Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts' Scouts: What they liked about LeRaven Clark....


NewColtsFan

Recommended Posts

 

In a nutshell,  size, feet,  arm length,  athletic ability and smarts....     yet, he fells to the 82nd pick.

 

Here are the five Colts' Scouts talking about Clark and what they saw that made them like him so much.....

 

If you can't tell by now,  I'm a huge fan of this series.    So glad the team is willing to let these guys talk in front of the cameras.  

 

Enjoy!!

 

http://www.colts.com/videos/videos/Scouts-Roundtable-Why-LeRaven-Clark-Stood-Out/57983a1a-f3e8-4845-b195-08bb75f80528

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A few reasons he went in the 3rd round: (and  my opinion that was probably a round to high for him, At least for me)

 

-The obvious...He spent just about all his snaps in a 2 point stance in the Texas Tech air raid offense

-Bench press numbers were low at 18 reps

-Numerous pass protection technique issues. Hands placement and footwork are a mess . He either relies on his long arms without sliding his feet or moves his feet and hand placement is all over the place.

 

 

Measurables guy at this point without much else. I think just like his scouting report says on NFL.com...He does have a Pro Bowl ceiling(Because of athleticism) but at his floor I fear him seeing snaps for any extended period of time in a real game situation

 

Worst game easily vs LSU but vs Oklahoma State he did not look very good either

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree he went one round too high.  But Grigson is under pressure to keep Luck standing up/off the injury list.  I think we should've grabbed a pass rusher in the 2nd round I like the guy we picked at safety but from what I read he is a raw player. I know you have to give time for players to adjust to NFL.  But I now firmly believe the first pick-3 pick have to be starters day 1!  I want the Lombardi trophy please colts get it this year if to read this board!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

A round too high? Lol. You guys say that about everyone. Last year it was Geathers, this year it's Clark.

Not sure Geathers went a round to high. He was a clear day 3 prospect that went day 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

A round too high? Lol. You guys say that about everyone. Last year it was Geathers, this year it's Clark.

 

Clark did not go a round too high.      Did someone here really say that?  (Yes, it turns out it was Gavin....)    Then they don't know the draft at all.

 

If Clark did go in the wrong round he should've gone in the 2nd,  and not the 3rd.     But certainly NOT in the 4th.

 

He has enough raw tools to justify a top-100 pick.     He went 82nd.      He went in just the right spot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gavin said:

Not sure Geathers went a round to high. He was a clear day 3 prospect that went day 3

 

Prospects are not rated simply as Day 3 prospects.

 

Fans might do that....    bad draft analysis might do that.      But scouts and teams sure will.

 

They'll give him a grade so decision makers like Grigson & Pagano have some idea when a player should be drafted.     You don't want to be taking a R7 guy in the 4th Round and simply say....   "he was a day 3 prospects"

 

Understanding where players are properly evaluated helps teams get the most out of a draft.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 5:04 AM, Gavin said:

A few reasons he went in the 3rd round: (and  my opinion that was probably a round to high for him, At least for me)

 

-The obvious...He spent just about all his snaps in a 2 point stance in the Texas Tech air raid offense

-Bench press numbers were low at 18 reps

-Numerous pass protection technique issues. Hands placement and footwork are a mess . He either relies on his long arms without sliding his feet or moves his feet and hand placement is all over the place.

 

 

Measurables guy at this point without much else. I think just like his scouting report says on NFL.com...He does have a Pro Bowl ceiling(Because of athleticism) but at his floor I fear him seeing snaps for any extended period of time in a real game situation

 

Worst game easily vs LSU but vs Oklahoma State he did not look very good either

 

I think he will be good remember we still have Denzell Good who wasn't too bad last year for a 7th round draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 27, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Gavin said:

A few reasons he went in the 3rd round: (and  my opinion that was probably a round to high for him, At least for me)

 

-The obvious...He spent just about all his snaps in a 2 point stance in the Texas Tech air raid offense

-Bench press numbers were low at 18 reps

-Numerous pass protection technique issues. Hands placement and footwork are a mess . He either relies on his long arms without sliding his feet or moves his feet and hand placement is all over the place.

 

 

Measurables guy at this point without much else. I think just like his scouting report says on NFL.com...He does have a Pro Bowl ceiling(Because of athleticism) but at his floor I fear him seeing snaps for any extended period of time in a real game situation

 

Worst game easily vs LSU but vs Oklahoma State he did not look very good either

 

 

Just curious.....    do you know the story of 2015 OT DJ Humphrey from Florida?

 

He was drafted by Arizona in the 1st round last year.     And he did not play a single snap in 2015.    In fact,  he didn't even dress for a single game.     He was on the 53 man roster --- no way around that, if he wasn't he be snapped up by another team if he was on the practice squad --- but he sat on the sidelines for all 16 games.

 

And here's the deal --- it was specifically by DESIGN.    That was Arizona's plan.    They knew that Humphrey got poor coaching in college.    But he had tools you simply can't teach.    So, they red-shirted him for a year and the goal is that he starts this year.     Will it work?     I don't know,  but I hope so.    I'm rooting for Humphrey,  for Arians, who clearly signed-off on the idea -- and for the Cardinals for being so forward thinking.

 

That brings us to Clark.   He doesn't have the same measurables that Humphrey has.    He has MORE qualities, BETTER qualities.    Height, weight, speed,  arm length, hand size,  Wonderlic,  character --- everything you want.

 

And the Colts didn't have to spend a 1st round pick on him.    We got him in the 3rd, 82nd overall.

 

I'm not a religious person,  but God doesn't make many men with the traits that Clark has.    Those traits alone make him a top-100 pick ---- easily.     Seriously.    The hope is that two, three years from now we all look back and think....    "what a steal"... 

 

There are not enough finished products coming out of college these days.   They're not taught the pro game very well.     NFL teams have to find the best athletes and players,  and coach them up.     That's what makes the Clark pick so interesting.     We might strike gold.     And we might not.....    But that's the NFL these days.

 

Whether any of us likes it or not.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Prospects are not rated simply as Day 3 prospects.

 

Fans might do that....    bad draft analysis might do that.      But scouts and teams sure will.

 

They'll give him a grade so decision makers like Grigson & Pagano have some idea when a player should be drafted.     You don't want to be taking a R7 guy in the 4th Round and simply say....   "he was a day 3 prospects"

 

Understanding where players are properly evaluated helps teams get the most out of a draft.

 

I know. By my compliment I was simply saying (Obviously unclearly) that I thought he went a round to early at least. I know how the draft works. Really I do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Just curious.....    do you know the story of 2015 OT DJ Humphrey from Florida?

 

He was drafted by Arizona in the 1st round last year.     And he did not play a single snap in 2015.    In fact,  he didn't even dress for a single game.     He was on the 53 man roster --- no way around that, if he wasn't he be snapped up by another team if he was on the practice squad --- but he sat on the sidelines for all 16 games.

 

And here's the deal --- it was specifically by DESIGN.    That was Arizona's plan.    They knew that Humphrey got poor coaching in college.    But he had tools you simply can't teach.    So, they red-shirted him for a year and the goal is that he starts this year.     Will it work?     I don't know,  but I hope so.    I'm rooting for Humphrey,  for Arians, who clearly signed-off on the idea -- and for the Cardinals for being so forward thinking.

 

That brings us to Clark.   He doesn't have the same measurables that Humphrey has.    He has MORE qualities, BETTER qualities.    Height, weight, speed,  arm length, hand size,  Wonderlic,  character --- everything you want.

 

And the Colts didn't have to spend a 1st round pick on him.    We got him in the 3rd, 82nd overall.

 

I'm not a religious person,  but God doesn't make many men with the traits that Clark has.    Those traits alone make him a top-100 pick ---- easily.     Seriously.    The hope is that two, three years from now we all look back and think....    "what a steal"... 

 

There are not enough finished products coming out of college these days.   They're not taught the pro game very well.     NFL teams have to find the best athletes and players,  and coach them up.     That's what makes the Clark pick so interesting.     We might strike gold.     And we might not.....    But that's the NFL these days.

 

Whether any of us likes it or not.....

 

No products are really finished coming out of college but their are more polished products than Clark coming out of college at his position and what I saw while watching him is a player that was a 4th-5th round O Lineman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Clark did not go a round too high.      Did someone here really say that?  (Yes, it turns out it was Gavin....)    Then they don't know the draft at all.

 

If Clark did go in the wrong round he should've gone in the 2nd,  and not the 3rd.     But certainly NOT in the 4th.

 

He has enough raw tools to justify a top-100 pick.     He went 82nd.      He went in just the right spot.

 

Its easy to say Clark did not go a round to high knowing we drafted him in the 3rd. For all you or I know however he very well could have went in the 4th however had the Colts not picked him up. Again however I would have waited till the 4th. I think he would have still been around in the 4th. If only drafting an O Lineman based on raw tools meant he was a good O Lineman but alas it don't and it doesn't make it a good idea to pick O Lineman based on raw tools either...Ill take intelligence and fundamentals in the 1st 3 rounds over raw tools (At least as raw as Clark). Now in the 4th or later Ill take O Lineman with raw tools but lacks the basic fundamentals (example lining up in a 3 point stance, Proper hand placement. All correctable things of course).

 

He wasn't who I would have drafted in the 3rd. I had him as a 4th rounder simply because he was/is so raw. He does have good raw tools to work with of course but O lineman have went later than him that have had BETTER raw tools than him. Khaled Holmes is just the first name that comes to mind who went in the 4th round. Hugh Thornton is another name. Christian Westerman went in the 5th and he has better raw tools that Clark. The truth is we don't know how many of the 32 draft boards made by NFL teams had him as a top 100 pick, Its entirely possible (even likely) that 1 team did not have him in their top 100.  Just because you did and some analysts did don't mean 32 NFL teams did

 

Do I dislike the pick? Not really. We could have had a better prospect than him however in the 3rd. Hell Ridgeway was a better prospect at another position that WE DID GET than Clark  was at his but fell do to conditioning and injury concerns, I had him as a 2nd rounder who had a shot to go in the 1st minus those concerns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gavin said:

Its easy to say Clark did not go a round to high knowing we drafted him in the 3rd. For all you or I know however he very well could have went in the 4th however had the Colts not picked him up. Again however I would have waited till the 4th. I think he would have still been around in the 4th. If only drafting an O Lineman based on raw tools meant he was a good O Lineman but alas it don't and it doesn't make it a good idea to pick O Lineman based on raw tools either...Ill take intelligence and fundamentals in the 1st 3 rounds over raw tools (At least as raw as Clark). Now in the 4th or later Ill take O Lineman with raw tools but lacks the basic fundamentals (example lining up in a 3 point stance, Proper hand placement. All correctable things of course).

 

He wasn't who I would have drafted in the 3rd. I had him as a 4th rounder simply because he was/is so raw. He does have good raw tools to work with of course but O lineman have went later than him that have had BETTER raw tools than him. Khaled Holmes is just the first name that comes to mind who went in the 4th round. Hugh Thornton is another name. Christian Westerman went in the 5th and he has better raw tools that Clark. The truth is we don't know how many of the 32 draft boards made by NFL teams had him as a top 100 pick, Its entirely possible (even likely) that 1 team did not have him in their top 100.  Just because you did and some analysts did don't mean 32 NFL teams did

 

Do I dislike the pick? Not really. We could have had a better prospect than him however in the 3rd. Hell Ridgeway was a better prospect at another position that WE DID GET than Clark  was at his but fell do to conditioning and injury concerns, I had him as a 2nd rounder who had a shot to go in the 1st minus those concerns

 

Well I don't think you can really use how raw a guy is as justification for draft positions when it comes to OL. We've heard NFL coaches talk in length about how the spread offense is killing the development of OL at the next level. That means that most of your top OL prospects are going to be raw like Humphries, who NewColtsFan brought up. You can teach technique. You can't teach height, weight (although you can bulk guys up), power, and athleticism.

 

Unless you get a guy coming from a pro-style offense, most guys are going to be raw. Contrary to your point I think you HAVE to base 90% of your evaluation on projection and measurables. You have to look at the bigger picture. Rob Havenstein was  pro-ready but it doesn't mean he'll be an overall better player than Humphrey down the line. Humphrey has a higher ceiling, but clearly a lower floor.

 

Projection is probably the most important thing when evaluating OL now. That's why I don't think Clark went a round early. Might have actually went a round late IMO, but idk how each draft board is stack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Well I don't think you can really use how raw a guy is as justification for draft positions when it comes to OL. We've heard NFL coaches talk in length about how the spread offense is killing the development of OL at the next level. That means that most of your top OL prospects are going to be raw like Humphries, who NewColtsFan brought up. You can teach technique. You can't teach height, weight (although you can bulk guys up), power, and athleticism.

 

Unless you get a guy coming from a pro-style offense, most guys are going to be raw. Contrary to your point I think you HAVE to base 90% of your evaluation on projection and measurables. You have to look at the bigger picture. Rob Havenstein was  pro-ready but it doesn't mean he'll be an overall better player than Humphrey down the line. Humphrey has a higher ceiling, but clearly a lower floor.

 

Projection is probably the most important thing when evaluating OL now. That's why I don't think Clark went a round early. Might have actually went a round late IMO, but idk how each draft board is stack.

I'm not sure who will be better down the road between Humphries and Havenstein but I knew who was better coming out (Havenstein) and I think you go with the guy whos pro ready over the measurable player(Particularly in the first 3 rounds).....moreso along the O Line than any other position With any prospects you have some sort of projection....some are just safer then others. At other spots you can afford to go with the measurable guy(Linebacker, D Line, Corner, Safety, WR, TE) but if you do that along the O Line and they never develop then your offense suffers and ya likely have a QB taking more abuse then he would if you had an O Lineman prospect who didn't quite have the measurables but had better technique.....And imagine if you took that player out of need over a better prospect at another position (Which I believe we did)

 

I want to be clear that I don't hate the pick and certainly don't hate the player BUT I believe better players were on the board. I'm alright with going with Clark for upside not in round 3...Particularly considering he wasn't all that good at what he was being asked to do at Tech...I also contend he would have been around in the 4th round...Because that's what the film says and that's much more important than projection based on numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gavin said:

Its easy to say Clark did not go a round to high knowing we drafted him in the 3rd. For all you or I know however he very well could have went in the 4th however had the Colts not picked him up. Again however I would have waited till the 4th. I think he would have still been around in the 4th. If only drafting an O Lineman based on raw tools meant he was a good O Lineman but alas it don't and it doesn't make it a good idea to pick O Lineman based on raw tools either...Ill take intelligence and fundamentals in the 1st 3 rounds over raw tools (At least as raw as Clark). Now in the 4th or later Ill take O Lineman with raw tools but lacks the basic fundamentals (example lining up in a 3 point stance, Proper hand placement. All correctable things of course).

 

He wasn't who I would have drafted in the 3rd. I had him as a 4th rounder simply because he was/is so raw. He does have good raw tools to work with of course but O lineman have went later than him that have had BETTER raw tools than him. Khaled Holmes is just the first name that comes to mind who went in the 4th round. Hugh Thornton is another name. Christian Westerman went in the 5th and he has better raw tools that Clark. The truth is we don't know how many of the 32 draft boards made by NFL teams had him as a top 100 pick, Its entirely possible (even likely) that 1 team did not have him in their top 100.  Just because you did and some analysts did don't mean 32 NFL teams did

 

Do I dislike the pick? Not really. We could have had a better prospect than him however in the 3rd. Hell Ridgeway was a better prospect at another position that WE DID GET than Clark  was at his but fell do to conditioning and injury concerns, I had him as a 2nd rounder who had a shot to go in the 1st minus those concerns

 

Gavin.....

 

Not trying to pick a fight or give you a hard time....    So, note I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you used the wrong word/term.    Perhaps you said one thing when you meant another?

 

But note the line you wrote that I put into big BOLD letters.

 

There is not place in the known universe where Christian Westerman -- one of my favorite players in the draft -- has better tools that LeRaven Clark.    No place.    If you're going to argue the opposite,  then you don't know what the term "tools" means.     Tools are mostly the things that can't be coached.     Height, Weight,  speed,  strength,  Arm length,  hand size,  Wonderlic and character.     Clark wins almost every category, many of them in a landslide.    Western has bench press, a little speed and maybe a better wonderlic.

 

But if you were a mad scientist and were creating a perfect right tackle from scratch,  you'd create someone who looks almost exactly like LeRaven Clark.

 

The biggest advantage that Westerman has over Clark is he played in an NFL style offense in college, so he's been coached up better.     He should be ready to contribute on some level his rookie year.

 

Clark stands a decent chance of not playing at all,  or maybe playing a very little amount his rookie year.   And then maybe he starts at guard in 17,  and then moves to tackle in '18.     That's a rough projection.    Clark is so raw, and THAT'S the reason he fell to 82nd overall.

 

Yes,  Clark has 4th/5th round tape.    But he has high 1st round tools.   The stuff you can't coach.    God only makes so many players like this.      

 

This is the same argument I had with Dustin last year.    He HATED both Flowers and Peat.    He hated Flowers' footwork and Peat's handwork.      I kept trying to explain that those issues are coachable.    But their size and skill set are not.     Hard to find them, and if you believe in your coaches to get the most out of your players,   then you take the physical freak if you think they can be coached up.    

 

This is the same argument I had with you over Ziggy Ansah.    You looked at the tape and didn't see a 1st round pick,  much less a top-10 pick.     Yes, he didn't have first round tape.    But he had come so far, so fast, that with his raw tools,  the Lions saw a future all-pro.     And that's just what he's turned into.     

 

You see what a player IS.     Scouts try to see what a player CAN BE.     This is where you've stumbled your toe every draft season.    

 

So, if the Colts think that Clark can be coached up,  then you grab him in the 3rd round and never look back.

 

Clark has been a top-100 player on every major draft board that counts.    Anyone who had him outside the top-100 simply doesn't understand the draft.     If you found a website that had Clark lower than a 3rd rounder, then you're reading the wrong board.

 

Sorry this post was so long.    Wanted to touch as many issues as I could...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Gavin.....

 

Not trying to pick a fight or give you a hard time....    So, note I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you used the wrong word/term.     You said one thing when you meant another.

 

But note the line you wrote that I put into big BOLD letters.

 

There is not place in the known universe where Christian Westerman -- one of my favorite players in the draft -- has better tools that LeRaven Clark.    No place.    If you're going to argue the opposite,  then you don't know what the term "tools" means.     Tools are mostly the things that can't be coached.     Height, Weight,  speed,  strength,  Arm length,  hand size,  Wonderlic and character.     Clark wins almost every category, many of them in a landslide.    Western has bench press, a little speed and maybe a better wonder lick.

 

But if you were a mad scientist and were creating a perfect right tackle from scratch,  you'd create someone who looks almost exactly like LeRaven Clark.

 

The biggest advantage that Westerman has over Clark is he played in an NFL style offense in college, so he's been coached up better.     He should be ready to contribute on some level his rookie year.

 

Clark stands a decent chance of not playing at all,  or maybe playing a very little amount his rookie year.   And then maybe he starts at guard in 17,  and then moves to tackle in '18.     That's a rough projection.    Clark is so raw, and THAT'S the reason he fell to 82nd overall.

 

Yes,  Clark has 4th/5th round tape.    But he has high 1st round tools.   The stuff you can't coach.    God only makes so many players like this.      

 

This is the same argument I had with Dustin last year.    He HATED both Flowers and Peat.    He hated Flowers' footwork and Peat's handwork.      I kept trying to explain that those issues are coachable.    But their size and skill set are not.     Hard to find them, and if you believe in your coaches to get the most out of your players,   then you take the physical freak if you think they can be coached up.    

 

This is the same argument I had with you over Ziggy Ansah.    You looked at the tape and didn't see a 1st round pick,  much less a top-10 pick.     Yes, he didn't have first round tape.    But he had come so far, so fast, that with his raw tools,  the Lions saw a future all-pro.     And that's just what he's turned into.     

 

You see what a player IS.     Scouts try to see what a player CAN BE.     This is where you've stumbled your toe every draft season.    

 

So, if the Colts think that Clark can be coached up,  then you grab him in the 3rd round and never look back.

 

Clark has been a top-100 player on every major draft board that counts.    Anyone who had him outside the top-100 simply doesn't understand the draft.     If you found a website that had Clark lower than a 3rd rounder, then you're reading the wrong board.

 

Sorry this post was so long.    Wanted to touch as many issues as I could...

 

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/leraven-clark?id=2555202

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/christian-westerman?id=2555131

 

Both Draft Profiles. Anyway outside of bench press for O Linemen I could care less what the other results are. Also your right that I was not sold on Ansah (as a pass rusher) and that I thought he was raw and wasn't a 1st round prospect. He went in the 1st and balled out. I was wrong, Not the first time or last time.

 

I agree that in general if the organization likes a player then you take him no matter what and don't look back. I'm 100% on board with that idea. As a matter of fact I don't dislike the pick at all. I don't dislike the player. I DO however believe that we could have had a better player who I also believe will be a better player long-term as well. I have no problem with them drafting Clark...None at all since they clearly were not as high on Westerman (Even though again he is the superior prospect with the exception of arm length.). I hope Clark fulfills the potential  but at O Line I would have taken Westerman who could have immediately challenged Thornton (and played out at RT replacing Reitz in the next year or so if he showed he could not drive block well in the run game at RG.....which again was a weakness of his in college).

 

Don't be surprised if the Bengals give Westerman a shot at C or RT at first. They have holes at both spots so he very well could see time early. Winston is winding down his career and was bad at RT last year and Bodine was bad last year at Center though is still young and has 2 years left on his rookie contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/leraven-clark?id=2555202

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/christian-westerman?id=2555131

 

Both Draft Profiles. Anyway outside of bench press for O Linemen I could care less what the other results are. Also your right that I was not sold on Ansah (as a pass rusher) and that I thought he was raw and wasn't a 1st round prospect. He went in the 1st and balled out. I was wrong, Not the first time or last time.

 

I agree that in general if the organization likes a player then you take him no matter what and don't look back. I'm 100% on board with that idea. As a matter of fact I don't dislike the pick at all. I don't dislike the player. I DO however believe that we could have had a better player who I also believe will be a better player long-term as well. I have no problem with them drafting Clark...None at all since they clearly were not as high on Westerman (Even though again he is the superior prospect with the exception of arm length.). I hope Clark fulfills the potential  but at O Line I would have taken Westerman who could have immediately challenged Thornton (and played out at RT replacing Reitz in the next year or so if he showed he could not drive block well in the run game at RG.....which again was a weakness of his in college).

 

Don't be surprised if the Bengals give Westerman a shot at C or RT at first. They have holes at both spots so he very well could see time early. Winston is winding down his career and was bad at RT last year and Bodine was bad last year at Center though is still young and has 2 years left on his rookie contract

According to those draft profiles, Westerman might be the guy that's more "immediately pro ready." But when it comes to ability and potential, I see the remarks favoring Clark in a big way. Talked about having top 5 tackle ability and being a guy whos likely to be big time player in this league with some good coaching. The immediate time frame may favor Westerman, but the future favors Clark. When I read those I don't see them saying what you're saying at all!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/leraven-clark?id=2555202

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/christian-westerman?id=2555131

 

Both Draft Profiles. Anyway outside of bench press for O Linemen I could care less what the other results are. Also your right that I was not sold on Ansah (as a pass rusher) and that I thought he was raw and wasn't a 1st round prospect. He went in the 1st and balled out. I was wrong, Not the first time or last time.

 

I agree that in general if the organization likes a player then you take him no matter what and don't look back. I'm 100% on board with that idea. As a matter of fact I don't dislike the pick at all. I don't dislike the player. I DO however believe that we could have had a better player who I also believe will be a better player long-term as well. I have no problem with them drafting Clark...None at all since they clearly were not as high on Westerman (Even though again he is the superior prospect with the exception of arm length.). I hope Clark fulfills the potential  but at O Line I would have taken Westerman who could have immediately challenged Thornton (and played out at RT replacing Reitz in the next year or so if he showed he could not drive block well in the run game at RG.....which again was a weakness of his in college).

 

Don't be surprised if the Bengals give Westerman a shot at C or RT at first. They have holes at both spots so he very well could see time early. Winston is winding down his career and was bad at RT last year and Bodine was bad last year at Center though is still young and has 2 years left on his rookie contract

 

If you want to argue that there was a player who was more "pro ready" for 2016 than Clark,   I absolutely would not disagree with you.

 

In fact,  that's what I argued the night we took him and then the next night and the whole weekend.

 

And I * off a lot of Colts fans by saying Clark was likely not going to help us much this year,  but would hopefully help us in 2017.    They did NOT want to read that.

 

So, on that limited argument,  we agree.

 

But on most everything else,  we disagree.     I don't know why you posted the profiles from NFL.com    Not sure how they helped you?    Clark's profile has a higher grade and projects him in the 1st or 2nd round.    Westerman's has a lower grade and a 2nd or 3rd round projection.

 

If Christian Westerman ever plays a day of offensive tackle in the NFL,  then the Bengals are playing under emergency conditions.      I'm not aware that he ever played a day of tackle in his life.

 

By the way,  the Bengals top two draft picks in 2015 were tackles.   Ogbuehi from Texas A&M and Fisher from Oregon went 1-2.    Those are their tackles of the future.     They have other tackles like Wentworth and others.

 

Westerman will play guard or center.      Remember,  he's 6-3 and 300.     Can you think of a single other OT in the NFL that was 6-3 and 300?      I don't think there's been one of those in quite some time.    He's an interior lineman all the way.      Remember,  one of my favorites from this draft.     But we took Haeg over him,  so if we liked him at all,   it was limited.     Clark went two full rounds ahead of him.

 

Clark's ceiling, his upside is simply ridiculous.    The question becomes,  can we coach him up enough to get him there.     For everyone's sake,   let's hope so.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Clark was a solid pick. I saw him on Big Boards as high as 31 and as low as 106. Most boards I saw had him as a solid 2nd rounder. If you built an OT in a lab chances are you'd get a guy with Clark's measurables:

Height: 6-foot-5

Weight: 315 pounds

Arm Length: 36 1/8"

Hand Size: 11 7/8"

40 Time: 5.16 seconds

Vertical Jump: 30" (pro day)

Broad Jump: 9'1" (pro day)

Bench Press: 18 reps

Obviously you'd want the bench reps closer to 28 than 18. The weight room should get him there. Those ridiculously long arms and big ol paws can't be developed. 

He's an OT that is where he'd be for me from day 1. I don't see any reason to play him at G as some suggested. 

Everything I have read says he has a high football IQ. I think he is ready to compete to start next season. Preseason will give us an idea of where he is out. I think his ceiling is a top LT. 

If I played OL for the Colts I would    not feel like my starting spot was secure. That goes for guys like Mewhort and Castonzo too. While not likely the OL this time next year could be totally revamped.  Clark, Good, Kelly, Blythe, Haeg. It should be a positive for OL having guys that feel they have to give it evetthing each Sunday to keep their job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, akcolt said:

I think Clark was a solid pick. I saw him on Big Boards as high as 31 and as low as 106. Most boards I saw had him as a solid 2nd rounder. If you built an OT in a lab chances are you'd get a guy with Clark's measurables:

Height: 6-foot-5

Weight: 315 pounds

Arm Length: 36 1/8"

Hand Size: 11 7/8"

40 Time: 5.16 seconds

Vertical Jump: 30" (pro day)

Broad Jump: 9'1" (pro day)

Bench Press: 18 reps

Obviously you'd want the bench reps closer to 28 than 18. The weight room should get him there. Those ridiculously long arms and big ol paws can't be developed. 

He's an OT that is where he'd be for me from day 1. I don't see any reason to play him at G as some suggested. 

Everything I have read says he has a high football IQ. I think he is ready to compete to start next season. Preseason will give us an idea of where he is out. I think his ceiling is a top LT. 

If I played OL for the Colts I would    not feel like my starting spot was secure. That goes for guys like Mewhort and Castonzo too. While not likely the OL this time next year could be totally revamped.  Clark, Good, Kelly, Blythe, Haeg. It should be a positive for OL having guys that feel they have to give it evetthing each Sunday to keep their job. 

 

Nice post.

 

The reason to play Clark inside as a rookie is that he's not ready to play OT on the NFL level.    Whatever he learned in college doesn't translate well to the NFL game.      That's why he fell to 82.     He needs coaching.   Lots and lots and lots of very good coaching.     Hoping Philbin is that guy.

 

At guard,  he's got help on both sides.    His flaws will be somewhat covered.    But at tackle, he's out on an island -- no man's land -- and he'd likely get eaten alive as a rookie.    

 

If he plays a lot as a rookie and plays well,  I'll be the most surprised person here.     Now, I also be happy too. I'm always happy to be wrong when it means the Colts are helped.      But everything I've read says he's not going to be ready........      we'll soon find out.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Nice post.

 

The reason to play Clark inside as a rookie is that he's not ready to play OT on the NFL level.    Whatever he learned in college doesn't translate well to the NFL game.      That's why he fell to 82.     He needs coaching.   Lots and lots and lots of very good coaching.     Hoping Philbin is that guy.

 

At guard,  he's got help on both sides.    His flaws will be somewhat covered.    But at tackle, he's out on an island -- no man's land -- and he'd likely get eaten alive as a rookie.    

 

If he plays a lot as a rookie and plays well,  I'll be the most surprised person here.     Now, I also be happy too. I'm always happy to be wrong when it means the Colts are helped.      But everything I've read says he's not going to be ready........      we'll soon find out.....

 

It will be a very interesting preseason. I don't remember the last time  there were so many players I was excited to see what they could bring to the team. 

 

There are UDFA's Griswold, Miller, Smith Leak, Ferguson, Simmons,Thompson, Maggitt, Milton, McClure and Wright that I want to see. We signed a couple guys that most experts projected to be drafted. There are a few UDFA's I would be suprised if they weren't at least on the PS. 

 

Then players we signed along the way besides the big FA Robinson. Players like Southward, Jackson, Tyms, Turbin, Mitchel and Glover-Wright. Can they help?

 

Also the guys that are coming back from injury Slyvestre, Varga, and Jones. We might as well throw Dorsett in with this group. I am especially intersted in Slyvestre. 

 

Then we guys who where here last year who's circumstances make them interesting Irving, Sio, Thorton, Doyle, Harrison and Swoope.

 

That is a lot of stories or possible stories heading into camp. I'm sure I forgot a name or two and  I didn't even mention the draft picks.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

If you want to argue that there was a player who was more "pro ready" for 2016 than Clark,   I absolutely would not disagree with you.

 

In fact,  that's what I argued the night we took him and then the next night and the whole weekend.

 

And I * off a lot of Colts fans by saying Clark was likely not going to help us much this year,  but would hopefully help us in 2017.    They did NOT want to read that.

 

So, on that limited argument,  we agree.

 

But on most everything else,  we disagree.     I don't know why you posted the profiles from NFL.com    Not sure how they helped you?    Clark's profile has a higher grade and projects him in the 1st or 2nd round.    Westerman's has a lower grade and a 2nd or 3rd round projection.

 

If Christian Westerman ever plays a day of offensive tackle in the NFL,  then the Bengals are playing under emergency conditions.      I'm not aware that he ever played a day of tackle in his life.

 

By the way,  the Bengals top two draft picks in 2015 were tackles.   Ogbuehi from Texas A&M and Fisher from Oregon went 1-2.    Those are their tackles of the future.     They have other tackles like Wentworth and others.

 

Westerman will play guard or center.      Remember,  he's 6-3 and 300.     Can you think of a single other OT in the NFL that was 6-3 and 300?      I don't think there's been one of those in quite some time.    He's an interior lineman all the way.      Remember,  one of my favorites from this draft.     But we took Haeg over him,  so if we liked him at all,   it was limited.     Clark went two full rounds ahead of him.

 

Clark's ceiling, his upside is simply ridiculous.    The question becomes,  can we coach him up enough to get him there.     For everyone's sake,   let's hope so.

 

 

 

 

1st-2nd for Clark and 2nd-3rd for Westerman translates to a round a part and as it turns out they were wrong anyway as one went in the 3rd and the other the 5th. Westerman may never play Tackle, He certainly is built for Guard or Center obviously but he is agile enough to play Tackle and he has the technique to match. Remember technique beats measurables every time unless technique catches up to measurable so to speak......I hope it does of course but I'd be lying if I said I believe it will.The NFL does like taller longer O Linemen at Tackle but it all comes down to technique

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

1st-2nd for Clark and 2nd-3rd for Westerman translates to a round a part and as it turns out they were wrong anyway as one went in the 3rd and the other the 5th. Westerman may never play Tackle, He certainly is built for Guard or Center obviously but he is agile enough to play Tackle and he has the technique to match. Remember technique beats measurables every time unless technique catches up to measurable so to speak......I hope it does of course but I'd be lying if I said I believe it will.The NFL does like taller longer O Linemen at Tackle but it all comes down to technique

Technique can be taught and learned, measurables cannot. I'll take the chance on a player who's got big time measurables that when he improves his technique which can be taught, can be an elite player over a guy who may have the technique down already but with lower measurables is likely close to his ceiling already in Westerman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, weslo1812 said:

Technique can be taught and learned, measurables cannot. I'll take the chance on a player who's got big time measurables that when he improves his technique which can be taught, can be an elite player over a guy who may have the technique down already but with lower measurables is likely close to his ceiling already in Westerman. 

We aren't talking about wr here. An O Linemans measurable wont make THAT much of a difference....including arm length consistently enough. Tony Ugoh had far better measurables in just about every category and they sure did not help him. Now he went in the 2nd round but was also talked about as a possible 1st rounder (Clark was talked about by some as a 1st-2nd round pick...again as was Ugoh.). His measurables sure did not help him. He can move well (Clark) but relies to much on his long arms.

 

Now I do think he has a shot but that has nothing to do with measurables and more to the fact that he is mobile. He really doesn't have a higher ceiling because of measurable...not at the O Line position anyway. He has a high ceiling because of his mobility...which don't always translate to the Combine. Lower floor because he has so much to learn.

 

I don't mind that he was picked in the 3rd even though I saw him as a 4th rounder. I mind that their was better players in the 3rd we could have had. If he was the BPA in the 3rd (apparently he was on the Colts board seemingly based on measurables more than anything else the way the Colts scouts talked) then take him, which the Colts did. I dont fault the Colts brass at all for going with who they thought was apparently BPA......I fault them for apparently thinking HE WAS the BPA.

 

Hopefully he works out and eventually replaces Reitz when he retires or starts playing bad. I'd love it if that happened.....However I think the odds are much higher Clark is talked about as another Grigson bust. We can revisit this in 4 years and if I'm wrong I'll make a board about it and publicly admit how bad I whiffed on Clark...I might forget  but I sincerely hope someone reminds me if I do. I do however feel I'm best at scouting O Linemen (Though I whiffed on Hayworth Hicks horribly as an undrafted FA in 2012...But I was really new then)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gavin said:

We aren't talking about wr here. An O Linemans measurable wont make THAT much of a difference....including arm length consistently enough. Tony Ugoh had far better measurables in just about every category and they sure did not help him. Now he went in the 2nd round but was also talked about as a possible 1st rounder (Clark was talked about by some as a 1st-2nd round pick...again as was Ugoh.). His measurables sure did not help him. He can move well (Clark) but relies to much on his long arms.

 

Now I do think he has a shot but that has nothing to do with measurables and more to the fact that he is mobile. He really doesn't have a higher ceiling because of measurable...not at the O Line position anyway. He has a high ceiling because of his mobility...which don't always translate to the Combine. Lower floor because he has so much to learn.

 

I don't mind that he was picked in the 3rd even though I saw him as a 4th rounder. I mind that their was better players in the 3rd we could have had. If he was the BPA in the 3rd (apparently he was on the Colts board seemingly based on measurables more than anything else the way the Colts scouts talked) then take him, which the Colts did. I dont fault the Colts brass at all for going with who they thought was apparently BPA......I fault them for apparently thinking HE WAS the BPA.

 

Hopefully he works out and eventually replaces Reitz when he retires or starts playing bad. I'd love it if that happened.....However I think the odds are much higher Clark is talked about as another Grigson bust. We can revisit this in 4 years and if I'm wrong I'll make a board about it and publicly admit how bad I whiffed on Clark...I might forget  but I sincerely hope someone reminds me if I do. I do however feel I'm best at scouting O Linemen (Though I whiffed on Hayworth Hicks horribly as an undrafted FA in 2012...But I was really new then)

 

Whenever I read stuff like your first two paragraphs I seriously wonder about how you process information......

 

Let's just say we'll have to agree to disagree........     because I don't want to get into it with you and crash the darn website!!      (Sigh.....)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Whenever I read stuff like your first two paragraphs I seriously wonder about how you process information......

 

Let's just say we'll have to agree to disagree........     because I don't want to get into it with you and crash the darn website!!      (Sigh.....)

 

We can disagree. That's perfectly fine obviously but I'd still like to know why you disagree with anything I said regarding my first two paragraphs. I mean its a fact that O Linemen who have had bad combines have went on to have great careers. What will help in Clarks transition is if he shows the ability to process information and translate that to the football field more than any combine numbers will (For the record I was specifically speaking of most of the drills with the exception of bench press and position drills NOT everything else that goes into it like interviews and med checks. That would be absurd to think that of course).

 

As to specifically his arm length.......That wont help him consistently enough unless he learns how to use them better. They certainly don't mean he has a higher upside or be a big factor on if he becomes good or great even. They will help him against the same quality of player he is currently which is really below average but not horrible(To be specific...against D Lineman that cant separate). But against quality D Linemen he will have a hard time regardless of arm length until he gets the fundamentals down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2016 at 3:04 AM, Gavin said:

A few reasons he went in the 3rd round: (and  my opinion that was probably a round to high for him, At least for me)

 

-The obvious...He spent just about all his snaps in a 2 point stance in the Texas Tech air raid offense

-Bench press numbers were low at 18 reps

-Numerous pass protection technique issues. Hands placement and footwork are a mess . He either relies on his long arms without sliding his feet or moves his feet and hand placement is all over the place.

 

 

Measurables guy at this point without much else. I think just like his scouting report says on NFL.com...He does have a Pro Bowl ceiling(Because of athleticism) but at his floor I fear him seeing snaps for any extended period of time in a real game situation

 

Worst game easily vs LSU but vs Oklahoma State he did not look very good either

 

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:55 AM, Gavin said:

No products are really finished coming out of college but their are more polished products than Clark coming out of college at his position and what I saw while watching him is a player that was a 4th-5th round O Lineman

 

On 5/29/2016 at 5:47 PM, Gavin said:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/leraven-clark?id=2555202

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/christian-westerman?id=2555131

 

Both Draft Profiles. Anyway outside of bench press for O Linemen I could care less what the other results are. Also your right that I was not sold on Ansah (as a pass rusher) and that I thought he was raw and wasn't a 1st round prospect. He went in the 1st and balled out. I was wrong, Not the first time or last time.

 

I agree that in general if the organization likes a player then you take him no matter what and don't look back. I'm 100% on board with that idea. As a matter of fact I don't dislike the pick at all. I don't dislike the player. I DO however believe that we could have had a better player who I also believe will be a better player long-term as well. I have no problem with them drafting Clark...None at all since they clearly were not as high on Westerman (Even though again he is the superior prospect with the exception of arm length.). I hope Clark fulfills the potential  but at O Line I would have taken Westerman who could have immediately challenged Thornton (and played out at RT replacing Reitz in the next year or so if he showed he could not drive block well in the run game at RG.....which again was a weakness of his in college).

 

Don't be surprised if the Bengals give Westerman a shot at C or RT at first. They have holes at both spots so he very well could see time early. Winston is winding down his career and was bad at RT last year and Bodine was bad last year at Center though is still young and has 2 years left on his rookie contract

 

 

I think the nice thing with this pick is we have time to let him develop.  If he can come in and start right away, that'd be great, but if not, we can wait a year or 2 for him to develop.

 

We obviously needed to address the OL and we did that in the draft.   It sounds like Kelly is going to be a sure-shot to start at center (and an improvement).  Our left side of the line with Costanzo and Mewhort were pretty solid last year.  We really needed to upgrade C, RG, and RT -- we clearly did that at C.  We now have at least 6 players who I think can legitimately compete at RG (Reitz, Thornton, Clark, Good, Blythe and Harrison) and at least 3 for the RT spot (Reitz, Clark and Good -- and possibly Mewhort, IMO, if the competition at RG gets so good that we could think about moving one to LG).  While it would be nice to start Clark right away, I don't think it matters that he isn't totally polished coming out of college, especially considering the system he played in -- if he was coming from a pro-style offense and was looking unpolished, I might worry a bit more about him, but from the system he came from he should be expected to be unpolished.  He seems to have the size and athleticism to play either G or T (I hope he turns into a T).

 

As far as measurables for an OL go -- I don't think bench is all that telling.  Clark has >36" arms, which put a large burden on him in terms of putting a lot of reps in at bench.  A player we drafted, Austin Blythe, did very well with 29 reps, but he also has 30" arms, which mean he has a full foot less of moving that weight on every single rep than does Clark.  That is a pretty significant amount of distance.... if everything else was held constant (same athleticism, drive, intelligence, etc.), I would go with a guy with longer arms who is lacking on reps over the guy with short arms who has more reps just about every time, especially if he is going to be playing tackle.

 

Also, don't forget, most of the best college strength programs can barely hold a candle to the worst NFL strength programs.  We just hired supposedly one of the best strength/conditioning coaches in the business, so I'm sure Clark can get stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think we stress too much out about whether a player was picked a round too soon or get enthusiastic about getting a player who was thought to go earlier.

 

In the end I just want a productive draft, and then I don't really care that much about whether those taken at later rounds turn out to be the good or even elite players rather than those taken earlier. With what we know today, I wouldn't have been upset if Henry Anderson was taken in round two for example. A higher draft means a higher probability of success, but it is still only a probability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

Sometimes I think we stress too much out about whether a player was picked a round too soon or get enthusiastic about getting a player who was thought to go earlier.

 

In the end I just want a productive draft, and then I don't really care that much about whether those taken at later rounds turn out to be the good or even elite players rather than those taken earlier. With what we know today, I wouldn't have been upset if Henry Anderson was taken in round two for example. A higher draft means a higher probability of success, but it is still only a probability. 

I totally agree. We can think what round players should go but it seems the GMs and their staff more than likely have more resources than we do to make those calls. Every player drafted is chosen by what their potential is thought to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 1:13 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Prospects are not rated simply as Day 3 prospects.

 

Fans might do that....    bad draft analysis might do that.      But scouts and teams sure will.

 

They'll give him a grade so decision makers like Grigson & Pagano have some idea when a player should be drafted.     You don't want to be taking a R7 guy in the 4th Round and simply say....   "he was a day 3 prospects"

 

Understanding where players are properly evaluated helps teams get the most out of a draft.

 

I actually forgot to mention my thoughts on your last line. As to understanding where players are properly evaluated and or valued is in the eye of the beholder. That's not opinion. That's definitely a fact. It takes 1 team to value a player as a 3rd round pick (for example) but the other 31 may value him as a 4th round pick or hell even later. Different teams value prospects in different rounds. Some may see the same things but many or most will value have players all over the map. To say he went where he was supposed to go is simply an opinion even if backed up by some draft gurus. To me he was a 4th round prospect and I could really care less about most of his measurable minus the bench press (which was actually backed up on film to, He is not completely weak but its clear to see he lacks strength which I bet gets worse as games go along and is tied to endurance. My opinion of course, Nothing more, Just based on what I saw).

 

And yes I'm willing to bet had we past on him he would have lasted till the 4th, We know 18 teams past on him in the 3rd before the Colts took him. That's over half the NFL did not think well of him enough to make him there 3rd round pick. Also 1 of those teams (Browns) passed up on him and chose an OT Shonn Coleman instead. Again I did not see him as a 3rd round pick and 18 teams agreed with me...and its not hard to see why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2016 at 3:45 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Just curious.....    do you know the story of 2015 OT DJ Humphrey from Florida?

 

He was drafted by Arizona in the 1st round last year.     And he did not play a single snap in 2015.    In fact,  he didn't even dress for a single game.     He was on the 53 man roster --- no way around that, if he wasn't he be snapped up by another team if he was on the practice squad --- but he sat on the sidelines for all 16 games.

 

And here's the deal --- it was specifically by DESIGN.    That was Arizona's plan.    They knew that Humphrey got poor coaching in college.    But he had tools you simply can't teach.    So, they red-shirted him for a year and the goal is that he starts this year.     Will it work?     I don't know,  but I hope so.    I'm rooting for Humphrey,  for Arians, who clearly signed-off on the idea -- and for the Cardinals for being so forward thinking.

 

That brings us to Clark.   He doesn't have the same measurables that Humphrey has.    He has MORE qualities, BETTER qualities.    Height, weight, speed,  arm length, hand size,  Wonderlic,  character --- everything you want.

 

And the Colts didn't have to spend a 1st round pick on him.    We got him in the 3rd, 82nd overall.

 

I'm not a religious person,  but God doesn't make many men with the traits that Clark has.    Those traits alone make him a top-100 pick ---- easily.     Seriously.    The hope is that two, three years from now we all look back and think....    "what a steal"... 

 

There are not enough finished products coming out of college these days.   They're not taught the pro game very well.     NFL teams have to find the best athletes and players,  and coach them up.     That's what makes the Clark pick so interesting.     We might strike gold.     And we might not.....    But that's the NFL these days.

 

Whether any of us likes it or not.....

 

 

Humphrey is exactly who I had in mind with regards to Clark.

 

The way that the college game has evolved and has become so different than the NFL, a player's measurables become so much more important.  It used to be what was put on tape for scouts and NFL personnel people to see was what mattered most.  And that may still be true, but what is becoming more important now is the measurables a player has and how those project to the league.  It is increasingly harder for those skills to be shown on tape given the lack of tape on a guy doing NFL things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gavin said:

We aren't talking about wr here. An O Linemans measurable wont make THAT much of a difference....including arm length consistently enough. Tony Ugoh had far better measurables in just about every category and they sure did not help him. Now he went in the 2nd round but was also talked about as a possible 1st rounder (Clark was talked about by some as a 1st-2nd round pick...again as was Ugoh.). His measurables sure did not help him. He can move well (Clark) but relies to much on his long arms.

 

Now I do think he has a shot but that has nothing to do with measurables and more to the fact that he is mobile. He really doesn't have a higher ceiling because of measurable...not at the O Line position anyway. He has a high ceiling because of his mobility...which don't always translate to the Combine. Lower floor because he has so much to learn.

 

I don't mind that he was picked in the 3rd even though I saw him as a 4th rounder. I mind that their was better players in the 3rd we could have had. If he was the BPA in the 3rd (apparently he was on the Colts board seemingly based on measurables more than anything else the way the Colts scouts talked) then take him, which the Colts did. I dont fault the Colts brass at all for going with who they thought was apparently BPA......I fault them for apparently thinking HE WAS the BPA.

 

Hopefully he works out and eventually replaces Reitz when he retires or starts playing bad. I'd love it if that happened.....However I think the odds are much higher Clark is talked about as another Grigson bust. We can revisit this in 4 years and if I'm wrong I'll make a board about it and publicly admit how bad I whiffed on Clark...I might forget  but I sincerely hope someone reminds me if I do. I do however feel I'm best at scouting O Linemen (Though I whiffed on Hayworth Hicks horribly as an undrafted FA in 2012...But I was really new then)

 

Isn't a player's mobility a measurable?  Isn't that in part what the shuttle run and 3 cone drill are designed to help measure?

 

I am sorry - but the last line of your 3rd paragraph is just hysterical.  I know you are a youtube fiend and they only have access to coaches, teammates, family, test scores, coaches tape, and virtually anything else you can imagine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

Isn't a player's mobility a measurable?  Isn't that in part what the shuttle run and 3 cone drill are designed to help measure?

 

I am sorry - but the last line of your 3rd paragraph is just hysterical.  I know you are a youtube fiend and they only have access to coaches, teammates, family, test scores, coaches tape, and virtually anything else you can imagine...

How well a player moves really cant be measured at the combine and those numbers sure are not indicative of how well a player will produce or how high or low a ceiling he has in the NFL. For instance Shane Ray ran a 7.71 3 cone drill which to me would lead a person think he lacked a bit in his ability to change direction (vital for Linebackers)...But he don't. Combine numbers have a place but they should be taken with a grain of salt. Also its not youtube...and even if it was you can tell a lot but watching games if you know what to look for by doing your own research, Its not like I'm looking at some highlights and not taking into account what scouts and gurus say

 

We can revisit this in 4 years and see if Clark is starting or even on the team then, Hopefully he will be. I'm rooting for him, But since you like poking fun at how much I watch players and automatically come to the conclusion I have no idea what I'm watching then you don't mind if I come back and say I told you so if he flops (strong possibility given how much he has to learn)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gavin said:

How well a player moves really cant be measured at the combine and those numbers sure are not indicative of how well a player will produce or how high or low a ceiling he has in the NFL. For instance Shane Ray ran a 7.71 3 cone drill which to me would lead a person think he lacked a bit in his ability to change direction (vital for Linebackers)...But he don't. Combine numbers have a place but they should be taken with a grain of salt. Also its not youtube...and even if it was you can tell a lot but watching games if you know what to look for by doing your own research, Its not like I'm looking at some highlights and not taking into account what scouts and gurus say

 

We can revisit this in 4 years and see if Clark is starting or even on the team then, Hopefully he will be. I'm rooting for him, But since you like poking fun at how much I watch players and automatically come to the conclusion I have no idea what I'm watching then you don't mind if I come back and say I told you so if he flops (strong possibility given how much he has to learn)

 

1.  I don't care if you come back to trumpet your prediction or eat crow in 4 years.  I will have forgotten by then and won't care even if I do remember.

 

2.  You basically said you know better than the Colts' scouts and front office.  If you cannot appreciate how silly that sounds then I don't know what to tell you.  I do believe you know what you are looking at but I don't believe you know better.  And because you may be ultimately be proven right in 4 years does not change that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

1.  I don't care if you come back to trumpet your prediction or eat crow in 4 years.  I will have forgotten by then and won't care even if I do remember.

 

2.  You basically said you know better than the Colts' scouts and front office.  If you cannot appreciate how silly that sounds then I don't know what to tell you.  I do believe you know what you are looking at but I don't believe you know better.  And because you may be ultimately be proven right in 4 years does not change that fact.

2.Of course it will change that if I am proven right (and I am not against the kid or the pick actually, Just the round he was picked in). It means the scouts will have been wrong (if they prove to be) and I will have been proven right, If you cannot except that scouts and fans alike make mistakes and believe all fans have no clue what they are looking at just because they are fans then I don't know what to tell you. Its also not unfathomable to believe I could be right and they could be wrong...Its happened multiple times before with O Linemen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, what are the scouts going to say? Of course they love the guy! Come the game time some of these guys will turn into pleasant confirmation of scouter evaluations, and some into disappointments (unfortunately). I prefer to be pleasantly surprised to being disappointed, so I try to temper my expectations. This is indeed a nice new media feature with scouts talking on colts.com, but it's all positive, meant to maintain fans' interest and enthusiasm during the offseason when sky is the limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RomanianColtsFan said:

Oh well, what are the scouts going to say? Of course they love the guy! Come the game time some of these guys will turn into pleasant confirmation of scouter evaluations, and some into disappointments (unfortunately). I prefer to be pleasantly surprised to being disappointed, so I try to temper my expectations. This is indeed a nice new media feature with scouts talking on colts.com, but it's all positive, meant to maintain fans' interest and enthusiasm during the offseason when sky is the limit.

 Every draft pick made is made upon potential and I think 99% of us know that. But it is nice to actually see and hear from some of the scouts like you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RomanianColtsFan said:

Oh well, what are the scouts going to say? Of course they love the guy! Come the game time some of these guys will turn into pleasant confirmation of scouter evaluations, and some into disappointments (unfortunately). I prefer to be pleasantly surprised to being disappointed, so I try to temper my expectations. This is indeed a nice new media feature with scouts talking on colts.com, but it's all positive, meant to maintain fans' interest and enthusiasm during the offseason when sky is the limit.

 

The reason why I love this series --- and I think I'm  the biggest cheerleader for this series --- is that while we fans are obviously not getting the whole story (they don't talk much about what they DIDN'T like)   they're now on record.

 

The scouts are on tape saying things about their picks.    If the pick doesn't work out,  this can lead to a scout losing their job.     If a pick does work out,  this can lead to a scout being promoted.    The comments are now public.      In a year,  we'll know more about the player and the scouts evaluation.    For some of these kids we won't know much for 2 to 3 years.     But eventually we'll have a good idea of how these picks worked out.

 

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.

  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Agreed. Tom always brings thoughtful perspective to the forum and I enjoy reading his posts. 
    • Hey, Tom!    Good to see you posting again!    I know you like to show up this time of year to offer your insight.      As I like to tell you every year, I’m sure you’re posting as often as you can,  but I think many here would love to see you post more often!   This website is always better when you’re posting more!   
    • We, might... or we might not... or we might lose someone else to injury. It's just what happens in the league. If it's not one player it will be another. It's a violent sport and players will miss games.  You know how I feel about AR. I still think he needs improvements but the sky is the limit with him... I don't think there was anybody higher on him than me here. But first thing - he just needs to stay healthy.    Downs had a very promising rookie season. Hope he makes a jump in year 2 too...  Honestly. I'm not high on this TE group. The rumors about Woods are not great. Ogletree and Mallory IMO are JAGs at best. Which is OK for where they were drafted but they are not game changers. We need better... I guess if you believe in Brock Bowers we should be hoping he's there for us to take in the draft.  Cross will need to make the jump because it looks like we might be losing Blackmon. He had some flashes at the end of the year, but he still needs to show consistency over a prolonged period of time. I think Raimann is already very good. I'm not too enthused with the way Ballard has handled the DT position...    Steichen was already doing wonders with what he was given last year. IMO the hope is that AR stays healthy and is able to unlock the full potential of what Steichen envisions in his offense. 
    • I think I need to clarify something…,  I’m NOT suggesting Irsay isn’t filthy rich.  That the Colts aren’t sound financially.     All I’m saying is that from time to time the Colts might have cash flow problems.  Life as a small market team.   Nothing wrong with that.  The Colts do this (The “0” singing bonus) for a reason.  It benefits them.  And I think it’s smart business.   That’s all.   
  • Members

    • JMichael557

      JMichael557 469

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 18,662

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • bWild

      bWild 70

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 16,968

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • luv_pony_express

      luv_pony_express 1,359

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 20,793

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Matabix

      Matabix 462

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,063

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IinD

      IinD 4,436

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DoubleE Colt

      DoubleE Colt 309

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...