My fear of Tremaine Edmunds

[rock8591]

.

[SolidGold]

46 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

 

I'm not surprised at all by your actions. I wouldn't expect anything different from you. Why say something you have to go back and delete? Be proud of who you are and what you are. 

[Fluke_33]

On 4/8/2018 at 8:27 PM, MikeCurtis said:

If Edmunds works his way to be 80% of what Urlacher was....... we would all be happy

 

And...... if you ever visit Chicago...  (I fly there every 4-5 weeks)  I get tired of seeing all the dang hair billboards

 

I mean there must be 50 with Urlacher WITH hair......... It aint natural

 

 

Oh..... and I still dont want a guard at 6 

 

 

and now my off-season time-wasting is complete.  just googled hairy urlacher.  thanks.  hahaha

[Rackeen305]

The only thing I can say about Edmunds is that, When VT player UM, I watched the game and said wow, whoever that LB Edmunds is, I want him on my team. Edmunds was disruptive in the game, and seemed as though the other team (My Hurricanes) was having a hard time containing him on defense.

[Pelt]

On 4/7/2018 at 7:22 PM, Clem-Dog said:

I fear he could be the next Coryatt.  Hard to know for sure.

Oh if only he had held on to that pick six in the AFCCG against Pittsburgh back in 96... 

[Coffeedrinker]

On 4/8/2018 at 1:16 AM, Surge89 said:

I'm trying to figure out when Edmunds all of a sudden became a future only player and his current form trash?!?!?  Apparently y'all haven't watched the tape because Edmunds is close to Roquan right now.  He reads well his "instincts" issue is so overblown because he bit wrong on option plays.  Big whoop.  Edmunds is great in coverage now, he's great at the PoA now, he's a great blitzer now and he is a decent tackler right now (only part I need shored up on him is less arm tackles and more authority in his tackles).  Those saying he's all projection are so off it's insane.  He's close to Roquan right now and by far second best linebacker in the draft but what is getting him into the top 5 talk is that he has room to be better and better in a very big way. 

 

The whole comment about he was "best on the field and didn't know what was going on" is ill informed at best.  He has a great read on offenses and shows good scheme knowledge and a great nose for direction of the play.  But people say dumb stuff like this because he guesses wrong on an option play when he was the blitzing linebacker... Eye flipping roll...

 

On 4/8/2018 at 6:20 AM, Defjamz26 said:

Thank you. I actually wonder how many people have actually watched Edmunds tape. Anyone who has watched him knows that he’s a beast in the run game who already has good instincts. He routinely anticipates where the ball is going and meets a lot of RBs immediately after the handoff. That’s why he has 33 career TFLs. Anyone who says he doesn’t have instincts or that they’re poor, hasn’t watched any tape.

 

Watch this game vs Clemson and you will see why he's considered a "future player".

After watching that game I have taken Edmunds completely off my draft board (just to be clear this is the official big board that is the imaginary one in my head as I try to gauge who the Colts will pick)

 

It's not that he is just choosing wrong on an option play.  He often seems to have no idea where the playing is going or who has the ball.  He takes himself out of plays and he gets taken out by lineman and TEs when the paly is coming right at him.

[Coffeedrinker]

15 hours ago, SolidGold said:

Hold this L you clown.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/U/UrlaBr00.htm

I don't think you can trust their tackle stats, especially for the playoffs.  According to the same sight in the Superbowl not only did Urlacher not have any tackles but neither did Bob Sanders, Dwight Freeney, Raheem Brock, Kelvin Hayden or Booger McFarland.  

 

yet according to the official gamebook Urlacher had 7 solo 3 asst tackles and a PD.

 

I am guessing you are too young to have watched him play.   As soon as I saw someone tried to claim that Urlacher had 0 tackles in 5 of 7 playoff games, I figured that person is off their rocker or they have a bad source.

 

Now we know you were using a bad source, your response will determine if you are off your rocker or not.

[Fluke_33]

7 hours ago, Pelt said:

Oh if only he had held on to that pick six in the AFCCG against Pittsburgh back in 96... 

Ugh.  Should have won that one. 

 

He does still hold the best tackle ever in college football though:

 

 

[Defjamz26]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't want to debate over Urlacher. His resume speaks for itself, and whether or not he's overrated, he had a long career and had a lot of impressive achievements, including a DPOY (which no one else on your list up there was able to do; between the five of them, they have a total of one DPOY vote... total). 

 

Even if you said you expect Edmunds to be better than one of those other five, it would be more draft season silliness. And that's not because Edmunds isn't a good prospect; it's because projecting prospects to be better than great players who had long, productive careers is silly.

 

That's before we talk about how the Edmunds projection -- especially in this thread -- pretty much ignores every flaw and weakness in his game in the name of 'he's going to get better!' There are a lot of "great" prospects over the years who never panned out, relegated to the ash heap of NFL history. To fall in love with a player's potential and wish away his weaknesses isn't honest evaluation/scouting. It's gotten a lot of GMs fired.

 

There are a lot of reasons to shy away from a player like Edmunds, especially at the top of the draft.

What we’re debating is how Edmunds’ flaws are being overblown, not overlooked. People are making him out to be TJ Green and he’s not. And that’s where I think most of the talk comes from. One of the worst GMs in recent memory blows a 2nd round pick on a guy with no college production playing a position he’s only been at for a year and a half because he has crazy measureables, and now all anyone see’s is Green. Anytime a guy has crazy measureables but may need some polish, that’s who people see.

 

 I’m not saying Edmunds doesn’t have his flaws, but no more than the average prospect. He doesn’t have “bad” instincts. He has good instincts, but could use some work on his play recognition. That CAN be coached. He just needs to get in the film room. He’s a solid tackler but could get better. But every LB can get better at tackling coming out. Again, that can be coached. But he excels in coverage and has the best movement skills of any LB in this class. His closing burst is ridiculous. He checks all the boxes 

-Athletic profile? Check

-College production? Check

-Character? Check

-Tape that’s shows the prerequisite skills for his position? Check

 

 

And he checks off the necessary boxes for a High first round pick by having at least 1-2 elite traits, scheme flexibility, and room to grow. There’s nothing game breaking in his tape. He is not without flaw, but he’s no more or less flawed than Chubb, Ward, Fitzpatrick, etc...

[stitches]

On 4/10/2018 at 10:04 AM, Superman said:

 

I don't want to debate over Urlacher. His resume speaks for itself, and whether or not he's overrated, he had a long career and had a lot of impressive achievements, including a DPOY (which no one else on your list up there was able to do; between the five of them, they have a total of one DPOY vote... total). 

 

Even if you said you expect Edmunds to be better than one of those other five, it would be more draft season silliness. And that's not because Edmunds isn't a good prospect; it's because projecting prospects to be better than great players who had long, productive careers is silly.

 

That's before we talk about how the Edmunds projection -- especially in this thread -- pretty much ignores every flaw and weakness in his game in the name of 'he's going to get better!' There are a lot of "great" prospects over the years who never panned out, relegated to the ash heap of NFL history. To fall in love with a player's potential and wish away his weaknesses isn't honest evaluation/scouting. It's gotten a lot of GMs fired.

 

There are a lot of reasons to shy away from a player like Edmunds, especially at the top of the draft.

What's your evaluation of Edmunds? Good traits, bad ones? Where would you feel comfortable drafting him? 

 

BTW, nice having you back. Welcome back!  

[Superman]

21 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

What we’re debating is how Edmunds’ flaws are being overblown, not overlooked. People are making him out to be TJ Green and he’s not. And that’s where I think most of the talk comes from. One of the worst GMs in recent memory blows a 2nd round pick on a guy with no college production playing a position he’s only been at for a year and a half because he has crazy measureables, and now all anyone see’s is Green. Anytime a guy has crazy measureables but may need some polish, that’s who people see.

 

 I’m not saying Edmunds doesn’t have his flaws, but no more than the average prospect. He doesn’t have “bad” instincts. He has good instincts, but could use some work on his play recognition. That CAN be coached. He just needs to get in the film room. He’s a solid tackler but could get better. But every LB can get better at tackling coming out. Again, that can be coached. But he excels in coverage and has the best movement skills of any LB in this class. His closing burst is ridiculous. He checks all the boxes 

-Athletic profile? Check

-College production? Check

-Character? Check

-Tape that’s shows the prerequisite skills for his position? Check

 

 

And he checks off the necessary boxes for a High first round pick by having at least 1-2 elite traits, scheme flexibility, and room to grow. There’s nothing game breaking in his tape. He is not without flaw, but he’s no more or less flawed than Chubb, Ward, Fitzpatrick, etc...

 

4 hours ago, stitches said:

What's your evaluation of Edmunds? Good traits, bad ones? Where would you feel comfortable drafting him? 

 

BTW, nice having you back. Welcome back!  

 

I'm going to come back to this because I want to watch him again. 

 

But I don't think this thread has simply been about Edmunds' question marks being overblown. I think it's been a case of the extremes, like a lot of other debates wind up being. 

[Stoney]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:52 AM, SolidGold said:

STATS

Year	Team	COMB	AST	Sack	INT
2017	IND	45	14	0.0	0
2016	IND	43	11	0.0	0
Career		88	25	0.0	0

Almost every S drafted AFTER him has better stats. Vonn Bell & Kevin Byard was the next S off the board after him. We blew it.

no. we knew it would take a few years for Green to develop. unless you just weren't paying attention.

[Surge89]

On 4/10/2018 at 3:20 PM, Coffeedrinker said:

 

 

Watch this game vs Clemson and you will see why he's considered a "future player".

After watching that game I have taken Edmunds completely off my draft board (just to be clear this is the official big board that is the imaginary one in my head as I try to gauge who the Colts will pick)

 

It's not that he is just choosing wrong on an option play.  He often seems to have no idea where the playing is going or who has the ball.  He takes himself out of plays and he gets taken out by lineman and TEs when the paly is coming right at him.

 

I respect your opinion (moreso than many on here) but I'm going to respectfully disagree.  The plays he wasn't effective in were off coverage plays in which we've known he needs coaching in.  He was effective in the run game and as a blitzer but for some reason wasn't asked to do much man coverage in this game which his strong suit. 

 

Also this is one game which can't be taken as a vacuum of his entire collegiate career.  But even in this very tape twice in the first 2 minutes he was approached by 2 guards once the guard had hands on him and he still made the tackle.  And that was when he was first blocking priority.  I'm just not seeing the issues that you are saying. Does he need refinement? Yes definitely but to say this was so bad of a tape that it removes his top drafteable status is the part I don't agree with. 

[Coffeedrinker]

On 4/14/2018 at 6:57 AM, Surge89 said:

 

I respect your opinion (moreso than many on here) but I'm going to respectfully disagree.  The plays he wasn't effective in were off coverage plays in which we've known he needs coaching in.  He was effective in the run game and as a blitzer but for some reason wasn't asked to do much man coverage in this game which his strong suit. 

 

Also this is one game which can't be taken as a vacuum of his entire collegiate career.  But even in this very tape twice in the first 2 minutes he was approached by 2 guards once the guard had hands on him and he still made the tackle.  And that was when he was first blocking priority.  I'm just not seeing the issues that you are saying. Does he need refinement? Yes definitely but to say this was so bad of a tape that it removes his top drafteable status is the part I don't agree with. 

I agree one game does not a college career make.  And this was his worst game and group of plays that I have seen.  But to me he seems like a more athletic Morrison.  Perhaps my expectations are to blame.  From other people on this forum and the scouting reports I was expecting to see a man among boys out there but all I have seen is an athletic guy who doesn't seem to understand the game of football very much.

[MikeCurtis]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I agree one game does not a college career make.  And this was his worst game and group of plays that I have seen.  But to me he seems like a more athletic Morrison.  Perhaps my expectations are to blame.  From other people on this forum and the scouting reports I was expecting to see a man among boys out there but all I have seen is an athletic guy who doesn't seem to understand the game of football very much.

He did have a few good plays in the game as well; as in a few, solo, wrap up tackles

 

But he did have some "running around in space, without a purpose" plays

 

He seems to have trouble with vision. He has trouble with freelancing. In the play where the RB releases to the left, and he doesnt see him, its clear he doesnt know his responsibility.

 

The entire VT defense was on the other side of the field

 

I am SURE that Trumane had an underneath zone, and where he was, he needed to spot the RB.......  he didnt

 

Its a "fixable" thing, and if you can imagine a pro LB coach saying (SCREAMING)..... in THIS defense.......  YOU OWN THIS AREA........ Stop free lancing..... stop trying to be everything on every play......  

 

Take care of THIS SPOT.......

 

I think he will get it....... he tackles well, he runs well, he has the needed size..........  MOST of his game is great

 

Narrow his responsibility, and he will be fine (IMHO)

 

 

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I agree one game does not a college career make.  And this was his worst game and group of plays that I have seen.  But to me he seems like a more athletic Morrison.  Perhaps my expectations are to blame.  From other people on this forum and the scouting reports I was expecting to see a man among boys out there but all I have seen is an athletic guy who doesn't seem to understand the game of football very much.

A more athletic Morrison is a very bad comp. That’s not even kind of accurate. You can’t watch a 19 year old read a play wrong or not understand his assignment occasionally and think he’s no good. That’s lazy scouting. If your analysis of him is that far off from what the expert scouts (Brooks, Mayock, Jeremiah,etc...) have then that means it’s you who’s way off the mock.

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

He did have a few good plays in the game as well; as in a few, solo, wrap up tackles

 

But he did have some "running around in space, without a purpose" plays

 

He seems to have trouble with vision. He has trouble with freelancing. In the play where the RB releases to the left, and he doesnt see him, its clear he doesnt know his responsibility.

 

The entire VT defense was on the other side of the field

 

I am SURE that Trumane had an underneath zone, and where he was, he needed to spot the RB.......  he didnt

 

Its a "fixable" thing, and if you can imagine a pro LB coach saying (SCREAMING)..... in THIS defense.......  YOU OWN THIS AREA........ Stop free lancing..... stop trying to be everything on every play......  

 

Take care of THIS SPOT.......

 

I think he will get it....... he tackles well, he runs well, he has the needed size..........  MOST of his game is great

 

Narrow his responsibility, and he will be fine (IMHO)

 

 

So you would not use him in the MIKE spot?  In a 4-3 there are a lot of positions where you can narrow down his focus but MIKE is not one of them.  And I could see him being used in that capacity.  The question them becomes, does a team spend a high draft pick on a guy that you have to narrow down his responsibilities?

[Coffeedrinker]

5 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

A more athletic Morrison is a very bad comp. That’s not even kind of accurate. You can’t watch a 19 year old read a play wrong or not understand his assignment occasionally and think he’s no good. That’s lazy scouting. If your analysis of him is that far off from what the expert scouts (Brooks, Mayock, Jeremiah,etc...) have then that means it’s you who’s way off the mock.

I'm fine being far off from expert scouts.  Like me, they are not always correct. 

 

And if it was occasionally then I would not conclude he's no good.  In the Clemson game it was most plays and I can absolutely watch that and conclude he's no good. I actually did that.  I don't think Edmunds is a first round talent.  Disagree with me, name call, call me a lazy scout whatever makes you feel better.  If he becomes a Colt I will hope I'm wrong, if he does not become a Colt then I hope I'm correct every time he plays the Colts.

[MikeCurtis]

33 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

So you would not use him in the MIKE spot?  In a 4-3 there are a lot of positions where you can narrow down his focus but MIKE is not one of them.  And I could see him being used in that capacity.  The question them becomes, does a team spend a high draft pick on a guy that you have to narrow down his responsibilities?

I would use him as a MIKE on the Colts

 

I do think that he could also be a SSLB as well

[MikeCurtis]

43 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm fine being far off from expert scouts.  Like me, they are not always correct. 

 

And if it was occasionally then I would not conclude he's no good.  In the Clemson game it was most plays and I can absolutely watch that and conclude he's no good. I actually did that.  I don't think Edmunds is a first round talent.  Disagree with me, name call, call me a lazy scout whatever makes you feel better.  If he becomes a Colt I will hope I'm wrong, if he does not become a Colt then I hope I'm correct every time he plays the Colts.

 

You dang lazy scout

 

He did have a bad game. I will agree with you (I hadnt watched that tape)........ but, it was a bad game.

 

on another note, It would be unfair of me to say that Barkley was no good, based on his Ohio State game 

 

he gained a total of 44 yards..... and on ONE play he had 36 yards...... if that was the only time you watched him, you might not be as high on him

 

With Edmunds, It appears that this was his worst game of the year

 

And... who knows how he turns out..... he isnt a finished product (I surely wouldnt bet my house on him making it)

 

Enough scouts have watched hours, and hours of all his tapes and conclude he is a top 10 prospect 

 

He has many plays, where he was patient, disgnosed the play and made the tackle....... 

 

 

I think if he spends some time with a pro LB coach, his poor decisions will drop, and his overall play would improve

 

I am more concerned with R. Smith as a prospect vs Edmunds

 

Both have potential to be pro bowl players, but seeing how teams ran right at himand when ANYONE made contact with him, he couldnt seem to disingage made me pause   Edmunds doesnt seemt to get run over, and he seems to shed blocks easily.

 

Now he may be in the stands getting a hot dog, when the pay comes to his side, but he will brush aside the vendor and get back on the field to make a tackle.

 

But again...... its all in fun..... everyone gets an opinion

 

We will see in a few days

 

 

 

 

 

[ColtsBlitz]

On 4/7/2018 at 7:26 PM, bananabucket said:

His instincts and processing are trash right now compared to Roquan's.  Seriously, watch their tape back to back.  It is night and day.  Though Edmunds did seem to improve in this area towards the end of the year.

 

I don't really want a player who COULD be special so long as they develop.   There are plenty of safer bets to choose from at 6.  If we trade down to 11 or 12 and he's still there, I'd be much more willing to take the gamble.  I just worry Ballard will get enamored with his elite traits and will take him over superior players. 

 

I don’t think Ballard would make any rash moves. Taking Hooker was a slam dunk pick. I don’t remember watching a safety with the same skilled, calm catching and covering ability as him on the Colts in awhile. 

[crazycolt1]

I would take Edmunds over Smith every time.

Edmunds was the favorite coming into this draft season but the media has pushed Smith so much it's ridiculous.

Smith is going to be a great player no doubt but Edmunds can move all around the defensive backfield. He can be lined up where ever the weak part of the offense the Colts are facing. His versatility IMO is why I would pick him over Smith.

[Luck 4 president]

37 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I would take Edmunds over Smith every time.

Edmunds was the favorite coming into this draft season but the media has pushed Smith so much it's ridiculous.

Smith is going to be a great player no doubt but Edmunds can move all around the defensive backfield. He can be lined up where ever the weak part of the offense the Colts are facing. His versatility IMO is why I would pick him over Smith.

I really like both and would be fine with whichever, but during last season until around February, Roquan was always talked about as a top 5 non qb talent while Edmunds wasn’t even a consensus 1st rounder. Eventually everyone started falling in love with Edmunds’ size and that’s what increased his stock more than anything. That’s what I remember at least. You can look back at a lot of early mocks and most will have Roquan in the top 10 and Edmunds 15 or later. Again, I like both, but to say roquan’s media attention has come out of nowhere is incorrect. It may be true for Edmunds, but not smith. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I would take Edmunds over Smith every time.

Edmunds was the favorite coming into this draft season but the media has pushed Smith so much it's ridiculous.

Smith is going to be a great player no doubt but Edmunds can move all around the defensive backfield. He can be lined up where ever the weak part of the offense the Colts are facing. His versatility IMO is why I would pick him over Smith.

 

If the media is pushing Smith that has to do with what they're being told.    This is not personal.    There is no agenda....

 

If the media is talking up Smith,  that's the buzz they are hearing.   

 

I love Edmunds too.    I have no idea which player Ballard prefers,  though I would suspect Ballard knows by now who he favors more and by how much.     There's nothing new to learn about these guys at this point.    Hey, I'd love to be the Fly on the Wall right now and know everything.    But I'm in the dark just like everyone else.

 

I can only say this Smith push is not driven by the media....    it's driven by NFL teams.    Now, maybe some of this is the draft-season smoke screen that we always here about.     Maybe.     But maybe this is accurate.    It's hard to know right now...

 

  

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

I really like both and would be fine with whichever, but during last season until around February, Roquan was always talked about as a top 5 non qb talent while Edmunds wasn’t even a consensus 1st rounder. Eventually everyone started falling in love with Edmunds’ size and that’s what increased his stock more than anything. That’s what I remember at least. You can look back at a lot of early mocks and most will have Roquan in the top 10 and Edmunds 15 or later. Again, I like both, but to say roquan’s media attention has come out of nowhere is incorrect. It may be true for Edmunds, but not smith. 

Edmunds' attention didn't come out of nowhere. Most people didn't expect him to declare because his parents felt strongly about him and his brother staying in school. Plus he's really young. The moment he declared he was instantly going to be a consensus top 10 prospect. He has good production, tape, and measurables.  He'd have had the same hype if he entered the 2019 draft. Edmunds' has always been on scouts radar as a blue chip prospect.

[Defjamz26]

Also for all the knocks on Edmunds there’s this:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000926622/article/2018-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-could-slide-colts-looking-to-trade

 

Scroll down and watch the video where Brooks does a side by side comparison of Smith and Edmunds. Actually gives Edmunds the edge vs the run.

[ColtsBlueFL]

16 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

So you would not use him in the MIKE spot?  In a 4-3 there are a lot of positions where you can narrow down his focus but MIKE is not one of them.  And I could see him being used in that capacity.  The question them becomes, does a team spend a high draft pick on a guy that you have to narrow down his responsibilities?

 

I have heard some respectable ex NFL executives/front office people say Edmunds projects to be a SAM, and Smith a WILL or MIKE.  I Know Pat Kirwan and Jonathan Vilma love Smith, Gil Brandt says Edmunds would be a terror off the edge (SAM Backer is more of a blitzer than MIKE or WILL).

 

I prefer Smith over Edmunds , just by a skosh.  Because I believe Smith at WILL on 1st down and run situations, and MIKE in pass downs/situations (notably Nickel and Dime sub packages) is perfect foundation of our LB core.  But wee need a fearsome pass rush off the end too, or blitzer lacking that.

[NewColtsFan]

13 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Also for all the knocks on Edmunds there’s this:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000926622/article/2018-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-could-slide-colts-looking-to-trade

 

Scroll down and watch the video where Brooks does a side by side comparison of Smith and Edmunds. Actually gives Edmunds the edge vs the run.

 

I can believe we'd consider trading down with Miami at 11 or even with Buffalo at 12 and all their extra draft picks.

 

But it's hard for me to see a deal with Arizona at 15.   We may want to move back and they may want to move up, but I'm not aware they have enough trade assets to want to trade back to 15.   Sorry, I just don't see it.

 

[crazycolt1]

13 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

I really like both and would be fine with whichever, but during last season until around February, Roquan was always talked about as a top 5 non qb talent while Edmunds wasn’t even a consensus 1st rounder. Eventually everyone started falling in love with Edmunds’ size and that’s what increased his stock more than anything. That’s what I remember at least. You can look back at a lot of early mocks and most will have Roquan in the top 10 and Edmunds 15 or later. Again, I like both, but to say roquan’s media attention has come out of nowhere is incorrect. It may be true for Edmunds, but not smith. 

His size was a point but his play on the field was more the factor. It was originally thought he was going to stay one more year in college thus Smith getting most of the attention for this years draft.

I have watched a lot of what tape is available on both players and I see Edmunds being the more versatile player who can bring more to the table than Smith. That is not a dis on Smith, just IMO Edmunds does more of the field.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

On 4/7/2018 at 10:41 PM, SolidGold said:

Edmunds is and will be the youngest player ever drafted into the NFL I believe. He's 19 yrs old. The awesomeness and the mistakes we've  seen was from a 18 yr old kid. He's a monster. That's our future MLB. We have Eberflus to put that Midas touch on him.IMO if it wasn't a QB frenzy this year he would go top 5. 

 

Just listened to a podcast today that had Holder on for an interview and he 100% believes that Edmunds is the "secret" player that Ballard is a huge fan of, and he thinks he's very much in play at #6. I didn't realize how young he was, so that's just an added bonus if he ends up being a Colt.

[krunk]

8 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Just listened to a podcast today that had Holder on for an interview and he 100% believes that Edmunds is the "secret" player that Ballard is a huge fan of, and he thinks he's very much in play at #6. I didn't realize how young he was, so that's just an added bonus if he ends up being a Colt.

Glad to hear that!  Especially coming from Holder as he speaks with Ballard on a regular basis.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

Just now, krunk said:

Glad to hear that!  Especially coming from Holder as he speaks with Ballard on a regular basis.

 

Personally I was leaning towards Denzel Ward when I first heard about this "mystery player" that the Colts were high on, but after listening to Holder's perspective, I'm about 75% convinced that it's Edmunds.

[krunk]

If Holder is 100 Percent convinced then I believe that is who it is.  I'll give the same 100 too!

[Defjamz26]

10 minutes ago, krunk said:

If Holder is 100 Percent convinced then I believe that is who it is.  I'll give the same 100 too!

Edmunds was who I immediately thought of as soon as I heard the report about the mystery candidate. But it makes a ton of sense. Big and fast guy capable of playing all LB spots in a 4-3. Has the rare traits Ballard likes. And not only does Holder think it’s him, but Zerlein who is also familiar with Ballard had the Colts taking Ballard in his last mock.

[stitches]

Here's Greg Cosell's report on Edmunds:

 

 

[MikeCurtis]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I can believe we'd consider trading down with Miami at 11 or even with Buffalo at 12 and all their extra draft picks.

 

But it's hard for me to see a deal with Arizona at 15.   We may want to move back and they may want to move up, but I'm not aware they have enough trade assets to want to trade back to 15.   Sorry, I just don't see it.

 

You may be right....... but..... if they (Arizona) were to offer 1 and 2 this year and next........ you would have to consider..... right?

[Fisticuffs111]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Here's Greg Cosell's report on Edmunds:

 

 

I like Edmunds but I won't lie, his bust potential does worry me. I think the whole "out of the league in 4 years" stuff that people say is overblown, but I could definitely see him not panning out, even with Eberflus coaching him.

[aaron11]

46 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

You may be right....... but..... if they (Arizona) were to offer 1 and 2 this year and next........ you would have to consider..... right?

thats way over the chart value so i would take that one even though im not crazy about trading for future unknown picks 

 

three first round picks and six seconds over the next two drafts would be nuts.   

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

You may be right....... but..... if they (Arizona) were to offer 1 and 2 this year and next........ you would have to consider..... right?

 

I'd consider it....    I just don't know if I'd accept it...

 

[bananabucket]

edit