Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

LB our weakest position?


BProland85

Recommended Posts

I have thought this over a bit, and I might believe that LB is possibly our weakest position right now. I know a lot of people say OL, and that is right up there as well, but with question marks to Pat Angerer and his injuries, along with needing pass rush help from the LB spot, this core could definately use an upgrade.

 

Now Im hopeful that Jerry Hughes comes to play big boy football this year and relieves some of that need. Same with Erik Walden. But time will tell. I wouldnt be opposed to bringing in a Jarvis Jones if he were available or Jamie Collins after a trade down to improve the pass rush.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We need another ILB and Pass rusher. ILB can be held off for a little while because Connor and Angerer are solid stop gaps. But we don't have a proven pass rusher outside of Mathis.

We have no idea how Angerer is gonna be coming off a 2nd surgery. I say we bring an ILB in this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe we have a weak position or it would have been addressed in FA. I believe we are setup to finish everything up in the draft.

 

The E Walden situation is my most troublesome worry right now - but it makes sense if we grab an OLB at #24 or in the 2nd after a trade up or down. I believe E Walden is here because we dont have a 2nd rnd pick. 

 

Regardless of what you want us to do at #24 - you have to admit not having a 2nd rnd pick puts a little more pressure on our 1st pick.

 

I would say from a pure "on paper" perspective - OL & OLB are our biggest needs. The problem is no one can guarantee who's going where even more than usual. No one really even knows who's going 1st.

 

Grigson knew D Freeney was gone - so without E Walden - we would be in bad shape if the "perfect" OL fell to us at #24. E Walden can play if we have to get that OL while that 3rd/4th rnd OLB gets his steps right. Or he can be depth if we get that OLB stud at #24.

 

Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a few from Stanford as well? They run a 3-4. Gotta make sure we grab the right size guy. ILB in a 3-4 is no cakewalk

 

Chase Thomas (OLB from Stanford) is definitely a late round option. Personally, I like Jon Bostic (ILB Florida) as a 3rd round option and Grigson is apparently interested in him as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a few from Stanford as well? They run a 3-4. Gotta make sure we grab the right size guy. ILB in a 3-4 is no cakewalk

 

No inside LB from Stanford this year.   Sorry.

 

But Chase Thomas is an OLB.    I think he'll go in the 4th/5th round.    Just my hunch....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the front 3 on the DL. Moala and McKinney both tore ACLs and may not be back until midseason. Franklin and Redding are getting older and more prone to injuries. Matthews has not shown much. Nevis has been on IR both his years in the NFL. Francois is unproven since he was a backup at SF. Tevasu could not beat out Johnson. Chapman seems the most promising but he missed his entire rookie season on IR. This is a deep class of DTs and a very good one should be available at pick #24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people may disagree but if alec ogletree is there at 24 id run up to the podium and select him   but i agree OLINE isnt huge of a need you could go 1st round with a guy like  ogletree or Jarvis Jones damontre moore   datone jones      and in 3rd shore up OL with Travis Fredrick or Barrett Jones or even Brian Schwenkie  this years draft if we could hit those guys we would be filling needs and putting ourselves in a great chance to win alot of games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OLB a doubt we go in that direction  if you watched the press conference there he seems pretty high on Hughes Walden  and Sidbury so if we can get solid production from 2 of the 3 would be good  but i believe we should go CB OG in first two picks   Xavier Rhodes  Desmond trufant or even DJ hayden  in first round      and in third we would be looking at Justin Pugh  Barrett Jones  Travis Fredrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RG and CB are weaker than LB.

I've been hoping for a big time guard in the draft this year, but is there any chance Anderson is seen as the answer to that need?

I've also asked this before, and have yet to see anyone respond: Thomas played mostly at RG in filling in for the Pats, so why does the general consensus on this forum seem to be that he'll definitely play LG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my preference for the first round is a pass rusher, either a DE/DT hybrid that can provide a consistent interior pass rush or an OLB like a Jarvis Jones, Barkevious Mingo, Bjoern Werner or Damontre Moore.  However if all those guys are gone, and Xavier Rhodes is off the board then I wouldn't be upset with an ILB in the first.  However I'd rather take a flyer on Nico Johnson in the 3rd or 4th round.  I would also like to get an OG in the 1st (only if Warmack or Cooper are there), 3rd or 4th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe we have a weak position or it would have been addressed in FA. I believe we are setup to finish everything up in the draft.

 

The E Walden situation is my most troublesome worry right now - but it makes sense if we grab an OLB at #24 or in the 2nd after a trade up or down. I believe E Walden is here because we dont have a 2nd rnd pick. 

 

Regardless of what you want us to do at #24 - you have to admit not having a 2nd rnd pick puts a little more pressure on our 1st pick.

 

I would say from a pure "on paper" perspective - OL & OLB are our biggest needs. The problem is no one can guarantee who's going where even more than usual. No one really even knows who's going 1st.

 

Grigson knew D Freeney was gone - so without E Walden - we would be in bad shape if the "perfect" OL fell to us at #24. E Walden can play if we have to get that OL while that 3rd/4th rnd OLB gets his steps right. Or he can be depth if we get that OLB stud at #24.

 

Just my thoughts.

People are correlating way too much between Walden's arrival and Freeney's departure.  Walden is brought in to do what no other OLB on our roster did well last year, and that is set the edge and be scheme versatile at a high level.  Run stop, coverage and and pass rush as needed.  He may or may not be a primary pass rusher.  He and Freeney have nothing to do with each other.  Think about the KC game last year.  It exposed our inability to set the edge. Walden is Pagano/Grigson's statement that we will not go into next year without a proven edge setter on this team.  That is really all he is. He was brought in on a low risk cap friendly contract as a run stopping assassin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree LB is a position we are lacking depth/talent in. I honestly believe that we could start the season with what we have now. Grigson has done a herculian effort in addressing basically every position on the team and adding depth. What that does do is allow us to simply draft without a specific need in mind (unlike last year where we had huge holes qb, te, rb, cb, and wr). He can simply take the best/most talented player with each and every pick. 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th rd. I believe we have positions that we could upgrade or add depth/competition to and LB (OLB and ILB) are definately that. We need a rush lb to step in for Mathis, ILB because we have decent but not great ones here. We could certainly upgrade the RG and C spot on the OL. Finally WR, CB, and RB could all use depth. 

 

I fully anticipate that we look long and hard at DE/OLB, DT, and OG in the first couple picks. I would anticipate DB, WR, RB late in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are correlating way too much between Walden's arrival and Freeney's departure.  Walden is brought in to do what no other OLB on our roster did well last year, and that is set the edge and be scheme versatile at a high level.  Run stop, coverage and and pass rush as needed.  He may or may not be a primary pass rusher.  He and Freeney have nothing to do with each other.  Think about the KC game last year.  It exposed our inability to set the edge. Walden is Pagano/Grigson's statement that we will not go into next year without a proven edge setter on this team.  That is really all he is. He was brought in on a low risk cap friendly contract as a run stopping assassin.  

 

OK - so if Walden starts - who's he replacing? He's not replacing anyone in the secondary - not an ILB - not a DT - not a DE. Walden will play OLB. Which is where Freeney played.

 

Now if you're saying he was picked up for run support - then that means even though we're paying him more than SEA paid C Avril - he's just a situational player. Which is why I said it makes sense if we grab an OLB at #24.

 

Walden cant just run on the field on running plays. We need a OLB thats bringing that heat off the edge. Without that - Mathis will be the victim of irony. 

 

Mathis became Mathis because ALL teams doubled Dwight in his prime. Once Mathis became a threat - history was made. Now - teams will just double Mathis & take their chances with.........Walden? This will no doubt destroy the defense. 

 

The only reason taking an OLB at #24 isnt a no brainer is because everybody and their mom is going to try to move back into the 1st rnd. I have no way of knowing who or what is offered so I can only be glad we're in the position we in.

 

We dont have to draft at #24. We won 11 gms - no team out there has gotten better than we have 1 year removed from a 2 win season. EVER. We're suppose to be picking top 10 right? We could stack alot of picks for next year & just use this year for experience for our 33 players with less than 3 years experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - so if Walden starts - who's he replacing? He's not replacing anyone in the secondary - not an ILB - not a DT - not a DE. Walden will play OLB. Which is where Freeney played.

Now if you're saying he was picked up for run support - then that means even though we're paying him more than SEA paid C Avril - he's just a situational player. Which is why I said it makes sense if we grab an OLB at #24.

Walden cant just run on the field on running plays. We need a OLB thats bringing that heat off the edge. Without that - Mathis will be the victim of irony.

Mathis became Mathis because ALL teams doubled Dwight in his prime. Once Mathis became a threat - history was made. Now - teams will just double Mathis & take their chances with.........Walden? This will no doubt destroy the defense.

The only reason taking an OLB at #24 isnt a no brainer is because everybody and their mom is going to try to move back into the 1st rnd. I have no way of knowing who or what is offered so I can only be glad we're in the position we in.

We dont have to draft at #24. We won 11 gms - no team out there has gotten better than we have 1 year removed from a 2 win season. EVER. We're suppose to be picking top 10 right? We could stack alot of picks for next year & just use this year for experience for our 33 players with less than 3 years experience.

If Walden was replacing DE Freeney in his prime, I'd agree 100%. But he's replacing an ineffective OLB Freeney who was well past his prime.

Mathis did benefit from playing DE opposite Freeney. But the same couldn't be said last year. Mathis (mostly) grasped the position change, and Freeney is now gone because he did not.

I'm not convinced Walden isn't an immediate upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This late in the game is all about HITS.

 

For those of you talking about Chance Warmack for our G position, he may be there at 24. Apparently he's fallen on Mayock's draft and he's now the 5th best G on his list. Idk what made this happen, but it's on NFL.com if I read it right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W# at the heck...  you run 10 through...  and hope to hit on ONE.... 

 

right?    

 

 

;)

 

One other name to toss out....  if for no other reason that Grigson just signed him as a 1-year flier....

 

Lawrence Sidbury...   I think the hope is for a diamond in the rough pass rusher.....

 

Here's hoping......         :goodluck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W# at the heck...  you run 10 through...  and hope to hit on ONE.... 

 

right?    

 

 

;)

 

 

Sure......    no objections from me.    This is a low-risk, high reward type of investment.

 

If it doesn't work out,  he's a one-year project.    But, if he's a hit,  then there's lots of upside....  possible win-win.

 

I'm good with that....        :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also asked this before, and have yet to see anyone respond: Thomas played mostly at RG in filling in for the Pats, so why does the general consensus on this forum seem to be that he'll definitely play LG?

 

I assumed Thomas was brought in to play RG myself, but apparently Pagano was asked about it when he was signed and said they would play him at LG:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51293945/

"Coach Chuck Pagano confirmed the Colts will play Donald Thomas at left guard."

 

Your guess is as good as mine as to why. Maybe they are shoring up spots where the starters couldn't stay healthy last year?

 

 

For those of you talking about Chance Warmack for our G position, he may be there at 24. Apparently he's fallen on Mayock's draft and he's now the 5th best G on his list. Idk what made this happen, but it's on NFL.com if I read it right

 

This has Warmack as the '5th favorite OL among scouts':

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000161837/article/chance-warmack-fifth-favorite-ol-among-scouts

 

Guess they don't like his apparent lack of versatility... thinking it will restrict options for in-game adjustments due to injuries on the O-line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Walden was replacing DE Freeney in his prime, I'd agree 100%. But he's replacing an ineffective OLB Freeney who was well past his prime.

Mathis did benefit from playing DE opposite Freeney. But the same couldn't be said last year. Mathis (mostly) grasped the position change, and Freeney is now gone because he did not.

I'm not convinced Walden isn't an immediate upgrade.

 

No one can be convinced before any games are played.

 

I think Im getting confused. Most people that have supported the E Walden pick-up mainly say he will be used for run support. So does this mean he will start - or come in on running situations?

 

I dont know off top of any "run specialist" at OLB & really dont see how that would even work. Any NFL QB will just audible or motion Walden into coverage - where he was rated the worst 3-4 pass rushing OLB the last 2 years. 

 

If he starts - who is our 2nd pass rusher opposite Mathis? We are in the same situation as last year with an ineffective Dwight. I think whats being lost is Mathis is undersized. He cant stand double teams especially this late in his career. We have to have 2 edge rushers - period. Or teams will just double Mathis to throw at Walden or run away from Walden.

 

I do not believe Walden is our "ideal" starter - but (if only for his contract) can & will play. Thats why I said E Walden makes sense - IF - at #24 we draft or acquire a legitimate starter that specializes in pass rushing OR has the motor & skill set to play on 1st & 2nd down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - so if Walden starts - who's he replacing? He's not replacing anyone in the secondary - not an ILB - not a DT - not a DE. Walden will play OLB. Which is where Freeney played.

 

Now if you're saying he was picked up for run support - then that means even though we're paying him more than SEA paid C Avril - he's just a situational player. Which is why I said it makes sense if we grab an OLB at #24.

 

Walden cant just run on the field on running plays. We need a OLB thats bringing that heat off the edge. Without that - Mathis will be the victim of irony. 

 

Mathis became Mathis because ALL teams doubled Dwight in his prime. Once Mathis became a threat - history was made. Now - teams will just double Mathis & take their chances with.........Walden? This will no doubt destroy the defense. 

 

The only reason taking an OLB at #24 isnt a no brainer is because everybody and their mom is going to try to move back into the 1st rnd. I have no way of knowing who or what is offered so I can only be glad we're in the position we in.

 

We dont have to draft at #24. We won 11 gms - no team out there has gotten better than we have 1 year removed from a 2 win season. EVER. We're suppose to be picking top 10 right? We could stack alot of picks for next year & just use this year for experience for our 33 players with less than 3 years experience.

We are still adjusting to a different way of looking at defense around here.  It will take some time to adjust as fans, but yes the days of having 2 true edge rushers on the field at all times are over.  Walden doesn't play the position Freeney played, so he wasn't brought in to replace Freeney.  The statement by the Colts not to offer a contract to Freeney was a strong one given the price he could be had for.  They said we can't use what you do in our scheme anymore.  If they were going to replace Freeney, they would simply re-sign Freeney.  He is still an able bodied scary pass rusher.  To understand Walden's position you need to understand the role Jarrett Johnson played as the hybrid OLB for the Ravens and the role Upshaw plays now. Upshaw is the starter and had 1.5 sacks as a rookie last year.  Johnson had 2.5 sacks as the starter in '11 and has only had 2 seasons with more sacks than that (5 and 6 sacks in '08/'09) prior to leaving the Ravens.  It is not a pass rush primary position - not the position Freeney played.  

 

Also, this is an appropriate spot to tip my cap to those of you that said Freeney would never adapt to our hybrid scheme.  I was sure he would, even as an edge setter.  I couldn't have been more wrong and the fact that we didn't even make him a low offer to return confirms it.  I saw the Suggs role as a simpler one to adapt to, but clearly I underestimated that because Pags/Grigs said you can't play here anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are still adjusting to a different way of looking at defense around here.  It will take some time to adjust as fans, but yes the days of having 2 true edge rushers on the field at all times are over.  Walden doesn't play the position Freeney played, so he wasn't brought in to replace Freeney.  The statement by the Colts not to offer a contract to Freeney was a strong one given the price he could be had for.  They said we can't use what you do in our scheme anymore.  If they were going to replace Freeney, they would simply re-sign Freeney.  He is still an able bodied scary pass rusher.  To understand Walden's position you need to understand the role Jarrett Johnson played as the hybrid OLB for the Ravens and the role Upshaw plays now. Upshaw is the starter and had 1.5 sacks as a rookie last year.  Johnson had 2.5 sacks as the starter in '11 and has only had 2 seasons with more sacks than that (5 and 6 sacks in '08/'09) prior to leaving the Ravens.  It is not a pass rush primary position - not the position Freeney played.  

 

Also, this is an appropriate spot to tip my cap to those of you that said Freeney would never adapt to our hybrid scheme.  I was sure he would, even as an edge setter.  I couldn't have been more wrong and the fact that we didn't even make him a low offer to return confirms it.  I saw the Suggs role as a simpler one to adapt to, but clearly I underestimated that because Pags/Grigs said you can't play here anymore.

 

Now we're talking - I understand this perfectly & agree - but someone had to make this point. The only thing I disagree with is really irrelevent & its just why Freeney is gone.  

 

I believe money based on production is key & also Freeney refused to change his role in the new system. I dont blame him - but it is what it is. 

 

Im about to do some research on BAL DEF a little to get my knowledge up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...