Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
chad72

Non-QB Players forum fans do not want at No.26

Which non-QB players do you not want the Colts to draft at No.26?  

97 members have voted

  1. 1. Player choices



Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd make a fun poll since some have strong opinions about certain players that they do not want the Colts to take at No.26

 

I made it a multiple choice poll so that you can vote for multiple ones. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool thread.   Personally, I don't have any players I hope they don't take.   Maybe I trust Ballard too much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Myles said:

Cool thread.   Personally, I don't have any players I hope they don't take.   Maybe I trust Ballard too much.  

 

It will be fun to go back and look at this thread if any of them do get chosen, LOL. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Metcalf 100%. I believe he'll be a huge bust. No agility at all from him.

This has been my thought since Jan. Just seems to much more a big athlete and not a WR. Seems a perfect type of Raider guy. DHB type

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dremont Jones.

 

60 lbs lighter, but still slower than Dexter Lawrence. No more likes of Montae Reagor and Raheem Brock at DT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

Dremont Jones.

 

60 lbs lighter, but still slower than Dexter Lawrence. No more likes of Montae Reagor and Raheem Brock at DT.

 

I guess some board may have him at No.26, hopefully not ours!!! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping Metcalf and Jacob's are not on our board. There more explosive rbs and better wrs in the draft than Metcalf and jacobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Hoping Metcalf and Jacob's are not on our board. There more explosive rbs and better wrs in the draft than Metcalf and jacobs

I don't know about Metcalf but Jacobs was in for a two day visit.  If I had to guess he is on our board somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My disappointment level would fluctuate based on some of these names, but I would flat out jump off my balcony if we took a TE at 26.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chad72 said:

Just thought I'd make a fun poll since some have strong opinions about certain players that they do not want the Colts to take at No.26

 

I made it a multiple choice poll so that you can vote for multiple ones. 

 

I don’t want Jeffrey Simmons his name has been tossed around  to go to us at 26. He’s a great talent but got a ACL in a February workout so it would take at least to 2020 before we’d really get anything out of him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Metcalf 100%. I believe he'll be a huge bust. No agility at all from him.

Watching his combine he just looks way too stiff. If we did take receiver in the first round it better be AJ brown. But would prefer not too 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please lord no WR or RB in the first.   Don’t care  who they are.  Give me dline or online or strong safety.     I’m good with a MLB if he’s BPA.  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Jacobs.

 

Based on all the big boards and ratings, I don't think there is a RB or S worth a first round pick. So those are the only positions I really don't want at 26. I don't like DK, but it's probably moot as I doubt he's there at 26. I don't like Baker either. I'd be fine with Williams, Brown, Fant, or Butler, but I think we'll go iDL regardless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Dremont Jones.

 

60 lbs lighter, but still slower than Dexter Lawrence. No more likes of Montae Reagor and Raheem Brock at DT.

Jones will surprise some people he's underrated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dexter Lawrence should be on the list.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If most of the professional mockers are right (and they seldom are) Metcalf should be gone by our pick.  But I still voted for him.  

 

He he may turn out to be the next Randy Moss, but he hasn’t shown much production in college. He reminds me of the guy who jumped out of a pool and got drafted based on that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the players themselves, so I went more position.  I would not be very happy if we got a RB in the 1st unless it was a Saquon Barkley type MAYBE, and I don't see any of those this year.  But no way in hell do we need a TE in the 1st round.  If you wanna play with that in the 3rd on back, sure.  But we will set ourselves back by taking a guy at a position of strength while our positions of weakness continue to suffer.  I don't care how good the guy is supposed to be.

 

I will advocate hitting both lines hard until they are fixed.  From what Ballard has said he does too.  I'm counting on him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could add one who we've been closely linked to I'd throw in Abram. I don't want him at #26 or at all really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I don't know about Metcalf but Jacobs was in for a two day visit.  If I had to guess he is on our board somewhere.

Which of our top draft picks did we have in last year? Or the year before? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not on the list but I’m hoping we avoid Abram there.. get a DL or WR, draft a safety in Round 2 or 3.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Which of our top draft picks did we have in last year? Or the year before? 

I have know idea.  If it was zero is that supposed to be all telling?  Looks like you place no importance in the 30 allowed visits.  Every year is a different year IMO.  Personally I don't believe in the smokescreen theory.  I think every visit is important to there evaluation.  Reich  and Sirianni didn't need to bring in Jacobs just to play Horse.  JMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned from last year that what we want really doesn’t matter. Ballard’s going to get his guy. I would love to see us get burns or Baker but I have feeling that Jacob is going to on this team next year which I’m totally fine with

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, HectorRoberts said:

I learned from last year that what we want really doesn’t matter. Ballard’s going to get his guy. I would love to see us get burns or Baker but I have feeling that Jacob is going to on this team next year which I’m totally fine with

If Jacob is there at 59 or 89 maybe

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

I don’t want Jeffrey Simmons his name has been tossed around  to go to us at 26. He’s a great talent but got a ACL in a February workout so it would take at least to 2020 before we’d really get anything out of him.

 

He wouldn't have an immediate impact of course, but getting a top 10 player — I even recently heard someone on NFL Network say that in 5 years, he'll probably be considered the best player of this draft — with the 26th pick is good for long term success. We just have to wait for 1 year and he'll be playing. He might even be ready for the playoffs

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why people would be hesitant at picking Metcalf, and I understand why people think he could be a bust, but I'm surprised that he's that high on the list. I mean honestly, he's at a position which, I know some of you don't like picking WRs early in the draft, but we could use another one. Wouldn't you rather have another WR than a CB, RB, or TE? I mean, we really don't need these positions AT ALL. Wouldn't you rather get someone at a position where we could use another player (really trying not to say position of need because some people here don't think WR is a position of need) even if they could turn out to be a bust rather than get someone who we have absolutely no use for?

 

Let me put it this way: Would you rather get D.K. Metcalf or a Punter?

Share this post


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

I understand why people would be hesitant at picking Metcalf, and I understand why people think he could be a bust, but I'm surprised that he's that high on the list. I mean honestly, he's at a position which, I know some of you don't like picking WRs early in the draft, but we could use another one. Wouldn't you rather have another WR than a CB, RB, or TE? I mean, we really don't need these positions AT ALL. Wouldn't you rather get someone at a position where we could use another player (really trying not to say position of need because some people here don't think WR is a position of need) even if they could turn out to be a bust rather than get someone who we have absolutely no use for?

 

Let me put it this way: Would you rather get D.K. Metcalf or a Punter?

So the Colts use a lot of 12 personnel on offense.    So that’s 

 

TY

Funchess

Doyle

Ebron/ or Other blocking TE 

Mack/Hines 

 

where red is a WR going to step in and push one of these guys out?    Funchess was signed as a starter.  Anyone that doesn’t understand that is clueless

 

in the wings there is Caine, Johnson, Rogers Pascal amd hopefully Inman      Again where is the immediate upgrade?   As a back up? Seriously?

 

i have heard a ton of arguments about stretching the field.   I don’t get it.    We don’t run a down the field passing attach anymore     It’s quick release and 5-10 yds at a time.    

 

The guys currently on the on the roster are good enough to be very good in this offense   They might just need another yr of coaching.    All will improve.   

 

Watch out for Johnson.   He might very well be a huge surprise this yr and Rogers also.   And who knows what Cain can bring.   Hopefully a lot     

 

Frank said he wants to be a top 5 running team on offense.    They have not BSd any of us on this.   That is why they built the % out of that Oline    

 

Coaching up the WRs we have with the addition of Funchess and basically a free draft pick in Cain is a lot added to this passing attach 

 

TBH if I were drafting only for need I would take an OT and a RB before I took a WR with this group 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is if T J Hockenson is there you take him and run regardless it being TE.  He gives you line protection and a receiving threat.  It's like drafting two positions in one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have know idea.  If it was zero is that supposed to be all telling?  Looks like you place no importance in the 30 allowed visits.  Every year is a different year IMO.  Personally I don't believe in the smokescreen theory.  I think every visit is important to there evaluation.  Reich  and Sirianni didn't need to bring in Jacobs just to play Horse.  JMO. 

Q wasn't brought in last season and he was out first pick. 

I don't think we can read anything into what Ballard does or don't do.

Trying to figure out how this draft is going down is just a guess at best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I have know idea.  If it was zero is that supposed to be all telling?  Looks like you place no importance in the 30 allowed visits.  Every year is a different year IMO.  Personally I don't believe in the smokescreen theory.  I think every visit is important to there evaluation.  Reich  and Sirianni didn't need to bring in Jacobs just to play Horse.  JMO. 

WHERE EXACTLY did I say any of the nonsense you stated above?  Dude, I don't know you but you either have the wrong person or you are simply projecting.  I didn't comment on the 30 allowed visits at all.  I made no pro or con comments of any kind on the topic.  I asked a legit question that I did not know the answer to.  You need to.. uh... relax or something.  It's all in your head! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DerekDiggler said:

So the Colts use a lot of 12 personnel on offense.    So that’s 

 

TY

Funchess

Doyle

Ebron/ or Other blocking TE 

Mack/Hines 

 

where red is a WR going to step in and push one of these guys out?    Funchess was signed as a starter.  Anyone that doesn’t understand that is clueless

 

in the wings there is Caine, Johnson, Rogers Pascal amd hopefully Inman      Again where is the immediate upgrade?   As a back up? Seriously?

 

i have heard a ton of arguments about stretching the field.   I don’t get it.    We don’t run a down the field passing attach anymore     It’s quick release and 5-10 yds at a time.    

 

The guys currently on the on the roster are good enough to be very good in this offense   They might just need another yr of coaching.    All will improve.   

 

Watch out for Johnson.   He might very well be a huge surprise this yr and Rogers also.   And who knows what Cain can bring.   Hopefully a lot     

 

Frank said he wants to be a top 5 running team on offense.    They have not BSd any of us on this.   That is why they built the % out of that Oline    

 

Coaching up the WRs we have with the addition of Funchess and basically a free draft pick in Cain is a lot added to this passing attach 

 

TBH if I were drafting only for need I would take an OT and a RB before I took a WR with this group 

Based on snap counts last year.

TE was 1.29, WR 2.56, RB 1.03

So we ran 2 TE sets a little less than a 3rd of the time (likely a lot on early running downs or RZ), 3 WR sets more than half the time, and used only one RB except for a few instances. 

 

A few things to ponder.... How sure are you that DF was signed assumed to be full time starter? By most reports, Cain had locked down the #2 spot last year before he got injured. Do you think Cain was told DF was signed to be the starter? Might he have been signed to provide depth to the unit while Cain gets his form back? Or even while a drafted WR comes on....

 

Also, as discussed, DF's most successful routes were short to intermediate middle type routes (not X WR routes). Not necessarily perimeter or deep. Do you think the coaches will force fit him into areas where he's had the least success? It's also been discussed that he might find more success as a big or bully slot?

 

In terms of stretching the field... If you've read up on Reich's offense, there is a lot of talk about "4 vert" or K gun (going back to his own QB days). Yes there is a lot of up tempo quick hits, but there is supposed to be a stretch element too. It's supposed to be multiple formations, multiple plays, all up tempo. 4 vert is just what it sounds like. 4 players going vertical. Not just all short to intermediate. Luck can throw every ball. Not using his vertical talents would be a bit silly, no?

 

On the whole WR unit, we have literally only one proven guy and that's TY. Potential and talent are great words, but we have only TY that's proven. DF has had his ups and downs, and hopefully he gets it turned around. I love Cain, but he's rehabing and didn't exactly light the world on fire at Clemson. Both he and Renfrow were there in 16 and 17. Cain stayed about the same while Renfrow took a nice step forward.

 

All the other guys (Pascal, Johnson, Fountain) are projects that we hope might pan out. You mentioned Johnson, and I like his potential too, but he didn't do much at TX, and has been hurt 2 of his 3 NFL years. In short, based on last years stats, not one WR ranked inside the top 80 in yards other than Hilton. It's incredible what Luck did with all the moving parts last year, but he shouldn't have to work this hard. 

 

And you mentioned you'd take a RB early. If we're talking about proven, and also potential... When Mack came back in game 6 IIRC, we were a top 10 rushing team the rest of the year (I think if you normalize, Mack would have been 5th or 6th in yards). We also just drafted Hines who had a very good first year (700+ all purpose yards), and Wilkins who averaged 5.6 yards per carry in back up duty to Mack. Individually, that's much more proven than our WR corp. I would like to have a power back compliment over Williams, but that's in the middle to late rounds.

 

Not saying we will, or won't take a WR early, but every mock and "needs" board out there has WR in the top 2. Even Colts.com listed WR first in their post FA needs. Of course Ballard will do what he wants, but the overwhelming majority of "experts" out there are saying Indy needs to upgrade WR. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shepman said:

My opinion is if T J Hockenson is there you take him and run regardless it being TE.  He gives you line protection and a receiving threat.  It's like drafting two positions in one.

Agree

 

But..... he isnt going to be there (IMHO)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • No more than someone being convicted and imprisoned when it's obvious the police force engaged in improper procedure.   I guess the issue here is that I can see the world outside my own head better than a lot of people.  And I know a little more about physics than the average bear, simply from boredom clicks that turned into self directed study sessions.    The idea that the balls were below PSI because the air was cold and cold air is denser and reduces air pressure, makes a lot more sense to me than some nefarious conspiracy, especially because the Colts' balls were also just barely under PSI, and we all know Andrew Luck doesn't cheat.   The way I had it explained to me is the Patriots keep their balls at the low end of the allowed PSI limit at room temperature.  Throw in a super cold January evening that was way below room temperature and the nefarious becomes the inevitable.  That's why the Colts' balls were also low, because air cold enough to shrink a Patriots ball will shrink a Colts ball too.    The reason that the Colts' balls had higher PSI is that they started higher -- Colts don't push the lower edge of the PSI limit.  Also the Colts balls were tested later, after things had a chance to warm up and normalize   If it was Manning or Luck being accused none of us would have been satisfied with the standard of "proof" on display.    there might just barely be enough actual evidence to get the equipment people themselves on something, if you completely ignore the way temperature affects air pressure, but the evidence tying any of that directly back to Brady is practically nonexistent.   They would have had a better reason to suspend either of Robert Kraft or Bill Belichick than Tom Brady.  Both of them have more authority over the equipment personnel than the starting QB does and at least you could get them on the commander clause. '   All they have on Brady is that he destroyed his phone after they said they didn't want it and before they changed their minds and decided they did
    • I was going to respond to each point but it's not really worth it so I will just say, the fact that he was suspended and fined was not proof enough for you?
    • I don't see anything that makes me expect him to be a very good T.  He should continue to improve as he plays against a wide variety of players and learns their tendencies. But the smaller, faster rushers are likely to always give him considerable problems.  You are probably right, he is a lifer with that "slow punch". Just no improving that!  After watching him do a good job handling JJWatt, and you think his lower body is insufficient. chuckle
    • I would back any player being successful in the NFL against what they did in college. Two different beasts. Leave him where he is....
    • I think there was a chance Cain catches both those balls if there was no interference.
  • Members

    • throwing BBZ

      throwing BBZ 2,341

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nickster

      Nickster 160

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • krunk

      krunk 11,708

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BleedBlue4Shoe86

      BleedBlue4Shoe86 24

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cbear

      cbear 779

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cjrulli

      cjrulli 358

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • aaron11

      aaron11 2,255

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • WarGhost21

      WarGhost21 975

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DougDew

      DougDew 3,259

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,924

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...