Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

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

Coltivated
 Share

Recommended Posts

wig Practice Squad

wig

Posted
Posted

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
backshoulderfade Walk On

backshoulderfade

Posted
Posted

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
Defjamz26 Ring of Honor

Defjamz26

Posted
Posted

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
crazycolt1 Ring of Honor

crazycolt1

Posted
Posted

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
Defjamz26 Ring of Honor

Defjamz26

Posted
Posted

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
crazycolt1 Ring of Honor

crazycolt1

Posted
Posted

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
Defjamz26 Ring of Honor

Defjamz26

Posted
Posted

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
Nobody Walk On

Nobody

Posted
Posted

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
Tracy Denton Walk On

Tracy Denton

Posted
Posted

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
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

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
wig Practice Squad

wig

Posted
Posted

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
NewColtsFan Ring of Honor

NewColtsFan

Posted
Posted

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
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

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
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

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
Colts_Fan12 Practice Squad

Colts_Fan12

Posted
Posted

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
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

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
Colts_Fan12 Practice Squad

Colts_Fan12

Posted
Posted

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • stitches
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By stitches · Posted

      Not sure. To me a lot of those (not just about AD) read very gross and icky, especially coming from people who have things to gain from perpetuating a narrative. IMO unless it's factually supported, you probably shouldn't print it(this is specifically about character/attitude things... things that we cannot see with our own eyes on the field - about those... go wild... print whatever you want, unless you are concerned with looking foolish). Or at the very least you should make everything possible to corroborate it with people who are close to the situation - for example, your anonymous scout tells you AD Mitchell is uncoachable. You do NOT print this unless a coach who has worked with it confirms it. Your anonymous scout tells you that when AD Mitchell is not taking care of his blood sugar levels, he's hard to work with. OK, this seems reasonable enough. But does it give an accurate picture of what it is like to work with Mitchell? In other words - how often does that actually happen? Because Mitchell's interview with Destin seems to suggest that he's been taking the necessary measures to control his blood sugar levels. Did it happen like once or twice in the span of 3 years in college? Or is it happening every second practice? Because when you write it like McGinn wrote it and then suggest that he's uncoachable, what's the picture that comes to your head? And the fact that your scout also told you "but when his blood sugar is ok, he's great", doesn't really do anything to balance the story here. 
    • Superman
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By Superman · Posted

      Got it. But what do you think should be done about this?
    • stitches
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By stitches · Posted

      I mean that anonymous scouts and anonymous execs work for some team in the league. Those teams have interests very separate from the interests of the reporters giving them platform... 
    • twfish
      Chris Ballard: Redfining what Success means in the NFL

      By twfish · Posted

      ope, well without any of @AKB post this thread seems silly.
    • Superman
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By Superman · Posted

      I don't necessarily disagree. I do think there's a double standard, though. When it's a positive report about a player we like, it's fine. When it's a negative report about a player we don't like, it's validating. We eat all of that up, all through draft season, no problem. But when it's a negative report about player we like, now the practice is unfair.   It's a shrug for me all the way around, though. If it's a topic I care about, I'll dig and try to get past the surface, and make a determination on how I feel about the substance of the reports.     What do you mean?

  • Members

    • stitches

      stitches 19,978

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 21,097

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • KB

      KB 1,152

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TheNewGuy

      TheNewGuy 91

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtStrong2013

      ColtStrong2013 3,540

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Powerslave

      Powerslave 61

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Yoshinator

      Yoshinator 9,464

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mr. Irrelevant

      Mr. Irrelevant 962

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 422

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MikeCurtis

      MikeCurtis 4,681

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...