How would you feel on drafting Gurley?

[backshoulderfade]

I know a lot of you guys are hesitant about taking RBs in the first. After the Richardson debacle it is understandable. I don't think he is going to be there at 29, but if he was I wouldn't be mad if we took him. Wouldn't be #1 on my wishlist but it is tempting.

Picture this. Indy has a three headed monster of Luck, Gurley and TY. The Steelers made the playoffs on the back of their three headed monster and Indy's supporting cast of offensive skill players is a level above in my opinion. I think Gurley is a back who can do it all.

The issues here is obviously injury history. Also, even the best running backs at college may not translate over to the next level as we kno better than most.

Just thought it would be an education for me to hear everyones thoughts on this.

[That Guy]

Surprise would be my main feeling.  Surprise that he lasted that long, and surprise that we grabbed him.

 

I am hoping that Dallas takes him with their first-round pick (preventing them from taking a defensive player).

[Dustin]

If I had to take a runningback high, it would be him. I'd hate it because he's a RB, but I like the player.

[COLTS449]

To quote Mr. Mackey, "umm bad" "Drafting a running back in the 1st would be bad mmm k". Seriously though, we can get a good back in the 2nd or 3rd. We have to start building a defense now to go with our beastly offense. We have to go defense in the 1st, and I hope we do in the 2nd too.

[krunk]

I echo Dustins sentiments.  I luv me some Gurley, probably should do something else there but I'll take him if it happens.

[backshoulderfade]

To quote Mr. Mackey, "umm bad" "Drafting a running back in the 1st would be bad mmm k". Seriously though, we can get a good back in the 2nd or 3rd. We have to start building a defense now to go with our beastly offense. We have to go defense in the 1st, and I hope we do in the 2nd too.

Good points. I do want a beastly defensive player in the first above all else. Bud Dupree, Marcus Peters, Danny Shelton or the like. But I think we can agree that our running game as a whole did not function as intended in 2014. Imagine an offense where we could couple Gore with Gurley. Get a lot of 3rd and shorts, be hard to get off the field and make some easier situations for the offense. Luck's interceptions go down and time of possession goes up. Defense stays fresh and performs better when the Pats try go on their long methodical drives down the field.

[BOTT]

Vomit in my mouth

[throwing BBZ]

Not at all tempting.

[Superman]

My objection to a first round RB isn't about Richardson. It pre-dates him. He was actually a great prospect, just a bad pro.

 

I wouldn't want a first round RB -- even Gurley, who is also a great prospect -- because the impact from a good/great RB is less than that from most other positions. And you can duplicate the production from a good RB with lesser players in a platoon, especially if you have a good QB. They also have a short shelf life. 

 

And given Gurley's injury, I wouldn't want to give him a three year guaranteed contract to play one of the most physically abusive positions in the game.

[krunk]

There's so many different ways to construct a successful draft.  It isn't going to kill everything if Gurley is there and we pull the trigger.  I'd like a defensive player in the 1st as well, but if the trigger is pulled on Gurley I am not tripping.  If a defensive player is taken in the first, then my second option is Duke Johnson.  I think he fits very well too!

[backshoulderfade]

There's so many different ways to construct a successful draft. It isn't going to kill everything if Gurley is there and we pull the trigger. I'd like a defensive player in the 1st as well, but if the trigger is pulled on Gurley I am not tripping. If a defensive player is taken in the first, then my second option is Duke Johnson. I think he fits very well too!

Pretty much what I am getting at.

[RealityIsLuck]

I'd be surprised if he was there, but if he was I'd be all for it. Without the ACL tear probably a top 5 pick, he's a true star. His Clemson tape is straight ridiculous.   

[SP_21]

I don't believe in the devaluation of the RB. A good back can completely change your offense and help control the tempo of the game. If Gurley is available at our pick I'd be happy if we picked him up.

[wig]

If he didn't have a history of injury issues I'd be okay with it, but. . . he does.

[backshoulderfade]

If he didn't have a history of injury issues I'd be okay with it, but. . . he does.

It's interesting. Gurley's tear was as a result of contact which is preferable than it being a non-contact ACL tear with regards to potential for re-injury.

[The Peytonator]

One of maybe three backs in the last ten years that I wouldn't mind using a first round pick on. I also think Melvin Gordon is going to tear it up in this league, although if he's all that's there at 29 I'd probably trade back.

[NewColtsFan]

If he clears his medical tests, then I'd be fine with it.

 

Gurley is a rare and special back.    You saw what Murray did for Dallas.     That's what Gurley could do for the Colts, IF we had a better O-line....

 

I'd roll the dice on him.....

[LockeDown]

Yeah, I like Gurley.  I would be excited all off-season thinking about the potential of our running game.  

[MrNLM]

How do I feel on drafting Gurley? Are you asking me if I am a Gurley man!?

 

[HGRekks]

The Colts have a late first pick, and I think Gurley is valued right there, if not a little earlier. I love the player and would be thrilled to have a solid running mate for Gore who could eventually be a top guy in the league.

 

I'm not against anyone that could be a really big contributor, and I think Gurley absolutely could.

[Flash7]

I think currently, with who we have obtained through FA and returning players, we will have a top-5 offense. Our defense, however, is probably #18 or worse in the league. 

 

So, although I like Gurley, it wouldn't make us that much better. We are already good offensively. I hope we look to improve on defense, and then some more defense, and then even a little more defense.

[backshoulderfade]

I think currently, with who we have obtained through FA and returning players, we will have a top-5 offense. Our defense, however, is probably #18 or worse in the league.

So, although I like Gurley, it wouldn't make us that much better. We are already good offensively. I hope we look to improve on defense, and then some more defense, and then even a little more defense.

I disagree. I think our defense is top 15 as it stands, though not top 10.

[Flash7]

I disagree. I think our defense is top 15 as it stands, though not top 10.

Fair enough.....but regardless and respectfully, I think my point still stands, correct? We need to build a monster D. We will be just fine on offense. We have the building blocks in place already.

[backshoulderfade]

Fair enough.....but regardless and respectfully, I think my point still stands, correct? We need to build a monster D. We will be just fine on offense. We have the building blocks in place already.

Yes. Our defense is not on the same level as our offense. The question is will there be a defensive player of good value at 29. It's all good fun to discuss.

[Dustin]

I disagree. I think our defense is top 15 as it stands, though not top 10.

It might be statistically top 15 because we play 6 games against some of the worst offenses in football, but I think on a talent/consistency level it'd be around 20th.

[backshoulderfade]

It might be statistically top 15 because we play 6 games against some of the worst offenses in football, but I think on a talent/consistency level it'd be around 20th.

All we can do is speculate really. But I think we have improved our defense so far this offseason as a whole. Adding Cole and the return of Mathis to improve our pass rush is the main reason I think this. A lot of those games where we got destroyed our offense could not stay on the field either.

[Flash7]

Yes. Our defense is not on the same level as our offense. The question is will there be a defensive player of good value at 29. It's all good fun to discuss.

 

 

It might be statistically top 15 because we play 6 games against some of the worst offenses in football, but I think on a talent/consistency level it'd be around 20th.

If Gurley is available at #29 it would be hard not to draft him. Which defensive players would be a better options (realistically) at #29 over Gurley? Perhaps this will help to better place a value on Gurley or defensive prospects.

[backshoulderfade]

If Gurley is available at #29 it would be hard not to draft him. Which defensive players would be a better options (realistically) at #29 over Gurley? Perhaps this will help to better place a value on Gurley or defensive prospects.

I like Odighizuwa, Phillips, Goldman, Peters and Kendricks among others. In terms of them being better options, I am completely unqualified to say, and therefore unwilling to speculate.

[esmort]

No RBs in the 1st round ... this rule should apply even more so this year given our other needs and the depth at at the position.  I would be more than a little disappointed with Grigson if he chose Gurley (or any RB) in the 1st.

[esmort]

If Gurley is available at #29 it would be hard not to draft him. Which defensive players would be a better options (realistically) at #29 over Gurley? Perhaps this will help to better place a value on Gurley or defensive prospects.

 

Not just Defensive players, there are plenty of offensive players we should take before Gurley at #29.

[Flash7]

Not just Defensive players, there are plenty of offensive players we should take before Gurley at #29.

Philosophically, I agree. We should keep our options open with both offensive and defensive players.

 

But, after a decade+ of soft Colts defenses, I really want to focus on defense. I get that it's best to go BPA, but to he** with that. Let's do anything to get a defense here, finally.

 

Irsay said he doesn't care to have a Star Wars offense, but he does want a hard nosed defense. Unfortunately,  Grigson has built the exact opposite. He's only had 3 drafts, so if he cares about defense it should show in this draft.

[esmort]

Philosophically, I agree. We should keep our options open with both offensive and defensive players.

 

But, after a decade+ of soft Colts defenses, I really want to focus on defense. I get that it's best to go BPA, but to he** with that. Let's do anything to get a defense here, finally.

 

Irsay said he doesn't care to have a Star Wars offense, but he does want a hard nosed defense. Unfortunately,  Grigson has built the exact opposite. He's only had 3 drafts, so if he cares about defense it should show in this draft.

 

Ohh I misunderstood ... my bad ...  I thought that you were trying to say that if Gurley was there at #29 you didn't think there would be ANY better or equivalent values available.  

[southwest1]

Vomit in my mouth

That's why I like you BOTT. You don't mince words & I know precisely what you mean. No ambiguity whatsoever. I respect that. I wish more draft analysts were as direct as you man. 

[wig]

It's interesting. Gurley's tear was as a result of contact which is preferable than it being a non-contact ACL tear with regards to potential for re-injury.

Not just that. Missed several games and played poorly in 13 because of injuries.

[backshoulderfade]

Not just that. Missed several games and played poorly in 13 because of injuries.

Oh really, what were they?

[southwest1]

One of maybe three backs in the last ten years that I wouldn't mind using a first round pick on. I also think Melvin Gordon is going to tear it up in this league, although if he's all that's there at 29 I'd probably trade back.

I thought Ron Dane & Montee Ball would be okay at the next level & they crashed & burned for the Giants & Broncos. Gordon will follow suit. He can run, but behind a horrible line as a high draft pick he is toast. 

[southwest1]

I don't believe in the devaluation of the RB. A good back can completely change your offense and help control the tempo of the game. If Gurley is available at our pick I'd be happy if we picked him up.

A back is only as good as the holes created in front of him & right now with Gore, Ballard, Boom, & Tipton why do we need to draft another one? This mentality baffles me actually. 

 

You sound like you should be advocating for a better offensive line not yet another back we really don't need sp_21. JMO. 

[Track Guy]

If he's really good enough to produce 4+ yards a carry against top 10 defenses behind our offensive line I wouldn't hate it. But I think improving our O-line will give us more bang for our buck earlier in the draft than adding another RB. You can find good RBs late in the draft or even UDFAs.

[bestQBever]

I'd feel very bad. Even if he was on the board I don't think we should get him. I fully expect a D lineman or Landon Collins if he somehow drops down there. I would be fine with an O lineman as well but we literally have no D line outside of a pretty good Jones and a mediocre Langford.

[wig]

Oh really, what were they?

I remember an ankle bit not 100%. He only rushed for a thousand yards one out of three seasons and never had 225 carries in a season.