Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts' Glaring Roster Holes Means Ryan Grigson Can't Miss in 2015 Draft


Dustin

Recommended Posts

Chapman who gets abused by centers most of the times. They guy doesn't even require a double team, nor does he ever really take on the C and G like he's supposed to and occupy them so the LBs can come in, which is his main job.

 

That is incorrect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have holes...I don't think any are more pressing than any other when it comes to the draft. We have some short term solutions at a few positions like G, LB, S, RB, DT so really if there is a great player sitting there I'm sure we will take them. I mean it isn't just all about this year but down the road we will need to replace Jackson, Hennaman, Adams...Toler is in a contract year, Gore isn't a long term solution so we have lots of needs. We have to start hitting on some studs or really develop some of what we got if we are going to have sustained success because you can't constantly replenish in FA every year...its expensive and hard to keep continuity in the organization. I'd expect given the roster status we will definately look at Safety and DT long and hard but I wouldn't be surprised if a stud Tackle (or some other position) is sitting there we wouldn't pass them up. You aren't going to get great without adding some pro bowl caliber players....even if they aren't at the position of biggest need you take the star...and figure out how to fill the other position however you can (trade/fa/next man up). I don't want to pass over a great player because he isn't playing safety or dt....i'd rather get great than draft by position and take an avg guy that we will be right back here trying to replace in a year or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see 3-4 glaring holes on this team: NT, DE, ILB, and Safety. And all of those positions basically have to do with run D, which says a lot. By not signing a star at DE and letting Brown and Landry go at safety, Grigson has made a statement that he's looking for better. The issue is now, that like the article says, he needs to be looking for young talent in the draft and not just FA's. Especially at safety. We let Bethea go because of age, then signed a past his prime Landry who is up there in age himself, and not we've got Adams who played well but is also up there in age.

 

We don't need another FA safety unless he's going to trade for a young guy like Vaccaro. ILB is a mess. I don't care if we did sign Nate Irving. Grigs needs to get a ILB at some point during the draft, preferably one who can cover.

 

Anyone who likes Chapman at NT needs to wake up. He didn't go in the 6th round because he was a steal, he went because he wasn't anything special and won't ever be anything special. They need a young stud at that spot. Someone to anchor the line and help the ILBS because they need all the help they can get.

 

At DE we need a game wrecker. Someone who's going to harass the RB and QB all day long.

 

 Gotta wonder if you maybe read a book while watching Some of the game. Chapman is solid as a rock.

 How can you not remember he was a likely 2nd rounder but for serious knee injuries that he played with en route to a National Championship. This was a Huge story.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The likely help we Could get from the draft to seriously contribute next season would be a coverage and tackling ILB`er and a quality CB for depth. Maybe a RB.
 Our late 1st round pick is someone else`s 45 pick and the same with our 2nd round pick. Guys with a lot to learn to compete with the NFL`s best. Just Projects.

 This article points out Grigsons MANY Misses for sure.
 He also has benefited from us being in the wuss AFC South. 17-1 in his era. Irsay better be concerned!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions vary quite a bit on this "touchy" subject in whom to select at 29 and beyond. Read the thread. From what I can summize at this point many have given (not all) sufficient reasoning for their picks. But the number one thing that sticks out like 100 sore thumbs is the need to ... STOP THE RUN! ... Plain and simple. It's not rocket science here fellow Colts fans. The bleeding needs to stop at this most important aspect on defense. Otherwise, everyone is going to see an exact carbon copy of last year's Playoffs including the AFCCG.

Trying to out score the opponent is yesterday's news. Defense wins Championships and Super Bowls. It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions vary quite a bit on this "touchy" subject in whom to select at 29 and beyond. Read the thread. From what I can summize at this point many have given (not all) sufficient reasoning for their picks. But the number one thing that sticks out like 100 sore thumbs is the need to ... STOP THE RUN! ... Plain and simple. It's not rocket science here fellow Colts fans. The bleeding needs to stop at this most important aspect on defense. Otherwise, everyone is going to see an exact carbon copy of last year's Playoffs including the AFCCG.

Trying to out score the opponent is yesterday's news. Defense wins Championships and Super Bowls. It's that simple.

It's not that simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a #1 Defense over a # 1 Offense in the Playoffs, Championship Games, and Super Bowls any day of the week & twice on Sunday! Yes, it "IS" that simple!

 

That's really not the choice that anyone is given, though. And if you're not balanced, your #1 anything is probably going to get beat by a team that is balanced. Look at the Jets in 2009 and 2010.

 

I fully agree that the defense needs to be better. But I think the goal should be to have a defense that's capable of making big stops and getting itself off the field, that doesn't get exploited in any facet of the game on a regular basis, that's not a liability... And at the same time, having an offense that can score against good defenses, at home, on the road, passing and running, is important.

 

It's not an either/or proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a #1 Defense over a # 1 Offense in the Playoffs, Championship Games, and Super Bowls any day of the week & twice on Sunday! Yes, it "IS" that simple!

So would I, but that's not the point. If it was that easy the team with the #1 defense would win the SB every yr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grigson hasn't exactly "missed" much during his tenure, just more so of the players being dumb or injured

Brazill

Boyett

Rogers

Fugger

Anderson

Only miss really was Werner. I'll never understand Grigson's train of thought taking a project player with a 1st round pick, Grigson is a genius but I seriously think he out thinks himself sometimes. Could've easily took Xavier Rhodes but instead we take a disappointment project player

Mewhort, Newsome, Hilton, Allen, Moncrief all hAve worked out or are working out though. But would be nice to add to that list with at least 5 of our picks this year

you forgot the trade for Richardson that cost us a first rounder from last year.  I think we could have used that pick to draft Deonne Bucannon the safety out of Washington State that Arizona picked with their first rounder at 27. he had 81 tackles last year as a rookie. but i guess that is all what if's then anything lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really not the choice that anyone is given, though. And if you're not balanced, your #1 anything is probably going to get beat by a team that is balanced. Look at the Jets in 2009 and 2010.

I fully agree that the defense needs to be better. But I think the goal should be to have a defense that's capable of making big stops and getting itself off the field, that doesn't get exploited in any facet of the game on a regular basis, that's not a liability... And at the same time, having an offense that can score against good defenses, at home, on the road, passing and running, is important.

It's not an either/or proposition.

Good point, Superman! However, my opinion still stands from a history of Playoff Games, Championships, and Super Bowls. I'm sure we can both point to certain games as a litmus, but the history of the NFL says otherwise from a defensive standpoint. That's the only reasoning I first engaged with Bott with, and my "opinion" as well. Yes, it CERTAINLY takes balance on both sides of the ball, no doubt, in order to achieve a "consistent" winning program. I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that history of better defense rather than better offense wins more times than not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would I, but that's not the point. If it was that easy the team with the #1 defense would win the SB every yr.

Point taken and understood, Bott! However, take a look at the winning Super Bowl teams over the last 49 and tell me what you see from a defensive outlook. It's very interesting to say the least. Hence the cliche ... Defense wins Championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, Superman! However, my opinion still stands from a history of Playoff Games, Championships, and Super Bowls. I'm sure we can both point to certain games as a litmus, but the history of the NFL says otherwise from a defensive standpoint. That's the only reasoning I first engaged with Bott with, and my "opinion" as well. Yes, it CERTAINLY takes balance on both sides of the ball, no doubt, in order to achieve a "consistent" winning program. I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that history of better defense rather than better offense wins more times than not.

 

I get your point. I think it's a little misplaced. We have a great (or potentially great) QB. Our passing game is always going to be a force. I think it makes sense to maximize our strengths, and doing so helped us win a lot of games last year.

 

But obviously, focusing on improving the defense is a good idea. We're not balanced. The defense has its good days, but needs to get better for this team to really contend every year. We also need to get better at running the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point. I think it's a little misplaced. We have a great (or potentially great) QB. Our passing game is always going to be a force. I think it makes sense to maximize our strengths, and doing so helped us win a lot of games last year.

 

But obviously, focusing on improving the defense is a good idea. We're not balanced. The defense has its good days, but needs to get better for this team to really contend every year. We also need to get better at running the ball.

Agreed, 100%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i say we bring in a veteran like Bernard Pollard to pair with Adams on a one year deal and draft a replacement for him in one of the first 3 rounds like Derron Smith out of Fresno State who i've been researching and the more   tape i watch the more i like him. I'm going to do my last mock on Monday and he's one of my top picks at safety.

 

I like Derron Smith. Good coverage safety and capable of being the Ds centrefielder.

 

Has a lot of issues when it comes to tackling and run support though. Antoine Bethea, he is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding old players allows you to get guys that can make an immediate impact on short-term deals while you draft going talent to replace them. Can't imagine a better off season so far.

True and the article is a tab bias to 2 games against the Patriots and forgetting the other games. We need depth and have some holes like all teams, but at this point I think things are going pretty well for the Colts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Fresno & I would PASS on Smith personal. And I would love some Bulldog action on the Colts!

 

I haven't watched an enormous amount of tape on him. Are his issues with tackling based on poor technique and coaching or do you think its more because of a timid nature and he shys away from the tackling aspect of the position?

 

I'm in the UK so I can only go on the odd clip I can find on YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't watched an enormous amount of tape on him. Are his issues with tackling based on poor technique and coaching or do you think its more because of a timid nature and he shys away from the tackling aspect of the position?

 

I'm in the UK so I can only go on the odd clip I can find on YouTube.

He was coached well, Tim MacDonald former pro bowl safety was one of his former coaches. I think it is more of a timid thing with him. Tackling is kinda a you have to have your hole heart in it and like it. I don't think he does. Will a pay check change that, not sure? He is very good in coverage though, and last year he was hurt most of the year although he said he is healthy now. I think he would be good for a team who has a strong front 7 were he is not exposed as a tackler as much IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Gotta wonder if you maybe read a book while watching Some of the game. Chapman is solid as a rock.

 How can you not remember he was a likely 2nd rounder but for serious knee injuries that he played with en route to a National Championship. This was a Huge story.

 

 

Got to agree , he needs to get back to a playing weight around 320 so hes a little quicker and doesn't wear down as easy, but hes no slouch. :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's so worried about NT. I don't think the staff is. Sure, if that's what the BPA is at 29 I'd expect us to take one, but I really don't think it's this glaring hole that most people on this forum seem to act like it is. I think they like Chapman and Hughes, and I think they might add another guy whether it's a Goldman or Phillips in the first or a guy later on... But only if it makes sense on their board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safety is a glaring hole is what I mean.

We do need a safety. Or 2 even. We need to get younger and more talented at that position. The good thing about the draft, from what I can pick up, is that it is deep in 2 areas that we need to add impact players: DT, and OL. However, S, seems to be pretty thin on true impact type prospects so the concern about the S situation, IMO, is legitimate.

 

The other observation that I will make is this: I've been saying for a while now....you have to hit on your first round picks. I know not everyone does. But, this is what will lead to a GM getting canned faster than anything. Your first round picks have to be players that come in and start and make some impact. Grigson missed on the Richardson trade which cost last years 1st round pick. So far, Werner hasn't made the impact expected of a 1st round pick. Warranted or not, that's the reality. So, yes, I agree with the headline that Grigson needs to hit it pretty big this draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing the headline of this thread, I couldn't wait to hear about all of those holes. After reading the thread, there is enough back pedaling to make any NFL safety proud.

There are holes. S no question. DT is still thin as is the Offensive line. Just because the OL played a little better at the end of the season doesn't mean there shouldn't be reason for concern. We picked up the guy from Philly but lets face it, he's getting up there in age and if I'm not mistaken is coming off of an injury. So, Rietz was re-signed and Gosder is still around with 2 bad knees. The center position, proven by Pagano's admission that there is still a competition going on there, is still in flux. So, the offensive line is for sure what I would call a hole.

 

As I stated above the nice thing about this draft is that it has a lot of good options at OL and DT.

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...