BlueShoe
-
Posts
8,177 -
Joined
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by BlueShoe
-
-
OK - I'll go slow. Using your logic, any player not worthy of a 1st rd. selection, isn't worthy of being selected later in the draft either. Are we speaking the same language now?
Comprehension is not your best trait, so try reading what Grigson actually said slower and then get back to me. I don't have the time to break out the crayons with you right now.
-
There's not really much of a difference between 24 and 40 in this years draft. It's one of the deepest classes ever. If he feels that he can get a player he wants in a trade back than yeah I think he'll risk it.
You must not have read what he said.
He can't move back and draft a player now. Not after that statement. He took away his ability to move back in this draft and still hold a press conference saying that he got the guy he wanted. We are staying at #24 or we are moving up. It is very simple when you think about it.
-
If it's "meh" at 24 vs. "meh" at 30 + another draft pick then yeah I think he's ok with it.
So you think Grigson is okay at risking a "meh" pick at #24, and the risk could be getting a "blah" pick at #30? For what? A fourth round pick.
-
Based on this logic, it would be impossible to get excited about taking a player in your 2nd, 3rd, any later regularly scheduled pick, because you didn't think they were good enough to be drafted with your 1st Rd. pick. C'mon man!
We must be fluent in different languages. You believe we would drop form #24 to a third round pick? C'mon man!
-
If there's a player there he wants then sure. If there are only players he feels, "meh" about than he'll trade back.
And you believe he will be ok with "meh" at 30? Reading between the lines is not that hard. Grigson has his guys on the board and he will get one of them. He is not moving back to do it either, because it makes no sense to take a chance. If he feels his players are going to quickly then he might move up and secure the pick.
-
If there's a player there he wants then sure. If there are only players he feels, "meh" about than he'll trade back.
You see one thing and I see another. My take is that Grigson is not going to put himself in a position to where we are setting at #24 and our player is not there. He will move up before he moves back.
-
Think of it this way, if a player is there at 24 that we would like at a later time, you trade out of that pick to still get that player, but you also are able to pick up another player or two, because you didn't reach. There are players every draft that slide. Grigs is just willing to take advantage of that.
How would you know the player will be there? You don't, so you either trade up if your players are dropping off the board or you take a player you want and feel good about at #24.
-
If he feels he could get the player at 30 + an extra pick than it wouldn't make sense to take him at 24.
If it is a player he wants then why would he risk it over a late draft pick? He wouldn't. There are no guarantees, so once you have the player you want, you have to pull the trigger.
-
You're misreading it. He means if the player isn't "wowing" them at #24 trade back for more picks and get morr value. You don't "reach" for a player at 24 if they're not projected to go in the first or have the skills to be a first round talent. Like my example, Blaine Gabbert does not have the talent to be a 1st round talent but he was drafted in the 1st
Because I am not agreeing with you, now I am misreading it? sorry but it doesn't work that way.
We disagree and that is that. My "reading" stands firm - We have no intentions of trading back.
-
They'll gwt more draft picks if they trade back to 30.
And that makes the player they draft better? I am not buying it. I am convinced that Grigson is locked in on a few players who he believes will be there at #24. After hearing his comments, I think if we do anything, it might actually be to trade up if our players start falling quicker than anticipated.
-
Maybe we don't trade down to 30. Maybe we go lower, like to 40. There is a big difference between taking a player at 24 and taking him at 40
This is just my assumption, but I would bet there is not a single NFL team who would rather pick a player at #33 than at #32. Why? Because we are talking about an extra year on the players deal, and that is on a rookie pay scale.
-
"Who cares where they're picked?"
Please tell me you're not serious right now. Questions like that are why people like Blaine Gabbert get drafted in the 1st. It matters where a player is picked. You wouldn't take a K with the #1 overall. You wouldn't take Manti Teo with the #1 overall. It matters where players are picked.
If a team is that high on a player then it will take him when the opportunity is there. Grigson said that if the room is not high on a pick and pumping fist then we will attempt to trade down. The player is not going to get any better at #30.
-
Because the player might not be worth the salary/draft pick in the first round, but he would be of better value in the 2nd round, where you pay him less and he is less of an investment than a first round pick
That is not the point. The point is that how can we NOT be excited about a player at #24, but be excited about him at #30? Who cares where they are picked? If you want a player that much then you don't risk falling back and losing him. Grigson has set himself up with his statement, or revealed his true intentions. Either way, we are taking a player at #24 now.
-
Grigson speaks on plan for draft:
“We’ll see how that board starts falling,” he said. “And, of course, if there’s not a player sitting there at 24 where that room is excited and we’re not high-fiving and things like that and we’re not even doing a little fist-bumping, we probably shouldn’t take that guy.
“We’re going to probably look to trading out if there’s a player there that we feel is just OK. We want players at that spot, especially in the first round, that are going to substantially help us get to our goal.”
But Grigson said recent history suggests there will be a solid player at that position. Past No. 24s include quarterback Aaron Rodgers, running back Steven Jackson and tight end Dallas Clark.
This means that we are not trading the pick. How can he trade back now? If he wasn't pumping his fist on a player at #24 then how can he like them any more at 30, 31, 40, and so on.
We are taking a player with the #24 pick.
-
There are only two possible answers for this.
1. Bill has lost his mind.
2. It was Jim Irsay's decision to rest the starters.
I do not want it to be either, because I like Bill. On the other hand, if Irsay called these shots then we may see it again someday. Either way it is not good.
-
I would have no problem with any of that actually.
Retiring numbers should be temporary IMO. Like a 5 year retirement or something to that effect.
Your going to run out of numbers eventually, but then if someone has a famous players number it should be an honor or privledge. Like signifying a defensive or offensive leader.
I am good with that. My favorite number is 24, and I have worn it playing all sports when I was younger. It sucks that I will never see a Colt in a #24 uniform.
-
Wrong Forum
Booo.
We are a week from the draft. It is all Colts news now.
-
As stated in the title. I think we might be able to work something out with them. From what i read on nfl.com they wan't to trade down in the draft to get a good cornerback. Rhodes and Trufant are who they are targeting. If rhodes or trufant are availible when we pick and the falcon's want to trade. Would you trade the 24th overall pick for their 30th and 3rd round picks ?. Discuss
I read that earlier today as well. I would be willing to move back, as it keeps us having a first round pick (extra signing year), if the players Grison want are off the board.
-
What's wrong with 78?
Huge shoes to fill.
-
Denver Broncos at Indianapolis Colts
They even made a video about it: http://www.nfl.com/videos/movie-trailers/0ap2000000160035/Broncos-vs-Colts-The-return-of-Peyton
Man, the hype for this game is starting already. I personally can't wait. I'll be at that game no matter what, I really have to wonder though when it will be, the fact that they have it ranked #1 means it will most likely be during the ratings week, probably the Sunday or Monday night game?
It is certainly a game that I can’t wait to see, and at the same time, I never want to see. It is absolutely the number one game to watch in 2013.
-
Good for Tarik. I thnk he's always been a little under valued in terms of what he meant here. I would have no problem if he went into the Ring of Honor.
Chris Hinton and Ray Donaldson were really good, but Tarik Glenn, is in my opinion (watching every game since 84), the best offensive lineman to ever suit up for the "Indianapolis" Colts.
-
Updated at colts.com roster.
Chandler Harnish 5
Matt Hasselbeck 8
Griff Whalen 17
Greg Toler 28
LaRon Landry 30
Stanley Havili 39
Lawrence Sidbury 52
Donald Thomas 66
Gosder Cherilus 78
Darrius Heyward Bey 81
Erik Walden 93
Aubrayo Franklin 97
Ricky Jean Francois 99
I figure everyone is taking notice #93, but it takes, to put it properly, "some confidence", to wear old number 78. You better be ready to ball with that number on. ;)
-
With the 86th pick in the 2013 NFL Draft, the Indianapolis Colts select, Leon Sandcastle.
-
Is there any list of which team members showed up for workouts and which did not?
Word on the street is the M&M dude was there hitting on the cheerleaders. ;)
As for a list, I am going to assume that all high profile players showed up, or else it would be news somewhere.
Grigson Speaks
in Colts Football
Posted
How do you come up with that? I am not assuming he has his eyes on one particular player. I am sure there are 3, 4, 5, or more that he likes and believes will be there. He basically just told us that he is not trading back and few are even listening to him. Think about what he said, instead of hearing what you want to.