If the script was flipped?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

8 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

Some would still complain, can't please everyone 

 

We could literally draft 10 of the top 11 players and someone would complain we took #10 over #11 

 

Just imagine a really funny image here of a choir preaching to another choir.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, BR-549 said:

I didn't even bother reading that past FS is not a need.... I am done discussing it with you.

What is the consensus need.  OLB, CB, ILB, RB, and RG and what were the players AT THOSE POSITIONS ranked when it was our time to pick?

 

Humphrey went 16, so he was obviously the best player compared to the OLB, ILB, RB and RGs at the time.

 

And we take the 15th best player, who is a FS.

[BR-549]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What is the consensus need.  OLB, CB, ILB, RB, and RG and what were the players AT THOSE POSITIONS ranked when it was our time to pick?

 

Humphrey went 16, so he was obviously BPA over the OLB, ILB, RB and RGs at the time.

 

But we take the 15th BPA, who is a FS.

Apparently Mr. Ballard disagrees with you.... perhaps he should have checked with you first... better yet, get him on the line and let him know your pics for tonight so we don't screw up again.

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The problem is that the players listed were obviously overrated compared to players like Corey Davis, Mike Williams, and John Ross; so we all have to have a reevaluation of who the top ten players should be.

 

So Humphrey, because we NEED CB, is a better pick?

 

We didn't miss out on a play-making safety just to try and fill a need?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What is the consensus need.  OLB, CB, ILB, RB, and RG and what were the players AT THOSE POSITIONS ranked when it was our time to pick?

 

This is how you do NOT draft.  You draft BPA.

 

This is how you address free agency.  Who did Ballard sign in FA?  OLB, ILB, RG, DLine.

 

That leaves CB and RB.

 

If Ballard wants to rely on his current CBs and RBs, then fry him.  Until then, let's see what he does.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So Humphrey, because we NEED CB, is a better pick?

 

We didn't miss out on a play-making safety just to try and fill a need?

Humphrey wouldn't be a NEED pick.  He was the 16th best player.  Its not like reaching for the 28th best.

 

Not only that, he was ranked higher than 15 in most pre-draft mocks, so he fell almost as much as Hooker.

 

I can't see why this is so hard to understand.  When you have a gaping hole at one position, you don't fall in love with a player that is only the next best player ahead of the player you can take to fill a need.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, DougDew said:

Humphrey wouldn't be a NEED pick.  He was the 16th best player.  Its not like reaching for the 28th best.

 

Not only that, he was ranked higher than 15 in most pre-draft mocks, so he fell almost as much as Hooker.

 

I can't see why this is so hard to understand.  When you have a gaping hole at one position, you don't fall in love with a player that is only the next best player ahead of the player you can take to fill a need.

 

Ballard talked about longevity.  Who will have a longer, more successful career?  Humphrey or Hooker?

 

Humphrey might fill a need, but you don't pass on talent like Hooker.  We're talking Ed Reed, Earl Thomas type ability.

[CheezyColt]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Humphrey wouldn't be a NEED pick.  He was the 16th best player.  Its not like reaching for the 28th best.

 

Not only that, he was ranked higher than 15 in most pre-draft mocks, so he fell almost as much as Hooker.

 

I can't see why this is so hard to understand.  When you have a gaping hole at one position, you don't fall in love with a player that is only the next best player ahead of the player you can take to fill a need.

If Hooker is top 5 on your board, you don't take Humphrey who is #16 on your board just because he fills a position of need. That's too far apart.

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

This is how you do NOT draft.  You draft BPA.

 

This is how you address free agency.  Who did Ballard sign in FA?  OLB, ILB, RG, DLine.

 

That leaves CB and RB.

 

If Ballard wants to rely on his current CBs and RBs, then fry him.  Until then, let's see what he does.

No.  If we drafted BPA, we might have to take a QB.  You factor in your roster.  Everybody knows that.

 

People are reacting as if Hooker is the 5th best player in the draft and Humphrey was 28th.  No, they were ranked about 7th and 12th respectively pre draft and ended up being valued by the NFL as 15th and 16th.

 

If Humphrey was picked 25th and someone was arguing for him to be picked instead of Hooker at 15, I see the point.

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

If Hooker is top 5 on your board, you don't take Humphrey who is #16 on your board just because he fills a position of need. That's too far apart.

In reality, Hooker wasn't top 5, he was about 7 or 8, and Humphrey was about 12.  They both were falling predraft since some were predicting Hooker and Humphrey to be later first round picks.  And both ended up falling past their respective rankings.

 

Hooker was falling because of youth and playing only one year on a loaded secondary, and Humphrey because of thinking he got benefit from a strong AL front 7.

[Flash7]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In reality, Hooker wasn't top 5, he was about 7 or 8, and Humphrey was about 12.  They both were falling predraft since some were predicting Hooker and Humphrey to be later first round picks.  And both fell past their respective rankings.

 

Hooker was falling because of youth and playing only one year on a loaded secondary, and Humphrey because of thinking he got benefit from a strong AL front 7.

Hey, Doug. I haven't read through the entire thread, but have noticed that you prefer Humphrey over Hooker.

 

Out of curiosity, Who do you think is the better player? I am aware that they play different positions and it's hard to compare equally, but if you had to choose between the two as who would be the better player, who do you choose?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No.  If we drafted BPA, we might have to take a QB.  You factor in your roster.  Everybody knows that.

 

People are reacting as if Hooker is the 5th best player in the draft and Humphrey was 28th.  No, they were ranked about 7th and 12th respectively pre draft and ended up being valued by the NFL as 15th and 16th.

 

If Humphrey was picked 25th and someone was arguing for him to be picked, I see the point for Hooker

 

Timeout, cowboy.  BPA is obviously a fluid, team-by-team thing, and QB would be nowhere near the A in our BPA.  Not even on the board.

 

I know the QB position is weighted, but the Colts were in a position to wait and see what BPA fell to them.  And the BPA for any team with a franchise QB in place is, obviously, not QB.

 

For the teams' situation, I would say Hooker was a great pick.  Tacky jokes aside.

 

[coltsfanatic24]

Conley was who I wanted, but there was no way we were drafting him after those allegations. I didn't think Hooker or Allen would be there and as prospects had them ranked higher than Conley. My concerns with Hooker and Allen are the injuries, but when healthy both are top 5 talents. 

[southwest1]

2 minutes ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

Conley was who I wanted, but there was no way we were drafting him after those allegations.

When the Raiders picked him up last night, I thought to myself: The rebellious spirit of Al Davis lives on. 

 

A man accused of sexual assault ends up in the Black Hole. You can't make this storyline up man. LOL! 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I have only seen 2 members not like our pick last night, that is DougDew and Johnny U so 2 out of 1000 isn't bad for this forum

[Malakai432]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

I would not have liked any of them.  As I said pre-draft, 15 was a bad place to be.

 

Hmmm..........

[coltsfanatic24]

4 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

When the Raiders picked him up last night, I thought to myself: The rebellious spirit of Al Davis lives on. 

 

A man accused of sexual assault ends up in the Black Hole. You can't make this storyline up man. LOL! 

It didn't surprise me at all. If not the Raiders it would have been the Cowboys.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

Hmmm..........

He's been on here all day bashing the pick so it is what it is.

[southwest1]

13 minutes ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

It didn't surprise me at all. If not the Raiders it would have been the Cowboys.

The problem here other then the visual optics is that most teams won't touch a guy unless & until a district attorney says Conley has been cleared of any alleged crime or that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. That's the point I was driving at CF24. 

 

Also, Stephen Jones knows that his team desperately needs pass rushers more than secondary help. 

[CheezyColt]

31 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In reality, Hooker wasn't top 5, he was about 7 or 8, and Humphrey was about 12.  They both were falling predraft since some were predicting Hooker and Humphrey to be later first round picks.  And both ended up falling past their respective rankings.

 

Hooker was falling because of youth and playing only one year on a loaded secondary, and Humphrey because of thinking he got benefit from a strong AL front 7.

Can you share the Colts big board with us? You obviously have a copy of it somewhere to know where they ranked him. I'd like to know what it looks like before the 2nd and 3rd rounds tonight. Thanks!

[BR-549]

27 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Timeout, cowboy.  BPA is obviously a fluid, team-by-team thing, and QB would be nowhere near the A in our BPA.  Not even on the board.

 

I know the QB position is weighted, but the Colts were in a position to wait and see what BPA fell to them.  And the BPA for any team with a franchise QB in place is, obviously, not QB.

 

For the teams' situation, I would say Hooker was a great pick.  Tacky jokes aside.

 

Wasting your time... he already read that... on the internet no doubt..... perhaps twitter would be a better, more concise read.

[BR-549]

14 minutes ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

It didn't surprise me at all. If not the Raiders it would have been the Cowboys.

Browns?  Oh wait... they are using analytics this year, never mind.

[Finball]

I was ok with lots of guys available at 15, so much that I'd have been ok with trading down and picking up a 2nd/3rd in the process.

 

Very happy with Hooker though. Clear top 10 player for me, top 5 even.

[Colts1324]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Search the forum.  The needs were...and still are after round 1....OLB, CB, ILB, and RB...and some said RG.

 

FS is not a need.

 

If you're saying that any team needs an elite FS just because that's what you do when one is available, then 14 other teams don't feel that Hooker is an elite FS.

 

If you say Hooker was far and away BPA, that's nonsense because Humphrey, Allen, Reddick, and Foster all were also ranked higher than 15, in most or many mocks, and fell past us.

 

Hooker is a first round player that fell a few slots.  Big deal.  Its not like we got Myles Garrett in round 3.  Humphrey was picked 16 by well-regarded Ozzie Newsome...he picked Humphrey over Foster, Reddick, and Allen; so to suggest that Hooker was far and away BPA over Humphrey is simple stubborness, since Humphrey was obviously BPA over the other guys many wanted at 15.

 

Humphrey is not better than Hooker. Both are good players. But Hooker was not projected to be outside the top ten in any mocks that I've seen but one. Humphrey has been projected in the second round in some. I actually believe Baltimore would have taken Hooker had we not taken him. 

 

Ballaed obviously has done his studying on Hooker. He was excited about the pick. Said he was really thinking we might have a chance at him after pick 10. We get a blue chip defensive player. Be happy. 

[DougDew]

58 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Hey, Doug. I haven't read through the entire thread, but have noticed that you prefer Humphrey over Hooker.

 

Out of curiosity, Who do you think is the better player? I am aware that they play different positions and it's hard to compare equally, but if you had to choose between the two as who would be the better player, who do you choose?

Based upon what I read, I think they are about the same as far as players.  But a CB in a press man system is always more valuable than a FS, IMO.

 

The ability to turn and run with receivers, be competent in covering double moves, and making solo tackles on RBs on a sweep or out in the flat seems to be a rarer combination of skills to find than the singular skill of being a "ball hawking" FS.  So when I was picking high in the draft, I would pick the CB over the FS since I wouldn't expect to get much opportunity to pick one....and one for the other side....anytime soon.

 

There is concern that Humphrey is not the player we need at CB, and I wasn't that disappointed with the Hooker pick at the time, but the fact that Baltimore took Humphrey he very next pick suggests he is that player, and that there would be a noteworthy difference between the CB we could have gotten at 15 and the ones we can get in the mid 40s or at 78...or else Baltimore might have waited too. 

[Imrryr]

I saw a few people mention last night that those of us not happy with pick dont know what were talking about due to us not trolling a particular part of the forum. I wanted allen cause i want a nasty line that makes people afraid. I did not like hooker because that took away that option for us and because despite everyone proclaiming his all american status he still only has one year of starting experience. So if we had picked allen i would have proclaimed the pick from the gods to answer in a long winded fashion.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Colts1324 said:

Humphrey is not better than Hooker. Both are good players. But Hooker was not projected to be outside the top ten in any mocks that I've seen but one. Humphrey has been projected in the second round in some. I actually believe Baltimore would have taken Hooker had we not taken him. 

 

Ballaed obviously has done his studying on Hooker. He was excited about the pick. Said he was really thinking we might have a chance at him after pick 10. We get a blue chip defensive player. Be happy. 

I doubt that Ozzie reached for a second round CB.  

 

They are about the same quality player.  CB is a more valuable position as well as a greater specific need for this team.

 

We may get a good CB in the 2nd...or a good Edge in the 2nd.  The problem is what quality CB or EDGE can we get in the 3rd.  Is the Edge better than Sheard?  Will the CB be able to replace VD or what we need opposite him?

 

I think you could find a centerfielder FS in the 3rd that would be better than anybody we have.