richard pallo
-
Posts
14,002 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by richard pallo
-
-
I agree with the vast majority here that the edge rusher or pass rusher class is pretty weak. I don't see us addressing it at all unless Frackel is there in the third. Also, after we sign Luck, I would not rule out the possibility of us taking a one year prove it to me flyer on Aldon Smith just like the Bills did with R. Incognito. He is a top 10 pass rusher in this league. Somebody is going to do it and he's only 26. He's free to sign with anyone now but the earliest he could play is November. I'm open to it and if it works out we fill a huge need. Incognito was appreciative of the Bills and he recently signed a longer term deal with them.
-
4 hours ago, AndyColt said:
well it looks like Ryan Kelly will be selected by Jacksonville 1 st Rd.....................http://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/4/3/11354676/rumor-has-it-jags-will-do-anything-to-get-ryan-kelly
Goes to show you that they are looking to replace Wisnewski with the No.1 Center in the draft. I hope we get Kelly first.
-
I like your first four picks a lot. I think protecting Luck is of paramount importance in the beginning of the draft. Last years draft was primarily defense after Dorsett. This year it has to be OL and should be able to find two plug and play interior OL in the first two rounds. Based on what we're hearing from the Colt's decision makers it sure seems like we are focused on fixing the interior OL and you do that with your first picks. Kelly seems to good to pass up in the first. If you could find a partner to trade back with better yet. If you can't I would be all in with Kelly at 18.
-
2 hours ago, rockywoj said:
I think the Colts still need two more studs on the OL and the OL coming round is of paramount importance to the offensive success of the team. I consider the OL as the number one priority. After that, focus has to be on defense.
Colts are about 5 players away from being a true force. 2 OL, 1 DB or 1 DL, 1 OLB, and 1 ILB. If you take and maintain what the team currently has, but then add studs in those five (6) spots, they would have a championship caliber roster.
With much drafting good fortune, hopefully they will fill 3 of those 5 spots this year. Maybe 1 of those five can still be solved via free agency. And then hopefully two key adds can be had next year.
Couldn't agree with you more. OL is the number one priority. I would be okay with the second round too just to make sure we increase the likelihood of fixing it. Then defense.
-
23 minutes ago, Coltfreak said:
If TE were the BPA would you be against taking him?
No. If it was a position of need.
-
6 minutes ago, Jason_S said:
The only way I'd take a RB in the first round is if the other 21 starting positions are set with 0 replacements needed. Ok I'll actually drop that to 20 because one of those offensive starters is going to be a FB, a 2nd TE or a 3rd WR. So, if I have 20 of the 22 starting positions set, then I would draft a RB in round 1 IF he graded out highly enough.
Right, that's what i just said.... you agree
-
7 minutes ago, Jason_S said:
No, not necessarily. I would hate a RB in the first round.
So, I think what you're saying is you would not take a RB in the first round if he was BPA in a position of need. You would rather take a lower rated player in another position of need.
-
1 hour ago, Jason_S said:
I disagree with this. I absolutely DO think teams take Need into account when they setup their big boards. Now the actual player rankings would be based on talent alone, but they're not going to include the few positions that are concretely set...like QB. People keep getting caught up with Dorsett getting picked when "WR wasn't a position of need". But WR WAS a position of need. It wasn't the biggest need, but it was still a need.
The team had Hilton as the only young and established WR. Moncrief had shown potential his rookie year, but he didn't show enough to be able to say that he would definitely be the #2 for the future. Other than that we had Andre Johnson who was clearly nothing more than a stop-gap. Then there was Whalen who is no longer with the team so we now know he was never a part of the Colts long-term plans.
I guess we will never know unless we see the big board. What you're actually saying is people should not get upset if we take a RB or C in the first round and I agree. If we have them ranked that high we take them. RB is currently a position of need. So is center. Some people would argue they're not the biggest needs and could be drafted in later rounds. But if we have them ranked higher than an edge rusher or CB so be it. We still filled a need with a highly rated prospect.
-
42 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:
Okay, to both of you. When we say "BPA" we are not talking about just overall composite score of a scouts grade. See my post above. There's other considerations. Just because you have an RB who is 91/100 and a 3-4 OLB who rates a 90/100, doesn't mean you automatically go with the RB because he has the higher number. It's not a numbers only game. There is of course needs to consider ("consider" not "determinative"), and whether that position is as important as another position (for instance, RBs in today's NFL are devalued, we put a premium on edge rushing and gap eating NTs, at least in a 3-4). All of these things are modifiers on the prospect's scout composite score. These things go into a "big board" and that's what most of us should be thinking of when we say BPA. So, when I say, Ezekiel Elliot shouldn't be BPA at 18, it's because I think that, of the other 17 draftable prospects before us, at least one of them should be rated higher given the other factors to consider.
When teams put together their big board I think it is strictly on talent alone without taking into account needs. Last year when it came to our pick I felt sure we were going to draft the NT that eventually went to the Patriots. I believe his name was Malcom Brown but I am not sure. A position of need at the time but instead we take Dorsett in a non position of need and surprise everybody. They clearly went BPA on their board. They probably have other boards ranking players on position of need but when they say BPA I believe them. I also don't believe RBs are devalued as much as some people think. I think it is team specific thing and also based on the quality of the RB class in that year. Last years class was pretty good, this years is so so with the exception being Elliot. Next years is supposed to be very good. My guess for next year is that we will probably see a lot of RBs taken in the first and second rounds. Some offenses really need that RB others not as much. Ours would really like to have one. Hopefully we can find one. If Elliot is there I can't imagine them not taking him.
-
1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:
If he was BPA at 18, I question this organizations front office from the top down. About the only time, IMO, where a 1st round pick on an RB (and for Colts, especially after Trent) is when it is one of maybe one or two truly missing pieces. The Panthers, for instance, could justify taking an RB in the first round. They'd probably be better served taking maybe a wideout or DB, depending on who was there, but that's neither here nor there.
Seriously? He is considered a top 10 pick in the entire draft, that means top 10 best player in the entire draft! Let me be clear, top 10 player regardless of position! And it's a position of need. And he can play all three downs. You really think we would be the only team to have him as BPA at the 18th. pick if he was still there? I don't think so. If he slips past ten I wouldn't at all be surprised if we moved up to get him. We probably won't but I wouldn't be shocked. Chuck and Ryan both want that three down back and he is right in front of them not too far away.
-
I would rather trade back and take him a little later in the 1st. round but if we can't find a partner then I would take him and not look back. Critical need filled.
-
Looks pretty good to me. I would like to trade back in the 1st. but taking Kelly makes so much sense. Analysts say he can start right away and has future all pro potential. And we all know it's our biggest need. We have to help Andrew. If Elliott drops to us he has to be the pick and he still helps Luck. But I doubt that happens so I hope Kelly is the pick.
-
The only way I would consider any of these is if we sign or acquire a veteran center as protection in case we miss on your choices. The earliest you take one is the 4th. round. If we don't sign or trade for a veteran than we need an immediate starter as a plug and play rookie center and that's Kelly by all accounts.
-
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I now agree with NewColtsFan. I would rather have Ryan Kelly too.
-
What am I missing here? We trade back and get a 2016 3 and the Ravens get our 2016 2 and our 2017 1. Makes no sense.
-
If he signs with the Steelers or somebody else that leaves us basically with two choices unless you believe we stand pat with our current centers. We draft one or trade for a center. One way or the other we need to find a new starting center. The FO and owner all appear on board with the need for a major upgrade at the position. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out as we get closer to the draft and possibly during the draft. And we all know Grigson is not afraid to trade, i.e. Vontae Davis.
-
I have read a few articles as well and I don't believe any of it. Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk has turned his site into The National Enquirer of pro football. He is always trying to create controversy in an effort to hold onto readers. His TV show is now garbage and he is fighting for airtime. How he stays on the air is beyond me. He makes money an issue with most of his articles and opinions. He's gotten old fast. I am now laughing at half the stuff he writes.
-
Nice draft, but I think we are going OL earlier than the 4th. round. Elliot will be the pick if he falls. If he goes before 18 I think we will try to trade back and take Kelly later in the 1st. round. If we can't trade back I think they bite the bullet and take Kelly anyway. Now another possibility is trading a pick for a young starting center, not necessarily the 1st pick. We did that to get Vontae. Regardless they have to get a high quality center. It's our biggest need. Maybe a team looking for a quarterback at 18 trades us a starting center and their no.2. My mind is open to everything.
-
Zeke is a three headed monster! A three down back. We need Zeke the beast. Why keep settling for later round draft picks that turn out to be bust after bust? Wasted pick after pick in hopes of getting lucky. Of course we could sign Bradshaw again. That will make a difference. If we are lucky enough to see him fall close to us at 18 go get him. Then we can get a center in the second round and bam we have helped out Luck tremendously. I can only hope.
-
Edge rusher, it would be a reach at 18. Would rather take a starting player. Kelly at C is a plug and play future all pro. He is projected lower 1st. round but if we can't trade back I wouldn't be surprised if we pick him especially after Jim's recent comments.
-
Sorry, don't agree on reaching for a pass rusher at 18. That would be a waste of a pick. Protecting Luck is priority No.1 All the good pass rushers would be gone at 18 and it's not even a good pass rushing class. No reaches please, BPA in position of need. You can reach in the later rounds. I want two starters in the first two rounds.
-
Great signing Ryan!
-
Lucky guess by jskinzz three hours before the signing.
-
Just made up. You have a 50:50 chance to be right.
hypothetical question about 18
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
Ryan Kelly