Finally, Someone Gets It!

[UKColt13]

15 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

We could take on offensive lineman in the first round every year and I would rejoice and thank the Lord every day. 

 

With our roster full with young Olinemen (not elite, but developing), but having no CB#2 or CB#3, missing a good MLB, old and unreliable at safety, no true elite pass rusher...

 

Makes complete sense to draft a RG at 15.

[coltsfanatic24]

The offensive line is good enough. Luck has great stats and we avg 27 ppg. Rodgers, Ryan, and Brady don't have great offensive lines, but they find ways to make it work.

 

Luck holds the ball the second longest in the league and that's mostly because he's always looking for the big play. It's great when it works. but when it doesn't that's how some of the sacks start to add up. Luck is a gunslinger, there's no changing that and i'm fine with it. The offense is the least of my concerns. There are more glaring needs on defense.

[Coltfreak]

11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Two reasons. 1st.) Ballard has said he wants to build the trenches, and O-Line (Lamp in particular) could be a big part of that where we pick. 2.) We don't know what type of GM Chris Ballard is in the draft yet, so we are guessing how he would approach the draft. Could be by need or BPA, we don't know yet what he'll do. He's never picked players in a draft before. Zero sample size.

Ballard also said he will not draft for need... it will be BPA

[COLTS449]

I like Haeg at RG. He just needs to get stronger, and put on about 10-12 lbs. Which hopefully he's done, or is doing this offseason. But he was impressive at times this year. I don't really like him as much at RT. Let Clark and Good, and a mid round pick battle it out for that spot, but again, like Haeg at RG. Le'Raven Clark. Big time potential at RT IMO. If those 2 can come in and play at a high level then we're set. We may just need a backup/swing tackle type. But yeah, I think Haeg and Clark have the tools to be our starting RG anf RT for the next however many years, and I feel they are both capable of playing at a high level. They now have a full season under their belts, so we should expect giant steps forward from both IMO.

 

BUT......Since Austin Pazstor is somehow still out there. I think we should sign him just to be safe. He can play RG and RT, and IMO he's actually best suited for G, but he shouldn't cost much. He would push both Haeg and Clark to step up. So yeah, bring him in for a year and make sure Haeg and Clark are the answers. Which again...I feel they CAN be. And hopefully they is.......

 

LOL I was just joking on the last sentence btw. "They is"  Figured it was worth a laugh or 2 LOL.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Shepman said:

So you wouldn't take O J Howard at 15 because he is a TE?  Better go back to definition of BPA and read again.

 

When did I say anything about BPA?

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Two reasons. 1st.) Ballard has said he wants to build the trenches, and O-Line (Lamp in particular) could be a big part of that where we pick. 2.) We don't know what type of GM Chris Ballard is in the draft yet, so we are guessing how he would approach the draft. Could be by need or BPA, we don't know yet what he'll do. He's never picked players in a draft before. Zero sample size.

 

1) I don't think that's the reason. I don't think it would matter what Ballard or any GM says, people are addicted to projecting and judging drafts on the basis of whether the team addressed perceived needs, specifically in the first round. The only real exception in the media is if a team drafts a sexy player. Whoever gets Jabrill Peppers, for instance, will get great draft grades from everyone...

 

2) We definitely don't know what Ballard's approach will be, despite what he says, but here we are pre-judging his draft on the basis of whether he hits a perceived need in the first round.

[funktacious2]

Like a ton of others have said, picking Lamp will feel a lot like picking Kelly last year. It's not an exciting pick, but he looks like a sure thing and protecting Luck is obviously still most important. 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

A number of points....    

 

I think there is more needs based drafting throughout the NFL than you're willing to acknowledge.    Even by good teams.

 

When the Colts took Moncrief with the 90th pick,  I think that was an obvious case of BPA....   WR was not a huge need,  but Moncreif was not supposed to be sitting there at 90,  so we grabbed him.    I was thrilled, too good to pass up.

 

But, specific to 2017,  this is a very unique draft.    Other than DT,  every position on the defensive side of the ball is stocked with quality and quantity.      How often does that happen?     So, we can literally pick what we want, when we want.      With that as the back-drop,  why wouldn't you take pass rush and corner as your first two picks (in either order) when you wouldn't be reaching?     They're the two most important positions on defense,  and they're our biggest need.      Why not do that?

 

Other positions will be there in the mid and late rounds.

 

I read a story recently that said a number of GM's believe that from roughly the middle of the 1st round to the middle of the 2nd round,  the grades for those 32 guys won't vary much.      Pick 48 might be just as good as pick 17.      This is a very unique draft indeed.

 

That said,  I've already posted numerous times that I'm incredibly interested in guys like Lamp and Reddick and Foster none of whom play OLB or Corner.     (I don't see Reddick as an Edge guy though he can clearly play it)    So,  I'm perfectly willing to break from my desire to address our two biggest needs.

 

I think the Colts are sitting pretty in this draft.     We can address so many of our needs.    And if we're lucky enough to find a few trading partners,   then we might just be able to fill more needs than we thought possible.

 

Moncrief was a great pick. That's how the draft can be used to add talent, and a year later, Moncrief was playing a big role (by the end of his rookie year, he was basically starting). It illustrates why you DON'T reach for need. We could have forced it at safety, reaching for Marqueston Huff, but we'd still need a safety (since Huff isn't starting material) and we wouldn't have Moncrief. 

 

To the bolded, you're working under the assumption that the Colts board will have similar grades on players at those positions that you've targeted. That might be the case, and if that's the result of honest evaluation and consensus on the staff, then great. But if their board is being influenced by need, or if they're reaching past better players due to need, then they're setting themselves up for failure. 

 

If, under your scenario, the Colts have Lamp as a top 10 player, and they have Harris, McKinley, Charlton, etc., in the 30ish range, and Lamp is there at #15, it would be a mistake to take one of the lesser rated edge players simply because they would presumably fill a position of need, and in doing so, they would be passing on a player with the potential to help the team for a decade, simply because he isn't as needed as the edge players. (There's really no question in my mind that we need a RG; the question is whether one of the players on the roster can fill that need sufficiently.) It would be my hope that they'd trade down and still have a shot at one of those edge players a few picks later.

 

I do think some teams target players at positions of need, but the best way to do that is to maximize your picks and position yourself to where you have options at those positions when you're on the clock. It's obviously not as simple as just taking your highest rated player whenever you're on the clock. Teams reach for QBs all the time, but that's a matter of positional value more than anything else. 

 

What I am pushing back against is the idea that any team -- specifically the Colts in this case -- didn't have a good draft if they didn't address their greatest perceived need in the first round. Wells' position is specifically that the Colts don't need an OL as much as they need a defensive player, so they shouldn't draft an OL in the first round. Instead, he says they should draft a player at a position of greater need in the first round, only because of need. That's not good draft strategy.

"The Colts may well select an offensive lineman at some point in the draft, but the need for a pass-rusher, cornerback and inside linebacker is bigger than using a first-round pick on an O-lineman."

 

And of course, this is not specific to Wells. This is the general way that drafts are judged in the media and by fans, and it completely misses the point of the draft, and how good teams get/stay good. 

 

Separate from all this is fans (or anyone) projecting what the Colts will do on the basis of how perceived need lines up with the strength of the draft. I get that, and it's understandable. In that regard, I'm only restricting myself from getting attached to any specific expectations. It would be great if we come away with great prospects at prime positions, especially in a draft that seems to be dominated by those players. But I can imagine a hundred scenarios in which we don't.

[Shepman]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

When did I say anything about BPA?

To your point you mentioned value I am stating value as BPA with risk, need and character part of that evaluation.  I don't see why you wouldn't consider O J Howard at 15 because he is TE.  He would be on paper and college tape best value and helps OL and puts points on the board.  He has potential to be as good or better than Gronk.  I would take a healthy Gronk at 15 all day long hesa gamewrecker lol.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Shepman said:

To your point you mentioned value I am stating value as BPA with risk, need and character part of that evaluation.  I don't see why you wouldn't consider O J Howard at 15 because he is TE.  He would be on paper and college tape best value and helps OL and puts points on the board.  He has potential to be as good or better than Gronk.  I would take a healthy Gronk at 15 all day long hesa gamewrecker lol.

 

The value of a great TE is debatable, especially as it relates to the draft, because you have to address how much better he is than the other TEs in the draft (and Njoku and Engram aren't bad themselves). But Howard is awesome, and you can at least have the privilege of having a gamewrecker for the next decade.

 

But I think that maximizing value would dictate trading out of #15 if Howard is still there. It's hard to imagine not being able to find a trade partner in that case, and getting more picks in a trade would improve your chances of finding multiple starters in this year's draft. 

 

You're saying BPA, but that's kind of a code for a multi-layered approach. The guiding principle isn't "BPA," IMO, it's "don't reach for need, maximize value." I'm not reaching for my 20th ranked player at #15, but that doesn't mean I have to take my BPA at #15 if it doesn't represent the best value for my team. This is most obvious with QBs, but it also applies to non-premium positions, like TE and RB. It also applies to a position at which your team is pretty well set, but it probably requires a trade.

 

Case in point -- I can see Ryan Kelly being the best player on the Colts board last year (and let's assume that their board wasn't influenced by need, even though we can probably argue that it was). But he's a center, a non-premium position, and we drafted him higher than centers are typically drafted. I don't think that pick represented the best value for the Colts, although they now have a potentially great center for the next decade. It's hard to be mad at the result, but I could see them moving down a few picks, getting an extra 4th or a future pick, and still getting Kelly. I do think he is significantly better than Nick Martin and every other center in last year's draft, just like I feel Howard is the best TE this year. But I feel like they left some meat on the bone, so to speak.

[BOTT]

7 hours ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

The offensive line is good enough. Luck has great stats and we avg 27 ppg. Rodgers, Ryan, and Brady don't have great offensive lines, but they find ways to make it work.

 

Luck holds the ball the second longest in the league and that's mostly because he's always looking for the big play. It's great when it works. but when it doesn't that's how some of the sacks start to add up. Luck is a gunslinger, there's no changing that and i'm fine with it. The offense is the least of my concerns. There are more glaring needs on defense.

Luck is not a gunslinger 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Moncrief was a great pick. That's how the draft can be used to add talent, and a year later, Moncrief was playing a big role (by the end of his rookie year, he was basically starting). It illustrates why you DON'T reach for need. We could have forced it at safety, reaching for Marqueston Huff, but we'd still need a safety (since Huff isn't starting material) and we wouldn't have Moncrief. 

 

To the bolded, you're working under the assumption that the Colts board will have similar grades on players at those positions that you've targeted. That might be the case, and if that's the result of honest evaluation and consensus on the staff, then great. But if their board is being influenced by need, or if they're reaching past better players due to need, then they're setting themselves up for failure. 

 

If, under your scenario, the Colts have Lamp as a top 10 player, and they have Harris, McKinley, Charlton, etc., in the 30ish range, and Lamp is there at #15, it would be a mistake to take one of the lesser rated edge players simply because they would presumably fill a position of need, and in doing so, they would be passing on a player with the potential to help the team for a decade, simply because he isn't as needed as the edge players. (There's really no question in my mind that we need a RG; the question is whether one of the players on the roster can fill that need sufficiently.) It would be my hope that they'd trade down and still have a shot at one of those edge players a few picks later.

 

I do think some teams target players at positions of need, but the best way to do that is to maximize your picks and position yourself to where you have options at those positions when you're on the clock. It's obviously not as simple as just taking your highest rated player whenever you're on the clock. Teams reach for QBs all the time, but that's a matter of positional value more than anything else. 

 

What I am pushing back against is the idea that any team -- specifically the Colts in this case -- didn't have a good draft if they didn't address their greatest perceived need in the first round. Wells' position is specifically that the Colts don't need an OL as much as they need a defensive player, so they shouldn't draft an OL in the first round. Instead, he says they should draft a player at a position of greater need in the first round, only because of need. That's not good draft strategy.

"The Colts may well select an offensive lineman at some point in the draft, but the need for a pass-rusher, cornerback and inside linebacker is bigger than using a first-round pick on an O-lineman."

 

And of course, this is not specific to Wells. This is the general way that drafts are judged in the media and by fans, and it completely misses the point of the draft, and how good teams get/stay good. 

 

Separate from all this is fans (or anyone) projecting what the Colts will do on the basis of how perceived need lines up with the strength of the draft. I get that, and it's understandable. In that regard, I'm only restricting myself from getting attached to any specific expectations. It would be great if we come away with great prospects at prime positions, especially in a draft that seems to be dominated by those players. But I can imagine a hundred scenarios in which we don't.

 

I want to be clear.....    this isn't my view because of my board.    This is my view because of the boards I see and what I read on ESPN and NFL.com and CBS Sports.com.       What website ISN'T saying this is a very unique draft?      None,  that I'm aware of.      I've been echoing what I've been reading for months.     And to my knowledge,  no other poster who gets info from other websites has contradicted this view.     I think this is pretty much a consensus viewpoint.       Have you read anything anywhere that says roughly "don't believe the hype,  this draft isn't as great defensively as you've heard about"...?    I'm just not aware of anything contradictory that's out there.

 

There's also pretty close to unanimity on the weakest spots in the draft...    QB,  OT,  WR and DT.     Three of the 4 spots being on offense.

 

If you've read anything different,  let me know....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AZColt11]

I'm not for drafting PURELY based on BPA.  I mean if you have a franchise QB, and the BPA at your pick is QB, you don't take him just because at some point your QB MIGHT go down, not when you have glaring needs elsewhere.  That's roster suicide IMHO.  I think what you do is form a "list of must-haves" and THEN take BPA based on that group of positions.  Any other way just doesn't make any sense to me.  And if you don't like ANY of the guys for those groups where you pick, you look to trade down.

[Finball]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

Case in point -- I can see Ryan Kelly being the best player on the Colts board last year (and let's assume that their board wasn't influenced by need, even though we can probably argue that it was). But he's a center, a non-premium position, and we drafted him higher than centers are typically drafted. I don't think that pick represented the best value for the Colts, although they now have a potentially great center for the next decade. It's hard to be mad at the result, but I could see them moving down a few picks, getting an extra 4th or a future pick, and still getting Kelly. I do think he is significantly better than Nick Martin and every other center in last year's draft, just like I feel Howard is the best TE this year. But I feel like they left some meat on the bone, so to speak.

 

There is a good chance Redskins would've taken him. They picked at #21, we were at #18.

[rock8591]

Bah, who would accept a 4th rounder to move down a few spots in the first round?

 

 

[BOTT]

17 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

I'm not for drafting PURELY based on BPA.  I mean if you have a franchise QB, and the BPA at your pick is QB, you don't take him just because at some point your QB MIGHT go down, not when you have glaring needs elsewhere.  That's roster suicide IMHO.  I think what you do is form a "list of must-haves" and THEN take BPA based on that group of positions.  Any other way just doesn't make any sense to me.  And if you don't like ANY of the guys for those groups where you pick, you look to trade down.

Nobody drafts purely on BPA...it would be insane.

[Superman]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I want to be clear.....    this isn't my view because of my board.    This is my view because of the boards I see and what I read on ESPN and NFL.com and CBS Sports.com.       What website ISN'T saying this is a very unique draft?      None,  that I'm aware of.      I've been echoing what I've been reading for months.     And to my knowledge,  no other poster who gets info from other websites has contradicted this view.     I think this is pretty much a consensus viewpoint.       Have you read anything anywhere that says roughly "don't believe the hype,  this draft isn't as great defensively as you've heard about"...?    I'm just not aware of anything contradictory that's out there.

 

There's also pretty close to unanimity on the weakest spots in the draft...    QB,  OT,  WR and DT.     Three of the 4 spots being on offense.

 

If you've read anything different,  let me know....

 

I haven't suggested otherwise. I'm not talking about the strength of this draft class, I'm speculating about the way the draft will play out, specifically leading up to the Colts at #15.

 

If they have Lamp as a top ten prospect, and Conley and Harris are their highest graded corner/edge prospects, but they're in the 20-30 range on the Colts board, I don't want them to reach for Conley or Harris simply because they play those premium positions at which this draft is strong. First preference is a trade back, second preference is to take Lamp. It's not that I want Lamp or don't want a corner or edge prospect, it's that I don't want them to reach for need, and I want them to maximize their resources in this draft.

 

Since around the Combine, I've been saying that unless Barnett drops, I think they should try to trade back. And this discussion illustrates why.

 

And specific to the Wells' argument (which is perpetuated every year), I don't agree with the idea that because OL isn't the Colts greatest need right now that they should pass on a great OL prospect in the first round. I think that's bad draft strategy, and not how good teams get/stay good. IF the Colts draft Lamp at #15, it will be because he was rated considerably higher than other players on the board, and they couldn't get a good deal in a trade back. 

[IinD]

I wouldn't prefer ol, but I wouldn't hate it.

 

Our line isn't nearly good enough to pass on a top linemen (if that's what Lamp is, I don't watch much college).

 

I remember being afraid for Luck's life (literally) during the end of the Denver game, one of the Hou games and a couple others I honestly can't remember where they were literally teeing off on him.

 

Excuses aside, whether you want to blame coaching, or Luck hanging on to long or whatever, there were times when we had absolute breakdowns in protecting Luck.

 

For conversations sake I'd have no complaints if they locked up either the rg or rt spot with the top pick at either position.

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't suggested otherwise. I'm not talking about the strength of this draft class, I'm speculating about the way the draft will play out, specifically leading up to the Colts at #15.

 

If they have Lamp as a top ten prospect, and Conley and Harris are their highest graded corner/edge prospects, but they're in the 20-30 range on the Colts board, I don't want them to reach for Conley or Harris simply because they play those premium positions at which this draft is strong. First preference is a trade back, second preference is to take Lamp. It's not that I want Lamp or don't want a corner or edge prospect, it's that I don't want them to reach for need, and I want them to maximize their resources in this draft.

 

Since around the Combine, I've been saying that unless Barnett drops, I think they should try to trade back. And this discussion illustrates why.

 

And specific to the Wells' argument (which is perpetuated every year), I don't agree with the idea that because OL isn't the Colts greatest need right now that they should pass on a great OL prospect in the first round. I think that's bad draft strategy, and not how good teams get/stay good. IF the Colts draft Lamp at #15, it will be because he was rated considerably higher than other players on the board, and they couldn't get a good deal in a trade back. 

 

Thanks.....     I appreciate the answer.....    not much to disagree with....    sorry I misunderstood you.

 

I do confess to massive contradictory feelings here....    if Reddick, Lamp or Conley are there are 15,   there's going to be 50 percent of me saying....     take the highest rated of the three.

 

But the other 50 percent is going to say, try trading back,  get an additional pick or two,  and take on off my list of 11 from another thread.      I'm going to fight myself on that.      Depending on how far back we have to trade,  my dream would be to trade back a modest amount,   and still get one of our top players we hope to land.        Gain picks and the right player.      Win-win.      But that may be pie-in-the-sky.

 

I just don't want to over-think this and get too cute.    Target a player,  then trade back hoping to still get that player and lose him in the process.     If that happens,  I hope we get a good enough trade package to make the loss of that desired player at least somewhat acceptable....

 

Two weeks from now,  we'll be right here talking about our 2017 draft haul!     Looking forward to it!

 

[crazycolt1]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:10 PM, BOTT said:

Luck is not a gunslinger 

??- The Colts were at the higher end of going down the field in the NFL. Yes, Luck is a gunslinger.

[Dark Superman]

I don't see anything with trading back a little and grabbing Lamp in the 1st. Protecting Luck is the key of this franchise, and our defense is going to take 2-3 years to fix if we're lucky. Add a RG and stud RB to this offense, and we can score against anybody with a healthy Luck.

[Dark Superman]

On 4/13/2017 at 5:56 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

While I basically agree with the concept of not using a high pick on an offensive lineman (I have the Colts taking an OL in the 4th round, but Lamp is my exception.)    I'll go ahead and make the counter-argument here....

 

If our new and improved OL,  with Haeg at RG and Clark at RT,  is slow to get going this year then the media will be screaming bloody murder.   The first time Luck gets sacked or hit hard because of a problem on the right side,  Ballard is going to hear sounds he's never heard before in his life.   

 

Here's roughly what the media will say and write....

 

"The Colts have had 6 years to try and protect Andrew Luck and despite firing their old General Manager,  the new guy didn't learn from that!      The Colts STILL can't protect Luck!   Why didn't the Colts use their 1st round pick on ________ and finally be done with it?!?"    It'll be something along those lines,  except it not only will come from local media,  it will also come from national media too.    Inside the walls at Indy headquarters,  the noise will be incredibly loud and uncomfortable.

 

Politically speaking,  Ballard could stand up and say,  "I have this job, in part,  because the Colts have not protected Andrew Luck very well,  and I'm not going to make the same mistake.    I'm fixing that right now and we can now go and address the defense."      He'd be completely covered.    With what Luck has gone through the last two years it's hard to make an argument that getting Luck more O-line help is a poor decision.    And the downside of not getting more top-flight help would be huge....

 

Exactly. Bring a guy like Lamp in here and a stud RB and maybe this offense can start being a little more explosive straight out of the gate.

 

The Colts are a 2-14 team without #12 and we need to continue to surround Andrew with above average talent. He's never had an offensive line and a consistent running game.. that needs to change this season.

 

The defense is nearly in complete rebuild mode and it's going to take a lot more than one season to get that unit where they need to be. I think another strong off-season with tweaking the offense, and continuing to add 'play makers and studs' to the defense and the Colts might be able to make a strong push in the playoffs.

 

A new head coach and better coaching staff is hopefully coming to Indy in 2018.

[Dark Superman]

Fixing the O-line in order to protect your franchise QB and to open up running lanes for your running game is STILL the Colts #1 priority.

[ClaytonColt]

21 minutes ago, I'm Negan said:

I don't see anything with trading back a little and grabbing Lamp in the 1st. Protecting Luck is the key of this franchise, and our defense is going to take 2-3 years to fix if we're lucky. Add a RG and stud RB to this offense, and we can score against anybody with a healthy Luck.

Last year people talked like Luck would never get hit and our running game would be potent if we just signed Kelly. It's happening all over again.

 

Even if we draft Lamp, Luck will still get hit. Every elite quarterback is the key to their respective franchises but that doesn't mean you focus solely in the o-line.

 

Completely agree with Negan - this defense is going to take a couple of years to fix. So why aren't we starting that process right now instead of aiming to have a decent defense some time after 2020. We can already score on anybody, we just can't even defend against Blake Bortles. 

[ClaytonColt]

2 minutes ago, I'm Negan said:

Fixing the O-line in order to protect your franchise QB and to open up running lanes for your running game is STILL the Colts #1 priority.

Winning games should be our number 1 priority.

[BOTT]

6 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Winning games should be our number 1 priority.

You do that by protecting Luck.  Having said that, adjusting the scheme would do a better job of that than adding another offensive lineman.

[ClaytonColt]

24 minutes ago, BOTT said:

You do that by protecting Luck.  Having said that, adjusting the scheme would do a better job of that than adding another offensive lineman.

Completely agree that is part of it - just not the whole like people make out.

 

Also agree that the scheme would make much more difference to his wellbeing than just adding another talented guy upfront. 

[Douzer]

IDK, last I saw, the Colts O-Line was NOT good enough. It was an inconsistent patchwork that included a bunch of ifs, maybes & could bes. 

I, unlike some I guess, do not see a rosie, rock solid group, two tiers deep that fills me with confidence. I saw a lot of fumbling and bumbling by players with holes in their games. I'm all for adding a first tier RG, and keeping the development players in the back row until they're ACTUALLY ready. 

I too see big holes in the defense and understand the argument, it's a good argument, but I refuse to go as far as pretending the O-Line is OK,  it's not. 

[Superman]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I do confess to massive contradictory feelings here....    if Reddick, Lamp or Conley are there are 15,   there's going to be 50 percent of me saying....     take the highest rated of the three.

 

But the other 50 percent is going to say, try trading back,  get an additional pick or two,  and take on off my list of 11 from another thread.      I'm going to fight myself on that.  

 

Imagine the conflict in the Colts meetings right now. I assume they're feeling out trade partners now. Every phone call, text message and email is generating a new discussion/debate about what they should do. It seems to me that it's Ballard, Pagano and Irsay who will be reaching a consensus on the decision, whatever it is. By the night of the draft, I think they'll all be on the same page. But right now is the time for conflict and contraction.

[NewColtsFan]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Imagine the conflict in the Colts meetings right now. I assume they're feeling out trade partners now. Every phone call, text message and email is generating a new discussion/debate about what they should do. It seems to me that it's Ballard, Pagano and Irsay who will be reaching a consensus on the decision, whatever it is. By the night of the draft, I think they'll all be on the same page. But right now is the time for conflict and contraction.

 

Yup.....    spot on.....    well said....

 

Now is the time for conflict.....

 

Was that Churchill or Shakespeare?!?

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Yup.....    spot on.....    well said....

 

Now is the time for conflict.....

 

Was that Churchill or Shakespeare?!?

 

Both, probably.