Str8himalaya
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Str8himalaya
-
-
I’ve heard the term “highlight reel guard” about Nelson. Watching tape, I thought he was the best player in the draft. I could pick on a few things with Chubb and even Barkley got shut down against elite competition. Nelson straight bullied everyone he played against. The guy simply outclassed everyone he played against, and by a pretty wide margin. Watch his tape. His run blocking is impressive as you will find, but what stuck out to me is his pass blocking. He literally would stonewall a guy and while the rest of the line was collapsing little by little, Nelson didn’t give up a dang inch on anyone. I was absolutely blown away at his ability and consistency. We pick two All-American guards to fix this line. Barring any injuries, it appears we finally fixed what was holding back our offense. We could be top 5 again with a full return of luck and a new OL, which helps the entire team.
-
Griffin was awesome and so was Shazier. Those are purely for awesomeness and the determination both have shown in their lives. I would say Akers trolling Dallas fans was off the hook lol. I was laughing so hard as he busted them up, outside of those amazing stories, that was my favorite funny/troll.
-
I don’t think TB got a lot for pick 7. Glad Ballard went with his board, Nelson was the best player in the draft IMO. Great pick and we have some ammo for LBs since we need a few of them.
-
I’ll take it! Ballard made that pick quickly, wasn’t getting value for a trade and I don’t blame him after TB didn’t get that much in return for pick 7. Nelson is the best player in the draft IMO, can’t be upset with that at all. Not a “premium position” or flashy pick, but that very well could fix our OL for the foreseeable future if healthy
-
3
-
-
I like Roquan a lot as a football player and I wouldn't be upset if we got him. However, I am concerned about his ability to handle people in his face. Watching his Oklahoma film this year, and it's not great at all. OU found a way to run right at him and there were A LOT of situations where he got blown up and was unable to make plays within 5 yards of the LOS. This guy gets it, and he has a lot of great videos for anyone that hasn't seen him yet:
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, csmopar said:
wonder if that means they're not as high on Chubb as we thought. I think Sheard has potential but can he consistently produce?
I have been wondering that since they traded down. Then seeing his comments on Sheard and Simon, I'm starting to wonder if he feels DE is a big need or just a moderate one? Going to be interesting to say the least!
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:
Yeah, we would need at least two probably three starters at linebacker unless they feel Walker or Goode can fill one of those roles for a year. So Smith/Edmunds in the first and Leonard/Jefferson in the second or something along those lines.
As said above by @MFT5, wouldn't it be nice to get Smith/Edmunds and Vander Esch? Almost certainly not going to happen, but would be nice!
-
23 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:
Interesting, I have been under the impression that Simon would fit at the Sam LB spot. This means we need EVEN MORE help at LB than before, which was already our biggest spot of weakness for this scheme. Makes me think we will certainly look to drop down again and draft either Smith or Edmunds.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, egg said:
Of course they are! I never said "they are not upgrades even if healthy and playing to their optimum ability".
I did say that they both played poorly in 2017 even before they both had season ending surgery.
So, for both of them to recover their optimum ability is, as you say, "a big IF".
According to Rotoworld, Slauson "was run blocking poorly" before being plasced on IR in October.
We all know that Mewhort has not played well going on 2 years.
I get what you are saying. I will say this, I wouldn't say Mewhort hasn't played well in two years. In 2016 he had a 79.1 grade from PFF and wasn't even fully healthy. We all know he wasn't right at all last year so that was the first year he could even remotely be classified as "poor" and that can almost most certainly be contributed to injury issues. Slauson is on the downside of his career, but he's still a better player than pretty much anyone we played there last year. At the very least he adds legit depth and at best he is a serviceable starter. My point was that we don't even have that at LB currently. If we went into the season with the OL currently and the LBs we have currently I would be a lot more worried about the LBs than OL (although I would expect the OL to struggle again in that scenario).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, egg said:
This is wishful thinking. Both were playing poorly before they were both placed on IR in October. They are both returning from season ending surgery (Slauson , bicep Mewhort, knee).
No more Frank Gore who could squeeze through tiny holes and power ahead for 3 yards instead of a 2 yd loss.
I disagree, when both are legit healthy they are average to above average at their position. That's a big IF, but it is true. Mewhort would have pulled a big contract if was healthy, no doubt about it. Unfortunately we can't depend on that, but IF those two are healthy and stay that way they are upgrades for us at both spots. LB we can be completely healthy (and pretty much we are) and we won't be able to seriously compete with the talent at that position.
-
Just a few short weeks away from the draft and looking at the Colts roster is interesting to this point. What are the opinions of our weakest position group at this point? I've been looking at it and honestly, it's not where it was IMO. I have been yelling OL all offseason and while they still have some work to be done, Slauson and a healthy Mewhort are definitely upgrades over what we ran with last year. Still not great, but looking at the LB position, I would say THAT is the position group we are weakest at. We have one starter in that entire group (Simon) and we need some serious talent if we have any chance of playing the 4-3 with any kind of success next year. I am starting to creep closer to taking Edmunds at 6 than almost anyone with the exception of Chubb. I love Nelson, but depending on how things fall, what if you got Edmunds and then Wynn, Price, or Hernandez in the second round? I think that would be the better approach, IMO. Thoughts?
-
I'll play, most likely will be wrong though, it's the draft!
IF the Colts take Chubb... LB, OG, RB, LB, CB, G, WR, OT
IF the Colts take Nelson...LB, RB, WR, LB, OT, CB, OG, S
IF the Colts take Barkley...LB, OG, RB, LB, WR, OT, OG, CB
IF the Colts take Edmunds/Smith...OG, DL, RB, WR, OG, CB, OT, WR
IF the Colts take Ward/James...LB, OG, RB, LB, OG, WR, OT, WR
Some reasoning: I feel like if we do not grab a LBer in the first, one of the better LBers (Vander Esch, Evans, etc) will fall into the second day (Myles Jack type of thing, I know, he was injured, but still). That would leave us the second of the back to back for a OG or a RB. Then free up the 3rd pick in the 2nd round on another pick (either RB or WR depending on how the board falls).
-
7 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:
I’ve hit that point where I’d be okay with literally any prospect.
Nelson, Chubb, Barkley, Fitz, Edmunds, Ward, Smith, I want em all! Too bad we only get one.
Just don’t do something stupid like draft Calvin Ridley
I'm with you for the most part. I would take any of the following: Chubb, Nelson, Fitzpatrick, Edmunds, or Smith at #6. I would be alright with Barkley as well. I'm not a fan of Ward though, sure he's a good CB, but I don't see him in the right mold for our system and isn't on the Lattimore or Conley level of last year, IMO. A few more weeks and it's GO time, looking forward to how the first two days play out!
-
Interesting, but I do not see how we could come close to value if we don't get their number 11 back. Not many on that roster are worth that high of a pick straight up, sounds like it could be smoke as well. Ballard has said multiple times it would take a big time offer to get us off of pick #6. Dropping to 11 could be fine if we got some good compensation after that (James, 2nd and 3rd rounder, etc.).
-
It would make sense that it would be Edmunds or Smith. Looking at the roster it is pretty obvious we are going to be looking for LBs in the draft (we might have 1 starting LB in Simon as the Sam). That would put either of them in a good spot and both could fit our scheme nicely. Taking a 19 year old with the size and athleticism of Edmunds would be very intriguing. I don't see Ward being that guy, as said above, he struggles in a some key areas for a cover 2 CB. Fitzpatrick would be intriguing as he could play about anywhere in our scheme (my guess would be boundary CB). Who knows though, could just be a bunch of smoke. I'm getting pumped for draft night, it's going to be exciting to see how it all plays out!
-
IMO I would say it is Chubb and Ward. I think Chubb has a high floor, he will be a very solid player but IMO does have a decent possibility to not turn into an elite player. Ward is my number one bust prospect in the top 10. I say this because his film isn't as good as either Lattimore or Conley last year (both went later than top 10 last year) and he doesn't have great size for his position. Just my opinion and observation, I would say Edmunds as well but I think if you draft him you already know that you are getting a freak athlete with a ton of potential but hasn't quite put it all together to completely dominate.
-
7 hours ago, NewEra said:
I love Nelson also....so who do you choose out of Larry Allen, Brian Urlacher or Mario Williams?
That's the hard question. We have a decent offense but need better protection. I wouldn't want to be the one making that decision (even if it's a little out there to compare it to that level right now lol).
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't be upset, and I truly think Nelson is the best player in the draft by a pretty wide margin. I say this because how do you fill one of the LBer spots vs how you fill one of the guard spots. If we get nelson at 6 (which I'm cool with, no issues) you will most likely be missing out on a pretty good LB prospect (LVE, Smith, Edmunds, and probably Evans as well). There is a pretty decent drop off after those guys and I'm not convinced they will be there in the 2nd for us to draft. Looking at the guard class, there is a better chance we get a very solid piece in the second that could start from day one. Add that to the fact Edmunds might have the best upside of anyone in the draft, I wouldn't be upset at all. Honestly, for me, that would be the hardest decision that is available. Do I take Nelson or Edmunds? That's coming from a guy that LOVES Nelson as a player.
-
1
-
-
I wouldn’t mind Edmunds at 6 at all. Smith I’m in the same boat on. If you can get a Luke Kuechly type of player then you gotta take that guy and not trade down. Edmunds has things you just can’t teach or get better at. Saying that, I would still take Chubb, Nelson, and strongly consider Fitzpatrick before Edmunds or smith. If those first two are gone, I would have no issue with taking Edmunds at 6. He could end up moving outside as an edge player/pass rusher at some point as well. He’s good in all facets of the game, and I am still a little concerned with Roquan’s ability to get eaten up in the middle. Edmunds has the length and size to stack and shed very well. All of the guys listed above are worth the 6 pick IMO.
-
1
-
-
Found this article and I was actually surprised. Obviously the kid has a ton of upside because of his size/athleticism. Not sure how to feel about his performance last year, but I will say with all the people that hate on him, he did play much better. I think he still makes the roster this year and could prove to be a decent player after all with continued coaching.
-
2
-
1
-
-
IMO, this isn't quite as easy as one might think it is. This guy is a legit player and I would venture to say you aren't getting a guy like him in this draft in any round honestly. That being said, he does have some character concerns that definitely are scary. If Ballard was comfortable after gathering some info on the guy to make the trade, I would trust that and be open to the idea. The concussion doesn't scare me as much, it happens unfortunately, but that part is part of the game IMO. He's as talented as any rusher in this class (maybe even more so than everyone but possibly Chubb), and you don't find those growing on trees. I'm very impartial to the idea, but Ballard has to make dang sure this kid has his act together before throwing money AND a high 2nd rounder to the cowboys, which I do not think he will do.
-
I would be surprised if R Smith was taken over Edmunds at 6 honestly. Edmunds ceiling is sky high and he’s a very similar athlete as Smith with a bigger frame and upside to work with. I love Roquan, but I’m not sure he’s the right pick over Edmunds.
-
Well, looking at the trade he just pulled off, I think he has a pretty dang good opportunity to get some serious talent in the draft. I wouldn't have paid any of those FA (outside of maybe Norwell) what they got either. Good for him to sit tight and wait for things to calm down. We will get some players and now we have 4 picks in the top 65 and he may not even be done wheeling and dealing.
-
2 hours ago, dgambill said:
Thank you! Perfectly said. If you think paying guys like Hitchens the same money as guys like Luke Keuchley and Watkins the same as Julio Jones and Norwell the same as Joe Thomas then well your signing second tier guys to first tier money....and that is what happens in FA. You are overpaying no matter how good you think these free agents are and that isn't sustainable when your trying to build a team. We've watched teams like Washington and Oakland and Dallas in the past try to buy their way to a championship...heck Philly did it about 10 years ago remember the "Dream Team" they put together? If you have the right nucleus around that you can add some key free agents sure you can go after some of these guys but we aren't close to that position....we are a 4-12 team...and we need to behave like it...and build this team back up with the draft. Not only are there a lot of unrealistic expectations set for who we should get but I think there are a lot of unrealistic expectations on how fast this gets turned around. It took us how many years of Grigson to get into this mess. I don't think it is too much to expect it might take 3 or 4 years to get us out of it.
This is the hardest pill to swallow, IMO. Sure don't overpay, but that means minimal talent upgrades year after year. The hard part is watching Luck come back and still going 8-8 and continuing to waste a franchise QB's prime. It's unfortunate, but I think you're right. It's going to be a pretty rough next year or two unless we get very lucky in the draft.
Roster update - Improvement ?
in Colts Football
Posted
Sometimes I feel like we as fans get a little skewed too far one way or the other. Thinking logically and critically of the situation I don't see 8-8 as unrealistic at all. A few points I'll attempt to present (most likely horribly):
1. We have a new coaching staff that looks MUCH better than the one we just had. That alone should get us easily an extra win or two. I'll go with 1 just for the benefit of the doubt. The scheme should greatly simplify things for the defense and diversify (although probably slightly complicate) things on offense.
2. We've added some serious talent in one of our biggest weaknesses: the OL. We will have to expect a few rookie mistakes but the talent is much better at that position than it was at any point last year. That should open up running lanes for our back and keep whoever is behind center at QB (more coming later on this). Taking a WAG at it I would say we get at least 1 win out of the improved line play as well.
3. Everyone's favorite topic: QB. Listen, if Luck isn't Luck we all know we will struggle. HOWEVER, lets not act like Brissett is terrible. He came in with ZERO understanding of our offense and saved us from 0-16 with Tolzien at QB. Even if Brissett is behind center (and lets just assume for the pessimists here that he is) we still get at least 1 game back for his prep and a full off-season.
4. Flat out luck (and not THE LUCK). We all know about the collapses we had in the 4th quarter with a roster that wasn't nearly as talented or fast as this one. Sure we have some scheme changes and will have some young players that have to step up, but you can't say that even if we didn't things wouldn't at least bounce a game back our way. Most everything regresses to the mean eventually (look at how good our record was from '12-'14 in the 4th quarter compared to last year, regardless of reason). That alone SHOULD get us 2 more wins, but for the sake of the pessimist (OP) lets just say 1 win.
These points put us from 4-12 to 8-8 and that's being relatively conservative (IMO) and not factoring in Luck playing (which I truly believe he will and do it well). I can see 8-8 as very reasonable, even probable, looking at the roster changes, the landscape of the division, and our schedule. I could easily see 10-6 honestly as well. I wouldn't be SHOCKED to see 6-10 although would be disappointed. Football is one of those games that has a few very critical plays that can sway it one way or another, the combination of our new staff, scheme, players, and hopeful health should bring back at least 4 wins.