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.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I wouldn't consider #10 a diss..... but I have a bit of an issue with the Cowpies ranked #2 at the same time.   We not only shut them out last season, we out manned, out-muscled and intimidated them in a way that none of us have seen a Colts team do to any team in a long, long time.   You could say "well its only one game".... and that's true.   But that was a statement game, and I just don't see how Brandt can justify a #2 ranking for Dallas given each team's additions this off-season....not to mention all those other teams he has them ranked ahead of.   As for the Colts...on our own merits.... I would have us closer to the middle of the pack on this list, around 7th and certainly ahead of Dallas.
    • His mom sounds awesome.  
    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
  • Members

    • Jcrane

      Jcrane 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SVFD Colts Fan

      SVFD Colts Fan 37

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,322

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Old Colt

      Old Colt 292

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • pacolts56

      pacolts56 3,035

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • gnet550

      gnet550 219

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Rackeen305

      Rackeen305 209

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 110

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • deadman

      deadman 198

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