Nate Irving Signed ....just now!

[Indyboy757]

Irving was rated as the 3rd best run stopper in the first 8 game of 2014, He is not known for his coverage skills but I do think over all he is better then Jackson. I think it makes for a really good rotation at ILB with guys with different skill sets, but make no mistake Nate was brought in to help stop the run.

[Coltscrazy]

I hope Irving is ready to go.  I love the fact that we got a LB who can shed blocks.  A lot of the new breed lighter lbs have trouble with that.

 

As far as BPA, If you don't feel that the best talent fits your team or won't get any playing time, doesn't it make sense to try to trade down to get the values right and still get players you can use?  In this draft, a trade down could really help the OL.  Tackles like Donovan Smith and Daryl Williams could be great fits.  Most teams have enough holes where a trade down would seem to make sense if a top notch player on your board doesn't fall to you. 

 

One player I really love, but we don't really need is CB Alex Carter out of Stanford.  Of course there should also be a tremendous WR at 29.  I'm not a fan of this, but considering our running problems, instead of trading down, maybe we should just pass it every down.

[Colts_Fan12]

I'd still sign McClain too I know there is no chance in it happening but him and Irving together would be sweet that's the duo I want in the middle of our D both are young and could help us for years

[NewEra]

McClain looked really good in Dallas. I'd love to bring him in

[Hoose]

Reaching for weak positions is definately a mistake, but drafting players you don't need who will never play for you is even worse.  Best player available REGARDLESS of position makes no sense whatsoever.  You pick the best player you can actually use.   Jason_S and wig are spot on.  You pick the best player on your board.  A QB would never play a down behind Luck.  A TE wouldn't make much sense either.  When Adrian Peterson was in his prime, why on earth would the Vikings use a high pick on a running back?  I think when people say BPA, it is implied that it means best player on your board. 

I agree with this. BPA will always dovetail with need, to an extent. If the BPA on the Colts' board is a QB when the 29th pick comes along, they will pass and move on. The same with a TE. Now, if the BPA is a CB and not a NT or ILB or S, they may very well strike. The need for a CB is not as pressing as D line/ILB/S, but it will be soon. Taking Toler's replacement, and adding depth to the D backfield, makes a lot of sense. I think the same would be true if a top Offensive tackle was available, even though the team has far better depth than in prior years. So BPA  for a position that the brain trust sees as an immediate or potential need over a position that they have pretty well solidified..... will always be the choice, IMO.

Edited March 22, 2015 by 21isSuperman

[jskinnz]

I'm not saying anything close to that.  What I am saying is the people who like to believe that they pick BPA, regardless of position, are foolish.

 

I think BPA is the core of their draft philosophy and I don't find my thoughts on the matter to be particularly foolish.

 

1) I believe their holes were so many over the years that BPA and need were often one in the same.

 

2) I think the 2012 draft of consecutive TE's points to BPA.

 

3) I think not drafting a safety last year despite the obvious need points to BPA.  

[In Luck We Trust]

Ouch. Did just see that he had surgery which means we can almost rule out MCL.

good thing is, it happened in September which means he will practically a full year of getting healthy. so that is a good thing.  

[throwing BBZ]

You're all talking about his coverage but Broncos fans are saying he's a run stopper who isn't great in coverage?

 

 He isn`t known for his coverage until Grigson signs him. Now he is "alternate" Pro Bowl material with us.

 Another D Thomas. chuckle

 We needed depth, so GL to him of course.

[Jason_]

I think BPA is the core of their draft philosophy and I don't find my thoughts on the matter to be particularly foolish.

1) I believe their holes were so many over the years that BPA and need were often one in the same.

2) I think the 2012 draft of consecutive TE's points to BPA.

3) I think not drafting a safety last year despite the obvious need points to BPA.

I think the 3rd point is the most telling