Jump to content

Archived

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

rock8591

2017 NFL Draft - Day 3 Thread - starts at NOON EST

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ColtsUrUs said:

Why doesn't it say we have the 143 pick anywhere? 

 

It does, on my CBS Sports draft tracker list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard is looking shrewd at this point . I like his style lets see what he does with these picks, and then in UDFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have Gallman, McNichols or Jamal White been taken yet?  Outside of those possible options  I'm not really interested in anyone else available  at running back. 

 

Looks like we might be stuck with  pretty much the same quality  of backfield as last year. That's the problem with trying to rely on finding mid to late round gems to address RB position.  Can't have it all though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, double down on CB, LB and OL depth, IMO, and get a specialist RB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jay Kirk said:

Ballard is looking shrewd at this point . I like his style lets see what he does with these picks, and then in UDFA

With all the free agents he signed and the 8 draftees, this may be a harder than usual year for Colts' UDFA to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very happy with the move after the run of guys I like. 

 

Would have preferred moving up to get one but will never knock patience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, il vecchio said:

With all the free agents he signed and the 8 draftees, this may be a harder than usual year for Colts' UDFA to make it.

Good point but there always seem to be some that sneak in because of Special Teams play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I like that our draft picks are grouped.  Can pick some players in bunches.

We could go Moe, Curly and Larryhaha 

Share this post


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

Vwry happy with the move after the run of guys I like. 

 

Would have preferred moving up to get one but will never knock patience. 

At this point hes just looking for solid players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, James said:

 

Stupid post. Extra picks are better at this point if they don't like any prospect at 121.

 

Edit: a 4th and a 5th. Yeah, that's much better than staying if they don't like any player at 121.

 

Please, quit belly-aching.

At first the tracker was just showing the 5th, not the 4th too, I think anyone would question that trade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damonte kazee ain't a bad pick as a Nickel back. Or maybe Desmond King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First,  Ballard made a good trade to move down in the 4th and pick up a 5th.       Well done.

 

Second,   don't be surprised if he does the exact same thing in the 5th with one of our two picks.     Move down in the round  and pick up a later 5th and a 6th to go with it.        If it's possible,   I think Ballard will want to do that.

 

Share this post


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

Great pick there for the browns. 

I actually think the browns have quietly had a solid draft. At least on paper anyway...

Share this post


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

I actually think the browns have quietly had a solid draft. At least on paper anyway...

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Colts_Fan12 said:

I wouldn't put it past the stupid patriots to take Brantley tho 

Who you call in' stupid?  :flyingelvis:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our picks are so far back in the 4th round that we basically now have 4 5th round picks. Hard for me to get excited much about 5th round or later picks. Lots of talent already flying off the board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ColtsUrUs said:

Why doesn't it say we have the 143 pick anywhere? 

I think it may be 2018....which would be great....high 4th instead of low 4th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I wouldn't put it past the stupid patriots to take Brantley tho 

I could see the Cowboys as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BrentMc11 said:

Is NFL keeping up with picks? ESPN sucks

I'm watching NFL

Share this post


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

I think it may be 2018....which would be great....high 4th instead of low 4th

Its showing on NFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BrentMc11 said:

Good coverage?

 

Yes it is, I just took a look at espn, it's like they're on a 10 minute delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think espn had any viewers this year...heard that Wingo guy for a minute and haven't tuned in since.

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

×
×
  • Create New...