Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

So at 18 if there aren't any of the pass rushers, LB's etc. basically all of our needs do you reach defense or hope to take ezekiel elliott but he would become a stud in indy despite waiting a season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 12isthenew18 said:

So at 18 if there aren't any of the pass rushers, LB's etc. basically all of our needs do you reach defense or hope to take ezekiel elliott but he would become a stud in indy despite waiting a season

 

We'd have to have a really sexy free agency for me to be ok with it. We need to draft a bunch of defensive players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if all options have been exhausted, ie trade down attemtps, no good Olineman, D lineman, LBs on the board, and he's the highest rated person on the draft board. Then yes, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

if all options have been exhausted, ie trade down attemtps, no good Olineman, D lineman, LBs on the board, and he's the highest rated person on the draft board. Then yes, go for it.

 

that would be one occasion where I'd be ok with taking the second BPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

I would be mad if we picked a RB in the 1st right now.

 

f0b7609cb1bb382f12d43e048562dd94544005d1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we fill at least one starter on OL in free agency then I would take him without hesitation.  The draft is deep in our other defensive positions of need.  Drafting at 18 should give us another defensive starter not to mention probably a starter in free agency.  He is very highly rated by the draft experts.  Top10 regardless of position. A must if he is there.  I wouldn't be surprised if they traded up to get him.  They traded a 1 for Trent to get the big back to compliment Andrew and we have the same GM and coach who made the trade.  I would not be surprised at all if he is our pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edge was a first round pick and he is going into the HOF.  Elliot has been compared to Edge by some experts. A complete three down back.  I know it's popular to downplay the position but you really have to consider it when a talent like this could come to us.  Gore is a stopgap.  Elliot could be our day one starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's Leonard Fournette, no RB should be worth a first rounder anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't want him in the 1st.

 

The scenario that is put forth in the OP doesn't seem remotely possible in my view. I can't see any scenario in which Elliot is the player that helps this team the most at 18. JMO, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all of the good pass rushers are gone, Smith isn't there, and there aren't any big time defensive lineman, then I wouldn't be upset at taking Elliot.

 

But I wouldn't take him over Buckner, Floyd, Lawson, Ogbah, or Billings. But I'd take him over any of the OT's being mocked to us. And Spence is a risk in the first round. Plus Lawson, Buckner, and Ogbah will probably be gone by 18 so that leaves Floyd and Billings. I wouldn't take Elliot over any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO he'll be very similar to another Adrian Peterson, good for 1200-1600 yards a year.

 

He's only 20, so has plenty of years left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2016 at 0:41 PM, Colts_Fan12 said:

I never see a way to justify taking a RB in the 1st ever no matter who it is so hell no 

I mean I was fine with drafting Edge in the first and because of his talent with Peyton our offense was amazing.  If you can find a true impactful RB like Gurley in the first it is ok to help your offense.  That's just my opinion though.  Not saying Zeke is the next Gurley or Edge but he has potential and I would be ok with a 1st round RB if they are solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a moment to look at the teams playing in the Super Bowl this weekend, and even the teams that played in the conference championship games. None of them have an "elite" running back, they were successful due to their strong defenses and efficient offenses. Even the Broncos, who rely heavily on a traditional running game, don't have a top tier running back; their offense is successful because they have a QB that gets them into the right play, a solid o-line, and running backs that take what's there. It just seems like there isn't the need for anything more than a good running back to be a successful team anymore.

 

On top of that, we have much bigger needs at positions that have more of an impact on the game than running back. OLB, CB, C, G, and ILB, in that order, are all positions that I would say are bigger needs for us than RB, and if there's a highly regarded defensive lineman or safety available, I would rather take one of those before taking a running back in the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaColts85 said:

I mean I was fine with drafting Edge in the first and because of his talent with Peyton our offense was amazing.  If you can find a true impactful RB like Gurley in the first it is ok to help your offense.  That's just my opinion though.  Not saying Zeke is the next Gurley or Edge but he has potential and I would be ok with a 1st round RB if they are solid.

Yet, after losing Edge the colts won the super bowl the very next year behind the running of Addai and a journeyman RB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MasterCrief said:

Take a moment to look at the teams playing in the Super Bowl this weekend, and even the teams that played in the conference championship games. None of them have an "elite" running back, they were successful due to their strong defenses and efficient offenses. Even the Broncos, who rely heavily on a traditional running game, don't have a top tier running back; their offense is successful because they have a QB that gets them into the right play, a solid o-line, and running backs that take what's there. It just seems like there isn't the need for anything more than a good running back to be a successful team anymore.

 

On top of that, we have much bigger needs at positions that have more of an impact on the game than running back. OLB, CB, C, G, and ILB, in that order, are all positions that I would say are bigger needs for us than RB, and if there's a highly regarded defensive lineman or safety available, I would rather take one of those before taking a running back in the first.

 

You have a great screen name, for what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BOTT said:

Yet, after losing Edge the colts won the super bowl the very next year behind the running of Addai and a journeyman RB. 

Not saying that I want Zeke, but Addai was also a first round pick. He was taken 30th overall and Edge was 4th overall. So IMO Zeke is well worth the spot at 18, he is a very talented player that probably shouldn't even fall to us. I wouldn't be very upset if we got him, but I too would rather draft defensive talent especially in the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Slick12 said:

Not saying that I want Zeke, but Addai was also a first round pick. He was taken 30th overall and Edge was 4th overall. So IMO Zeke is well worth the spot at 18, he is a very talented player that probably shouldn't even fall to us. I wouldn't be very upset if we got him, but I too would rather draft defensive talent especially in the first.

I'm well aware the Addai was a first round pick......and he wasn't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep. Up until that neck injury I don’t think manning missed a snap his entire career here.
    • Andrew has had 3 maybe 4 injuries since the beginning of his career, manning only missed one season here. So no worries the bad luck was all Bob's. 
    • that guy is too short, has no wheels, and has to take a time out after every 6 attempts. will never make it.. nice jugs though
    • The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.     She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did.  She wanted round 3.  She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.     There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning.  I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation.  And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...     At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the  minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.   So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police.  But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO?  Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...   Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...     No worries, at least we know each others positions.  All is good.     Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-   https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/california/stanford-university/admission/     We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused.  Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?   If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask.  At least, that's my perspective.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...