Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

loudnproudcolt

Denard Robinson drafted as a WR and could run Read Option

9 posts in this topic

Ok, I know many of you are laughing at me right now, and wondering how am I posting so many thoughts tonight. Just on a roll when i start digging into the draft I guess. Well here is a thought. I believe the Pistol, and/or Read Option will get figured out as all new offenses due, but there is a place for it, since it does make it tougher on defenses due to having to account for the quarterback. Now I would not want to run it as a team full time because my franchise QB would only be a QB for a limited number of years. But in limited does, it makes sense.

 

So here is my thought. Someone is going to take Denard Robinson due to his athletic skills and try to make him a receiver. He won't be a high draft pick, so not a lot of risk, and you could have packages where he runs QB and the read option or the pistol to change it up as a package. I think it is intriguing. The only thing is, if you have a franchise QB, you don't want to take him off the field. Well with Denard as a WR, you would not have to. I don't want Luck lining up as a receiver, but I believe someone is going to think about this the same way I am right now. If nothing else, the read option is going to cause a bit of a change, although it won't change what teams ideally want. As I said though, as a package, it would give other teams something to think about, and you know Denard can run. Silly thought, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill pass, we can get better value in the late rounds then then a guy that does not have a clear position in the NFL at least yet, it certainly is not QB and probably not at wr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'd be a great pickup for Washington honestly. Having him and RG3 on the field at the same time would give defenses head aches. Sort of like a modified wildcat formation.

 

But for us? No. We don't run gimmick offenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Denard.

He doesn't fit us at all. We have enough guys like him (TY, Palmer, maybe Avery) and our WCO requires good hands and route running, something I doubt Denard can do.

I agree Washington would be scary with him. Maybe Chip Kelly's Eagles could use him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pittsburgh and Antwaan Randle El comes to mind with Robinson.... I think Robinson is even flashier.

 

I agree.....not for us, but he will end up a fan favorite somewhere....just think if he turns into a little slot receiver....Denard Welker?  Naaaa....I will stay with Randle El... rotflmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love Denard.

He doesn't fit us at all. We have enough guys like him (TY, Palmer, maybe Avery) and our WCO requires good hands and route running, something I doubt Denard can do.

I agree Washington would be scary with him. Maybe Chip Kelly's Eagles could use him?

Agreed

 

Although he could have a great career he doesn't fit here with the Colts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pass...he was injured every other game in college

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pass...he was injured every other game in college

Didnt miss a single start until his most recent hand injury senior year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didnt miss a single start until his most recent hand injury senior year.[/

There is a diff between missing starts and being injured

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Posts

    • Bates as a ILB?
      Yeah I'm getting the feeling you are right here. It's a mistake to draft a O-Lineman for the future IMO, but hopefully Luck is ok. Just never been much of a fan or Reitz and Thornton, and I don't know how good Good is going to be. Little nervous and was excited for the Clark pick. O-Line is difficult to learn for sure, I guess Mewhort was kind of an exception to the rule?
    • Bates as a ILB?
      Thank you.    Agreed.     I like the kids,  I just don't think they'll do much for the Colts in 2016.   But I see them playing a major roll,  perhaps even starting in 2017.     They both have very high ceilings.    Loads of talent.   But they both need polishing.    Lots of polishing.    It's going to take time.   I repeat,   I like both kids.    I just wouldn't expect much help from either this year.    But 2017?    Look out!    
    • Bates as a ILB?
      Luck will survive because the line will be much better.   A -- Kelly will start and he will help the line tremendously.   B -- Thornton, Good and Reitz will improve tremendously under Philbin   C -- As a result of A and B, the line will improve.   Hey,  I could be wrong,  but everyone seems to agree that while Clark has fantastic physical tools,  his game is raw and unrefined and he's going to need a ton of work to get to a starting level.    I don't see it happening his rookie year.    I hope it happens for him in year two.   One last thought....  last year, Arizona drafted OT Humphries (forget his first name) and they sat him the entire season.    He didn't even dress for a single game.    That was the plan all along.    Humphries wasn't ready and he came from Florida.     But Arians said most college lineman -- even the best ones -- just aren't ready for the NFL level of competition.     Humphries may start this year.    But he played zero snaps last year.     A lineman like Clark not playing much his rookie year is not as strange as it sounds.
    • Bates as a ILB?
      Let's assume that the FO doesn't seriously believe that the team is in a shape for a deep SB this year, but very well could be next year after hopefully getting some top pass rush in the 2017 draft. Then it makes more sense. Not saying that is the case, but it certainly is a possibility. Just something to think about.  
    • Bates as a ILB?
      Completely Agree with you on Green just so you don't think I'm being ridiculous. He's very raw and Adams and Geathers are going to start over him while he learns. He'll play ST's for a year and maybe 15 snaps a game for Adams and Geathers when they come out. I don't see how Clark can't start if he is good enough, and I honestly don't see how you think Luck will survive another year with Good, Reitz and Thorton starting over Clark. None of them are starter material. You can say all you want about Clark being raw, but those guys will get Luck Killed. If Clark struggles to adapt to our system, don't start him, but I just don't see him being worse than Good, Reitz and Thornton. Maybe Reitz is better, but you grow with experience, and I think that's where we differ on this, is that you think Our current right side is better than Clark. If Clark shows promise in training camp, I think you have to start him. This isn't a WR, Luck was hurt last year and you have to protect your franchise QB.   Also, if Clark does sit for a year, then I don't know what Grigs was thinking either drafting a project. It would be a very irresponsible move when we need the protection now.
  • Topics

  • Welcome New Members

  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.