Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
danlhart87

CR91 and danlhart87 1st Round Mock Thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

No. This draft is only between me and danlhart87. Pats took Patrick Queen

Get a room then 

Share this post


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

Get a room then 

 

Real orginial. Your grandpa teach you that kid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Real orginial. Your grandpa teach you that kid?

Nope .   All on my own youngster 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinlaw was actually an option but went with Love because in the end you are far more likely to win a game with QB play over solid DL.  

 

Kinlaw certainly could help but I also see it this way

 

What would you rather have 

 

A

1. Kinlaw or Brown

2. Eason or Fromm 

 

B

1. Love or Herbert

2. Blacklock or Gallimore

 

If you chose A the D is more important to you and you are ok with Brissett barring any trades 

 

If you chose B you are ok with a subpar D for the time being in able to possibly groom the QB of the future. 

 

There is no wrong answer that's the point 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure that tells me one thing

You are confident in Brissett 

 

So much so that you don't address the QB situation at all 1st 2 rounds

 

I assume you want Carr or Rivers as an alternate option

 

@CR91 see my ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Sure that tells me one thing

You are confident in Brissett 

 

So much so that you don't address the QB situation at all 1st 2 rounds

 

I assume you want Carr or Rivers as an alternate option

 

@CR91 see my ?

 

B. QBs win you games in this league. You don't have one and you have no chance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

B. QBs win you games in this league. You don't have one and you have no chance

A solid D can get you far (85 Bears and 00 Ravens) but looking at history the last 20 years most teams won the big game because solid QB play.

 

Did you wanna do round 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

A solid D can get you far (85 Bears and 00 Ravens) but looking at history the last 20 years most teams won the big game because solid QB play.

 

Did you wanna do round 2?

 

I'm not gonna have any free time to do another run til Saturday

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This whole Chad Kelly phenomenon on this site is fascinating 
    • Anthony Walker. Now or never.
    • Don’t feed the trolls.   We have an ELITE Dt. We have an ELITE Lb.   If the ends can generate a little pressure our D could be lights out. Add in the fact our o-line should be great and produce a strong run game - keep the D fresh.   Bold Prediction - Colts finish with a top 5 D.
    • I'm sorry,  I've said this before,  but I see you added more material here and you've completed misunderstood this.   First,  there are no writers for the on-air talent.   None.   The talent writes what they want to say.   I even contacted a friend who works at ESPN for the last 30 years.   He says all on-air talent writes what they say -- period.   And thre is no company position on various issues.   So, for example, on al the debate shows you talked about,  the hosts say what they want.   No writer writes what to say for them.      Here's what your article is talking about.   The company is clearly on the liberal side.   They've hired in the past a bunch of Conservatives who wanted to say whatever they wanted to say.  Mostly about politics in the real world.   The name Curt Schilling might be familiar.   He had been warned repeatedly about talking about real world politics that have nothing to do with sports.   He kept doing it and basically dared the company to do something.   He thought they wouldn't.   They did and eventually he was let go.      ESPN is trying to stay away as best as they can from real world politics.   If oyu want to point to Conservative political views,  fine, you'll get no argument from me.   SPOILER ALERT:  That's going to take a huge hit on Wednesday, 5/27,  in the aftermath of the dead black man in Minneapolis and the black man in New York who a white woman called the politce on and lied about what he was doing (caught lying on tape), as well as the jogger in Georgia who was shot and killed months ago and the video has now surfaced.  Outraged professional athletes are now loudly speaking out.    That means ESPN is going to talk about the real world even thought most of their viewers may not like it.   But you have to cover what the athletes are doing and saying.   Many people here (most?) think ESPN doesn't like Jim Irsay and the Colts.   Do certain anchors, hosts, reporters have issues with us?    Maybe,  possibly.    But there is no corporate position on Irsay or the Colts.  All on-air talent is free to say whatever they want to say.   No one tells on-air talent what to say when it comes to day-to-day sports.   To be clear,  ESPN doesn't want anyone trashing the sports they cover or hurting the professinal relationships.   If you're going to attack the commissiner of a sport,  then you had better have more than just an opionion.   You better have some substance to back it up.    Former NBA Commish David Stern was legendary for calling up the head of ESPN and SCREAMING about things he heard said about the NBA on ESPN that he didn't like.     You wrote that there's plenty of things on the internet to support your view.   Please feel free to take another crack at it,  because the first article doesn't support your position.    It's taking about something different,  how ESPN doesn't want the real world of politics infringing on the day to day coverage of sports.   Some things can't be stopped.   More women in pro sports.   Gays in sports.   How athletes react to real world injustice.    But if Curt Schilling wants to spew hate about Muslims, which he did,  or talk about transgender bathroom laws,  that's going to lead to the unemployment line, which it did. What do those issues have to do with sports?   Last thought:   I try as often as I can to explain the world of the media to people here.   30 years in the business so I should be able to to.   Frankly,  I take no pleasure in strongly opposing your views here.   In fact, no one is more surprised than me.   Because, quite honestly,  I think you've had an incredibly long stretch of really top notch posts for many months here.    I think you've seriously rasied your game and I find myself in agreement with many of your views.    And if I haven't given you a ton of likes then shame on me.   I try to reward good posting.  I find your posts smart and well reasoned.   I enjoy reading your views.    And then we hit this thread.   And I did a double-take when I saw who posted about the media.  So please take this as the compliment that it is intended.   I'm a fan of yours.   Just not here on this particular subject.   If you have other comments, or questions,  I'm happy to continue this discussion....   my apologies for the length of ths post.   Just so much to respond to.   NCF
    • He is allowed his opinion just like the rest of us. Based on where we are, I think he will be way off the mark.    But this will be a very strange season if it happens, so who knows.    We have all been watching this stupid league for many years and we should know not to take anything for granted.   Other team improve as well, you know.   I'm hoping for top 10 though.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...