ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum
Page 17 of 23 « First 71516 17 1819 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)
-   Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Realistic Draft (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38981)

VeveJones007 04-10-2018 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck (Post 62583)
I have been thinking its going to be Edmunds as the pick. But he is being looked at due to his athletic ability and potential..... Does this remind you of a certain safety on the roster right now?

Remember TJ came in with great physical skills and just needed coaching. Most on here hate him and want him cut....

I know that there is a huge difference in talent but still.... would Smith or James be the better pick? Ballard can't make a mistake. Nelson is the safest pick if he is still there.... I think Ballard is pretty conservative in his approach so I wouldnt be surprised to see Nelson as the pick.

Really going to be an interesting draft to see unfold


Just something to think about
Not sure I can explain it, but I think Smith and LVE are more likely to be Ballard targets. Smith especially.

Dam8610 04-10-2018 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 62623)
Not sure I can explain it, but I think Smith and LVE are more likely to be Ballard targets. Smith especially.
Edmunds is WAY more likely to be a Ballard target than Smith based on him drafting Hooker last year. Both are young, ridiculously gifted athletes that showed some talent in pads on the football field but who (barring injury, which is more of a concern for Hooker) likely have their best football ahead of them. At 19, Edmunds is 6'5" 250 and runs a 4.5 range 40. He could fall short of his potential and still be as good as Brian Urlacher.

FatDT 04-10-2018 09:38 AM
I think Edmunds is pretty far behind Smith in football aptitude. Part of that is Edmunds' age. His ceiling is higher. But his floor is lower. He will need time and coaching. Supposedly Eberflus is great with LBs. If that's true then he would be the right guy to help Edmunds reach his potential. But do you spend a top 10 pick on a project when your roster is this bad?

rm1369 04-10-2018 09:43 AM
Ballard drafted Hooker because he was BPA and fit a need. I think Edmunds is a likely Ballard target because of his size, skill, potential and team need. But that has nothing to do with the selection of Hooker last year.

sherck 04-10-2018 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 62628)
I think Edmunds is pretty far behind Smith in football aptitude. Part of that is Edmunds' age. His ceiling is higher. But his floor is lower. He will need time and coaching. Supposedly Eberflus is great with LBs. If that's true then he would be the right guy to help Edmunds reach his potential. But do you spend a top 10 pick on a project when your roster is this bad?
A "project" that has Brian Urlacher potential?

Yeah, you do.

Walk Worthy

rm1369 04-10-2018 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 62628)
I think Edmunds is pretty far behind Smith in football aptitude. Part of that is Edmunds' age. His ceiling is higher. But his floor is lower. He will need time and coaching. Supposedly Eberflus is great with LBs. If that's true then he would be the right guy to help Edmunds reach his potential. But do you spend a top 10 pick on a project when your roster is this bad?
If you believe in Edmunds potential and in Eberflus I think you do. Ballard is taking a longer term view of building the roster. That’s evident in his actions and Irsays comments. If that’s the case you definitely look for the best long term player and Edmunds has a pretty good chance to be that guy. Certainly hard to take him at 3, but at 6 or a little lower I think you take him. Ballard picking up 3 2nds in the process certainly will help ease the pain of Edmunds being slower out of the gate than others drafted that high.

Especially if LB play is a key to making this D work effectively as your analysis in the other thread seemed to show.

VeveJones007 04-10-2018 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 62625)
Edmunds is WAY more likely to be a Ballard target than Smith based on him drafting Hooker last year. Both are young, ridiculously gifted athletes that showed some talent in pads on the football field but who (barring injury, which is more of a concern for Hooker) likely have their best football ahead of them. At 19, Edmunds is 6'5" 250 and runs a 4.5 range 40. He could fall short of his potential and still be as good as Brian Urlacher.
Part of it is leadership qualities. Roquon would be the defensive QB for 10 years. Ballard seems to want that quality.

Dam8610 04-10-2018 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 62628)
I think Edmunds is pretty far behind Smith in football aptitude. Part of that is Edmunds' age. His ceiling is higher. But his floor is lower. He will need time and coaching. Supposedly Eberflus is great with LBs. If that's true then he would be the right guy to help Edmunds reach his potential. But do you spend a top 10 pick on a project when your roster is this bad?
Smith's size limits him just as much as Edmunds's lack of football aptitude, the difference being Edmunds is 19 (20 when the season starts) and can learn football better, Smith can't grow 3 inches. Edmunds could take 3 years to learn the position and be a 23 year old All-Pro in his 4th season. You're right that Edmunds's floor is lower, but I'd say it's about 80% of Smith's floor, with his ceiling being 150% of Smith's.

FatDT 04-10-2018 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 62640)
Part of it is leadership qualities. Roquon would be the defensive QB for 10 years. Ballard seems to want that quality.
That's assuming he can handle NFL blockers and doesn't get injured. I'm still wary of his size.

VeveJones007 04-10-2018 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 62642)
Smith's size limits him just as much as Edmunds's lack of football aptitude, the difference being Edmunds is 19 (20 when the season starts) and can learn football better, Smith can't grow 3 inches. Edmunds could take 3 years to learn the position and be a 23 year old All-Pro in his 4th season. You're right that Edmunds's floor is lower, but I'd say it's about 80% of Smith's floor, with his ceiling being 150% of Smith's.
150% of Smith’s ceiling would be the best LB in NFL history.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 PM.
Page 17 of 23 « First 71516 17 1819 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.