Broncos just showed why Colts have to draft all Defense in draft...

[NewColtsFan]

15 hours ago, BProland85 said:

This upcoming draft is one that needs to be a homerun for the Colts. Especially with it being as deep defensively as it is. Indy must come out with a ILB, OLB, DT in this draft and possibly also a FS and RT. CB can be found in free agency ala Trumaine Johnson, Janoris Jenkins, Sean Smith, Casey Hayward.

 

 

Good post.       Really good post.

 

I hope many others will come along and read it.

 

Nice job!           

[BrentMc11]

McCaffrey to the Patriots would blow my mind.....

 

I am sure he will be gone by then.....imagine that scenerio...YIKES>

[dgambill]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 0:09 PM, Superman said:

When did the Broncos draft all defense?

Exactly! Now they drafted and invested early on the defensive side of the ball (all first rd picks have been defense since Elway got there) but you can't say they ONLY focused on defense. Elway ALSO signed Stokely, Welker, Vasquez, Sanders, Daniels, and Peyton Manning! He traded for Vernon Davis...and drafted guys like Ball, Lattimer, and Osweiler in the second amongst many young OL. Most importantly Elway has simply identified players that play a style and vision he wanted to create and had the cap space to bring them in. He has been very successful with his early rd draft picks. He has invested heavily on defense and I expect us to shore up ours but this notion he only has fixed the defense is laughable...he spent just as much if not more money on offense...especially if you factor in bringing in Peyton Manning. 

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 10:59 AM, Bizarro Superman said:

This not what Bronco proves at all.  We am to get better with defense, but no reason to draft all defense.  Have needs on offense, too.

Wow...Supes....we have another superman on the site....going to keep a close watch on this one..he may end up being a favorite poster too...although maybe not quite as fluent with his words lol.

[dgambill]

4 minutes ago, BrentMc11 said:

McCaffrey to the Patriots would blow my mind.....

 

I am sure he will be gone by then.....imagine that scenerio...YIKES>

OMG....the horror. I would trade up or select him myself just to prevent this scenario....no matter the cost lol. He is the perfect storm for that offense.

[BrentMc11]

2 minutes ago, dgambill said:

OMG....the horror. I would trade up or select him myself just to prevent this scenario....no matter the cost lol. He is the perfect storm for that offense.

I shutter like the snowman from Rudolph when I think of it....:)

 

Yes he is...perfect for NE!!

[BProland85]

15 minutes ago, BrentMc11 said:

I shutter like the snowman from Rudolph when I think of it....:)

 

Yes he is...perfect for NE!!

 

If Indy wants McCaffrey, they should have the chance to draft him before New England. I still feel Indy is 2 years away from really being great superbowl contenders. 2016 I could see them making the playoffs but not quite getting to the big dance. New England, as much as I hate to say it, has a better chance of getting there next season.

[UKColt13]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Oh goodness, I don't know how I'll feel about McCaffrey next year. He's sooooo good, and I would love for him to be a Colt, but I don't think I can justify seeing a first rounder used on him (and if he were in the draft right now, he'd be a first rounder, IMO). He would be a multiple position player, not just a RB, but still...

4.4 speed, good size, smart, great pass catcher out of the backfield.

 

I'd love if he fell to the 2nd just due to the amount of good RBs coming out next year.

[NewColtsFan]

On February 8, 2016 at 4:50 AM, jshipp23 said:

Our defense isn't far away a healthy Henry Anderson and Art Jones and rush lb's in first 2 rds...

 

Our defense is miles and miles and miles and miles away!

 

Other than that -- we're close!            

[Superman]

4 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

4.4 speed, good size, smart, great pass catcher out of the backfield.

 

I'd love if he fell to the 2nd just due to the amount of good RBs coming out next year.

 

He's my favorite right now. To me, McCaffrey > Fournette. 

[krunk]

I will take a great runner in the first round. Where else are you going to get him? It's not like the player will fall to the second. Who is going to go back to Polian/Tobin and say he shouldn't have taken Edgerrin James or Marshall Faulk in the first? It's not like you are selecting runners in the first round every year. If there is a certain season and a beast of a prospect is on the board at our pick I say take him. Who would be mad if we had Gurley right now? I just say the guy has to be on the Peterson level to do it. So far Gurley has produced more than Werner ever has. And Werner is no running back.

[dgambill]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 6:54 AM, krunk said:

I will take a great runner in the first round. Where else are you going to get him? It's not like the player will fall to the second. Who is going to go back to Polian/Tobin and say he shouldn't have taken Edgerrin James or Marshall Faulk in the first? It's not like you are selecting runners in the first round every year. If there is a certain season and a beast of a prospect is on the board at our pick I say take him. Who would be mad if we had Gurley right now? I just say the guy has to be on the Peterson level to do it. So far Gurley has produced more than Werner ever has. And Werner is no running back.

Don't get me wrong....I take the highest rated player on the board that can help our team....but nothing means drafting a rb of the Peterson level is always going to work out. Trent Richardson was considered to be on the Peterson level (franchise rb) and he busted....lots have busted....no matter what there is a risk at every position. I'm not saying never take a RB in the first rd but the value of the position over replacement has to be considered. Even a franchise RB like Marshawn Lynch was replaced by a non-drafted FA and Seattle got just about as much value out of them. Now...try replacing a franchise pass rusher with a non-drafted FA or a CB or QB and well the value of the player over replacement at those positions would be much harder to match. If I'm going to take a chance on the first rd I feel better taking it on a position that it is much harder to fill (LT, DE/OLB, CB). I'm not opposed to taking a RB but I would have to be sure down to my toes I was sold on the kid. Overall there just isn't a large separation from production that can be achieved in a RB in the middle rds to the first. To me there are a very very few franchise type backs..sometimes not even one in every draft....and if you have a good scheme and fit a RB with lesser perceived ability can still excel. I know what your saying...a star rb is worth a first rd pick...but we can't say for certain that pick is going to be a star. We spent first rd picks on both Trent and Bjorn...neither worked out. That said I believe replacing Trent was much easier than finding that stud pass rusher is all. 

[dgambill]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 9:30 PM, Superman said:

 

He's my favorite right now. To me, McCaffrey > Fournette. 

Do you think McCaffrey is a 3 down back? Just asking...I love McCaffrey and feel in the right offense he has the potential to be a game changer...running, catching out of the backfield, lining up in the slot, and returning but I'm just not sure between the tackles he is built to get it done at the next level. I kinda prefer those bowling ball or bigger backs...the guys with the tree trunk legs and low center of gravity...or at least with the build to take the punishment. I get the feeling any team that drafted him would want to convert him to a slot receiver and maybe a 3rd down back....hard to see him toting the rock 20 times a game. Don't get me wrong...he isn't small...but he doesn't seem built to take the punishment he would see on the NFL level.

[krunk]

17 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Don't get me wrong....I take the highest rated player on the board that can help our team....but nothing means drafting a rb of the Peterson level is always going to work out. Trent Richardson was considered to be on the Peterson level (franchise rb) and he busted....lots have busted....no matter what there is a risk at every position. I'm not saying never take a RB in the first rd but the value of the position over replacement has to be considered. Even a franchise RB like Marshawn Lynch was replaced by a non-drafted FA and Seattle got just about as much value out of them. Now...try replacing a franchise pass rusher with a non-drafted FA or a CB or QB and well the value of the player over replacement at those positions would be much harder to match. If I'm going to take a chance on the first rd I feel better taking it on a position that it is much harder to fill (LT, DE/OLB, CB). I'm not opposed to taking a RB but I would have to be sure down to my toes I was sold on the kid. Overall there just isn't a large separation from production that can be achieved in a RB in the middle rds to the first. To me there are a very very few franchise type backs..sometimes not even one in every draft....and if you have a good scheme and fit a RB with lesser perceived ability can still excel. I know what your saying...a star rb is worth a first rd pick...but we can't say for certain that pick is going to be a star. We spent first rd picks on both Trent and Bjorn...neither worked out. That said I believe replacing Trent was much easier than finding that stud pass rusher is all. 

 

All I'm saying here is I don't believe in any type of consensus rule that you never take a RB in the first round. There is plenty of presidence that shows that it's worked out enough to break that rule on occasion.  To me there is multiple different ways to miss on a first round pick.  I just know I wouldn't pass over a Gurley or Peterson just to say I'm not picking a back in the first round.

[dgambill]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

 

All I'm saying here is I don't believe in any type of consensus rule that you never take a RB in the first round. There is plenty of presidence that shows that it's worked out enough to break that rule on occasion.  To me there is multiple different ways to miss on a first round pick.  I just know I wouldn't pass over a Gurley or Peterson just to say I'm not picking a back in the first round.

Totally understand. I'm right there with you....you don't pass on a Barry Sanders just because he is a running back. I just think it would be a rare thing for me to value a RB enough to spend that kind of capital on one. When you can go out and get a Justin Forsett, Chris Ivory for a few million in FA or find guys like David Johnson and Jeremy Langford the production drop off from say a Petterson or Gurley to Ivory, Forsett, Langford, or Johnson isn't that much. When Lynch went out for Seattle Thomas Rawls went for over 800 yds and avg. over 5 yds per carry. They were still the #3 rushing team in the league...and last year when Petterson was gone Asiata and Mckinnon combined for 9tds and over 1000yds...I mean yes you are losing something...but it seems RB is a position that is easier to replace production at then say a pass rusher or corner or something which is why I would have to be very very blown away to make a big investment (pick or money) on bringing a guy in. Again not to say there isn't an exception like you said...but it would have to be a very special player.

[krunk]

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Totally understand. I'm right there with you....you don't pass on a Barry Sanders just because he is a running back. I just think it would be a rare thing for me to value a RB enough to spend that kind of capital on one. When you can go out and get a Justin Forsett, Chris Ivory for a few million in FA or find guys like David Johnson and Jeremy Langford the production drop off from say a Petterson or Gurley to Ivory, Forsett, Langford, or Johnson isn't that much. When Lynch went out for Seattle Thomas Rawls went for over 800 yds and avg. over 5 yds per carry. They were still the #3 rushing team in the league...and last year when Petterson was gone Asiata and Mckinnon combined for 9tds and over 1000yds...I mean yes you are losing something...but it seems RB is a position that is easier to replace production at then say a pass rusher or corner or something which is why I would have to be very very blown away to make a big investment (pick or money) on bringing a guy in. Again not to say there isn't an exception like you said...but it would have to be a very special player.

Exactly. I get that you can find quality outside the first round for a back for sure. But every now and then that truly special player comes along and when that happens I think you need to drop the conventional wisdom and pull that trigger baby! I would not do it this year because I don't see Ezekiel Elliott as being that. I would have last year with Gurley if the opportunity fell in the Colts lap.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, dgambill said:

Do you think McCaffrey is a 3 down back? Just asking...I love McCaffrey and feel in the right offense he has the potential to be a game changer...running, catching out of the backfield, lining up in the slot, and returning but I'm just not sure between the tackles he is built to get it done at the next level. I kinda prefer those bowling ball or bigger backs...the guys with the tree trunk legs and low center of gravity...or at least with the build to take the punishment. I get the feeling any team that drafted him would want to convert him to a slot receiver and maybe a 3rd down back....hard to see him toting the rock 20 times a game. Don't get me wrong...he isn't small...but he doesn't seem built to take the punishment he would see on the NFL level.

 

No, he's not a three down back, IMO. He's Reggie Bush. I think trying to run him up the middle and giving him 20+ carries a game would be a mistake. He's a weapon, but he has to be fired skillfully. 

[NewColtsFan]

10 hours ago, dgambill said:

Do you think McCaffrey is a 3 down back? Just asking...I love McCaffrey and feel in the right offense he has the potential to be a game changer...running, catching out of the backfield, lining up in the slot, and returning but I'm just not sure between the tackles he is built to get it done at the next level. I kinda prefer those bowling ball or bigger backs...the guys with the tree trunk legs and low center of gravity...or at least with the build to take the punishment. I get the feeling any team that drafted him would want to convert him to a slot receiver and maybe a 3rd down back....hard to see him toting the rock 20 times a game. Don't get me wrong...he isn't small...but he doesn't seem built to take the punishment he would see on the NFL level.

 

I'm a Stanford guy and obviously am very partial to CMac....    but, I'm with Superman on this....   I don't see him as an every down back.     I think he's a premier 2nd back,  your change of pace back,   a specialist.    

 

He can do anything you want....    but I think he'd be best in a game where he gets 10-15 touches, and that includes punt and kicker turns plus catches plus carries.....

 

Being an every down back in the NFL is much different than being an every down back in college,  especially when you're likely going to be 5'10" 1/2 and 205 max.  

 

I'd love for the Colts to be able to draft him in the 2nd round,   but not with the intention of making him the #1 back.      

[dgambill]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm a Stanford guy and obviously am very partial to CMac....    but, I'm with Superman on this....   I don't see him as an every down back.     I think he's a premier 2nd back,  your change of pace back,   a specialist.    

 

He can do anything you want....    but I think he'd be best in a game where he gets 10-15 touches, and that includes punt and kicker turns plus catches plus carries.....

 

Being an every down back in the NFL is much different than being an every down back in college,  especially when you're likely going to be 5'10" 1/2 and 205 max.  

 

I'd love for the Colts to be able to draft him in the 2nd round,   but not with the intention of making him the #1 back.      

I agree....if he isn't going to be an every down workhorse it would be hard for me to spend a first rounder on the guy. I just doubt he would ever end up on our team. Seems too good to fall to late second rd next year and yet not able to be the stud that someone would take in the first. Still I shudder to think of him with NE. I know he can run the ball (I watched probably half his games this year) but I'm not sure that translates to the NFL. He would be more of a Bush, Sproles, Woodhead back....or a Welker, Edelman, Baldwin type of receiver. I think he is going to be a threat...but more of a luxury player...not exactly one a team with big holes to fill can afford to spend resources on.

[krunk]

I wonder how much chance we have of picking up Ashawn Robinson?  I think he's a real good player. I'd love to have a rotation of Anderson, Robinson, Langford, Jones, Parry, Winn.

[krunk]

I know we expected Eddie Goldman to go in the first round last year, and for Malcolm Brown to go maybe top 15, but neither thing happened so I guess it's not too far fetched to possibly have Ashawn on the board at 18.  I'd pick the guy for sure.

[BProland85]

6 hours ago, krunk said:

I know we expected Eddie Goldman to go in the first round last year, and for Malcolm Brown to go maybe top 15, but neither thing happened so I guess it's not too far fetched to possibly have Ashawn on the board at 18.  I'd pick the guy for sure.

 

I think it'd be better value to get Vernon Butler early in round 2. Butler comes from a small school which could push him to round 2. But he could play all over Indy's DL. Robinson is strictly a NT and he doesn't offer much pass rush. 

[krunk]

1 hour ago, BProland85 said:

 

I think it'd be better value to get Vernon Butler early in round 2. Butler comes from a small school which could push him to round 2. But he could play all over Indy's DL. Robinson is strictly a NT and he doesn't offer much pass rush. 

I like Butler and I would take either player although I don't agree that Robinson is strictly a nose guard. He can play anywhere on our line. Had more sacks than Butler. I see where you are coming from with the value argument.

[Defjamz26]

Looking at where the depth is in this draft, and seeing early prospect grades, I think 3 out of our first 4 picks should be on defense.

 

All the real talent is on defense this year. The only exceptional offensive players that we should consider in rounds 1-4 (that will be there at our picks) are Elliot, Whitehair, Conklin, and Martin.

[Superman]

6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Looking at where the depth is in this draft, and seeing early prospect grades, I think 3 out of our first 4 picks should be on defense.

 

All the real talent is on defense this year. The only exceptional offensive players that we should consider in rounds 1-4 (that will be there at our picks) are Elliot, Whitehair, Conklin, and Martin.

 

There are so many talented offensive players in this draft in the top 100. I really don't understand why people are so committed to needs-based drafting.

[wig]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There are so many talented offensive players in this draft in the top 100. I really don't understand why people are so committed to needs-based drafting.

 

There is a difference between drafting a position and a side of the ball. The D needs help at every level. Depending on FA, I'll be upset if the first 4-5 rds. aren't D heavy. Interior OL in the 2nd or 3rd and the rest on D is what I'm hoping for. 

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, wig said:

 

There is a difference between drafting a position and a side of the ball. The D needs help at every level. Depending on FA, I'll be upset if the first 4-5 rds. aren't D heavy. Interior OL in the 2nd or 3rd and the rest on D is what I'm hoping for. 

 

It's a little different. You can cast a wider net when you say you want defense, as opposed to targeting one position. But it's still encouraging reaching for need, instead of sticking to your scouting board. And I think what most people do is get all hyped about the guys they like at the positions they want filled, and pretend like the players at other positions aren't as good. The post I responded to is an example of why I believe that.

 

I get it. The Colts need young defensive players who can impact the game. But focusing on the defensive side of the ball isn't going to accelerate the development of the roster, especially if you're reaching past better offensive players. 

 

I'm sure we'll continue this conversation throughout draft season. No need to belabor the point. I just want the Colts to stick to their scouting. If that means manipulating their resources to get better on defense, then great. Move up, move down, target guys that you really like, etc. But I don't want them to pass on good offensive players for not as good defensive players. 

[krunk]

Nothing wrong with needs based drafting to me as long as you don't pass over players whether they be offensive or defensive who you have ranked substantially higher than the needs based player you are targeting. That's when you defer to BPA and go with the guy you ranked head and shoulders above the rest.

[Defjamz26]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

There are so many talented offensive players in this draft in the top 100. I really don't understand why people are so committed to needs-based drafting.

 

I don't see it. The top 2 OTs will be gone by our pick. I really like Conklin and wouldn't mind him in the first, but after that I'm not excited about any of the OTs. Same thing can be said about Center, OG, RB, and wide receiver. At TE you have Henry who wouldn't be a bad 2nd round pick, but no one else after that who excites you.

 

Thats just my opinion though. Most of the offensive position groups are weak. There's so much depth on defense.