Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

realistic three round picks two free agent wish list and two flyers


Recommended Posts

Yes ! between the cash it would cost and changing the Defence, a big no. I'm not saying he isnt good, just wouldnt be good for our scheme.

This is the second time you mentioned this. Nobody is saying to change the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't have to change the defense for Suh. Besides lets say Suh wants to average 14 million a year. A lot of the second or third tier pass rushers in FA will command 8-10 million if rumours are to be believed. I'd rather have the second most dominant defender in the league for that little bit more. Beast against the run and a strong interior rusher is invaluable against the elite QBs in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say no to Suh as well. Forgot the 2012 draft class, and let's look a bit further. Paying him that type of money means down the line, someone good is going to have to be let go in order to pay him. What if Newsome becomes an elite pass rusher? What if one of our 2015 draft picks becomes top 5 at his position?

 

Plus real elite players don't hit FA. Better to just keep drafting well and try and get your own Suh. Maybe you won't get a guy as good as Suh, but good enough if the rest of your team is strong. The position that you need the most elite talent at is QB, and we've checked that box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not wishing time away but it's going to be a long off season. 100 mock drafts get old. The thing is Grigson will have his list and no matter what we think is going to sway his choice. I understand we have to have something for our football fixes but mock draft after mock drafts don't have any bearing on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not wishing time away but it's going to be a long off season. 100 mock drafts get old. The thing is Grigson will have his list and no matter what we think is going to sway his choice. I understand we have to have something for our football fixes but mock draft after mock drafts don't have any bearing on anything.

 

It get's the juices of conversation going and gives you good insight. It's the same thing that can make debates enjoyable. No one knows for sure what will happen but everyone has a different take, and it can be interesting to see how different people view things. Plus mock drafts can be like puzzle games; you try and fit each prospect to a certain team to see where they fit. But to each his own I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It get's the juices of conversation going and gives you good insight. It's the same thing that can make debates enjoyable. No one knows for sure what will happen but everyone has a different take, and it can be interesting to see how different people view things. Plus mock drafts can be like puzzle games; you try and fit each prospect to a certain team to see where they fit. But to each his own I guess

That's cool. But I can almost predict that no matter who Grigson does pick there will be those who will have a problem with it because it didn't match their mock draft. You must admit sometimes the negativity gets very deep in this forum. Like you say, to each his or her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool. But I can almost predict that no matter who Grigson does pick there will be those who will have a problem with it because it didn't match their mock draft. You must admit sometimes the negativity gets very deep in this forum. Like you say, to each his or her own.

 

I think that is moreso with the extreme cases where people get so caught up on favorites, they forget who the G.M. is. There was a guy like that last year who had this specific mock that he thought the Colts had to follow. I forget his username (might have been BurleyKid or something like that). Others like myself like sizing up players and hoping the Colt draft them. If not you're happy to see them go to a good team that will use them right....unless of course it's a division rival haha

 

Besides, nothing satisfies everyone because we all have our own cups of tea. There will always be dissention. That's just a basic part of life. You can't please everyone. But most people know enough to know when the G.M. has made a questionable decision like drafting Bjoern Werner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First-marcus Peters

Second-Michael Bennett

third-Denzel Perryman(might be a little stretch)

FA-frank gore and nick Fairley

Flyers ngata and b marshall

Perryman is a borderline first rounder.. More than a little stretch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the second time you mentioned this. Nobody is saying to change the defense.

Hopefully third time is the Charm..If you think Suh can be effective in our scheme you dont know much about football ! Yes, Suh is a dominate player, but not on our defence. What is he ?? a 5 Tech only ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully third time is the Charm..If you think Suh can be effective in our scheme you dont know much about football ! Yes, Suh is a dominate player, but not on our defence. What is he ?? a 5 Tech only ???

He could play 5 or three or 1 tech NT and 0 Tech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully third time is the Charm..If you think Suh can be effective in our scheme you dont know much about football ! Yes, Suh is a dominate player, but not on our defence. What is he ?? a 5 Tech only ???

Yawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could play 5 or three or 1 tech NT and 0 Tech

 

Yeah he could,  but why in the world would he want to if he can stay in his much preferred 4-3 defense and live happily ever after playing the 3-tech?

 

A 3-tech in a 4-man front is different than a 3-tech in a 3-man front.

 

I don't see Suh wanting to play for any team which runs a 3-4 defense.    But who knows,  maybe a large enough check would change his mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First-marcus Peters

Second-Michael Bennett

third-Denzel Perryman(might be a little stretch)

FA-frank gore and nick Fairley

Flyers ngata and b marshall

DJ Humphries

Jordan Phillips

Stephone Anthony

Nick Fairley

Da'Norris Searcy

Justin Houston

CJ Spiller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok I was just wondering cause if we could get a NT upgrade in the draft I would not have any reason to want Knighton or Williams like I said in the other thread.

And do you know any NT draft options for us that are some what realistic?

My beef is that Chapman wasn't a problem. I think our NT play is fine, and we are actually decent defending. Our gap play and tackling are the issues when we do get run on. So to me, getting better at DE and DT and tackling better at LB and S are the fixes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My beef is that Chapman wasn't a problem. I think our NT play is fine, and we are actually decent defending. Our gap play and tackling are the issues when we do get run on. So to me, getting better at DE and DT and tackling better at LB and S are the fixes.

ok I aso wouldn't mind dropping Knighton or Williams for Fairley.

So basically in FA I'd look at Moore, Fairley and Houston plus the cheap Branch deal that covers both S OLB and DE. Then in the draft hopefully get Kendricks in the 1st and an OT in the 2nd not sure who don't watch alot of CFB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok I aso wouldn't mind dropping Knighton or Williams for Fairley.

So basically in FA I'd look at Moore, Fairley and Houston plus the cheap Branch deal that covers both S OLB and DE. Then in the draft hopefully get Kendricks in the 1st and an OT in the 2nd not sure who don't watch alot of CFB

 

I like Kendricks. I don't know if he'll be BPA at #29, but I still like him. But, I could live with Stephone Anthony instead of him. Kendricks is better in coverage, but Anthony has better size, and I think will be there at the end of the third.

 

This offseason, I hope we add some difference makers. I think Houston is probably a pipe dream, although I'd take him for sure; in reality, I can't imagine KC not tagging him, at the very least. But Fairley I like, and think he'd improve the interior pass rush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Kendricks. I don't know if he'll be BPA at #29, but I still like him. But, I could live with Stephone Anthony instead of him. Kendricks is better in coverage, but Anthony has better size, and I think will be there at the end of the third.

This offseason, I hope we add some difference makers. I think Houston is probably a pipe dream, although I'd take him for sure; in reality, I can't imagine KC not tagging him, at the very least. But Fairley I like, and think he'd improve the interior pass rush.

I too wouldn't mind Anthony later in the draft if that means adding another possible playmaker in the 1st instead of Kendricks and who know the tag deadline is tomorrow if they don't tag him and he can test FA I think we would be interested

I too want difference makers on our D that's why I'm looking at so many D FAs and draft possibilities Vontae needs help and Mathis is a? And in the decline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • We’ll see if it remains average this year.  I think it’s possible, but unlikely.   Put another way,  if the Colts defense is average in 2024 I will be very, Very, VERY disappointed. 
    • I agree with you that he is not trying to build an average defense. It is just a plain fact that after 8 yeas of drafting and free agency, he has managed to do it.
    • Kind of an extreme example, but Jim Irsay specifically praising Bryce Young last year could qualify. In general though, if a team is trying to throw off the scent by floating positive information about other players, that seems harmless. It's different if a team is trashing a player to try to get him to drop into their range, and I don't think that's something that actually happens. If it did, I think that would be highly inappropriate, and I think a good reporter would look back and recognize that their source was using them, and think twice about trusting that source again.     So I think this is way more common than what McGinn did. And I don't think people ignore it, unless it's something they don't want to hear. Most sports reports include some version of 'I've been told...' without naming or directly quoting a source. A lot of those are just fact-based, black/white reports, but that often happens with more opinion-based or viewpoint-based reporting as well.     I don't know if anyone necessarily likes those reports, but I do think we consume them, and are generally influenced by them. Yeah, the substantiated/analytical stuff is way more valuable than a report discussion a potential character issue, but if it has a legitimate foundation -- AD Mitchell does have diabetes, it can be difficult for someone with that condition to control their mood and energy levels -- then I think it should be considered. Ultimately, I know the quality of information I have access to is nowhere near what the teams are getting, so I don't worry too much about it.      Yeah, I fully agree. Ballard faced the media when the Okereke story came out, and it was obvious the team had done their homework. He was firm when asked about Ogletree coming back. The Colts are thorough. Doesn't mean nothing can go wrong once they draft the guy, but I'm confident they've checked all their boxes.    And definitely, I think Ballard 100% meant everything he said, and I have no problem with him saying it. But, I think there's a difference between McGinn's report, and the narrative that came later. I think the report was based on anonymous insights, and the narrative was based on sensational headlines. And I'd say Ballard's comments apply more to the narrative than to the report.
    • Yes. Just like you might want to try to make a player drop to you, you might want to bump up the stock of another player so he gets taken ahead of you and this drops another player you actually like to your team.  This to me looks even worse. This provides even further layers of anonymity and even more questions about the veracity of the report. With what McGinn is doing at least we know where(generally) this is coming from and what the potential pitfalls might be(conflict of interest). If he generalizes it to "People are saying"... this could be anyone... it could be a scout... it could be an exec... it could be an actual coach of the player(this might actually be valuable)... or it could be a water boy the player didn't give an autograph to... In a certain way it makes it easier to ignore, but it feels worse to me because of lack of specificity about the reliability of the source.  There is a lot of appetite for more and more information about the players. I'm not so sure there is a ton of appetite for anonymous reports about character failings specifically. In fact, I think those are some of my least favorite pieces of content around the draft. I think there is TONS of good(and some bad) substantiated, analytical, narrative content for fans to consume without going into the gutter of dirt that a lot of those anonymous reports are dealing with. Unless it is factually substantiated(example, player X is being charged with Y crime, i.e. there's actual case... it's all fair game to explore that...)    Someone pointed out that it was Ballard that went to Marcus Peters' house and spent a couple of days with him and his family to give the OK to the Chiefs to draft him. Ballard is not a stranger to having to clear a prospect's character for his team so they'd be able to draft him. IMO he seems very confident in his read on Mitchell. I don't think he'd go to that length to defend his player the day he drafts him if he didn't really think the things he said. And I really think he feels strongly about this. I guess we will see in due time if he was right. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...