ColtStrong2013
-
Posts
4,760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ColtStrong2013
-
-
44 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:
You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though. Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at. So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth. Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares. Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.
It doesn't matter if Ballard values extra picks more or even as much than certain players...
They have mentioned 3 players for that pick and have shown they value extra picks. I agree that Ballard's board is all that matters, but that doesn't mean he values his 6th pick (on his board) at the 6th position... especially if he thinks he possibly can snag him later with extra picks.
-
1 hour ago, rockywoj said:
The thought that, “oh noooo, picked at six is toooo early!”, but it’s perfectly fine to take him six players later at twelve, is just so ridiculous.
Here’s the thing, if you pick the guy you want and he turns into the stud success anticipated, then to take that guy at 6, 8, 12, or 22 is utterly irrelevant. What’s matters is that the guy you pick turns into a stud and that all the players you passed on don’t all become appreciably better. The other thing is, you wo’t definitely KNOW that a player is a reach until e years or so out.
Too often I have seen teams skewered for “reaching” for a player, but then two three years down the road, the guy is a ProBowler, while so many of the “smarter” picks bypassed are out of the league. Then it’s like, wow, they were so smart for grabbing that ProBowler while they had the chance.
Too many fans are far too polarized in their draft wants, usually without adequately being properly informed as to how a team’s draft board is ordered. It’s quite amusing.
(Btw, I am a fan of Roquan Smith ... and if what I am hearing about him is true, he would prove to be a very key addition to the defense. Certainly one of the names I would be happy to see the Colts get. Of course, though, at the end of the day what the heck do I actually know about any of this, beyond the media and talking heads hype?
Also, I have seen plenty of rankings that had Edwards ranked higher than Smith, but then plenty of other ranking that had it the other way around, with Smith ahead of Edwards. We don’t know how the Colts have them ranked.)
Except it isn't at all.... Why would you feel good about reaching for a guy at 6 when you can load up on picks moving back several spots to pick him at 12? How is that a ridiculous thought process? Many don't think he is valued high enough to pick in the top 5 or 6, it doesn't make it "ridiculous"....
-
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:
I don't care if most Colt fans don't agree with me or not. If you gave a legitimate answer in your mind, then live with it.
Sigh
-
7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:
Good talk?? Really?? Hasn't this been covered enough for you?
With you, yes.. Your condescension is enough for me.
You asked me "one question" and I answered it. You are obviously one who high on your horse (no colts pun intended), when most Colts fans don't agree with you that Pagano was a good coach here...
-
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)
-
37 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:
Good talk... Keep drinking the Chuck koolaid. Stunned there is actually an individual on this forum that can justify defending him as a good HC.
-
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:
Look, all this has already been hashed over so many times it serves no purpose to rehash it.
Just answer one question. What offensive scheme works when you have no offensive line and no running game? I am sure there is a long list of head coaches who would like that scheme.
One that doesn't have tendencies so blatantly obvious that a middle school football coach can call a perfect defensive game. Have you seen the breakdown of the tendencies from last season? Brutal for an NFL football team.
Get the ball of Brissetts hands quickly. Utilize Mack's speed and Gores strength. We failed miserably at taking advantage of strengths and minimizing the weakspots of the offense. How many times can you allow Brisseyt to drop back for 4 plus seconds with a horrible o-line and not make an adjustment? You can honestly say you thought that was a solid coaching effort last season??
-
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:
Just how do we know that for sure? He didn't have a team to coach after his 3rd year.
We are hearing right now how this team is junk and how the roster is lacking serious talent at almost every position.
But Pagano was expected to make winners out of this team. Yeah, right.
We don't for sure... but I highly doubt he will be handed the keys to a franchise any time soon without taking a smaller role first to get back in. And I agree with you in that I dont see him wanting to, and I dont blame him.
His offensive scheme this past year was embarrassing. His gameplanning for the past 5 years was embarrassing. That record you mention was not because of him, it was because of Andrew Luck being dug in holes and having the ability to pull games out of his buttcrack like none other. For every stat you pull for wins, I can find 10 that show that many of those wins should not have happened, statistically...
-
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:
His track record is 53-43 and 3-3 in the playoffs.
And where is he coaching now..?
Teams were banging down his door weren't they?
-
4 hours ago, AZColt11 said:
This! I was just thinking the same thing. It's sort of like saying the guy with the Mercedes drives faster than the guy with the Buick. No kidding!
I think Ballard did a pretty good job with what he had to work with. And I think, in hindsight, Grigson got a little bit lucky with some of his picks (although the same could be said of Ballard with Hooker falling in his lap at #15 when he was mocked MUCH higher in most mocks). He sure as heck didn't demonstrate the same ability in any of his subsequent drafts.
Perfect analogy. Ha, love it.
This years draft can be more indicative of the difference between the two GM's. I remember hearing several Philly scouting department folks say they couldn't believe Grigson was a GM in the first place... one former scout said comparing his reports to Louis Riddick (the director of pro scouting for Philly at the time) was like comparing Steph Curry to a point guard in the D-League... Have yet to hear anything remotely negative about Ballard. Ask Pat McAfee what he thinks about the difference between the two. Biggest upgrade in franchise history.
Ballard's vision is solid. He just has to execute it, which is something Grigson failed miserably, although we never heard what his vision was... nor from him really at all.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Indy1996 said:
Remember wilson was benched because of pagano not because of production and basham is a good player he barely got playing time because of jabal sheard js dont judge after 1 year
Pagano didn't know talent that was right in his face because Grigson never gave it to him. Doesn't mean he wasn't a bad coach.
Wilson was never given his fair shot at the field in a season that didn't make a difference who played. Basham didn't play much and when he did he succeeded in a scheme that wasn't built for him. Will be interesting to see how he performs as a 4-3 pass rusher.
-
4 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:
Where did you get Wilson & Basham being all pro from? Certainly not from their contributions on the field. Perhaps they will progress to above average players, bit lets wait until they do something before we tout them over Fleener, Allen, TY, Ballard....
When did I say Basham would be all-pro? I said he could produce 8 sacks a year for us in the future. Not unquestionable and the organization thinks highly of his ceiling. Wilson was crapped on by Pagano, when he played very well in what little he was on the field last season. He has as high of a ceiling as anyone that Grigson brought in on defense over his career.
Do you think Fleener and Allen were above average? Because I think everyone would disagree with you 100%. They were products of a tight end focus with a great qb and haven't done jack since being kicked to the curb.
-
3 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:
Crazy? Look in mirror lol. Dont let your bias for current colt employees over past ones taint your veiw. The topic was griggs first draft vs Ballards first draft. Period.
Also, if you take what Parcells said "you are what your record says you are". Griggs was 11-5 in his first season(11-5 in next two also) Ballard was 4-12.
What ballards team and draft class does in next few seasons has nothing to do with thread topic. Griggs first draft was better than ballards first draft.
Im done talking about something so obvious.
You are what your record says you are... Grigson's record with a superstar once in a generation QB is that he was a bust as a GM. Plain. And. Simple.
I have no bias. I have every reason, as do most Colts fans and longtime season ticket holders, to think Grigson ruined the first part of Andrew's career (possibly all of it)... and you want to talk about how great he was. LoL
-
On 4/1/2018 at 4:15 PM, ColtStrong2013 said:
Will you say the same if in 4 years Hooker and Wilson are all-pro, Mack is still our change of pace back, Basham is producing 8 sacks a year, and Hairston is still a solid depth/nickelback?
2012 produced a lot as rookies because they had to and a lot should be credited to Andrew Luck and Bruce Arians for putting the ball in those guys hands. Where are they all now and what are they doing?
@LJpalmbeacher2 ... I am not sure what you are confused about by this post. You say Grigsons draft blew Ballard's out of the water. I say you are crazy and basing it off of solely their rookie years, when all but 2 of 2012 busted completely for this organization. I want to know if you will stand by that comment in 4 years when last years draft blows Grigsons entire drafting career here out of the water in terms of longevity and productivity for this franchise.
-
15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:
Grigson's first draft earned him the GM of the year as I recall.All this talk of players is fine but one thing you are all overlooking is Grigson made his first draft while the Colts were 39 million in cap hades and this team had no offense at all. He had no choice but to draft offense. The only players worth a damn on offense was Wayne.
If you look at Fleener and Allen both of them had great rookie seasons. Why they disappeared over time I don't have a clue because both of their rookie seasons didn't tell that.
Now fast forward to today what good does it do to bring up the past?
I keep hearing how this roster is total junk and we have no talent. We need so many positions there is not a clear cut player to take in the draft because we are needing players all over the roster.
It's kind of funny, I thought all the problems were Pagano and how we had the talent to win but it was him who was causing this team to lose.
Now here we are with a whole new coaching staff and I don't see any of you bringing that up.
Grigson lost his job because he couldn't find the players needed to get better.
Now comparing Grigson to Ballard serves what purpose?
I know it's the off season but c-mon.
I'm not sure why we should compare apple to oranges either. I do think it was unfair for many to pick one or the other to back with Pagano/Grigson.... Both were given contract extensions when they should have been fired and the organization move in a different direction altogether. The fact that Pagano was given an extra year still really bothers me.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, PeterBowman said:
this ^^^^^
the contracts he gave out were very team friendly....the problem is that their production wasn't team friendly.
Grigson did a great job at minimizing his losses with contracts. No one, in their right mind, would question he (and his team) on putting together team-friendly contracts that made sense. No one would doubt him bringing in Free Agents.
He didn't have success with the big Free Agent pickups. His misses in the draft were incredible... both of those contributed greatly to him neglecting key areas of the roster like the offensive line and the defense.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
Let's not forget, that it wasn't just the draft that earned Grigson NFL Exec of the Year.
It was also the fact that his team went 11-5 when it had an $80 payroll at a time when the rest of the NFL had a $120 Million payroll. The Colts had to carry $40 Mill in Dead Cap money for a year. That helped.
And he signed some decent free agent players who helped both sides of the ball. That helped too.
Yes, at the time his draft class was viewed as exceptional. ESPN said top-10 all-time. But now we all see how much that has changed over the years.
But Grigson had a very good first year as a GM. It wasn't just the draft.
He also had a healthy Andrew Luck that won most of those games after being in a hole to start... Ballard didn't have that luxury, and it's going to pay off this draft for him... and likely next draft as well (with an added 2nd round pick,and possibly more with further trade downs)
Let's judge Ballard next off season when he rolls over serious capspace, has two years of drafting and roster building under his belt, and a potentially star-studded Free Agency to bid on.
-
32 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:
Im not a Griggs fanboy But its no comparison, Griggs first draft blew ballards out of the water.
Will you say the same if in 4 years Hooker and Wilson are all-pro, Mack is still our change of pace back, Basham is producing 8 sacks a year, and Hairston is still a solid depth/nickelback?
2012 produced a lot as rookies because they had to and a lot should be credited to Andrew Luck and Bruce Arians for putting the ball in those guys hands. Where are they all now and what are they doing?
-
1 hour ago, coltsblue1844 said:
Let's also realize that Grigson had the 1st pick in each round of his 1st draft, while Ballard had the 15th. Big difference between the two!
This...
Let's wait and compare this years draft with CB to 2012... but 6 years from now.
I'm not sure how anyone can say 2012 was a great drafting year considering TY and Andrew are the only 2 left on board (albeit very good pro's). I don't give a damn (excuse my language) about how a player plays their rookie year. I want longterm success and Grigson had NONE with his draft picks aside from the aforementioned in parentheses. Ballard has a vision of leading drafts, stacking them on top of one another, developing the picks and retainingthem long term.
Let's revisit this topic at the conclusion of this upcoming season, when we have a much greater comparison of last years rookie's in their second year. I think Ballard had a bit of bad luck with injuries, but I'm optimistic that the 2017 draft class will produce some great football players in the next few years.
-
35 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:
Here’s what I think the difference may be between Chubb & Nelson:
As far as defensive ends, no one is close to Chubbs talent (at least that is the consensus).
With Nelson, you have Hernandez and Wynn who may be there at 12 or perhaps 22.
That being said, if they end up picking Nelson at 6, I’d be happy (unless they pass on Chubb). If they trade down and get a guy like Roquan Smith & Wynn/Hernandez, I’d be happy as well.
Lastly, you have to take returning players from last year into account when assessing team talent.
Luck, Geathers, Swoope, Mewhort, Kelly and Hooker’s return adds some pretty good overall talent to this team.
I agree. What you said is exactly what I have always argued with friends when talking about BPA. Just because a player like Nelson is possibly the best in the draft overall, doesn't mean he is the BPA. Positional value means something. Depth in any given draft should have a value when selecting a player.
In my opinion, Chubb is hands down the #1 BPA in the draft... for any team. There are 4 top echelon quarterbacks in this draft, among many other quality signal callers. Pass rusher is the hardest position to find, and Chubb is hands down the best in this draft. That has to put him high on the board, which also makes me feel like we will be very lucky to land him at #6... It also goes to what some have been complaining about. We had better odds at 3, and some don't feel three 2nd rounders are worth missing out on a player like Chubb...
I like our chances of landing a big time player in the 1st round, and loading up on talent with the picks we received from the Jets.
-
2 hours ago, AZColt11 said:
I'm not pessimistic, I just see a different timeline than some. I don't expect a great season ahead, and I don't see much next season either. I think 2020 is the year to make a move. But I could be wrong.
I think it starts with a guy like Chubb and a starter on OL and LB. Next season go after another OL starter and WR. Who knows what FA will bring as well? But I still think this roster is so depleted it will take some time.
I wasn't referring to being pessimistic to expectations of the roster shape and success in the next few years. Although I agree with Coach Reich when he said with the right couple pieces they might not be far off at all... A healthy Luck makes this poor roster a playoff contender. Add a couple key pieces that have immediate impact and playmaking ability like Hooker did last season before going down... we might be onto something.
I was referring to pessimism about the success of this draft after trading down. I have seen a lot, not necessarily here, but through the media / social media, of people thinking we will miss out on an elite player (Chubb/Barkley/Nelson) by trading down... and they obviously don't think the 3 extra picks we received wasn't worth the low risk gamble. I think it was brilliant and the timing was perfect. I think it could lead to other opportunities to trade, this year, and next...
Accumulate picks, build through the draft, develop your players, and don't have predictable and horrible game managing coaches running the team. Breath of fresh air from the last 6 years of my life as a Colts fanatic.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Dr. T said:
SMOKESCREEN!
We are going defense with pick #6.
It could be a little bit of a smokescreen, but also a lot of what they are planning on doing in the 2nd round. As deep as the runningback class is in this draft, there is a day one started to be found with one of our early picks...
I do believe we will take Chubb if available, but that isn't to say we are going to turn down Nelson if Chubb is gone and Nelson is there for us.... he could go a long way into that running game Reich speaks of.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Narcosys said:
Not necessarily. There's not to many more teams that need a qb, and ones that want the 3rd and 4th options. Furthermore, as ballard said, there are only around eight players that are truly worth a top 10 pick. Dropping Abby further down may not fit with his draft board and values. If that's the case, he would likely need the value of a #1-3 overall pick for the 6th. I don't think trend will be willing to pay that.
Ballards values are clear according to the owner and the HC... They believe this is the best 4 qb's to come out at the same time, and feel fortunate to have moved to 6 as they think 3 will go in the top 5. If not, we don't know what he values. In my opinion, I think he values 3 players at #6, and if all 3 are somehow not on the board, he will move back to a team that wants the 3rd or 4th quarterback option... and there are plenty of teams that need a qb and would be willing to switch and give a little to move up and take one.
It's a moot point to continue talking about #6 of this draft until the Browns and Giants make their moves on draft day. We literally are in a sit and wait game to see what happens.
-
12 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:
No Colts fans were upset with the trade lol everybody wanted a trade back
Everybody? Questionable at best... I had 3 text messages from friends that day asking why we would blow our chance at Barkley or Chubb.. I think Nelson is the best we can get at 6 at this point, unless Chubb somehow falls, and as someone mentioned above, it isn't even guaranteed Nelson will be there.
I'm in complete favor of avoiding the decision and continuing to move down and acquire picks. We can get great talent in the first 2 rounds, and really load up. So I loved the move with the Jets, and will be happy regardless at this point... But to say everyone was happy with it is simply not true.
Roquan Smith set to visit Colts tomorrow
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
I will say, that I am high on Smith also... and the inside linebacker position in general. I loved his play all year. We also have never had a top notch Inside Backer to lead the defense... so I won't be upset if Ballard has him that high and takes him.
I don't see it and only because of the precedent they have set and the players they have been hot on. I also understand there are a lot of smoke and mirrors. But there is a quite a few damn good linebackers if Smith somehow would go before where we trade (if that is what happens)