Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pat Beach 81

Latest USA today mock has colts selecting Williams LSU

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

I would suggest this choice is pure silliness. Zero% chance.

USA Today always has some one falling to the pats. Agree there’s no way lawerence Ferrell and tillery all fall that far. Greedy really dominated metcalf this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pat Beach 81 said:

This would be awesome.  I’d love one of the D tackles but you couldn’t pass this up. 

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

NFL mock draft 2019: Odell Beckham Jr. trade, free agency moves alter first round

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/draft/2019/03/14/nfl-mock-draft-2019-odell-beckham-free-agency/3148649002/

 

Ballard has always aid Cornerback is NOT a priority position in this defense.   That we don't have spend a high draft pick on one and we don't have to spend a ton of money on one in free agency.

 

Williams is a very good corner,  but he's a man corner...  not a zone corner...    I think Ballard would easily pass on him for another position....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Ballard has always said Cornerback is NOT a priority position in this defense.   That we don't have spend a high draft pick on one and we don't have to spend a ton of money on one in free agency.

 

Are you 100% sure???   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the signing of Desir, I don't expect corner to be considered a pressing need for this draft.  Not that you ever draft for need, but if Desir signed elsewhere, that would have had to influence Ballard's draft board to some degree.

 

And WR at 26 is probably not going to happen now either.  

 

Regardless of the Desir and Funchess signings, a corner or WR was unlikley to happen at 26 or 34 anyway.  Now its even less likely, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping that big OT falls to us from Washington State. I know it's a stretch but don't think Sweat will be there and don't think Ballard likes the smaller DE that much. OT isn't a position on need but what if Castonzo's asking price is too high to keep. Than it does becone position of need. Don't want your 2nd most important position being a need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Matabix said:

Hoping that big OT falls to us from Washington State. I know it's a stretch but don't think Sweat will be there and don't think Ballard likes the smaller DE that much. OT isn't a position on need but what if Castonzo's asking price is too high to keep. Than it does becone position of need. Don't want your 2nd most important position being a need.

 

 That is something to consider. CB may grade a LT that high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Matabix said:

Hoping that big OT falls to us from Washington State. I know it's a stretch but don't think Sweat will be there and don't think Ballard likes the smaller DE that much. OT isn't a position on need but what if Castonzo's asking price is too high to keep. Than it does becone position of need. Don't want your 2nd most important position being a need.

I believe Dillard is the top LT in the draft.   A personal favorite of mine.   Seems impossible for him to fall all the way to 26.    

 

But I’d have no idea how Ballard might value any other LT.   I think the other LTs are all 2nd round guys.   But that may be just me.   I think this OL class might be all over the map.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if he is BPA. Dosnt matter what our needs are, if he is the best player on the board then grab him. 

 

If he has no potential in a zone defence then I doubt he will be considered the best available though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Williams making it to 26, and I don't see Ballard going anything but best available Edge Or DT with the first pick.

 

CB is at best our 3rd or 4th biggest need. I could see them taking one with the second pick if the right guy is available though.

 

Was hoping that we would address at least S in FA, and maybe even CB. Bummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

I don't see Williams making it to 26, and I don't see Ballard going anything but best available Edge Or DT with the first pick.

 

CB is at best our 3rd or 4th biggest need. I could see them taking one with the second pick if the right guy is available though.

 

Was hoping that we would address at least S in FA, and maybe even CB. Bummer.

I can’t say you’re wrong nor can I say you’re right. CB May in fact be that far down the list but when you look at our cb’s, there isn’t one that concerns anyone to game plan against them. I would tend to think that any player CB feels will improve this defense come pick 26, he will take. 

 

We we all have that perfect pick player or think we see a position that is certain but I’d guess CB views one player as a team fix and not just a position fix. I hope a DE or a special fit for us falls to 26 and we can solidify that space but if Williams is picked there, obviously CB feels he is a better cog in the wheel than anyone else left at this point and our DC can gameplan him into the defense to create a stronger defense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ballard spends a high pick (top 2 rounds?) on a CB, this will show a lot about his philosophy. My opinion and hope has been that Ballard ultimately wants to move more and more towards cover 3 scheme in the Seattle mold with Hooker in the Earl Thomas single high role. Seattle doesn't spend huge resources on CBs but they did draft Griffin in the 3d, who is an athletic corner with man-on-man ability. Ballard has already said that he wants the team to be able to play more man coverage on 3d and 4th down, because the zone is easier to beat in those situations. 

 

I guess we'll see in due time. The player I mocked to us in the late 2nd was actually a kind of a discount version of Greedy physically - Sean Bunting, although he's better in zone and worse in press-man than Greedy, but not very physical similar to Greedy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

I'd be willing to bet that our first 3 picks will be lineman.....dt, de, ol

It wouldn't surprise me a bit

 

We have ZERO depth at OT

 

AC will be gone in a year or two (3?)

 

I do think we are a bit more covered on the interior, and like our options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

I'd be willing to bet that our first 3 picks will be lineman.....dt, de, ol

Possible, but I would take that bet. There will be at least one pick that's not on either line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

But I’d have no idea how Ballard might value any other LT.   I think the other LTs are all 2nd round guys.   But that may be just me.   I think this OL class might be all over the map.   

There are a few players at OT that were just a bit light for LT, or needed some time in the oven, that may be available later as they cant start right away at NFL level (4th round)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DougDew said:

With the signing of Desir, I don't expect corner to be considered a pressing need for this draft.  Not that you ever draft for need, but if Desir signed elsewhere, that would have had to influence Ballard's draft board to some degree.

 

And WR at 26 is probably not going to happen now either.  

 

Regardless of the Desir and Funchess signings, a corner or WR was unlikley to happen at 26 or 34 anyway.  Now its even less likely, IMO. 

You think there is a chance we could get J Love in the second rd? He is a dang ball hawk, really good kid too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

It wouldn't surprise me a bit

 

We have ZERO depth at OT

 

AC will be gone in a year or two (3?)

 

I do think we are a bit more covered on the interior, and like our options

I do like the Antonio Garcia kid that we picked up on waivers last year. He was a 3rd rounder with true left tackle upside that was derailed by blood cl.ots (if I don't put the period in it auto changes to Colts) in his lungs. He lost 40 pounds, was cut and then has worked his way back into football size and shape. He may surprise us.

 

However, if a good LT is available I could see one being drafted by us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stitches said:

Possible, but I would take that bet. There will be at least one pick that's not on either line. 

What are you thinking? WR? CB? SS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

What are you thinking? WR? CB? SS?

I think the value for WR will be great in R2. If we don't sign any high end(starter) safety in FA I expect us to take a look at the Jonathan Abrams and Juan Thornhills of the world, maybe Taylor Rapp or Chauncey Gardner-Johnson? CB is a possibility too... 

 

Overall, I think the odds are higher that we pick a different position with at least one of the picks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think the value for WR will be great in R2. If we don't sign any high end(starter) safety in FA I expect us to take a look at the Jonathan Abrams and Juan Thornhills of the world, maybe Taylor Rapp or Chauncey Gardner-Johnson? CB is a possibility too... 

 

Overall, I think the odds are higher that we pick a different position with at least one of the picks. 

Our FA moves so far and the prospects that will be there suggest that a safety is a likely pick.

 

CB is an option too. Moore had a great season but Byron Murphy in the slot would be a nice pick up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DE doesn't fall to us I see us drafting Greedy if he's available. We will need to man up and blitz on 3rd down to get the sack. He can learn zone along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Our FA moves so far and the prospects that will be there suggest that a safety is a likely pick.

 

CB is an option too. Moore had a great season but Byron Murphy in the slot would be a nice pick up.

Oh, Dear God....     :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DougDew said:

With the signing of Desir, I don't expect corner to be considered a pressing need for this draft.  Not that you ever draft for need, but if Desir signed elsewhere, that would have had to influence Ballard's draft board to some degree.

 

And WR at 26 is probably not going to happen now either.  

 

Regardless of the Desir and Funchess signings, a corner or WR was unlikley to happen at 26 or 34 anyway.  Now its even less likely, IMO. 

 

I'm not sure Funchess will totally eliminate a possible WR at 26, I surely hope not if a special one is available. 

 

Funchess was signed only to a 1 year contract. Perhaps his 1 year deal is a indication Ballard may think of  going WR at 26? Give the rook a year of experience than move on from Funchess? 

But I do tend to agree with you and don't expect WR in the first round from Ballard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I'm not sure Funchess will totally eliminate a possible WR at 26, I surely hope not if a special one is available. 

 

Funchess was signed only to a 1 year contract. Perhaps his 1 year deal is a indication Ballard may think of  going WR at 26? Give the rook a year of experience than move on from Funchess? 

But I do tend to agree with you and don't expect WR in the first round from Ballard.

 

 

Funchess and the returns of Cain and Johnson might curb the need for a WR at least in the first 2 rounds... that's what I think and hope anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard’s 26th pick needs to be a starter or a key rotation piece on the Dline . I think Funchess is a starter so I am ruling out a WR there.  That leaves Dline or a linebacker ahead of Adams and Franklin. Maybe safety. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

I'd be willing to bet that our first 3 picks will be lineman.....dt, de, ol

I agree!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I'm not sure Funchess will totally eliminate a possible WR at 26, I surely hope not if a special one is available. 

 

Funchess was signed only to a 1 year contract. Perhaps his 1 year deal is a indication Ballard may think of  going WR at 26? Give the rook a year of experience than move on from Funchess? 

But I do tend to agree with you and don't expect WR in the first round from Ballard.

 

Yeah, I've rethought that statement since posting it.  If TY plays more in the slot on 3 wide sets, with Funchess in, then we'll want another deep threat and on the outside.  That WR could have enough talent and skill to eventually take over for TY at #1.  Selecting a special WR at 26 both helps the offense immediately and with an eye to the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LockeDown said:

Ballard’s 26th pick needs to be a starter or a key rotation piece on the Dline . I think Funchess is a starter so I am ruling out a WR there.  That leaves Dline or a linebacker ahead of Adams and Franklin. Maybe safety. 

 

We run a lot of 3 WR sets. So TY, Funchess, and rookie WR can all get plenty of snaps together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

We run a lot of 3 WR sets. So TY, Funchess, and rookie WR can all get plenty of snaps together.

I have Cain pencilled in for that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My concern is if they can control our running game (they have good run D) and scheme for Hilton, we could be in trouble keeping up with the points that their O has been putting up.   However, i had concerns with the Chiefs and that worked out just fine.
    • I would still go with:   QB (1st), if we go players now Pat Mahomes LT (2nd), Tyron Smith to protect him DE (3rd), Myles Garrett, 9 sacks already this season. Pass rush is important.   -My top 3 positions would remain the same regardless of player as in QB, LT, and DE if I were even drafting. After that I would have to think a little. 
    • Yeah, that's why I picked a QB and am protecting his blindside, so he can carry the offense. With only 7 choices, there will be defeciences at certain positions, so hopefully an elite QB can handle the offense by himself and raise his receivers games a bit. Any roster with only 7 choices will have some major holes, just relying on the QB in mine and sacrificing the receivers.
    • That's the other part about it. Even replacement level JAGs have a good game every once in a while, so maybe you get a 10 catch game from one average WR this week, and another 8 catch game from another WR a couple weeks later, but in between, you're might wind up having a couple three catch, 28 yard performances from those same guys.    But yeah, in theory, if you're building a roster and moving into the future, some of those JAGs will be rookies who might be able to get better. Just wanted to look at the immediate snapshot of your roster, though.
    • Ehh, the point isn't really to discuss the best way to build a roster. I want to know how people would prioritize certain positions in building a roster.    I also think it's rare to have a team with seven top five players on the roster.  The Rams went all in last year, went to the SB, but probably only had four top five players -- Donald, Gurley, Whitworth, Havenstein. I'll give you half a season of Goff tearing it up and six games of Cupp being excellent.    The 2007 Pats had Brady, Welker, Moss, Vrabel (12 sacks), Wilfork and Samuel. Was anyone else top five?    So my point is that with a top heavy roster, assuming your top seven are healthy and a great scheme match, I think you could do some damage with 46 replacement players. It's definitely not the ideal, but that's not the point of the exercise.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...