Roquan Smith set to visit Colts tomorrow

[TKnight24]

 

[lance_m8]

I don't want him at 6 if we stay at 6 I want Chubb Nelson or Edmunds 

[Indy1996]

9 minutes ago, lance_m8 said:

I don't want him at 6 if we stay at 6 I want Chubb Nelson or Edmunds 

Do you realize he is a top 5 ILB and Chubb is probably gonna be drafted by the giants js

[lance_m8]

1 minute ago, Indy1996 said:

Do you realize he is a top 5 ILB and Chubb is probably gonna be drafted by the giants js

He isn't worth the 6th pick IMO if Nelson is there it would be crazy to pass on him although its not a sexy pick its a needed pick

[Indy1996]

33 minutes ago, lance_m8 said:

He isn't worth the 6th pick IMO if Nelson is there it would be crazy to pass on him although its not a sexy pick its a needed pick

Holdon you don't realize his talent he is still a early 1 round pick you need a defense we can still get oline in other rounds its not all about nelson

[superrep1967]

36 minutes ago, lance_m8 said:

He isn't worth the 6th pick IMO if Nelson is there it would be crazy to pass on him although its not a sexy pick its a needed pick

It's sexy to me we need more first rounders on our O-line. 

[Alex22]

4 minutes ago, Indy1996 said:

Holdon you don't realize his talent he is still a early 1 round pick you need a defense we can still get oline in other rounds its not all about nelson

 

He is not worth 6

[lance_m8]

27 minutes ago, Alex22 said:

 

He is not worth 6

don't waste your time this guy doesn't understand how talent and the draft works

[Valpo2004]

Seems like a reach a 6, but maybe if another trade with Buffalo goes down and he is there at 12.

[1959Colts]

Roquan Smith may be my favorite choice for the Colts.

[BlueShoe]

We won’t draft him at 6. If we trade back then absolutely. He is not MIKE either. He is a 43 WILL. 

 

We need a MIKE so Edmunds makes more sense. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, lance_m8 said:

He isn't worth the 6th pick IMO if Nelson is there it would be crazy to pass on him although its not a sexy pick its a needed pick

IMO...

 

WILL linebacker is actually more of a need.  We have 4 Gs.  Smith is as good a WILL as Nelson is a G.

[coltsfeva]

36 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

 

We need a MIKE so Edmunds makes more sense. 

Or, MIKE Curtis 

[AZColt11]

I like this guy.   A little undersized, but very good.  Not sure I like him at #6 though, but if we move down then definitely.

[buccolts]

So, we like the guy, but not at 6.

Where would you pick him then?

Any of you?

[BlueShoe]

48 minutes ago, DougDew said:

IMO...

 

WILL linebacker is actually more of a need.  We have 4 Gs.  Smith is as good a WILL as Nelson is a G.

 

A 43 WILL is not going to become a top player without a good 43 MIKE. 

 

On the other hand, a good 43 MIKE can make an average 43 WILL look great. Just as he can make a great 43 WILL look elite.

 

Translation, the guy in the middle has to do the dirty work so the athletic WILL can get all the glory. 

 

Finding a good 43 MIKE in the type of defense we are going to run is not an easy task. Just ask Bill Polian. However, a good 43 WILL is fairly easy to find. 

[BlueShoe]

1 minute ago, buccolts said:

So, we like the guy, but not at 6.

Where would you pick him then?

Any of you?

 

It’s not a matter of where I would pick him. It’s a matter of who else is on the board. 

 

I would not take him over Nelson, Chubb, or Edmunds. That would potentially put him somewhere around 10 or 11. 

[buccolts]

20 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

It’s not a matter of where I would pick him. It’s a matter of who else is on the board. 

 

I would not take him over Nelson, Chubb, or Edmunds. That would potentially put him somewhere around 10 or 11. 

 

That's what I'm getting at, though everyone's going to have a different list of players they'd 'rather have', and none of us know how many QBs will go ahead of us.

 

If we take him at 6, people are going to moan and groan about how we reached for him, when the fact of the matter is, he's the guy they wanted, with what's left on the board, and felt they could trade back and still get him. That doesn't work if you can't find a trade partner. I really don't see the problem in taking a guy that's projected to go 11 with the 6th pick (or similar).

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

A 43 WILL is not going to become a top player without a good 43 MIKE. 

 

On the other hand, a good 43 MIKE can make an average 43 WILL look great. Just as he can make a great 43 WILL look elite.

 

Translation, the guy in the middle has to do the dirty work so the athletic WILL can get all the glory. 

 

Finding a good 43 MIKE in the type of defense we are going to run is not an easy task. Just ask Bill Polian. However, a good 43 WILL is fairly easy to find. 

Lavonte David.  Derrick Brooks.  Who were the MIKEs?

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Good I like him, if Nelson, Chubb, and Barkley are gone, and we don't trade down probably between Smith and Edmonds IMO as to who the Colts pick.

[DougDew]

55 minutes ago, buccolts said:

So, we like the guy, but not at 6.

Where would you pick him then?

Any of you?

In a perfect world, we trade down and pick him at 12 and get McGlinchey at 22.  But yeah, if a player is going to be a pro-bowler, picking him at 6 makes more sense than passing on him to just save a few draft spots.

 

Supposedly we got a "steal" last year when Hooker goes from 7 to 15 (meaning there were 7 dumb GMs), so I guess we even it out this year by taking a 12 spot at 6.  I'd argue that reaching for Smith at 6 is better than picking a falling Hooker at 15, but that's JMO.

[BlueShoe]

38 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Lavonte David.  Derrick Brooks.  Who were the MIKEs?

 

Good ones, who didn’t get enough credit.  

[ColtStrong2013]

Chubb/Barkley/Nelson at 6 or trade down. Smith could easily fall out of top 10 as teams are already jockeying for position to snag QBs at the top. There are only 3 non-qbs worth the pick at 6 and they are listed above. All could be gone by 6, two of them could be available. You take one of them and focus on round two or you trade back and try to steal Smith or Edmund's with 11-13 pick (preferably 12 with a 21 to boot) 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Good ones, who didn’t get enough credit.  

I think the Bears WILL, Lance Briggs, got some benefit from Urlacher at MIKE.  But Briggs was pretty good too.

 

One of the Colts writers said that Ballard wants 3 LBers out of this draft.  That's a tall order of you're not going to pick two pretty high.  Probably the MIKE and the WILL before round 3.

[BlueShoe]

41 minutes ago, buccolts said:

 

That's what I'm getting at, though everyone's going to have a different list of players they'd 'rather have', and none of us know how many QBs will go ahead of us.

 

If we take him at 6, people are going to moan and groan about how we reached for him, when the fact of the matter is, he's the guy they wanted, with what's left on the board, and felt they could trade back and still get him. That doesn't work if you can't find a trade partner. I really don't see the problem in taking a guy that's projected to go 11 with the 6th pick (or similar).

 

I think it’s safe to project that 4 quarterbacks are going in the top 10. It’s even likely they will all go in the top 5. Add Barkley to the top 5 too. 

 

It’s extremely possible the Colts draft the first defensive player on the board at 6. 

 

I have said it several times though. If it’s your guy then you don’t chance it. If you believe that strongly in a player then you have to take him. 

[AZColt11]

46 minutes ago, buccolts said:

 

That's what I'm getting at, though everyone's going to have a different list of players they'd 'rather have', and none of us know how many QBs will go ahead of us.

 

If we take him at 6, people are going to moan and groan about how we reached for him, when the fact of the matter is, he's the guy they wanted, with what's left on the board, and felt they could trade back and still get him. That doesn't work if you can't find a trade partner. I really don't see the problem in taking a guy that's projected to go 11 with the 6th pick (or similar).

I think that's fair.  I think when I say that, from my perspective I say that believing Chubb or Nelson are still available, which I think one of them will be because I feel like there will be a run on QB's.  But if they are gone, then Smith would be my next choice followed closely by Edmunds.

[BlueShoe]

Just now, DougDew said:

I think the Bears WILL, Lance Briggs, got some benefit from Urlacher at MIKE.  But Briggs was pretty good too.

 

One of the Colts writers said that Ballard wants 3 LBers out of this draft.  That's a tall order of you're not going to pick two pretty high.  Probably the MIKE and the WILL before round 3.

 

This draft is loaded with off ball linebackers. Best group I have seen in a decade or so. 

 

It’s perfect timing for us to need them. 

 

That Colts writer is just guessing. But he is guessing the same as most of us are, and he is probably closer to being right than wrong. 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

This draft is loaded with off ball linebackers. Best group I have seen in a decade or so. 

 

It’s perfect timing for us to need them. 

 

That Colts writer is just guessing. But he is guessing the same as most of us are, and he is probably closer to being right than wrong. 

We could go Edmunds at 6, Darius Leonard at 36, and Connor Williams or one of the popular Gs at 37. 

 

There's your MIKE, WILL, and starting G and we haven't even gotten to pick 49 yet.

[TKnight24]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

We could go Edmunds at 6, Darius Leonard at 36, and Connor Williams or one of the popular Gs at 37. 

 

There's your MIKE, WILL, and starting G and we haven't even gotten to pick 49 yet.

I would imagine Connor would stay at RT not RG 

 

Castonzo-Mewhort-Kelly-Slauson-Williams 

 

hopefully Wynn, Hernandez, or Pride are there with one of the back to back 2nd rounders cause Slauson is old so need to have someone waiting for his spot if not taking his spot 

[BlueShoe]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

We could go Edmunds at 6, Darius Leonard at 36, and Connor Williams or one of the popular Gs at 37. 

 

There's your MIKE, WILL, and starting G and we haven't even gotten to pick 49 yet.

 

The only problem I see with that is both Edmunds and Leonard are natural MIKEs. That’s not to say Leonard couldn’t play another position. Edmunds isn’t playing WILL though. If he moves anywhere then it’s on the Edge. 

 

If Connor Williams is there at 36 then we have to pull the trigger, and that’s even if we take Nelson at 6. 

 

I think we will draft Chubb or Nelson at 6. 

 

I also think that at least one of those seconds will be used to draft an off ball linebacker. 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

I would imagine Connor would stay at RT not RG 

 

Castonzo-Mewhort-Kelly-Slauson-Williams 

 

hopefully Wynn, Hernandez, or Pride are there with one of the back to back 2nd rounders cause Slauson is old so need to have someone waiting for his spot if not taking his spot 

I think Williams has measured up too short and small for NFL OT and his stock has fallen, so I'd try him at LG to pair with AC.

 

If we're talking OL this draft, I'd prefer to get McGlinchey for RT and play him a few years to see if he can take over for AC later.  I'd be stoked if McG fell all the way to 36, but that wont happen.  A trade w/BUFF puts him at 22 where I think a starting RT should go....and one spot ahead of the new Pats pick.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:

 

The only problem I see with is that both Edmunds and Leonard are natural MIKEs. That’s not to say Leonard couldn’t play another position. 

 

If Connor Williams is there at 36 then we have to pull the trigger, and that’s even if we take Nelson at 6. 

 

I think we will draft Chubb or Nelson at 6. 

 

I also think that at least one of those seconds will be used to draft an off ball linebacker. 

I thought Leonard was reported too small for NFL MIKE, but that's even better if he could play there.  Smith at 6 and Leonard for MIKE at 36 or 37 with the other pick a DE or G.  Still good options for G and DE at 49 probably.

[HectorRoberts]

I’d love to have him if we end up trading back

[BlueShoe]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I thought Leonard was reported too small for NFL MIKE, but that's even better if he could play there.  Smith at 6 and Leonard for MIKE at 36 or 37 with the other pick a DE or G.  Still good options for G and DE at 49 probably.

 

Just going to throw this out there. 

 

How about Nelson at 6, Connor Williams at 36, Rashann Evans at 37, and Courtland Sutton at 49......

 

It could happen.  

[DougDew]

Just now, BlueShoe said:

 

Just going to throw this out there. 

 

How about Nelson at 6, Connor Williams at 36, Rashann Evans at 37, and Courtland Sutton at 49......

 

It could happen.  

I like Evans but I think he's projected ahead of Leonard at late round 1.  I think Sutton goes before 36 too.  This is why I prefer a trade down from 6.  My mocks all come up a pick or two short by round 3.

 

But its good to see Ballard talking to Smith and getting all the information he needs.  I'd be disappointed if the Colts were ignoring Smith.

[shasta519]

We've seen this before. Knowing Ballard, he will leave without signing a contract.

[BlueShoe]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I like Evans but I think he's projected ahead of Leonard at late round 1.  I think Sutton goes before 36 too.  This is why I prefer a trade down from 6.  My mocks all come up a pick or two short by round 3.

 

But its good to see Ballard talking to Smith and getting all the information he needs.  I'd be disappointed if the Colts were ignoring Smith.

 

All of those guys could fall. 

 

We are probably going to see 6 quarterbacks go in the first round. 

 

We damn near have 3 first round picks this year. Great time for us to be draft rich. 

[BlueShoe]

6 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

We've seen this before. Knowing Ballard, he will leave without signing a contract.

 

Now that’s funny. 

 

Best tackler I have seen since Joe Montana. 

 

 

[rock8591]

No to Cato June at #6.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

In a perfect world, we trade down and pick him at 12 and get McGlinchey at 22.  But yeah, if a player is going to be a pro-bowler, picking him at 6 makes more sense than passing on him to just save a few draft spots.

 

Supposedly we got a "steal" last year when Hooker goes from 7 to 15 (meaning there were 7 dumb GMs), so I guess we even it out this year by taking a 12 spot at 6.  I'd argue that reaching for Smith at 6 is better than picking a falling Hooker at 15, but that's JMO.

 

Nice!  

 

Even in a thread that has nothing to do with Malik Hooker you find a way to take a shot at Ballard over a draft pick you don't like.

 

Oh....   I'm sorry!   I think I've made this same exact point a half dozen or more times and each time you either express complete confusion or you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing.    Denial is a beautiful thing --- isn't it?!  

 

By the way....  I'm still laughing over your analysis of Hooker.   You know, where he only does one thing well.   I can't believe the Colts haven't employed you as a scout yet?!? 

 

But its all good...   as you noted it's only your opinion....    made on days of the week that end in...  d-a-y.    Life is good for you!