For those of you who are SO against taking a RB in 1st take a look at Cowboys ....

[aaron11]

barkley wouldnt be my first pick, but i wouldnt rule him out either

 

its hard to say where we will be drafting for one thing.  lots of teams are separated by just a game or two 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

guys like elliot are the reason why i would not make a hard rule that says never draft a back in the first.  he was well worth it and the cowboys would not take anyone else if they could do it over again.  

 

he lead the league in rushing, and it wasnt just all about the line.  he got a lot of that on his own and is also a very good blocker and receiver.

 

its a risk, and there will be more guys entering the draft that are worth it

 

And zeke is a rarity. Kind of like saying you should always take a Center round one because of Kelly

[crazycolt1]

30 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

guys like elliot are the reason why i would not make a hard rule that says never draft a back in the first.  he was well worth it and the cowboys would not take anyone else if they could do it over again.  

 

he lead the league in rushing, and it wasnt just all about the line.  he got a lot of that on his own and is also a very good blocker and receiver.

 

its a risk, and there will be more guys entering the draft that are worth it

 

The Cowboys had already signed three first round offensive linemen before drafting Elliott.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

they didnt have a QB though for a lot of that stretch

 

AP won mvp and carried his team to the playoffs one year.  

 

they made it to the conference finals when they had bret farve

Then maybe the Vikings should have drafted a QB?

[21isSuperman]

32 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

guys like elliot are the reason why i would not make a hard rule that says never draft a back in the first.  he was well worth it and the cowboys would not take anyone else if they could do it over again.  

 

he lead the league in rushing, and it wasnt just all about the line.  he got a lot of that on his own and is also a very good blocker and receiver.

 

its a risk, and there will be more guys entering the draft that are worth it

 

In today's game, you don't really need a guy who will lead the league in rushing.  You just need a guy who will keep the defense honest and get 4+ yards per carry.  You don't need an elite RB to win, so spending a first round pick on a RB is a luxury.  Elliot running behind a mediocre OL wouldn't be that great.

 

31 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

6 years is longer than a lot of our picks have lasted too

Drafting like Ryan Grigson is not a reason to draft a running back in the first round

[oldunclemark]

21 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Yeah, it makes you wonder what Luck’s number would be behind a healthy and elite Cowboys O-line, doesn’t it?

 

Yes it does...And there's still time

[JMichael557]

Conner Williams, OT Texas. Must get.

[LockeDown]

Ballard emphasized chemistry on our Oline.  He also thought our existing Oline might be good enough.  Im  jumping to a conclusion here, but it Just makes me think he believes he can build a good Oline with average to above average guys who play smart and not necessarily 5 1st or 2nd round picks.  If that's the case, he might not be the top bidder for a top free agent and he might not draft one in the 1st or 2nd  round.  He might scour the league for guys that are good role players.  I say this because I can't think of one sound byte from him where he talks about drafting one high. Much less 3 more.  I hope I'm dead wrong. 

[NannyMcafee]

18 hours ago, runthepost said:

Barkley will be great but can’t get a back when you have no line to block

 

You cant buy the engine to the car and expect it to take you places when there isn't a frame to set it on. 

[#12.]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

In today's game, you don't really need a guy who will lead the league in rushing.  You just need a guy who will keep the defense honest and get 4+ yards per carry.  You don't need an elite RB to win, so spending a first round pick on a RB is a luxury.  Elliot running behind a mediocre OL wouldn't be that great.

 

With Luck's injury history, maybe you do want to attempt to build an elite rushing attack.  I'm not saying draft a RB in the first round, but if you could protect Luck by playing somewhat the way Seattle did early on with Wilson, it would be ideal.  Easier said than done, obviously,  You need a top notch defense, O-line and RB.  

[#12.]

37 minutes ago, LockeDown said:

Ballard emphasized chemistry on our Oline.  He also thought our existing Oline might be good enough.  Im  jumping to a conclusion here, but it Just makes me think he believes he can build a good Oline with average to above average guys who play smart and not necessarily 5 1st or 2nd round picks.  If that's the case, he might not be the top bidder for a top free agent and he might not draft one in the 1st or 2nd  round.  He might scour the league for guys that are good role players.  I say this because I can't think of one sound byte from him where he talks about drafting one high. Much less 3 more.  I hope I'm dead wrong. 

 

Had Hooker not fallen, Ballard said he was looking at offensive players.  My guess would be Lamp.  He was also interested in Zeitler.  

 

If Luck is back, I do believe they will finally sell out, sell the farm to get Luck an O-line.  Protect Luck first, worry about everything else later.

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, #12. said:

 

With Luck's injury history, maybe you do want to attempt to build an elite rushing attack.  I'm not saying draft a RB in the first round, but if you could protect Luck by playing somewhat the way Seattle did early on with Wilson, it would be ideal.  Easier said than done, obviously,  You need a top notch defense, O-line and RB.  

The best way to protect Luck would be to give him good offensive linemen and a good defense

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, #12. said:

 

Had Hooker not fallen, Ballard said he was looking at offensive players.  My guess would be Lamp.  He was also interested in Zeitler.  

 

If Luck is back, I do believe they will finally sell out, sell the farm to get Luck an O-line.  Protect Luck first, worry about everything else later.

He had Zeitler in for a visit and didn't sign him.  Makes you wonder did he low ball the top guard in the market?  Poe and a few others for that matter as well.  Let's hope he gets at least one premier OL this time. 

[HectorRoberts]

If Barkley is available when we pick I’m all for it! 

[rockywoj]

I have no trepidation about using a top ten pick on a guard if said guard can in short order become one of the best in the league. 

 

To to be honest, I think that building a quality offensive line is WAY more important than worrying about getting an elite RB, at this point in time. I think that a more than serviceable RB is easy to acquire via FA or 3rd, 4th, or 5th round. Besides, we may already have the RB we need in Mack. 

 

CLEARLY, though, trying to use later picks on offensive linemen has been an abject failure. It is simply time to quit *footing about and actually fix the damn offensive line once and for all.  Offensive success will then follow in short order. 

[jshipp23]

5 hours ago, aaron11 said:

we dont have to draft Oline in the first round no matter what. 

 

id rather look at pass rushers instead of guards if we are in the top 5, we can find guards in the second and third round.  i definitely would not rule out barkly if he is available when we pick it just depends on who is available 

 

we dont need a LT so we dont have to make oline our first pick.  we can find guards in the second, or make a trade to get one at some point

Ill be happy with Chubb at olb too...A lot of our issues at oline have  do with scheme! Late developing plays causing the QB to hold the ball too long as well as INJURIES.....A NEW coach and a trade for say Joe Thomas or FA's can solve this....Mack is a change of pace back, not a workhorse...Not to  mention, how predictable our offense is.....When they KNOW you are gonna run it's much easier to STOP.....Doesnt mean we have to use a 1st rd pick on oline.....If you can get a once in   decade talent u take it, and btw we NEED gamechanger at RB and  HAVE for years...I agree with you...

[jshipp23]

2 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

The best way to protect Luck would be to give him good offensive linemen and a good defense

Or a competent coaching staff...What a difference for the RAMS...

[jshipp23]

5 hours ago, csmopar said:

And zeke is a rarity. Kind of like saying you should always take a Center round one because of Kelly

As great as Zeke is....barkley is even better and if you reseach him he has the intagibles and love for the game, really smart....He is a homerun can't miss talent...Even if we are top 5 we still probably won't get him...He will go top 3 probably. ..If we do, enjoy the show next year....I think Ballard will take him if he is there....

[jshipp23]

20 hours ago, Jaredfor3 said:

I don't think the Colts will be in a position to draft RB Saquon Barkley. 

 

 

Probably right....UNFORTUNATELY

[jshipp23]

20 hours ago, dgambill said:

Ok...maybe I misunderstood.....but I think you overvalue his trade value. I just don't see it honestly. Jacoby has some good stuff on his resume...but plenty of negatives....I don't think I've seen anything that says this kid should be a long time starter in this league. I do see professional and should be able to be a long time back up. I think we keep him.....backups are expensive and this one knows our team now and proven can win and keep us in games. I don't think we just up and trade that for a 3rd rd pick. Just my opinion. I do suspect after his rookie contract is up he will want to test the FA waters and we will have to give him up rather than pay to keep him though.

Basically a rookie....Give him the right coach he has star potential. ..

[21isSuperman]

30 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Or a competent coaching staff...What a difference for the RAMS...

That too.  All of which would be more effective in protecting Luck than first round pick used on a running back

[jshipp23]

5 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

That too.  All of which would be more effective in protecting Luck than first round pick used on a running back

Im a fan of Brissett...I would at least call Cleveland,  offer Luck for Garrett and their 1st this year, get Barkley and Chubb...That's a Super Bowl in the making...Imagine Chubb and Garrett...Freeney , Mathis 2.0...

[jshipp23]

Colts could easily be 6-4 right now with bum coach and half line hurt or playing hurt...The talent is here now, 1 good offseason and some new direction away from being legit...

[shasta519]

On 11/24/2017 at 10:53 AM, 21isSuperman said:

Current NFL rushing leaders:

1. Le'Veon Bell - 2nd round pick

2. Kareem Hunt - 3rd round pick

3. Jordan Howard - 5th round pick

 

The rest of your post is completely absurd.  You're making the assumption that Luck will never be the same, which is flawed.  Having delays in recovery doesn't mean he'll never be the same.  It's just as possible that he comes back better than ever.  You're saying we should hire Gruden or Harbaugh, which is highly unlikely and/or a bad idea.  Gruden has said multiple times he isn't looking to return to the NFL, while Harbaugh's personality is very mercurial and not stable enough to be a head coach for several years.  Not only that, but he'll also want control of personnel, as he did in San Fran, which won't fly since we have Ballard calling those shots.  Just an overall bad idea for how the Colts should go forward.

 

To be fair, 5 of the next 6 on the list are 1st round RBs...and only one was picked later than top 20.

[shasta519]

On 11/24/2017 at 12:57 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The guy I wanted was Kareem Hunt and Posted that probably at least 10 different times before the Draft. He is averaging 5 yards a carry and will easily gain over 1000 yards this season. He doesn't fumble either.

 

I liked Hunt as well. But Kamara was the guy I wanted above all else. I argued he was the best RB in this class (for the Colts...and any team in the modern NFL). He checked every box for me...and I am not all surprised by what he is doing.

 

However, given the benefit of hindsight and early looks at Mack, I take solace with the fact that Chud would have had no idea how to use a talent like Kamara.

[21isSuperman]

 

21 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Im a fan of Brissett...I would at least call Cleveland,  offer Luck for Garrett and their 1st this year, get Barkley and Chubb...That's a Super Bowl in the making...Imagine Chubb and Garrett...Freeney , Mathis 2.0...

Brissett still has some developing to do, whereas Luck is more of a finished product.  I really like Brissett and think he can be a decent starter, but we should keep him as a very reliable backup for now and try flipping him for some picks in the future.  You have a polished QB with Luck who has played very well in the NFL.  If all of his medicals check out and he heals fully, it would be silly to trade him.

 

9 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

To be fair, 5 of the next 6 on the list are 1st round RBs...and only one was picked later than top 20.

My only point is that you don't need a first round RB to lead the league in rushing.  Nor do you need a first round RB to win games.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Brissett is a great backup, possibly could be a Good starter but I like him. Having said that he isn't even close to a healthy Andrew Luck, lets not get delusional people.

[shasta519]

6 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Then maybe the Vikings should have drafted a QB?

 

They did...twice.

[shasta519]

21 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

Brissett still has some developing to do, whereas Luck is more of a finished product.  I really like Brissett and think he can be a decent starter, but we should keep him as a very reliable backup for now and try flipping him for some picks in the future.  You have a polished QB with Luck who has played very well in the NFL.  If all of his medicals check out and he heals fully, it would be silly to trade him.

 

My only point is that you don't need a first round RB to lead the league in rushing.  Nor do you need a first round RB to win games.

 

Those five teams have a combined record of 32-20 this season...and three lead their respective divisions. 

 

I agree you don't need a 1st round RB...and there's no real argument against that. BUT they can definitely help. Ideally, a team is talented enough that they can afford to draft a major talent at RB that early. Obviously, that's not the Colts right now...and probably won't be.

 

So the next best thing would be for the Colts to invest an early pick on the position (2nd or 3rd round pick). This was probably a very good year to do just that. But Mack was a good start...and there's always next year's draft. 

 

 

[runthepost]

9 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

You cant buy the engine to the car and expect it to take you places when there isn't a frame to set it on. 

I like that saying better

[jshipp23]

9 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

Brissett still has some developing to do, whereas Luck is more of a finished product.  I really like Brissett and think he can be a decent starter, but we should keep him as a very reliable backup for now and try flipping him for some picks in the future.  You have a polished QB with Luck who has played very well in the NFL.  If all of his medicals check out and he heals fully, it would be silly to trade him.

 

My only point is that you don't need a first round RB to lead the league in rushing.  Nor do you need a first round RB to win games.

If he is back to his old self physically and mentally,  I completely agree it would be sillly to trade him......I fear he never will be the same again though...

[ReMeDy]

It doesn't help either we need to wash the strench of Trent Richardson from us. The media would grill us alive if we took a RB in the 1st and turned out to be wrong.

[aaron11]

20 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Then maybe the Vikings should have drafted a QB?

at some point sure, but what does that have to do with using a pick on one of the best running backs ever?

[aaron11]

20 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

In today's game, you don't really need a guy who will lead the league in rushing. 

you dont really need any one thing, besides a QB.  defense doesnt have to lead the league in sacks or turnovers, but it helps.  dont need to be #1 in passing yards or tds but it helps.  same is true for rushing

 

the last time a great rushing team won was the seahawks, i dont think they get that ring without lynch.  he was a first round back, though  traded by the bills after he got in trouble in buffalo.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

you dont really need any one thing, besides a QB.  defense doesnt have to lead the league in sacks or turnovers, but it helps.  dont need to be #1 in passing yards or tds but it helps.  same is true for rushing

 

the last time a great rushing team won was the seahawks, i dont think they get that ring without lynch.  he was a first round back, though  traded by the bills after he got in trouble in buffalo.  

Having a franchise QB is huge. Yes it takes a Good Defense to go with that if you want to win SB's but if you have a Franchise QB, you can get away with not having a Great Defense. As long as it is Top 15 and you have a Great QB your chances are always high at winning a SB. I was looking at all the QB's that have won a SB since the 1992 Season when Dallas started their run with Aikman and every one of them will either be in the HOFame or are already there with the exception of Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. That is only twice in the last 25 seasons (1992-2016) teams won without a HOFame QB. I even think Russell Wilson will eventually make the HOFame if he stays healthy and plays 7-10 more years. Eli will be there as well, he beat the Pats twice in the SB.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Having a franchise QB is huge. Yes it takes a Good Defense to go with that if you want to win SB's but if you have a Franchise QB, you can get away with not having a Great Defense. As long as it is Top 15 and you have a Great QB your chances are always high at winning a SB. I was looking at all the QB's that have won a SB since the 1992 Season when Dallas started their run with Aikman and every one of them will either be in the HOFame or are already there with the exception of Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. That is only twice in the last 25 seasons (1992-2016) teams won without a HOFame QB. I even think Russell Wilson will eventually make the HOFame if he stays healthy and plays 7-10 more years. Eli will be there as well, he beat the Pats twice in the SB.

Flacco may be borderline so maybe 3 SB winning QB's over the last 25 years wont make the HOFame but you guys get my point.

[csmopar]

20 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Im a fan of Brissett...I would at least call Cleveland,  offer Luck for Garrett and their 1st this year, get Barkley and Chubb...That's a Super Bowl in the making...Imagine Chubb and Garrett...Freeney , Mathis 2.0...

Now I know you're high on something. Dude put the bong down or at least don't drink the bong water.  Good grief Charlie Brown

[jshipp23]

16 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Now I know you're high on something. Dude put the bong down or at least don't drink the bong water.  Good grief Charlie Brown

Why because I think it's possible Luck is finished or could be a diminished version of himself and would consider getting something for him while we can??? Look I hope he comes back at same level and can stay healthy too.....It is possible he won't though. ......Nothing wrong with exploring all options....

[csmopar]

22 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

Why because I think it's possible Luck is finished or could be a diminished version of himself and would consider getting something for him while we can??? Look I hope he comes back at same level and can stay healthy too.....It is possible he won't though. ......Nothing wrong with exploring all options....

No. For wanting to trade a franchise QB for a crappy QB and an unknown at RB in the draft.  Until Barkley actually produces, he's far from a sure thing. See Trent Richardson for exhibit A. Besides when was the last time a team without a stud at QB but with a stud at RB actually won a Super Bowl? Minnesota had AP during his prime but didn't have a QB worth while. 

[Dark Superman]

We have Marlon Mack.