Spending a top-20 pick on a RB is one of the worst decisions a team can make

[LJpalmbeacher2]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not really, assuming that back plays on a team with efficient QBing. Young AP almost never did, and we see statistical evidence that teams play Gurley differently based on the QBing.

 

First of all, do you really not think that bringing up Dickerson and OJ is irrelevant? They played 30-40 years ago, when QBs only threw the ball 25 times a game and completed about 50-55% of their passes. Do you really not think the changes in the game have adjusted the way defenses react to RBs?

 

Second, we posted above how often Gurley saw stacked boxes, particularly the drastic difference from 2016 when the Rams had inefficient QB play to 2017 when they had much more efficient QB play. This is evidence that defenses don't load the box against good RBs the way you claim they do.

 

Third, pairing good players together is always a good idea. Having high level RB play is obviously better than having mediocre RB play. That's not being debated. The question is what kind of resources should a team commit to a RB prospect, given the impact even good RBs have in the modern NFL.

 

We can agree to disagree.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

You can't only use philosophy to spin it against running backs...

 

First, when have I ever insisted that one rookie player would, could or should put a team in the playoffs by himself?

 

Second, you are again elevating Barkley to god-like status, which is beyond ridiculous at this point.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

So you'll just continue to ignore verified facts that refute your claim about defenses loading up to stop RBs?

 

Or you'll just continue to insist that OJ Simpson is still relevant to the NFL in 2018?

 

I mean, I'm find with disagreeing about whether the Colts should draft Barkley at #3, but I get the feeling you're going to keep claiming that drafting Barkley is going to result in defenses putting 8 men in the box to stop him, and that's a different story.

[jshipp23]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, when have I ever insisted that one rookie player would, could or should put a team in the playoffs by himself?

 

Second, you are again elevating Barkley to god-like status, which is beyond ridiculous at this point.

You will see....hopefully he is helping us, and is the edge we have lacked in order win multiple games next year..He will make his share of game winning plays i guarantee you..

[NewColtsFan]

 

Here is a question for the pro-Barkley fan club.

 

Every legitimate talent evaluator I know....   Kiper, McShay,  Mayock,  Jeremiah,  Brooks and Brandt ALL SAY that Barkley is the top player in the draft.    Number one,  over everyone including all QB's.

 

Then why don't ANY of them have Cleveland taking Barkley first overall?

 

 

[jshipp23]

30 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Here is a question for the pro-Barkley fan club.

 

Every legitimate talent evaluator I know....   Kiper, McShay,  Mayock,  Jeremiah,  Brooks and Brandt ALL SAY that Barkley is the top player in the draft.    Number one,  over everyone including all QB's.

 

Then why don't ANY of them have Cleveland taking Barkley first overall?

 

 

Because they need a QB, if they are smart they'll take Barkley, then their QB at 4 or even wait till 2nd round and get the steal of the draft at QB Lamar Jackson ...

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So you'll just continue to ignore verified facts that refute your claim about defenses loading up to stop RBs?

 

Or you'll just continue to insist that OJ Simpson is still relevant to the NFL in 2018?

 

I mean, I'm find with disagreeing about whether the Colts should draft Barkley at #3, but I get the feeling you're going to keep claiming that drafting Barkley is going to result in defenses putting 8 men in the box to stop him, and that's a different story.

Lol, ok.

I don't know how long you have been watching football or what you watch when you do watch football.

Ever since I was a kid I've always know, seen and heard that a good run game helps passing. Even more so if you have a Top RB. And of course vice versa.

 

I'm sure anyone thats computer savy and has a internet connection can pull up stats to support their case in various subjects. But there's a saying "there are Lies, Darn Lies, and then there are Stats.

 

I know you dont want to go too far back so I will only go back as far as 2016-2017. I hope thats recent enough for you.

 

I tried to paste some stats of my own But I'm doing this on phone and they came out incomprehensible.

 

My example is Dak & Zeke. Zeke is a Top RB, I think you will agree.

 

Zeke had a Big Rookie season in 2016. Dominated. Dak himself played well. Gpod enough to win Rookie of the Year!

 

In 2017 Zeke was suspended part of season and didn't run as well when he was in. 

Because Zeke was not Dominating like last year Dak's game also took a dive.

His complete pct. was down by 5%.

His interceptions went from 4 in 2016 to 13 in 2017.

His interception % tripled.

 

Zeke, from the lowly RB position had a bad year. 

In turn Dak had a Bad year.

The Cowboys, who were a SB Threat in 2016 with Zeke Dominating completely missed the playoffs in 2017 because Zeke had a Bad Year.

 

Regardless of how many 8 man boxs were recorded statistically the Defense paid attention to Zeke. Thus helping the pass game and making playaction effective.

When  Zeke was no longer  there, the Defense concentrated on Dak and showed what a average QB at best he is.

 

Point is a Franchise qb will help the run game... A great RB will help the passing game. Combine them together YOU WILL HAVE SOMETHING SPECIAL!

 

I'M done talking about it now.

Peace bro.

 

 

 

[jshipp23]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So you'll just continue to ignore verified facts that refute your claim about defenses loading up to stop RBs?

 

Or you'll just continue to insist that OJ Simpson is still relevant to the NFL in 2018?

 

I mean, I'm find with disagreeing about whether the Colts should draft Barkley at #3, but I get the feeling you're going to keep claiming that drafting Barkley is going to result in defenses putting 8 men in the box to stop him, and that's a different story.

If you don't think the threat of Barkley is gonna make teams gameplan differently, and have to focus on him as compared to Gore I don't know what to say..

[Finball]

Did Dak have a bad year because Zeke had bad year or did Zeke have a bad year because Dak had a bad year?

 

Dak doesn't like to throw into tight windows (Beasley is their only WR who can get open quick), Boys lost Leary from their O-line along with Doug Free and replaced them with inferior players. Protection is very important for Dak since he's little slow to go from his first read to his second read. And many teams focused on taking Beasley out of the game. Just like Denver in week 2 blowout. They weren't going to allow themselves to get beat with the short stuff to Cole Beasley.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 2/26/2018 at 3:29 PM, Superman said:

Not gonna talk about how dramatically everyone is overrating the impact that RBs have on winning... If you want someone to help us win, drafting a RB at #3 is one of the last things you should do.

 

I would like to agree with you, but you have to recognize the ebb/flow that we are in right now.  Everything is cyclical, and BECAUSE of the passing game becoming so prolific in recent years, RBs are finding opportunities both running and catching underneath the coverage.

 

You can't deny the impact that guys like Gurley, Elliott, and Fournette have had in the last 2 years.  I'm not calling Barkley a HoFer like some, but he could be the catalyst for our offense.  However... it would come at the expense of the defense.  And defense wins championships.

 

I don't know, I might be in the minority, but I wouldn't be mad about Barkley, Nelson, or Chubb at #3, and I've seen plenty of reasons to NOT draft any of them at #3.  NFL trends be damned, let's just get the best player at #3, even if it is a RB or G.

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Here is a question for the pro-Barkley fan club.

 

Every legitimate talent evaluator I know....   Kiper, McShay,  Mayock,  Jeremiah,  Brooks and Brandt ALL SAY that Barkley is the top player in the draft.    Number one,  over everyone including all QB's.

 

Then why don't ANY of them have Cleveland taking Barkley first overall?

 

 

 

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/12/2018_nfl_mock_draft_saquon_barkley_no_1_to_browns.html

 

Before season ended as draft order is different. But Jersey sports are well respected. 

 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/12/2018_nfl_mock_draft_saquon_barkley_no_1_to_browns.html

 

Before season ended as draft order is different. But Jersey sports are well respected. 

 

 

 

 

Well respected by who?   That's an embarrassingly terrible mock with a ton of players who won't even sniff the first round.    

 

There's a difference between liking the draft and KNOWING the draft.  This site has no idea about the draft.   None.

 

There's no reason to give this site any credibility...     sorry.

 

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well respected by who?   That's an embarrassingly terrible mock with a ton of players who won't even sniff the first round.    

 

There's a difference between liking the draft and KNOWING the draft.  This site has no idea about the draft.   None.

 

There's no reason to give this site any credibility...     sorry.

 

 

Didn't you see my ?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I would like to agree with you, but you have to recognize the ebb/flow that we are in right now.  Everything is cyclical, and BECAUSE of the passing game becoming so prolific in recent years, RBs are finding opportunities both running and catching underneath the coverage.

 

You can't deny the impact that guys like Gurley, Elliott, and Fournette have had in the last 2 years.  I'm not calling Barkley a HoFer like some, but he could be the catalyst for our offense.  However... it would come at the expense of the defense.  And defense wins championships.

 

I don't know, I might be in the minority, but I wouldn't be mad about Barkley, Nelson, or Chubb at #3, and I've seen plenty of reasons to NOT draft any of them at #3.  NFL trends be damned, let's just get the best player at #3, even if it is a RB or G.

 

 

I don't know that everything is cyclical. I don't think we'll ever go back to three yards and a cloud of dust, which is the era in which Simpson and Dickerson (mostly) had HOF careers. I don't think we'll ever go back to QBs being 50% passers and attempting 20-25 passes/game. And as the league gets more and more safety conscious, the rules will continue to favor passers and receivers, making it more than likely that passing efficiency will continue to be more impactful than anything else in the game.

 

And I do agree that RBs play a role for good offenses, not just as runners but also as receivers. And contrary to how many will twist my stance, I don't have a problem with RBs at all. As a matter of fact, they tend to be the best athletes on the team, pound for pound. Besides QBs, they touch the ball more frequently than any other player. It's not that I don't appreciate the benefit of having good RBs.

 

However, I do believe that, in the passionate debate in favor of Barkley, some have overstated a) how good he will be, and b) how much impact good RBs have on football teams. 

 

Going back to Gurley, as a rookie, he was just as productive and efficient as he was last season. The Rams won 7 games in 2015. But with efficient QBing and good coaching, all of a sudden they win 11 games and their division, and they're 'the greatest show on surf.' In between, there was a year where Gurley had basically the same amount of touches/game, but his production and efficiency tanked. Why? Primarily, bad QBing and bad coaching. This doesn't mean Gurley doesn't have an impact, but his impact needs to be considered in light of all the facts. I'm not sure I'd call him the catalyst for their recent success, even though he's obviously an important part of what they did in 2017.

 

And then there's the law of diminishing returns: how much greater is the impact from a great RB, compared to that of an above average RB? What would the drop-off be if you replaced Le'Veon Bell with Latavius Murray, but still had good QBing, good receivers, and reasonable OL play? Is that difference worth considerable resources, like a high first round draft pick?

 

I do agree that we shouldn't reach for need. I'm not advocating drafting Chubb just because he's a pass rusher and we [desperately] need pass rushers. But I also think positional value matters. And while Barkley might be a better RB than any back in a committee that we could put together, there's still the matter of positional value. 

 

And in principle, everyone agrees that positional value matters, which is why no one is talking about drafting the next great kicker at #3 (except the Bucs and Raiders). Same as everyone agrees that need matters, which is why you don't draft Josh Rosen if you already have a franchise QB, even if he's the best player on the board, at the most important position in team sports. You have to balance all of these principles, taking into account your scouting, free agency, coaching, roster strengths/weaknesses, and a host of other important factors.

[NewColtsFan]

10 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Didn't you see my ?

 

I did...   I thought you were laughing at me for showing me an example of where I'm wrong.   Glad that's not the case!    

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

I did...   I thought you were laughing at me for showing me an example of where I'm wrong.   Glad that's not the case!    

 

No way laughing at you. I'm waiting on you to be my wingman on South Beach

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Here is a question for the pro-Barkley fan club.

 

Every legitimate talent evaluator I know....   Kiper, McShay,  Mayock,  Jeremiah,  Brooks and Brandt ALL SAY that Barkley is the top player in the draft.    Number one,  over everyone including all QB's.

 

Then why don't ANY of them have Cleveland taking Barkley first overall?

 

 

I would say probably because the Browns need a QB badly and the QB is the most important position to answer your question. It still wouldn't shock me if they took Barkley 1st and a QB 4th if they don't have a QB of their choice made up. It's really a crapshoot who will be better between Rosen/Darnold/Allen.

[OLD FAN MAN]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 1:56 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah and Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders both went Top 20 and many regard those 2 as the 2 best ever. I will stop here because these type of threads I can rip to shreads. I can list 20 Pass Rushers that stunk that got drafted in the Top 20 so if someone says taking Barkley is stupid I can counter it. Goodnight.

taking a game changer is great no matter the position he plays, I am glad gms don't draft by fan rules like never take a rb in the first. a game changer is rare take him no matter the position he plays

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know that everything is cyclical. I don't think we'll ever go back to three yards and a cloud of dust, which is the era in which Simpson and Dickerson (mostly) had HOF careers. I don't think we'll ever go back to QBs being 50% passers and attempting 20-25 passes/game. And as the league gets more and more safety conscious, the rules will continue to favor passers and receivers, making it more than likely that passing efficiency will continue to be more impactful than anything else in the game.

 

And I do agree that RBs play a role for good offenses, not just as runners but also as receivers. And contrary to how many will twist my stance, I don't have a problem with RBs at all. As a matter of fact, they tend to be the best athletes on the team, pound for pound. Besides QBs, they touch the ball more frequently than any other player. It's not that I don't appreciate the benefit of having good RBs.

 

However, I do believe that, in the passionate debate in favor of Barkley, some have overstated a) how good he will be, and b) how much impact good RBs have on football teams. 

 

Going back to Gurley, as a rookie, he was just as productive and efficient as he was last season. The Rams won 7 games in 2015. But with efficient QBing and good coaching, all of a sudden they win 11 games and their division, and they're 'the greatest show on turf.' In between, there was a year where Gurley had basically the same amount of touches/game, but his production and efficiency tanked. Why? Primarily, bad QBing and bad coaching. This doesn't mean Gurley doesn't have an impact, but his impact needs to be considered in light of all the facts. I'm not sure I'd call him the catalyst for their recent success, even though he's obviously an important part of what they did in 2017.

 

And then there's the law of diminishing returns: how much greater is the impact from a great RB, compared to that of an above average RB? What would the drop-off be if you replaced Le'Veon Bell with Latavius Murray, but still had good QBing, good receivers, and reasonable OL play? Is that difference worth considerable resources, like a high first round draft pick?

 

I do agree that we shouldn't reach for need. I'm not advocating drafting Chubb just because he's a pass rusher and we [desperately] need pass rushers. But I also think positional value matters. And while Barkley might be a better RB than any back in a committee that we could put together, there's still the matter of positional value. 

 

And in principle, everyone agrees that positional value matters, which is why no one is talking about drafting the next great kicker at #3 (except the Bucs and Raiders). Same as everyone agrees that need matters, which is why you don't draft Josh Rosen if you already have a franchise QB, even if he's the best player on the board, at the most important position in team sports. You have to balance all of these principles, taking into account your scouting, free agency, coaching, roster strengths/weaknesses, and a host of other important factors.

 

Love everything about this post.  Very much.  The Kicker point was very poignant.  The injury/concussion issue could cause teams to eventually shy away from throwing passes to receivers over the middle, and we start to see a regression toward running the ball more.  Weighing a 15-yd penalty and possible ejection to take out the other teams' best receiver (Philly-NE-SB, Jenkins concussing Cooks LEGALLY, taking away NEs' deep-threat)...

 

I could get picky about the Gurley point, since in 2015 he WAS the Rams offense, so of course he had a good season, whereas the team didn't.  It's a team game.  Which is why I wouldn't be mad if the Colts drafted Barkley at #3.  Instead of having everything in place except a QB, and waiting on the QB to get it, we could add Barkley to Luck, who already gets it.  This offense could be GREAT with Barkley.

 

But like I said, it would come at the expense of the defense, aka at the expense of the TEAM.  Chubb is likely the pick because the defense is our biggest weakness right now.  Especially pass rush.

 

I'll say it again, I wouldn't be mad about Barkley, Nelson, or Chubb at #3, even though conventional logic says #3 is too high for any of them.  I want the Colts to maximize the draft, each and every year, but you can't pass on generational players.  Barkley and Nelson are exactly that.

[NewColtsFan]

32 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

No way laughing at you. I'm waiting on you to be my wingman on South Beach

 

I'd love to be your wingman on South Beach!    But at age 61,  I doubt I'll be much good for you?       

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, jshipp23 said:

If you don't think the threat of Barkley is gonna make teams gameplan differently, and have to focus on him as compared to Gore I don't know what to say..

 

Whoa there... 

 

The insistence has been that having Barkley will result in more 8 man boxes and less nickel/dime looks. "Gameplan differently" is a vague and arbitrary mark. Teams gameplan differently for Bell than they do for Elliott, that doesn't mean they play more 8 man boxes or less sub packages for one than they do for the other. 

 

The other idea has been that having a great RB makes play action more effective, and that's also not accurate. In 2016, the Cowboys gained 1.8 yards/play more on play action than standard passes, but so did everyone else. The Vikings, who had a terrible rushing attack in 2016, gained 3.2 yards/play more on play action passes. The Colts, with Gore, averaged 2.4 yards/play more.

 

Adding a great weapon at RB would be a benefit to any offense. We just disagree about the extent of the impact.

[aaron11]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Ugh...

 

Not that it's relevant, but Hooker actually put away the Browns game with an interception. Then he got hurt a month later. 

 

that was a hail mary that would have been long shot for any one else to catch.

 

his other picks were more impressive imo, but they came in games we lost.

[aaron11]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Then why don't ANY of them have Cleveland taking Barkley first overall?

because they dont have a QB.  if they did, then there would be mocks putting him there

 

mocks are just for fun anyway, i looked at a lot of them last year and most were way off.  i dont remember any having hooker to the colts.  they were lucky to have more than 2 or 3 of the top ten right 

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

because they dont have a QB.  if they did, then there would be mocks putting him there

 

mocks are just for fun anyway, i looked at a lot of them last year and most were way off.  i dont remember any having hooker to the colts.  they were lucky to have more than 2 or 3 of the top ten right 

 

I never care if a mock has the right player going to the right team.  

 

What I do care about is getting the right players projected to go in the right rounds.   Especially the first round.

 

Nobody projected Hooker to the Colts because he was a top-5/10 player who know one saw falling to 15.

 

[life long]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know that everything is cyclical. I don't think we'll ever go back to three yards and a cloud of dust, which is the era in which Simpson and Dickerson (mostly) had HOF careers. I don't think we'll ever go back to QBs being 50% passers and attempting 20-25 passes/game. And as the league gets more and more safety conscious, the rules will continue to favor passers and receivers, making it more than likely that passing efficiency will continue to be more impactful than anything else in the game.

 

And I do agree that RBs play a role for good offenses, not just as runners but also as receivers. And contrary to how many will twist my stance, I don't have a problem with RBs at all. As a matter of fact, they tend to be the best athletes on the team, pound for pound. Besides QBs, they touch the ball more frequently than any other player. It's not that I don't appreciate the benefit of having good RBs.

 

However, I do believe that, in the passionate debate in favor of Barkley, some have overstated a) how good he will be, and b) how much impact good RBs have on football teams. 

 

Going back to Gurley, as a rookie, he was just as productive and efficient as he was last season. The Rams won 7 games in 2015. But with efficient QBing and good coaching, all of a sudden they win 11 games and their division, and they're 'the greatest show on surf.' In between, there was a year where Gurley had basically the same amount of touches/game, but his production and efficiency tanked. Why? Primarily, bad QBing and bad coaching. This doesn't mean Gurley doesn't have an impact, but his impact needs to be considered in light of all the facts. I'm not sure I'd call him the catalyst for their recent success, even though he's obviously an important part of what they did in 2017.

 

And then there's the law of diminishing returns: how much greater is the impact from a great RB, compared to that of an above average RB? What would the drop-off be if you replaced Le'Veon Bell with Latavius Murray, but still had good QBing, good receivers, and reasonable OL play? Is that difference worth considerable resources, like a high first round draft pick?

 

I do agree that we shouldn't reach for need. I'm not advocating drafting Chubb just because he's a pass rusher and we [desperately] need pass rushers. But I also think positional value matters. And while Barkley might be a better RB than any back in a committee that we could put together, there's still the matter of positional value. 

 

And in principle, everyone agrees that positional value matters, which is why no one is talking about drafting the next great kicker at #3 (except the Bucs and Raiders). Same as everyone agrees that need matters, which is why you don't draft Josh Rosen if you already have a franchise QB, even if he's the best player on the board, at the most important position in team sports. You have to balance all of these principles, taking into account your scouting, free agency, coaching, roster strengths/weaknesses, and a host of other important factors.

Just one question... Who is the better football player? Barkley or Chubb? 

[aaron11]

8 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Nobody projected Hooker to the Colts because he was a top-5/10 player who know one saw falling to 15.

that shows why they are just for fun.

 

maybe teams passed because of injury concerns or his high number of missed tackles.  both of those turned out to be a legit problems, but he was good at playing the pass as expected 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, life long said:

Just one question... Who is the better football player? Barkley or Chubb? 

 

I don't know at this point. I think Barkley is being exaggerated and Chubb is being undersold, at least lately. If you asked me two years ago who was better, Bosa or Elliott, I would have said Elliott. Still wouldn't have drafted him ahead of Bosa.

[life long]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know at this point. I think Barkley is being exaggerated and Chubb is being undersold, at least lately. If you asked me two years ago who was better, Bosa or Elliott, I would have said Elliott. Still wouldn't have drafted him ahead of Bosa.

I think Bosa and Elliot are closer prospects than Barkley and Chubb. Obviously I am just not sold on Chubb being a true top 5 pick, as you are with Barkley. I am a firm believer in great teams do not draft based off of need or positional values. They draft the best player above all else. There is always valuable players found later in the draft at all positions, from RBs to DEs. 

 

Considering the workload I would like to take off of Lucks shoulder, I can see many reasons now is the perfect time for our franchise to take a true bellcow. Give the fans something to cheer for while this team is rebuilt.

[PrincetonTiger]

41 minutes ago, life long said:

I think Bosa and Elliot are closer prospects than Barkley and Chubb. Obviously I am just not sold on Chubb being a true top 5 pick, as you are with Barkley. I am a firm believer in great teams do not draft based off of need or positional values. They draft the best player above all else. There is always valuable players found later in the draft at all positions, from RBs to DEs. 

 

Considering the workload I would like to take off of Lucks shoulder, I can see many reasons now is the perfect time for our franchise to take a true bellcow. Give the fans something to cheer for while this team is rebuilt.

The Problem is that the a far more pressing needs

 

 

  if there is no line help or Rush anything that an elite RB could bring is null and void

[esmort]

55 minutes ago, life long said:

I think Bosa and Elliot are closer prospects than Barkley and Chubb. Obviously I am just not sold on Chubb being a true top 5 pick, as you are with Barkley. I am a firm believer in great teams do not draft based off of need or positional values. They draft the best player above all else. There is always valuable players found later in the draft at all positions, from RBs to DEs. 

 

Considering the workload I would like to take off of Lucks shoulder, I can see many reasons now is the perfect time for our franchise to take a true bellcow. Give the fans something to cheer for while this team is rebuilt.

 

Yes they do. No they don't. 

[life long]

32 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The Problem is that the a far more pressing needs

 

 

  if there is no line help or Rush anything that an elite RB could bring is null and void

I think our line will be aided by scheme change and hopefully FA. We have money to spend and I would prefer our trenches to be as stout as possible. Something I believe takes years to truly develop coming out of college. On that note speed and instincts you either have or you don't. Give me that guy over the developmental player if I am choosing. Especially since who ever we have as our QB would appreciate not being the main focus of the defense every snap. As long as we take a RB in the first two rounds I'm happy though. I will happily give Reich and Ballard the benefit of the doubt obviously.

[life long]

1 minute ago, esmort said:

 

Yes they do. No they don't. 

Well put lol. Agree to disagree then...  I didn't invent the BPA philosophy.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, life long said:

I think our line will be aided by scheme change and hopefully FA. We have money to spend and I would prefer our trenches to be as stout as possible. Something I believe takes years to truly develop coming out of college. On that note speed and instincts you either have or you don't. Give me that guy over the developmental player if I am choosing. Especially since who ever we have as our QB would appreciate not being the main focus of the defense every snap. As long as we take a RB in the first two rounds I'm happy though. I will happily give Reich and Balard the benefit of the doubt obviously.

I have a feeling a RB will be taken in the top half but not at 3 since there is more depth at RB than at OL or Rush

   I would hope that the Colts could address the OL and have a feeling Chubb and/or a Trade Back will occur in Round 1 now that Ziggy Ansah was Tagged today

[PrincetonTiger]

10 minutes ago, life long said:

Well put lol. Agree to disagree then...  I didn't invent the BPA philosophy.

BPA is most often used by teams with the ability to do

 

  Teams that draft BPA that don’t have the ability to continue to draft early

[life long]

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

BPA is most often used by teams with the ability to do

 

  Teams that draft BPA that don’t have the ability to continue to draft early

I see the colts having too many holes to fill to think we need to focus in on a few specific positions. I don't expect to be in the majority but I will not waiver on my BPA position. People can say I am wrong but providing facts would be helpful if attempting to dissuade me. With no facts its pretty much opinion vs opinion. Who is to say who is right, no one here is an NFL GM.

[esmort]

31 minutes ago, life long said:

Well put lol. Agree to disagree then...  I didn't invent the BPA philosophy.

 

The whole "BPA philosophy" has been taken to the extreme and far too literally by fans.

 

BPA in reality is different for every team and it most certainly takes into account positional value and need.

 

BPA available is going to be where talent, positional value, and need all meet for a specific team and I think is more of a tiered grouping than a specific player. 

 

You think the Cowboys or Rams would take Barkley at #1 if they had the pick and he was the top ranked player? If Arizona is picking in the top of the draft you think they take Barkley or a QB (even if they agree Barkley is the most talented player in the draft)?

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, life long said:

I see the colts having too many holes to fill to think we need to focus in on a few specific positions. I don't expect to be in the majority but I will not waiver on my BPA position. People can say I am wrong but providing facts would be helpful if attempting to dissuade me. With no facts its pretty much opinion vs opinion. Who is to say who is right, no one here is an NFL GM.

 The Colts have too many holes to draft BPA at 3 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

The whole "BPA philosophy" has been taken to the extreme and far too literally by fans.

 

BPA in reality is different for every team and it most certainly takes into account positional value and need.

 

BPA available is going to be where talent, positional value, and need all meet for a specific team and I think is more of a tiered grouping than a specific player. 

 

You think the Cowboys or Rams would take Barkley at #1 if they had the pick and he was the top ranked player? If Arizona is picking in the top of the draft you think they take Barkley or a QB (even if they agree Barkley is the most talented player in the draft)?

 

 

So true

[life long]

5 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

The whole "BPA philosophy" has been taken to the extreme and far too literally by fans.

 

BPA in reality is different for every team and it most certainly takes into account positional value and need.

 

BPA available is going to be where talent, positional value, and need all meet for a specific team and I think is more of a tiered grouping than a specific player. 

 

You think the Cowboys or Rams would take Barkley at #1 if they had the pick and he was the top ranked player? If Arizona is picking in the top of the draft you think they take Barkley or a QB (even if they agree Barkley is the most talented player in the draft)?

 

 

Fair enough it is not always that simple, but for me this is pretty simple Barkley>Chubb.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I think BPA is a bit overrated but if you have a team that has that need as well then BPA becomes important. I like Mack but RB is still a need.