from his wisdom and experience while breaking in a new coordinator.  Kudos to everyone involved.

In other news Metzelaars is the new line coach (as expected).  Ron Turner is the WRs coach; Ron Prince is an assistant line coach.

I hate 'day after draft' grades, but I'm a sucker for draft retrospectives that let time pass first.  Needless to say, I'm totally in the tank for FO's look at the 2004 draft.  The 2004 draft was a crazy one and the most amazing part is that we STILL don't have an answer to who the best quarterback was.  Normally, I'd go with Roethlisberger, but with his notable off the field issues, there's really no guarantee what will happen to him.  Personally, I like Eli a lot more than Rivers.  I consider Rivers one of the most overrated players in football, but that's just because he doesn't pass my eyeball test.  He's had two good seasons (2008 and 2009), but I'm just not sold...though I admit a case of extreme bias.  At any rate, given all the factors, you can't blame the Giants for trading for Eli.  They won a title.  Maybe they'd have won another with Roethlisberger, but I doubt it.

What's really interesting about 2004 was the Colts' selection of Bob Sanders.  Indy wanted Bob from the go, and he was easily the highest rated player on their board. They knew that teams were scared of the injury factor with him, however.  They traded down and took him at 44.  This was a great decision and a calculated risk.  As a Colts fan, it's unfair to get bent out of shape about Bob's injuries.

1.  They knew he was likely to get hurt when they drafted him. He was hurt WHEN they drafted him!  Indy only got him at 44 because they were willing to take the risk.

2.  They knew his injury history before they resigned him.

Sanders has always been a gamble.  When the Colts drafted Trev Alberts, they didn't know he was already hurt and would suck.  That's a bad pick.  When they drafted Emtman, he had zero history of injuries, but blew out both knees in his first two years.  That's bad luck.  But with the Zombie, they knew what he was.  They took a calculated risk.  High risk, HUGE reward.

That's who Bob Sanders is.  That's who he'll always be.  All told, it's worked out pretty dang well.

Given the chance to do it all over again, I'd bet Polian makes the same decisions again.  Bob'll be back this year and everyone will remember just why we love him so.  Even if he doesn't hold up again, we still have that nice banner hanging from the rafters thanks to him.

Good news for everyone who still loves basketball in Indiana (both of you), the Butler Bulldogs will bark again this weekend.

Before I go on, I apologize for the slow week, but I'm fighting the flu and breaking in a new computer at the same time, so with nothing interesting happening with the Colts, I haven't forced myself to write something just to have something to talk about.  And for the record, no, I don't find rumors about Incognito that don't pan out to be interesting at all...that felt like like a 'no effing way' story from the go.  That was  typical Florio nonsense.

No, what really interested me this week was seeing how Butler was going to come out today.  I've been a closet Butler fan since my dad used to take me to their games when I was a kid. I own exactly one Butler shirt.  Does that make me a band wagoner?  Sure, but with the state of round ball in the State of Round Ball, what choice do I have?  The Irish already went down, and I'm morally opposed to rooting for Purdue basketball (not that it would matter).  So that leaves Butler.

Unfortunately, because the NCAA powers that be hate Butler and love to give them a crappy seed, no matter what the rest of the country thinks, the odds aren't great that we'll see a Hoosier college in the Sweet Sixteen.  (edit:  Yeah, so I'm a retard.  I slept through the afternoon games (remember the flu?).  I didn't put together that Butler was playing Murray State.  Color me "idiot")  That didn't stop me from putting the 'Dogs in my Final Four.  Butler playing in the Luke?

What could be better?

Other than, you know, football season coming back.

Though ultimately my opinion of Jennings improved (slightly) over the past few years, I can't say I'm shedding any tears over his departure to the Bears.  Here's the scouting report I worked up for Midway Illustrated (a Bears blog) about Jennings.

I guess I'm going to have to find a new whipping boy.  If anyone signs Charlie Johnson away from us, I might have to shut the blog down altogether.

With just three weeks to Opening Day and only four days until my annual "Die Hards" fantasy draft (My keepers are Tulowiski, Pedroia, Youklis, Kinsler, Sandoval), I want to take just a few minutes to discuss the state of my beloved Reds.  First let me direct you to the excellent Brewers site Brewers Bar where I answered some questions about the Reds. He is doing Q/As with all the teams in the NL Central, and the Cubs and Pirates have already been posted.  I did the interview a few weeks ago, and already I can feel myself getting sucked in to the season.  I still feel that the Reds are still one year away, but if they still had Adam Dunn in left the time would be now.  Sigh.

What interests me pertains to the discussion from yesterday about MLB parity and the lack of a salary cap.  As I stated, there were 7 MLB teams that did not make the playoffs in the decade.  The Reds are one of them.  Four of the clubs are so badly run that I don't believe they could compete under any circumstances (Baltimore, the Royals, Pirates and Nationals).  Those teams are rarely competitive, but it doesn't have as much to do with money as it does terrible ownership.

The other three non-playoff teams have a case for 'economic predjudice'.  Toronto has had good clubs with lots of talent, but can't get past the Yankees and Red Sox.  Of course, Tampa managed to do just that, so maybe the Jays should shut it.  The Rangers are a team on the rise now that they have Nolan Ryan running the show, so perhaps they'll break through in the next couple of years.  Then comes the Reds.

If there is a poster child for economic injustice in baseball, the Reds are basically the only team that qualifies.  They've had lots of talent but little depth for a decade.  They had chances to pull huge trades, like when Scott Rolen was coming to Cincy, but the deal was voided by ownership thanks to salary pressure.  In the Reds favor is that they are in a division with other modest market teams.  Honestly, there is no need for 'economic realignment' in baseball.  There already is economic alignment.  It's called the NL and AL Central divisions!  If the Reds had had $15-20 million more in revenue this decade, they would have made the playoffs.

Listen, it sucks being a fan of team that has been held back by economics, but ultimately, I don't think the system is broken just because one team is caught in no man's land.  What it has done is finally force the Reds to get smart about mining Latin America for talent and to focus on young pitching.  Now if the team could just figure out that Adam Dunn is cheap at $9 million per and Wily Taveras is expensive at $3 million, the arrow would be pointing up even higher than it already is.

It's spring and I'm hopeful.  The Reds need a miracle to contend, but at least there is a visible path for once.  If all those pitchers can just...no.  I'm not going talk myself into it.  It just makes it hurt worse later.