Edmunds pros and cons

[Jeremy Waldon]

 

Edmunds could be a nightmare for any team he faces, just have to have the patience to teach him the little things he doesnt know yet.

What is your thoughts on this?

[Archer]

I know he’s a great athlete, but he has subpar instincts.  I’ll take Roquon with his perfect scheme fit and off-the-chart intangibles (including instincts and football IQ)...

[Trueman]

Edmunds is a potential pick , and Smith is more of the sure thing.

 

Everyone critiquing Edmunds’ instincts needs to realize he’s 19. His physical attributes are off the charts , and honestly, he could have the highest ceiling in the draft.

 

But, are the Colts in a position to take a kid like that? I don’t know.

 

I think I’d be more comfortable if we chose Smith, but more intrigued if we took Edmunds.

 

Tough call.

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, Archer said:

I know he’s a great athlete, but he has subpar instincts.  I’ll take Roquon with his perfect scheme fit and off-the-chart intangibles (including instincts and football IQ)...

I disagree his instincts are sub-par, They are not to Roquan's level(but he's freaky with the way he anticipates actions in the backfield), but Edmunds instincts are OK/good. I love both of them as prospects but I think Edmunds has the potential to be a franchise changing type of player if he develops as expected. He can be Kuechly type with even better size. He has all the physical tools to and his mental processing of the game is good enough for us to be able to visualize how incremental(not even huge jumps) improvements can make him one of the best defenders in the league. 

[Jeremy Waldon]

When i see his instincts the way he plays now, it makes me see him as more of an OLB because his first thought is always forward as to set an edge. Could be a great place for him as he hones his skills to pro standards 

[Surge89]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

I disagree his instincts are sub-par, They are not to Roquan's level(but he's freaky with the way he anticipates actions in the backfield), but Edmunds instincts are OK/good. I love both of them as prospects but I think Edmunds has the potential to be a franchise changing type of player if he develops as expected. He can be Kuechly type with even better size. He has all the physical tools to and his mental processing of the game is good enough for us to be able to visualize how incremental(not even huge jumps) improvements can make him one of the best defenders in the league. 

 

Agree completely.  The issues over his instincts are overstated.  

 

Smith is already pretty dog gone special but Edmunds is close to him in his current state and has potential to surpass quickly.  If I'm drafting top 5 in the draft (or 6 even lol) I'm taking Edmunds as my blue chip player if there isn't a pass rusher or QB on the board. 

[Fisticuffs111]

I like Edmunds and would be happy to have him, but I feel like a lot of his supporters would turn on him real fast during his rookie season. IMO he's gonna really struggle at first, to the point of being routinely picked on by opposing QB's, but hopefully he'd learn from it.

Eberflus would earn an even better reputation if he could key in on Edmunds' potential though, and I'm willing to take the risk.

[WarGhost21]

I’d take Edmunds over Roquan any day. Looking at the tape, Roquan constantly gets eaten up when he is engaged with a bigger blocker. He has amazing instincts and speed, but if a blocker gets two hands on him, it’s over. Edmunds, as is said in this video, “doesn’t know what he’s doing and is still the best player on the field.” He would develop great instincts quickly, especially with our new DC being a great LB coach in Dallas before coming here. If he pans out to his potential, he could be the best LB in the league and one of the best in this era. If he doesn’t, he’d still be a hell of a player. 

[TomDiggs]

I am intrigued by Edmunds potential, but I'd still find it interesting and even suspect if we took him at 6 overall.

 

Sure the potential is there and the tools are there. But at the end of the day, everyone likes to bring up position value when it comes to drafting a Guard early (Nelson), but most people are not bringing that up at all with Edmunds.

 

Well I will.

 

 

If he is playing a 4-3 LB spot for us (likely Mike or Will) and not being drafted as some type of pass rusher, then he will have a hard time returning the same value as other players available at the 6 spot.

 

Example:

 

Let's use an aritrary average salary of $9M annually. I picked that because it is a reasonable baseline number for comparison amongst some positions.

 

Well, to be a $9M ILB, Edmunds would have to develop into the current equivalent of a Top-5 ILB.

 

The same is true of a 4-3 OLB (i.e. not a 3-4 OLB that is an edge pass rusher). He would need to be a top-5 OLB to justify a $9M salary

 

However, a player would only have to be a:

 

- top-15 DE to justify that $9M

- top-20 CB to justify that $9M

- top-10 Offensive Guard to justify that $9M

 

etc, etc.

 

All I am getting at is that the valuation of the MLB / OLB position for the Colts 4-3 scheme is not one that justifies that early pick from a pure positional value standpoint.

 

If any of Chubb, Nelson or Fitzpatrick are there at 6 then we should take them over Edmunds purely based on their potential to live up to the positional value.

 

What I mean is, is there a greater likelihood that Minkah Fitzpatrick becomes a top-20 CB or that Edmunds becomes a top-5 LB?

 

Is there a greater likelihood that Nelson becomes a top-10 OG or that Edmunds becomes a top-5 LB?

 

 

I think Edmunds, potential is through the roof. And if you asked me would I want Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs back in the day, I would take Lewis all day, every day.

 

But unless you are banking on this kid becoming an all-time great, he still is a hard guy to justify at pick 6.

 

Which is why if we do want to take him, I am all for trading down. Then if we miss out on him, we take a player in a position of need with far more positional value (I'm thinking namely Cornerback or Edge Rusher).

 

I am eager to see how the draft shakes out and how we approach our selection.

 

 

[Archer]

I really appreciate Edmunds as a prospect.  But I think we’ve really forgotten what the 4-3 requires of its LBs. We need heat seeking missles that react instantly.  It’s Roquon’s anticipation and reaction (or more abstractly, his instincts) that makes him a better choice IMHO.  You remember the days of Cato June?  He never took on a block and defeated it, but he was a great Will.  That wasn’t Brackett’s forte at Mike either...

[WarGhost21]

In a perfect dream scenario, we get both Smith and Edmunds, but both are going to go in the top 15, likely top 10, and we aren’t going to trade the rest of the draft away for this

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Today Smith is the better football player by far. What you see with him is what you get. An undersized tackling machine, that barring injury will be a fine pro LB. Yet hes still undersized. Edmonds is a freak of nature athletically with great size and his upside is absolutely threw the roof. Someone said hes got good instincts, ahhh your wrong or lets say 1/2 wrong. Sometimes they are good. He is young 19, and with all that talent could be one of the best LB's in the league, or OK, or a bust. Instincts can come SOMETIMES and sometimes not IE TJ Green.  a lot depends on the kid really, does he like football, does he take to coaching, does he have will and desire, is he a party boy who wants the money, what happens when you pay him? Fortunately thats what interviews are for, but not a guarantee. Personaly I would pass at 6 unless I am 100% sure about him and his desire to play football,and the kind of kid he is. Smith I think is actually what you see IMO. A football player thru and thru. 

[NewEra]

Edmunds has size and speed that cannot be taught. In a 4-3 that MLB can be the most important and impactful player out there. He had that Brian Urlacher potential. Even saying that sounds ridiculous as to why in the world you'd pass that up. 

[Coffeedrinker]

People talk abot Roquan Smith being undersized but he is right in the wheel house of normal ILB/MLBs in the NFL.  

 

If you look at some other great ones recently,

 

Kuechly - 6'3 240lbs

Ray Lewis was 6'2 235

Derrick Johnson - 6'3" 241lbs

Patrick Willis 6'1 242lbs.

Bobby Wagner 6'0 245lbs.

 

Then you have Smith 6'1 235lbs.  He's not really undersized.

 

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

People talk abot Roquan Smith being undersized but he is right in the wheel house of normal ILB/MLBs in the NFL.  

 

If you look at some other great ones recently,

 

Kuechly - 6'3 240lbs

Ray Lewis was 6'2 235

Derrick Johnson - 6'3" 241lbs

Patrick Willis 6'1 242lbs.

Bobby Wagner 6'0 245lbs.

 

Then you have Smith 6'1 235lbs.  He's not really undersized.

 

Plus, Kiper claimed Smith played in the low 240's all season.

[WoolMagnet]

5 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

I am intrigued by Edmunds potential, but I'd still find it interesting and even suspect if we took him at 6 overall.

 

Sure the potential is there and the tools are there. But at the end of the day, everyone likes to bring up position value when it comes to drafting a Guard early (Nelson), but most people are not bringing that up at all with Edmunds.

 

Well I will.

 

 

If he is playing a 4-3 LB spot for us (likely Mike or Will) and not being drafted as some type of pass rusher, then he will have a hard time returning the same value as other players available at the 6 spot.

 

Example:

 

Let's use an aritrary average salary of $9M annually. I picked that because it is a reasonable baseline number for comparison amongst some positions.

 

Well, to be a $9M ILB, Edmunds would have to develop into the current equivalent of a Top-5 ILB.

 

The same is true of a 4-3 OLB (i.e. not a 3-4 OLB that is an edge pass rusher). He would need to be a top-5 OLB to justify a $9M salary

 

However, a player would only have to be a:

 

- top-15 DE to justify that $9M

- top-20 CB to justify that $9M

- top-10 Offensive Guard to justify that $9M

 

etc, etc.

 

All I am getting at is that the valuation of the MLB / OLB position for the Colts 4-3 scheme is not one that justifies that early pick from a pure positional value standpoint.

 

If any of Chubb, Nelson or Fitzpatrick are there at 6 then we should take them over Edmunds purely based on their potential to live up to the positional value.

 

What I mean is, is there a greater likelihood that Minkah Fitzpatrick becomes a top-20 CB or that Edmunds becomes a top-5 LB?

 

Is there a greater likelihood that Nelson becomes a top-10 OG or that Edmunds becomes a top-5 LB?

 

 

I think Edmunds, potential is through the roof. And if you asked me would I want Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs back in the day, I would take Lewis all day, every day.

 

But unless you are banking on this kid becoming an all-time great, he still is a hard guy to justify at pick 6.

 

Which is why if we do want to take him, I am all for trading down. Then if we miss out on him, we take a player in a position of need with far more positional value (I'm thinking namely Cornerback or Edge Rusher).

 

I am eager to see how the draft shakes out and how we approach our selection.

 

 

You lost me at saying a guard (at 9 million) is a better value than ILB (at 9 million) from a positonal value aspect.

you wont convince me of that, and the hat keep nd of blows up your whole philosophy.

and i dont view a position's "value" basr on what the market is paying.  Neither does Ballard, thankfully.

desperate GMs hiking salaries PAST their positional values is the problem. Spending over-priced salaries on positions that dont warrant it (like guard) is why teams like miami, philly, etc are dumping players is not the way i want our team built.

i dont care if a player is 5th or tenth at his position.  I just care whether he does the job we want him to do.  Its too tuff to judge a players hierarchy at a postion because of the affects of scheme, coaches, players around them, etc. 

[TomDiggs]

46 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

You lost me at saying a guard (at 9 million) is a better value than ILB (at 9 million) from a positonal value aspect.

you wont convince me of that, and the hat keep nd of blows up your whole philosophy.

and i dont view a position's "value" basr on what the market is paying.  Neither does Ballard, thankfully.

desperate GMs hiking salaries PAST their positional values is the problem. Spending over-priced salaries on positions that dont warrant it (like guard) is why teams like miami, philly, etc are dumping players is not the way i want our team built.

i dont care if a player is 5th or tenth at his position.  I just care whether he does the job we want him to do.  Its too tuff to judge a players hierarchy at a postion because of the affects of scheme, coaches, players around them, etc. 

Everyone has their opinions and I respect yours. I just don’t see eye to eye w you and that’s ok. 

 

But to say that Ballard agrees with you and doesn’t judge a player based on what the market is paying him is off right there in your comment. 

 

He has has openly stated we were “in” on the big free agents and they just went out of our range. 

 

If if we were “in” on Norwell and Jensen then we were not offering these guys $7-$8M a year. If so then they wouldn’t even consider us or come for a visit in Jensen’s case. 

 

So me using the $9M figure was a way of factoring that in. 

 

Additionally, I’m sorry but saying that we aren’t doing what a team like Philly did is a terrible argument. They just won the damn super bowl. So if your argument is that they are dropping some players now from overpaying and that we shouldn’t do that then I question your logic entirely. We play to win last I heard. If we won a title and then cut a bunch of guys that didn’t justify their salaries afterwards, I would be all for it. 

 

Also, based on your assessment I assume you are one that didn’t want a guy like Norwell or Jensen and won’t complain a bit if our OL blows and gets our QBs beat up again. 

 

I can can tell you this much, we brought in Eberflus to run this defense. Dallas has not paid any of their LBs other than Sean Lee. But I’ll be damned if they haven’t paid Frederick, T.Smith, and are about to have to pay big for Zach Martin. 

 

Eberflus can make the D work without supremely talented or supremely expensive LBs. That’s all I’m getting at. 

 

I dont believe we should have paid what guys like Jensen and Norwell went for. It’s why we didn’t win them. But to say an OG is less valuable to a team than a LB is equally bogus based on today’s standards and trends. You are either with the paradigm shift or you’re left behind. 

 

The colts have never paid their LBs even under our 4-3 cover two scheme. They played well and then walked and got paid elsewhere. 

 

I wouldn’t mind a guy like Edmunds on our team. As you said, if he “does his job” then by all means add him to the squad. I just think you don’t use a top-6 pick on that position unless the guy has shown to be a rockstar or some mega talent. Edmunds has potential but hasn’t shown that yet.

 

as you said, I won’t convince you a guard is more important than a lb. I equally won’t be convinced that in today’s nfl a non rushing LB is worth more than a blue chip lineman at any spot along the line. 

 

For what  it is all worth, I’m firmly in the camp of taking Chubb over them all and Minkah before probably even Nelson and definitely before Edmunds. 

 

 

[Defjamz26]

The MLB in a Tampa-2 has to drop deep into coverage though. Edmunds can do that and will be a good matchup for TEs. 

[Gocolts-Rolltide]

Edmunds, in a sense,  is a pass catching tight end that can tackle..... think about that... you can't pass that up 

[Gocolts-Rolltide]

I think about him dropping In  coverage with that speed and length.... that's game changing!!

[Str8himalaya]

I wouldn’t mind Edmunds at 6 at all. Smith I’m in the same boat on. If you can get a Luke Kuechly type of player then you gotta take that guy and not trade down. Edmunds has things you just can’t teach or get better at. Saying that, I would still take Chubb, Nelson, and strongly consider Fitzpatrick before Edmunds or smith. If those first two are gone, I would have no issue with taking Edmunds at 6. He could end up moving outside as an edge player/pass rusher at some point as well. He’s good in all facets of the game, and I am still a little concerned with Roquan’s ability to get eaten up in the middle. Edmunds has the length and size to stack and shed very well. All of the guys listed above are worth the 6 pick IMO.

[WoolMagnet]

2 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

Everyone has their opinions and I respect yours. I just don’t see eye to eye w you and that’s ok. 

 

But to say that Ballard agrees with you and doesn’t judge a player based on what the market is paying him is off right there in your comment. 

 

He has has openly stated we were “in” on the big free agents and they just went out of our range. 

 

If if we were “in” on Norwell and Jensen then we were not offering these guys $7-$8M a year. If so then they wouldn’t even consider us or come for a visit in Jensen’s case. 

 

So me using the $9M figure was a way of factoring that in. 

 

Additionally, I’m sorry but saying that we aren’t doing what a team like Philly did is a terrible argument. They just won the damn super bowl. So if your argument is that they are dropping some players now from overpaying and that we shouldn’t do that then I question your logic entirely. We play to win last I heard. If we won a title and then cut a bunch of guys that didn’t justify their salaries afterwards, I would be all for it. 

 

Also, based on your assessment I assume you are one that didn’t want a guy like Norwell or Jensen and won’t complain a bit if our OL blows and gets our QBs beat up again. 

 

I can can tell you this much, we brought in Eberflus to run this defense. Dallas has not paid any of their LBs other than Sean Lee. But I’ll be damned if they haven’t paid Frederick, T.Smith, and are about to have to pay big for Zach Martin. 

 

Eberflus can make the D work without supremely talented or supremely expensive LBs. That’s all I’m getting at. 

 

I dont believe we should have paid what guys like Jensen and Norwell went for. It’s why we didn’t win them. But to say an OG is less valuable to a team than a LB is equally bogus based on today’s standards and trends. You are either with the paradigm shift or you’re left behind. 

 

The colts have never paid their LBs even under our 4-3 cover two scheme. They played well and then walked and got paid elsewhere. 

 

I wouldn’t mind a guy like Edmunds on our team. As you said, if he “does his job” then by all means add him to the squad. I just think you don’t use a top-6 pick on that position unless the guy has shown to be a rockstar or some mega talent. Edmunds has potential but hasn’t shown that yet.

 

as you said, I won’t convince you a guard is more important than a lb. I equally won’t be convinced that in today’s nfl a non rushing LB is worth more than a blue chip lineman at any spot along the line. 

 

For what  it is all worth, I’m firmly in the camp of taking Chubb over them all and Minkah before probably even Nelson and definitely before Edmunds. 

 

 

Wow.  Alot to read. I'll finish later.

you dont spend like philly did unless you are in position to win super bowl which we are not.

i realize this isnt black and white.  and when we make a one sentence statement it is taken to the extreme.

bottom line is..... dont over-spend on free agents.  Maybe if you are a pkayer or two from a super bowl run,  But if you consistently build thru draft , develop and keep your own, you shouldnt be in the position to overspend in the first place.

 I'm ok (to some degree) with "over-paying" playmakers.   Guys that can impact the game.  Turn momentum on a dime.  Other players, even good and solid players, can be replaced.  The draft is designed to do this, really:  a team should be cultivating depth so the "expensive vet" can be replaced with the under-study.

 

EDIT:

i tried reading again but you went off on things i didnt even hint at and are sooooo off the mark of how i view things that it would take me 100,000 words to reply.

obviously my initial reply struck a nerve.  For this, i'm sorry.  REALY sorry.   (a lil sarcasm there)

but anyway,  keep on voicing your opinion.  Just make them in smaller, bite-sized posts for those of us that get distracted easily.

[aaron11]

8 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

I am intrigued by Edmunds potential, but I'd still find it interesting and even suspect if we took him at 6 overall.

 

Sure the potential is there and the tools are there. But at the end of the day, everyone likes to bring up position value when it comes to drafting a Guard early (Nelson), but most people are not bringing that up at all with Edmunds.

 

Well I will.

 

 

If he is playing a 4-3 LB spot for us (likely Mike or Will) and not being drafted as some type of pass rusher, then he will have a hard time returning the same value as other players available at the 6 spot.

 

Example:

 

Let's use an aritrary average salary of $9M annually. I picked that because it is a reasonable baseline number for comparison amongst some positions.

 

Well, to be a $9M ILB, Edmunds would have to develop into the current equivalent of a Top-5 ILB.

 

The same is true of a 4-3 OLB (i.e. not a 3-4 OLB that is an edge pass rusher). He would need to be a top-5 OLB to justify a $9M salary

 

However, a player would only have to be a:

 

- top-15 DE to justify that $9M

- top-20 CB to justify that $9M

- top-10 Offensive Guard to justify that $9M

 

i think this salary argument is interesting and a good thing to consider for draft picks, but there's something it doesnt account for.  the will and mike are pretty important for a 4-3 zone defense, while corner backs are less important than they are in a man coverage scheme.  

 

guards and oline depth are probably the biggest need on the team overall, i wont argue against the value in that 

 

as for DE, if chubb is there we should take him instead, if not i could live edmunds over nelson 

[shasta519]

12 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

I am intrigued by Edmunds potential, but I'd still find it interesting and even suspect if we took him at 6 overall.

 

Sure the potential is there and the tools are there. But at the end of the day, everyone likes to bring up position value when it comes to drafting a Guard early (Nelson), but most people are not bringing that up at all with Edmunds.

 

Well I will.

 

 

If he is playing a 4-3 LB spot for us (likely Mike or Will) and not being drafted as some type of pass rusher, then he will have a hard time returning the same value as other players available at the 6 spot.

 

Example:

 

Let's use an aritrary average salary of $9M annually. I picked that because it is a reasonable baseline number for comparison amongst some positions.

 

Well, to be a $9M ILB, Edmunds would have to develop into the current equivalent of a Top-5 ILB.

 

The same is true of a 4-3 OLB (i.e. not a 3-4 OLB that is an edge pass rusher). He would need to be a top-5 OLB to justify a $9M salary

 

However, a player would only have to be a:

 

- top-15 DE to justify that $9M

- top-20 CB to justify that $9M

- top-10 Offensive Guard to justify that $9M

 

etc, etc.

 

All I am getting at is that the valuation of the MLB / OLB position for the Colts 4-3 scheme is not one that justifies that early pick from a pure positional value standpoint.

 

If any of Chubb, Nelson or Fitzpatrick are there at 6 then we should take them over Edmunds purely based on their potential to live up to the positional value.

 

What I mean is, is there a greater likelihood that Minkah Fitzpatrick becomes a top-20 CB or that Edmunds becomes a top-5 LB?

 

Is there a greater likelihood that Nelson becomes a top-10 OG or that Edmunds becomes a top-5 LB?

 

 

I think Edmunds, potential is through the roof. And if you asked me would I want Ray Lewis or Terrell Suggs back in the day, I would take Lewis all day, every day.

 

But unless you are banking on this kid becoming an all-time great, he still is a hard guy to justify at pick 6.

 

Which is why if we do want to take him, I am all for trading down. Then if we miss out on him, we take a player in a position of need with far more positional value (I'm thinking namely Cornerback or Edge Rusher).

 

I am eager to see how the draft shakes out and how we approach our selection.

 

 

 

That's a fair point...and an argument I have used myself many times when talking about drafting RB or interior OL.

 

There is not a lot of surplus value in drafting an ILB or even a S that early (though I think S will see a shift like CB has). The rookie wage scale for the #6 pick (~$6/M/year) will save some money over a comparable good player at the position, but it's not nearly on the level as say DE, DT, CB or WR...where the savings could be upwards of $10-15M/year if you hit a homerun on the pick. 

 

However, when you factor in scheme, positional value can adjust accordingly. In this case, MLB could be the lynchpin of the entire defense...and it is imperative that they have a talented player there. Getting one will have far more impact than a G.

 

And while decent ILBs hit the market every year, the special ones don't (Wagner, Kuechly). So, much like DE, there is scarcity to consider. And special ones are rare, so that makes them even more valuable. Whereas Pro Bowl Gs seem to be available each offseason and are growing in number. 

 

I want Edmunds, but I am fine with taking LVE later depending on if they trade back. 

[ColtsBlitz]

19 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Agree completely.  The issues over his instincts are overstated.  

 

Smith is already pretty dog gone special but Edmunds is close to him in his current state and has potential to surpass quickly.  If I'm drafting top 5 in the draft (or 6 even lol) I'm taking Edmunds as my blue chip player if there isn't a pass rusher or QB on the board. 

Not really. You see multiple times that he creeps towards the line before the ball is snapped and gets faked out easily by the weakest play action. 

 

Its not a reason to not take him though. If Ballard does end up taking Edmunds, he is basically saying “okay, I got you guys (coaches) the player, now you have to coach him up. With proper coaching, Edmunds is a pro bowler. 

[Surge89]

18 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

Not really. You see multiple times that he creeps towards the line before the ball is snapped and gets faked out easily by the weakest play action. 

 

Its not a reason to not take him though. If Ballard does end up taking Edmunds, he is basically saying “okay, I got you guys (coaches) the player, now you have to coach him up. With proper coaching, Edmunds is a pro bowler. 

 

Cheating to the line isn't a sign of bad instincts...  Its a bad habit for sure but has nothing to do with instincts. He actually reads play action fairly well or a well as any other NFL linebacker his biggest "instinct" issue is that he had a hard time processing quickly enough against the option. That leads him to tackling nothing or missing completely. That's not only fixable but also wanted from a youthful player. I'd much rather have a linebacker choose wrong than be indecisive consistently and always in no man's land.  You can correct a willing playmaker. It's harder to correct an indecisive one.

[Barry Sears]

Given that we are "rebuilding" or "retooling" then Edmunds makes sense THIS year.  We can be patient with him.

 

If this were 2019, then Smith would be the wiser choice, since we'll be better going into the 2019 season (we hope).

 

Smith is more NFL ready now, but Edmunds could be the better player in the long run.

[Dilger85]

21 hours ago, Jeremy Waldon said:

When i see his instincts the way he plays now, it makes me see him as more of an OLB because his first thought is always forward as to set an edge. Could be a great place for him as he hones his skills to pro standards 

My thoughts exactly, start him as WLB and let him learn then shift to MLB as he matures.  It would also be easier to take advantage of his blitzing skills if he were a WLB.

[Coffeedrinker]

40 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

Given that we are "rebuilding" or "retooling" then Edmunds makes sense THIS year.  We can be patient with him.

 

If this were 2019, then Smith would be the wiser choice, since we'll be better going into the 2019 season (we hope).

 

Smith is more NFL ready now, but Edmunds could be the better player in the long run.

That's a good point.

[ColtsBlitz]

2 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Cheating to the line isn't a sign of bad instincts...  Its a bad habit for sure but has nothing to do with instincts. He actually reads play action fairly well or a well as any other NFL linebacker his biggest "instinct" issue is that he had a hard time processing quickly enough against the option. That leads him to tackling nothing or missing completely. That's not only fixable but also wanted from a youthful player. I'd much rather have a linebacker choose wrong than be indecisive consistently and always in no man's land.  You can correct a willing playmaker. It's harder to correct an indecisive one.

Good point, it is more of a bad habit. I like his coverage ability, and the fact Eberflus can work with him makes him even more favorable a pick. 

 

And honestly, his indecisiveness can be coached too. Each player on the field has a job, and the 4-3 edge defender always has the outside option on a read. He will not have to do that, rather take the inside read or stay back for run-pass option. 

[Alex22]

On 3/29/2018 at 4:01 AM, Trueman said:

Edmunds is a potential pick , and Smith is more of the sure thing.

 

Everyone critiquing Edmunds’ instincts needs to realize he’s 19. His physical attributes are off the charts , and honestly, he could have the highest ceiling in the draft.

 

But, are the Colts in a position to take a kid like that? I don’t know.

 

I think I’d be more comfortable if we chose Smith, but more intrigued if we took Edmunds.

 

Tough call.

 

Smith can't even shed a block.....

 

He will be exposed with our sub par defensive line 

[2006Coltsbestever]

If we took Edmunds at 6 I would have no problem with it. Guy is a beast IMO.

[Alex22]

On 3/29/2018 at 8:08 AM, Coffeedrinker said:

People talk abot Roquan Smith being undersized but he is right in the wheel house of normal ILB/MLBs in the NFL.  

 

If you look at some other great ones recently,

 

Kuechly - 6'3 240lbs

Ray Lewis was 6'2 235

Derrick Johnson - 6'3" 241lbs

Patrick Willis 6'1 242lbs.

Bobby Wagner 6'0 245lbs.

 

Then you have Smith 6'1 235lbs.  He's not really undersized.

 

 

Ray was 240 and I wouldn't want smith playing MLB 

 

He will get eaten up by lineman 

[Coffeedrinker]

23 minutes ago, Alex22 said:

 

Ray was 240 and I wouldn't want smith playing MLB 

 

He will get eaten up by lineman 

http://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?f=Ray&l=Lewis&i=23310

http://nflcombineresults.com/nflcombinedata.php?year=1996&*=&college=

Quote

Marvin Lewis, Ravens defensive coordinator: “Scouts are always going to differ because they don’t have a vision of what you’re going to do on game day. There’s a feeling that if a middle linebacker isn’t 6-2 and 250 pounds, they can’t do it. Ray was under 6-1 and about 235 pounds. He was plenty big enough for me."

 

 

But ok, he was 240

 

And in a 4-3 base that Mike or Sam is exactly where you want him.  And I have seen several people mention little phrases like lineman will eat him up or other such nonsense but I am not seeing it in his games.  He does a great job using his hands to keep lineman off of him and he has such  fluid lower body that lineman rarely have a clean shot at him.  I think he would do just fine inside.  Some teams won't play him inside because of his size but there are a lot of teams that will.

 

As a fan, I would be happy with either Smith or Edmunds.  Edmunds because of potential, Smith because he is just so smooth and fluid and so smart on the field.  Every time I watch some of his games I think well he's not going to be able to get there and before the thought is completed he has the guy on the ground..  I am more impressed with Smith each time I watch him.

[NewColtsFan]

 

I would be happy with either Edmunds or Smth as well.        We need new, fast linebackers.     We likely have THREE openings.

 

If they can't succeed at one spot,  odds are strong they'll succeed in another.    Ultimately,  I think they fit what we want and need...

 

[Alex22]

34 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

http://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?f=Ray&l=Lewis&i=23310

http://nflcombineresults.com/nflcombinedata.php?year=1996&*=&college=

 

 

But ok, he was 240

 

And in a 4-3 base that Mike or Sam is exactly where you want him.  And I have seen several people mention little phrases like lineman will eat him up or other such nonsense but I am not seeing it in his games.  He does a great job using his hands to keep lineman off of him and he has such  fluid lower body that lineman rarely have a clean shot at him.  I think he would do just fine inside.  Some teams won't play him inside because of his size but there are a lot of teams that will.

 

As a fan, I would be happy with either Smith or Edmunds.  Edmunds because of potential, Smith because he is just so smooth and fluid and so smart on the field.  Every time I watch some of his games I think well he's not going to be able to get there and before the thought is completed he has the guy on the ground..  I am more impressed with Smith each time I watch him.

 

His playing weight was 240 fo real yo 

[OHColtfan]

As a big Dawg fan, hard for me to pick against Smith, but I just don't see him at 6. He is a good player, just wouldn't draft him that high. Edmunds has too much potential to really change an issue that has been a pain for us for several years- pass coverage among the LB"s. We need speed.

Guessing, but if we take Edmunds would we play him at ILB or WILL. 

Simon should be our strong side, the other two positions ?? (Assuming Sheard plays DE with his hand in the ground?)

[HectorRoberts]

I like him a lot but right now I don’t think we are in a position to be gamboling with our round 1 on a boom or bust. 

[Coffeedrinker]

13 hours ago, Alex22 said:

 

His playing weight was 240 fo real yo 

Oh.  I'm guessing Smith will probably gain 4lbs during his NFL career.

[Jeremy Waldon]

13 hours ago, OHColtfan said:

As a big Dawg fan, hard for me to pick against Smith, but I just don't see him at 6. He is a good player, just wouldn't draft him that high. Edmunds has too much potential to really change an issue that has been a pain for us for several years- pass coverage among the LB"s. We need speed.

Guessing, but if we take Edmunds would we play him at ILB or WILL. 

Simon should be our strong side, the other two positions ?? (Assuming Sheard plays DE with his hand in the ground?)

I would like to see him at WILL as he hones his skills, but who knows how fast the coaches can get him improved to move to middle. Either way i think he would be a great defender