Barkley

[HectorRoberts]

I doubt he falls that far but if he did we would be stupid to pass him up

[oldunclemark]

13 minutes ago, BOTT said:

really? Because he plays RB.

Best player available at '4' Bott...Theyre surely going QB at '1';

 

They need everything

[MFT5]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Wouldn’t you guys say that with a switch to the 4-3 that MLB is our most pressing need on D?

 

Not saying we go there at 1, but for sure in the second.  

 

Exactly Edmunds

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

By passing on him I also meant the possibility of trading back from #6, which I really think Ballard will be gunning to do unless Chubb is there.

 

Just my opinion of course.

 

Agree. If he said he has 7-8 guys (including QBs) that he thinks are gamechangers, he could easily have more than that. It would also speak to him not being sold on one or even two guys. Plus, given his draft position, I would expect him to say that to create leverage if he was angling for another trade down.

 

There were rumors yesterday or the day before (from other teams) that Ballard has been calling teams to trade back again. I assume he is trying to set up deals just in the draft board falls a given way...which would be his preference.

 

I could see Ballard set on one of the ILBs...given its importance and that he didn't address the position in FA.

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Wouldn’t you guys say that with a switch to the 4-3 that MLB is our most pressing need on D?

 

Not saying we go there at 1, but for sure in the second.  

 

I think he could be set on one of the two ILBs. It's rare that a draft has two potentially elite ILBs available...and I could see him taking advantage. Then again, the draft is also deep at ILB, so he could wait til day two or later.

 

Personally, I want Edmunds. He has size, length and athleticism to be a stud...and the potential to do it all (run defense, pass defense, create turnovers, pass rush).

[indyagent17]

2 hours ago, mds said:

If you are to take Ballard at face value, he believes there are 7-8 blue chip prospects at the top - including QBs. 

 

If I had to guess, that list includes 3 or 4 of the QBs you see listed at the top and Barkley, Chubb, Nelson, and Fitzpatrick. 

 

One of the things that will be interesting to see is how BPA and need will play out. To illustrate this, let’s assume the draft unfolds with 3 QBs taken and Chubb and Nelson. At 6, faced with the choice of Barkley, Fitzpatrick, or a trade down (which removes you from the 7-8 blue chip prospects), what will Ballard do? I’d love Fitzpatrick if we didn’t just draft Hooker. If Barkley and Fitzpatrick are BPA, will he then choose based on need?

I don't think Fitzgerald is worth a top-10 pick he's basically a safety in the NFL with average speed

[Four2itus]

I think he will be there....and we pass. Should be interesting here.....

 

 

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

3 hours ago, mds said:

If you are to take Ballard at face value, he believes there are 7-8 blue chip prospects at the top - including QBs. 

 

If I had to guess, that list includes 3 or 4 of the QBs you see listed at the top and Barkley, Chubb, Nelson, and Fitzpatrick. 

 

One of the things that will be interesting to see is how BPA and need will play out. To illustrate this, let’s assume the draft unfolds with 3 QBs taken and Chubb and Nelson. At 6, faced with the choice of Barkley, Fitzpatrick, or a trade down (which removes you from the 7-8 blue chip prospects), what will Ballard do? I’d love Fitzpatrick if we didn’t just draft Hooker. If Barkley and Fitzpatrick are BPA, will he then choose based on need?

I have thought about that statement and I think he thinks there are 7 to 8 blue chips PLUS the QB's IMO. I heard the pod cast, & I think Ballard caught himself and threw in the QB's as to drum the QB's up value so to speak. The Colts really don't care about the QB's other than in terms of how many are drafted before us. IMO NONE of the QB's are can't miss guys? Just my 2 cents.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, ThorstenDenmark said:

https://thebiglead.com/2018/03/23/dave-gettlemans-track-record-suggests-hes-not-likely-to-trade-down-with-giants/

 

the Giants wont trade back.

 

There’s a first time for everything, right?  Trading back makes sense for them because they can still get an impact player and they get to put it to the Jets.  

 

Just because they traded JPP doesn’t automatically mean they’re taking Chubb. 

[mds]

33 minutes ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

I have thought about that statement and I think he thinks there are 7 to 8 blue chips PLUS the QB's IMO. I heard the pod cast, & I think Ballard caught himself and threw in the QB's as to drum the QB's up value so to speak. The Colts really don't care about the QB's other than in terms of how many are drafted before us. IMO NONE of the QB's are can't miss guys? Just my 2 cents.

 

You could be right! His statement could have been smoke and mirrors letting a team know that if there is a QB on the board and they want to trade up to grab him, it will cost them. 

[Scott Pennock]

2 hours ago, #7ForDays said:

For sure. 

 

And quality RBs can be found as UDFAs as well. Spending a top 10 pick on a player whose performance is so intrinsically linked to the performance of the players in front of him is a questionable decision. 

 

The question has to do with marginal performance. A RB who is marginally worse than Barkley can still put up the same numbers running behind a good OL. A RB who is marginally better than Barkley still wouldn't be able to put up the same numbers as him running behind a trash OL.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Guice or Chubb will end up with similar numbers as Barkley this year (barring injury), and you could draft one of them in second round. I, however, don't think the other OGs will end up with Nelson's numbers. 

 

I think most ppl are understating how dominant Nelson was in college. Even without McGlinchey at his best, he was the best guard in college and it wasn't even close. OGs are often scored based on how many pancake blocks they can throw. Most guards are lucky to average one a game. Nelson, based on his game tape, seemed to average one every series greater than 7 plays in length. 

 

That's rare.

Barkley is a beast no doubt.....

 

I am a Notre Dame fan so I don't need reminded of how much of a beast he is as well.

 

Barkley/Hernandez in 2nd

 

Or

 

Nelson/Guice in 2nd

 

Is there that much of a difference between the two sets?

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, Scott Pennock said:

Barkley is a beast no doubt.....

 

I am a Notre Dame fan so I don't need reminded of how much of a beast he is as well.

 

Barkley/Hernandez in 2nd

 

Or

 

Nelson/Guice in 2nd

 

Is there that much of a difference between the two sets?

Not really but I'm not sure Guice makes it to the second.  Either would be a heck of a get. 

[#7ForDays]

19 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Barkley is a beast no doubt.....

 

I am a Notre Dame fan so I don't need reminded of how much of a beast he is as well.

 

Barkley/Hernandez in 2nd

 

Or

 

Nelson/Guice in 2nd

 

Is there that much of a difference between the two sets?

You're not wrong my friend. Either would be impressive as heck.

 

But dollars to donuts, Hernandez doesn't make it past R1. 

 

But the question for me is between Nelson and Barkely. Assuming both are there, which one?

 

For me, it's Nelson and it isn't even close.

[Aaron86]

5 hours ago, #7ForDays said:

No thanks.

 

You don't need a killer RB to win a title. But you do need a killer OL (at least one playing well together).

 

Here to win titles, not to resurrect the 2004 Colts.

I really don't understand this concept. I know you can find other stud backs in the later rounds. But the way I understand it is you draft best player available and not for need. Barkley and Luck would be electrifying. Winning a title is about putting the the best team on the field not just o-line or d-line. Not picking Barkley because we have bigger issues will be a huge mistake. I will take the 04 colts over the 2016 and 2017 colts anyday of the week

 

And for what it's worth I just want one of the three or trade back for more picks.

[#7ForDays]

2 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

I really don't understand this concept. I know you can find other stud backs in the later rounds. But the way I understand it is you draft best player available and not for need. Barkley and Luck would be electrifying. Winning a title is about putting the the best team on the field not just o-line or d-line. Not picking Barkley because we have bigger issues will be a huge mistake. I will take the 04 colts over the 2016 and 2017 colts anyday of the week

 

And for what it's worth I just want one of the three or trade back for more picks.

Personally, imo, every team that didn't win the Owl in any given year is no better or worse off than the statistically worst team in the NFL. In essence, the 2004 Colts were pretty much in the same boat as the 49ers at the end of the 04 season: left wondering what they have to do to win.

 

The model for building a dynastic NFL team exists: elite QB with a dominant defence. Everything else is optional. Colts don't have either. Luck can't be elite if he can't stay on the field and BDB can't buy a defence. Ergo, having an elite RB means very little. 

[WoolMagnet]

7 hours ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

He could definitely be there at #6. Just like Chubb or Nelson could be. There have been way too many definitive "he'll be gone before our pick" statements about all three of these guys, especially Barkley/Chubb.

My bold prediction is that Ballard passes on Barkley (or trades back) if he's there.

Not that bold actually.

everyone gets caught up in Barkleys big play highlights.  Check the overall stats and its a different story.  Looks k at individual game stats against top opponents too.  I'm not convinc d the gap between him and some other RBs is as large as most think.

at this point, i'm hoping for Chubb I guess.  If Ballard moves back again, it better be a fleecing.  And the pick value chart is out the window.

Ballard:   "You want a QB?"  "You will pay".  "Or we will stay and take this guy we really like."

[Jdubu]

7 hours ago, Hoose said:

If it’s between Chubb and Barkley you take Chubb. Between Nelson and Barkley you take Barkley. 

Disagree with point number 2. Although it’s not a large point of disagreement, I’d still take the big boy up front who can protect your QB and open holes for your rb, whichever guy is here to run. 

[Jdubu]

6 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

That may be true, but, this years free agent darling Andrew Norwell was an undrafted free agent coming out of college.

 

Quality offensive lineman can be found everywhere.....

 

 

That’s true, they can be found. However, we haven’t found one in FA, high pick or low pick that can take over a game. Norwell was that guy and it appears that Nelson is as sure as can be and we already have the franchise QB, protect and build there. 

[ThorstenDenmark]

5 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

There’s a first time for everything, right?  Trading back makes sense for them because they can still get an impact player and they get to put it to the Jets.  

 

Just because they traded JPP doesn’t automatically mean they’re taking Chubb. 

 

Indeed there is, it's just not gonna happen with Dave Gettleman and the Giants this year. 

And why?

He never trades back in the draft and theres a reason why he neves does that. 

If you take a look at his draft history, he just dont trade back, he rather trades up.

 

The Giants wont trade back, as they are in a perfect spot right now, and IF they would trade back, a stupid team would give them 4-5 1st round picks and 2-3 2nd round picks, just to get near to what they want for the #2. 

And as Cleveland is pcking #1, that wont happen, so the Giants and Dave Gettleman WONT TRADE BACK.

[Aaron86]

4 hours ago, #7ForDays said:

Personally, imo, every team that didn't win the Owl in any given year is no better or worse off than the statistically worst team in the NFL. In essence, the 2004 Colts were pretty much in the same boat as the 49ers at the end of the 04 season: left wondering what they have to do to win.

 

The model for building a dynastic NFL team exists: elite QB with a dominant defence. Everything else is optional. Colts don't have either. Luck can't be elite if he can't stay on the field and BDB can't buy a defence. Ergo, having an elite RB means very little. 

I think you need to upgrade any and all positions possible. Getting over the top takes a team to do it and great cohesion.

[richard pallo]

8 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

That may be true, but, this years free agent darling Andrew Norwell was an undrafted free agent coming out of college.

 

Quality offensive lineman can be found everywhere.....

 

 

Very true. But in cases like Norwell he is the exception to the norm. Very rare but it can happen.  I actually have hope that Good can develop into a very good guard and he was a late rd. pick I believe.  But it takes them longer as we have seen.  We really can't wait for lineman to develop any longer IMO.  We've tried it with Haag and Clark.  We have Luck coming back and we need to improve his chances of success by drafting a couple of OL in the 1st. two rd.s that can start.  Ballard says they are there.  And we have the picks.  I'm expecting him to do it. 

[reidaj1812]

6 hours ago, #7ForDays said:

You're not wrong my friend. Either would be impressive as heck.

 

But dollars to donuts, Hernandez doesn't make it past R1. 

 

But the question for me is between Nelson and Barkely. Assuming both are there, which one?

 

For me, it's Nelson and it isn't even close.

I agree with this and the main reason is both are studs but you can get 10/12 years out of Nelson and  the rb has a greater chance of injury or slowing down after a few years of ware and tear. so if both there Nelson would and should be the choice and it shouldn't be close.