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

[jskinnz]

5 hours ago, Gavin said:

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

 

A broken clock is right twice a day.  A blind squirrel still can find an acorn.

 

Scouting is not an exact science.  It is a profession of humans judging & projecting the success of other humans so by definition it is fallible.  A good scout can miss on a player.  A bad scout can hit on one.  The fact that you may be proven right down the road on Clark is possible but still does not mean you know better.  Not even close.  You don't have access to a tenth of the info that the team does.  Simple as that.  Suggesting that you do know better with regards to Clark is, as I said in my first post, hysterical.

[Gavin]

35 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

A broken clock is right twice a day.  A blind squirrel still can find an acorn.

 

Scouting is not an exact science.  It is a profession of humans judging & projecting the success of other humans so by definition it is fallible.  A good scout can miss on a player.  A bad scout can hit on one.  The fact that you may be proven right down the road on Clark is possible but still does not mean you know better.  Not even close.  You don't have access to a tenth of the info that the team does.  Simple as that.  Suggesting that you do know better with regards to Clark is, as I said in my first post, hysterical.

Do you honestly think I am stupid enough to believe I have access to everything the scouts have access to...That's what is hysterical. Wow I cant believe you think that let alone typed that.

[Coffeedrinker]

This is one thing that drives me crazy about today's NFL.  Too much emphasis on, to use the phrase in this thread, the tools and not enough on production.  Some of those things are hard to see from a college spread offense but a lot can be seen.

 

I have no idea on Clark because I have not watched anything of his, but the things I look for on an olineman, and it doesn't matter if it's a spread offense, man blocking, zone blocking, whatever, these things should be the same:

What does his head to once he's engaged with a defender?  Does he look around and keep and eye out for stunts, blitzes etc.

 

(tackles only)What does his drop step look like?  Is it too long so he's out of position with his guard, is it too short not allowing him in proper position for the outside rusher.

 

Where are his knees in relation to his toes once engaged with the defender?  Knees should be directly over or slighly in front of toes so he can keep his feet flat and maintain power.  If they are too far over his toes he's leaning too much, if his knees are near his instep or beyond he's getting pushed back to much. (This is one thing that, in his rookie year, made me think Ugoh could become a great tackle, one time he was pretty much straight legged and get pushed backwards and then he just stiffened his entire upper body and stopped the defender cold.  That type of body control and strength is just not seen in the NFL.  Too bad he didn't have the desire to improve on his many weakpoints)

 

What do his toes do when he's moving?  If he's forming a pocket the toes should be pointing towards the tangent line of the arc of the imaginary pocket.  If they point too far in or out then he loses the ability to move as far and as qucikly laterally.

 

What do his toes do once engaged with the defender?

 

How close are his feet when engaged?  A lineman should keep the same base stance...however far apart his feet are in the 3 point stance should roughly equal the distance when blocking.  If they are too wide then he will get burned with an inside spin move, if too narrow then the defender has multiple options available to him.

 

Where are his hands after the snap?  This is one of the biggest problems with tackles coming out of a spread offense, they keep their hands down and their hips and then bring them up once they see which defender they are going to block and then placement doesn't matter, they go inside, outside, one of each because at that point they may have another 0.5 to 1 seconds to block and then the ball is gone.  IN the NFL that is too late, you have to get your hands up to chest level immediately and then punch inside the defenders arms, if you go outside they will swat it down and run right past you.

 

When doubling, does he hand the defender off with one arm?  If he uses his outside arm them he's out of position to get someone coming on the delay to that side.

 

Does he always keep one foot on the ground?  You don't want a lineman hopping sideways, it should be be step, drag, step, drag.

 

How quickly does he extend his arms once engaged?  This is why the bench press and arm length are important for a lineman.  If he can extend his arms then no defender is going to get past him on this play, extended arms is the best technique for any type of move the defender wants to do, except of bull rush but if your arms are on the inside then a bull rush is near impossible.

 

I'm sure there are other things to look for but those are the technique items I look for from a lineman.  That is why I think Thornton could be an excellent guard if he can get his conditioning, he's does most of those things flawlessly to start the game, then he starts to lose it in the 2nd quarter (or towards the end of a long drive)  It's what I like about the videos I've seen of Kelly, he has great techique and the strength and smarts to go along with it.  It's why I liked Holmes, is biggest weakness was strength but made up for it with great technique, he just could not stay healthy.  It's why I don't like Harrison, he does not do any of the above mentioned well except for his hand placement and punch.

•  

[Gavin]

42 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

This is one thing that drives me crazy about today's NFL.  Too much emphasis on, to use the phrase in this thread, the tools and not enough on production.  Some of those things are hard to see from a college spread offense but a lot can be seen.

 

I have no idea on Clark because I have not watched anything of his, but the things I look for on an olineman, and it doesn't matter if it's a spread offense, man blocking, zone blocking, whatever, these things should be the same:

What does his head to once he's engaged with a defender?  Does he look around and keep and eye out for stunts, blitzes etc.

 

(tackles only)What does his drop step look like?  Is it too long so he's out of position with his guard, is it too short not allowing him in proper position for the outside rusher.

 

Where are his knees in relation to his toes once engaged with the defender?  Knees should be directly over or slighly in front of toes so he can keep his feet flat and maintain power.  If they are too far over his toes he's leaning too much, if his knees are near his instep or beyond he's getting pushed back to much. (This is one thing that, in his rookie year, made me think Ugoh could become a great tackle, one time he was pretty much straight legged and get pushed backwards and then he just stiffened his entire upper body and stopped the defender cold.  That type of body control and strength is just not seen in the NFL.  Too bad he didn't have the desire to improve on his many weakpoints)

 

What do his toes do when he's moving?  If he's forming a pocket the toes should be pointing towards the tangent line of the arc of the imaginary pocket.  If they point too far in or out then he loses the ability to move as far and as qucikly laterally.

 

What do his toes do once engaged with the defender?

 

How close are his feet when engaged?  A lineman should keep the same base stance...however far apart his feet are in the 3 point stance should roughly equal the distance when blocking.  If they are too wide then he will get burned with an inside spin move, if too narrow then the defender has multiple options available to him.

 

Where are his hands after the snap?  This is one of the biggest problems with tackles coming out of a spread offense, they keep their hands down and their hips and then bring them up once they see which defender they are going to block and then placement doesn't matter, they go inside, outside, one of each because at that point they may have another 0.5 to 1 seconds to block and then the ball is gone.  IN the NFL that is too late, you have to get your hands up to chest level immediately and then punch inside the defenders arms, if you go outside they will swat it down and run right past you.

 

When doubling, does he hand the defender off with one arm?  If he uses his outside arm them he's out of position to get someone coming on the delay to that side.

 

Does he always keep one foot on the ground?  You don't want a lineman hopping sideways, it should be be step, drag, step, drag.

 

How quickly does he extend his arms once engaged?  This is why the bench press and arm length are important for a lineman.  If he can extend his arms then no defender is going to get past him on this play, extended arms is the best technique for any type of move the defender wants to do, except of bull rush but if your arms are on the inside then a bull rush is near impossible.

 

I'm sure there are other things to look for but those are the technique items I look for from a lineman.  That is why I think Thornton could be an excellent guard if he can get his conditioning, he's does most of those things flawlessly to start the game, then he starts to lose it in the 2nd quarter (or towards the end of a long drive)  It's what I like about the videos I've seen of Kelly, he has great techique and the strength and smarts to go along with it.  It's why I liked Holmes, is biggest weakness was strength but made up for it with great technique, he just could not stay healthy.  It's why I don't like Harrison, he does not do any of the above mentioned well except for his hand placement and punch.

•  

http://draftbreakdown.com/video/leraven-clark-vs-baylor-2015/

http://draftbreakdown.com/video/leraven-clark-vs-lsu-2015/

http://draftbreakdown.com/video/leraven-clark-vs-lsu-2015/

 

My biggest concern with him is footwork which just simply does not exist at times and that he relies to much on his long arms. His long arms bailed him out from time to time in college. I don't see that happening against superior competition in the NFL. He has his share of good blocks, Its nowhere near all bad and the thing he has going most for him is his mobility in my opinion but his technique is all over the place and he lacks strength

 

Strengths:

 

-Mobility

-Anchors against bull rushers well

 

Weaknesses:

 

-Stays flat towards LOS in pass protection to often in stead of facing sideline creating a wall between the rusher and the QB (thereby creating a natural running lane or a place for Luck to step into the pocket)

-Change of direction is limited. Moves one way well but if a defender crosses back across his face the other way he struggles to recover...I tend to think this is a coordination issue or footwork isssue more than just the fact that he is not capable because of lack of agility...I actually think he is capable physically with practice

-More than mobile enough to get to the 2nd level but can struggle to find the Linebacker sometimes

-Hands are all over the place at times.

-And of course lack of NFL caliber strength which I'm not concerned about provided he stays healthy and committed in the weight room. Its normal for this to be an issue with most college players

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Gavin said:

Do you honestly think I am stupid enough to believe I have access to everything the scouts have access to...That's what is hysterical. Wow I cant believe you think that let alone typed that.

 

Gavin.....

 

JSkinnz doesn't think that.

 

But from your posts you seem to imply that you know better than they do.     And THAT'S what he's noting.

 

Not that you have access to the same information.     But you jump to conclusions based on your views and then try to sell them here as just as valid as what a pro scout will tell you.

 

For example,  I wonder if you saw the video on the Scouts talking about Clark?     Because they'll tell you what you need to know.     And that video says your views are seriously wrong.

 

[Gavin]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Gavin.....

 

JSkinnz doesn't think that.

 

But from your posts you seem to imply that you know better than they do.     And THAT'S what he's noting.

 

Not that you have access to the same information.     But you jump to conclusions based on your views and then try to sell them here as just as valid as what a pro scout will tell you.

 

For example,  I wonder if you saw the video on the Scouts talking about Clark?     Because they'll tell you what you need to know.     And that video says your views are seriously wrong.

 

I saw the video and I'm 2:08 long

 

Key takeaways from the video:

 

-He's a big long kid that can move...Not hard to see

-Believes he can possibly play Guard...We shall see at some point I'm sure but I suspect this will be in only emergency type situations

-They believe he is a real smart and good kid.

-They believe his long arms will make up for his lack of technique early on if he is forced into action. I said that it can against mediocre to below average talent...particularly guys that have no array of pass rush rep, Guys that pull rush every single time he will be fine and hold his own no doubt in my mind. But against savvy D Linemen that actually have skill he will struggle and his arm length wont consistently bail him out against that....especially considering he does not always get them up but has them down at his sides

 

-They know he has plenty of technique issues to work on...as I expected they did all along

 

The video could be summed up in one sentence. "Hey we liked his physical traits and we think those traits will make up for some of his technique deficiencies early on"

 

Hey I hope he works out and gets the issues fixed but I'll take the O Linemen who has superior strength and fundamentals every time. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Gavin said:

I saw the video and I'm 2:08 long

 

Key takeaways from the video:

 

-He's a big long kid that can move...Not hard to see

-Believes he can possibly play Guard...We shall see at some point I'm sure but I suspect this will be in only emergency type situations

-They believe he is a real smart and good kid.

-They believe his long arms will make up for his lack of technique early on if he is forced into action. I said that it can against mediocre to below average talent...particularly guys that have no array of pass rush rep, Guys that pull rush every single time he will be fine and hold his own no doubt in my mind. But against savvy D Linemen that actually have skill he will struggle and his arm length wont consistently bail him out against that....especially considering he does not always get them up but has them down at his sides

 

-They know he has plenty of technique issues to work on...as I expected they did all along

 

The video could be summed up in one sentence. "Hey we liked his physical traits and we think those traits will make up for some of his technique deficiencies early on"

 

Hey I hope he works out and gets the issues fixed but I'll take the O Linemen who has superior strength and fundamentals every time. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

 

I know.

 

And that's why I think you really don't understand scouting.      

 

You understand looking at tape and evaluating.     But you seem unwilling to do the rest of the part of the evaluation.      And if you're not doing everything else,   then you don't understand scouting.

 

There's so much more than just looking at tape.     And please don't respond that you understand that.    Because in most every post your evaluation of a player --- any player --- consists of what you see on tape.   And you don't seem interested in everything else.....       That's your right.      But it doesn't make it right.     In fact it makes it wrong.....     And that's your right too.....

 

Oh well.....

 

 

 

[Gavin]

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I know.

 

And that's why I think you really don't understand scouting.      

 

You understand looking at tape and evaluating.     But you seem unwilling to do the rest of the part of the evaluation.      And if you're not doing everything else,   then you don't understand scouting.

 

There's so much more than just looking at tape.     And please don't respond that you understand that.    Because in most every post your evaluation of a player --- any player --- consists of what you see on tape.   And you don't seem interested in everything else.....       That's your right.      But it doesn't make it right.     In fact it makes it wrong.....     And that's your right too.....

 

Oh well.....

 

 

 

History favors prospects that come in having a feel for fundamentals over those that don't. That's one of the reasons why so many fail. Poor fundamentals....which most coaches will say they don't have time in the pros to teach. They are in the business of winning football games or being fired sometimes the very next day, They are NOT in the business of teaching fundamentals. Most O Linemen have to have outside help these days because Fundamentals are not taught much at all in the pros...Multiple O Linemen have came forward and said that

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Gavin said:

History favors prospects that come in having a feel for fundamentals over those that don't. That's one of the reasons why so many fail. Poor fundamentals....which most coaches will say they don't have time in the pros to teach. Most O Linemen have to have outside help these days because Fundamentals are not taught much at all in the pros

 

There's been a change over the last decade or so.    Coaching staffs are now huge.    They're roughly twice the size of college coaching staffs.     

 

More teaching is done on the pro level now because such poor teaching is being done on the college level.    So many colleges have gone to some version of the spread that lineman aren't coming in prepared for the NFL.  That's why there's been a change.      That's why Arizona basically gave Humphrey a complete redshirt year.   And the Colts may do the same with Clark.     It's what we did with Good last year.    He missed the first 10 games and only got in because Costanzo got hurt.    

 

But more and better coaching on the NFL level has been happening and you've been completely unaware.

 

And the more you fight this,  and that's what you've been doing this entire thread,  the more it looks like you don't understand scouting.     Which is ironic because you like to think of yourself as a scout.     But, again,   there's more to scouting than looking at tape.....

 

 

[Gavin]

34 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

There's been a change over the last decade or so.    Coaching staffs are now huge.    They're roughly twice the size of college coaching staffs.     

 

More teaching is done on the pro level now because such poor teaching is being done on the college level.    So many colleges have gone to some version of the spread that lineman aren't coming in prepared for the NFL.  That's why there's been a change.      That's why Arizona basically gave Humphrey a complete redshirt year.   And the Colts may do the same with Clark.     It's what we did with Good last year.    He missed the first 10 games and only got in because Costanzo got hurt.    

 

But more and better coaching on the NFL level has been happening and you've been completely unaware.

 

And the more you fight this,  and that's what you've been doing this entire thread,  the more it looks like you don't understand scouting.     Which is ironic because you like to think of yourself as a scout.     But, again,   there's more to scouting than looking at tape.....

 

 

We can go around and around about this but its going to all come down to that we disagree. That's fine. That happens. Your right I look more at what an O Lineman is in the moment (In this case a college prospect) and give my opinion based on what I see rather then looking at measurables and projecting how good he will be off of those. I mean that's a risk I'm just not willing to take in the 1st 3 rounds.

 

Granted sometimes It works out...But overall the odds are against it. I mean I don't want to land another Lance Louis(Yes I know he was in FA but going back to his pro day he had great measurables to) because staff liked his measurables and that he was big and could move....None of which helped Louis look like anything that remotely resembled an O Lineman that belonged on a roster

 

Take Jack Mewhort for example: He was a superior prospect coming out who do did not show all the athletic pro day/combine measurables and was our best O Lineman last year by a wide margin from start to finish because of fundamentals but athletically he is not in the same ball park as Clark minus Mewhorts better bench press numbers

[Defjamz26]

On May 30, 2016 at 0:07 AM, 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

And fact that the guy who was more pro-ready went in the 5th round and Clark went in the the 3rd, should speak volumes to you about the importance of projection and measurables. At least as far as offensive lineman are concerned. Higher Ceiling>>>>>Higher Floor.

[jskinnz]

12 hours ago, Gavin said:

Do you honestly think I am stupid enough to believe I have access to everything the scouts have access to...That's what is hysterical. Wow I cant believe you think that let alone typed that.

 

You earned it.

 

Dear God...

[Gavin]

3 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

You earned it.

 

Dear God...

Been a long time since I earned one of those. I will just leave the debate with this.....18 teams in the 3rd round agreed with me that Clark was not worth there pick. we know 1 of those (Browns) had another Tackle higher than him on there board because they took 1 one in the 3rd.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting I have all the info (I would think that would go without saying that I don't).

[throwing BBZ]

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.....

 

 

 Excellent description of a value pick.
 This kid has a Great opportunity to work himself into our starting lineup after 2-3 training camps
 and become a quality starter.
  I`m hoping in his year 3-4 he is our Upgrade at LT.

[Gavin]

24 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Excellent description of a value pick.
 This kid has a Great opportunity to work himself into our starting lineup after 2-3 training camps
 and become a quality starter.
  I`m hoping in his year 3-4 he is our Upgrade at LT.

Hassan Ridgeway is an excellent description of a value pick. He had the skill of a 1st round player but we got him in the 4th round. Clark went close to where he should have gone whether you believe he should go in the 3rd round or 4th round in my opinion.That's why I don't complain about where he went, I don't mind we got him at all in the 3rd round despite that I think he was going to be around in the 4th. My contention all along has been better players were on the board and that I believe he would have been around till the 4th if not there at our pick in the 4th. If you take away that I thought better players were available in the 3rd then Clark is fine with me in the 3rd

[jskinnz]

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

Been a long time since I earned one of those. I will just leave the debate with this.....18 teams in the 3rd round agreed with me that Clark was not worth there pick. we know 1 of those (Browns) had another Tackle higher than him on there board because they took 1 one in the 3rd.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting I have all the info (I would think that would go without saying that I don't).

 

When you are digging yourself a hole, stop digging.

[Gavin]

3 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

When you are digging yourself a hole, stop digging.

I would if I was digging one

[crazycolt1]

All this bickering over draft picks that none of us know how things are going to turn out makes no sense to me. Every pick made is based off of potential. The potential will not be known for quite a while. The truth will eventually be known but at this point it is unknown. These are rookies we are talking about and very few players other than RB's impact the game as a starters. All I am hoping for is getting the depth a lot better than what we have had it the last couple of years. I think all of these guys have talent but getting that brought out on the playing field has yet to be established.

[rock8591]

21 hours ago, Gavin said:

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

 

 

Don't kid ourselves, fans combined on this forum probably have 1% of the knowledge of the worst scout and worst head/assistant coach in the game.

 

An exception does not disprove the rule.

 

[Jason_]

2 hours ago, Gavin said:

Been a long time since I earned one of those. I will just leave the debate with this.....18 teams in the 3rd round agreed with me that Clark was not worth there pick. we know 1 of those (Browns) had another Tackle higher than him on there board because they took 1 one in the 3rd.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting I have all the info (I would think that would go without saying that I don't).

 

You're jumping to conclusions.  The only thing we know is that those 18 teams had at least 1 other player ranked higher on their board than Clark.  We do NOT know that those 18 teams agreed with you that Clark was not worth their pick.  

[Gavin]

8 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

You're jumping to conclusions.  The only thing we know is that those 18 teams had at least 1 other player ranked higher on their board than Clark.  We do NOT know that those 18 teams agreed with you that Clark was not worth their pick.  

Fair enough. He may have been on there board in the 3rd of course but they did not think highly enough of him to make the call on him, That we do know

[Jason_]

14 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Fair enough. He may have been on there board in the 3rd of course but they did not think highly enough of him to make the call on him, That we do know

 

Again, only because they had at least one player rated higher.  That still does not mean they didn't consider Clark as being worth their 3rd round pick.

[Gavin]

8 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

Again, only because they had at least one player rated higher.  That still does not mean they didn't consider Clark as being worth their 3rd round pick.

Agreed, Also I want to be clear that I don't dislike the pick or Clark himself. I hope he works out and is our RT of the future. I think he can play spot duty at RG but not full time. Truth be told I think he has the best chance to be our future Joe Reitz. 6th O Lineman and possibly a solid RT in time. Just that I had players ahead of him in the 3rd. No big deal really cause I'm obviously not the one making the call and don't have to answer to it if I'm wrong.

 

I may sound big headed on my stance on this but I don't think I am. I just have my opinion it regardless of how many people disagree based on what I saw of him and the scouting reports I read. Without question he has a high upside, I'm just of the opinion you take the better player over the player with higher upside in the 1st 3 rounds and start gambling in rounds 4-7 if you want

[jskinnz]

59 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Fair enough. He may have been on there board in the 3rd of course but they did not think highly enough of him to make the call on him, That we do know

 

Gavin - stop digging.

[NewColtsFan]

59 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Fair enough. He may have been on there board in the 3rd of course but they did not think highly enough of him to make the call on him, That we do know

 

No.      It's incredible how you twist this.

 

All it means is that they liked at least one other player a little more.     And given how many teams are drafting for need at that point and not BPA,   you can't read anything into his going 82nd as a negative.

 

Teams may have loved Clark.    But they loved at least one other player just a little bit more.

 

You keep writing they didn't like him enough.....    I keep writing they liked him plenty but liked someone else a little more.       Do you see the difference?      Is it not possible that some team had Clark rated as the 70th best player but had someone else rated as the 65th?       You keep trying to find a way to describe Clark in the most negative way possible.     Like when you said if the Colts hadn't taken him 82nd,  he might've called all the way to their pick in the 4th round.     Not credible.

 

[Gavin]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

No.      It's incredible how you twist this.

 

All it means is that they liked at least one other player a little more.     And given how many teams are drafting for need at that point and not BPA,   you can't read anything into his going 82nd as a negative.

 

Teams may have loved Clark.    But they loved at least one other player just a little bit more.

 

You keep writing they didn't like him enough.....    I keep writing they liked him plenty but liked someone else a little more.       Do you see the difference?      Is it not possible that some team had Clark rated as the 70th best player but had someone else rated as the 65th?       You keep trying to find a way to describe Clark in the most negative way possible.     Like when you said if the Colts hadn't taken him 82nd,  he might've called all the way to their pick in the 4th round.     Not credible.

 

"Like when you said if the Colts hadn't taken him 82nd,  he might've called all the way to their pick in the 4th round.     Not credible."

 

Its realistic and my opinion he could have very well been around in the 4th round. That was 13-14 picks away from where he was taken. Maybe he would have went in the 3rd after all. I don't think so and its an opinion. Certainly not fact but very realistic. To think he was definitely going in the 3rd round is an opinion as well, Nothing more until he actually goes in the 3rd. I had him as a 4th round pick because he has a lot to learn from a fundamental standpoint..again my opinion and we don't know if he would have lasted till the 4th. To think that's not "credible" thinking is just not being realistic

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Gavin said:

"Like when you said if the Colts hadn't taken him 82nd,  he might've called all the way to their pick in the 4th round.     Not credible."

 

Its realistic and my opinion he could have very well been around in the 4th round. That was 13-14 picks away from where he was taken. Maybe he would have went in the 3rd after all. I don't think so and its an opinion. Certainly not fact but very realistic. To think he was definitely going in the 3rd round is an opinion as well, Nothing more until he actually goes in the 3rd. I had him as a 4th round pick because he has a lot to learn from a fundamental standpoint..again my opinion and we don't know if he would have lasted till the 4th. To think that's not "credible" thinking is just not being realistic

 

 

Now you're moving the goal line....  one of your favorite things,  but you're certainly not the only one to do that....

 

You've also stated -- in this thread and others -- that you thought he'd last to the Colts pick in the 4th round.   That's roughly 35 more picks, including the supplemental picks.

 

Now,  you're saying he could've lasted to the first pick of the 4th round,  this year,  that's pick 100.

 

So, which is it?

 

You're also saying that because he went 82nd,  that's proof that no one liked him that much.     That's completely false and shows how little you know about the draft.      All it proves it that when it came time to pick,  each team had at least one other player they liked more.      Doesn't mean they didn't like Clark.    Only that they wanted at least one player more.       There's a big difference in those positions.

 

I think this might be the worst thread you've ever been involved in.....    I'm sorry for your sake that you can't make it disappear........ 

 

 

[Gavin]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Now you're moving the goal line....  one of your favorite things,  but you're certainly not the only one to do that....

 

You've also stated -- in this thread and others -- that you thought he'd last to the Colts pick in the 4th round.   That's roughly 35 more picks, including the supplemental picks.

 

Now,  you're saying he could've lasted to the first pick of the 4th round,  this year,  that's pick 100.

 

So, which is it?

 

You're also saying that because he went 82nd,  that's proof that no one liked him that much.     That's completely false and shows how little you know about the draft.      All it proves it that when it came time to pick,  each team had at least one other player they liked more.      Doesn't mean they didn't like Clark.    Only that they wanted at least one player more.       There's a big difference in those positions.

 

I think this might be the worst thread you've ever been involved in.....    I'm sorry for your sake that you can't make it disappear........ 

 

 

He would have been around in the 4th round period in my opinion. Who and where would he have been taken in the 4th? I don't remember who had what needs when they were addressed. Its possible he would have been around in the 4th for us to take. Its possible he would have went with the 1st pick in the 4th. All just my opinion but its very possible. I also addressed the post with Jason about that, Its proof that 18 teams had what they thought were better players available NOT that they thought he wasn't on there board in the 3rd....Yes I was wrong on how I spoke about that.

 

You seem to throw around the word credibility in some of your posts when addressing others opinions that don't match up with your own or at least with what people who do this for a living say which that's the smart thing to do to take a persons opinion who does a certain job for a living but its alright to recognize they wont be perfect (which you do) and that fans are not always wrong because they are fans and that fans are capable of learning the right way of watching game tape if they put a lot of effort into it and use resources that are available from coaches/scouts/players who have played the game before or coached (And I do)

 

I assure you I'm not concerned about proving my credibility to people I never met and wouldn't know who they were on the forum if I passed them on the street tomorrow. Now it would be different if I just came on here to jack around and start an argument and get some sort of thrill from it but I don't. I just have strong opinions and some will be right and some will be wrong

 

[NewColtsFan]

24 minutes ago, Gavin said:

He would have been around in the 4th round period in my opinion. Who and where would he have been taken in the 4th? I don't remember who had what needs when they were addressed. Its possible he would have been around in the 4th for us to take. Its possible he would have went with the 1st pick in the 4th. All just my opinion but its very possible. I also addressed the post with Jason about that, Its proof that 18 teams had what they thought were better players available NOT that they thought he wasn't on there board in the 3rd....Yes I was wrong on how I spoke about that.

 

You seem to throw around the word credibility in some of your posts when addressing others opinions that don't match up with your own or at least with what people who do this for a living say which that's the smart thing to do to take a persons opinion who does a certain job for a living but its alright to recognize they wont be perfect (which you do) and that fans are not always wrong because they are fans and that fans are capable of learning the right way of watching game tape if they put a lot of effort into it and use resources that are available from coaches/scouts/players who have played the game before or coached (And I do)

 

I assure you I'm not concerned about proving my credibility to people I never met and wouldn't know who they were on the forum if I passed them on the street tomorrow. Now it would be different if I just came on here to jack around and start an argument and get some sort of thrill from it but I don't. I just have strong opinions and some will be right and some will be wrong

 

 

I throw words like credibility around when you repeatedly demonstrate --- as you have thoughout this thread --- that you don't understand what you're talking about.      Remember, you're not arguing with just me,  you're arguing with most everyone in this thread including the Scouts of the Indianapolis Colts who ranked Clark as a near 1st rounder.      

 

Your argument display an enormous lack of logic and common sense.     I don't care if we agree.     I don't ever care that we agree.     But at least have something better than....   "It's my opinion....."      Right now you're using it as a shield....     Fine, if that's what you want,  be my guest.

 

But I think you've hurt yourself on this one........

 

[Gavin]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I throw words like credibility around when you repeatedly demonstrate --- as you have thoughout this thread --- that you don't understand what you're talking about.      Remember, you're not arguing with just me,  you're arguing with most everyone in this thread including the Scouts of the Indianapolis Colts who ranked Clark as a near 1st rounder.      

 

Your argument display an enormous lack of logic and common sense.     I don't care if we agree.     I don't ever care that we agree.     But at least have something better than....   "It's my opinion....."      Right now you're using it as a shield....     Fine, if that's what you want,  be my guest.

 

But I think you've hurt yourself on this one........

 

You honestly think I care if I'm arguing with Colts scouts and Grigsons draft history?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

"I remember going to the school, and look at this guy on the hoof, lookit, with my eyes, and sayin 'wow, he is a big, long man', and uh..."

 

We should not gloss over the first 10 sec of this video being the best part.

[Gavin]

52 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

"I remember going to the school, and look at this guy on the hoof, lookit, with my eyes, and sayin 'wow, he is a big, long man', and uh..."

 

We should not gloss over the first 10 sec of this video being the best part.

I actually thought that was the least important thing they said during that interview to be honest. With the most important part being they said he has some technique issues to work at. He has a high upside do to mobility and length. The flipside is we spent a 3rd round pick on what's probably long term project player based on everything he will have to learn and the system he came from

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, Gavin said:

I actually thought that was the least important thing they said during that interview to be honest. With the most important part being they said he has some technique issues to work at. He has a high upside do to mobility and length. The flipside is we spent a 3rd round pick on what's probably long term project player based on everything he will have to learn and the system he came from

 

I was joking.  He sounds like a goofball when he says he looked at him "with his eyes".  It was the least important part of the interview, but, to me, the funniest. Did you re-watch the first 10 sec? "on the hoof" ...  

[rock8591]

On 5/31/2016 at 10:13 PM, jskinnz said:

 

A broken clock is right twice a day.  A blind squirrel still can find an acorn.

 

Scouting is not an exact science.  It is a profession of humans judging & projecting the success of other humans so by definition it is fallible.  A good scout can miss on a player.  A bad scout can hit on one.  The fact that you may be proven right down the road on Clark is possible but still does not mean you know better.  Not even close.  You don't have access to a tenth of the info that the team does.  Simple as that.  Suggesting that you do know better with regards to Clark is, as I said in my first post, hysterical.

 

Hysterical is the best way to put it.

 

Normal fan knows as much about football as they do about brain surgery, except the former is broadcast live on TV for us armchair quarterbacks. Yet they feel qualified to talk about the subject.

[Gavin]

7 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

 

Hysterical is the best way to put it.

 

Normal fan knows as much about football as they do about brain surgery, except the former is broadcast live on TV for us armchair quarterbacks. Yet they feel qualified to talk about the subject.

-Normal fans can hardly tell you a players name whos not the star of his/her team

-Normal fans consider a ton of tackles and a votes to the pro bowl as a sign that a player had a great near

-Normal fans know little to nothing about techniques, defensive/offensive packages

-Your normal fans don't pay close attention to the draft or know much of anything outside the prospects name(some dont even know that) about the players that are chosen by there own team

 

 

Normal fan= casual fan in my opinion

 

But then you have another type of fan. This fan I refer to as the informed fan. Now informed fans cant know everything because after all they are still fans and are not in the building and are not privy to conversations behind the scenes or some of the reasons certain decisions were made.

 

-But your informed fan can tell you quite a bit through doing there own research on a variety of subjects related to the game itself and the players that are drafted

-An informed fan reads scouting reports on prospects and applies what they read while watching games......In other words they are watching individual matchups and the game within the game

-An informed fan can not only tell you what different packages are but what the strengths and weaknesses of those packages are (such as the cover 2 defense leaves the defense susceptible to the run...particularly because your Linebackers drop back in coverage...OLB's drop back to the hash marks while ILB drops back about 20 yards deep exposing the middle of the field. Its weak against curl routes..particularly strong side curl. Flood Routes, Corner routes and deep middle of the field.

 

They certainly don't know it all. They can't. They don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. But they do have quite a bit of knowledge. Just always all the information...rarely all the info actually unless its leaked

 

 

[krunk]

I think Gavin and Coffee see the picture the same way I do overall when it comes to picking prospects. You like to see some production and some traits that already exists in most cases versus making projections based on tools and other unproven variables. I'd choose the former over the later in the early rounds. However there are cases when you can clearly see where you can take a guy with a tweak here or there, some coaching here or there and the skill set is off the hook. Sometimes you gotta make a move in the early rounds on a guy like that. I just would not build my whole roster with "projection" guys. A projection guy here or there is okay if the measurables say potential beast. Projections are basically what the Vikings are going off of with the Boeringer pick. I'm okay with the Clark pick because you really don't have to play him immediately. It was said before the draft that the Colts are confident their edge guys can protect between Reitz, Good and maybe you can even throw Haeg into the mix. On top of that even Mewhort can play a little Tackle. You can say what u want about a 7th round pick playing over a 3rd round pick but I have not seen any instances where this staff has thrown a raw rookie out at tackle to protect Luck. Especially if Clark is where DJ Humphries was in terms of technique and learning how to play out of a 3 point stance. I think they will let him learn for much of this year and he will take over at RT in 2017.

 

 

 

 

[RockThatBlue]

13 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Excellent description of a value pick.
 This kid has a Great opportunity to work himself into our starting lineup after 2-3 training camps
 and become a quality starter.
  I`m hoping in his year 3-4 he is our Upgrade at LT.

Why would he be an upgrade over Castanzo? He had an up and down year last year (though is still our best lineman)   the chances of him supplanting Castanzo are pretty much nil. Hes the future RT if anything.

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, Gavin said:

You honestly think I care if I'm arguing with Colts scouts and Grigsons draft history?

 

Whether you like it or not,  Ryan Grigson is a GM whose team has reached the playoffs his first 3 years and went 8-8 despite his franchise QB being injured and missing 9 games.

 

Grigson may not be great,  but he's better than you think he is,  and if you think you can do a better job than Ryan Grigson,  you're delusional.  

 

You would draft every high floor, low ceiling player you can get your hands on.

 

 

 

[Gavin]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Whether you like it or not,  Ryan Grigson is a GM whose team has reached the playoffs his first 3 years and went 8-8 despite his franchise QB being injured and missing 9 games.

 

Grigson may not be great,  but he's better than you think he is,  and if you think you can do a better job than Ryan Grigson,  you're delusional.  

 

You would draft every high floor, low ceiling player you can get your hands on.

 

 

 

In the draft I absolutely believe I could....with the exception of the great equalizers being injuries to prospects and just being a knucklehead since in your scenario as a GM I would have access to some info fans either find out much later about through leaks or not at all. I believe that any good draft is a hit rate of 60%...4 out of 7 picks in a normal draft. 5 out of 8 picks in 2016 draft. Also yes I would draft the solid fundamental player with good production over high ceiling but extremely low floor....In the 1st 3 rounds. Those 1st three-four picks have to be nailed and not gambled on a high upside but very low floor player

 

FA your right that I  could not but that's because the best players may or may not want to come to Indy and they have that choice where as draft picks most often go to the team that drafts them.....Unless your Eli Manning (and by best players that's not always the big name players contrary to popular belief). But its not because I cant spot talent or have no idea what to look for. Fans that put forth the effort and time and learn what to look for and not watch games from what I call a fan point of view or fan mindset can learn to spot talent.

 

Dustin, Superman and Coffee when they have the time are examples of fans that while they are fans they exercise the ability to watch a game from regular fan point of view and just watch the game unfold but also know what to look for when looking at prospects with more of a scouts mindset. They know its not just about X prospect making plays but how he got it done...or why he didn't. Are they always right? No. Am I always right? No absolutely not. But if any one of us ever had the chance in 1 normal 7 round draft I think any one of us can hit on 4 of 7 prospects...60%. Grigson hasn't done that since 2012 when 6 players of 10 draft picks that year showed a lot of promise

 

I get the feeling you think fans are incapable of doing a solid job no matter what and thats simply not the case. Being a GM or scout is an extremely time consuming and a very hard job but I mean this with all do respect to GM's, scouts and on up its not near the hardest job in the world...But still very very hard of course

 

6 2012 draft players that showed a lot of promise or have worked out

Ballard (Injuries, Cant put that on Grigson)

Luck

Hilton

Fleener

Allen

Lavon Brazill even showed plenty of promise

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Gavin said:

But if any one of us ever had the chance in 1 normal 7 round draft I think any one of us can hit on 4 of 7 prospects...60%. Grigson hasn't done that since 2012 when 6 players of 10 draft picks that year showed a lot of promise

 

I'd give Grigson 3 out of 5 in 2014; Newsome smoked his way out of the league. It's too early to judge 2015, but if Dorsett, Anderson, Geathers, Parry and Good stick, then that's 5 out of 8. There are still some problems with those drafts, but I'd only call the 2013 draft "bad." 

 

To the point of this discussion, it's my opinion that you underestimate actual scouting to the point that you think what we do as fans even comes close. Looking at videos and doing research on the Internet isn't scouting. Yes, that's part of what scouts do, but they also work players out in person, watch them in person, talk to them, their coaches, their teammates, their family members, etc.... They have access to medical records and a cache of other information that most people -- including the so-called media experts -- don't ever gain access to. Scouting involves interchange of viewpoints between people, when scouts and coaches bounce stuff off of each other on different prospects. I could go on.

 

What we do as fans is NOT scouting. It's a hobby. We are not judged or graded on our "performance," because we aren't making decisions (which is another aspect to being a GM that goes beyond scouting; making a big board is different from deciding who to draft). We aren't be compensated to execute on draft day. We're just having fun. Compared to even the worst pro scout, the best of us would be lacking in a lot of training and a WHOLE LOT of resources.

 

Don't overestimate what we do as fans, while underestimating what the pros do. Remember Hayworth Hicks (and he's not the only one).

 

None of that is to say that fans don't have the talent to scout players, or don't have the capacity -- mental or otherwise -- to be scouts, even good scouts. It's not exactly quantum physics. It also doesn't mean that there aren't some scouts who are bad at their jobs; there obviously are. GMs, too. But it's silly of anyone to say 'I think I'm pretty good at identifying good/bad players on Internet videos, so I think my opinion is as good as an NFL GM's.'

 

And that's pretty much what you're saying. Maybe it's partly tongue in cheek, but that's not coming across. To me, you're basically saying that you trust your own opinion more than that of the much more informed and much better trained professionals who do this for a living and have way more access and resources, and your basic defense of that position is that they're sometimes wrong, so they don't deserve anymore credit than you do. That's wrongheaded, top to bottom.