ColtStrong2013
-
Posts
4,760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ColtStrong2013
-
-
3 way trade with the Bills 12th, 22nd pick, and 3rd round... package one of our early 2nds and 12 pick for the 8th pick with the Bears. Roquan Smith at #8. LET'S GO.
-
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
No. I would not do that trade. I'm not trading two 2's for a first.
The Colts are NOT one great player away. We are many great players away. We need ALL the picks we have and more.
Ask me that same question in 2020. Maybe my answer will be different....
I'm not sure any team should have the mentality of being one player away. It's never a bad thing to add 4 top 50 picks versus 1 or 2... regardless of your roster shape. Depth and quality youth is what builds sustained champions.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:
If the Bears are willing to give up a 2nd or 3rd to move up for Barkley, I'd do it instantly... Provided Chubb had already been picked. I'd rather take Edmunds, Smith, Ward, Hurst, or even Landry over Barkely without regret, especially with an extra pick thrown in.
I think year 2 Marlon Mack is going to be better than Barkely this season. They both lose yards because they bounce everything outside... The difference is that Mack has had a year to learn how to play in the NFL. Barkley is going to have growing pains. He won't be a top 10 RB until he learns to run between the tackles... which will take time. Jmo... Not worth a top 15 pick, let alone the 6th pick in the draft.
It has nothing to do with if he learns to run between the tackles. He will in training camp... He bounced outside often in collegr because he had the potential to take it to the house every time. He will make big plays this year.. perhaps more through the air than on the ground. THAT is why he is going to be a top 5 pick. If he is at 6, I would hope to Hell that Ballard would want to pair him with Luck and cross runningback off the need list with a sharpie.
-
2 hours ago, richard pallo said:
I think the Jets trade has allowed him to access the new drafting position and plan for another trade. Plenty of time has elapsed since that trade so I think he has various scenarios already worked out. He has been clear that he is open to trading back. Now all he needs is the right offer. Conversations are reportedly already taking place. It could happen on draft day but the trade partner runs the risk of the price going up on draft day. All it takes is one team agreeing to Ballards current asking price and I think he completes the deal. Trading back to six also tells me Ballard has Chubb, Barkley and Nelson rated fairly equally and he would be okay with any of them at six if he has to pick. Pay me now or you might have to pay more later. That's the gamble. Like I said all it takes is one team who thinks their guy will be there at six to do the deal early. We shall see but I can see it happening. Just my opinion.
I took your first comment a little differently than what I think you meant. I think we are on the same page with the Jets trade in that it was a great deal that gave Ballard plenty of time to reevaluate their place in the draft and the options available.
I won't be upset by another trade by any means. As long as Ballard is comfortable with who he drafts, more picks is a great thing.
-
1
-
-
On 4/14/2018 at 11:00 AM, richard pallo said:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. So true. Whichever team meets Ballards asking price first you do the trade now. To much can happen on draft day that can go wrong. That's why he did the Jets trade early. Ballard has been clear he wants more picks hence our first trade. The other teams might not be quite ready as they might want to be more comfortable with how they think it might unfold. But I do think some team will justify it and trade with us before draft day and Ballard will get his wish. More picks.
I dont agree. They did the Jets trade because it was a no brainer. It also allowed for more time to access the new drafting position and plan for another trade.
Ballard doesnt necessarily want to move. It's a large risk if they have a high value on a player that will no doubt be available at #6. He will entertain offers and see what happens draft day. No one at this point is going to throw a lot of capital at the #6 pick, when no one has a grasp on what is going to happen those first 5 picks.
-
3 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:
I dont think that the Bears will trade
They could use a LB, and or a guard. (One of these will be avalable)
The ONLY spot, that I see them trading for is Barkley, which MIGHT be available even at 8
I don't see how Barkley makes it to 8. If he does, there are at least 3 teams including the Indianapolis Colts that deserve new General Managers... The precedent of top running backs the last several drafts has been set. You take Barkley, you get a top tiered runningback immediately and the results that come with him.
With that said, I dont think the Bears offer jack for this pick. They spent a lot to ensure they got Trubinsky last year, and a lot of fans were very sour about it. It may prove to be a good move in the future, but it didn't last year for sure. I dont think Ballard trades with them either, seeing they might seriously want Smith and that could be a conflict. I think we stay put unless someone offers something silly draft day.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, il vecchio said:
Chicago doesn't have many picks to trade to go along with their 8th. They have the 39th, but I doubt they will give that up to go to 6. If they would, I hope CB will take it, whether Chubb is available or not..
No way they give up 39 to move up 2 spots after the flak they got last year for that type of move.
I would be interested swapping our 49th pick for their 39th, and our 6th and 7th round picks for both of their 4th rounders. That would give us 9 picks in the top 140. I like that... It fits pretty well with the draft chart value (not that it matters). The Bears get to move up and take their player, while we can move down and still snag Smith or Edmunds. They don't lose any picks. We don't gain any, but we move up 10 spots in the 2nd and significantly in the later rounds.
This would also give Ballard a more comfortable opportunity moving back with the 36/37 picks, if he wanted (I'm assuming he is interested) -
On 4/7/2018 at 11:18 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:
Play him at WILL on 1st down and in obvious run situations. When you got to sub packages (Nickel and dime varieties) play him at MIKE.
A bird in hand is better than 2 in the bush...
Smith can play WILL and MIKE in our new D, depending upon down and distance.
I agree and probably better than Edmunds at those spots. But Edmund's could also be a passrushing specialist on 3rd down in the near future as a defensive end. He has the versatility of 3 or 4 different positions in this defense, which is huge for any defense.
-
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:
When did Smith become 6'0" and 240?
He played the season at 6'1" and 225 then gained 10 pounds st the combine and tested at 235. That's where I expect him to play.
Im reading many teams see Edmunds as an OLB and NOT a MIKE.
This is true. Several "sources" have said that Smith is the best Linebacker for his versatility as he is the best inside linebacker in this draft but can play the outside very well.
I think Edmund's is going to be a great player but his hype is all about his potential. He's worth the gamble as I think he is a solid linebacker at the very least with tremendous upside... but Smith is the best sure-bet at linebacker in this draft.
-
When is the last time an Indianapolis defense had tremendous young talent at linebacker? Single position let alone the entire core? I like this thinking.
I wonder if this is also a trend to keep an eye on with Ballard's drafting philosophy? Does he value drafting specific position groups? Last year there was an emphasis on defensive secondary. If he focuses this draft on linebacker core, what would be next years focus?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, AZColt11 said:
As to the OP, Ballard NEEDS to hit it out of the park in that round. I feel like whomever they take in the 1st is going to help them. But that 2nd round is what will make or break this draft IMHO. And who knows, he may not be done acquiring picks?
Every draft has to have a good chunk of longterm players, whether starting or rotational pieces. But the first 3 rounds in this draft for us have to be starting. Our 3rd round pick is a glorified 2nd... unless we would trade it down for later 3rd-4th picks. Another first round trade could produce 5-7 starters for this roster.
-
2 hours ago, aaron11 said:
so 2.5 more than he had last year is his career high
i dont get why you think hes going to break out at this point. he is what he is, stop being such a homer. putting him next to ridgeway or anyone else isnt going to make his numbers go way up
He's being put in his natural position. I'm not saying he's going to be all-pro next year dude. I'm saying he could very well perform a lot better in the same type of defense he had good numbers as a rotational piece in NE.
We aren't blind Homer's. We are realistic and understand there is some darn good football players on this roster and have high hopes for this draft. You act like the roster is in shambles and will take years to build. Many of us disagree.
When it comes to Luck, it doesnt matter if he is retiring in two years, it doesnt change the roster rebuild. Even if we were able to bring all big Free agents in this year (news flash: they weren't ever coming here) we would be starting all over in a few years and doing it the proper way. No one wants a hit and miss roster/organization. Consistent and methodical.
-
1 hour ago, aaron11 said:
yes, im just some guy, but lets not act like GMs dont make mistakes and fans cant see them and call it out
forgive me for not trusting the draft, but we have not had a 4th round pick or later pan out since mcafee in 2009!
Hairston and Mack played pretty well last year... perhaps Grigson just sucked as a GM.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:
The bolded is a very bad and flawed argument that people use on countless message boards. It's not Aaron Vs Ballard to see who is the better GM. It's Ballard Vs 31 other GM's to see who can build the best team and win the SB every year. I'm trusting Ballard right now because he's following through on his "build through the draft" philosophy so far with the trade and everything, but it's not Ballard Vs the armchair GM, it's Ballard Vs 31 other professional GM's in a war every year. That's why you have to trust him, because you think he can outsmart those other 31 GM's, not a random message board poster. So far, we don't know, but this draft will be telling on Ballard's credibility.
And many of those GM's are praising his moves. Which is what I said. It isn't a flawed argument. It's an ideological difference. It's literally Grigson versus Ballard in terms of ideology. It's one man that refuses to overspend in FA when there is value to be had. To focus on the draft and build from within. Aaron thinks this is risky, and that is absurd.
-
12 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
we could have spent some money and still "built through the draft"
thats what i dont like about ballards approach.
We did spend a little money. Just not on who you would have liked.
That doesn't make it wrong, just means he has an approach you don't agree with. But your examples aren't helping your case on this forum. I think I'll trust the professional, that has had nothing but praise from fellow scouts/GM's, on this one.
-
Just now, aaron11 said:
how dare i say luck might retire due to injuries
any other forum and people would say yes, that is reasonable
not here with the homers though
It's not unreasonable. No one said that. But doctors and team officials are optimistic he is going to be under center proving you wrong... And if it is a career ending injury, that is on Grigson and Pagano... not Chris Ballard. I dont understand why you are stuck on that
-
Just now, aaron11 said:
we drafted a guard and center with our second and third picks the year after we drafted luck. both were busts were supposed to be starters and both were busts.
Thank Grigson for that... most of his picks were.
That doesn't have anything to do with Ballard and him focusing on the proper way of building a team, which all smart GM's say, is with emphasis on the draft...
-
Just now, aaron11 said:
i can list the oline we drafted that didnt pan out if you want
I can list the FA that didnt pan out before Grigson panicked and drafted the guys you are referring to... if you want
Cherilous
Donald Thomas
Samson Satele
Mike McGlynn
Lance Louis
.... should I go on?
-
Just now, aaron11 said:
that wasnt even his choice
Just like Andrew playing hurt the 2 seasons prior wasn't Grigsons choice.... righttt
-
1 minute ago, aaron11 said:
this is where we disagree
i dont see that at all. and free agents didnt get luck hurt the first time, it was draft picks on the oline that didnt pan out
It was actually Free Agents on that o-line that didnt pan out. And if you didn't notice this Free Agency, none of those big name free agents wanted any part of this organization unless we were paying millions more than the second best (we were not..)
-
3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
i think its very risky to sit back and build slowly right now
if we waste lucks career than ballard should be fired too, luck is more important to me as a fan than him
And another thing on this...
Ballard might have been the one to SAVE his career by sitting him all season and focusing on what the best route was for him medically. Ballard's patience is the only thing going for this organization right now.
-
1 minute ago, aaron11 said:
arguing with a bunch of eternal optimists in here today
im being realistic
Hardly...
-
Just now, aaron11 said:
i think its very risky to sit back and build slowly right now
if we waste lucks career than ballard should be fired too, luck is more important to me as a fan than him
Luck has a good 10 years left if all goes well... Building through FA quickly was disastrous the first time this franchise tried it and according to you, might have ended Andrew's career... but you feel more comfortable doing that same old song and dance again!!?? Wow
-
1
-
-
You must be really enjoyable to be around with all your pessimism @aaron11
Predict the Colts 1st Pick (final)
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
There is no such thing as over-prepared. You are either prepared or not... and a great deal of GM's don't come close to being as prepared as Ballard, so he is one of few I would consider being comfortably prepared for this draft... (not needing a qb helps that as I think the chaos of this draft and qb needing teams will lead to GMs making bad decisions for the longterm health of their respective franchises.)
Other than that, I completely agree with you on Ballard's preparation and decision making. Go Blue.