Edholm: Keep an eye on Colts and Roquan Smith

[stitches]

 

[Dark Superman]

I don't want him at 6.

[Defjamz26]

Who is Eric Edholm?

[BlueShoe]

29 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Who is Eric Edholm?

 

Bill Tobin’s mailman. 

[NewColtsFan]

 

It's the hottest buzz out there.....

 

And I'm fine if that's how it turns out....

 

[Dark Superman]

God..please no.

[BProland85]

If Ballard gets him after a trade down I’m completely on board with that. But 6 overall is a little too high for him. Would rather have Nelson or Chubb if they stay put. 

[DougDew]

Hopefully the Bears will want Nelson badly enough to trade up to our 6 to get him, then we can take Smith at 8.  But no way would I take Nelson over Smith at 6.

[Cynjin]

7 hours ago, DarkSuperman said:

I don't want him at 6.

 

2 hours ago, DarkSuperman said:

God..please no.

 

Please enlighten everyone on why Smith is such a bad pick at 6th overall.

[buccolts]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

Please enlighten everyone on why Smith is such a bad pick at 6th overall.

 

I'm wondering...... 

If Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson are gone, and we can't find a trade back partner, are they suggesting we take a QB, or forfeit the pick? Seems no one else is good enough at 6.

[Cynjin]

5 minutes ago, buccolts said:

 

I'm wondering...... 

If Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson are gone, and we can't find a trade back partner, are they suggesting we take a QB, or forfeit the pick? Seems no one else is good enough at 6.

 

That seems to be the thought process here.  There are other options at 6, but Smith is worthy of the pick and he should be a big upgrade at lb for the Colts.

[PeterBowman]

if the team absolutely loves a player and that player would be a massive upgrade and at a position of need, what difference would a couple draft spots make?

[ColtsBlitz]

26 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Please enlighten everyone on why Smith is such a bad pick at 6th overall.

I don’t think he’s bad, I just have my concerns with him for his run stopping ability. He isn’t strong enough in the box and definitely isn’t a Mike. He’s a great will with a strong Mike backer to help him support the run, but I’ve seen too many plays of him getting completely blown up by interior lineman.

 

It won’t happen every play, but I’d rather have Edmunds at 6. Risks are there for both, but if Eberflus would rather take Smith, then I’d rather have Smith too. 

[Cynjin]

8 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I don’t think he’s bad, I just have my concerns with him for his run stopping ability. He isn’t strong enough in the box and definitely isn’t a Mike. He’s a great will with a strong Mike backer to help him support the run, but I’ve seen too many plays of him getting completely blown up by interior lineman.

 

It won’t happen every play, but I’d rather have Edmunds at 6. Risks are there for both, but if Eberflus would rather take Smith, then I’d rather have Smith too. 

 

There are no guarantees, to me Edmunds is the bigger risk, although he does have a lot of upside.  I disagree about Smith not being good enough against the run, he is a 3 down lb imo, he is good against the run and can cover TEs.

[AZColt11]

I'm good with Smith, he's the best LB in this draft.  But I don't want him OVER Chubb or Nelson.  Barkley maybe.  If Chubb and Nelson are gone and we can't trade down, THEN take him at 6 if that's your guy.

[BProland85]

48 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

Please enlighten everyone on why Smith is such a bad pick at 6th overall.

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

[krunk]

5 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

I'm sure the assumption is those guys will be gone at #6

[ColtsBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

There are no guarantees, to me Edmunds is the bigger risk, although he does have a lot of upside.  I disagree about Smith not being good enough against the run, he is a 3 down lb imo, he is good against the run and can cover TEs.

Roquan has more immediate upside and less risk, I agree. If we can get LVE in the second round, I’d be hyped. Perfect selections and additions for our lb corps. Mike and Will

[That Guy]

31 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

if the team absolutely loves a player and that player would be a massive upgrade and at a position of need, what difference would a couple draft spots make?

While I happen to agree that Smith is fine at 6, I disagree with the idea that a couple of picks is meaningless.  The difference between 6 and 9 on the draft value chart is 250 points, which is a high third round pick.  That's also enough to turn our pick 36 in the early second into pick 22 in the middle of the first. 

 

If we want to target Smith, pushing a trade back and regaining some of that value makes the most sense.  Moving back is not meaningless, ESPECIALLY in the first.

[Cynjin]

42 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

 

The 3 prospects you mentioned are better prospects than Smith imo, but Smith is not a reach at 6.  I would be happy with any of the 4.

[csmopar]

46 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

I'm not sold on Smith either but the odds of 1 of those 3 being there at 6 are slim.  i am not sold that the Giants are going QB.  I still say they'll go Barkley/Chubb and then the Browns grab the other at 4. Broncos need OL, they'll take Nelson.

[aaron11]

8 hours ago, DarkSuperman said:

I don't want him at 6.

i dont either.  will linebackers never go that high

 

one could say the same about nelson, but he is a top 3 player in the class and about as safe as a draft prospect can get. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, That Guy said:

While I happen to agree that Smith is fine at 6, I disagree with the idea that a couple of picks is meaningless.  The difference between 6 and 9 on the draft value chart is 250 points, which is a high third round pick.  That's also enough to turn our pick 36 in the early second into pick 22 in the middle of the first. 

 

If we want to target Smith, pushing a trade back and regaining some of that value makes the most sense.  Moving back is not meaningless, ESPECIALLY in the first.

 

Yes...   all true...   but what if there is no partner for a small move back?

 

What if the only two offers are from Miami at 11 or Buffalo at 12 and Ballard believes that Smith won't last long?

 

That's what we could be facing Thursday night...    just sayin...

 

[aaron11]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I'm not sold on Smith either but the odds of 1 of those 3 being there at 6 are slim.  i am not sold that the Giants are going QB.  I still say they'll go Barkley/Chubb and then the Browns grab the other at 4. Broncos need OL, they'll take Nelson.

they may be gone, but i have edmunds close behind those three on my board. i would take him at 6 unless the trade offers are too good to pass up

 

i know a lot of people are quick to trade back, but the teams behind us in the top 10 should also take edmunds if hes there.  

[Fisticuffs111]

I'd be happy with Roquan even at #6. The only way we could trade back and not really risk him being taken is going back to #8, otherwise the Raiders/9ers could very well grab him. Even then, who knows if the Bears will really want to move up.

 

[Reboot]

32 minutes ago, That Guy said:

While I happen to agree that Smith is fine at 6, I disagree with the idea that a couple of picks is meaningless.  The difference between 6 and 9 on the draft value chart is 250 points, which is a high third round pick.  That's also enough to turn our pick 36 in the early second into pick 22 in the middle of the first. 

 

If we want to target Smith, pushing a trade back and regaining some of that value makes the most sense.  Moving back is not meaningless, ESPECIALLY in the first.

It may not be meaningless, but if a team has a target player, who ranks ahead of others on their board, and teams drafting behind them have similar interests, then the value increases.  It's no different than QBs.  Does anyone really think that all these QBs this season are the best available on the draft board?  Of course not.  The market determines the value.  In this draft there are two LBs who have separated themselves from the crowd, so their value goes up.  Now if the Colts truly don't care which player is there, have players with equal scores, and perhaps from different positions, then it's even better, because losing out on one at 6 because you've traded back to 8, or 11, or 12 doesn't matter.  And in a draft like this, I think the Colts have already made clear, both in trading from 3 to 6, and in Ballard's presser from 4/20, that to them there are 8-10 non-QB elite athletes in this draft, and they're likely to stay where they can get one.  But at some point you can't be held captive to some magical chart which is static and doesn't take into consideration the ebb and flow of availability and your position in the draft relative to competitors who may have similar interests.  

[Track Guy]

If we trade back - I'm cool with it. I'd much rather snag Nelson if we stay at 6. 

[Track Guy]

If we trade back - I'm cool with it. I'd much rather snag Nelson if we stay at 6. 

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, BProland85 said:

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

You have to stop acting as if it’s Big 3 or bust at #6. There are other options. Just because of how high most analyst have them, doesn’t mean that’s how every GM will have them graded. As a fan you should open your mind up to other possibilities, or you could end up disappointed on draft day. There’s no reason to hone in on specific guys and say “this is who we have to take” at this pick.

[lollygagger8]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Hopefully the Bears will want Nelson badly enough to trade up to our 6 to get him, then we can take Smith at 8.  But no way would I take Nelson over Smith at 6.

 

Couldn't disagree more. 

 

No way would I take Smith over Nelson at 6.

[buccolts]

1 hour ago, BProland85 said:

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

 

Though it may say so on someone's business card, they don't exist.

There have been some to come close, though.

[Architects08]

Smith at 6? No thank you. In a trade back scenario im cool with it.

[shasta519]

I just don't know if I can see Ballard drafting a WILL at #6. Personally, I prefer a trade back scenario at this point. If the Colts had to stay pat and draft at #6, I want Edmunds.

[PeterBowman]

one thing to consider based on what Ballard has said...they're cool with the 6th spot. Only open to trading back if they're offered something incredible.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

they may be gone, but i have edmunds close behind those three on my board. i would take him at 6 unless the trade offers are too good to pass up

 

i know a lot of people are quick to trade back, but the teams behind us in the top 10 should also take edmunds if hes there.  

I'm with you. I dont know why everyone wants us to trade outside the top 10.  1 trade back is enough unless we're getting an insanely high offer involving MULTIPLE first round picks, this year and next. 

[csmopar]

2 hours ago, BProland85 said:

 

Its not that he’s not a great prospect, it’s that there will be better ones available at 6. No expert analyst has Smith higher rated over Nelson, Chubb, or Barkley. I’m about getting players at good value spots and not reaching. 

just to play devil's advocate, those same experts had Trent Richardson, Ryan Leaf and Johnny Manziel all as top 5 talent while ranking guys like Tom Brady as late rounders...

[MikeCurtis]

If Smith is being drafted to be a MLB, I would say no.......

 

The guy will be very talented at WSLB.   but not at 6

 

He does worry me, as has been pointed out, that he wont be able to shed blocks.....

 

 

There are much worse picks that we can do..... we WILL need a WSLB this year

 

I think one is available, that you can play in 2018 in round 2-3, (though Not as good)

 

He is a guy, who can also go into coverage

 

Remember how wide open, TEs and RBs were last year.... ?

 

 

He isnt my first pick, but he is one of 5-6 players at pick 6 that could help the team

and yes, at some point will get behind ;)

 

 

 

[krunk]

It's funny how people keep calling Smith a "Will".   Did you not see how the reports from Pauline and some of the other sources tell you the Colts see him as being able to do both things?  It's kind of obvious they have a bit of a different read on things than us.  Even if my personal belief is he's better off at Will, that certainly doesn't over ride how the team views what he's able to do.

[Fisticuffs111]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

It's funny how people keep calling Smith a "Will".   Did you not see how the reports from Pauline and some of the other sources tell you the Colts see him as being able to do both things?  It's kind of obvious they have a bit of a different read on things than us.  Even if my personal belief is he's better off at Will, that certainly doesn't over ride how the team views what he's able to do.

Yeah, sometimes it seems like it's just a narrative getting pushed, not all the time, but sometimes. Kind of like the whole "Edmunds is so young" stuff. Roquan's only a year and 20+ days older. I understand the high ceiling talk for Edmunds because of his size/athleticism but I think the age/experience stuff also gets overblown.

As for narratives against Edmunds, I think his floor is overblown. I do have concerns about him not reaching his ceiling though, because IMO he is to some degree a project guy. Not like a super raw TJ Green kind of project, but for a high 1st rounder.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

4 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

I'm good with Smith, he's the best LB in this draft.  But I don't want him OVER Chubb or Nelson.  Barkley maybe.  If Chubb and Nelson are gone and we can't trade down, THEN take him at 6 if that's your guy.

This is correct!