Let's talk 2019 offseason

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

Does Smith really suck at RT?  I thought people were praising him against the Texans, and then he has a bad game against KC and he's bad?  Just curious what people think.

 

I wasn't praising him, I've been pretty consistent that I think he's just average at RT. Add in that I think Glowinski is just average at RG, and I think my viewpoint is pretty self-explanatory. Others seem to disagree.

[dw49]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My big question is whether Smith is what you want at RT. I don't think he is. I'd rather acquire a better RT and have an embarrassment of riches at guard than be mediocre at RT because I'm playing a converted guard there. And if Glowinski gets a starter-level contract offer from someone else, I'm more than fine with him walking. 

 

But to your point, if we give him starter money before the market opens, then we'll know what the staff thinks at RG and RT. Right now, I think we need to get better.

 

If he can improve against speed rushers with improved technique , then he will be a stud. If he doesn't have the "feet" to make this possible , then I move to your side of the argument . The man did an incredible job as a rookie that played mostly G in college. But the question is can he get a little better vs speed rushers ? I'm not qualified to answer that. Could be he's not as certain things can't be taught...

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I'm a little perturbed that the focus generally seems to be on the offense once again.

 

Wasn't part of the reason we invested so heavily in the offensive line so we could be productive without outstanding talent throughout the skill positions? You can't be amazing everywhere. I'm certainly not saying that we can't upgrade the WR position but it shouldn't need to be a top echelon player to do that alongside Luck, TY, the TEs and our O-line. 

 

The focus has to be on getting players who can cause issues on the other side of the ball for the top end quarterbacks. 

 

To the bolded, no, not at all. We invested in the OL because the OL was bad, we had very few serviceable players, let alone good ones, and it was an absolute priority that we improve at OL.

 

A beneficial by-product of improving the OL is that it makes the offense more efficient and reduces the reliance on star play from the QB and receivers, but it wasn't 'let's have a good OL so we don't need good receivers.' 

 

As for needing a top echelon player, I know some people are thirsty for the next Mike Evans. I just want a productive and reliable player with specific traits, and I don't think we have that guy right now.

 

And I definitely think the offense is much further along than the defense, personnel wise.

[Restored]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

No question the defense didn't get any help from the offense, and that was a major factor.

 

But I think it's lacking context to suggest that the defense "clamped down" in the second half. The defense was outmatched from jump, and the game didn't get closer than 17 points until late in the 4th quarter. Then they promptly scored again.

 

I'll give the defense credit for their 4th down stop, and they got another stop on that late TD drive, but it was ruined by a STs penalty. Still, their offense had another gear that they never showed in that game.

 

I don't get how anyone could say the defense played well.

 

The defense stopped their offense on four consecutive drives in the second half and the offense only capitalized on one of them and fumbled away the turnover that the defense got on KC's side of the field.

 

Yes, they were outmatched from the jump but did more than enough to put the Colts in position to win on offense.

[Superman]

Just now, dw49 said:

 

If he can improve against speed rushers with improved technique , then he will be a stud. If he doesn't have the "feet" to make this possible , then I move to your side of the argument . The man did an incredible job as a rookie that played mostly G in college. But the question is can he get a little better vs speed rushers ? I'm not qualified to answer that. Could be he's not as certain things can't be taught...

 

Yup. Because of his handling of edge rushers, I don't see him as a great tackle prospect. I think he has the potential to be dominant at guard. You know where I stand...

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The corners in the second round were gone before #64, though, so trading up didn't cost us a corner; not sure if that's what you're saying.

 

And it's not hard to find corners to fit this scheme. Just a quick look through the last three drafts shows plenty of Day 2 corners that can play in our defense, and that will continue to be the case. I don't think we missed on a generational corner, or a particularly deep corner class, in 2018.

 

Back to Lewis and the DL, first, Lewis didn't get used the way the staff apparently wants to use him, and that's mostly due to his injury. I think they want to use him like Seattle used Michael Bennett, and that makes sense to me. His snaps -- and Turay's -- don't factor into my draft strategy. Say you go three tech at #26 and edge at #36, and they don't explode onto the scene in Year 1 -- which is reasonable, given the fact that rookies don't always pop in Year 1 -- then you put them on the same trajectory that Lewis and Turay are on now.

 

And in 2020, Sheard is a FA, Autry and Stewart are in contract years, and there's still room to work in new players. This is how you develop a pipeline of young talent. It's not about Year 1.

 

If anything, NT is the position we don't need. I prefer the penetrating NT, and I'd rather keep Hunt and Stewart at that spot as my two-deep than draft an early NT. That's definitely a non-premium, rotational position that I wouldn't spend a first or a second on. 

 

To the bolded, this is what I don't think is part of the calculus. It wouldn't be, for me. Make the team better by drafting good players. Positional value is a major factor, but outside of QB, that's not heavily influenced by the players on the roster. I don't care that we have a recently drafted three tech, if we can draft a better three tech, we should (and that might be the most important position in this defense, so I'm more than okay with doubling up there). 

 

I'm all about giving the young guys time and snaps to develop, but if second year guys can't compete with rookies, then they probably aren't good enough in the first place. Especially at two-deep positions like DL.

You're probably right about the corners.  I remember thinking I wish we drafted a corner instead of Turay, as they were on the board, but maybe they were gone by Lewis time.  

 

I think NT in this defense is more than just a run stuffer, as you said.  But we need something more than Hunt and Stewart.

 

Agreed that 3T is always the most important position in this D.   If we draft him at 26 or 36, that guy is playing every down except for breathers, IMO.

 

Keeping what I think Ballard' s view is aside, I'd like the Dline rotation to look like this. 

 

LDE, Hunt/Autry;

3T #26

NT #36 (Stewart as backup)

RDE Lewis/Turay. 

 

Autry or Lewis can back up #26.  Sheard gets released or a greatly reduced role. 

 

I don't think Ballard sees Hunt Autry or Lewis in those roles, so drafting a 3T is going to be a bit redundant, IMO.   A good player will be on the bench a lot.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Keeping what I think Ballard' s view is aside, I'd like the Dline rotation to look like this. 

 

LDE, Hunt/Autry;

3T #26

NT #36 (Stewart as backup)

RDE Lewis/Turay. 

 

Autry or Lewis can back up #26.  Sheard gets released or a greatly reduced role. 

 

See this is where I just approach the situation entirely differently than you (and others).  You're projecting draft picks for specific positions and even to play specific roles in 2019, and I don't think that's the proper approach.

 

It's like a different language. I understand you and you understand me, but the approach is completely different.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

See this is where I just approach the situation entirely differently than you (and others).  You're projecting draft picks for specific positions and even to play specific roles in 2019, and I don't think that's the proper approach.

 

It's like a different language. I understand you and you understand me, but the approach is completely different.

That lineup I suggested is pretty versatile and they can all move around.  But I do think that the guys we pick early usually do play a specific position, what they are good at, and they will play it a lot.  

[aaron11]

20 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Wasn't part of the reason we invested so heavily in the offensive line so we could be productive without outstanding talent throughout the skill positions? You can't be amazing everywhere.

 

 

the oline was terrible and our division rivals all have talent on dline.  we had to get better there regardless of scheme 

 

i think we will need more at the skill positions to keep up with teams like the chiefs and saints in the playoffs too.  ty is also going on 30 

[Legend of Luck]

19 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I'm a little perturbed that the focus generally seems to be on the offense once again.

 

Wasn't part of the reason we invested so heavily in the offensive line so we could be productive without outstanding talent throughout the skill positions? You can't be amazing everywhere. I'm certainly not saying that we can't upgrade the WR position but it shouldn't need to be a top echelon player to do that alongside Luck, TY, the TEs and our O-line. 

 

The focus has to be on getting players who can cause issues on the other side of the ball for the top end quarterbacks. 

I really think just ONE more big threat at WR could be a huge addition. If defenses cant zero in in TY, if they cant press both sides due to being beat deep, if they have to choose between 3 true weapons to cover...it just does wonders for the offense, ESPECIALLY in a situation like this year, when TY got hurt. We need another weapon for insurance purposes if nothing else.

[boo2202]

I think we all agree we need an elite offensive weapon. Rather a really good slot wr that can get yac or a gifted tall wr that can win jump balls. Our current wrs very rarely created separation and when they did it was basically by coach’s Reich play design. We need one that just can get open more times than not. Most of the good teams have at least 1 but the great teams have 2. 

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That lineup I suggested is pretty versatile and they can all move around.  But I do think that the guys we pick early usually do play a specific position, what they are good at, and they will play it a lot.  

 

How can you say that? You don't even have players at two of the positions.

 

And that's my problem with the approach, to be honest. The thinking is 'best 3T at #26, and best NT at #36,' and I get that...

 

But if the best 3T is the 30th best player on your board, and you have five players ahead of him that fit your schemes and your coaches and staff love, why reach past those players that you like and that your evaluations have identified? It's the epitome of needs-based drafting. You're reaching past better players because you want to fill a specific position, and your roster suffers over time.

 

So if we're on the board at #26 and the best player on the Colts board is at a position where you already have good players, I'm okay with taking that best player. Roster mechanics is a different matter from talent acquisition, particularly in the draft.

[Colt.45]

2 hours ago, runthepost said:

They still didn’t fully utilize  Tyreke Hill. I think if the game didn’t get so out of reach early the Chiefs could of put 40 up on the board

I think if that was the Pats, they would 100% have put 40 up.

[stitches]

You guys know how we wondered what part of the success of the OL was the improvement of the OL and what part was the playcalling. I read some stat from PFF that sheds some light into it - even though we didn't allow a ton of sacks, the OLine was below average(I think 17th, if I'm not mistaken) in allowing pressure. Sacks are much more volatile statistic than pressures and pressures is usually a better measure of pass-protection prowess of the line. Add to this that Luck was in the top 8 QBs of time to throw, which means the system was helping a ton by making the QB get rid off the ball quickly. 

 

So to answer the question - has the OLine improved? Absolutely! Is it top 5 of the league? Probably not. I completely agree with @Superman that the right side is not as strong as we would like it to be. I'm probably much lower on Glowinski than most... I've seen some mock off-seasons in which we are giving him 8M a year for multiple years. Yikes! I say hell no to that proposition. I don't mind having him back and competing for the starting spot, but if possible I'd definitely make an effort to improve the position... maybe with Braden SMith if they don't see him as a RT.... but I'm a bit more willing than Superman to see how Braden continues his development next year at RT. 

 

About the defense. You know how we lined up with both interior linemen at the A gaps in astonishingly high number of snaps this year? You know how we slant our rushes in weird ways to confuse the O-lines of the opponents? I've read and listened to a ton of people whose opinion I  respect(Greg Cosell, Andy Benoit, +some PFF folks, etc.) and they all do think that the success of this defense is to a huge extent due to smoke and mirrors and masterful coaching and planning job by Eberflus and despite the talent on the line rather than because of it. According to Cosell the unusual alignments and slants we were doing at the DLine was primarily because Eberflus knew we didn't have good athletic talent on the DLine and those things were all designed to mitigate that problem. And thus... IMO we need serious infusion of talent on the DLine with the athletic traits that Ballard and Eberflus consider good match for the system. The good thing is... we have several good picks in a DLine stacked class. I don't mind if we stack up the line with talent from this draft class. 

 

As I said in another thread I also think we need playmakers on offense. Luck is very very good on his own. IMagine if he had some help from his receivers and offensive weapons. We are bottom 3 in dropped passes(3d most drops) AND yards after the catch. Even this weekend - for as weak of a game as Luck had he still got 76% of his yards in the air and had very little help from his receivers.  We need players that can catch the ball and run with it... make a defender miss. Playmakers. IMO we need to double dip here. I want us to both draft a receiver relatively high and to try to acquire one either through trade or through free agency. We need reliable receivers who can get open. If we are going to make Luck get rid off the ball quickly, we need to have receivers who separate and get open quickly and/or receivers who can catch a ball and make defenders miss. 

 

To me those are the main things we need to get better at. Of course there are other positions one can improve and if available I wouldn't mind reinforcements anywhere on the roster, but those to me need to be priorities. 

[boo2202]

This is what I’m hoping for

 

Wr’s

hilton

FA Adam Humphries 

rd 2 pick (Hakeem Butler, Harmon etc

Inman

cain 

pascal

 

This is a good FA of safeties so take your pick

 

Mathieu

landon collins

lemarcus joyner

 Would include earl thomas but age and injury

 

Dl take your pick

 

Demarcus Lawrence

clowney

dee ford

frank clark

trey flowers

 

 

If if we can just fill a couple holes through FA we’re going to be ok. Some of this guys are young

 

trey flowers my fav is 25

frank Clark 25

clowney 25

landon Collins 25

Not including Lawrence don’t see boys letting him get away.

 

Some of these are in their prime

 

 

 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How can you say that? You don't even have players at two of the positions.

 

And that's my problem with the approach, to be honest. The thinking is 'best 3T at #26, and best NT at #36,' and I get that...

 

But if the best 3T is the 30th best player on your board, and you have five players ahead of him that fit your schemes and your coaches and staff love, why reach past those players that you like and that your evaluations have identified? It's the epitome of needs-based drafting. You're reaching past better players because you want to fill a specific position, and your roster suffers over time.

 

So if we're on the board at #26 and the best player on the Colts board is at a position where you already have good players, I'm okay with taking that best player. Roster mechanics is a different matter from talent acquisition, particularly in the draft.

About my list: DTs picked at 26 and 36 are going to be able to play the run and collapse the pocket.  I'm showing you my starting lineup, and the 26/36 players have a lot of talent so they will be there a lot.  That doesn't leave much time for the exterior guys to move inside, unless for breathers on 3rd and 17.  If you want to call them interior guys as opposed to exterior guys, fine.  I'm not going to expect a lighter guy like Lewis to earn much PT over the guy I drafted at 26.  Therefore, he gets stuck on the edge if he gets any PT.   I'm favoring improving my DTs at the expense of Lewis.  That's why he was a poor fit when he was drafted.  Not quick enough to play edge full time, not heavy enough to play DT full time.  He's an odd man out and has to find his time and place.  I don't like picking those guys in the second round.

 

I think you are assuming that needs based drafting is the same thing as reaching.  I think the fact is that while GMs list BPAs, they also have an idea about how far apart each player is from the other. 

 

We need a #2 WR, not a #1.  No, I'm not picking a WR at 26 simply because he's BPA.  I'm going to upgrade the position I need to upgrade as long as I'm not reaching, then upgrade WR later in the way it needs upgrading, where I should be able to find the type of player I need.  Depending upon how the draft is falling, I may move up to get him.  I've now got my positions filled without reaching, and I've got good talent throughout instead of lumpiness in the roster that might not get to be fully activated on game day..  

 

 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

My big question is whether Smith is what you want at RT. I don't think he is. I'd rather acquire a better RT and have an embarrassment of riches at guard than be mediocre at RT because I'm playing a converted guard there. And if Glowinski gets a starter-level contract offer from someone else, I'm more than fine with him walking. 

 

But to your point, if we give him starter money before the market opens, then we'll know what the staff thinks at RG and RT. Right now, I think we need to get better.

I think the Colts need to get better on the oline.  I don't think different personnel is necessarily needed in order to get better.

 

No, if somehow Taylor falls to the Colts pick or Schwartz or Ryan Ramczyk become available then that is a different issue but I think the line will be improved next year with AC, Nelson, Kelly, Glow and Smith.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I think the Colts need to get better on the oline.  I don't think different personnel is necessarily needed in order to get better.

 

No, if somehow Taylor falls to the Colts pick or Schwartz or Ryan Ramczyk become available then that is a different issue but I think the line will be improved next year with AC, Nelson, Kelly, Glow and Smith.

 

Young players can get better, sure. I just see Glowinski as a low ceiling player, and I think Smith has a lower ceiling at RT than at guard. I could see the OL being better with the same five guys in the same spots next season, but I think we'd get more out of it if we improved at RT and put Smith at RG.

[stitches]

Here's a wild one that not many people will agree with... if for some reason Ed Oliver starts dropping(in the teens for example)... I wouldn't mind if we traded up to get him. To me he's the perfect 3tech for our scheme and the 3tech is one of the key positions for that scheme. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Here's a wild one that not many people will agree with... if for some reason Ed Oliver starts dropping(in the teens for example)... I wouldn't mind if we traded up to get him. To me he's the perfect 3tech for our scheme and the 3tech is one of the key positions for that scheme. 

 

I haven't watched him much so I can't weigh in on that, but I have no problem with a trade up for a great prospect at a premium position.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't watched him much so I can't weigh in on that, but I have no problem with a trade up for a great prospect at a premium position.

Athletic freak, who needs pass-rush refinement. Already elite rush defender. It's a bit hard to evaluate his pass-rush ability because because I've never seen any prospect ever get double and triple teamed as much as him. And when I say triple team I mean 3 offensive linemen, not some combination of linemen and TEs or RBs... Opponents were sending 3 linemen with regularity at him. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

And when I say triple team I mean 3 offensive linemen, not some combination of linemen and TEs or RBs... Opponents were sending 3 linemen with regularity at him. 

 

Now you got my attention!  

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, DougDew said:

About my list: DTs picked at 26 and 36 are going to be able to play the run and collapse the pocket.  I'm showing you my starting lineup, and the 26/36 players have a lot of talent so they will be there a lot.  That doesn't leave much time for the exterior guys to move inside, unless for breathers on 3rd and 17.  If you want to call them interior guys as opposed to exterior guys, fine.  I'm not going to expect a lighter guy like Lewis to earn much PT over the guy I drafted at 26.  Therefore, he gets stuck on the edge if he gets any PT.   I'm favoring improving my DTs at the expense of Lewis.  That's why he was a poor fit when he was drafted.  Not quick enough to play edge full time, not heavy enough to play DT full time.  He's an odd man out and has to find his time and place.  I don't like picking those guys in the second round.

 

I think you are assuming that needs based drafting is the same thing as reaching.  I think the fact is that while GMs list BPAs, they also have an idea about how far apart each player is from the other. 

 

We could circle around this all day, but my point is that I think targeting specific positions at specific picks is antithetical to good roster building, because I think it results in passing on better players for specifically targeted players. 

 

You're saying the next 3T needs to come at #26, and I don't think that's a logical approach.

 

To the bolded, you're not accounting for the fact that a good player doesn't have to play one position all the time to be an every down player. There's already a proven formula for a versatile 3T/DE like what Lewis is expected to be -- Michael Bennett (and others). This staff already uses DL in multiple spots, depending on situations, as do other good defenses. It's a good approach.

 

Quote

and I've got good talent throughout instead of lumpiness in the roster that might not get to be fully activated on game day..  

 

And again, it's not all about Year 1. "Lumpiness" in 2019 could yield a great rotation in 2020. I agree that priorities should be balanced, but I don't think good rosters result from needs-based drafting.

 

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

Athletic freak, who needs pass-rush refinement. Already elite rush defender. It's a bit hard to evaluate his pass-rush ability because because I've never seen any prospect ever get double and triple teamed as much as him. And when I say triple team I mean 3 offensive linemen, not some combination of linemen and TEs or RBs... Opponents were sending 3 linemen with regularity at him. 

 

He's obviously on the list.

[Coffeedrinker]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Here's a wild one that not many people will agree with... if for some reason Ed Oliver starts dropping(in the teens for example)... I wouldn't mind if we traded up to get him. To me he's the perfect 3tech for our scheme and the 3tech is one of the key positions for that scheme. 

I have not watched him play, so this is just off some of the scouting reports and other things I've read, but there is a good chance Oliver will be there when the Colts are picking without trading up.

 

After watching the NCAA Champ game, if Wilkins falls into the middle teens then that would be someone to move up for, IMO.

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

Now you got my attention!  

 

 

All 3 of those are offensive linemen. There are videos of him running DB drills like he's a corner or something... He's very athletic. IMO he will blow up the combine. The knock on him is that he's undersized for interior linemen. He will probably measure at about 6'1" 280? Some teams will straight up not draft a player like that this high. IMO we need to pounce on the opportunity of he indeed starts falling. 

[runthepost]

1 hour ago, compuls1v3 said:

Does Smith really suck at RT?  I thought people were praising him against the Texans, and then he has a bad game against KC and he's bad?  Just curious what people think.

He has trouble with speed and finesse more than power defenders. Ford was too quick for him during the game on multiple occasions. Good teams will see his issues with speedy defenders

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I have not watched him play, so this is just off some of the scouting reports and other things I've read, but there is a good chance Oliver will be there when the Colts are picking without trading up.

 

After watching the NCAA Champ game, if Wilkins falls into the middle teens then that would be someone to move up for, IMO.

Unless he gets in some drugs/doping/violence/gas mask problems I don't see how he gets to 26. 

 

I agree about Wilkins too. He's been growing on me. There are a ton of very intriguing DLine prospects. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, ClaytonColt said:

I'm a little perturbed that the focus generally seems to be on the offense once again.

 

Wasn't part of the reason we invested so heavily in the offensive line so we could be productive without outstanding talent throughout the skill positions? You can't be amazing everywhere. I'm certainly not saying that we can't upgrade the WR position but it shouldn't need to be a top echelon player to do that alongside Luck, TY, the TEs and our O-line. 

 

The focus has to be on getting players who can cause issues on the other side of the ball for the top end quarterbacks. 

I look at it this way.    The O performs great during the season but comes up way short in the games we've lost in the playoffs.  Our offense has looked the same during the playoff losses, regardless of oline, scheme, coach, GM, etc.  Those are variables that have changed.

 

The one constant that hasn't changed is that we have never replaced Reggie Wayne.  His absence about the only thing that is similar in those performances. 

 

Since we've replaced everything else, why don't we replace our WRs?  Maybe that will solve the problem.

 

And defensively, we miss Cory Redding's pressure from the inside and Mathis' pressure from the outside.

[Superman]

24 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

 

All 3 of those are offensive linemen. There are videos of him running DB drills like he's a corner or something... He's very athletic. IMO he will blow up the combine. The knock on him is that he's undersized for interior linemen. He will probably measure at about 6'1" 280? Some teams will straight up not draft a player like that this high. IMO we need to pounce on the opportunity of he indeed starts falling. 

 

Anyone worried about a DT Oliver's size needs to go back and watch the film of a certain DT from Pitt. He's about to win his second consecutive DPOY, he won DROY, and he's been an All Pro four years in a row. 

 

I hope the Colts know better. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Anyone worried about a DT Oliver's size needs to go back and watch the film of a certain DT from Pitt. He's about to win his second consecutive DPOY, he won DROY, and he's been an All Pro four years in a row. 

 

I hope the Colts know better. 

Yah, Agree with the general point. IMO Donald had better tape and better production coming into the league though. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Yah, Agree with the general point. IMO Donald had better tape and better production coming into the league though. 

 

Yeah, not having watched his tape I'm definitely not saying his Donald, just saying a 3T can excel and even dominate at 6'1" 280 in the NFL.

[Calmack]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Anyone worried about a DT Oliver's size needs to go back and watch the film of a certain DT from Pitt. He's about to win his second consecutive DPOY, he won DROY, and he's been an All Pro four years in a row. 

 

I hope the Colts know better. 

True but I think Donald had a freak combine and showed his crazy size to athleticism ratio. He's also a slab of solid muscle and wrecked the bench press workout. I haven't watched Oliver at all so I wouldn't know is he could potentially fit the Donald mold.

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We could circle around this all day, but my point is that I think targeting specific positions at specific picks is antithetical to good roster building, because I think it results in passing on better players for specifically targeted players. 

 

You're saying the next 3T needs to come at #26, and I don't think that's a logical approach.

 

To the bolded, you're not accounting for the fact that a good player doesn't have to play one position all the time to be an every down player. There's already a proven formula for a versatile 3T/DE like what Lewis is expected to be -- Michael Bennett (and others). This staff already uses DL in multiple spots, depending on situations, as do other good defenses. It's a good approach.

 

But when you say that we can find a zone corner in round 3, aren't you targeting a position with a draft pick, in so many words.  At least eliminating a position from a first round pick, right?  For this D and this roster, you wouldn't pick a corner at 26, would you?  There's bound to be value players in other positions at 26.

 

I would think the guy picked at 26 never comes out of the game because he's so talented.  On defense, we now have those guys in Leonard and Hooker, so bypassing a BPA that is an ILB or a S and looking for a 3T, a WR, or a RT seems logical.  Pick whatever player of those 3 is BPA as long as there's value and someone else isn't heads and shoulders above the others.  Yes, I'd pick the real next Ed Reed if he were there. 

[Superman]

@Coffeedrinker @stitches

 

It sounds like the staff have been higher on Braden Smith at RT than I have, maybe from the beginning. Ballard in his presser said Morocco Brown thought Smith could play tackle from before the draft, and Gugs has been saying it since before camp.

 

And I guess it's obvious that he can play RT. I'm not saying he can't; Mewhort obviously wasn't good at RT, that's a different story. Smith can be serviceable at RT, probably more. I think we'd be better off improving that position, though, and in turn, also improving RG.

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

@Coffeedrinker @stitches

 

It sounds like the staff have been higher on Braden Smith at RT than I have, maybe from the beginning. Ballard in his presser said Morocco Brown thought Smith could play tackle from before the draft, and Gugs has been saying it since before camp.

 

And I guess it's obvious that he can play RT. I'm not saying he can't; Mewhort obviously wasn't good at RT, that's a different story. Smith can be serviceable at RT, probably more. I think we'd be better off improving that position, though, and in turn, also improving RG.

It's worth point out that according to some NFL people an average starting RT(what Braden was this eyar) provides more value than a top 10-ish RG so I understand them. I'm of a similar mind BTW... I want to see Braden for one more year at RT. If he continues his development and improves steadily I'd be OK with keeping him at RT. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

But when you say that we can find a zone corner in round 3, aren't you targeting a position with a draft pick, in so many words.  At least eliminating a position with a first round pick, right?  For this D and this roster, you wouldn't pick a corner at 26, would you?  There's bound to be value players in other positions at 26.

 

I would think the guy picked at 26 never comes out of the game because he's so talented.  On defense, we now have those guys in Leonard and Hooker, so bypassing a BPA that is an ILB or a S and looking for a 3T, a WR, or a RT seems logical.  Pick whatever player of those 3 is BPA as long as someone else isn't heads and shoulders above the others.  Yes, I'd pick the real next Ed Reed if he were there. 

 

No, you're going beyond what I stated. I was saying that I don't think we missed our chance to draft a corner, as if last year's class was so much better than this year's class will be. We can draft a Day 2 corner whenever we want.

 

Whether I would pick a corner at #26 or not is a different, more nuanced topic, but in short, I probably wouldn't. But that's a function of positional value and draft strategy, not roster mechanics.

 

Your first rounder playing every snap is ideal, but rare, especially late in the first round. And judging the value of a first round pick by whether he plays a major role in Year 1 is fallacious, IMO. You draft players, especially in early rounds, to give you 8-10 years of good play, not to start in Year 1. That's just a bonus. And especially once we actually have a well stocked roster, it's going to be even harder for first year players to play every down, at any position.

[Coffeedrinker]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Unless he gets in some drugs/doping/violence/gas mask problems I don't see how he gets to 26. 

 

I agree about Wilkins too. He's been growing on me. There are a ton of very intriguing DLine prospects. 

Again just based on some of things I've read the combination of his size (or lack there of) and his coaches saying that an additional 10-15 lbs would be too heavy for him.  Combined with some guys like Wilkins rising and how many teams run a defense and are looking for a smaller/fast DT in the first round.  I think there is a chance he may be there when the Colts draft.

 

Of course I do reserve the right to change that as things happen with the college all start games/ workouts, etc.

[ClaytonColt]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, no, not at all. We invested in the OL because the OL was bad, we had very few serviceable players, let alone good ones, and it was an absolute priority that we improve at OL.

 

A beneficial by-product of improving the OL is that it makes the offense more efficient and reduces the reliance on star play from the QB and receivers, but it wasn't 'let's have a good OL so we don't need good receivers.' 

You're quite right. Reason wasn't the right word at all and by product was much more accurate way to express it. The clarification is appreciated. 

 

Given that the strength of this team is the QB and WR1 and should be the O-line over time given the resources spent on it then we should be able to get by with a group of other targets that are closer to being serviceable rather than superstars.

[boo2202]

2 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

You're quite right. Reason wasn't the right word at all and by product was much more accurate way to express it. The clarification is appreciated. 

 

Given that the strength of this team is the QB and WR1 and should be the O-line over time given the resources spent on it then we should be able to get by with a group of other targets that are closer to being serviceable rather than superstars.

Don’t need superstars, just some wrs that can consistently get open and make the easy catch. I really think we sign one and draft another with one of our top three picks. Can’t keep relying on Rogers, grant, pascal. Just shows you how good T.Y is. They know it’s coming but rarely can stop it. 

[horseshoecrabs]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think the last few games have shown clearly that Braden isn't great at RT, and I'd move him to guard next season and acquire a better RT. The last few games have shown Glowinski's limitations as well. The right side needs to get better.

 

I think Bell would have been worse in the KC game than Mack was. Bell will dance around in the backfield for days, and the Chiefs were dominating with frontside containment and backside defenders. 

 

The game was an example of three problems for us on offense: 1) Reich is a very good playcaller, but he'll get stuck in a rut every once in a while, especially against a well-coordinated defense; 2) our receiving corps is B-level at best, much worse if Hilton isn't 100%; and 3) the OL isn't as dominant as they've been getting credit for, especially on the right side.

 

That being the case, we need another receiving weapon, or to make better use of the weapons we have (could have better weaponized Hines in this game, in multiple ways); I say both. We also need to improve the right side of the OL. 

I agree with Superman, but we need to, pursue, with caution with who we pick in FA to personify our goals as a team efferent , as  to not distract  from our team's  goal. We are a young team that needs to build on this year 's success.  We need players that are all about the team's goal, not about me as a player. I understand that this is a business , but in my mind it is the teams success  in the final analogy , that defines the success  of our team.