The pick I want, don’t want, & probably who it will be 2024 NFL DRAFT

[boo2202]

Who I want- Brock Bowers TE UGA

 

 Bowers is exactly what Shane wants at the TE position. He’s a mismatch where ever you play him. In line he’ll blow by the LB that’s covering him and in the slot he’ll overpower the DB. He’s a perfect fit in our O and would be a tremendous weapon for AR. Here’s the problem. There is no way he gets out of the top 10. If Bowers is available at Bears #9 pick, Ballard should be on the phone asking what it would take to move up. If it’s a 2nd round pick, so be it. IMO Bowers takes our offense to the next level. Just an unbelievable talent that we could use in various ways. 
 

Who I don’t want to draft- A first round DB

 

I understand that you got 3 potentially great DB’s that could go in the top 20. I just feel we could address this position later in the draft, while signing a veteran in FA. If we played more man I’d be all in for a lockdown corner but in Bradley’s scheme we need to value other positions more. 

 

Who I expect us to pick-

Brian Thomas Jr WR LSU

 

If you look at the draft board this year, you’ll see many teams with a need for an outside weapon. Tenn, Chicago, Arizona, New York, and a few more. I just don’t see Harrison, Nabers, Odunze, or Bowers dropping far enough for us. Which would leave us with Thomas Jr. which is the best WR left on the board. This kid is projected in the 20-25 pick range but has top 10 talent. Size,strength, and speed he checks all the boxes. He would be the compliment to Pittman, we’ve been looking for. Ballard has said the need for more explosive plays and this kid can deliver that. 

 

[Defjamz26]

27 minutes ago, boo2202 said:

I understand that you got 3 potentially great DB’s that could go in the top 20. I just feel we could address this position later in the draft, while signing a veteran in FA. If we played more man I’d be all in for a lockdown corner but in Bradley’s scheme we need to value other positions more. 

You can get veteran corner depth in FA, but if you want a real lockdown playmaker, we’d have to draft one. We also don’t know how long Bradley will be here, so you can’t worry about just Bradley. That’s why you would draft a Quinton Mitchell who is a perfect scheme fit, but also showed he can play press at the Senior Bowl, which makes him great for the current Bradley scheme or one that plays more man. He’d also fit in other scheme’s should the Colts eventually move on from Bradley.

[Two_pound]

Who I want at 15 is either Bowers or Nabors, if neither one is there I would trade down 10-12 spots and probably still get Thomas jr. Then in the second round take Colson the linebacker from Michigan and if we are able to acquire another 2nd rounder with our trade use that pick on an interior offensive lineman or a db. There should be good value at those positions at the end of the second round.

[chad72]

35 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

Who I want at 15 is either Bowers or Nabors, if neither one is there I would trade down 10-12 spots and probably still get Thomas jr. Then in the second round take Colson the linebacker from Michigan and if we are able to acquire another 2nd rounder with our trade use that pick on an interior offensive lineman or a db. There should be good value at those positions at the end of the second round.

 

Too many teams like the Bengals, Cowboys, Bucs, Texans, Bills, Ravens, Chiefs that all want WRs to think that Brian Thomas Jr. would be available past the Rams at No.19. If I had to bet, The Bengals draft him to pair up with JaMarr Chase at No.18. I would prefer to pick before the Texans at No.23 (Browns pick).

 

So moving back 4-5 spots gaining a 3rd is more ideal than moving back 10-12 spots and missing out on a quality player, IMO.

[boo2202]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

You can get veteran corner depth in FA, but if you want a real lockdown playmaker, we’d have to draft one. We also don’t know how long Bradley will be here, so you can’t worry about just Bradley. That’s why you would draft a Quinton Mitchell who is a perfect scheme fit, but also showed he can play press at the Senior Bowl, which makes him great for the current Bradley scheme or one that plays more man. He’d also fit in other scheme’s should the Colts eventually move on from Bradley.

Well said. I guess I’m just on the skill player train. Quicker impact I’m assuming. 

[Stephen]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Too many teams like the Bengals, Cowboys, Bucs, Texans, Bills, Ravens, Chiefs that all want WRs to think that Brian Thomas Jr. would be available past the Rams at No.19. If I had to bet, The Bengals draft him to pair up with JaMarr Chase at No.18. I would prefer to pick before the Texans at No.23 (Browns pick).

 

So moving back 4-5 spots gaining a 3rd is more ideal than moving back 10-12 spots and missing out on a quality player, IMO.

Don't  move back at all in the first. Pick the best offensive  guy available  move back in 2nd

[MikeCurtis]

I have at least 5 guys that the Colts could pick and I would be happy

 

If we stay put at 15

Bowers, Latu, or Dallas Turner

 

If we trade back 3-5 spots

Brian Thomas,

 

If we trade back 6 -10 spots

AD Mitchell, Kinchens, Q Mitchell or Tyler Nubin

 

 

I dont want Keon Coleman

 

This team needs a playmaking FS more than a CB  IMHO 

This team needs an explosive Edge rusher more than any other position on this team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, 

[Solid84]

I think the Super Bowl showed us we have some holes if we want to compete with the big boys, so there are several ways to go here: DB, WR and Dline in no particular order.

 

At 15 there are several guys I think could upgrade our team. I no particular order:

• Bowers, Nabers and Odunze - if one of these guys fall they gotta be instant picks.
• Byron Murphy: My top DT this draft. 6'1" 308 lbs (PFF numbers).
  • PFF has him with a 80.5 Run defense grade and a 91.5 Pass rush grade.
  • On 273 pass rush snaps he had 45 total pressures - 6.07 snaps per pressure - the best by any DI by margines.
  • 161 snaps at Left DT, 133 at right DT and 107 at NT - he lines up on all spots in the DI.
  • He'll be a solid run defender and a considerable upgrade over Stewart as a pass rusher.
• Quinyon Mitchell: You need an elite player in the secondary.
  • Mitchell showed at the Senior Bowl he can do man coverage AND zone.
• Dallas Turner or Laiatu Latu - you need elite pass rushers.
• Alternatively trade back a few spots for one of:
  • Brian Thomas Jr.
  • Kamren Kinchens
  • Adonai Mitchell

I don't want any of the "man coverage" main CBs - we don't play enough man to justify that.

 

I think we trade back though.

[MikeCurtis]

30 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

 

I don't want any of the "man coverage" main CBs - we don't play enough man to justify that.

 

I think we trade back though.

You are spot on my man!!

 

 

[OhioColt]

4 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

If we trade back 6 -10 spots

AD Mitchell, Kinchens, Q Mitchell or Tyler Nubin

 

This team needs a playmaking FS more than a CB  IMHO , 

From what I have been reading about Nubin is main weakness is his lack of long recovery speed.  Seems he would be an ideal replacement for Kenny Moore as a slot corner where Nubin at best near the LOS covering slower tight ends etc. in more a man coverage. 

 

Give us McKinney in free agency at FS and a stud CB opposite Brents this team is well on their way to the playoffs.  Still need more work done on defense in the trenches and linebackers but with AR back under center this team has a bright future.  

 

[ColtV]

4 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

I have at least 5 guys that the Colts could pick and I would be happy

 

If we stay put at 15

Bowers, Latu, or Dallas Turner

 

If we trade back 3-5 spots

Brian Thomas,

 

If we trade back 6 -10 spots

AD Mitchell, Kinchens, Q Mitchell or Tyler Nubin

 

 

I dont want Keon Coleman

 

This team needs a playmaking FS more than a CB  IMHO 

This team needs an explosive Edge rusher more than any other position on this team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, 

I think with each draft you have definitive talent groups in each round. Again we are really early in this process but I would say right now after pick 10 your next talent group is 11-25(all depending on how the picks go). To back your point there are several players to be happy with either staying at 15 or dropping down even to 25.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, boo2202 said:

Who I don’t want to draft- A first round DB

 

I understand that you got 3 potentially great DB’s that could go in the top 20. I just feel we could address this position later in the draft, while signing a veteran in FA. If we played more man I’d be all in for a lockdown corner but in Bradley’s scheme we need to value other positions more.

 

What are the chances Bradley isn't back in 2025? It might be a reasonable plan to add DBs who will fit a different scheme this year. 

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I think the Super Bowl showed us we have some holes if we want to compete with the big boys, so there are several ways to go here: DB, WR and Dline in no particular order.

 

At 15 there are several guys I think could upgrade our team. I no particular order:

• Bowers, Nabers and Odunze - if one of these guys fall they gotta be instant picks.
• Byron Murphy: My top DT this draft. 6'1" 308 lbs (PFF numbers).
  • PFF has him with a 80.5 Run defense grade and a 91.5 Pass rush grade.
  • On 273 pass rush snaps he had 45 total pressures - 6.07 snaps per pressure - the best by any DI by margines.
  • 161 snaps at Left DT, 133 at right DT and 107 at NT - he lines up on all spots in the DI.
  • He'll be a solid run defender and a considerable upgrade over Stewart as a pass rusher.
• Quinyon Mitchell: You need an elite player in the secondary.
  • Mitchell showed at the Senior Bowl he can do man coverage AND zone.
• Dallas Turner or Laiatu Latu - you need elite pass rushers.
• Alternatively trade back a few spots for one of:
  • Brian Thomas Jr.
  • Kamren Kinchens
  • Adonai Mitchell

I don't want any of the "man coverage" main CBs - we don't play enough man to justify that.

 

I think we trade back though.

The Colts don’t play enough man coverage currently.   But I’d say it’s possible that changes soon.   Maybe this coming year and no later than 2025 when I’d expect to have a new younger more aggressive DC. 

[OhioColt]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What are the chances Bradley isn't back in 2025? It might be a reasonable plan to add DBs who will fit a different scheme this year. 

In 2021, statistically speaking, only 2.65 years.  Next man up, at this point in time, Charlie Partridge.  See what Patridge brings and how well his presence is received in the Club house by the end of this season. 

[OhioColt]

@boo2202

 

To answer your question.  I agree with you that the Colts need a top tight end.  Unfortunately, Bowers isn't the guy.  Any player dubbed a generational talent shouldn't drop past the 10th pick.  I do believe that the Colts should heavily consider the next best tight end in Ja'Tavion Sanders in Round 2. 

 

The Colts need to aggressive in free agency.  Unfortunately, that mean not resigning the majority of own players.  The Texans put everyone on notice in our division this season.  

 

Who I expect us to pick?  Already know this is not a popular pick but the Colts take OC Jackson Powers-Johnson (Oregon).  Ryan Kelly becomes cap causality and trade option.  Only two main players MAC and Kelly that would make business sense to move to clear cap space.  

 

Talked about going all in for the Colts to battle for the division title.  Hoping new DL coach Charlie Partridge can work some magic and get the best out of our defensive lineman.  Seriously looking at a major defensive overhaul.  Calling upon Patridge to work some magic as I mentioned brining in former Pittsburg player Dane Jackson, who brings with him Tyrel Dodson and DaQuan Jones from the Bills.  Other key pieces are FS Xavier McKinney and MLB Patrick Queen.  Also comes at a price releasing starters Blackmon, Moore, and Moss. 

 

 

[OhioColt]

As a disclaimer, all my mock models have been to franchise tag Michael Pittman Jr.  Financially doubt it's the correct action to take.  Pittman is good but not exactly at best a top-20 receiver.  Goes without saying Pittman has made the most of it with every changing carousel of quarterbacks during his tenure.  Hopefully he can build immediate chemistry with AR and improve on his already impressive resume.  Not sure what the actual money line will be and am traditionally well short but using Over the Caps contract table a 4-year 66M (16.5 APY) is a respectable contract compared to his peers.   I went with a 52M signing bonus and 21M in guarantees.  Which projects to around 6.67M in cap space savings compared to the tag under these assumptions and still allows future renegotiations on the table. 

[Solid84]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

The Colts don’t play enough man coverage currently.   But I’d say it’s possible that changes soon.   Maybe this coming year and no later than 2025 when I’d expect to have a new younger more aggressive DC. 

I guess that's a possibility, but if Ballard (and Steichen) didn't want to keep him, why not boot him now?

 

Seems weird we give him another chance to prove he can be our DC, but then not give him the tools he needs?

[MikeCurtis]

11 hours ago, OhioColt said:

From what I have been reading about Nubin is main weakness is his lack of long recovery speed.  Seems he would be an ideal replacement for Kenny Moore as a slot corner where Nubin at best near the LOS covering slower tight ends etc. in more a man coverage. 

 

Give us McKinney in free agency at FS and a stud CB opposite Brents this team is well on their way to the playoffs.  Still need more work done on defense in the trenches and linebackers but with AR back under center this team has a bright future.  

 

Nubin might be too big to play that slot corner spot

 

Maybe

 

His 40 time will tell the tale

 

I would LOVE McKinney as the FS,  he would help, but we could have the flash be our DB and if we get no pressure on the QB we will get picked apart

 

My fear is that we wont go after 2 splash FAs, but only one. (Remember "big" FA is not a CB thing)

 

I believe (My opinion matters LITTLE) that  IF we go after a FA......  It HAS to be a pass rush stud

Like D Hunter or B Huff.

 

So DE in FA, FS in draft

 

Unless CB gets on board and we spend on TWO FAs - I doubt it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stitches]

Too early for me to have strong opinion on this one since I haven't really watched most of the players in our range. 

 

The thing is... even if we like some of those players they might not fit our scheme or the mold Ballard likes. For example, Dallas Turner seems like an exciting prospect but he doesn't seem like the type ballard drafts. He's listed at 242lbs in Alabama. He looks even lighter to me. 

 

I like a few of the CBs and if it were I'd be all good with drafting one at 15... but is Ballard going to go with CB in the 1st? Kind of doubtful. 

 

I like a few of the OTs that are likely to be there.. but we don't really need one right now.

 

I guess... the perfect pick that marries our needs and talent commensurate with the investment is... Brock Bowers. I still haven't delved into his tape like I want to, but I've heard only good things and many people have him as a top 5 talent in the draft. What I will say is... from the little I've seen, I'm not 100% sure I'm sold on him. I hope the more extensive watching will convince me. 

 

i don't see it with Kamren Kitchens. I don't think he's a 1st round safety. He had pretty nondescript Senior Bowl too. 

 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I guess that's a possibility, but if Ballard (and Steichen) didn't want to keep him, why not boot him now?

 

Seems weird we give him another chance to prove he can be our DC, but then not give him the tools he needs?

Fair point.   It’s just hard for me to think of Bradley as someone who Steichen will want longer than one more year.  
 

When people would complain about Frank for years,   CB would defend him strongly.  “We are lucky to have him” was a popular Ballard defense.   I didn’t hear anything like that for Gus.   His comments were much much milder.   So even though I can’t pinpoint a reason, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.   Not a great argument, I grant you that.   But that’s my viewpoint for now.  
 

Perhaps something will surface once we see how FA and the draft go. 

[Superman]

7 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I guess that's a possibility, but if Ballard (and Steichen) didn't want to keep him, why not boot him now?

 

Seems weird we give him another chance to prove he can be our DC, but then not give him the tools he needs?

 

What tools are those?

[Superman]

10 hours ago, OhioColt said:

In 2021, statistically speaking, only 2.65 years.  Next man up, at this point in time, Charlie Partridge.  See what Patridge brings and how well his presence is received in the Club house by the end of this season. 

 

I guess we'll see about Partridge. I'm no expert on him, but he obviously has a great reputation. 

 

To your first point, that's what I was getting at. Turnover at coordinator positions is pretty high lately, Bradley wasn't hired by Steichen, the defense is aggressively average... It's hard to see Bradley being retained if the defense isn't significantly better in 2024. 

 

Also, there's no reason a really good man corner can't perform in this defense. I might see it differently from the Colts decision makers, but if we shy away from drafting good players because Bradley won't use them, then we're probably doomed anyway. I'm a pretty staunch BPA guy, so if the board falls in a way where a really good corner is the best option at #15, I have no problem with us making that decision.

[Solid84]

Just now, Superman said:

 

What tools are those?

Well, as I understand it Terrion Arnold and Nate Wiggins are both CBs coveted for their “shutdown” ability. To get the most out of that ability you need to play a lot of man coverage and we don’t. 
 

Adding CBs that fit a different scheme than what we run seems counter productive?

 

It would seem a better move to pick a CB that excels at zone coverage with press being a secondary need. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Well, as I understand it Terrion Arnold and Nate Wiggins are both CBs coveted for their “shutdown” ability. To get the most out of that ability you need to play a lot of man coverage and we don’t. 
 

Adding CBs that fit a different scheme than what we run seems counter productive?

 

It would seem a better move to pick a CB that excels at zone coverage with press being a secondary need. 

 

I guess I have two questions about this. First, why can't Arnold or Wiggins (or really any corner who plays man coverage) excel at zone coverage? Unless a guy can't tackle, I don't see why any particular corner prospect doesn't fit Bradley's defense. I understand that you might think his talents won't be fully utilized if we don't play more man, but that doesn't mean he can't do whatever we ask him to do in zone coverage.

 

And the second question, is there another position that we need that could help Bradley's defense get better? And how does that relate to the draft board? I think we can get better at Edge and LB, but no one wants LB in the first round, and I don't really see anybody talking about Edge.

[Solid84]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

Also, there's no reason a really good man corner can't perform in this defense. I might see it differently from the Colts decision makers, but if we shy away from drafting good players because Bradley won't use them, then we're probably doomed anyway. I'm a pretty staunch BPA guy, so if the board falls in a way where a really good corner is the best option at #15, I have no problem with us making that decision.

I don’t really believe in drafting BPA (without adding a “at a position of need” stipulation) and I don’t think Ballard does either judging from the amount of tradebacks he’s done. 
 

Is Bradley a guy you trust to use a man corner effectively?

[chad72]

6 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Well, as I understand it Terrion Arnold and Nate Wiggins are both CBs coveted for their “shutdown” ability. To get the most out of that ability you need to play a lot of man coverage and we don’t. 
 

Adding CBs that fit a different scheme than what we run seems counter productive?

 

It would seem a better move to pick a CB that excels at zone coverage with press being a secondary need. 

 

Elite QBs eat zone coverage alive. If you do have similar corners, you can fake zone coverage by not following the guy in motion and swap WRs with the corner on the other side, and surprise the QB with man coverage on the other end.

 

The 49ers primarily play zone but they tried to mix it with a bit of man coverage as well though Mahomes and The Chiefs had answers for everything. But the ability needs to be there, IMO.

 

It is easier to teach a man CB zone coverage concepts than expecting a zone coverage CB to flip a switch and play man without safety help, IMO.

[Solid84]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I guess I have two questions about this. First, why can't Arnold or Wiggins (or really any corner who plays man coverage) excel at zone coverage? Unless a guy can't tackle, I don't see why any particular corner prospect doesn't fit Bradley's defense. I understand that you might think his talents won't be fully utilized if we don't play more man, but that doesn't mean he can't do whatever we ask him to do in zone coverage.

I guess they can, but then why not pick a guy like Quinyon Mitchell who excels at zone and just proved at the Senior Bowl he absolutely can play man as well?
 

Quote

And the second question, is there another position that we need that could help Bradley's defense get better? And how does that relate to the draft board? I think we can get better at Edge and LB, but no one wants LB in the first round, and I don't really see anybody talking about Edge.

I think CB is a need, but I think we need a veteran not more youth. I’d much rather we went for more/better pass rush whether that be the top DT (Byton Murphy) or one of the top DEs (Latu, Verse, Turner). 
 

FS is also a need, but the top safeties this draft aren’t really worthy the top 15 pick - so trade back and still get one. Same with LB. 

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I guess I have two questions about this. First, why can't Arnold or Wiggins (or really any corner who plays man coverage) excel at zone coverage? Unless a guy can't tackle, I don't see why any particular corner prospect doesn't fit Bradley's defense. I understand that you might think his talents won't be fully utilized if we don't play more man, but that doesn't mean he can't do whatever we ask him to do in zone coverage.

 

And the second question, is there another position that we need that could help Bradley's defense get better? And how does that relate to the draft board? I think we can get better at Edge and LB, but no one wants LB in the first round, and I don't really see anybody talking about Edge.

 

Not me. I felt for a while Chop Robinson of Penn State could give us our own version of Micah Parsons. That No.15 could be the sweet spot for him.

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I don’t really believe in drafting BPA (without adding a “at a position of need” stipulation) and I din’t think Ballard does either judging from the amount of tradebacks he’s done. 
 

Is Bradley a guy you trust to use a man corner effectively?

 

My BPA philosophy is in my signature line. It's not 100% literal. But no, I don't agree with drafting for need. That's not what the draft is for.

 

And no, I don't think Bradley would use a man corner effectively. But my question is about whether your so-called "man corner" can play zone effectively in Bradley's defense.

 

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I guess they can, but then why not pick a guy like Quinyon Mitchell who excels at zone and just proved at the Senior Bowl he absolutely can play man as well?
 

I think CB is a need, but I think we need a veteran not more youth. I’d much rather we went for more/better pass rush whether that be the top DT (Byton Murphy) or one of the top DEs (Latu, Verse, Turner). 
 

FS is also a need, but the top safeties this draft aren’t really worthy the top 15 pick - so trade back and still get one. Same with LB. 

 

Do you think Mitchell is a better player than Arnold? If not, why would you draft Mitchell ahead of Arnold? Unless you think Arnold is incapable of playing zone defense, I don't get it. I understand scheme fit -- we're not going to spend a first rounder on a standup pass rusher, for example, so Dallas Turner doesn't make any sense. But I don't think I agree with the idea that a corner who is good in man coverage isn't a scheme fit.

 

And ultimately, I think your approach is based on the popular viewpoint, which is 'we should target a player at our greatest position of need in the first round,' and I just fundamentally disagree with that approach. I think it's flawed and shortsighted, and gradually undermines the quality of the roster. If you want to draft for need, identify the player that fits your team, and go get him. But don't reach past a better prospect just because he plays a position you don't perceive as an immediate need. And you maximize value by trading back and having a positional value philosophy.

 

It's kind of a moot point. I think part of the attraction to this kind of defense is that it takes a premium off of the cornerback position, so I don't see Ballard drafting a corner in the first round anyway. But if he were going to draft a corner, I think he'd draft the best prospect that fits his desired profile. And I don't think being good in man coverage is disqualifying, it's actually a boost. So if all things were equal -- and they're not, but for the sake of discussion -- I don't see why the Colts wouldn't view a corner prospect who can play man as a tool that can improve Bradley's defense.

[stitches]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I guess I have two questions about this. First, why can't Arnold or Wiggins (or really any corner who plays man coverage) excel at zone coverage? Unless a guy can't tackle, I don't see why any particular corner prospect doesn't fit Bradley's defense. I understand that you might think his talents won't be fully utilized if we don't play more man, but that doesn't mean he can't do whatever we ask him to do in zone coverage.

 

And the second question, is there another position that we need that could help Bradley's defense get better? And how does that relate to the draft board? I think we can get better at Edge and LB, but no one wants LB in the first round, and I don't really see anybody talking about Edge.

I agree. Just because some of those can play man coverage doesn't mean they cannot be great at zone. For example, according to PFF Arnold graded higher in zone coverage than in man... both high grades BTW, but still... 

 

I really hope somewhere along the way Ballard changes his philosophy. This is not the 80s or 90s. This is a passing league. You NEED high level CBs, who can play multiple different coverages well and who can let your coordinator(whoever it is) the freedom to mix things up and actually disrupt the opponent and make them uncomfortable... not just ones you can live with or ones you can patch things up with. 

[Solid84]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My BPA philosophy is in my signature line. It's not 100% literal. But no, I don't agree with drafting for need. That's not what the draft is for.

 

And no, I don't think Bradley would use a man corner effectively. But my question is about whether your so-called "man corner" can play zone effectively in Bradley's defense.

 

 

Do you think Mitchell is a better player than Arnold? If not, why would you draft Mitchell ahead of Arnold? Unless you think Arnold is incapable of playing zone defense, I don't get it. I understand scheme fit -- we're not going to spend a first rounder on a standup pass rusher, for example, so Dallas Turner doesn't make any sense. But I don't think I agree with the idea that a corner who is good in man coverage isn't a scheme fit.

 

And ultimately, I think your approach is based on the popular viewpoint, which is 'we should target a player at our greatest position of need in the first round,' and I just fundamentally disagree with that approach. I think it's flawed and shortsighted, and gradually undermines the quality of the roster. If you want to draft for need, identify the player that fits your team, and go get him. But don't reach past a better prospect just because he plays a position you don't perceive as an immediate need. And you maximize value by trading back and having a positional value philosophy.

 

It's kind of a moot point. I think part of the attraction to this kind of defense is that it takes a premium off of the cornerback position, so I don't see Ballard drafting a corner in the first round anyway. But if he were going to draft a corner, I think he'd draft the best prospect that fits his desired profile. And I don't think being good in man coverage is disqualifying, it's actually a boost. So if all things were equal -- and they're not, but for the sake of discussion -- I don't see why the Colts wouldn't view a corner prospect who can play man as a tool that can improve Bradley's defense.

I very much think you need to identify the best players at positions of need and target them. I also agree reaching is not they way to do it - trade back if a desired player doesn’t match the value of the pick. I especially think you need to take this approach when your GM doesn’t want to go get significant FAs at said positions of need and he isn’t big on doing significant trades to fill them either. 
 

I believe in giving your coaches the best players possible with the traits and skill-sets that fit what you’re doing on offense/defense. Specifically targeting man CBs hoping they’ll fit in a zone defense seems like you’re taking unnecessary risks?

 

I don’t know if Mitchell is better than Arnold, but he’s good enough I wouldn’t feel bad about taking him at 15 and passing on Arnold in the process, because I KNOW his skill-set will fit with what we’re doing. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I very much think you need to identify the best players at positions of need and target them. I also agree reaching is not they way to do it - trade back if a desired player doesn’t match the value of the pick. I especially think you need to take this approach when your GM doesn’t want to go get significant FAs at said positions of need and he isn’t big on doing significant trades to fill them either. 
 

I believe in giving your coaches the best players possible with the traits and skill-sets that fit what you’re doing on offense/defense. Specifically targeting man CBs hoping they’ll fit in a zone defense seems like you’re taking unnecessary risks?

 

I don’t know if Mitchell is better than Arnold, but he’s good enough I wouldn’t feel bad about taking him at 15 and passing on Arnold in the process, because I KNOW his skill-set will fit with what we’re doing. 

 

If a particular corner prospect struggles in zone coverage, I'd agree that he's not a good fit. I guess my real pushback is on the idea that just because a corner prospect is really good in man that he won't be good in zone. 

 

I haven't dug in really heavy on Arnold or Mitchell, I think they're both good, but Arnold seems like the best overall corner in this class. If we don't like him because Bradley won't use him, then that just deepens my dissatisfaction with what we're doing on defense. 

 

Bigger picture, what do we need to make the defense really good? And how do you think those positions should be valued for draft purposes? 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

I really hope somewhere along the way Ballard changes his philosophy. This is not the 80s or 90s. This is a passing league. You NEED high level CBs, who can play multiple different coverages well and who can let your coordinator(whoever it is) the freedom to mix things up and actually disrupt the opponent and make them uncomfortable... not just ones you can live with or ones you can patch things up with. 

 

I think I mostly agree with this, which is why I'm pushing back against the idea of just getting Bradley what he wants. I think Bradley will be gone before long, and rather than continuing to devalue good DBs because Bradley plays soft zone coverage, we should be adding good players across the board.

 

But, I think there's still value in Ballard's philosophy. Even though we should be more multiple in coverage, we're still going to play a ton of zone. So how much of a premium do you actually place on the corner position in the modern NFL? And how good do you need to be in man coverage to create the disruption that you're asking for? You can only be so good against a really good QB and OC, before they scheme their way around your so-called press man coverage, I don't care who the DBs are. Shuttle motion and rub routes are going to beat man coverage as long as you have good QBing. 

 

So I'm really torn on this.

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If a particular corner prospect struggles in zone coverage, I'd agree that he's not a good fit. I guess my real pushback is on the idea that just because a corner prospect is really good in man that he won't be good in zone. 

 

I haven't dug in really heavy on Arnold or Mitchell, I think they're both good, but Arnold seems like the best overall corner in this class. If we don't like him because Bradley won't use him, then that just deepens my dissatisfaction with what we're doing on defense. 

 

Bigger picture, what do we need to make the defense really good? And how do you think those positions should be valued for draft purposes? 

I know it's not directed at me but... we need to disrupt the pass. We cannot afford to allow players like Stroud(and he will be right here for the next dacade +), or Lawrence, or Mahomes, or Burrow, or Allen, or Lamar or Herbert, or whoever to just know in advance exactly what they can expect once the ball is snapped. You need to disrupt his timing, make the receivers have to work to get open, make the QB to have to hitch for a fraction of a second, make him actually doubt that his guy will be open when he throws the ball. This is on the backside. This is in addition to actually rushing him and directly disrupting him via pass-rush... well timed and disguised BLITZES, etc. 

 

You cannot just allow them to hit their backfoot and drive the ball uninterrupted wherever it's designed to go. This is the biggest weakness of this defense IMO. We do not disrupt the pass... at all... unless we win quick with pass-rush(which we don't very often). 

[Solid84]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If a particular corner prospect struggles in zone coverage, I'd agree that he's not a good fit. I guess my real pushback is on the idea that just because a corner prospect is really good in man that he won't be good in zone. 

 

I haven't dug in really heavy on Arnold or Mitchell, I think they're both good, but Arnold seems like the best overall corner in this class. If we don't like him because Bradley won't use him, then that just deepens my dissatisfaction with what we're doing on defense. 

 

Bigger picture, what do we need to make the defense really good? And how do you think those positions should be valued for draft purposes? 

Don’t get me wrong, I get the appeal in drafting a great man CB, I just think the talent would be wasted with us and thus we’d be better off drafting a player Bradley might actually get the best out of. 
 

I think the ‘23 season showed us a few things about our defense when compared to the top of the league. Some of it’s been known for a while though and I’m not really confident Bradley (or Ballard?) knows how to fix it. 
 

• Our defensive scheme is just too basic. Even average QBs can pick apart our soft zones and elite QBs make us look stupid.
• We don’t bring enough pressure. Period.
• This scheme needs LBs who can cover and we don’t have them currently.
• We’re not good enough at limiting big plays.
• Dline depth is a problem for us. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

I know it's not directed at me but... we need to disrupt the pass. We cannot afford to allow players like Stroud(and he will be right here for the next dacade +), or Lawrence, or Mahomes, or Burrow, or Allen, or Lamar or Herbert, or whoever to just know in advance exactly what they can expect once the ball is snapped. You need to disrupt his timing, make the receivers have to work to get open, make the QB to have to hitch for a fraction of a second, make him actually doubt that his guy will be open when he throws the ball. This is on the backside. This is in addition to actually rushing him and directly disrupting him via pass-rush... well timed and disguised BLITZES, etc. 

 

You cannot just allow them to hit their backfoot and drive the ball uninterrupted wherever it's designed to go. This is the biggest weakness of this defense IMO. We do not disrupt the pass... at all... unless we win quick with pass-rush(which we don't very often). 

 

I agree with this, and our defense doesn't even try to disrupt the pass, so it's hard to even know what we have. The biggest problem is the scheme, IMO. But positionally, what do we need? 

[Solid84]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

I know it's not directed at me but... we need to disrupt the pass. We cannot afford to allow players like Stroud(and he will be right here for the next dacade +), or Lawrence, or Mahomes, or Burrow, or Allen, or Lamar or Herbert, or whoever to just know in advance exactly what they can expect once the ball is snapped. You need to disrupt his timing, make the receivers have to work to get open, make the QB to have to hitch for a fraction of a second, make him actually doubt that his guy will be open when he throws the ball. This is on the backside. This is in addition to actually rushing him and directly disrupting him via pass-rush... well timed and disguised BLITZES, etc. 

 

You cannot just allow them to hit their backfoot and drive the ball uninterrupted wherever it's designed to go. This is the biggest weakness of this defense IMO. We do not disrupt the pass... at all... unless we win quick with pass-rush(which we don't very often). 

Absolutely this. 
 

Bradley needs to dial up more blitzes and actually use pre-snap disguises and hide what we’re doing and the pass rush has to be priority. 

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with this, and our defense doesn't even try to disrupt the pass, so it's hard to even know what we have. The biggest problem is the scheme, IMO. But positionally, what do we need? 

DE(s) and possibly a better pass rusher than Stewart at DT - at least as a rotational piece. 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with this, and our defense doesn't even try to disrupt the pass, so it's hard to even know what we have. The biggest problem is the scheme, IMO. But positionally, what do we need? 

(if we change the scheme) We need CBs who can play man coverage... we need better EDGE rushers... and after the talent drain of last few years at LB... we probably need to add a LB or safety who can cover modern day TEs. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

DE(s) and possibly a better pass rusher than Stewart at DT - at least as a rotational piece. 

To be honest I don't think Stewart is the problem of this defense. And you are not exactly saying he's the problem but IMO he's plenty good enough for what else he provides. We can live with one DT not being amazing pass-rusher. But we need the EDGEs to actually wreck shop.