SaturdayAllDay
-
Posts
1,437 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by SaturdayAllDay
-
-
2 hours ago, krunk said:
I'm not a big proponent of selecting a pure guard in the first round. If the board speaks and an OL is BPA then I'm okay with taking a tackle like Jack Conklin who can play Guard or Tackle. I think the Colts are leaning pretty strongly at starting Denzelle Good at the Right Tackle position from some of the language they've been using when asked about Good.
Irsay: “We don’t see why he can’t be a starting RG or RT in this league.”
Conklin can solidify the Guard position for us, He actually reminds me a lot of Jack Mewhort. If for some reason there is an issue with Good at tackle, Good is versatile enough to be moved inside and Conklin placed outside. Both players are versatile enough I think to do both things. Adding Conklin to me is a really good thing because it would add quite a bit to our protection options. Plus we'd still have Joe Reitz as well.
Plus add in that Thornton could excel in a zone block scheme (he's already dropping weight and putting in the work) and we might be looking at a deep offensive line group, something we have never seen with this team.
-
1 hour ago, MasterCrief said:
I'm really hoping that what you said about the offense is the case. Hopefully Pagano went to Chud and basically said, "This is your offense, do what you need to do to make it work" and he's going to be spending the majority of his time working with Monachino on getting the defense up to par.
I don't even think it's all on Chud. With all the great coaches we acquired we have some great offensive minds that can all come together to make a cohesive plan, using each other to point out weaknesses and flaws in game plans and fine tuning this offense to one of the best in the league.
-
1 hour ago, Jason_S said:
I don't agree with that. Well, actually, I kind of do agree but not for the reasons that I think you meant. I agree we got lucky that the defense was able to compete as much as it did last year, but I say that because of how poorly the offense played. Way too many 3 and outs and quick turnovers kept putting the defense back on the field with no chance to rest. Our defense could have been much, much better last year had the offense been more consistent.
I agree with this 100%. Our defense started out strong almost every game, but our offense kept them on the field too much, by time the fourth quarter came around they were exhausted. I think if we can sustain drives and give our defense some rest, we will see a better Defense this season. You can also add in the fact that rookie players often have trouble with stamina due to playing a longer season then they are used to. That could mean we see players like Parry, Anderson and geathers come out with better stamina after a year of offseason conditioning. These along with the new coaches could see our defense being much improved despite not adding too much more talent (so far anyway). We won't be a top 5 Defense, but I think we can improve enough to keep us alive in postseason discussions.
-
12 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
I saw that our DBs Coach, Greg Williams (one g), was visiting with a prospect, and I thought it was Gregg Williams (two g's), the guy that was responsible for "Bountygate".
That got me to looking at our coaching staff.
Pagano, Chud, and Philbin have all been head coaches in the NFL. Ok, that's good.
Brian Schottenheimer is the QBs coach. Ok, that's good.
Our offense is looking good. The OLine protects Luck and the sky is the limit.
On defense, I'm nervous. New D-Coordinator, Monachino, could be legit, or could have ridden the coattails of great LBers in Baltimore. Some other new defensive coaches, Herrmann (LBs) and the previously mentioned Williams (DBs) are also in their first year with the Colts.
Is this going to be a "rebuilding" year on defense? First year coaches, combined with aging vets like Adams, Cole, Mathis, and Jackson, and we might end up with a dominant Offense carrying a limping Defense into the playoffs...
It could go either way at this point but the way I see it the Monachino signing, coupled with all the big names on the offense, is a sign that Pagano is going to worry about the offense less and focus his time on HIS defense. Monachino came from Baltimore, just like Pagano. They should run the same system and have the same vision for the players they require. I think it is all connected with the new front office plan. Getting staff that work well together and having one cohesive plan that they all support 100%.
There will probably be a few bumps this year on both sides of the ball, but that is to be expected when new systems and coaching strategies are being Implemented. I think we will be better off in the long run. who we had here before wasn't working. Something had to change.
I am cautiously optimistic about how the team will look this season, although I think our big year will be 2017/2018 based on all of the cap we acquire next offseason, along with this draft and the next.
-
32 minutes ago, Gavin said:
Once in a generation players rarely go as low as 18, Great players? Of course. Hall Of Fame players? Of course...Once in a generation?. I also don't really see why you settled with 10 sacks for a rookie 1st round pass rusher
Bruce Smith had 6.5 his rookie year (Doouble digits year 2)
Reggie White-13 rookie year
Kevin Green-0 (Did not have double digits till year 4)
Chris Doleman-0.5 rookie year, double digits year 3
Micheal Strahan-1 sack rookie year, double digits year 5
Jason Taylor-5 sacks his rookie year, double digits year 4
John Randle-1 sack rookie year, double digits year 3
Richard Dent-3 sacks rookie year, double digits year 2
Jared Allen-9 sacks rookie year, double digits year 2
Julius Peppers-12 sacks rookie year
Demarcus Ware-8 sacks rookie year, double digits year 2
John Abraham-4 sacks rookie year, double digits year 2
Lawrence Taylor-I read 9.5
Leslie O'neal-12.5 rookie year
Ricky Jackson-8 rookie year
Derrick Thomas-10 rookie year
Simeon Rice-12 sacks rookie year
Clyde Simmons-2 sacks rookie year
Dwight Freeney-13 sacks rookie year
Robert Mathis-3.5 sacks rookie year
That's the top 20 all time sack leaders to date to. 6 of 20 put up double digits. 9 of 20 put up 5 or less.
Most draft picks don't play like all pros or many times not even real well at all in year 1. Also once in a generation means.....well once..... Maybe every 10 years or so. Now there are plenty of players that have the physical skill to claim that and produce great for a few years but ya got to have long term production in my opinion
Which was the point I was making..... That pass rushers rarely get 10+ sacks as a rookie, which was what COLTS449 said he expected out of Floyd AND Spence in year one. To get 10 sacks as a rookie is a once in a generation thing. We are on the same page here, just a little mis-communication I think.
-
14 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:
Its just my opinion, but I fell from a pass rush standpoint, that both can come in and make an impact right away. I think both have the ability to get 8 or 10 sacks in their rookie years. It may take Floyd a year to improve in other areas, but he can straight up get after the QB. Some disagree, but I just think both can make an early impact.
I won't say that they won't make an impact, but 10+ sacks for a rookie is something that hasnt been seen in the last four draft classes (at least, that's all I have data for). I don't think Spence or Floyd are significantly better then any pass rusher from the last four years. The most according to the data I had was 8, from Irvin (2012), ansah (2013) and P Smith (2015), with the average amount of sacks per rookie (top 50 picks only) being just over 3 sacks a year.
With Spence I could see 6-8, And MAYBE around there from Floyd if he has a late push. I just don't see either of them as once in a generation players, which they would need to be to break 10 sacks as a rookie.
-
1 hour ago, COLTS449 said:
I think we'll draft one in the 1st actually. No later than the 2nd. I'd be happy with Floyd, Spence, Ogbah, or Correa. Ogbah and Correa in a trade down, or Correa in the 2nd. Floyd and Spence should definitely be double digit sack OLB's IMO. And I think Correa has that kind of potential too. But I like some late round guys too. I hope we draft Floyd or Spence, then get a guy like Ochi, Judon, McCalister, Cowser, etc in the 5th or 7th.
I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we went Ragland at 18. Then Correa in the 2nd, and a G or C in the 3rd.
How many years do you think it will take before Spence or Floyd get 10+ sacks in a season? I'm all for fixing the pass rush but I think it will take time.
-
I could see Allen possibly getting scooped up before our pick, but if we got this lineup I would be stoked.
-
11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:
http://www.fueledbysports.com/jack-conklin-scouting-report/
A simple read on Jack Conklin with his strengths and weaknesses and some tape. I think he'd beat out Reitz pretty easy IMO, and it will be close if he makes it to us. Take a look at the link if you want to learn a bit about him.
I've been watching tape on him for months. I really like him as our first round pick. I was just stating that I'd be more concerned over Reitz beating him for the RT spot then Good. Once conklin acclimates to the NFL there is a high chance he is more successful than Reitz, and he should eventually take over at RT. Just depends how quickly he takes to the NFL. Not saying he's any worse or better then anyone (we won't know that until he's in the NFL against the same talent) but I'd rather have him start at guard if he seems shaky at RT. Too many young o lineman get thrown to the wolves and never regain the confidence to live up to their expectations.
-
4 minutes ago, akcolt said:
The staff has said since the end of the season they are happy on the outside Good has a NFL future I think they believe that.
The focus is interior OL and pash rush. If you listen to Grig's pass rush encompasses OLB and CB mainly also DL. I see no reason to think we go OT in the 1st.
The thing with conklin is he grades out as a really good guard as well. I'd be happy with him as he'd be a solid guard, plus a good backup plan if Good doesn't pan out like they expect him to. I realize they think Good has a future as a starting RT, but this regime hasn't exactly been known for its sound judgment on offensive line prospects. I'd rather have some insurance just in case.
-
32 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:
Good wasn't that good so it won't be hard to beat him out
Personally I'd be more concerned about Reitz beating out conklin tbh. Just using Good as the example because that was who you mentioned to begin with and because he seems to be in grigsons good books. Good might be decent after a full offseason but I wouldn't bet he's a starter. But I'd say he did well enough last year to merit making the team again this year barring a huge influx of talent on the line.
-
2 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:
Good went in the 7th round if anyone thinks he is gonna be better then Conklin then idk what to tell them
I never said he was going to be better, but lots of players (especially rookie lineman) have trouble adjusting to the NFL so conklin might need to start the year at guard.
Lots of first round tackles keep getting thrown out to start at tackle day one, and we are seeing lots of young o lineman not really panning out. I'd rather bump him inside and have Reitz / good for half a season if he didn't look ready from day one. Rather keep his confidence up while he adjusts.
Also all draft picks come with some risk, you never know 100% what you get. Just because a player is drafted in round one doesn't mean he's a sure thing (T-Rich, Werner, Donald Brown). And in some cases players from later rounds outperform their draft spots (Saturday, Brady, Bethea). Not saying it's a high chance, but like I originally said, IF Good looks better day one then he should be out there at tackle.
-
10 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:
Those guys would all be rookies. Smith has a year under his belt, albeit short lived. You'd be better off with Smith. Plus, this isn't like with Parry. Parry was a 5th round pick so upgrading him with a guy like Billings isn't a stretch. But drafting a 1st rounder to replace a high 3rd rounder after 1 season that was injury plagued makes no sense.
And no FA isn't over but all of the CBs that would be an upgrade are gone. There isn't a CB now who's good enough to be a difference maker or make them let D'Joun wait. If there was they would have signed him by now.
It all depends on what kind of corner we draft really. Smith didn't look comfortable out there and a big reason was he had never played much man to man in college. Someone who played in a man system through college would be just as comfortable as Smith IMO. Yes the NFL is a different beast but switching from a cover two to a man to man coverage scheme is something even NFL vets have major issues doing.
-
15 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:
If we draft Conklin and he gets put at guard in favor of good playing T Grigson needs punched in the face good was a 7th round T Conklin is a 1st round T it's not hard to guess who would play RT
I would be upset if they were forcing it, but if Good looks better outside (cuz he's the one with NFL experience) then that's who should be out there, at least til conklin progresses to the point where he can kick out. Also why would grigson get punched for Pagano making a choice on which of his players to play where?
-
1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Yeah, you got my meaning. To see how they perform in our system.
Yah but we are running new coaches with a new system so realistically all of our players are unproven in that respect.
-
12 hours ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:
You are mistaking negativity with reality. Remember this time last year when Grigson was signing all those over
the hill FAs and drafted another receiver instead of a stud OL to protect luck who then got beat up.. We were making plans to go to San Francisco. We were thinking positively.... through rose-colored glasses. We don't have the talent to get to the SB, we have a GM who is clueless about the true needs of the team and that's not being negative, it's being realistic about our talent and our chances. It is clear that we don't have the
organization (Irsay, Grigson, Pagano) in place to get us back to the SB this year and that's reality.
Hate to burst your bubble bud, but I don't think irsay is going anywhere anytime soon, and if you are convinced he isnt going to run the organization right, then I'd suggest maybe another team. Otherwise you are going to be unhappy for a long time. Not saying I want you to leave or anything, just might be easier on you then complaining until irsay is gone. Happiness leads to less stress and a longer life, etc.
And jsyk, I agree with you up until the last sentence. I'm not sold on our chances but the new strategy has to be given time to work, which unfortunately means we won't be winning a superbowl this year. We won't have the talent this year to be a major threat. We will still be a decent team, probably even a playoff team, but I don't see us winning it all.
I do however think if grigson has less say (hopefully way less) in who we pick up and draft, I think with all of the great coaching minds we have brought in we can have a shot at winning the superbowl the year after. Between the two Drafts we will have and the 70+ million in cap we will have, I am hopeful that if grigson and company can get hit/miss results even close to league averages we will be a major superbowl threat. I think that's what the plan is going forward.
-
40 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Maybe, but they are as unproven as our O line, but Pat Kirwan says Colts go with Ronnie Stanley in round 1, so Luck should be happier if that happens.
I wouldn't say Irving and Moore are unproven. They are unproven in our system maybe, but they were both good players for their previous Teams.
-
Finally!!! We don't have to hear about it anymore!!
-
Just now, SaturdayAllDay said:
All I am saying is Harvey was a part time player that didn't get many snaps, and Teams were still smart enough to key in on him in game and pick him apart. Imagine what kind of problems we have with two full time starters that have issues with coverage, with a whole week of game planning against them. Im not saying he will be comparable to Harvey in ANY way, but with more time on the field will be picked on that much more if he isn't up to par in coverage. I agree with your statement that we should look at our other lbs if we get Ragland, but that primarily means D'Qwell. Is it worth our first round pick to have to choose between Ragland and D'Qwell? I would rather fill a need then create a need to fill by drafting Ragland and cutting D'Qwell. I never once said I don't like Ragland, and have repeated that sentiment a few times, but I think we are better off getting a similarly ranked CB, G, OLB, or DL player over him. And I get that D'Qwell isn't a long term solution for us but I honestly think we shouldnt write off Irving as our run stuffing Ilb of the future.
-
5 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
You are equating UDFA Mario Harvey to Reggie Ragland, ranked #7 overall by RealFootballNetwork (Pat Kiwan and group) and #13 overall by Scouts Inc. (Todd McShay and group)? Part time player? The lengths people go to make their point. I counter with this-
D'Qwell is less than a million dollar cap hit next year if cut, and likely to miss games this year. He'll also be 33 to 34 years old. I'd be more interested in the abilities of the other ILB and ROLB linebacking people on the roster more than Ragland if we go that route. I'd still like a premier ROLB/Edge to land in out lap first. But if they go Ragland as it appears they possibly may, I've thoroughly studied good NFL minds take on the guy and I'm OK with it. In addition, Manchino will know how exactly how to get the most out of him in his new attacking defense. But I feel the Bears will take him, with their long lineage of punishing middle backers- Butkus, Singletary, Urlacher, now maybe Ragland.
All I am saying is Harvey was a part time player that didn't get many snaps, and Teams were still smart enough to key in on him and pick him apart. Imagine what kind of problems we have with two full time starters that have issues with coverage. I'm not saying he will be comparable to Harvey in ANY way, but with more time on the field will be picked on that much more if he isn't up to par in coverage. I agree with your statement that we should look at our other lbs if we get Ragland, but that primarily means D'Qwell. Is it worth our first round pick to have to choose between Ragland and D'Qwell? I would rather fill a need then create a need to fill by drafting Ragland and cutting D'Qwell. I never once said I don't like Ragland, and have repeated that sentiment a few times, but I think we are better off getting a similarly ranked CB, G, OLB, or DL player over him. And I get that D'Qwell isn't a long term solution for us but I honestly think we shouldnt write off Irving as our run stuffing Ilb of the future.
-
5 hours ago, No 1 Manning Fan said:
It may be the Bama homer in me, but I did not see Ragland as a pass defensive liability. He is better run stopper, but he seemed to cover decently.
He wasn't a complete liability, but he wasn't good either. That could translate to major problems vs NFL caliber players. Don't get me wrong, I like Ragland, I just don't think he has a spot on this team right now. We have D'Qwell as our run stopper and already have a young replacement in Irving. If Ragland can't cover then we leave ourselves in a position where we either can't play him and D'Qwell at the same time, or we have to rely on him and/or D'Qwell to cover TEs and RBs. We will not be beating the Patriots if that is the case. They beat us with their running game AND quick short passes. If we can't cover, they shred us through the air instead of the ground. I'd rather take away Brady and Gronk/Edelman then take away James White and Dion Lewis.
Like I said I like Ragland, but there should be players who can immediately make a bigger impact on our team available at our first round pick.
-
45 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Useless vs. the pass? That's a bit much. How old is D'Qwell again? And Besides, he wasn't ever quite the player Ragland is, even when he was young.
Since ILB pass coverage is so important to you and others, then I would like it explained to me which type 3-4 defense do we run? What I call the Rex Ryan version where the ILB's are the Jack and the Mike, or the Parcells version where the ILB's are the Mike and the Will? What are their primary responsibilities in the scheme(s) and what is their pass cover responsibility? What is the SAM or LOLB responsibilities for run and pass coverage?? And what about the ROLB or the Rush OLB? Everyone knowing these, then the 'useless in pass coverage' statements can be graded on relative importance.
Let me just say I agree Ragland is probably not a dime defense cover type player. And should not be used as a Nickel corner to cover a slot guy. I get that. But in any other defense alignment his positive skill sets far out weighs any deficiency, IMO. To me, I want pass coverage skill from the Sam (and even ROLB) more then the Jack or Mike. IMO, Since the Strong Safety and Sam are near the TE most often, they need to be able to cover him. ILB cover skills is further down my list than yours. Besides, Ragland covers the slants and square routes just fine. I wnat to finally have a front 7 that truly shuts down the run. We also find a CB@ and decent ROLB/Edge and we're golden IMO.
I think people are over blowing this pass cover thing on why an ILB must be such a good pass cover backer. That's why you try to draft OLB's like Jaylon Smith and Myles Jack, Darren Lee at OLB positions!
If a premium Edge / ROLB is there along with Raglnad, I'm in for the Edge/ROLB. If not, I'll take Ragland. I think
Quotes from Monachino:
“There are a lot of different ways you can look at pass coverage but the way I look at it—the best pass defense is a good pass rush.”
“You expect (the defense) to be sound and simple in a way that our guys can play full speed all the time. You expect it to be aggressive in everything that we do, yet smart in everything that we do in the backend,”
“We are never going to coach caution into a great player. We are always going to coach full speed.”
“All the coaches that came before me have done a great job building the foundation and we are just going to go one more step with it.”
When we are in pass situations we already had to take D'Qwell off the field and sub in geathers as a Ilb, so obviously that was a problem. If we have another Ilb that has coverage issues then that is another player we have to sub out. With lowery gone we also don't have the depth to be doing things like as liberally as we have been.
I can't say what defensive plan we are running for our lbs anymore as we have had a lot of coaching changes, but in any scheme at least one Ilb will be counted on to cover a TE or RB, and I have seen D'Qwell get beat time and time again. From what I have read/ watched on Ragland he was getting beat by TEs in college so I'm weary as to his ability to cover NFL caliber TEs. I'm not saying that pass coverage is a premium on ilbs but you have to have someone to cover TEs and RBs, and we are left at a major disadvantage if neither Ilb can. A few years ago we had an Ilb named Mario Harvey (I'm sure you remember him). Whenever he was in the game there were a few Teams that switched to hurry up just to exploit the fact that he can't cover. If Teams plan well enough to do that to a part time player, I'm worried about our starters both being two down run stuffers.
-
3 hours ago, csmopar said:
You forgot no toler.....
If I could like this 1000000 times I would.
-
7 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
How good have our ILB's been at stopping the run? Our DL and ILB needs to finally end this soft "getting punched in the mouth" vs. the run stuff. Ragland fits the bill immediately. So if premier edge guys aren't there at 18 and Ragland is, I'm in.
To be fair that's the type of player D'Qwell is, and lots of people were calling for his release before he was found guilty. If he's still around we don't need two lbs who are useless vs the pass.
Josh Mitchell Waived
in Colts Football
Posted
I don't see an issue with us dropping what I would assume was our 8th best CB. Still have Davis, Robinson, Smith, Butler, Brown, Glover-Wright and the good Mitchell. With those guys in place I would be surprised if we drafted any CB before the 4th round. I wouldn't be against it though if they were clearly the BPA, but I would rather see some OL prospects, or any other position on the Defense. Especially in the early rounds.