Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

 

So, Daniel Jeremiah is out with his second version of his top-50 prospects.     It's an interesting list.    You'll agree with some,  not agree with others.   DJ was an NFL scout for 9 years, I respect his eye for talent.

 

I always recommend reading his actual write-ups on players,  don't just look at the rankings.    By reading his reviews,  you get the feel for how an NFL scout sees and thinks.   What are the traits they're looking for?    And remember,  everyone sees the same thing differently.    

 

In every draft,  once you get past the top-10 or 15 or so,  every teams Big Board starts to look more and more different.   The further away you get from the top guys,  the more difference of opinion you're going to find.     A guy who is 25 on one board,  may be 45 on another.     Each player has strengths and weaknesses and different teams value those qualities differently. 

 

So, for instance,  Ballard values twitchy and bendy in DL's more than strength and power.    Not that he doesn't value those other qualities,  just somewhat less.   He wants first step suddenness over a guy who is bull rushing most of the time.

 

Anyway....    be sure to read DJ's list to the bottom.   Notice the players who have dropped out of the top-50.   DJ will do his 3.0 in about a month.   And his 4.0 will likely be the week of the draft and it won't be a top-50,  it will be a top-150 which covers 4 full rounds and into the 5th.

 

Enjoy!!   

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/daniel-jeremiah-s-top-50-2021-nfl-draft-prospect-rankings-2-0

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, when he ranks Justin Fields at No.12, I take notice. He was one of those few to predict Kyler Murray at No.1 well before the draft, I remember.

 

I still feel Lawrence and Zach Wilson are the top 2 QBs in this draft and Justin Fields is a close 3rd. But then, QBs get over drafted due to the value of the position. We will see.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


An important update on DJ’s 2.0 list. 
 

Since I first posted this list, the names of the individual players are now activated to be hyper-links.   That means click on the name and it takes you to the review from their draft analyst Lance Zierlein.  
Z lives in Houston, and a recent tweet of his said the recent terrible storm in Texas crashed things for him technically.  That he had finished his reviews but couldn’t send them electronically to NFL.com.   That has now apparently been fixed.

 

So Zierlein’s ratings are now available simply by clicking in the names.  Please note:   Do not get Z’s reviews mixed up with DJ’s reviews.   They are different.   But they are now available on each player profile.  One stop shopping!

 

Enjoy!!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 3:54 PM, chad72 said:

Yeah, when he ranks Justin Fields at No.12, I take notice. He was one of those few to predict Kyler Murray at No.1 well before the draft, I remember.

 

I still feel Lawrence and Zach Wilson are the top 2 QBs in this draft and Justin Fields is a close 3rd. But then, QBs get over drafted due to the value of the position. We will see.

I would rank the QB's coming out as:

1. Lawrence

2. Wilson

3. Fields

4. Lance - you could flip he and Fields, it is a coin flip there. 

5. Jones

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With Penei Sewell dropping a bit, I wonder if Ballard would possibly want to make a small trade up to get him, to lock down their LT position. He would have to fall out of the top 10 to even be considered though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BProland85 said:

With Penei Sewell dropping a bit, I wonder if Ballard would possibly want to make a small trade up to get him, to lock down their LT position. He would have to fall out of the top 10 to even be considered though. 

He doesn't have a 3.

Trading 21 and 54 gets us up to 13

 

I doubt he falls that far 

I'd rather just keep 54 take Eichenberg at 21

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

He doesn't have a 3.

Trading 21 and 54 gets us up to 13

 

I doubt he falls that far 

I'd rather just keep 54 take Eichenberg at 21


I get that but man would it be sweet to land a Sewell or Kyle Pitts in this draft.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, danlhart87 said:

I saw one mock recently that had Pitts falling to 21 no way that happens 

If he falls to 14 and Ballard fears New England would take him I wouldn’t mind a slight trade up. Pitts is gonna be special. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BProland85 said:

If he falls to 14 and Ballard fears New England would take him I wouldn’t mind a slight trade up. Pitts is gonna be special. 

I would definitely not trade up for a TE. He's gonna be good but team has to many needs. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I saw one mock recently that had Pitts falling to 21 no way that happens 

21?    I haven’t seen any mock with Pitts below 11.     21?!?    Really?    Seriously?    Wow!

 

Was this mock done by Popular Mechanics?  Maybe Field ‘n’ Stream?   Certainly not football people?!    Maybe they were either throwing darts or picking names blindly out of a hat?


I like out of the box thinking as much as anyone,  but I don’t want to live in Crazytown!

 

I wouldn’t sign my name to a mock like that.    :peek:

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BProland85 said:

If he falls to 14 and Ballard fears New England would take him I wouldn’t mind a slight trade up. Pitts is gonna be special. 

Ballard cant worry about what New England might or might not do. 

I don't think Belichick is in his head as much as some fans might think. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I saw one mock recently that had Pitts falling to 21 no way that happens 

Dan...

 

Wanted to make sure you knew when I was commenting on that Mock you saw, I wasn’t attacking you at all.   I was only making fun of the mock, and not you.        :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I still like Sam Cosmi OT Texas. 

IMO he is a plug and play beside Big Q. 

As of today, the reading that I’ve done, there are three OT’s that I think can play LT at a high level.  Darrisaw,  Cosmi (Who I think has some Castanzo in him) and Little, who I think is high risk, high reward and will scare the Heck out of many (most?) teams. 
 

The others I read about I think are more Right Tackles (Some, at least to start) or guards.   I think Eichenberg might be LT#4 for me. 
 

This view could change as I learn mire and see how Pro Days go...   but that’s my view as of the end of February...   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

As of today, the reading that I’ve done, there are three OT’s that I think can play LT at a high level.  Darrisaw,  Cosmi (Who I think has some Castanzo in him) and Little, who I think is high risk, high reward and will scare the Heck out of many (most?) teams. 
 

The others I read about I think are more Right Tackles (Some, at least to start) or guards.   I think Eichenberg might be LT#4 for me. 
 

This view could change as I learn mire and see how Pro Days go...   but that’s my view as of the end of February...   

Take a look at Jackson Carmin - OT - Clemson.  6'5" - 345 lbs. 

He protected Lawrence's blindside for a couple of years. 

IMO he is under rated as far as his draft rankings. He can be groomed into either a tackle or a guard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Take a look at Jackson Carmin - OT - Clemson.  6'5" - 345 lbs. 

He protected Lawrence's blindside for a couple of years. 

IMO he is under rated as far as his draft rankings. He can be groomed into either a tackle or a guard. 

I just looked him up.

 

The question on him (seems to be) is could he handle speed rushers in the NFL, on the LT spot?

 

He would add another run blocking mauler (If we draft him)

 

There are a few 2nd round OTs that played LT in college, that may be better at G or RT in the pros

 

Who knows

 

 

 

 

 

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

As of today, the reading that I’ve done, there are three OT’s that I think can play LT at a high level.  Darrisaw,  Cosmi (Who I think has some Castanzo in him) and Little, who I think is high risk, high reward and will scare the Heck out of many (most?) teams. 
 

The others I read about I think are more Right Tackles (Some, at least to start) or guards.   I think Eichenberg might be LT#4 for me. 
 

This view could change as I learn mire and see how Pro Days go...   but that’s my view as of the end of February...   

Yep, And I think Little is definitely on our radar.  He just strikes me as a Ballard type of target.  If we don't sign a LT in FA I could see Eichenberg or Little being our 1st pick hopefully after a small trade back. 

  • Like 1
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

    • Here's a link for team needs (I don't agree with all of it, but it's pretty good overall) https://thedraftnetwork.com/team-needs   It's tiered into primary, secondary, ancillary, and "don't need". Colts example below from TDN.   Colts Primary - OT, CB, WR Secondary - IDL, EDGE, LB, TE Ancillary - QB, S Don't need - IOL, RB   It's up to you if you want to follow it, and how you want to weigh need vs PBA.   IMO, the Colts needs are more like the below, which I would personally follow. And even with that, depending on BPA, I might not follow the tiers.    Colts Primary - Edge, LT Secondary - CB, WR, LB, TE, S Ancillary - IDL, IOL Don't need - , RB, QB   You'll have a set time for your pick, so only need to be on for 15 minutes at most.
    • Sold, I guess it will be obvious how to do BPA/Need?  I don't know how much of the time I can be on what with driving kids all over the place and stuff.
    • You don't really need to know a lot about CFB.  All you really need to do once you get your team is Know your team's needs (I'll post a few links with team needs) Peruse a big board or two and identify targets (I'll post a few of these too, and we'll have a thread updated real time to show what's available) Show up at your scheduled time, and make your pick from who is available. 
    • As far as the history of teams turning things around from the regular season, it happens enough years based on history that your "not too many" indicates it is uncommon based on most of our interpretation. Trust me when I say this, don't take it personal, you would not be the first person trying to cover his/her bases in an argument in this forum based on semantics and this won't be the first time you will do it either. I have had my share.     I just gave 1 year worth of examples. Patriots vs Steelers 2004, Steelers vs Colts 2005, Giants vs Patriots 2007, Ravens vs Broncos 2012, all SB winners, and there is always a few teams that DO turn around results from the regular season that end up going the distance in the playoffs (few because only 12 made the playoffs till it was changed to 14 this year). Those are just noteworthy for being SB winners. 2010 Jets vs Patriots, 2015 Broncos vs Steelers are other examples too.   Just last year, Ravens vs Titans and Browns vs Steelers (with a healthy Big Ben) adds to the examples I gave you for reversing regular season results. These are just off the top of my head. The bottom line is, it happens enough times that it is not uncommon at all that I felt the Colts had more than a puncher's chance vs the Bills.   Regardless, welcome to the forum and hope to see you post more.  
    • SOunds cool.  Don't know enough about CFB to be much more than a place holder for automatic though.  I'll be interested in the results though.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...