Name one player you do NOT wanna see the colts draft at 18

[DougDew]

I'll name three:

Ragland, Conklin, Decker

[chad72]

Ezekiel Elliott or Laquan Treadwell

[pgt_rob]

Any RB, WR, or TE. Don't need any in the 1st round.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Leon Sandcastle

 

Trend RicherNu_son

[Superman]

On 4/3/2016 at 7:05 AM, Defjamz26 said:

Every team struggles covering Gronk, Graham, Kelse, etc...

 

On 4/3/2016 at 4:06 PM, Defjamz26 said:

There are multiple ways to cover and scheme for TEs.

 

What?

 

This is an obvious conflict in logic. Either teams can't cover TEs no matter what, or there are so many ways to cover TEs that you don't need good coverage linebackers. Can't be both.

[Superman]

On 4/3/2016 at 11:26 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Cover who?  Why don't we fix the secondary so the ILB doesn't have to do their job?

You know he does fairly well in zone, slants, and getting to RB's in the flat.  And why would you scheme him to go man to man on any receiving target? Let the CB's and safeties get that task. Send the ILB on a Blitz Package and force an early throw.  Plenty of ways to work the D.

 

Since when aren't ILBs responsible for covering in the box? And the more teams work the middle of the field in the passing game, the more ILBs will have to cover. Let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the game hasn't been going in this direction for over a decade now.

 

You're acting like people expect the ILB to go outside and cover #1 receivers, and that's just obviously not the case. Still, linebackers have to cover in the modern NFL; that's part of their job, not just the job of the secondary. And if they can't do it, they'll be exploited. We've seen the Colts ILBs be abused across the middle for four years now. You can't just throw a run stuffer out there and say 'it's alright, he'll be okay.' I mean, you can, but then you get hit with slants and crossing patterns and angle routes, and you'll be bled to death by good teams.

[Dustin]

Ragland. No use for a LB who can't cover the middle of the field.

[Dustin]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Since when aren't ILBs responsible for covering in the box?

 

Since CBFL decided Ragland was his favorite player.

[Dustin]

Also, any offensive lineman, unless Tunsil falls for some crazy reason.

[Dustin]

On 4/3/2016 at 10:35 PM, jvan1973 said:

How good was Ray Lewis in coverage? 

 

He was fantastic. His athleticism redefined the position.

[Defjamz26]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

What?

 

This is an obvious conflict in logic. Either teams can't cover TEs no matter what, or there are so many ways to cover TEs that you don't need good coverage linebackers. Can't be both.

It's not a conflict. There are multiple ways to cover TEs but most teams struggle to cover top tier TEs anyways. I never said it's easy to shut down a TE, just  that there are multiple ways to cover one. Doesn't necessarily mean teams are always effective at it.

 

You can put a safety on Travis Kelce and the team still might not be able to cover him. Cover =/= shut down.

[chad72]

29 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

It's not a conflict. There are multiple ways to cover TEs but most teams struggle to cover top tier TEs anyways. I never said it's easy to shut down a TE, just  that there are multiple ways to cover one. Doesn't necessarily mean teams are always effective at it.

 

You can put a safety on Travis Kelce and the team still might not be able to cover him. Cover =/= shut down.

 

Well, Seattle rolled a safety and LB towards Gronk, so with the assurance that safety help is behind him, Wagner could jump routes against Gronk. If you have safeties that have good lateral speed, even if a LB jumps and misses, you can minimize the damage from YAC. Rodney Harrison used to shut down Dallas Clark and a big reason Clark went off in the 2006 season playoffs was he was on IR.

 

The key is pass rush and disguising coverages, and mixing them up. So a pass coverage LB can be obtained as a specialist for nickel packages, so substituting for them can be done based on down and distance. The Packers use Micah Hyde as a TE coverage specialist. If a team goes no huddle, give the LB freedom to roam backing him up with safety help. It is pretty rare for a team to have world beating WRs and a world beating TE, teams have one of those, so you have some wiggle room with one of the safeties as to where you give the help towards (towards a CB vs a WR or towards a LB vs TE).

 

This is also why man coverage CBs give you more options, most importantly the ability to be flexible with safety help.

 

Just my two cents 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

It's not a conflict. There are multiple ways to cover TEs but most teams struggle to cover top tier TEs anyways. I never said it's easy to shut down a TE, just  that there are multiple ways to cover one. Doesn't necessarily mean teams are always effective at it.

 

You can put a safety on Travis Kelce and the team still might not be able to cover him. Cover =/= shut down.

 

Cover =/= be in the general vicinity as your man catches the ball. If you're not effective at covering a player, you're not covering him. So all those multiple ways that you can cover a good TE don't matter if most of them aren't effective.

 

No one has said anything about shutting anyone down. There is no ILB who can shut down these great TEs. There are some who won't be exploited every passing down, though. And it would be nice to not allow average TEs to play like they're great every week.

 

It's also not just TEs. Crossing patterns by receivers, backs in the flat and especially on angle/option routes, etc., are particularly effective ways to exploit bad coverage across the middle. And the Colts have been susceptible to those schemes for several years now, primarily because the ILBs can't cover.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, chad72 said:

Well, Seattle rolled a safety and LB towards Gronk, so with the assurance that safety help is behind him, Wagner could jump routes against Gronk

 

Let's also point out that Wagner is one of the best coverage LBers in the league. That had something to do with the success of that coverage scheme.

[funktacious2]

Decker, Conklin, or Kelly. 

 

I feel that, thanks to the wealth of defensive talent at the top of the 2nd (and late first), one of the following should fall to us in the 2nd round. Decker, Conklin, Kelly, Spriggs, Ifedi all of which will help our O-line this year. This will allow us to go for value in the first round, which will probably land us a a great defensive talent. I'm a fan of Robinson, Floyd, Ogbah, and maybe Billings.

 

I'd be happy trading down for Billings, Reed, Decker, Conklin, or Kelly, though.

[jvan1973]

6 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

He was fantastic. His athleticism redefined the position.

He was good on backs,   but was only average against TE's.  I recall plenty of times Dallas Clark being open across the middle against the Ravens.   A LBer against a good receiving te is a mismatch almost every time

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Cover =/= be in the general vicinity as your man catches the ball. If you're not effective at covering a player, you're not covering him. So all those multiple ways that you can cover a good TE don't matter if most of them aren't effective.

 

No one has said anything about shutting anyone down. There is no ILB who can shut down these great TEs. There are some who won't be exploited every passing down, though. And it would be nice to not allow average TEs to play like they're great every week.

 

It's also not just TEs. Crossing patterns by receivers, backs in the flat and especially on angle/option routes, etc., are particularly effective ways to exploit bad coverage across the middle. And the Colts have been susceptible to those schemes for several years now, primarily because the ILBs can't cover.

Once again I think it's a misunderstanding of language. I didn't mean cover as in to actually be successful at it. I meant that there are a lot of different personnel that you can line up against TEs in AN ATTEMPT to contain them. It'd be like me saying "When we play the Steelers Vontae will cover Brown". Doesn't necessarily mean he'll be successful at it but that will be the match up.

 

The Colts struggling to cover TEs is more of a matchup issue than it is an ILB issue. We just never seem to have a guy who can matchup well against TEs.

 

I also don't think we necessarily need a super athletic ILB to be able to cover RBs and WR crossing routes. We just need better LBs in general. When is the last time the Colts had a good YOUNG ILB who played for awhile? The last couple of years we've just had old guys and average players like Freeman, Jackson, Angerer,Brackett, etc... We just need a good LB. He doesn't need to have Wagner or Keuchly like athleticism.

 

Bottom line is the Colts haven't had any play making ILBs in recent memory.

[weslo1812]

On 4/2/2016 at 3:09 PM, Exodus said:

Andrew Billings. Why take an interior D-lineman when our D-line is arguably our strongest position right now.

I think our D line is alright right now...but far from great or from being a position that doesn't or couldn't stand to be upgraded still. And Billings would definitely an upgrade over Parry in the middle. Our D line may be the strongest part of our defense right now...but I still don't believe it's really that strong. 

[weslo1812]

On 4/3/2016 at 10:47 PM, Exodus said:

I still disagree. We need help at almost every level. I personally can't wrap my head around taking someone at a position we already have a young, solid player at.

You're looking at it based off of need and that's not how it works. Yeah we have alot of areas on D we need help. But if Billings is there at 18 and he's the highest player on the Colts board and they feel he is the best one available. He will be the choice. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Once again I think it's a misunderstanding of language. I didn't mean cover as in to actually be successful at it. I meant that there are a lot of different personnel that you can line up against TEs in AN ATTEMPT to contain them. It'd be like me saying "When we play the Steelers Vontae will cover Brown". Doesn't necessarily mean he'll be successful at it but that will be the match up.

 

Come on... Your 'attempt to contain them' could be to put me out there against Travis Kelce, that doesn't make it a legitimate option. Yes, that's absurd, but the point is that if we're going to talk about how the team is going to try to cover TEs, we should talk about the options that actually can work or are legitimate football strategies. 

 

Quote

The Colts struggling to cover TEs is more of a matchup issue than it is an ILB issue. We just never seem to have a guy who can matchup well against TEs.

 

???

 

Aren't we talking about an ILB prospect who can't matchup against TEs? And wasn't your response that the team can just scheme around him? It hasn't worked in the past, but it would be somehow different with Ragland?

 

Quote

 

I also don't think we necessarily need a super athletic ILB to be able to cover RBs and WR crossing routes. We just need better LBs in general. When is the last time the Colts had a good YOUNG ILB who played for awhile? The last couple of years we've just had old guys and average players like Freeman, Jackson, Angerer,Brackett, etc... We just need a good LB. He doesn't need to have Wagner or Keuchly like athleticism.

 

Bottom line is the Colts haven't had any play making ILBs in recent memory.

 

 

They had Freeman for four years. He had reasonable success in coverage. The problem is that no one else at ILB did, including Jackson, who has often been exploited in short area coverage the past two seasons. Yet Jackson is great against the run. Sounds like somebody else...

 

Guys like Wagner and Keuchly aren't easy to get. That doesn't mean you don't evaluate ILB prospects for the coverage ability. Saying 'yeah, he can't cover, but we can scheme around it' doesn't change anything. That's the same issue the Colts have with Jackson. You can't just hide an ILB in coverage in today's NFL. People saying they don't want Ragland because he can't cover aren't comparing him to Wagner and Keuchly. 

 

Athletically, there's not much difference between Ragland and Joshua Perry or Tyler Matakevich. He's obviously better, but if I said I don't want either of them because they can't cover, no one would have a problem with that. 

 

The argument is that coverage ability at ILB isn't all that important, and that argument is only being made to defend Ragland. That's just not reasonable. It would be different if the argument was that he's so great against the run, and he's such a great leader and competitor and he'll work his butt off to get better, etc. I still wouldn't want him, but that's not denying what we all know to be true about playing good defense.

[rock8591]

Will Reggie Ragland be another Vontaze Burfict or Kelvin Shepherd?

 

If he's the former, then go for it; the team lacks an intimidator at LB.

[Defjamz26]

@Superman

 

My argument is that Ragland (or Perry, Brothers, etc...) shouldn't be dismissed because he can't cover (more specifically TEs). He can't cover and he's not CJ Mosely, but he's a good LB. 

 

I also wasn't trying to say ILBs don't need to be able to cover. I just think trying to just look for LBs who can cover TEs and excel in man coverage is a waste IMO. Few LBs can cover TEs, and there are other positions you can matchup against TEs. It's not an excuse for Ragland because I'd say the same thing about Perry. Plus it's more important that they be a good run defender.

 

The Colts just need talented LBs period. They can worry about coverage later. Plus Ragland is a short area coverage guy anyways. Just don't put him on a TE or WR.

[ColtsBlueFL]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Since when aren't ILBs responsible for covering in the box? And the more teams work the middle of the field in the passing game, the more ILBs will have to cover. Let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the game hasn't been going in this direction for over a decade now.

 

You're acting like people expect the ILB to go outside and cover #1 receivers, and that's just obviously not the case. Still, linebackers have to cover in the modern NFL; that's part of their job, not just the job of the secondary. And if they can't do it, they'll be exploited. We've seen the Colts ILBs be abused across the middle for four years now. You can't just throw a run stuffer out there and say 'it's alright, he'll be okay.' I mean, you can, but then you get hit with slants and crossing patterns and angle routes, and you'll be bled to death by good teams.

 

Well here is the deal.  Ragland can cover slants, and RB's, even out to the flat.  Sometimes he might lose a man in zone at times. Granted he is not the best in open space.  But... I just heard Pat Kirwan on his radio show on NFL siriusxm, say he went and saw Reggie Ragland work in person.  He already had him evaluated via various methods.  But what he saw in person showed two things that were somewhat different from his initial...

 

Pretty much as evaluated except... he could rush the passer... but was only OK (he thought he would be better) and that  is still a option.  But he found the guy could cover receivers much better than he and especially everyone else is saying.  Even seam routes.  Not elite in class for sure, but much better than all the press and everyone else is making it out to be.  I'll take him for his word on it.  This was within the last 48 hours as well.

 

Besides, it is not that unusual for a team to pull their Mike in nickel (and especially dime) situations. Especially if said run stuffer an d makes them 3rd and long clogging up their 1st and 2nd down run attempts...

 

Everybody is way over hyping his lack of cover abilities.  I felt it all along, now I have some credible backup.

 

but everyone go one with their  he'll get burnt on all of the passes story...  we'll see how the guy turns out after 3 years.

[ColtsBlueFL]

17 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Since CBFL decided Ragland was his favorite player.

 

Prove he cant cover in the box, and I'll relent.

[Superman]

51 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Well here is the deal.  Ragland can cover slants, and RB's, even out to the flat.  Sometimes he might lose a man in zone at times. Granted he is not the best in open space.  But... I just heard Pat Kirwan on his radio show on NFL siriusxm, say he went and saw Reggie Ragland work in person.  He already had him evaluated via various methods.  But what he saw in person showed two things that were somewhat different from his initial...

 

Pretty much as evaluated except... he could rush the passer... but was only OK (he thought he would be better) and that  is still a option.  But he found the guy could cover receivers much better than he and especially everyone else is saying.  Even seam routes.  Not elite in class for sure, but much better than all the press and everyone else is making it out to be.  I'll take him for his word on it.  This was within the last 48 hours as well.

 

Besides, it is not that unusual for a team to pull their Mike in nickel (and especially dime) situations. Especially if said run stuffer an d makes them 3rd and long clogging up their 1st and 2nd down run attempts...

 

Everybody is way over hyping his lack of cover abilities.  I felt it all along, now I have some credible backup.

 

but everyone go one with their  he'll get burnt on all of the passes story...  we'll see how the guy turns out after 3 years.

 

That's a different discussion entirely. If your stance is that Ragland can cover better than I think he can, then I'm fine with that. I obviously disagree with anyone who says he won't be a coverage liability in the NFL, but like you said, we'll see in three years. And while I'm at it, if the Colts draft him, I'll be all about him as a member of the team, and I'll hope that I'm wrong. (As it stands, I hope the Falcons LOVE him.)

 

What you and others were saying earlier is that the need for an ILB to be able to cover is being overblown by Ragland detractors, that if you have a good secondary then your ILBs don't have to worry about coverage... That's a principle disagreement. I think your middle of the field defenders should at least be adequate at covering the middle of the field, and it's even better if they're actually good in coverage, and I think that's one of the biggest things that has held the Colts defense back over the last three years (not the only thing).

 

And maybe it's a combination of both, based on your posts in this thread. I've said my piece either way. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's a different discussion entirely. If your stance is that Ragland can cover better than I think he can, then I'm fine with that. I obviously disagree with anyone who says he won't be a coverage liability in the NFL, but like you said, we'll see in three years. And while I'm at it, if the Colts draft him, I'll be all about him as a member of the team, and I'll hope that I'm wrong. (As it stands, I hope the Falcons LOVE him.)

 

What you and others were saying earlier is that the need for an ILB to be able to cover is being overblown by Ragland detractors, that if you have a good secondary then your ILBs don't have to worry about coverage... That's a principle disagreement. I think your middle of the field defenders should at least be adequate at covering the middle of the field, and it's even better if they're actually good in coverage, and I think that's one of the biggest things that has held the Colts defense back over the last three years (not the only thing).

 

And maybe it's a combination of both, based on your posts in this thread. I've said my piece either way. 

 

My contention all along is Ragland can cover receivers well enough in the basics, especially most everything in front of him.  He can also do better on an RB to the flat than folks think.  Now I find he can even cover the deeper routes better than many anticipated (maybe even me, there...) but he is still  not  'best in class' in that area.  But maybe in run stuffing he  might be.  Calling a D and being a leader without being a knucklehead certainly is. 

 

Here is Chris Landry's latest LB grades---

 

7.4 – 7.0 = Superstar Ability
7.4 = 1st Pick Value
7.0 = Definite Top 5 Pick

{None}

6.9 – 6.5 = Immediate Starter
6.9 = Early 1st Round
6.5 = Mid to Late 1st Round Value
1. JAYLON SMITH–NOTRE DAME (JR) (M-serious medical) OLB
6020–223–33a–9 1/2h–
2. MYLES JACK–UCLA (JR) (M) OLB
6010–245–19bp–33 5/8–10 1/4h–

6.4 – 6.0 = Potential Starter
6.4 = Early 2nd Round Value
3. REGGIE RAGLAND—ALABAMA ILB *********************
6010–247–4.72/1.66–31 1/2vj–9-8bj–32a–9 7/8h–4.28ss–
4. LEONARD FLOYD–GEORGIA (JR) OLB
6060–244–4.60*/1.60–39 1/2vj*–10-7bj*–33 1/8a–10 1/8h-
5. DARRON LEE–OHIO ST. (JR) OLB
6010–232–4.47*/1.55–35 1/2vj*–11-1bj*–7.12cn–17bp–33 1/4a–9 3/4h–4.20ss–

I'll trust my instincts backed by Landry and Kirwan.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

@Superman

 

My argument is that Ragland (or Perry, Brothers, etc...) shouldn't be dismissed because he can't cover (more specifically TEs). He can't cover and he's not CJ Mosely, but he's a good LB. 

 

I also wasn't trying to say ILBs don't need to be able to cover. I just think trying to just look for LBs who can cover TEs and excel in man coverage is a waste IMO. Few LBs can cover TEs, and there are other positions you can matchup against TEs. It's not an excuse for Ragland because I'd say the same thing about Perry. Plus it's more important that they be a good run defender.

 

The Colts just need talented LBs period. They can worry about coverage later. Plus Ragland is a short area coverage guy anyways. Just don't put him on a TE or WR.

 

To the first bolded, I don't think it's as hard as you make it out to be. There are several rangy, athletic ILBs who are good in the middle of the field, many of them coming outside of the first round. Dynamic players at ILB make your defense better; calling it a waste makes no sense.

 

To the second bolded, you're essentially suggesting adding a player who will make your coverage worse so that you can try to figure out a scheme to cover up for his weaknesses. This, again, makes no sense. You can say stuff like "don't put him on a TE or a WR," but ILBs have to cover TEs and WRs sometimes. And when they do, that's when you wish you had a guy who has some range and change of direction ability. 

 

The NFL is run by a notoriously conservative group of people, especially head coaches. Yet they are employing more and more unconventional methods to improve coverage over the middle, not pretending it isn't that important. Most good defenses have good athletes at ILB: Denver, Seattle, Carolina, Pittsburgh; some are converting safeties to ILB or drafting tweeners: Carolina, Arizona, St. Louis. These players aren't impossible to find. The Broncos started fifth and sixth rounders in the middle last year. Lavonte David was a second rounder. There are rangy, athletic players with pro traits throughout this year's draft. 

 

We agree that the Colts need talented ILBs. My opinion is that there are more talented ILBs than Ragland in this year's draft, guys who don't project as coverage liabilities in the NFL. I don't want the Colts to draft the linebacker of 15 years ago.

[Dustin]

7 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Prove he cant cover in the box, and I'll relent.

 

Nick Saban moves him to edge rusher on 3rd downs. That should be enough right there.