EZEKIEL ELLIOTT

[James Ducheteau]

I am not in favor of drafting any offensive players before the third, but their is a interesting draft strategy  that could play out. Say Elliott falls and he is our highest rated player on the board at the time. So we pull the trigger. If this scenario were to play out, then i believe our second and third picks would need to be devoted to the best Center/Guard combination available. Then draft BDPA for rounds 4-7. While this wouldn't dramatically improve our defense it would add depth. This would in theory "set" our offense for the next 5-10 years and allow us to focus on defense for probably the next 2 years easily. I wouldn't call this an idea draft scenario, but if it were to play out like this I would definitely enjoy seeing a dominant offense again.

[OffensivelyPC]

If he was BPA at 18, I question this organizations front office from the top down.  About the only time, IMO, where a 1st round pick on an RB (and for Colts, especially after Trent) is when it is one of maybe one or two truly missing pieces.  The Panthers, for instance, could justify taking an RB in the first round.  They'd probably be better served taking maybe a wideout or DB, depending on who was there, but that's neither here nor there.

[NewColtsFan]

 

The chances of Ezekiel Elliott falling to the Colts are Slim and None.      Literally.

 

He's a top-10 player in this draft.

 

He might have fallen two to three months ago.    Then he blew up at the combine.    And he blew up at his pro day.       Elliott has zero chance of becoming a Colt.

 

 

[MPStack]

I`ve said several times that Zeke will be long gone before the 18th pick. I am also not in favor of taking a RB in the 1st round, but IMO no other player in the draft would have as big an impact for the Colts next season. He is a legit 3 down specimen. The Colts have NOT had a franchise back since the Edge. Addai was very mediocre IMO. Zeke would take the Colt offense to a different level. However, the shelf life for RB`s outweights the value of a 1st RD pick too me.

[James Ducheteau]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

If he was BPA at 18, I question this organizations front office from the top down.  About the only time, IMO, where a 1st round pick on an RB (and for Colts, especially after Trent) is when it is one of maybe one or two truly missing pieces.  The Panthers, for instance, could justify taking an RB in the first round.  They'd probably be better served taking maybe a wideout or DB, depending on who was there, but that's neither here nor there.

The problem with the trent thing is that if your sitting their and elliott is the best left on your board at  18 and you don't pull the trigger then your saying to yourself and your staff that it wasn't the player(trent) that was bad but the whole ideology of the trade itself , and while I agree with that I'm not sure the "staff" has come so far as to admit the whole thing was wrong. That is the reason I can see this scenario playing out and why I wanted to look at how to make the best of it should it occur.

[OffensivelyPC]

16 minutes ago, James Ducheteau said:

The problem with the trent thing is that if your sitting their and elliott is the best left on your board at  18 and you don't pull the trigger then your saying to yourself and your staff that it wasn't the player(trent) that was bad but the whole ideology of the trade itself , and while I agree with that I'm not sure the "staff" has come so far as to admit the whole thing was wrong. That is the reason I can see this scenario playing out and why I wanted to look at how to make the best of it should it occur.

You're holding onto the Trent remark a little too much, that's more of a footnote than anything else.  Philosophically, there's still a major problem with drafting him given our needs at more impact positions.  Ezekiel Elliot is extremely talented, but he's a running back.  Many teams, and we should be one of them, tend towards the philosophy that no RB is worth a first rounder - at least not until the end of the first where typically, that means you are nearly a complete team (i.e. you made it to the conference championship).  In other words, say in the below example, the scouting report would read 91/100, but once you account for the devaluation of the position, you knock off, say 5 points (some teams do it by percentage since the max grades for each position aren't always identical i.e., the max score for a QB is 75 whereas the max score for a DL is 70).  

 

There are some here that would say, take BPA, that's how you build winning organizations.  More times than not, that's true, but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions and qualifications to the rule.  The most extreme examples are punters, kickers, and long snappers (they could grade out as a 2nd rounder, but you'd never take one there unless your the Al Davis Raiders or something).  You could have a guy graded out as a 91/100 at RB, without regard to any other position.  And you could have a DL graded out as an 89/100 without regards to any other position. But when you are sitting there looking at whether to take the RB or the DL, you have to consider that players potential impact on the team, and how hard it would be to replace that particular player.  Finding an impact DL in later rounds is much more difficult than finding impact RBs in later rounds.  Possible, but the odds very much in favor of finding better RBs on days 2 and 3.  Sometimes you make concessions in the favor of the odds.  That's why I say we shouldn't be taking Elliott.  

[Jason_]

23 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The chances of Ezekiel Elliott falling to the Colts are Slim and None.      Literally.

 

He's a top-10 player in this draft.

 

He might have fallen two to three months ago.    Then he blew up at the combine.    And he blew up at his pro day.       Elliott has zero chance of becoming a Colt.

 

 

 

good

[B~Town]

I am just not a fan of RBs in the first so many played on dominate teams that inflated there value . Look at all the 1st round backs last decade you can only make a case that a handful were worth a 1st rd pick .

[pgt_rob]

Would absolutely hate a RB in the first. 

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If he was BPA at 18, I question this organizations front office from the top down.  About the only time, IMO, where a 1st round pick on an RB (and for Colts, especially after Trent) is when it is one of maybe one or two truly missing pieces.  The Panthers, for instance, could justify taking an RB in the first round.  They'd probably be better served taking maybe a wideout or DB, depending on who was there, but that's neither here nor there.

Seriously?  He is considered a top 10 pick in the entire draft, that means top 10 best player in the entire draft!  Let me be clear, top 10 player regardless of position!  And it's a position of need.  And he can play all three downs.  You really think we would be the only team to have him as BPA at the 18th. pick if he was still there?   I don't think so.  If he slips past ten I wouldn't at all be surprised if we moved up to get him.   We probably won't but I wouldn't be shocked.   Chuck and Ryan both want that three down back and he is right in front of them not too far away. 

[OffensivelyPC]

15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Seriously?  He is considered a top 10 pick in the entire draft, that means top 10 best player in the entire draft!  Let me be clear, top 10 player regardless of position!  And it's a position of need.  And he can play all three downs.  You really think we would be the only team to have him as BPA at the 18th. pick if he was still there?   I don't think so.  If he slips past ten I wouldn't at all be surprised if we moved up to get him.   We probably won't but I wouldn't be shocked.   Chuck and Ryan both want that three down back and he is right in front of them not too far away. 

Meh...whatevs...

[B~Town]

14 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Seriously?  He is considered a top 10 pick in the entire draft, that means top 10 best player in the entire draft!  Let me be clear, top 10 player regardless of position!  And it's a position of need.  And he can play all three downs.  You really think we would be the only team to have him as BPA at the 18th. pick if he was still there?   I don't think so.  If he slips past ten I wouldn't at all be surprised if we moved up to get him.   We probably won't but I wouldn't be shocked.   Chuck and Ryan both want that three down back and he is right in front of them not too far away. 

What makes Elliot any different than all RBs that were considered cant miss next AP over the years but got to the NFL and never did anything .

[Jason_]

19 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Seriously?  He is considered a top 10 pick in the entire draft, that means top 10 best player in the entire draft!  Let me be clear, top 10 player regardless of position!  And it's a position of need.  And he can play all three downs.  You really think we would be the only team to have him as BPA at the 18th. pick if he was still there?   I don't think so.  If he slips past ten I wouldn't at all be surprised if we moved up to get him.   We probably won't but I wouldn't be shocked.   Chuck and Ryan both want that three down back and he is right in front of them not too far away. 

 

I would be beyond shocked if they traded up to draft him.  

[jskinnz]

2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If he was BPA at 18, I question this organizations front office from the top down.  About the only time, IMO, where a 1st round pick on an RB (and for Colts, especially after Trent) is when it is one of maybe one or two truly missing pieces.  The Panthers, for instance, could justify taking an RB in the first round.  They'd probably be better served taking maybe a wideout or DB, depending on who was there, but that's neither here nor there.

 

I am not sure I am following you here.  Teams should not be rating their boards based on need but on overall talent and Elliott by all accounts is a top ten talent.  Maybe I am missing your point.

[JRnINDY]

2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

If he was BPA at 18, I question this organizations front office from the top down.  About the only time, IMO, where a 1st round pick on an RB (and for Colts, especially after Trent) is when it is one of maybe one or two truly missing pieces.  The Panthers, for instance, could justify taking an RB in the first round.  They'd probably be better served taking maybe a wideout or DB, depending on who was there, but that's neither here nor there.

What?

I would question everyone from top to bottom scout if he was not BPA in our board at 18.

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

I am not sure I am following you here.  Teams should not be rating their boards based on need but on overall talent and Elliott by all accounts is a top ten talent.  Maybe I am missing your point.

 

49 minutes ago, JRnINDY said:

What?

I would question everyone from top to bottom scout if he was not BPA in our board at 18.

Okay, to both of you.  When we say "BPA" we are not talking about just overall composite score of a scouts grade.  See my post above.  There's other considerations.  Just because you have an RB who is 91/100 and a 3-4 OLB who rates a 90/100, doesn't mean you automatically go with the RB because he has the higher number.  It's not a numbers only game.  There is of course needs to consider ("consider" not "determinative"), and whether that position is as important as another position (for instance, RBs in today's NFL are devalued, we put a premium on edge rushing and gap eating NTs, at least in a 3-4).  All of these things are modifiers on the prospect's scout composite score.  These things go into a "big board" and that's what most of us should be thinking of when we say BPA.  So, when I say, Ezekiel Elliot shouldn't be BPA at 18, it's because I think that, of the other 17 draftable prospects before us, at least one of them should be rated higher given the other factors to consider.

[richard pallo]

42 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

 

Okay, to both of you.  When we say "BPA" we are not talking about just overall composite score of a scouts grade.  See my post above.  There's other considerations.  Just because you have an RB who is 91/100 and a 3-4 OLB who rates a 90/100, doesn't mean you automatically go with the RB because he has the higher number.  It's not a numbers only game.  There is of course needs to consider ("consider" not "determinative"), and whether that position is as important as another position (for instance, RBs in today's NFL are devalued, we put a premium on edge rushing and gap eating NTs, at least in a 3-4).  All of these things are modifiers on the prospect's scout composite score.  These things go into a "big board" and that's what most of us should be thinking of when we say BPA.  So, when I say, Ezekiel Elliot shouldn't be BPA at 18, it's because I think that, of the other 17 draftable prospects before us, at least one of them should be rated higher given the other factors to consider.

When teams put together their big board I think it is strictly on talent alone without taking into account needs.  Last year when it came to our pick I felt sure we were going to draft the NT that eventually went to the Patriots.  I believe his name was Malcom Brown but I am not sure.  A position of need at the time but instead we take Dorsett in a non position of need and surprise everybody.  They clearly went BPA on their board.  They probably have other boards ranking players on position of need but when they say BPA I believe them.   I also don't believe RBs are devalued as much as some people think.  I think it is team specific thing and also based on the quality of the RB class in that year.  Last years class was pretty good,  this years is so so with the exception being Elliot.  Next years is supposed to be very good.  My guess for next year is that we will probably see a lot of RBs taken in the first and second rounds.  Some offenses really need that RB others not as much.  Ours would really like to have one.  Hopefully we can find one.  If Elliot is there I can't imagine them not taking him.  

[BOTT]

This guy again?  If the colts take a RB in the first I will personally run Grigson over with Ford 250 heavy duty long bed extended cab four door thing.  He's a big guy so I will be sure to get him again in reverse.

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, JRnINDY said:

What?

I would question everyone from top to bottom scout if he was not BPA in our board at 18.

He probably is and the colts should still pass.  It's positional value.  Running backs don't possess much of it.

[OffensivelyPC]

59 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

When teams put together their big board I think it is strictly on talent alone without taking into account needs.  Last year when it came to our pick I felt sure we were going to draft the NT that eventually went to the Patriots.  I believe his name was Malcom Brown but I am not sure.  A position of need at the time but instead we take Dorsett in a non position of need and surprise everybody.  They clearly went BPA on their board.  They probably have other boards ranking players on position of need but when they say BPA I believe them.   I also don't believe RBs are devalued as much as some people think.  I think it is team specific thing and also based on the quality of the RB class in that year.  Last years class was pretty good,  this years is so so with the exception being Elliot.  Next years is supposed to be very good.  My guess for next year is that we will probably see a lot of RBs taken in the first and second rounds.  Some offenses really need that RB others not as much.  Ours would really like to have one.  Hopefully we can find one.  If Elliot is there I can't imagine them not taking him.  

Agree to disagree.

[loudnproudcolt]

I think we should hope he is there at our pick, because if he is, there are going to be teams wanting to trade up, like the Jets. I would be happy to move down 2 spots for a 3rd and grab Kelly in the first. If he is still there, teams behind us will want him. He is a rare back, and it more because he is three dimensional. He can run, catch out of the backfield, and is a very good blocker. I would be shocked if he is not gone in the top ten. I agree RB's should rarely go in the first round, but every top 50 board I see has him in the top ten, and I believe he will be long gone when we pick.

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, BOTT said:

This guy again?  If the colts take a RB in the first I will personally run Grigson over with Ford 250 heavy duty long bed extended cab four door thing.  He's a big guy so I will be sure to get him again in reverse.

 

I don't agree with this.....

 

But it's funny as can be,  so you get a "like"....

 

Funny goes a long way with me!      

[akcolt]

The only player that would hold less value at 18 than Zeke would be Kelly. We could get a C on par with Kelly in the 4th and a RB day 3 too. 

 

 

[Footballlax31]

We have much bigger needs than running back imo. Gore is still good and I think with Philbin as our o line coach will help a great deal. 

[Jason_]

17 hours ago, richard pallo said:

When teams put together their big board I think it is strictly on talent alone without taking into account needs.  Last year when it came to our pick I felt sure we were going to draft the NT that eventually went to the Patriots.  I believe his name was Malcom Brown but I am not sure.  A position of need at the time but instead we take Dorsett in a non position of need and surprise everybody.  

 

I disagree with this.  I absolutely DO think teams take Need into account when they setup their big boards.  Now the actual player rankings would be based on talent alone, but they're not going to include the few positions that are concretely set...like QB.  People keep getting caught up with Dorsett getting picked when "WR wasn't a position of need".  But WR WAS a position of need.  It wasn't the biggest need, but it was still a need.  

 

The team had Hilton as the only young and established WR.  Moncrief had shown potential his rookie year, but he didn't show enough to be able to say that he would definitely be the #2 for the future.  Other than that we had Andre Johnson who was clearly nothing more than a stop-gap.  Then there was Whalen who is no longer with the team so we now know he was never a part of the Colts long-term plans.  

[rockywoj]

I think that Frank Gore still has elite game left in the tank.  Therefore, as attractive as Ezekial Elliot may be as an RB, I just don't see the need for this.  With their first rounder (and 2nd and 3rd too), I believe they have to use the picks to build out a better roster.  In my opinion that means concentrating on the OL, LB/DE, DB positions.  Ergo, I would consider using those top picks on an RB as a wasted opportunity to build the trenches and the defense.  Also, I think that getting one or two QUALITY offensive linemen will do far more for the running game than taking another RB.

 

That being said, I can see the "attraction" of nabbing what might be the next Edgerrin James.  Like I said, though, I just don't think that doing so appreciably improves the TEAM as compared to shoring up the OL and the Defense.  Ergo, to me NEED trumps BPA as it might relate to Elliot.

[Coltfreak]

If Edgerine James fresh out of Miami was available at spot 18 would you take him?

[James Ducheteau]

I wasn't suggesting we draft Elliott, just saying I could see a scenario where they would and wondering what everyone thought would be the best draft strategy if that unfolded. I am very much in favor of drafting defense hard, like first 2 ta 3 picks hard but if it were to happen then I think the strategy would have to change and you would have to draft linemen in the 2nd and 3rd because if you draft him at 18 then you have got to have a line that can blow open some holes. 

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Jason_S said:

 

I disagree with this.  I absolutely DO think teams take Need into account when they setup their big boards.  Now the actual player rankings would be based on talent alone, but they're not going to include the few positions that are concretely set...like QB.  People keep getting caught up with Dorsett getting picked when "WR wasn't a position of need".  But WR WAS a position of need.  It wasn't the biggest need, but it was still a need.  

 

The team had Hilton as the only young and established WR.  Moncrief had shown potential his rookie year, but he didn't show enough to be able to say that he would definitely be the #2 for the future.  Other than that we had Andre Johnson who was clearly nothing more than a stop-gap.  Then there was Whalen who is no longer with the team so we now know he was never a part of the Colts long-term plans.  

I guess we will never know unless we see the big board.  What you're actually saying is people should not get upset if we take a RB or C in the first round and I agree.  If we have them ranked that high we take them.  RB is currently a position of need. So is center. Some people would argue they're not the biggest needs and could be drafted in later rounds.   But if we have them ranked higher than an edge rusher or CB so be it.  We still filled a need with a highly rated prospect. 

[Jason_]

41 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I guess we will never know unless we see the big board.  What you're actually saying is people should not get upset if we take a RB or C in the first round and I agree.  If we have them ranked that high we take them.  RB is currently a position of need. So is center. Some people would argue they're not the biggest needs and could be drafted in later rounds.   But if we have them ranked higher than an edge rusher or CB so be it.  We still filled a need with a highly rated prospect. 

 

No, not necessarily.  I would hate a RB in the first round.  

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, akcolt said:

The only player that would hold less value at 18 than Zeke would be Kelly. We could get a C on par with Kelly in the 4th and a RB day 3 too. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can.

 

Kelly is the best center in the draft by a wide margin.

 

Whoever is 2nd is a distant second.....

 

[richard pallo]

7 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

No, not necessarily.  I would hate a RB in the first round.  

So, I think what you're saying is you would not take a RB in the first round if he was BPA in a position of need.  You would rather take a lower rated player in another position of need. 

[Jason_]

Just now, richard pallo said:

So, I think what you're saying is you would not take a RB in the first round if he was BPA in a position of need.  You would rather take a lower rated player in another position of need. 

 

The only way I'd take a RB in the first round is if the other 21 starting positions are set with 0 replacements needed.  Ok I'll actually drop that to 20 because one of those offensive starters is going to be a FB, a 2nd TE or a 3rd WR.  So, if I have 20 of the 22 starting positions set, then I would draft a RB in round 1 IF he graded out highly enough.

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

The only way I'd take a RB in the first round is if the other 21 starting positions are set with 0 replacements needed.  Ok I'll actually drop that to 20 because one of those offensive starters is going to be a FB, a 2nd TE or a 3rd WR.  So, if I have 20 of the 22 starting positions set, then I would draft a RB in round 1 IF he graded out highly enough.

Right, that's what i just said.... you agree

[OffensivelyPC]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Right, that's what i just said.... you agree

What are you reading?

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, rockywoj said:

I think that Frank Gore still has elite game left in the tank.  Therefore, as attractive as Ezekial Elliot may be as an RB, I just don't see the need for this.  With their first rounder (and 2nd and 3rd too), I believe they have to use the picks to build out a better roster.  In my opinion that means concentrating on the OL, LB/DE, DB positions.  Ergo, I would consider using those top picks on an RB as a wasted opportunity to build the trenches and the defense.  Also, I think that getting one or two QUALITY offensive linemen will do far more for the running game than taking another RB.

 

That being said, I can see the "attraction" of nabbing what might be the next Edgerrin James.  Like I said, though, I just don't think that doing so appreciably improves the TEAM as compared to shoring up the OL and the Defense.  Ergo, to me NEED trumps BPA as it might relate to Elliot.

 

  Frank has been a Quality grinder that has played behind a very good line for most of his career.
  Never an Elite back. So lol!
   Throw in some fumbles and weakness as a pass catcher, and that he probably shouldn`t run the ball more than about 12 times a game, well, we desperately need 2 more good backs to fill in for his holes.

[Coltfreak]

27 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

So, I think what you're saying is you would not take a RB in the first round if he was BPA in a position of need.  You would rather take a lower rated player in another position of need. 

If TE were the BPA would you be against taking him?

[richard pallo]

23 minutes ago, Coltfreak said:

If TE were the BPA would you be against taking him?

No. If it was a position of need.

[Coltfreak]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

No. If it was a position of need.

 

What if it is Gronk?     Still saying no?  

[rockywoj]

38 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  Frank has been a Quality grinder that has played behind a very good line for most of his career.
  Never an Elite back. So lol!
   Throw in some fumbles and weakness as a pass catcher, and that he probably shouldn`t run the ball more than about 12 times a game, well, we desperately need 2 more good backs to fill in for his holes.

 

Well I whole heartedly disagree with you.  The Frank Gore I have watched over the years has indeed been an elite back and I am of the opinion that feature backs should be getting 15 - 20 carries per game.  That's really almost the only way you are going to have an RB become a weapon that defenses will stress over accounting for.

 

There is no denying that he had two really bad fumbles last year, but that is not indicative of his larger body of work.  Also, I think you are overplaying this so called weakness as a pass catcher.  Did you see how bad a lot of those dump off throws were?  It was mystifying to me that the Colts could rarely execute what should be on of the easiest passes a QB can make.  Sure Gore may have muffed a couple of catches, but the throws were generally bad.

 

Anyway, I disagree with your assessment on Gore and I still believe he has game to bring, which to me dictates using the top picks to fill out a better roster in areas of far more need.