Jump to content

Archived

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

CR91

2017 NFL Draft Day 2 Thread

Recommended Posts

If Awuzie, Bowser and Mixon are all available, do you trade down a few spots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If we take Mixon are people going to be upset?

Some will. Some won't... it will fire up a war on the board about ethics, morals, defense vs offense, needs vs BPA, character vs skill. WW3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If we take Mixon are people going to be upset?

I won't be. If Ballard has vetted him and is good with him...I'm good with him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should get a quality CB here.  

 

The problem is we need a second q CB AND an EDGE.  Maybe a trade down will give us enough picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stitches said:

Some will. Some won't... it will fire up a war on the board about ethics, morals, defense vs offense, needs vs BPA, character vs skill. WW3

Realistically talent wise he is probably the best RB in the Draft but what he did was very bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shive said:

I think him going to Minnesota, FAR away from FL will be good for him. Vikes have a fantastic HC that I think will keep him on the right track.

 

Thanks. I hope so. I never expected him to drop this far. He is a playmaker. I did not want a RB in the 2nd but Cook is a steal at that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid vikings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Wouldnt rule out Colts trading down. Otherwise, Wills, Williams, Awuzie or Wilson

Wow.  the way the draft is falling. We could trade down in the first and second and still get quality players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a feeling there is some excitement in Colts war room Suspect someone they really like is still on the board .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Realistically talent wise he is probably the best RB in the Draft but what he did was very bad.

 

You must let me know what your relative thinks about the Vikes' selecting Cook. He loved AP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HOF19 said:

Got a feeling there is some excitement in Colts war room Suspect someone they really like is still on the board .

Awuzie or Willis would be my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Yes when I said Dutch I was thinking a Central European Accent

As a dane, I have to inform you that Denmark isn't in "central Europe" :hat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You must let me know what your relative thinks about the Vikes' selecting Cook. He loved AP. 

Very good pick

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

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...