Why Saquon Barkley should be our 2nd or third pick

[Finball]

31 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

I am not comparing RB to other positions???? Obviously they take the most punishment and would be more likely to be injured, thats why u need more than 1 good 1....How good is L.A without Gurley? How about Pitt with no Bell? Atlanta without Adams? Dallas with no Zeke? RB can be  difference.....NFL ROSTERS turn over at a high  rate every 5 years you have a completely new team except for a  few guys....Ill take a hall of fame Rb for 7 years if it means championships.....Longterm rebuild philosophies rarely work in NFL....You find lightening in a bottle and try to sustain it....It should always be a win NOW philosophy especially if you have a franchise QB.....Yes Luck needs protection, but an elite RB can protect luck as much as a GUARD...YOU can have the greatest line in the world and it won't mean anything without weapons...

 

Bell was a 2nd rounder and their offense did fine without Bell when Deangelo Williams was covering him for suspensions/injuries in 2015. Who is Adams? I believed and still believe,firmly,that Dallas would've been and would be better off by taking Ramsey over Zeke. I think a guy like Peters is more valuable in the long run than Gurley.

 

I'd take HOF RB for 7 years if it means championships too. Barkley isn't guaranteed HOFer and even if he were, it doesn't guarantee championships.

 

I take great line and medicore weapons over medicore line and great weapons everyday. Gurley didn't do much last year when he had a terrible oline. Bell and Zeke have the best lines in the NFL too.

[life long]

I always see this arguement made against running backs. You can still find a good one later in the draft. Fact of the matter is, you can find a great player late at any position. You always take BPA. Chubb isnt enough of a technician as a pass rusher. He wont be the potential game wrecker Barkley would. Our current career sack leader  was drafted late, so lets stop this talk you cant find o line or defensive talent late. It is nonsensical. Brady and Rice likely are considered the best ever, where were they drafted...?

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

With Barkley and Mack we will have what the Saints have with Ingram and Kamara on steroids...I think it's working out well for Drew Brees just saying....We can sign and draft a couple guards and RT to improve the line....Just because we draft Barkley doesn't mean we can't improve the line.....

I am perfectly fine with taking Barkley at #3 but if we took Nelson or Chubb I wouldn't be upset either. I would hate to pass on Barkley because IMO he will be better than Zeke and isn't a head case either. Guy is very intelligent and stays out of trouble. To the people that are against taking Barkley, I bet by week 8 when he's looking like Barry Sanders people in here will be upset we didn't take him. Even with the Browns he will gain a 1000 Yards at worse IMO.

[Defjamz26]

6 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

Bell was a 2nd rounder and their offense did fine without Bell when Deangelo Williams was covering him for suspensions/injuries in 2015. Who is Adams? I believed and still believe,firmly,that Dallas would've been and would be better off by taking Ramsey over Zeke. I think a guy like Peters is more valuable in the long run than Gurley.

 

I'd take HOF RB for 7 years if it means championships too. Barkley isn't guaranteed HOFer and even if he were, it doesn't guarantee championships.

 

I take great line and medicore weapons over medicore line and great weapons everyday. Gurley didn't do much last year when he had a terrible oline. Bell and Zeke have the best lines in the NFL too.

No player at any positions is a guaranteed HOF’er or guaranteed to help win championships. It’s called projection. Can’t knock a guy because he isn’t a guaranteed sure thing, no one is. Barkley in all likelihood will be a very good player though, and that’s enough to warrant taking him at number 3. The fact that he’s the consensus best player in the draft is enough to warrant him being selected there.

[shasta519]

Running back has a big bust rate to begin with. So volume is the key. Ideally, you draft 2-3 guys in the round 2-4 range over a couple seasons and see what pans out. If it works out, you end up with ATL's run game. If it doesn't, you look to FA or trades for buy-lows. But a committee is key as insurance for injury and for keeping guys fresh late in games when the defense is tired.

 

WR works somewhat the same way...but at WR you absolutely draft an elite WR in round 1 if one is available. But mostly, you should be looking at the 25-90 range.

 

 

. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

The Saints I get. But with Carolina, it’ll be different once Stewart leaves in the offseason. McCaffery will likely be used how the Rams use Gurley. He’ll get a bunch of touches rushing and catching the ball.

 

No they won't, and if they do, they're stupid. McCaffrey is not an every down back, and if they try to give him 300 touches a year, they'll be sorry. He needs to be used in a complementary role, and that will hopefully help him last 8+ years.

 

Quote

Same with the Eagles. Blount is old and might not be back so it’ll be Ajayi getting all the carries. Maybe Barner is their relief back.

 

The Eagles might give Ajayi 300+ touches moving forward, but he only has a year or two before his knees give out on him. They are going to a) need a replacement soon, and b) probably use multiple backs moving forward just like they have been. Even if one guy gets 60% of the touches, that's still a platoon.

 

Quote

Henry same thing. It’s not a committee. It’s a guy getting more snaps because he’s outplaying the starter. And Henry only just started getting more carries the last half of the season. When Murray gets released, it’ll be a one man show like it was before he started to slow down.

 

Whether Derrick Henry becomes the clear lead back remains to be seen. As of right now, they are a committee, and it's not even arguable. Murray got 8 more carries, and played 140 more snaps. He outrepped Henry every week except Week 6 (38 to 40) and Week 17, when he was hurt.

 

Quote

Ill give you Atlanta and the Saints though. I just feel committe has to be 2 or more guys getting equal snaps, where both guys are rotated for their ability and not because one guy is slowing down and a hand was forced. The Georgia Bulldogs have a RBBC. 3 RBs who they just constantly rotate. It’s college but that’s a perfect example of what I consider RBBC. In the NFL, I really only see the Pats, Saints, and Falcons running that system effectively.

 

That's an overly restrictive definition of a committee. If a guy is slowing down and they're splitting his carries with other backs, it's still a committee. Many teams reshape their backfield every offseason, which is smart. You'll always have a guy slowing down and a young guy earning more and more reps. 

 

Look at Blount and the Pats last year. He was the clear and obvious lead back, and then they sent him off and replaced him with a clear and obvious committee. And even though Blount was the clear #1 last year, they still used their backs situationally all season, and especially in the playoffs.

 

Quote

And I don’t think the idea that you can just substitute that for a typical lead back system is valid. Yes, it does work for some teams. However there are also teams who draft 1st round backs who can play all 3 downs and catch out the backfield, and have huge success (Dallas, The Rams, Chargers when Gordon is healthy, early AP,) and even if it’s not a 1st round back, teams like the Chief rely on a mostly one back system. I just think all of these new notions people are saying that teams have about RBs (it’s all RBBC, you can easily get a RB later, never draft a RB in the 1st, etc...) are overstated. A lot of that is just teams being victims of circumstance.

 

Again, this is two separate issues. Whether you can replace a lead back with a committee is a different issue than whether you can find a capable lead back without using a first round draft pick at that position. You keep lumping these two together, but my primary argument is not that a committee is better than a lead back system.

 

Quote

If you’re the Falcons and always picking in the teens you’re not going to be able to draft an Elliot or Gordon so you’re going to have to find Devonta Freeman’s and Tevin Coleman’s. Team’s who get top 15 picks get the benefit of being in position to draft those elite RBs, and they don’t already have one on the roster, they take them. I don’t think there’s any right or ideal rules for drafting RBs. The only thing that is wrong is pigeonholing  yourself when it comes to RBs.

 

Apply that logic to more premium positions, and you'll see why I don't want to use the third pick on a RB. If it's hard to get an elite RB in later rounds, think about how much harder it is to get an elite pass rusher. Think about the last time a good RB was available in free agency (for instance, remember when Mark Ingram re-signed with the Saints for four years, $16m?) Now think about the last time a good pass rusher was available in free agency. Compare the contracts that top tier pass rushers get with the contracts top tier RBs get.

 

And that's just pass rushers. There are other positions that are more valuable, IMO, than RB, at which I'd rather spend a rare and valuable draft pick. Because of the value of the position, the diminishing returns of having an elite back vs having a good back and a complementary system, and on and on, I'm fine with passing on an elite talent at RB and instead using the pick in a way that I think will have way more impact on my roster and the team's ability to win moving forward.

 

You can call that pigeonholing if you want. To me, it's just a principled approach.

[jshipp23]

15 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am perfectly fine with taking Barkley at #3 but if we took Nelson or Chubb I wouldn't be upset either. I would hate to pass on Barkley because IMO he will be better than Zeke and isn't a head case either. Guy is very intelligent and stays out of trouble. To the people that are against taking Barkley, I bet by week 8 when he's looking like Barry Sanders people in here will be upset we didn't take him. Even with the Browns he will gain a 1000 Yards at worse IMO.

I think much like Gore he is  rare breed who gets it and is never satisfied....He literally has no flaws, no injury history, people rave about his character, and he is a physical freak of nature...

[jshipp23]

23 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

Bell was a 2nd rounder and their offense did fine without Bell when Deangelo Williams was covering him for suspensions/injuries in 2015. Who is Adams? I believed and still believe,firmly,that Dallas would've been and would be better off by taking Ramsey over Zeke. I think a guy like Peters is more valuable in the long run than Gurley.

 

I'd take HOF RB for 7 years if it means championships too. Barkley isn't guaranteed HOFer and even if he were, it doesn't guarantee championships.

 

I take great line and medicore weapons over medicore line and great weapons everyday. Gurley didn't do much last year when he had a terrible oline. Bell and Zeke have the best lines in the NFL too.

I would rather just have a prolific fast paced offense like we used to have with the triplets and just come  out and blow the doors off teams and outscore them, rather than force this ground and pound win in trenches philosophy THATS not the Colts...We are an indoor dome team with an elite qb and the possibility to give him the best RB since Peterson as a weapon....Hopefully we hire an offensive minded HC and get back to Colts football and quit trying to be something we are not...

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

True. But I also remember when Grigson took Werner because we so desperately needed an EDGE, everyone was ecstatic, and at first everyone was ecstatic. We all know how that went. I think Chubb is a nice player, and I'd be happy to have him, but he seems pretty far from a "sure thing" IMO.

 

I don't think there are many, if any "sure things" in this draft.    But at some point you have to pick players...

 

I don't want to put handcuffs on Ballard simply because Grigson was terrible at his job.   Ballard should get the bee fit of any doubt...

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

55 minutes ago, life long said:

Chubb isnt enough of a technician as a pass rusher.

 

I disagree with that very much.

 

Even still, it's not 'take Chubb over Barkley!' At least not for me...

[life long]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with that very much.

 

Even still, it's not 'take Chubb over Barkley!' At least not for me...

I am not saying he is just a pure athlete rusher. He has tremendous strength in his hands. Has an outstanding swim move. He just rarely strings move together. I'll admit i only recently started watching his film but i still stand by my stance about him affecting games less than Barkley would. Plus if we get a good OC finally imagine Luck not being handcuffed by the Coryell. Pound with the 230lbs Barkley, Mack as a fresh legged speedster coming off the bench. Turbin (or Gore) on short yards. Lets not forget they all can beat you receiving as well. 

 

Plus our defense would not look as bad by the 4th if we could manage more long scoring drives. Most of the coaches named excite me because there is a strong possibility for a west coast system. Which i know many have been dying for since Luck arrived.

[shasta519]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No they won't, and if they do, they're stupid. McCaffrey is not an every down back, and if they try to give him 300 touches a year, they'll be sorry. He needs to be used in a complementary role, and that will hopefully help him last 8+ years.

 

 

The Eagles might give Ajayi 300+ touches moving forward, but he only has a year or two before his knees give out on him. They are going to a) need a replacement soon, and b) probably use multiple backs moving forward just like they have been. Even if one guy gets 60% of the touches, that's still a platoon.

 

 

Whether Derrick Henry becomes the clear lead back remains to be seen. As of right now, they are a committee, and it's not even arguable. Murray got 8 more carries, and played 140 more snaps. He outrepped Henry every week except Week 6 (38 to 40) and Week 17, when he was hurt.

 

 

That's an overly restrictive definition of a committee. If a guy is slowing down and they're splitting his carries with other backs, it's still a committee. Many teams reshape their backfield every offseason, which is smart. You'll always have a guy slowing down and a young guy earning more and more reps. 

 

Look at Blount and the Pats last year. He was the clear and obvious lead back, and then they sent him off and replaced him with a clear and obvious committee. And even though Blount was the clear #1 last year, they still used their backs situationally all season, and especially in the playoffs.

 

 

Again, this is two separate issues. Whether you can replace a lead back with a committee is a different issue than whether you can find a capable lead back without using a first round draft pick at that position. You keep lumping these two together, but my primary argument is not that a committee is better than a lead back system.

 

 

Apply that logic to more premium positions, and you'll see why I don't want to use the third pick on a RB. If it's hard to get an elite RB in later rounds, think about how much harder it is to get an elite pass rusher. Think about the last time a good RB was available in free agency (for instance, remember when Mark Ingram re-signed with the Saints for four years, $16m?) Now think about the last time a good pass rusher was available in free agency. Compare the contracts that top tier pass rushers get with the contracts top tier RBs get.

 

And that's just pass rushers. There are other positions that are more valuable, IMO, than RB, at which I'd rather spend a rare and valuable draft pick. Because of the value of the position, the diminishing returns of having an elite back vs having a good back and a complementary system, and on and on, I'm fine with passing on an elite talent at RB and instead using the pick in a way that I think will have way more impact on my roster and the team's ability to win moving forward.

 

You can call that pigeonholing if you want. To me, it's just a principled approach.

 

I probably have stricter principles than most people. Elite pass rushers (across the front 7), LTs and WRs...and franchise QBs. That's it for top 5 picks. There is also a secondary prospect every couple drafts that you could convince was worth a top 5 pick...but they are usually apparent early on (Ramsey, Peterson, Berry, etc.). 

Draft the BPA from those positions that fits a need. If a need isn't available, you can still draft the BPA anyways OR trade back. If you can't get the trade back, then accept that you might be slightly overdrafting a player at a premium position because of a weak draft (like I assume KC did after 2013). But it won't typically come to that for teams...and definitely won't for the Colts this year.

 

For me, the draft will always be about value and impact...getting the best combination of it. Drafting a RB (or OG) at #3 and paying him ~$7.5M/year on his rookie deal is not it. And the opportunity cost of missing out on drafting an impact talent at a premium position is big...especially when they are very hard to acquire otherwise.

 

[chad72]

Ballard's history may suggest D for the draft pick but since 2000, teams drafting RBs have had about 4 wins more the next season:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000806850/article/drafting-topfive-rbs-nets-teams-at-least-4-more-wins

 

We did let go of Edge but Addai played a huge role the very first draft he was drafted. If you have the established QB, you cannot be gun shy going after an RB to elevate your offense. 

 

Whether it translates to postseason wins, one never knows, would like to see a study on it. Marshall Faulk was traded, Lynch caught on to his second team, and Addai was drafted late in round 1. All of them won SBs. One thing for sure is that those teams did not win SBs till the Ds stepped up. 

 

If the new HC coming in values RBC more and the volume is not going to be there for a primary RB, I'd go D or OL any day.

[Shadow_Creek]

look even the great Barry sanders didn't need a good o-line in Detroit to have the stellar years that he achieved...just saying 

[krunk]

I think too much is made of the issue.   Plain and simple if Barkley is the best player available at the time of the pick according to the Colts Scouting and draft board then they need to take him.  People talk as if you're(the Colts) drafting RBs in the first round every year.  Every now and then a RB will garner enough worth to be taken that high and if the team is in agreement upon the player then I don't see anything wrong with making that pick.  We did it years ago with Edge and it worked out just fine.  We did it years ago with Addai and it worked out pretty good.  Sometimes it works and some times it doesn't.  There's several ways to get a bad deal out of a first round pick.  Heck you can go multiple years drafting other than the RB position in the first round and still come out with players who don't  amount to much.   I say if the guy is a super stud and that's what your draft board says then you got to get them.  Unless it's something like a QB or something else we are more than set at.

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

look even the great Barry sanders didn't need a good o-line in Detroit to have the stellar years that he achieved...just saying 

And how many rings does he wear?  Just asking?

[Shadow_Creek]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

And how many rings does he wear?  Just asking?

0

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

0

Even the great Sweetness didn't get one till the Bears got the killer defense.

Jim Brown- 1 championship in 1964. (considered by most to be the greatest in history)

And my all time favorite, Earl Campbell- A big zero!  Pete Wysocki (Redskins linebacker) said every time you hit him you lowered your own IQ. Now that is bada__. lol

[crazycolt1]

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:47 AM, ReMeDy said:

I say trade down. I read Chris Ballard is a great GM; time to prove it with some 2nd round pixie dust.

I wouldn't object to a trade down if we got two #1s. This years and next years plus maybe a 2nd or 3rd.

[Shadow_Creek]

4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Even the great Sweetness didn't get one till the Bears got the killer defense.

Jim Brown- 1 championship in 1964. (considered by most to be the greatest in history)

And my all time favorite, Earl Campbell- A big zero!  Pete Wysocki (Redskins linebacker) said every time you hit him you lowered your own IQ. Now that is bada__. lol

true however i can admit that neither Earl or Barry had a luck like QB leading them or else there would have been Superbowls

[Finball]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

Ballard's history may suggest D for the draft pick but since 2000, teams drafting RBs have had about 4 wins more the next season:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000806850/article/drafting-topfive-rbs-nets-teams-at-least-4-more-wins

 

We did let go of Edge but Addai played a huge role the very first draft he was drafted. If you have the established QB, you cannot be gun shy going after an RB to elevate your offense. 

 

Whether it translates to postseason wins, one never knows, would like to see a study on it. Marshall Faulk was traded, Lynch caught on to his second team, and Addai was drafted late in round 1. All of them won SBs. One thing for sure is that those teams did not win SBs till the Ds stepped up. 

 

If the new HC coming in values RBC more and the volume is not going to be there for a primary RB, I'd go D or OL any day.

 

How passing and rushing affect winning in the NFL
NFL post-season correlations between wins and various stats

What Can Statistics Tell Us About Success In The NFL?

 

TL;DR: Rushing, either in total yards or in efficiency doesn't matter that much. Passing efficiency, turnover ratio usually decides who wins.

 

There are lot of others but couldn't find them atm.

 

Edit. for the link and teams that did improve after drafting RB in the top 5.

 

00 Ravens: not very familiar with them but they traded up for the RB and had improved from 6-10 to 8-8 the year before. And game was very different back then.

 

01 Chargers: Also replaced Ryan Leaf with somewhat decent QB in Doug Flutie.

 

05 Fins: Also had a change in QB and HC. Ronnie Brown had 907 yards, 4.4 YPC.

 

05 Bucs: Starting QB got injured 04. Still was more of a rushing league back then. Cadillac probably had pretty big impact, though.

 

06 Saints: Umm... Drew Brees and Sean Payton???

 

08 Raiders: McFadden rushed for 500 yards and got another 300 via receiving. They improved by a whopping 1 win.

 

12 Browns: I'm sure they are happy that they drafted T-Rich and improved from 4-12 to 5-11.

 

16 Cowboys: I guess it also helps when Brandon Weeden and Mark Sanchez won't play for you at QB. Zeke did play major role here though.

 

17 Jags: Got Bouye and Campbell in FA, fired the worst coach in recent history save for Hue Jackson.

 

Not really seeing a convincing case drafting RB in the top 5. Too early to say for Zeke and Fournette so excluding them, only 01 Chargers and 00 Ravens don't regret their pick. Completely different game back then.

[BOTT]

5 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

He looks fantastic against NCAA tackles, but at the same time, when I watch him, I'm not like "whoa, this is the next JJ Watt."

Considering Watt  is probably the best defensive player since Reggie White, you probably won't be saying that for awhile.

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I wouldn't object to a trade down if we got two #1s. This years and next years plus maybe a 2nd or 3rd.

 

The problem with that is we will likely have to trade back a long way...   much more than we want, in order to collect that haul...

 

And if we trade back that far, I think all the real difference makers will be gone...

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Considering Watt  is probably the best defensive player since Reggie White, you probably won't be saying that for awhile.

 

Oh definitely. All I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that Chubb's going to be the slam dunk double-digit sack guy that everyone's projecting him to be. I'm probably just jaded about pass rushers that don't fit our scheme after Bjoern Werner ended up being such a massive bust.

[Finball]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

No player at any positions is a guaranteed HOF’er or guaranteed to help win championships. It’s called projection. Can’t knock a guy because he isn’t a guaranteed sure thing, no one is. Barkley in all likelihood will be a very good player though, and that’s enough to warrant taking him at number 3. The fact that he’s the consensus best player in the draft is enough to warrant him being selected there.

 

Consensus best player? There's two months until combine and four until the draft. A lot can change.

 

Likely a very good player doesn't do it for me. I want a cornerstone piece for the better part of the decade at #3 and at premium position.RB isn't that.

 

BPA is relative too. In hindsight, someone might take Le'Veon Bell #1 in 2013 re-draft. For me, he doesn't cract top 15.

[BOTT]

3 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Oh definitely. All I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that Chubb's going to be the slam dunk double-digit sack guy that everyone's projecting him to be. I'm probably just jaded about pass rushers that don't fit our scheme after Bjoern Werner ended up being such a massive bust.

While I agree he's not a slam dunk, I don't worry about scheme.  Even Venturi brushed off the idea of scheme fit in the modern NFL with the multiple front many teams use.

 

Werner's problem was he couldn't play dead regardless of scheme.

[esmort]

So many references to getting back to what we had with Manning, Marvin, and James. How many Super Bowls did we win with the "just outscore them" philosophy? Barkley with the third seems like a similar allocation of resources and heading down that same path. 

 

 

[chad72]

3 hours ago, Finball said:

 

How passing and rushing affect winning in the NFL
NFL post-season correlations between wins and various stats

What Can Statistics Tell Us About Success In The NFL?

 

TL;DR: Rushing, either in total yards or in efficiency doesn't matter that much. Passing efficiency, turnover ratio usually decides who wins.

 

There are lot of others but couldn't find them atm.

 

Edit. for the link and teams that did improve after drafting RB in the top 5.

 

00 Ravens: not very familiar with them but they traded up for the RB and had improved from 6-10 to 8-8 the year before. And game was very different back then.

 

01 Chargers: Also replaced Ryan Leaf with somewhat decent QB in Doug Flutie.

 

05 Fins: Also had a change in QB and HC. Ronnie Brown had 907 yards, 4.4 YPC.

 

05 Bucs: Starting QB got injured 04. Still was more of a rushing league back then. Cadillac probably had pretty big impact, though.

 

06 Saints: Umm... Drew Brees and Sean Payton???

 

08 Raiders: McFadden rushed for 500 yards and got another 300 via receiving. They improved by a whopping 1 win.

 

12 Browns: I'm sure they are happy that they drafted T-Rich and improved from 4-12 to 5-11.

 

16 Cowboys: I guess it also helps when Brandon Weeden and Mark Sanchez won't play for you at QB. Zeke did play major role here though.

 

17 Jags: Got Bouye and Campbell in FA, fired the worst coach in recent history save for Hue Jackson.

 

Not really seeing a convincing case drafting RB in the top 5. Too early to say for Zeke and Fournette so excluding them, only 01 Chargers and 00 Ravens don't regret their pick. Completely different game back then.

 

Good links!!! I am not advocating an RB by any means since their longevity as a result of their position concerns me big time. I still feel it will be a defensive pick, unless we trade down at which point OL becomes a more realistic option, IMO.

 

Like I mentioned, none of the early pick RBs (Faulk, Lynch, Bush etc.) won SBs till they had good and top notch scoring Ds. 

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The problem with that is we will likely have to trade back a long way...   much more than we want, in order to collect that haul...

 

And if we trade back that far, I think all the real difference makers will be gone...

 

You could be right but we also can't overlook who is signed in free agency. That may change Ballard's board.

[NewColtsFan]

26 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You could be right but we also can't overlook who is signed in free agency. That may change Ballard's board.

 

I doubt it changes the board at all.   The board is the board.   College players don't get better or worse based on free agency.  Their grades won't change.   And as we know, this FA period looks very disappointing...    this will make Ballard's job harder...   

 

I don't envy Ballard the next few months....   he's going to really earn his money... 

 

[crazycolt1]

48 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I doubt it changes the board at all.   The board is the board.   College players don't get better or worse based on free agency.  Their grades won't change.   And as we know, this FA period looks very disappointing...    this will make Ballard's job harder...   

 

I don't envy Ballard the next few months....   he's going to really earn his money... 

 

I guess it all depends on Ballard taking BPA or drafts for need. We haven't seen enough of him to know his tendencies.

It was hard to tell from last years draft because we needed so many positions. We are still in need with the exception of a couple of positions.

[CheezyColt]

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I guess it all depends on Ballard taking BPA or drafts for need. We haven't seen enough of him to know his tendencies.

It was hard to tell from last years draft because we needed so many positions. We are still in need with the exception of a couple of positions.

If we take Ballard at his word, BPA is his style. I feel that is backed up by the Hooker and Quincy picks. I preferred Rivers over Basham, and of course the Pats took Rivers right after we took Basham, but he got hurt so we don't know if he's any better yet. I believe Ballard has also said BPA with the caveat that with similar ranked players, need would factor in, though he also stressed he wouldn't pass up a great talent for need.  He's also stressed that trenches are THE place to build a team.

 

All of this is from memory, so it may be flawed. But I'm sure this can be verified via Google searches.

[Bleedin Blue]

Barkley is an elite RB.  All those who are saying that he can't be as good with the Colts because our O-line sucks needs to look at the tape.  Barkley often breaks plays with almost NO help from his line.  He does this on pure talent alone.  He has shown that he can do everything from catching passes down the field to running inside to push for a third and short.  Would/should the Colts pass up on a Ladanian Tomlinson or Marshall Faulk?  I think not.  Great pass rushers and guards can be found in rounds 2-4.  This kid is truly special.  See the tape...

 

Barkely Tape-highlights

[Narcosys]

On 31/12/2017 at 5:40 AM, horseshoecrabs said:

We can still get good players in the draft , but if Barkley is opting for the NFL he would be a bigger impact player. if Luck is alright.

 

He won't impact anything but defensive lineman and the ground if our O-line isn't fixed.

[Narcosys]

1 hour ago, Bleedin Blue said:

Barkley is an elite RB.  All those who are saying that he can't be as good with the Colts because our O-line sucks needs to look at the tape.  Barkley often breaks plays with almost NO help from his line.  He does this on pure talent alone.  He has shown that he can do everything from catching passes down the field to running inside to push for a third and short.  Would/should the Colts pass up on a Ladanian Tomlinson or Marshall Faulk?  I think not.  Great pass rushers and guards can be found in rounds 2-4.  This kid is truly special.  See the tape...

 

Barkely Tape-highlights

 

 

I can show you highlights of trent richardson if you like to show you how truly special he was...

[stitches]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with that very much.

 

Even still, it's not 'take Chubb over Barkley!' At least not for me...

I disagree as well. Chubb's technique is VERY advanced, especially his hand usage. To me the question with Chubb is not whether he has the technique - he does. The question is if he has the athleticism to dominate in the league. We will see that at the combine. 

[George Peterson]

On 12/31/2017 at 1:02 AM, Fat Clemenza said:

Barkley's a big time stud, and if next year was our year to go all in for a ring I'd agree. 

 

But I'm in the camp that would rather have an OT (ie Williams, McGlinchey) or a pass rusher (ie Chubb, Key) who plays a position that CAN'T be done by committee.  If there aren't players at those positions that grade out for a #3 pick come April, I'd be fine with trading down, as its much easier to find running backs later in the draft than pass rushers or OTs.  And running backs careers don't typically last as long.

Pass rusher yes, OTs of reasonable quality can be found lower in the draft queue.  With our other needs I think it would be a waste to spend a pick of that caliber on an offensive lineman when there's plenty of third round OL who can get the job done.

 

Personally I'd be looking to take that pick and trade it down, try to get 2 firsts or a mid teens first and a high second.  I'd also focus on using the draft mostly to build up the defense. 

 

If our D hadn't gassed out in the 4th quarter we'd have had at least 4 more wins this year  This offense can work if the defense is strong, and they showed a few flashes.   This is also why I want a DC as our HC.  Build us up to a premium defensive team, and the offense will stand on its own.

[Defjamz26]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Apply that logic to more premium positions, and you'll see why I don't want to use the third pick on a RB. If it's hard to get an elite RB in later rounds, think about how much harder it is to get an elite pass rusher. Think about the last time a good RB was available in free agency (for instance, remember when Mark Ingram re-signed with the Saints for four years, $16m?) Now think about the last time a good pass rusher was available in free agency. Compare the contracts that top tier pass rushers get with the contracts top tier RBs get.

 

And that's just pass rushers. There are other positions that are more valuable, IMO, than RB, at which I'd rather spend a rare and valuable draft pick. Because of the value of the position, the diminishing returns of having an elite back vs having a good back and a complementary system, and on and on, I'm fine with passing on an elite talent at RB and instead using the pick in a way that I think will have way more impact on my roster and the team's ability to win moving forward.

 

You can call that pigeonholing if you want. To me, it's just a principled approach.

That’s actually a sound argument. It’s probably easier to find later round RBs than LTs and Edge Rushers. But the argument is based on positional value which I think is overstated. Especially when you’re picking top 5. We’re not just talking about any RB. We’re talking about a true elite, blue chip one that may indeed be a better prospect than Elliott, Fournette, or Gurley. We’re talking about the consensus best player in the entire draft, and he might be available at the third overall pick. You can’t pass on that for any other position except for QB, unless the grade is really close. But I don’t see Chubb for example, as the same tier of prospect as Barkley. Chubb is the best Edge guy in this class, but he’s not Barkley.

 

 You said there’s diminishing returns on lead backs as opposed to committees. There’s also diminishing returns on pass rushers like Chubb who get drafted high and are like 7 sacks a year guys who maybe have 1 or 2 10+ sack seasons. When you take Edge Rushers top 5, you’re looking for Von Miller’s (7 seasons, 6 with 10+ sacks and he only played 9 games in 2013). Not sure I see Chubb or any other projected 1st round Edge  rusher being that good.

[Crunked]

So, you draft a 3 down back in Barkley, what do you do with Turbin and Mack? kind of makes Mack a wasted pick, not like you are going to trot him out on 3rd down to give Barkley a blow he is too small of frame to be a good pass protector consistently. Or do you take from Barkleys touches by trotting Mack out on 1st or 2nd down to get carries? Turbin....is he your 3rd down short yardage run pass option? Just doesn't jive to me.....Barkley is a great potential talent in the NFL, he would improve our talent level at the position......but it just seems we have giant chasms of need at other positions and this pick would top off a half full cup already........I would prefer we fill a chasm or two with other picks first before topping off this cup

 

[Myles]

5 hours ago, George Peterson said:

Pass rusher yes, OTs of reasonable quality can be found lower in the draft queue.  With our other needs I think it would be a waste to spend a pick of that caliber on an offensive lineman when there's plenty of third round OL who can get the job done.

 

Personally I'd be looking to take that pick and trade it down, try to get 2 firsts or a mid teens first and a high second.  I'd also focus on using the draft mostly to build up the defense. 

 

If our D hadn't gassed out in the 4th quarter we'd have had at least 4 more wins this year  This offense can work if the defense is strong, and they showed a few flashes.   This is also why I want a DC as our HC.  Build us up to a premium defensive team, and the offense will stand on its own.

I disagree with most of this.  

You can find any position if you accept "reasonable quality in the later rounds.  

What makes you think this offense can stand on its own?   The line is not good, WR's are not a solid group outside of Hilton.  Without Gore, the RB situation isn't proven.