Who are you taking at #3 overall?

[Archer]

On 1/10/2018 at 11:56 PM, Matabix said:

I think we can trade back to Jets and both Chubb and Barkley still there. 3 of 6 picks will be QB. Another prolly DB.

 

I've been thinking about this too.  If Barkley and a QB are gone before us, trade partners would probably take a QB, and #4 (Cleveland) wouldn't really be inclined to take another pass-rusher (Fitzpatrick would be a more likely target).   Plus, if someone were to snag Chubb at #3 or #4, we'd have a pretty good consolation prize (Nelson)...

[Fluke_33]

On 1/11/2018 at 12:03 AM, PureGold said:

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

 

Will renfro be available at 3?  Hahaha

[PureGold]

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

Fitz is not worth our first pick. He's overrated. 

[IndyScribe]

3 hours ago, PureGold said:

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

Fitz is not worth our first pick. He's overrated. 

Because the two teams needs a QB more? And a good QB is much more valuable than a generational RB. I disagree on Fitzpatrick, but that's for another day.

 

On 1/12/2018 at 10:12 AM, Archer said:

 

I've been thinking about this too.  If Barkley and a QB are gone before us, trade partners would probably take a QB, and #4 (Cleveland) wouldn't really be inclined to take another pass-rusher (Fitzpatrick would be a more likely target).   Plus, if someone were to snag Chubb at #3 or #4, we'd have a pretty good consolation prize (Nelson)...

It's hard to tell what the Browns will do. Browns fans want Fitzpatrick, but they could very well take Barkley(if the Giants don't take him) to pair with their QB. Chubb could be taken by another team ahead of us. I'd be fine with Nelson after a trade down.

[SuperJoe33]

On 1/11/2018 at 12:03 AM, PureGold said:

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

 

the reason he would be there is because the Cleveland Browns desperately need more talent in the quarterback room. The Giants need to decide who is going to succeed Eli. In the NFL if you don't have a quarterback you cannot win games.

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 1/8/2018 at 2:36 PM, Barry Sears said:

I would take Barkley, if we don't trade down the #3 pick.  He is a difference maker and would give us a huge weapon, and take pressure off Luck, too.  I imagine we'll address OL in free agency.  I agree that Smith is not worthy of the #3 pick.

the best talent in the draft wont be there at 3

[BOTT]

43 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

the best talent in the draft wont be there at 3

 Barkley may not even go top 5

[coltsfanatic24]

I'd go with Fitzpatrick. Blue chip defensive prospect.

[BlueShoe]

On 1/8/2018 at 1:30 PM, ColtsBlitz said:

I want some discussion reguarding actually taking someone at #3. Trading back draft day is a possibility, but let’s assume we don’t. When you answer, I encourage you to say why. Thanks!

 

 

No doubt, it is Barkley!

 

It is becoming clearer every day. Barring something ridiculous happening, he is our guy. 

 

If we passed on Barkley then we would need to seriously doubt Chris Ballard's ability to be a GM. I don't think we have that problem though. 

[ClaytonColt]

For years the Colts seem to have ignored what goes on in the rest of the league and focused on having an all star offense. We've got to start paying attention to the trends that make teams successful.

 

Nick Foles, Blake Bortles and Case Keenum are playing in championship games this weekend....why?

 

It's because they play on teams with elite, top 5 defenses.

 

The fact we have more first round players on our offensive line than we do in our whole defense needs to be reversed. We have to start adding difference making talent on that side of the ball otherwise we'll just have a pretty offense that eventually doesn't score enough points in a shootout.

 

 

[USAFHoosier]

With free agency coming before the draft I won't have an exact opinion until then..It will be one of Barkley or Chubb if they stay at 3 since Smith or Nelscon will be selected only in a trade back by the Colts.

[mahagga73]

On 1/10/2018 at 11:03 PM, PureGold said:

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

 

He might be gone at 1 anyway.   And he's not a QB.  

[BleedBlu8792]

56 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

No doubt, it is Barkley!

 

It is becoming clearer every day. Barring something ridiculous happening, he is our guy. 

 

If we passed on Barkley then we would need to seriously doubt Chris Ballard's ability to be a GM. I don't think we have that problem though. 

Who is we? I would actually respect Ballard more with not taking Barkley that high and I think there are more of us on that side of the fence than the "take Barkley" side. 

[BProland85]

2 hours ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

I'd go with Fitzpatrick. Blue chip defensive prospect.

 

I'd be giddy just thinking of this secondary with the addition of Fitzpatrick. I would only want him though if Ballard knew he could play CB #1 at a very high level ala Jalen Ramsey when he played safety also in college then moved to CB full time for the Jaguars. 

[BlueShoe]

42 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

Who is we? I would actually respect Ballard more with not taking Barkley that high and I think there are more of us on that side of the fence than the "take Barkley" side. 

 

Difference of opinion. 

[krunk]

3 hours ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

I'd go with Fitzpatrick. Blue chip defensive prospect.

I think id rather go with a defender as well. Really like Minkah Fitzpatrick. Although I think I would take Chubb. I think you could pick up a back like Rashad Penny between rounds 2-4 and get very good production from our backfield. Between him and Mack. Add a third guy for the Bruiser role, or maybe keep Robert Turbin.

[AZColt11]

I believe in the old-school style of taking care of the lines first, then building off of that.  With that in mind, I would rather take either Chubb or Nelson.  Both lines need help, so IMHO we can't go wrong either way there.  And if it looks possible that we may be able to get one of them at say 8-10, then by all means tade back and get more picks.  

 

With that said, I wouldn't be too * if we took Barkley either.  Do I want him this high in the draft?  No.  Do I think taking a RB this high in the draft in a passing oriented league is such a smart move?  No.  But he CAN catch too and IMHO he is going to be better than Elliott, so I wouldn't exactly be hanging my head about it either.

[jcwcoltsfan]

Barkley.  Our pass protection is horrible but our run blocking isn't completely bad.  A great young RB would help keep the defensive honest so less sacks and way more offensive production.  It's a no brainer for me.  If Barkley isn't there then go Chubb.  I would absolutely hate an OL pick at #3 unless we traded way down and got a lot for it.

[jcwcoltsfan]

19 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

Who is we? I would actually respect Ballard more with not taking Barkley that high and I think there are more of us on that side of the fence than the "take Barkley" side. 

 

I'm not sure about that. Seems like most people believe that Barkley is a safe pick whether he is their favorite or not.  When you are picking that high in the draft you have to trade back or go with the sure thing.  Any GM worth anything takes the best player on the board.  Considering Barkley is probably just that, why would you respect Ballard any less for taking him?  Just because you don't want a RB that early? Gore is old and currently a FA.  A bell cow RB is a pretty big need for us right now as well.

[BProland85]

I'm starting to get on board with the Bradley Chubb pick, but only after a trade down. I think trading with the Jets and picking 6th would be a perfect spot to draft Chubb, since it's right before the Bucs and they could use more pass rush help.

 

I doubt we get an impact pass rusher via FA, so the draft might be the only option to improve there. Plus with reportedly bringing Eberflus in, he likes to run both the 4-3 and 3-4, making Chubb more of a fit. If we were to remain strictly a 3-4 defense, I don't think he would have fit well. His size says to me he would be a better DE in a 4-3 at 6-4, 275 pounds. 

[BleedBlu8792]

3 hours ago, jcwcoltsfan said:

 

I'm not sure about that. Seems like most people believe that Barkley is a safe pick whether he is their favorite or not.  When you are picking that high in the draft you have to trade back or go with the sure thing.  Any GM worth anything takes the best player on the board.  Considering Barkley is probably just that, why would you respect Ballard any less for taking him?  Just because you don't want a RB that early? Gore is old and currently a FA.  A bell cow RB is a pretty big need for us right now as well.

 

As I asked another poster... Go show me the last team to draft a RB with a top 5 pick and win a Superbowl with said player... I'll help you, it was 32 years ago being the 85 Bears. Walter Payton was one of the absolute greats, but that defense was the main reason that team won that Superbowl. Until I see RB's (highly drafted ones) as a big reason teams are winning Superbowls, there is pretty much no reason to burn a top 3 pick on one regardless of how "great" people think they will be. The ONLY way I could have been somewhat on board with taking Barkley at 3 is if the Colts had a team like the Jags, where they had the defense in place, and they could afford taking the "luxury" pick like the Jags took Fournette. Say even if the Jags win the Superbowl this year, there is no way it was because of Fournette.

 

In my opinion, no, there is no need, better yet NEVER a need for a RB with the top 3 pick. The RB class is loaded this year anyways. We can get better value by taking one later on.

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

As I asked another poster... Go show me the last team to draft a RB with a top 5 pick and win a Superbowl with said player... I'll help you, it was 32 years ago being the 85 Bears. Walter Payton was one of the absolute greats, but that defense was the main reason that team won that Superbowl. Until I see RB's (highly drafted ones) as a big reason teams are winning Superbowls, there is pretty much no reason to burn a top 3 pick on one regardless of how "great" people think they will be. The ONLY way I could have been somewhat on board with taking Barkley at 3 is if the Colts had a team like the Jags, where they had the defense in place, and they could afford taking the "luxury" pick like the Jags took Fournette. Say even if the Jags win the Superbowl this year, there is no way it was because of Fournette.

 

In my opinion, no, there is no need, better yet NEVER a need for a RB with the top 3 pick. The RB class is loaded this year anyways. We can get better value by taking one later on.

 

 

 

It's tough to go by your theory because most of the RB's taken in the Top 5 over the past 30 years played with Average to Bad QB's. They didn't have an Andrew Luck. We drafted Edge in the Top 5 and it worked out nicely. Had we re-signed him we would've won it all with Edge. I would have no problem with taking Barkley at #3 if he's there. He is that great. We would still have 6 more picks to draft O.Line and Defense. Also it depends on what we do in Free Agency first as well. If we sign a Good O.Lineman in Free Agency I would definitely be ok with Barkley.

[2006Coltsbestever]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:13 PM, PureGold said:

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

Fitz is not worth our first pick. He's overrated. 

To answer your question because the Browns and Giants may Draft a QB. Barry Sanders didn't go #1 in 1989 because Dallas drafted Troy Aikman. Teams value potentially great QB's more than they do RB's.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Marshall Faulk was the 2nd pick in the Draft by us in 1994, he didn't win a SB here but in season 1 (1999) with the Rams he won it all with a guy straight of a grocery store in Kurt Warner. Faulk also won MVP of the League in 2000. So Faulk was a huge reason why the Rams won it all.

[BleedBlu8792]

58 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It's tough to go by your theory because most of the RB's taken in the Top 5 over the past 30 years played with Average to Bad QB's. They didn't have an Andrew Luck. We drafted Edge in the Top 5 and it worked out nicely. Had we re-signed him we would've won it all with Edge. I would have no problem with taking Barkley at #3 if he's there. He is that great. We would still have 6 more picks to draft O.Line and Defense. Also it depends on what we do in Free Agency first as well. If we sign a Good O.Lineman in Free Agency I would definitely be ok with Barkley.

 

I'm not sure what I said was "theory"? Again, you can't point me to a team who directly drafted a RB early and won a Superbowl with said player, with the Bears being the only example in the last 35 years. If they had average to bad QB play, why were they picking RB's? Common sense man.. come on.. Those teams failed because they didn't properly build their teams as we seen it for years with the 2000's Colts.

 

44 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Marshall Faulk was the 2nd pick in the Draft by us in 1994, he didn't win a SB here but in season 1 (1999) with the Rams he won it all with a guy straight of a grocery store in Kurt Warner. Faulk also won MVP of the League in 2000. So Faulk was a huge reason why the Rams won it all.

 

You're kidding me right. A) The Rams got Marshall Faulk in FA, so that's completely irrelevant to what I said above. B) That St. Louis defense was ranked #1 in points and yards allowed that year. They had a top 5 rushing defense and they also had 57 sacks that year. That offense was great no doubt, but that defense was stupid good. As I said above a la the Jags, they had a great "team" in place already, so they could afford bringing in "luxury" positions. I stated, that IF the Colts were in a better position with their roster, I wouldn't be too down on taking Barkley, but that's simply not the case. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

37 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

I'm not sure what I said was "theory"? Again, you can't point me to a team who directly drafted a RB early and won a Superbowl with said player, with the Bears being the only example in the last 35 years. If they had average to bad QB play, why were they picking RB's? Common sense man.. come on.. Those teams failed because they didn't properly build their teams correctly, we seen it for years with the 2000's Colts.

 

 

You're kidding me right. A) The Rams got Marshall Faulk in FA, so that's completely irrelevant to what I said above. B) That St. Louis defense was ranked #1 in points and yards allowed that year. They had a top 5 rushing defense and they also had 57 sacks that year. That offense was great no doubt, but that defense was stupid good. As I said above a la the Jags, they had a great "team" in place already, so they could afford bringing in "luxury" positions. I stated, that IF the Colts were in a better position with their roster, I wouldn't be too down on taking Barkley, but that's simply not the case. 

Most of the teams that have drafted a RB in the Top 5 took said RB because that was the best player available and I would bet the best QB was always already drafted in a lot of those drafts. So a lot of those RB's played with Average to Bad QB's a lot of their career because they got drafted by Bad teams. We have the luxury of being able to Draft a potentially Great RB + already have a potentially Great QB to go with it. Not many teams in the history of the NFL have had that chance was my point and you are over looking that.  My Marshall Faulk point isn't irrelevant at all. He was a huge reason why the Rams won the SB and he was a Top 5 pick. Rams were 4-12 in 1998, when he arrived they went 13-3 and won the SB. You are not going to sit here and tell me the Rams didn't stink in 1998, they were 4-12.

[Tracy Denton]

23 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

I'm not sure what I said was "theory"? Again, you can't point me to a team who directly drafted a RB early and won a Superbowl with said player, with the Bears being the only example in the last 35 years. If they had average to bad QB play, why were they picking RB's? Common sense man.. come on.. Those teams failed because they didn't properly build their teams correctly, we seen it for years with the 2000's Colts.

 

 

You're kidding me right. A) The Rams got Marshall Faulk in FA, so that's completely irrelevant to what I said above. B) That St. Louis defense was ranked #1 in points and yards allowed that year. They had a top 5 rushing defense and they also had 57 sacks that year. That offense was great no doubt, but that defense was stupid good. As I said above a la the Jags, they had a great "team" in place already, so they could afford bringing in "luxury" positions. I stated, that IF the Colts were in a better position with their roster, I wouldn't be too down on taking Barkley, but that's simply not the case. 

We traded him to the Rams for a 2nd and a 5th

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Tracy Denton said:

We traded him to the Rams for a 2nd and a 5th

 

You are correct, I almost put that in my Post as well. That allowed us to actually Draft Edge.

[BleedBlu8792]

29 minutes ago, Tracy Denton said:

We traded him to the Rams for a 2nd and a 5th

 

 

27 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You are correct, I almost put that in my Post as well. That allowed us to actually Draft Edge.

 

I stand corrected, but that strengthens my argument more in that St. Louis got EXCEPTIONAL value for Faulk. 

 

30 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Most of the teams that have drafted a RB in the Top 5 took said RB because that was the best player available and I would bet the best QB was always already drafted in a lot of those drafts. So a lot of those RB's played with Average to Bad QB's a lot of their career because they got drafted by Bad teams. 

 

And AGAIN, why were they drafting RB's then? If they were "bad" teams, why on earth is selecting a RB early a "good" idea? At some point BPA and need have to correlate to maximize value during the draft process. As history has shown us, maximizing value isn't taking a RB with a top-5 pick.

 

30 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

My Marshall Faulk point isn't irrelevant at all. He was a huge reason why the Rams won the SB and he was a Top 5 pick. Rams were 4-12 in 1998, when he arrived they went 13-3 and won the SB. You are not going to sit here and tell me the Rams didn't stink in 1998, they were 4-12.

 

So that #1 defense, practically across the board, had nothing to do with it? It's a damn shame Marshall couldn't win a Superbowl for our Colts like he did for the Rams...

[2006Coltsbestever]

45 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

 

I stand corrected, but that strengthens my argument more in that St. Louis got EXCEPTIONAL value for Faulk. 

 

 

And AGAIN, why were they drafting RB's then? If they were "bad" teams, why on earth is selecting a RB early a "good" idea? At some point BPA and need have to correlate to maximize value during the draft process. As history has shown us, maximizing value isn't taking a RB with a top-5 pick.

 

 

So that #1 defense, practically across the board, had nothing to do with it? It's a damn shame Marshall couldn't win a Superbowl for our Colts like he did for the Rams...

I get your point on this subject but let me ask you this. If you already have an Andrew Luck type of QB, would you pass on Barry Sanders? Lions took Barry 3rd and to your point he never won a SB but don't you think with a Great QB, Barry would've won a SB? Barry is another RB that had crap QB's his entire career. A lot of people think Barkley can be that Great as in a generational RB. Looking at his film, I see why.

[BOTT]

34 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I get your point on this subject but let me ask you this. If you already have an Andrew Luck type of QB, would you pass on Barry Sanders? Lions took Barry 3rd and to your point he never won a SB but don't you think with a Great QB, Barry would've won a SB? Barry is another RB that had crap QB's his entire career. A lot of people think Barkley can be that Great as in a generational RB. Looking at his film, I see why.

I would pass on sanders

[BleedBlu8792]

37 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I get your point on this subject but let me ask you this. If you already have an Andrew Luck type of QB, would you pass on Barry Sanders? Lions took Barry 3rd and to your point he never won a SB but don't you think with a Great QB, Barry would've won a SB? Barry is another RB that had crap QB's his entire career. A lot of people think Barkley can be that Great as in a generational RB. Looking at his film, I see why.

 

I'd pass on every great running back if I had a top 5 pick. Positional value for a RB that high is virtually 0 in my opinion. 

[mahagga73]

On 1/13/2018 at 11:13 AM, PureGold said:

If Barkley is this generational rb than why would he even be on the board at 3? If he's as good as everyone is predicting than why wouldn't another team grab him at 1 or 2 ? And as far as Fitzpatrick goes...

Fitz is not worth our first pick. He's overrated. 

Who says he will be available?

[Shadow_Creek]

On 1/8/2018 at 6:22 PM, BlueShoe said:

My first goal would be to move back. 

 

If I can stay in the top 10 then I would select Mike McGlinchey. or Quenton Nelson. I have not made my mind up yet between those two.

 

If we stay at #3 then:

 

Barkley is an interesting prospect, and Jim Irsay is right about getting Andrew Luck an Edgerrin James type of back. This is probably the only chance we will have to draft a caliber back like this. I would not be upset.

 

We need a pass rush so Chubb is also another good choice. 

 

Both Fitz and James are dynamite players, but I would rather move back and see who falls. 

 

If we don't take Barkley in the first then I hope we take a hard look at Ronald Jones or Bryce Love (should they happen to be there) early in the second. 

 

http://footballdungeon.com/2017/04/2018-nfl-draft-prospect-rankings/

 

Rank	Player	*	College	HT	WT
		CBEDGEFBILBINT-DLINT-OLKNICKELOTPQBRBSTEWR
1	Sam Darnold	QB	USC	6'4"	225
2	Josh Rosen	QB	UCLA	6'3"	210
3	Saquon Barkley	RB	Penn State	5'11"	223
4	Bradley Chubb	EDGE	NC State	6'3"	273
5	Minkah Fitzpatrick	S	Alabama	6'0"	203
6	Derwin James	S	Florida State	6'2"	213
7	Arden Key	EDGE	LSU	6'5"	232
8	Roquan Smith	ILB	Georgia	6'1"	225
9	Quenton Nelson	INT-OL	Notre Dame	6'5"	325
10	Christian Wilkins	INT-DL	Clemson	6'3"	310
11	Mike McGlinchey	OT	Notre Dame	6'7"	310
12	Denzel Ward	NICKEL	Ohio State	5'10"	185
13	Calvin Ridley	WR	Alabama	6'1"	188
14	Connor Williams	OT	Texas	6'5"	290
15	Mason Rudolph	QB	Oklahoma State	6'4"	235
16	Derrius Guice	RB	LSU	5'11"	222
17	Vita Vea	INT-DL	Washington	6'4"	332
18	Baker Mayfield	QB	Oklahoma	6'0"	210
19	Orlando Brown	OT	Oklahoma	6'7"	340
20	Josh Allen	QB	Wyoming	6'5"	230
21	Joshua Jackson	CB	Iowa	6'0"	170
22	Harold Landry	EDGE	Boston College	6'2"	250
23	Maurice Hurst	INT-DL	Michigan	6'2"	282
24	Courtland Sutton	WR	SMU	6'3"	215
25	Ronald Jones	RB	USC	6'0"	195

 

 

 

love already stated that hes returning to play senior year.

[BleedBlu8792]

4 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

love already stated that hes returning to play senior year.

 

Blue's already commented on that in another thread..

[HectorRoberts]

51 minutes ago, mahagga73 said:

Who says he will be available?

It’s hard to believe the Cleveland and New York are going to pass on qbs 

[BlueShoe]

1 hour ago, Shadow_Creek said:

love already stated that hes returning to play senior year.

 

I posted the thread you are quoting a couple weeks ago. Long before Love made it known he would return to Stanford.

 

Love returning surpised a lot of people, including those who closely follow the Cardinal. 

[Shadow_Creek]

1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:

 

I posted the thread you are quoting a couple weeks ago. Long before Love made it known he would return to Stanford.

 

Love returning surpised a lot of people, including those who closely follow the Cardinal. 

i actually like the idea..think about it Barkley Mack and love that would be a insane combo

[jcwcoltsfan]

7 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

As I asked another poster... Go show me the last team to draft a RB with a top 5 pick and win a Superbowl with said player... I'll help you, it was 32 years ago being the 85 Bears. Walter Payton was one of the absolute greats, but that defense was the main reason that team won that Superbowl. Until I see RB's (highly drafted ones) as a big reason teams are winning Superbowls, there is pretty much no reason to burn a top 3 pick on one regardless of how "great" people think they will be. The ONLY way I could have been somewhat on board with taking Barkley at 3 is if the Colts had a team like the Jags, where they had the defense in place, and they could afford taking the "luxury" pick like the Jags took Fournette. Say even if the Jags win the Superbowl this year, there is no way it was because of Fournette.

 

In my opinion, no, there is no need, better yet NEVER a need for a RB with the top 3 pick. The RB class is loaded this year anyways. We can get better value by taking one later on.

 

 

 

 

Show me the stats on top 5 players drafted at any position that won a SB with said team.  I bet the SB win ratio isn't that great with any position. 

[BleedBlu8792]

20 minutes ago, jcwcoltsfan said:

 

Show me the stats on top 5 players drafted at any position that won a SB with said team.  I bet the SB win ratio isn't that great with any position. 

For the most part, I've found that it's mostly been OT's and defensive players that have been top-5 picks - shocker I know - that have won Superbowls with the teams that drafted them.

 

I will admit, I missed Jamal Lewis being drafted #5 to Baltimore in 2000 to which they won the Superbowl that year. However, as we are all aware, that Baltimore defense was arguably the 2nd best defense ever behind the 85 Bears.