Roquan Smith set to visit Colts tomorrow

[DougDew]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Nice!  

 

Even in a thread that has nothing to do with Malik Hooker you find a way to take a shot at Ballard over a draft pick you don't like.

 

Oh....   I'm sorry!   I think I've made this same exact point a half dozen or more times and each time you either express complete confusion or you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing.    Denial is a beautiful thing --- isn't it?!  

 

By the way....  I'm still laughing over your analysis of Hooker.   You know, where he only does one thing well.   I can't believe the Colts haven't employed you as a scout yet?!? 

 

But its all good...   as you noted it's only your opinion....    made on days of the week that end in...  d-a-y.    Life is good for you!          

Didn't realize Hooker and Ballard are like family to you, but thanks for swooping into the conversation to try to pick a fight.

 

Yeah, I sit here and just stew on one pick from last year and try to work it into every response because Malik Hooker means so much to me.

 

The point is, picking the 12th best player at 6 would be the opposite of picking the 7th best player at 15.  So we get a "steal" one year and a "reach" the next.  (In quotes because neither are true). And, IMO, the reach looks like a better player than the steal.  I like defenders who make their living by denying first downs and touchdowns by tackling or denying the ball.  Catching the ball when its in the air 4 seconds is a bonus, but I'd prefer defenders that are known for getting the ball back to the O via the first two methods.

 

Its not my analysis of Hooker or Smith. Read the scouting reports. 

[krunk]

I kind of pay attention to the top 30 visits.   We drafted at least 4 people from those top 30 last year. Hooker, Wilson, Basham, Grover Stewart.

[DougDew]

26 minutes ago, krunk said:

I kind of pay attention to the top 30 visits.   We drafted at least 4 people from those top 30 last year. Hooker, Wilson, Basham, Grover Stewart.

Do you have a link for this year's top 30?

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Do you have a link for this year's top 30?

No I don't .   I just kind of pay attention to the draft prospect trackers like on Walter Football and some of the others.   There's not really a section on there that says Top 30 but pretty much the visits that are happening this month are what that is.  And just in general I look at who we've had significant contact with.  Doesn't guarantee anything, but at least as far as last year is concerned Ballard selected a good number of his draft picks from those visits

[krunk]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Do you have a link for this year's top 30?

I see we also did a private workout with Rashaan Evans as well

http://walterfootball.com/ProspectMeetings/ByTeam

[rockywoj]

The thought that, “oh noooo, picked at six is toooo early!”, but it’s perfectly fine to take him six players later at twelve, is just so ridiculous.

 

Here’s the thing, if you pick the guy you want and he turns into the stud success anticipated, then to take that guy at 6, 8, 12, or 22 is utterly irrelevant.  What’s matters is that the guy you pick turns into a stud and that all the players you passed on don’t all become appreciably better.  The other thing is, you won’t definitely KNOW that a player is a reach likely until three years or so out.

 

Too often I have seen teams skewered for “reaching” for a player, but then two three years down the road, the guy is a ProBowler, while so many of the “smarter” picks bypassed are out of the league.  Then it’s like, wow, they were so smart for grabbing that ProBowler while they had the chance.

 

Too many fans are far too polarized in their draft wants, usually without adequately being properly informed as to how a team’s draft board is ordered.  It’s quite amusing.

 

(Btw, I am a fan of Roquan Smith ... and if what I am hearing about him is true, he would prove to be a very key addition to the defense.  Certainly one of the names I would be happy to see the Colts get.  Of course, though, at the end of the day what the heck do I actually know about any of this, beyond the media and talking heads hype?

 

Also, I have seen plenty of rankings that had Edwards ranked higher than Smith, but then plenty of other ranking that had it the other way around, with Smith ahead of Edwards.  We don’t know how the Colts have them ranked.)

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Didn't realize Hooker and Ballard are like family to you, but thanks for swooping into the conversation to try to pick a fight.

 

Yeah, I sit here and just stew on one pick from last year and try to work it into every response because Malik Hooker means so much to me.

 

The point is, picking the 12th best player at 6 would be the opposite of picking the 7th best player at 15.  So we get a "steal" one year and a "reach" the next.  (In quotes because neither are true). And, IMO, the reach looks like a better player than the steal.  I like defenders who make their living by denying first downs and touchdowns by tackling or denying the ball.  Catching the ball when its in the air 4 seconds is a bonus, but I'd prefer defenders that are known for getting the ball back to the O via the first two methods.

 

Its not my analysis of Hooker or Smith. Read the scouting reports. 

Not every player can start out playing like an all pro as a rookie. But you seem to think different.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Not every player can start out playing like an all pro as a rookie. But you seem to think different.

Sigh.  I'm talking about strength's and weaknesses as described by their pre-draft scouting reports.  I simply prefer defenders who are known for getting the ball back to their O by tackling or covering, per scouting report.

 

So I think Smith would be better value at 6 than where the pundits expected the other guy to be drafted last year.  Not a great value overall, but better value than drafting the other guy at 7 last year.  But I'm not an OSU fan, so there's that.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, krunk said:

I see we also did a private workout with Rashaan Evans as well

http://walterfootball.com/ProspectMeetings/ByTeam

Boy, folks are gonna have a conniption fit if the pattern holds.  Almost no Olineman on the visit list.

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Boy, folks are gonna have a conniption fit if the pattern holds.  Almost no Olineman on the visit list.

The visits are still trickling in, but who we pick is not limited to that list though.  I'm sure some upper tier OL will be added to the list.  If not it's not a biggie by any means.

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sigh.  I'm talking about strength's and weaknesses as described by their pre-draft scouting reports.  I simply prefer defenders who are known for getting the ball back to their O by tackling or covering, per scouting report.

 

So I think Smith would be better value at 6 than where the pundits expected the other guy to be drafted last year.  Not a great value overall, but better value than drafting the other guy at 7 last year.  But I'm not an OSU fan, so there's that.

So you disregarded Hooker's scouting reports?

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Boy, folks are gonna have a conniption fit if the pattern holds.  Almost no Olineman on the visit list.

There are players every year drafted by a team who never meet them.

[rockywoj]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Boy, folks are gonna have a conniption fit if the pattern holds.  Almost no Olineman on the visit list.

Also of interest, no visit by Chubb or Nelson. Still lots of time, though.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Also of interest, no visit by Chubb or Nelson. Still lots of time, though.

Just saying there are players drafted every year who never met the team that drafted them. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

This is off topic but is Draft news: Watching Kiper and McShay argue over the Top 6 picks is priceless. Kiper actually gets angry over this stuff! . The faces he makes are funny when McShay disagrees with him .

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There are players every year drafted by a team who never meet them.

Which is why I said "if the pattern holds" (that we TEND to draft players we meet).  Krunk mentioned that we only officially met with 4 players we drafted, so its a given that we will draft players we don't bring in for an official visit.

 

We went to Notre Dame's pro day.  I don't know if that qualifies as a visit.  Probably not.

[krunk]

This other list that Stiches game me has other names that Walter Football doesn't list

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kTZvuUSuno6bdvr_SVW6joxYGVdaw1D449Mm4Fe0Emo/edit#gid=0

[krunk]

27 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Also of interest, no visit by Chubb or Nelson. Still lots of time, though.

Nelson and Mcglinchey are on the list. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kTZvuUSuno6bdvr_SVW6joxYGVdaw1D449Mm4Fe0Emo/edit#gid=0

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Which is why I said "if the pattern holds" (that we TEND to draft players we meet).  Krunk mentioned that we only officially met with 4 players we drafted, so its a given that we will draft players we don't bring in for an official visit.

 

We went to Notre Dame's pro day.  I don't know if that qualifies as a visit.  Probably not.

If Nelson is the one the Colts are interested in meeting him one on one makes no difference. He is the real deal and Ballard should know this.

[krunk]

We've talked to a boat load of WR

[Cynjin]

12 hours ago, DougDew said:

In a perfect world, we trade down and pick him at 12 and get McGlinchey at 22.  But yeah, if a player is going to be a pro-bowler, picking him at 6 makes more sense than passing on him to just save a few draft spots.

 

Supposedly we got a "steal" last year when Hooker goes from 7 to 15 (meaning there were 7 dumb GMs), so I guess we even it out this year by taking a 12 spot at 6.  I'd argue that reaching for Smith at 6 is better than picking a falling Hooker at 15, but that's JMO.

 

 

How is that better?

[ColtsBlueFL]

13 hours ago, buccolts said:

So, we like the guy, but not at 6.

Where would you pick him then?

Any of you?

 

They would pick him two spots above where they traded down to. Because the team just ahead took him off the board.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

How is that better?

My point of the comparison is based upon how I think the forum will react if Smith is picked at 6.

 

They'll yell "reach", when last year they yelled, "steal".

 

No yelling from me.  I simply think the world is working as it should.   The 6th pick this year should be a better player than the 15th pick last year, and if we pick Smith this year at 6, that will be the case.  

[Cynjin]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My point of the comparison is based upon how I think the forum will react if Smith is picked at 6.

 

They'll yell "reach", when last year they yelled, "steal".

 

No yelling from me.  I simply think the world is working as it should.   The 6th pick this year should be a better player than the 15th pick last year, and if we pick Smith this year at 6, that will be the case.  

 

Fans will have that reaction based on what the pre-draft information has said.  Last year Hooker was projected to go in the top ten, this year from what I have seen Smith is not projected to go as high as 6th overall.

 

No yelling from me one way or the other, if the Colts have him ranked that high on their draft board, then so be it.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, rockywoj said:

The thought that, “oh noooo, picked at six is toooo early!”, but it’s perfectly fine to take him six players later at twelve, is just so ridiculous.

 

Here’s the thing, if you pick the guy you want and he turns into the stud success anticipated, then to take that guy at 6, 8, 12, or 22 is utterly irrelevant.  What’s matters is that the guy you pick turns into a stud and that all the players you passed on don’t all become appreciably better.  The other thing is, you wo’t definitely KNOW that a player is a reach until e years or so out.

 

Too often I have seen teams skewered for “reaching” for a player, but then two three years down the road, the guy is a ProBowler, while so many of the “smarter” picks bypassed are out of the league.  Then it’s like, wow, they were so smart for grabbing that ProBowler while they had the chance.

 

Too many fans are far too polarized in their draft wants, usually without adequately being properly informed as to how a team’s draft board is ordered.  It’s quite amusing.

 

(Btw, I am a fan of Roquan Smith ... and if what I am hearing about him is true, he would prove to be a very key addition to the defense.  Certainly one of the names I would be happy to see the Colts get.  Of course, though, at the end of the day what the heck do I actually know about any of this, beyond the media and talking heads hype?

 

Also, I have seen plenty of rankings that had Edwards ranked higher than Smith, but then plenty of other ranking that had it the other way around, with Smith ahead of Edwards.  We don’t know how the Colts have them ranked.)

Except it isn't at all.... Why would you feel good about reaching for a guy at 6 when you can load up on picks moving back several spots to pick him at 12? How is that a ridiculous thought process? Many don't think he is valued high enough to pick in the top 5 or 6, it doesn't make it "ridiculous"....

[DaColts85]

5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Except it isn't at all.... Why would you feel good about reaching for a guy at 6 when you can load up on picks moving back several spots to pick him at 12? How is that a ridiculous thought process? Many don't think he is valued high enough to pick in the top 5 or 6, it doesn't make it "ridiculous"....

You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though.  Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at.  So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth.  Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares.  Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.

[ColtStrong2013]

44 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though.  Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at.  So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth.  Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares.  Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.

It doesn't matter if Ballard values extra picks more or even as much than certain players... 

 

They have mentioned 3 players for that pick and have shown they value extra picks. I agree that Ballard's board is all that matters, but that doesn't mean he values his 6th pick (on his board) at the 6th position... especially if he thinks he possibly can snag him later with extra picks. 

[ColtStrong2013]

20 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though.  Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at.  So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth.  Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares.  Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.

I will say, that I am high on Smith also... and the inside linebacker position in general. I loved his play all year. We also have never had a top notch Inside Backer to lead the defense... so I won't be upset if Ballard has him that high and takes him. 

 

I don't see it and only because of the precedent they have set and the players they have been hot on. I also understand there are a lot of smoke and mirrors. But there is a quite a few damn good linebackers if Smith somehow would go before where we trade (if that is what happens)

[ColtStrong2013]

26 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though.  Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at.  So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth.  Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares.  Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.

This mindset also paints Ballard as the type of GM that narrowly focuses on single player instead of the big picture, which is acquiring picks and getting players of value at valueable positions throughout the draft. If he has Smith as a top 5 player, and he is on top of his board, he'll obviously take him. If he is high on Smith but thinks 6 is a reach, then he will look to move back, and move on if Smith is taken. 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, rockywoj said:

The thought that, “oh noooo, picked at six is toooo early!”, but it’s perfectly fine to take him six players later at twelve, is just so ridiculous.

 

Here’s the thing, if you pick the guy you want and he turns into the stud success anticipated, then to take that guy at 6, 8, 12, or 22 is utterly irrelevant.  What’s matters is that the guy you pick turns into a stud and that all the players you passed on don’t all become appreciably better.  The other thing is, you wo’t definitely KNOW that a player is a reach until e years or so out.

 

Too often I have seen teams skewered for “reaching” for a player, but then two three years down the road, the guy is a ProBowler, while so many of the “smarter” picks bypassed are out of the league.  Then it’s like, wow, they were so smart for grabbing that ProBowler while they had the chance.

 

Too many fans are far too polarized in their draft wants, usually without adequately being properly informed as to how a team’s draft board is ordered.  It’s quite amusing.

 

(Btw, I am a fan of Roquan Smith ... and if what I am hearing about him is true, he would prove to be a very key addition to the defense.  Certainly one of the names I would be happy to see the Colts get.  Of course, though, at the end of the day what the heck do I actually know about any of this, beyond the media and talking heads hype?

 

Also, I have seen plenty of rankings that had Edwards ranked higher than Smith, but then plenty of other ranking that had it the other way around, with Smith ahead of Edwards.  We don’t know how the Colts have them ranked.)

One thing to add to your post.

 

For someone like Smith (of whom I am a big fan).  The scenario is very likely that according to be Ballard and team and their board Smith is at the top of their board also they think he will be there in the range of 10-13th pick, so they try to work out a trade with one of those teams, nothing materializes so they draft Smith at 6.  

 

People act like the Colts either decide to trade or not, but it takes two to tango, so to speak, just because the Colts may want to trade does not mean they will find someone offering their asking price.  or vice versa, just because a team may want to trade into the Colts spot does not mean they are willing to offer something the Colts will accept.

[Fisticuffs111]

Looking at our "top 30" visits at opposed to other teams is interesting...at least so far.

A lot of teams seem to have focused their top 30 visits on guys projected to go in the first few rounds, or guys I'm more familiar with. Meanwhile most of the Colts private visits so far (CB Dunlap -- Illinois, FB Hill -- Michigan, CB Meander -- Grambling, LB Smith -- Central Arkansas) are guys I'm really not familiar with. 

Obviously we still have like 20+ more private visits available, just something I noticed when looking at all the "top 30" visits. I figured we'd mostly be looking at guys projected to go in the 2nd-3rd. But still, lots of time.

[aaron11]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Nice!  

 

Even in a thread that has nothing to do with Malik Hooker you find a way to take a shot at Ballard over a draft pick you don't like.

 

Oh....   I'm sorry!   I think I've made this same exact point a half dozen or more times and each time you either express complete confusion or you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing.    Denial is a beautiful thing --- isn't it?!  

 

By the way....  I'm still laughing over your analysis of Hooker.   You know, where he only does one thing well.   I can't believe the Colts haven't employed you as a scout yet?!? 

 

 

i agree with doug about hooker

 

he reads QBs and plays the deep ball well.  he doesnt play the run or come up and tackle receivers very well at all

 

thats pretty much what his scouting profile said too.  

[Fisticuffs111]

I go back and forth on Roquan probably more than any other potential pick at #6 (or in a trade down).

Some days I think his speed and leadership would be great to have (and it would). But other days I really worry about his struggles at the point of attack/inability to fight through blocks and how, in this defense, our run D is going to be VERY reliant on our Mike. I just can't help but envision our new look interior D-line and Smith getting gashed for big run gains. He seems like he'd be much more suited as a Will here.

[Reboot]

9 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

One thing to add to your post.

 

For someone like Smith (of whom I am a big fan).  The scenario is very likely that according to be Ballard and team and their board Smith is at the top of their board also they think he will be there in the range of 10-13th pick, so they try to work out a trade with one of those teams, nothing materializes so they draft Smith at 6.  

 

People act like the Colts either decide to trade or not, but it takes two to tango, so to speak, just because the Colts may want to trade does not mean they will find someone offering their asking price.  or vice versa, just because a team may want to trade into the Colts spot does not mean they are willing to offer something the Colts will accept.

 

I agree with you and rocky.  The other thing I think was made obvious when they traded back to 6 is that they weren't all-in on any of the "experts" top 3 non-QBs, in Nelson, Chubb, and Barkley.  What that trade did is remove any control they had to assure themselves of getting one of those three.  At 3 at least one of them would have been there, with the QBs at the top.  Now, there is a chance none of them will be there.  I think that speaks volumes about where the Colts big board is and was, and it isn't where most experts or fans keep talking about.  If they wanted Chubb, or Neslon, or Barkley, they had to stay at 3.  It's no longer in their control being at 6.   Who sits atop that board has probably always been a player we'd consider a top 10 pick, not a top 5, based on all the draft experts lists. 

 

 

[BProland85]

Would love Smith after another trade down from 6, but I think a better player could be had at 6 if Ballard stays put. At least one of Quenton Nelson, Bradley Chubb, and Saquon Barkley will be there at 6. 

[BProland85]

15 hours ago, buccolts said:

So, we like the guy, but not at 6.

Where would you pick him then?

Any of you?

 

He should still be there at 11 or 12 if Miami or Buffalo wants to move up for a QB at 6. 

[BProland85]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

I see we also did a private workout with Rashaan Evans as well

http://walterfootball.com/ProspectMeetings/ByTeam

 

I would absolutely LOVE Rashaan Evans early round 2. 

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Would love Smith after another trade down from 6, but I think a better player could be had at 6 if Ballard stays put. At least one of Quenton Nelson, Bradley Chubb, and Saquon Barkley will be there at 6. 

Absolutely. No way he takes him over those 3 guys at 6... and the idea that a trade won't be available if those 3 are off the board is laughable. Ballard won't have to reach out to teams, they will be banging down the damn door with 2 of the top QBs still left. 

 

There is no guessing what he will do on draft day. He will sit back and watch what unfolds/ falls his way. There is a lot of good scenarios, all of which benefit the Colts greatly because they have their franchise QB and are sitting in a pretty position come draft day.

[ColtStrong2013]

4 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

He should still be there at 11 or 12 if Miami or Buffalo wants to move up for a QB at 6. 

Worth the gamble seeing as there are multiple (major roster upgrading) Linebackers going to be available in round 2 for us.

[Coffeedrinker]

10 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Would love Smith after another trade down from 6, but I think a better player could be had at 6 if Ballard stays put. At least one of Quenton Nelson, Bradley Chubb, and Saquon Barkley will be there at 6. 

What if:

They are not able to trade down?

Smith is higher on their board then any of those players?