Colts are “taking a hard look” at Joe Mixon

[masnerj]

In case people haven't seen the article yet, http://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/4/12/15271726/anonymous-nfl-scout-says-colts-are-taking-a-hard-look-joe-mixon-christian-mccaffrey-2017-nfl-draft

 

Interesting news, not suprised to be honest. But doesn't mean we'll take him (though I think he would be ok in the 2nd or 3rd round). 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

I would love to get Mixon. Of course I would love it more if we can get him in 2nd or later and get another playmaker in the first.

[masnerj]

Also on a side note, regardless of what the guy in the original article said, I highly highly highly doubt any team is going to draft Mixon in the first. It sends a bad message and is a TERRIBLE PR move.

 

2nd Round is probably where we would have to take him if we want him. 

[bananabucket]

4 minutes ago, masnerj said:

I highly highly highly doubt any team is going to draft Mixon in the first. It sends a bad message and is a TERRIBLE PR move.

 

Like I give a ****

[BProland85]

The earliest I'd wanna take a RB is late 2nd so if Indy traded down into the lower 2nd I'd be in favor of drafting him. Indy needs defensive playmakers first and foremost. 

[PeterBowman]

is it a hard look or a hard "right" look?

[OffensivelyPC]

The more I see articles about teams interested in Mixon, the more I think teams are becoming more comfortable with his interviews and meetings where he's sure to get questioned on the incidents.  Someone posted an interview with Mixon on a radio show and after hearing him talk about it, I felt that, while he didn't say anything that "wowed" me, there were some good takeaways that he's owning it and trying to make amends for it.  If we took him in the 2nd, I wouldn't be disappointed, but still cautiously optimistic.  

[Superman]

#weallinonmixonyall

 

Last time, I promise.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

#weallinonmixonyall

 

Last time, I promise.

Would you like it if we draft him in the first, though?

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

Would you like it if we draft him in the first, though?

 

Absolutely not. No running backs in the first for me. I'm assuming you're talking about a trade down situation; I'd be very disappointed if we took him in the first period, but I'd personally revolt if we took him at #15. 

 

I'm not super comfortable with his character, but I can get behind the team if they are comfortable enough to draft him. I think he'd be a great value in the third. Higher than that, between the character issues and how I feel about the board, I wouldn't do it. JMO

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Absolutely not. No running backs in the first for me. I'm assuming you're talking about a trade down situation; I'd be very disappointed if we took him in the first period, but I'd personally revolt if we took him at #15. 

 

I'm not super comfortable with his character, but I can get behind the team if they are comfortable enough to draft him. I think he'd be a great value in the third. Higher than that, between the character issues and how I feel about the board, I wouldn't do it. JMO

I think he's a first round talent, but I mirror your strategy of no RBs in the first. I would draft him in the second though.

[Colt Overseas]

Ballard in an interview last week said he didn't know enough about him to make a judgement.

 

Conflicting..

 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think he's a first round talent, but I mirror your strategy of no RBs in the first. I would draft him in the second though.

 

Definitely a high level talent, I could see him being one of the first three backs taken if not for the character questions. I question his focus and discipline on the field (free-lancing and dropped passes), but he makes plays. And I don't think he's a tough runner, but again, he's productive and effective. 

[Smonroe]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Definitely a high level talent, I could see him being one of the first three backs taken if not for the character questions. I question his focus and discipline on the field (free-lancing and dropped passes), but he makes plays. And I don't think he's a tough runner, but again, he's productive and effective. 

 

Perine was a very good college RB, holds the record for career yardage at OK.  But the difference between the two on the field was stark.  Mixon looks like a no miss pro. 

 

Everyone has to make their own peace with his past, I'm not sure what else he can do. 

 

That all being said, we know the shelf life of RBs.  Yet, if we can get him with our second pick, it would be awesome IMO. 

[Shive]

18 minutes ago, Colt Overseas said:

Ballard in an interview last week said he didn't know enough about him to make a judgement.

 

Conflicting..

 

Or he didn't want to show his cards, which is what most GM's do. They don't want other teams to know who they like, most likely because it can be used as leverage in trade situations and allows other teams to plan their moves based on what they know of your board.

[Smonroe]

7 minutes ago, Shive said:

Or he didn't want to show his cards, which is what most GM's do. They don't want other teams to know who they like, most likely because it can be used as leverage in trade situations and allows other teams to plan their moves based on what they know of your board.

 

Exactly.  If I'm the GM I'm not going to say anything good about a player I'm interested in, it could just make a team behind us trade up to get him first.

 

I'm probably saying good things about players I may not have much interest in.  Maybe someone will offer more than you expect for your pick.

 

But these guys are all savvy (no Grigson jokes please), none of them are going to tip their hands now. 

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, Shive said:

Or he didn't want to show his cards, which is what most GM's do. They don't want other teams to know who they like, most likely because it can be used as leverage in trade situations and allows other teams to plan their moves based on what they know of your board.

Yeah, it didn't make ANY sense what he said to King. It would be gross incompetence/negligence if he didn't scout him/look into him. That's his job for a team that needs a RB and Mixon is arguably the best RB prospect in the draft. The only way I can see him not looking into Mixon is if irsay straight up told him "You are not drafting Mixon to my team", in which case it makes sense to not waste time. But if this didn't happen, I fully expect Ballard to do his homework on Mixon and make a determination one way or the other. His response was the ultimate hiding of the cards. Didn't show how we feel about him as a prospect, didn't show how we feel about him as a person.

[UKColt13]

Isn't everyone take a hard look at a lot of people right now?

 

Kind of what the pre-draft process is about.

[Superman]

I think Ballard's words were "I haven't delved that far into him yet," speaking of Mixon. There's lots of wiggle room within that statement. 

[Shive]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

I think Ballard's words were "I haven't delved that far into him yet," speaking of Mixon. There's lots of wiggle room within that statement. 

One thing I've noticed with him is that he does a great job giving ambiguous responses that are worded just right. He doesn't commit to it one way or the other, so if he does something or doesn't, he isn't being untruthful either way.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

"This is where (Stanford RB Christian) McCaffrey goes. Perfect fit there"

 

I stopped reading right there

[Superman]

27 minutes ago, Shive said:

One thing I've noticed with him is that he does a great job giving ambiguous responses that are worded just right. He doesn't commit to it one way or the other, so if he does something or doesn't, he isn't being untruthful either way.

 

Yup, to whatever extent that even matters. I don't know why people have this fascination with trying to hold people to an exact interpretation of their comments, especially in a situation like this where there's a competitive advantage to be gained by not being specific. "Coachspeak" is a real thing.

 

It's like when someone asked Grigson if he'd prefer a rookie corner or a rookie OL, and he said a rookie OL would have a tougher time adjusting, so everyone determined that Grigson hated rookie OL. There was never any basis for that conclusion; it only came from applying a rigid interpretation to his response to a question that was already based on a flawed premise.

 

When I heard Ballard's interview and his response to the question about Mixon, it was eyebrow raising, at first. But after thinking about it, it was obvious that he didn't want to speak about Mixon specifically, which is smart for several reasons. And he also left plenty of wiggle room for himself and his staff. Anyone trying to nail down Ballard's opinion on Mixon based on what he said in that interview is reaching.

[Architects08]

Id be ecstatic if we drafted Mixon in the 2nd. 

[NorthernBlue]

I don't know. No doubt Mixon is a stellar talent. Maybe even the best back in the draft.

 

I've already made my opinion of him clear a long time ago. I'm still not 100 percent sure about how I feel about drafting him.

 

I hope the team does as much research on him as possible before taking him. I'm sure he regrets what he did but I'm still not sure myself. 
 

He's a great talent no doubt. Glad I'm not making these decisions though. 

[Colts_Fan12]

One of my favorites in the whole draft I liked the idea of the 3rd better but that impossible now so I'd have to live with the second 

[BOTT]

Sounded like someone talking out his *.  They guy obviously hasn't paid attention to the kind of players the colts have drafted if he thinks Irsay is "just crazy enough" to do it.

[Jackie Daytona]

We've had plenty of players who aren't angels off the field..... trust me.

[jvan1973]

9 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

We've had plenty of players who aren't angels off the field..... trust me.

How many that have full on punched a lady on tape??

[BOTT]

16 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

We've had plenty of players who aren't angels off the field..... trust me.

Thanks for the info.

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Sounded like someone talking out his *.  They guy obviously hasn't paid attention to the kind of players the colts have drafted if he thinks Irsay is "just crazy enough" to do it.

 

I don't understand where this whole 'Jim Irsay is crazy' thing comes from. The Colts have been one of the most conventional, conservative teams in the league with Irsay as the owner. Yet, every time someone tries to float an unconventional idea, it gets pinned on Crazy Jim. 

 

Say what you will about his personal issues, or even his Twitter account, Jim Irsay runs his franchise with discipline and respect for the league in general. He hires good, respected people, and for the most part, the Colts don't bring in players with seriously questionable histories. 

 

I said when I did my review of Mixon that I don't think the Colts will draft him. Between their history for avoiding troubled players to the fact that the GM is in his first year and the coach is on the hot seat, there's little reason to think they'd take the risk with the player or invite the inevitable negative PR.

[DougDew]

The idea that a young person can't pursue his career, even a high profile one, because of a crime or social transgression that has been years removed and processed through the judicial system is just amazingly narrow minded.

 

Most people are reasonable.  The vast majority would give him a chance to prove he has changed.  

 

What most people react to is the idea that SOMEBODY ELSE other than themselves will complain.  The actual complaints come from a small but vocal...and narrow minded....crowd who use the visibility of athletes to carry their message because they are too cheap to pay for it themselves.  

 

Its free messaging on the back of a young person who made a mistake.  And the tactic is deplorable.

 

 

[Yoshinator]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The idea that a young person can't pursue his career, even a high profile one, because of a crime or social transgression that has been years removed and processed through the judicial system is just amazingly narrow minded.

 

Most people are reasonable.  The vast majority would give him a chance to prove he has changed.  

 

What most people react to is the idea that SOMEBODY ELSE other than themselves will complain.  The actual complaints come from a small but vocal...and narrow minded....crowd who use the visibility of athletes to carry their message because they are too cheap to pay for it themselves.  

 

Its free messaging on the back of a young person who made a mistake.  And the tactic is deplorable.

 

 

There are similar sayings like "once a cheater, always a cheater". "Once a criminal, always a criminal". The fact is when you do something once (good or bad), you are more likely to do it again in the future if a similar situation arises. This is why a lot of teams are weary of him, for the PR nightmare and the possible amount of time he could miss for a high pick should he do it again in a league heavily against domestic violence.

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

There are similar sayings like "once a cheater, always a cheater". "Once a criminal, always a criminal". The fact is when you do something once (good or bad), you are more likely to do it again in the future if a similar situation arises. This is why a lot of teams are weary of him, for the PR nightmare and the possible amount of time he could miss for a high pick should he do it again in a league heavily against domestic violence.

I don't think that should be the judgment of a professional organization that has millions of resources to help its employees.  It also just fails reason.

 

Its not like alcoholism or child abuse, so called diseases, where the attraction or urge is uncontrollable for an entire lifetime .  I don't think he feels compelled to punch a woman simply because he's dating her.  It probably has to do with immaturity in dealing with a noncompatible personality, but I'm no shrink.

 

Its also not that far off from saying that anybody who cheats, or does things that are illegal, will tend to cheat at other things and/or ignore the law in other ways.  Apply that judgment to illegal residents or pot smokers and you would be instantly slammed to the ground with a PC-Nazi boot on your throat keeping you there until you turned blue.  A reaction that also fails reason.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

There are similar sayings like "once a cheater, always a cheater". "Once a criminal, always a criminal". The fact is when you do something once (good or bad), you are more likely to do it again in the future if a similar situation arises. This is why a lot of teams are weary of him, for the PR nightmare and the possible amount of time he could miss for a high pick should he do it again in a league heavily against domestic violence.

 

I don't agree with labeling a person on the basis of previous wrong behavior. People learn and grow and all that.

 

But when you look at the pattern in the NFL, players who get in trouble in college often get in trouble in the NFL. Players who fail drug tests at the Combine often fail drug tests in the NFL. And so on... The league is competitive. When you commit resources to players who undermine their own ability to give you the expected return on those resources, you are being put at a competitive disadvantage.

 

You're a poker player; you base your bet on your odds of winning the hand. If the odds aren't high enough, you don't bet at all, unless there's an offsetting factor (which probably can't be quantified most of the time). This is what insurance companies do. Their actuarial tables assign a level of risk to every situation, and they charge premiums based on the amount of risk represented.

 

A team determines how confident they are that a player will be able to stay on the field and out of trouble based on what they know about that player -- off field issues, health issues, coachability, etc. And there are significant PR issues to consider, which can affect sponsorships, partnerships, etc., which all represent money, the team's bottom line. This is why the owner signs off on players with questionable pasts.

 

There's nothing unreasonable about this, IMO. Mitigating risk is something all successful businesses attempt to do. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I don't think that should be the judgment of a professional organization that has millions of resources to help its employees.  It also just fails reason.

 

Its not like alcoholism or child abuse, so called diseases, where the attraction or urge is uncontrollable for an entire lifetime .  I don't think he feels compelled to punch a woman simply because he's dating her.  It probably has to do with immaturity in dealing with a noncompatible personality, but I'm no shrink.

 

Its also not that far off from saying that anybody who cheats, or does things that are illegal, will tend to cheat at other things and/or ignore the law in other ways.  Apply that judgment to illegal residents or pot smokers and you would be instantly slammed to the ground with a PC-Nazi boot on your throat keeping you there until you turned blue.  A reaction that also fails reason.

If I had some info on him after that incident, such as, "has he been in a relationship with a woman since the incident and had no violence incidents or threatening actions towards her", has he gotten into arguments with random women on the street, in bars, or elsewhere and taken the high road this time and learned from his mistakes? These are questions I don't know, and questions that may be asked by teams interviewing him that are interested in him. It's hard to change though, and I have to see before giving him the benefit of the doubt, especially when he's a 1st or 2nd round guy.

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't agree with labeling a person on the basis of previous wrong behavior. People learn and grow and all that.

 

But when you look at the pattern in the NFL, players who get in trouble in college often get in trouble in the NFL. Players who fail drug tests at the Combine often fail drug tests in the NFL. And so on... The league is competitive. When you commit resources to players who undermine their own ability to give you the expected return on those resources, you are being put at a competitive disadvantage.

 

You're a poker player; you base your bet on your odds of winning the hand. If the odds aren't high enough, you don't bet at all, unless there's an offsetting factor (which probably can't be quantified most of the time). This is what insurance companies do. Their actuarial tables assign a level of risk to every situation, and they charge premiums based on the amount of risk represented.

 

A team determines how confident they are that a player will be able to stay on the field and out of trouble based on what they know about that player -- off field issues, health issues, coachability, etc. And there are significant PR issues to consider, which can affect sponsorships, partnerships, etc., which all represent money, the team's bottom line. This is why the owner signs off on players with questionable pasts.

 

There's nothing unreasonable about this, IMO. Mitigating risk is something all successful businesses attempt to do. 

Absolutely. Playing poker, you want an advantage. Even a 51-49% advantage in the long run can make a top player a winning player against weaker opponents. You have to know the odds, and you have to figure out, in Mixon's case, where it would be "profitable" to draft him. Does the risk outweigh the reward in the 1st? Probably not. 2nd? Maybe. Probably the 3rd is where it's safe, but you could miss out on him there. He will get draft in the 1st two days and given a chance. The question is, will he not get into trouble? His situation is one where there shouldn't be a lot of opportunities to repeat what he did before. Unless he is in a relationship where there is conflict or he gets confronted by another woman again at random that puts him to the test to do the right thing, he'll be fine. That will happen a few times though, and any team has to be aware he could repeat his actions. The way to balance that out is to not draft him too early, as you said.

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If I had some info on him after that incident, such as, "has he been in a relationship with a woman since the incident and had no violence incidents or threatening actions towards her", has he gotten into arguments with random women on the street, in bars, or elsewhere and taken the high road this time and learned from his mistakes? These are questions I don't know, and questions that may be asked by teams interviewing him that are interested in him. It's hard to change though, and I have to see before giving him the benefit of the doubt, especially when he's a 1st or 2nd round guy.

Agreed.  I'm simply saying that the people who would instantly cause the PR problem, a small but vocal crowd IMO, should also try to find more information before passing judgment.

 

But they're not really interested in knowing if Mixon has matured or not.  They are only interested in using his past to carry their message, so more recent information is not really relevant to them.

[Superman]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

Absolutely. Playing poker, you want an advantage. Even a 51-49% advantage in the long run can make a top player a winning player against weaker opponents. You have to know the odds, and you have to figure out, in Mixon's case, where it would be "profitable" to draft him. Does the risk outweigh the reward in the 1st? Probably not. 2nd? Maybe. Probably the 3rd is where it's safe, but you could miss out on him there. He will get draft in the 1st two days and given a chance. The question is, will he not get into trouble? His situation is one where there shouldn't be a lot of opportunities to repeat what he did before. Unless he is in a relationship where there is conflict or he gets confronted by another woman again at random that puts him to the test to do the right thing, he'll be fine. That will happen a few times though, and any team has to be aware he could repeat his actions. The way to balance that out is to not draft him too early, as you said.

 

To the bolded, only if you play enough hands. Some people don't understand runs, and the way things balance out, and don't give their strategy enough time to succeed. Then some people don't understand the difference between flawed strategy and flawed execution.

 

As for Mixon's specific issue, it was a weird, random situation with someone with whom he had no relationship. Not really a domestic violence issue, but still very concerning. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, only if you play enough hands. Some people don't understand runs, and the way things balance out, and don't give their strategy enough time to succeed. Then some people don't understand the difference between flawed strategy and flawed execution.

 

As for Mixon's specific issue, it was a weird, random situation with someone with whom he had no relationship. Not really a domestic violence issue, but still very concerning. 

Ballard will get a better read on him by interviewing him than we ever would by reading quotes. If he can read body language and understand his tone as he answers questions, he should be able to make the right decision. If he is ok on him, then it's about where he feels comfortable pulling the trigger. He had a small say with Marcus Peters and that WR on the Chiefs drafted late last year, so I know he has some experience with guys like Mixon. I still say it's unlikely we get him in such a deep class though.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Ballard will get a better read on him by interviewing him than we ever would by reading quotes. If he can read body language and understand his tone as he answers questions, he should be able to make the right decision. If he is ok on him, then it's about where he feels comfortable pulling the trigger. He had a small say with Marcus Peters and that WR on the Chiefs drafted late last year, so I know he has some experience with guys like Mixon. I still say it's unlikely we get him in such a deep class though.

 

Based on Ballard's interview with Peter King, he had a big say with Peters. But the stage was set by the good word from scouts, and the coach being open to Peters in the first place. If the coach had slammed the door from the beginning, Ballard wouldn't have dug so deep on Peters, spending time with him and his family, etc.