Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

OffensivelyPC

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    8,403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by OffensivelyPC

  1. Because I want to be different? What does that have to do with anything? I watch tape, I read scouting reports and sometimes I come away with a different opinion than some other people. It's more than just watching how a guy looks on tape, it's how that guy will fit into our system. In Marcus' case, I don't think he'd make a very good SAM because he's particularly weak against the run and I don't see him ever developing into a strong edge setter, so he'd be a better weak side rush back. We drafted Bjoern last year to do that. While he had his issues, I sincerely doubt we are going to add
  2. As a SAM backer, he won't drop back often enough for it to be a huge issue, but even then, he wouldn't be a significant downgrade from Walden. Muphy is stronger in the run game. He is already good getting a push at the LOS and with a little time in teh weightroom (which he seems to have frame left for body development), should be able to handle OTs if the opponents are in a no TE set. Struggles in double teams, but if he were a SAM, that's less of a concern than if he were a 5 technique and covered by a TE. His pass rush technique is at least as good as Smith, though Smith has a bit higher
  3. Yeah, I'm just saying based on this draft, if we were going pass rusher in the 2nd, I'd rather have Murphy over Smith, but ther'es other guys I'd rather have over both these two. If those were my only options, I'd go in a different direction altogether.
  4. Absolutely. I think Marcus Smith is incredibily overrated on these forums.
  5. Not my favorite rush backer. Would have rather had someone like Trent Murphy with our first (based on how this draft played out) and then either Terrence Brooks or Stanely Jean-Baptiste (my nod to Brooks) in place of the Coleman pick. Not sure why we'd draft Coleman there at all.
  6. That would be practically impossible without trading some 2015 picks. But if it were possible? I suppose I wouldn't be against it. We'd be ripping teams off big time though.
  7. I still don't see a need to draft a C in this draft. Costa was brought in for competition, not to start. He was only a failsafe. I'd keep my mock the same. If it changes at all, it changes only to the extent that if we were going to draft an interior OL in the draft, it might be a guy who can move from G to C if necessary, but that was always a real possibility anyway.
  8. No thanks. I'd prefer to keep our second round pick. Even if we do trade back, I want to trade back about 10 picks and get a 4th/5th in addition.
  9. If he lives up to the hype, he'll be a handful, but that's all any great player is. A combo like Watt and Clowney could be the type of duo that can take over a game, but they won't take over every game and they won't cover for other weaknesses in the defense. And without a competent QB, they will have their problems. It's better to just worry abotu what is within your control.
  10. I agree that he plays bigger, I just don't know if that's going to be enough to make him a 2nd round prospect. Of course there's been undersized guys in teh league who have excelled, so I'm not counting Jaylen out altogether. But no doubt it puts him behind the 8 ball from the outset. As you said, if he was about 2 or 3 inches taller, we'd be having a different conversation. If we drafted him, I'd be skeptical, but open. Heck, I'm still holding out for Trent Richardson, so it's not like I'm not accustomed to the wait and see approach lol.
  11. I don't think Easley lasts to the 5th round if that's what you meant by "late look." 2nd or 3rd, he may be a good prospect, though I have no idea where the colts stand on that. I wouldnt be disappointed if we took him though. Marsh and Breslin would be solid 3rd day picks. I'd prefer Prince Shembo to Breslin, but I'd be okay with either.
  12. He's too small weight-wise to start SS immediately, his height will be a limitation in drop zone coverage as a FS so I wouldn't put him there. If he were to play SS, he'd have to bulk up to closer to 200 lbs - and his body may be close to maxed out. In other words, he may play like a SS and do it well at the collegiate level with his body size, but that won't carry over into the NFL quite so easily. I don't like him as a CB as I think he'll get owned by bigger NFL receivers - and his college tape supports that. To me, he's an average to above average athlete who's instinctive traits and wre
  13. Joyner - Why use our first draft choice on a project? We need a safety to come in and play, and there will be guys there who are suited to start now that will be just as good. Desir - He's not my favorite choice, but he's not all that bad either. I think he'll require a bit more work as a project than say McGill or Jean-Baptiste (whom I like better by the way), but could be a nice prospect. Sam - Meh, there will be other DE/OLB prospects who should be there in the 5th that I like much better. I'd take Howard Jones before I took Michael Sam, and Jones could be available in the 6th or 7th
  14. My thought is Mel Kiper is an *. If we could never post another one of his mock drafts on these forums again, it would be a much better place. Nothing wrong with posting him here, but it's just like trying to pick up hot chicks at a bar or something. The bar is just a much better place when all the ugly ones are gone. Takes the beer goggles out of the equation.
  15. If he's going to play free safety, then I'd rather draft another FS/SS who's good in man and have them share FS and SS duties, because Landry is the kinda guy who plays the ball very well. Doesn't always take the best angles in zone, but he is a playmaker so long as he's healthy. I would resist defining Landry as a full time FS and draft someone who is limited to a SS role. Jimmie Ward would fill that role nicely, Ed Reynolds or Deonne Bucannon would be decent as well, though Buchannon to a lesser extent since I think he'd be a bit more of a project if we were going to play him at FS some.
  16. Yeah, I don't really see it myself, at least a traditional union anyway. There's some upside, but I think the costs of it will outweigh the benefits in the long run. And perhaps this whole thing is just to get the NCAA to reconsider how it conducts business. The NCAA has waved it's power around so long and in such a manner that it's turned so many people against it in a lot of regards, most notably in it's disciplinary and business aspects. It's due for a restructure of sorts.
  17. It's a truly unique scenario when a lockout benefits the employer more than the employee. It wouldn't always benefit the NCAA. But, if the students and NCAA don't come to an agreement, are they locked out from classes, too? And what about meals, tuition and other benefits of their so called employment? I don't know the answer, and perhaps it presents a somewhat anomalous issue, but it's certainly not as simple as not going to practice or games.
  18. Sure, that's what it's about "now." I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Show me a union and I'll show you a group of people who want to be paid. It's already been discussed as a potential benefit later on down the road. People will always want more, and young kids that are celebrities on campus is about the best example of a group of people who never have enough other than national celebrities who get millions a la Justin Bieber. Anyway, the first step is to unionize, pay will come later. When you want to institute change, especially when you're not the one holding the barganing
  19. The draft simulations would let you get this type of draft class.
  20. That was a much more concise and succinct way of saying what I said lol. Life's a heck of a thing ot have happen to someone, you know?
  21. . My wife is 6 months pregnant, so I'm pretty much hosed at the outset. So for now, I do it for free. I always think it's funny when I see younger guys in like college talking about aphrodisiacs and whatnot. Yeah, she's just going to take those slimy oysters down and then the clothes are just gonna fly off. If anything, it's going to send her to a toilet for 15 minutes.
  22. I can't say specifically for rape, but in general, any criminal who has gone to prison and reintegrates into society is at a disadvantage when they are "outed" as you say. And by that, I mean, they don't get hired, people who do know of their history dissociate from them, etc. So, when the world makes rehabilitative progress harder, these types of people, who generally have a lower IQ and mental stability return typically regress into who they were before being arrested. The most common reason is, they dont' believe they can do it, the world tells them tehy can't do it, so why even try? It
  23. You must not be married. Undressing your wife and actually having sex with your wife has about a 5% success rate after about 3 years of marriage. She has sex with you, you don't have sex with her. lol
×
×
  • Create New...