Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Listed as ESPN’s ‘Best Fit’ for Notre Dame WR Chase Claypool


Recommended Posts

I like almost everything about him, too. My only question is how good he'll be game in and game out against the best defensive backs he's ever seen at consistently getting separation. But the fact is that if that weren't a question with him, with his size and athleticism, he'd probably be a top 10 pick, so we wouldn't even be considering him.

 

But that's a BIG question. Because if you can't consistently separate in this league, you're not going to be terribly useful. Too many message board people think that if you're a "big target", which he is, all you need to do is throw it up in the air at him every play, and he's catching every one of them. Ha ha, well, if that were true, then that's all we'd see lined up at every wideout position on all 32 teams. And, of course, we don't. Because it's nowhere near that simple.

 

But yes, if he develops his game to where he's able to consistently get that separation, then wow, he could be special.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of Claypool. I've watched him recently, I don't think he gets open or creates separation, he doesn't have much wiggle to him, he's an inconsistent catcher, and while he's big and long he isn't refined at using those gifts.

 

I like that he's physical, he seems like a hard worker, obviously very athletic, and with his tools you have a lot to work with. But he's not someone I have to have. I definitely don't think he's ready to be a major producer on Day 1.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm not a big fan of Claypool. I've watched him recently, I don't think he gets open or creates separation, he doesn't have much wiggle to him, he's an inconsistent catcher, and while he's big and long he isn't refined at using those gifts.

 

I like that he's physical, he seems like a hard worker, obviously very athletic, and with his tools you have a lot to work with. But he's not someone I have to have. I definitely don't think he's ready to be a major producer on Day 1.

if he came in as a move TE how would you feel about that? do you think he'd have a hard time getting separation against a LB/S if you put a corner on him with him and Pascal you could have some runs really really break for Marlon and crew.

The more i watch Pittman the more i like him its strange but i think he could be a steal at WR similar to a Mike Thomas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, waka waka said:

if he came in as a move TE how would you feel about that? do you think he'd have a hard time getting separation against a LB/S if you put a corner on him with him and Pascal you could have some runs really really break for Marlon and crew.

The more i watch Pittman the more i like him its strange but i think he could be a steal at WR similar to a Mike Thomas. 

 

Trey Burton? I guess... I do think he moves more like a TE than a WR. He's obviously very fast. But his body control, footwork, change of direction, hand/eye coordination, hand usage, hips, bend, etc., are not great. Just to be a good route runner, regardless of the matchup, he has to put in a lot of work and get a lot better. I could see him being used in a lot of ways, and he's a physical blocker on the outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Trey Burton? I guess... I do think he moves more like a TE than a WR. He's obviously very fast. But his body control, footwork, change of direction, hand/eye coordination, hand usage, hips, bend, etc., are not great. Just to be a good route runner, regardless of the matchup, he has to put in a lot of work and get a lot better. I could see him being used in a lot of ways, and he's a physical blocker on the outside.

He's got more wiggle than Burton and a lot more upside. It's a nice piece to have on our passing game with Rivers here and he would have an immediate impact in the pass and run offense day one. I like the big bodies because they are always open in a sense.

 

What are your thoughts on Pittman in the 3rd and him having a Mike Thomas sort of impact for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, waka waka said:

He's got more wiggle than Burton and a lot more upside. It's a nice piece to have on our passing game with Rivers here and he would have an immediate impact in the pass and run offense day one. I like the big bodies because they are always open in a sense.

 

What are your thoughts on Pittman in the 3rd and him having a Mike Thomas sort of impact for us.

 

I haven't watched Pittman yet. He's on the list.

 

I wasn't comparing him to Burton, just identifying the role. And Burton played that hybrid role at Florida, then got used in a variety of ways with the Eagles. Claypool is definitely more athletic.

 

I disagree that big bodied receivers are always open. I know everyone is drawn to them, but there's skill involved in coming down with the ball, and it starts with the release at the line (not great from Claypool), it includes hand usage and body control, stacking receivers, tracking the ball, and securing it. I don't think Claypool shows those skills.

 

He can develop, I just don't think he's going to be ready to perform right away. He's a project, IMO. So people so eager to draft a WR out of a need to improve the 2020 roster, I don't see him scratching that itch.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I haven't watched Pittman yet. He's on the list.

 

I wasn't comparing him to Burton, just identifying the role. And Burton played that hybrid role at Florida, then got used in a variety of ways with the Eagles. Claypool is definitely more athletic.

 

I disagree that big bodied receivers are always open. I know everyone is drawn to them, but there's skill involved in coming down with the ball, and it starts with the release at the line (not great from Claypool), it includes hand usage and body control, stacking receivers, tracking the ball, and securing it. I don't think Claypool shows those skills.

 

He can develop, I just don't think he's going to be ready to perform right away. He's a project, IMO. So people so eager to draft a WR out of a need to improve the 2020 roster, I don't see him scratching that itch.

Agree with all of this. Claypool was a guy many said was a project and projected in the 4th round. He has a crazy Combine workout and all of a sudden he’s being described as a high second rounder who can play immediately. His comp. is former teammate Myles Boykins who also blew up the combine last year, but Boykin didn’t have much of an impact last season. And speaking of Notre Dame receivers, remember Equanimeous St. Brown? Also 6’4” and surprised with a 4.4 40. He hasn’t had much of an impact either.

 

If you want a big bodied Notre Dame receiver, you’d probably be better off just drafting Cole Kmet. I know people are infatuated with the idea of the big body WR’s but there has to be more to their game than just being big and fast. We need a prototypical “X” receiver and can beat press coverage consistently. I like Mims or even Bryan Edwards more in that regard that Claypool. Pittman is also a good option as he can be what Funchess was supposed to be

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Agree with all of this. Claypool was a guy many said was a project and projected in the 4th round. He has a crazy Combine workout and all of a sudden he’s being described as a high second rounder who can play immediately. His comp. is former teammate Myles Boykins who also blew up the combine last year, but Boykin didn’t have much of an impact last season. And speaking of Notre Dame receivers, remember Equanimeous St. Brown? Also 6’4” and surprised with a 4.4 40. He hasn’t had much of an impact either.

 

If you want a big bodied Notre Dame receiver, you’d probably be better off just drafting Cole Kmet. I know people are infatuated with the idea of the big body WR’s but there has to be more to their game than just being big and fast. We need a prototypical “X” receiver and can beat press coverage consistently. I like Mims or even Bryan Edwards more in that regard that Claypool. Pittman is also a good option as he can be what Funchess was supposed to be

 

Mims over Claypool for me as well, not even close. He moves way better, IMO. Mims has some hands issues, though.

  • Like 2
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

    • E is a great edition to the site but he can be stubborn at times like you and I. He thinks he is always right but so do many. You both have my respect along with many others. Superman usually never has any bad posts. 
    • I only wish I could get a cut of the popcorn concessions!!      
    • All you're doing now Jared is projecting.    You're taking your views and putting them on Ballard and Irsay.    Ballard always keeps Irsay in the loop.   Nothing Ballard has done has caught Irsay off guard.   As long as Ballard is competitive and spending wisely,  Irsay will likely be fine with him.   Irsay knows Ballard inherited a mess.   Irsay knows Ballard was going to need time,  especially after he asked CB to keep Pagano and his staff around for another year.  Unless something shocking comes up unexpectedly,  Ballard should have Irsays complete faith and patience.      As I layed out in my last post,  Ballard has all these options.   As a fan one would think you'd be excited.   You've shared that you like Ballard and think he drafts well.   He's not too bad at free agency either.   But instead of being excited over possibilities you see all the downside.   You see all the ways this could go south.   You worry and worry and worry some more.   I've run out of magic words to try and have you see the bright side....   Good luck....  
    • I don't put Ballard on mountain but losing Luck was a bad blow. If you are a GM and lose a QB like that, that is bad.
    • When you and E go at it I do this 
  • Members

    • il vecchio

      il vecchio 180

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • crazycolt1

      crazycolt1 13,819

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • industrialmachine1

      industrialmachine1 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 10,598

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • industrialmachine

      industrialmachine 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MPStack

      MPStack 4,181

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • w87r

      w87r 2,449

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Chucklez

      Chucklez 992

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • colts8718

      colts8718 346

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jmac_48

      jmac_48 719

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