Reboot
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Reboot
-
-
1 hour ago, NFLfan said:
I understood. You wrote that only 7 players had made the Pro Bowl (see your quote below). That is inaccurate. That's all.
Now it is. When the article was written it wasn’t. That number came from the article not my pea brain. And that was the entire point. That’s the thing about assessing drafts. It takes a while to assess them in some cases, while in others the stars shine early and in numbers.
-
9 hours ago, NFLfan said:
That is not accurate. There is a lot more that have made the Pro Bowl. In the first round alone there are 11 (Lane Johnson, Ezekiel Ansah, Sheldon Richardson, DeAndre Hopkins, Xavier Rhodes, Tyler Eifert, Desmond Trufant, Eric Reid, Travis Frederick, Cordarrell Patterson, Kyle Long). Then you have others like LeVeon Bell, Jordan Reed, Travis Kelce, Zach Ertz, Kawann Short, Darius Slay. There are a lot more.
In addition a few like Jack Doyle, A.J. Bouye and Adam Thielen were undrafted but have made the Pro Bowl.
You didnt read what I wrote or didn’t understand it. The NFL.com article was from a few years ago, that was the lead sentence to the paragraph. It wasn’t current. Regardless, that draft class still stunk.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495614/article/five-worst-nfl-draft-classes-of-last-25-years
-
2 hours ago, Four2itus said:
I think that most GM's...if not all....see talent in groups, where fans see players in a linear, numerical order. I agree with NCF, that there are about a dozen top shelf players at this point in their development. But I see the next level or group of players as one of the largest I have seen in some time. I guy could go anywhere from 15 to maybe even 40...and you could argue that is a fairly sane choice. I can't wait to see the middle of the first round through the bottom of the second. I think it could be very surprising.
I think GMs have to do both. The groups, the board with it's options, rankings, groups of players is one thing. But placing value on those groups, knowing when to get them, is linear. I think it absolutely is a progression or series of steps because they're forced to by the way the draft is organized. For example, usually teams wait until the seventh round, maybe sixth (Oakland and Tampa notwithstanding), or the UDFA pool to get a kicker or punter. Yet one could argue that those are two of the most important positions in the game. The league's all time scoring leaders - in a sport where high score wins - are all kickers. So they have to group those players, rank their talent and value, but also try to assess where in the order of the process (the draft) do I place these items of value?
To me that's why it is far more dynamic a process than most people think. It sure as heck isn't our fantasy draft at a Wild Wings with beers spilling and reactionary picks flying each round.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
Been meaning to post this for a while.... a question that Peter King asked a number of GM's and scouting people and got the following answers...
I'm simply going to cut and paste the very brief story... it's a paragraph.
Part of the reason I'm doing this is to re-inforce the view I posted a while back..... this is neither a very good or deep draft. I'd call it a C- draft.
Overall the pickngs are..... slim.
STARTING PLAYERS IN THE 2018 NFL DRAFT INTERLUDE.Interesting question. Queried about how many starting-caliber players they felt were in this draft, six scouting people or GMs over the weekend came back with these figures: 35, “40 to 50,” “about 70,” 73, “75-ish,” 83 and 111. I asked because I wanted to figure out whether it made sense for the Colts to try to trade down one more time..
Great post. I think this is a perfect way to represent what has been discussed a lot here lately, when players get taken, the value of picks, and how not all drafts are created equal. This is exactly why I will never fault a GM who takes a player the rest of the world screams 'reach' about. There are only so many players with talent, and when it's your turn at the podium, you better make sure you get one.
A couple years ago NFL.com had an article about the worst draft years, and two were in this generation of players, 2002 (ok maybe the last generation of players) and 2013. You know there have been a total of 7 players out of the entire 2013 draft who have made a pro bowl so far. 7. Yikes.
I think this draft has starters throughout the first two rounds. I love the second round projections I see. I agree with the GMs though, there are some fliers out there in later rounds. Whomever said 35 clearly didn't have his coffee yet, but I don't think it will be the other end either, 111 is too many. I think I'd agree with DaColt, it's probably in the 70s.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:
One thing to add to your post.
For someone like Smith (of whom I am a big fan). The scenario is very likely that according to be Ballard and team and their board Smith is at the top of their board also they think he will be there in the range of 10-13th pick, so they try to work out a trade with one of those teams, nothing materializes so they draft Smith at 6.
People act like the Colts either decide to trade or not, but it takes two to tango, so to speak, just because the Colts may want to trade does not mean they will find someone offering their asking price. or vice versa, just because a team may want to trade into the Colts spot does not mean they are willing to offer something the Colts will accept.
I agree with you and rocky. The other thing I think was made obvious when they traded back to 6 is that they weren't all-in on any of the "experts" top 3 non-QBs, in Nelson, Chubb, and Barkley. What that trade did is remove any control they had to assure themselves of getting one of those three. At 3 at least one of them would have been there, with the QBs at the top. Now, there is a chance none of them will be there. I think that speaks volumes about where the Colts big board is and was, and it isn't where most experts or fans keep talking about. If they wanted Chubb, or Neslon, or Barkley, they had to stay at 3. It's no longer in their control being at 6. Who sits atop that board has probably always been a player we'd consider a top 10 pick, not a top 5, based on all the draft experts lists.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, Trueman said:
Is it?
2018: Philly : Blount cheap free agent. Ajayi acquired for a 4th
2017: New England : Blount cheap free agent , Lewis UDFA, White 4th round pick
2016 : Denver: CJ Anderson UDFA, Ronnie Hillman 3rd round
2015: Patriots: Blount, Lewis, White, Bolden, Steven Jackson
2014: Seattle: Lynch acquired for a 4th round pick
2013: Baltimore: Ray Rice 2nd round pick
2012: Giants: Ahmad Bradshaw 7th round pick
2011: Packers: Ryan Grant UDFA , James Starks 6th round pick
I mean , I could keep going... but I think you get the point.
You wanna tell me who’s foolish again?
Because there are varied ways to get the same results doesn’t mean that striving to get the best player at a position is the wrong approach. We want the best QB, no? LT? DE? Why not RB? Not all RBs are created equally, just like all other positions on the field. Sure you can find production in later rounds. Can you find generational, hall of fame, carry your franchise for a six or seven years players? Not as likely and not as easy.
I think the argument that certain positions should only be looked at later rounds in drafts is short sighted. Where would you draft Faulk or Edge? And don’t tell me they can be found in the fifth. If you think Barkley is that kind of player you can’t pass on him. Period. And nobody can say we can get the same level of production from UDFAs or late round picks - because we would have by now. And we haven’t. There’s a reason for that.
I for one don’t think Barkley is that kind of player. But had Marshall Faulk been in this draft and the Colts roster the same, I’d be holding my breath praying the Colts ignored the “experts” and drafted him at 3 or 6.
-
He or Mike Hughes I'd love to see with either 36 or 37. I think the secondary and OL will get two picks each this draft, and one of those needs to be early on quality, a day one starter.
-
I think we'll be arguing over the 6th pick in the 2019 draft.
-
Is it possible to be in rebuilding mode in the NFL? It isn't like the NBA or MLB, where you have developmental leagues and minors to develop young talent. It makes no difference if you're the #1 pick or a UDFA, you're thrown to the wolves in a 16 game short season in the NFL. I think you're either competitive or you're not in the NFL.
The ten teams with the most roster turnover last year included the Rams, Vikings, Cowboys, Jags, Packers, Ravens, Bills... and teams like the 49ers (https://overthecap.com/roster-turnover-2017-number-10-1/).
So were the conference championship teams listed above in rebuilding mode? They turned over their roster at a higher rate than most others. The 49ers fit the mold, sure.
-
1
-
-
The Colts need play makers at all three levels of the D. The order in which they arrive on the roster doesn't matter a bit to me. This is going to take a couple drafts and off-seasons. And an impact LB, a QB for the D would be fine by me.
I think the talent fall off from Nelson to Hernandez/Price/Wynn is far less than from Edmunds/Smith to Carter/Armstrong/Nwosu. So if Chubb is gone, it wouldn't shock me to see the Colts take a LB (or CB/S) over Nelson. If Chubb is there and they take Edmunds, I'd be surprised, but not upset - heck, Edmunds may well end up a DE, he's still growing. Again, lots of holes to fill...
-
11 minutes ago, Shive said:
All of that said, I'm not entirely impressed with this year's EDGE prospects outside of Chubb and Landry. A lot of them physically fit as 3-4 OLBs, but aren't athletic enough. The guys that could play 4-3 DE are either not athletic or very raw. There's a few guys that interest me later, but I'm really hoping we can snag Chubb at 6..
And next year's crop is much deeper. It's how it goes. It's why I said the entire board for the Colts plays out so much easier if Chubb is there at 6. If not, I am fearful that an edge rusher will be chased, and maybe too early since the pool is so shallow, and then we've Bjorn'd all over again. And nobody needs that.
-
1
-
-
Earlier, Rasheem Green, Arden Key. Later, Tyquan Lewis, Breeland Sparks. I think the board falls much better with Chubb as the first pick, as opposed to Nelson. But what do I know?
-
1
-
-
I really like Rasheem Green, but he'll likely be gone in the first round. There's a chance he'd be there at the top of 2 though. Otherwise, Tyquan Lewis and Breeland Speaks, in that order, would be the later round guys I'd like.
-
I agree with his take, especially in this draft. The best prospect had 22 turnovers during the season. That’s horrible. Rosen is somewhere between self involved and aloof, claiming amongst his regrets while at UCLA that he didn’t become a role model for all Hollywood Jews. That’s one heck of a sense of yourself. Allen can’t compete 56% of his passes in the Mountain West, which compares far more to Leaf and Jamarcus Russell than to Wentz. And in Mayfield we have another in a long line of complete hit or miss undersized exciting gun slinging types who sometimes have mouths writing checks their play can’t cash.
I think this QB class is a mess. And I’m really glad the Colts aren’t in need.
The other thing that seems to support this is all of the teams at the top have either added a QB or have pubically supported their existing QBs. If that doesn’t show that the teams have their doubts too, I don’t know what else would.
-
3 minutes ago, DownHillRunner said:
I just don’t see how the Broncos don’t consider drafting a Quarterback because in my opinion, Case Keenum was a flash in the pan last year. So it’s possible that they would look at a Quarterback at 5. Barkley could slide down to 6.
Keenum played so well for the Vikes last year. And, the Broncos also have Chad Kelly, who Bill Polian last season said was the best QB on the Broncos roster. It’s also why I don’t think they’ll draft Mayfield. He is Kelly, they are functionally the same player. Allen I could see. Obviously Rosen or Darnold too. I for one don’t think the Giants, Browns at 4, or Broncos take QBs. Now they may trade out and QBs get taken there. But not by those teams.
So to the OP, no, I don’t think Barkley can fall to 6.
-
24 minutes ago, Archer said:
No, i mean i saw a published mock draft recently (might have been walterfootball) that moved him down to # 22 or so and said he falls due to recent medical red flag ala Foster last year...
I understood you - and you're right, it was Tony Pauline on Waltersfootball.com who red flagged him, dropped him 10 spots. He does have a history of nagging injuries - heck, he cut his combine short with hamstring tightness. And he tore a pectoral weightlifting as a sophomore. And the reason he claims he didn't lift at the combine was due to a shoulder injury from the previous February, which had fully healed, but he didn't want to put up lift numbers without being at full strength. So he opted out. So there is something there - undersized and at the least a series of nagging injuries could be off-putting to some.
-
Funny, today is also Ohio St.'s pro day, and their guard/tackle combo, Price and Jamarco Jones, I think are more likely to be there for the Colts than either Notre Dame player. I think Nelson goes to Denver, and unless the Colts trade back into the first, I don't see McGlinchey being there either.
-
4 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:
That’s my assessment as well. I know most ILBs are only 6’1” anyways but he’s 6’0”. Idk if you play him inside. Edmunds, Evans, and Vander-Esch are those guys. I think he’s a WILL.
Although we'd all love our Ray, or Urlacher, or Willis, the truth is any truly dynamic LB would improve this team so much. There has been a void of defensive leadership for so long. We need a face, a leader, a tone setter. And if that happens to come from a OLB, that's ok. Barr does that for the Vikings - a player Edmunds is compared to. And I think that Roquon could play MLB too - just because Mayock says he's better suited to play WILL doesn't make it so. There are some dynamic LBs in this draft, and if Smith or Edunds are taken at 6, I won't cry. I'll understand. And if it's Evans or Vander-Esch in the second, that's ok too. That's the joy of those three picks in that round. Flexibility.
-
1 minute ago, DougDew said:
Why is this forum falling in love with 3 players?
I'd be extremely disappointed if we had to draft Chubb or Nelson at 6. Please get another trade down to get a player like Smith or McGlinchey.
There are needs all over the field, and when they get filled, the order in which they get filled, matters little to me. I agree that we can get lost in the weeds sometimes. This roster needs multiple drafts and free agent periods to truly be "back". So whether it's the LB or CB this season, or the DE or OG, I don't much care. And if the board doesn't fall to you, it doesn't. The bottom line to me with Chubb is he may be the only truly exceptional DE in this entire draft - there could be five or six next season. So we shouldn't be shocked he is coveted.
-
3 minutes ago, Archer said:
If Chubb is gone, I’d be torn between Nelson and Roquon. Might prefer Roquon (but what was he red-flagged for?)
Size is it I think. I don't see any history of injury or off field issues. He flipped from UCLA to Georgia in commitments, but most kids do these days - change their minds, I mean. The "knock" on him is he is undersized, and the quote is, "...you'd love to play him on the inside but he may have to slide to WILL."
-
I think if Chubb is still there at 6 you still take him. I firmly believe that at least one of the other top interior lineman will be there at the top of the second, and to me a Chubb/Price (or Hernandez or Wynn or Smith) is so far superior to the opposite approach, taking Nelson and then... there is no and then. The next best DE isn't close to Chubb in this draft. And I think that frees Ballard up to find quality in the secondary, ILB, RB and WR the rest of the draft.
-
19 minutes ago, shastamasta said:
I can't take anyone seriously that has Kirk and Ridley that low.
DJ Moore is insanely talented, but nobody saw him play. I'm not suggesting I agree with how he ranks the WRs, but I do agree that what separates Ridley, the #1 guy in nearly every other ranking, from the others isn't that much. In the batch of the 6', 4.4 running WRs, I'm not sure any of them are so superior to the others as to make one stand out. I think you see that in these big boards - guys like Miller from Memphis ranked as high as 20 here, but a 3rd or 4th rounder on NFL.com. Now I do think there is a huge fall off for the large bodied WRs after Sutton - I think what separates him from the likes of St. Brown, Tate, and Cobbs is several rounds.
-
12 hours ago, BlackPanther said:
Might hope Williams, McGlinchey or Wynn fall to #36.
With three seconds now it wouldn’t shock me to see the Colts move back into the end of the first to go get one of the OL who fall, if Nelson isn’t there at 6.
-
2 hours ago, DaColts85 said:
To the OP, why does it have to be Chubb and Baker? Why can't it be Chubb and the best ILB available. This could be anyone that might fall to us at the top of round 2 (Rashaan Evans/Vander Esch you never know), or Malik Jefferson, or a few others.
I would love to have Chubb as we need someone that has the ability and potential to be a solid DE. A good ILB can be had in FA or even in the draft next year with a middle of the round draft pick.
I used the second round pick on O - interior line - so a Wynn for example. I was looking at the Colts third round pick or one acquired in the third. I worked under the assumption that the Colts would still be looking at OL, and if you want an immediate impact guy, i think it has to be in the first couple of rounds. So Chubb or Edmunds in the first, Wynn or Hernandez as an example in the second (to me that move eliminates the LBs you mention), then in the third going back to D. Its was simply an example, a possibility amongst many, depending who they select first.
How many STARTERS League Wide will come from this draft?
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
Ok... maybe I should have drawn a map. This isn’t that hard guys.
There was an nfl.com article from a couple years ago evaluating the worst drafts. At the time of the writing of that article - again, a couple years ago - the number was 7. That since has changed. Great. It’s still a pretty horrible draft. When examples of success are Eddie Lacy or Eric Reid, well, that’s the point. It was a thin draft. It wasnt a shining moment for NFL talent. Yes, the number has changed. The point remains that draft lacked any generational talent.
The article is linked in this string. Feel free to read it. Again, so as not to confuse anyone, as was warned, it’s a couple years old.