positions of need

[OLD FAN MAN]

during the off season has grigs improved our positions of need, o-line, front 7 on defense, and safety, or has he just added to positions with ample talent where we have to cut starting ability players?

[COLTS449]

We've improved our team big time. But it could have been improved more. With a few other/different signings we would be the hands down favorites instead of one of the 3-4 favorites. 

[jskinnz]

We've improved our team big time. But it could have been improved more. With a few other/different signings we would be the hands down favorites instead of one of the 3-4 favorites.

Dear God...

[21isSuperman]

during the off season has grigs improved our positions of need, o-line, front 7 on defense, and safety, or has he just added to positions with ample talent where we have to cut starting ability players?

OL: Brought in Herremans (you can even throw Frank Gore in here in terms of pass protection and better production from the running game

Front 7: Trent Cole, Nate Irving, Kendall Langford (I think Langford will be a really underrated signing)

S: drafted Geathers, re-signed Adams

 

He's brought in quite a bit of talent.  I don't agree with every move he's made, but he's brought in plenty of guys to improve the team.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

We've improved our team big time. But it could have been improved more. With a few other/different signings we would be the hands down favorites instead of one of the 3-4 favorites. 

What signings, within reason of the salary cap and the team's future, would have realistically made us the hands down favorites?  Please tell me, and please keep in mind that a good chunk of the core of our team are going into contract years and we might want to resign some of them....

 

take a look at this list http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2016/indianapolis-colts/ -- here are some notable players that stand out:  Hilton, Castonzo, Fleener, Allen, Toler, Freeman, Chapman, etc....  

 

and we need to renegotiate Luck's contract for long-term soon,

 

plus in 2017 we have these guys set to be FA's:  Werner, Walden, Holmes, Thornton, Hughes, Kerr, Butler, etc.

 

and then in 2018: Vontae, Mewhort, Moncrief, Newsome, etc.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

OL: Brought in Herremans (you can even throw Frank Gore in here in terms of pass protection and better production from the running game

Front 7: Trent Cole, Nate Irving, Kendall Langford (I think Langford will be a really underrated signing)

S: drafted Geathers, re-signed Adams

 

He's brought in quite a bit of talent.  I don't agree with every move he's made, but he's brought in plenty of guys to improve the team.

 

Henry Anderson looks to be a player who can boost our DL (and maybe Parry), Lowery is a more than capable S if we have to wait for Geathers to develop, D'Joun Smith sounds like the real deal (I am not ruling out him being our #3 CB by years end, or even #2 if Toler gets the injury bug).

 

I'm putting new players in bold.

 

To answer the OP's question -- I think we may have to cut players that can play (and maybe start) elsewhere.  The defensive front 7 -- Langford, Chapman, Art Jones, Hughes, Kerr, and Quarles have all proven they can play in this league.  Last year we had  6 DL on the final 53 -- so the additions of Anderson and Parry (who seem like they have NFL potential, with Anderson having stud potential) means that of the 8 mentioned here, 2 will wind up on a new roster before the start of the season.

 

At LB -- Freeman, D'Qwell Jackson, Walden, Werner, Mathis, Newsome, Cole, Irving, have all proven they can play at LB in this league, while Muamba and Cam Johnson have shown they can be a good ST'er.  That is already 10 players listed who can play in this league (we kept 9 on our final 53 last year) -- I've heard a lot of good things about Herrera, Hodges and Sylvestre.  I still have not forgotten about Adongo -- so that gives us 14 guys (plus Fields and Galea) who are fighting for 9 or 10 spots -- chances are a few of these guys will wind up on someone else's team during this season.

 

On OL -- this is a bit tougher, as a lot depends on health -- Castonzo and Mewhort seem to be our studs, while Harrison and Holmes showed they can play in this league (Holmes needs to beat the injury bug), the coaches are still high on Thornton, and Thomas and Cherilus can play in this league if healthy.  Reitz has a spot in this league, so does Lance Louis.  Todd Herremans is a guy that can definitely play in this league, while guys like Heenan and Goode and Ulrick John seem to have potential though they might be projects.  Regardless, if we can stay healthy, we should be much improved on OL (and like SM21 says, the addition of Gore should help a lot.

 

At S - Adams was a probowler last year, Dewey was a stud on ST, Anderson and Guy can both play ST (and I think Anderson or Dewey would both do fine if called on to play on D).  Geathers and Lowery look to be in the battle for the 2nd starting spot, and I've heard mention of possibly trying D'Joun Smith there.  I think either Geathers or Lowery will be an improvement to Landry and Brown.  While I don't see anyone we cut going on to be a star elsewhere, if we have to part with guys like Anderson, Dewey, or Guy, I think there is a good shot for all of them to wind up elsewhere as ST'ers.  Overall, I think we improved here.  The additions to our front 7 should also be huge for our secondary -- as nothing helps a secondary succeed like a good pass rush (and a group that can stop a runner before they are in the 3rd level of our D).

[COLTS449]

What signings, within reason of the salary cap and the team's future, would have realistically made us the hands down favorites?  Please tell me, and please keep in mind that a good chunk of the core of our team are going into contract years and we might want to resign some of them....

 

take a look at this list http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2016/indianapolis-colts/ -- here are some notable players that stand out:  Hilton, Castonzo, Fleener, Allen, Toler, Freeman, Chapman, etc....  

 

and we need to renegotiate Luck's contract for long-term soon,

 

plus in 2017 we have these guys set to be FA's:  Werner, Walden, Holmes, Thornton, Hughes, Kerr, Butler, etc.

 

and then in 2018: Vontae, Mewhort, Moncrief, Newsome, etc.

 

First up who's worried about that group of 2017 FA's lol? A bunch of backups/rotational guys? But yeah man. Guys like Terrence Knighton and Nick Fairley signed for basically nothing. We could have added Knighton along with Langford. I don't know why everyone forgot he was a beast. Then our safety situation concerns me. We could have signed someone much better than Lowery. I wish we had at least taken a flyer on Tyvon Branch along with Lowery anyways. He's a NO risk-Monster reward. Or maybe went after Searcy. Or maybe made a big splash on the O-Line by signing Orlando Franklin or Clint Boling, and also a fallback option at Center like Montgomery or De La Puente. I mean dude a few of those signings wouldn't have hurt us. You cant worry about 2-3 years from now when the cap will be another 20 million higher by then. But Knighton got 1 year, 4million. Branch got what? 1year, 1 million? We made some great moves don't get me wrong. We've filled holes and got much better on both sides of the ball AJ, Gore, Cole, Langford, Irving, I'm just saying we could have done a thing or two different and we'd be the absolute best team in the league no doubt. With say Knighton and Franklin we'd pretty much know both lines were set and that both lines would be solid. Langford, Knighton, and Jones would be a pretty dominate D-Line. Don't you think that D-Line would be pretty good? Or our O-Line with Franklin at guard? A few different/more moves would have made a pretty big difference I think. You know unless we have some guys really break out and become beasts. 

[COLTS449]

Dear God...

 

Yeah my bad bro. I forgot you know everything!

[akcolt]

First up who's worried about that group of 2017 FA's lol? A bunch of backups/rotational guys? But yeah man. Guys like Terrence Knighton and Nick Fairley signed for basically nothing. We could have added Knighton along with Langford. I don't know why everyone forgot he was a beast. Then our safety situation concerns me. We could have signed someone much better than Lowery. I wish we had at least taken a flyer on Tyvon Branch along with Lowery anyways. He's a NO risk-Monster reward. Or maybe went after Searcy. Or maybe made a big splash on the O-Line by signing Orlando Franklin or Clint Boling, and also a fallback option at Center like Montgomery or De La Puente. I mean dude a few of those signings wouldn't have hurt us. You cant worry about 2-3 years from now when the cap will be another 20 million higher by then. But Knighton got 1 year, 4million. Branch got what? 1year, 1 million? We made some great moves don't get me wrong. We've filled holes and got much better on both sides of the ball AJ, Gore, Cole, Langford, Irving, I'm just saying we could have done a thing or two different and we'd be the absolute best team in the league no doubt. With say Knighton and Franklin we'd pretty much know both lines were set and that both lines would be solid. Langford, Knighton, and Jones would be a pretty dominate D-Line. Don't you think that D-Line would be pretty good? Or our O-Line with Franklin at guard? A few different/more moves would have made a pretty big difference I think. You know unless we have some guys really break out and become beasts.

Franklin was the 3rd most penalized G in the league last year. Then he signs a five-year, $36.5 million deal that will pay him $16.5 million guaranteed through the first two years. That doesn't seem like a great move to me.

The best way to build for the long haul is through the draft with some FA's sprinkled in.

Grig's is doing just that maybe we should see what is before we start wondering about what could have been.

[BleedBlu8792]

First up who's worried about that group of 2017 FA's lol? A bunch of backups/rotational guys? But yeah man. Guys like Terrence Knighton and Nick Fairley signed for basically nothing. We could have added Knighton along with Langford. I don't know why everyone forgot he was a beast. Then our safety situation concerns me. We could have signed someone much better than Lowery. I wish we had at least taken a flyer on Tyvon Branch along with Lowery anyways. He's a NO risk-Monster reward. Or maybe went after Searcy. Or maybe made a big splash on the O-Line by signing Orlando Franklin or Clint Boling, and also a fallback option at Center like Montgomery or De La Puente. I mean dude a few of those signings wouldn't have hurt us. You cant worry about 2-3 years from now when the cap will be another 20 million higher by then. But Knighton got 1 year, 4million. Branch got what? 1year, 1 million? We made some great moves don't get me wrong. We've filled holes and got much better on both sides of the ball AJ, Gore, Cole, Langford, Irving, I'm just saying we could have done a thing or two different and we'd be the absolute best team in the league no doubt. With say Knighton and Franklin we'd pretty much know both lines were set and that both lines would be solid. Langford, Knighton, and Jones would be a pretty dominate D-Line. Don't you think that D-Line would be pretty good? Or our O-Line with Franklin at guard? A few different/more moves would have made a pretty big difference I think. You know unless we have some guys really break out and become beasts. 

 

All of those players, you mentioned about signing, still have to want to play here... Just because they were signed cheap elsewhere doesn't mean we didn't make the offer. They very well could have declined to play for the Colts, regardless of what was offered $-wise.

[Deano1818]

I think that we HAVE improved this team over last year.

 

I also think that there are still some spots that further help is needed.

 

But..... some of these spots may be filled in by the development of our young guys....... Hopefully

 

We have to give these guys at least a chance to develop into solid pros.

 

I have to say that I am excited to see what Anderson can do for this team.........

 

 

 

I think camp will show if we go with a developmental guy, or we try to improve our roster with a camp cut or trade from another team

 

The two spots that could get attention are NT, G...........  

 

IMHO, these are the biggest needs, for right now

 

We will see

[lollygagger8]

Dear God...

[pgt_rob]

We've improved on both sides of the ball. I'm anxious to see it all in motion.

[Bravo]

Offensive line.... Seriously though.

Whether it's improvement of the younger players we already have or improvement by bringin in the news players they have. The Colts need good offensive line play to have any shot at being consistent and winning a SuperBowl.

[Narcosys]

OL: Brought in Herremans (you can even throw Frank Gore in here in terms of pass protection and better production from the running game

Front 7: Trent Cole, Nate Irving, Kendall Langford (I think Langford will be a really underrated signing)

S: drafted Geathers, re-signed Adams

He's brought in quite a bit of talent. I don't agree with every move he's made, but he's brought in plenty of guys to improve the team.

What I don't get, and maybe you can help, is the complaint that we aren't addressing or needs through the draft.

So far I think the drafts we've had recently have overall been pretty good. We can't draft and fix all our faults in one draft.

So the way I see it, grigson understands this. He evaluates players in the first few rounds who can most likely come in and in the first couple of years, fix some gaps. After the first 3 or 4 rounds it's a crap shoot. So those positions that he doesn't think can be fixed in the draft, he addresses in free agency.

I don't think he drafts based on need but based on bpa and then need.

With the first pick we addressed WR. at first I didn't understand this. But look to the future; we won't keep allen and Fleener, johnson is a stop gap short term, TY is the only proven WR we have with Moncrief showing potential.

Now the Dorsett pick makes sense.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

First up who's worried about that group of 2017 FA's lol? A bunch of backups/rotational guys? But yeah man. Guys like Terrence Knighton and Nick Fairley signed for basically nothing. We could have added Knighton along with Langford. I don't know why everyone forgot he was a beast. Then our safety situation concerns me. We could have signed someone much better than Lowery. I wish we had at least taken a flyer on Tyvon Branch along with Lowery anyways. He's a NO risk-Monster reward. Or maybe went after Searcy. Or maybe made a big splash on the O-Line by signing Orlando Franklin or Clint Boling, and also a fallback option at Center like Montgomery or De La Puente. I mean dude a few of those signings wouldn't have hurt us. You cant worry about 2-3 years from now when the cap will be another 20 million higher by then. But Knighton got 1 year, 4million. Branch got what? 1year, 1 million? We made some great moves don't get me wrong. We've filled holes and got much better on both sides of the ball AJ, Gore, Cole, Langford, Irving, I'm just saying we could have done a thing or two different and we'd be the absolute best team in the league no doubt. With say Knighton and Franklin we'd pretty much know both lines were set and that both lines would be solid. Langford, Knighton, and Jones would be a pretty dominate D-Line. Don't you think that D-Line would be pretty good? Or our O-Line with Franklin at guard? A few different/more moves would have made a pretty big difference I think. You know unless we have some guys really break out and become beasts. 

 

Werner, Walden, Holmes, Thornton have all seen significant amount of time as starters -- Walden may be approaching the down-turn of his career, but if Werner, Holmes and Thornton continue to develop, they will hopefully be longterm solutions for us (a big part of the reason we were so successful during the Manning years was continuity, don't forget that -- of course, we had some holes in the D, but I think that's why Irsay got rid of Polian and brought in Grigson and Pagano).  Butler has played a very significant role for us by being one of the best nickel CBs in the league the past few years (several games where he was an unsung hero, including our first victory over Denver).  Hughes is developing (he was drafted 2 years ago as a developmental player) and has already played a significant role on this team, which will hopefully continue to increase as he learns the game at the pro level.  Kerr played a significant role as a rookie, but you're right, he might never be more than a rotational guy.

 

As for the players you mentioned -- Fairley is probably the best of the group, though I think a lot of his success came with playing in Suh's shadow.  Knighton is not a beast, he is above average, but not a 'beast' by any means.  We have several young guys on our team who were drafted to develop (e.g., Josh Chapman who was coming off major knee injury at Alabama and was drafted knowing he'd miss a year and then have a year getting back into things), Montori Hughes who was drafted from Tennessee-Martin, has freakish size and athleticism for his size but was (admittedly by Grigs) drafted as a developmental guy, Zach Kerr who did very well for an UDFA rookie last year, and then we drafted Henry Anderson and David Parry and we have Art Jones coming back healthy.  I think the coaches/GM may know more than us fans, and are expecting Chapman and Hughes to improve this year, especially with a healthy Art Jones and the addition of Langford.

 

Franklin has way too many penalties and I don't see the sense in having a 'fall back option' at C which costs a lot of money when we had Holmes show us he can play in this league when healthy and another year for Harrison to develop. 

 

Tyvon Branch is more of a one-dimensional safety (play in the box), which is not what Pagano wants.  He was decent at coverage, but is coming off a season-ending broken leg injury followed by a season-ending broken foot injury -- not good injuries for anyone, but especially not good injuries for someone who struggles in coverage and whose speed was what could make up for it (reminds me a little of Landry in this sense).  I think Lowery is much less of a risk, and really don't see why they'd waste time signing another player when we already have a probowler in Adams and a guy who has shown he can play well and do things Pagano wants in our system in Lowery -- plus we've got a couple young guys and addressed the need in the draft with Geathers.

 

Being a GM in the NFL isn't the same as 'owning a franchise' in Madden video games.  Grigs took us from the worst team in the league to 3 straight double-digit win seasons, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't trust him to continue to improve this team.  I, for one, am glad you are not our GM.

[jskinnz]

Yeah my bad bro. I forgot you know everything!

 

Don't know everything but just enough to know that you believing they were a few free agents aways from being "hands down" the favorites is comedy gold.

[aaron11]

if you watched the patriots games then you should know that WR was a need

[21isSuperman]

What I don't get, and maybe you can help, is the complaint that we aren't addressing or needs through the draft.

So far I think the drafts we've had recently have overall been pretty good. We can't draft and fix all our faults in one draft.

So the way I see it, grigson understands this. He evaluates players in the first few rounds who can most likely come in and in the first couple of years, fix some gaps. After the first 3 or 4 rounds it's a crap shoot. So those positions that he doesn't think can be fixed in the draft, he addresses in free agency.

I don't think he drafts based on need but based on bpa and then need.

With the first pick we addressed WR. at first I didn't understand this. But look to the future; we won't keep allen and Fleener, johnson is a stop gap short term, TY is the only proven WR we have with Moncrief showing potential.

Now the Dorsett pick makes sense.

I can't really comment on anything since I'm not in the war room or involved in draft preparation.  But to me, I think people don't like Grigson's drafting because of his first round picks.  His first round picks have been used on Trent Richardson, Werner, and Dorsett (I'm excluding Luck because that was a no-brainer).  Richardson was a colossal bust, Werner has been able to contribute, but has done nothing to justify being a first round pick, and Dorsett was a luxury pick in the eyes of many.

 

Upon closer examination, we see some interesting things come up.  We don't need to go into Richardson's case since it's been well-documented and the list of things wrong with Richardson's game would be longer than his yards per carry.

 

Werner was seen by many as a 4-3 DE.  But Grigson went ahead and drafted him anyway and they've tried using him as a pass rusher, with few results.  He could fit in at another position, but the coaching staff seems adamant that he's a pass rusher first.

 

Interestingly, Werner and Richardson were both inactive for our most recent game (the AFCCG vs. the Pats).  It doesn't look good when two of your first round picks are inactive for the most important game of the season.  Richardson, I can understand.  But Werner could provide some support in run defense, and the Pats have notoriously bulldozed our defense at will.

 

Dorsett was another pick that a lot of criticism.  Many, including myself, don't like the pick.  Guys like Malcolm Brown, Eddie Goldman, and Landon Collins were all available.  All 3 of those guys would have fit a need, while also providing first round talent.  Instead, Grigson uses the pick for a guy with first round talent, but comes into a position that is really full for us.  Andre Johnson, TY Hilton, Moncrief, Carter, Brown, Fleener, and Dwayne Allen are all pass catchers on the roster.  Throwing a guy like Dorsett in there makes no sense when you could have brought in good talent to fill a need instead of good talent to compete with a pretty full set of pass catchers.

 

Grigson has done a somewhat decent job of finding talent later in the draft, and I think he's done a pretty good job of finding talent elsewhere.  But because his first round picks haven't really panned out, I think he gets a lot of criticism (which I think he deserves).

 

I don't agree with your assessment that beyond rounds 3 or 4, the draft is a crapshoot.  I think you can find some really good football players and have your coaching staff develop them into guys who can contribute.  Our coaching staff has many several questionable decisions.  To me, I can see the benefit of bringing in Dorsett and having our offense be even more potent.  But I'm a firm believer in having a balanced team, and even having more of an emphasis on defense (especially when you have a QB like Luck).

 

We'll see how it all turns out, but that's a quick version of why Grigson gets a lot of criticism, in my opinion

[Narcosys]

Dorsett was another pick that a lot of criticism.  Many, including myself, don't like the pick.  Guys like Malcolm Brown, Eddie Goldman, and Landon Collins were all available.  All 3 of those guys would have fit a need, while also providing first round talent.  Instead, Grigson uses the pick for a guy with first round talent, but comes into a position that is really full for us.  Andre Johnson, TY Hilton, Moncrief, Carter, Brown, Fleener, and Dwayne Allen are all pass catchers on the roster.  Throwing a guy like Dorsett in there makes no sense when you could have brought in good talent to fill a need instead of good talent to compete with a pretty full set of pass catchers.

 

Grigson has done a somewhat decent job of finding talent later in the draft, and I think he's done a pretty good job of finding talent elsewhere.  But because his first round picks haven't really panned out, I think he gets a lot of criticism (which I think he deserves).

 

I don't agree with your assessment that beyond rounds 3 or 4, the draft is a crapshoot.  I think you can find some really good football players and have your coaching staff develop them into guys who can contribute.  Our coaching staff has many several questionable decisions.  To me, I can see the benefit of bringing in Dorsett and having our offense be even more potent.  But I'm a firm believer in having a balanced team, and even having more of an emphasis on defense (especially when you have a QB like Luck).

 

We'll see how it all turns out, but that's a quick version of why Grigson gets a lot of criticism, in my opinion

 

This is what i am talking about.  Not saying you are wrong.  But you are wanting him to draft based on need regardless if the talent fits the round he would be drafted in.  Essentially you want him to try and reach to fit a need.  I think he assesses it the other way around, drafting based on talent, that deserves the round, and then that falls within a possible current or future need. 

 

You CAN find, but it is not a guarantee.  Of course no round is a guarantee, but your top 3 rounds are typically known as your safest bets.  Beyond that, its a crap shoot.

 

Basically i think Grigson probably saw drafting Landon or others at that position was too much of a reach based on their assessment of his talen.  He can be the best Safety available, but if the draft class is of low quality, then what does it matter.    Much like the special olympics comparison people use. 

[COLTS449]

Don't know everything but just enough to know that you believing they were a few free agents aways from being "hands down" the favorites is comedy gold.

 

Seriously man look at our roster. We stacked in several areas. but our possible weakness's could be the O-Line, D-Line, and Safety. We have improved all of those areas a little bit don't get me wrong, but I do think a different move or two here and there would have made a pretty big difference. Knighton for example would have improved our Run D quite a bit.

[krunk]

This is what i am talking about.  Not saying you are wrong.  But you are wanting him to draft based on need regardless if the talent fits the round he would be drafted in.  Essentially you want him to try and reach to fit a need.  I think he assesses it the other way around, drafting based on talent, that deserves the round, and then that falls within a possible current or future need. 

 

You CAN find, but it is not a guarantee.  Of course no round is a guarantee, but your top 3 rounds are typically known as your safest bets.  Beyond that, its a crap shoot.

 

Basically i think Grigson probably saw drafting Landon or others at that position was too much of a reach based on their assessment of his talen.  He can be the best Safety available, but if the draft class is of low quality, then what does it matter.    Much like the special olympics comparison people use. 

 

 

Superman 21st has been in on more than one of these type of conversations.  He believes what he believes and it's understandable his mind doesn't change I suppose.  I don't see much else that's going to sway him. The thing that bothers me with the logic is the entire NFL deemed Goldman and Collins to be 2nd rounders. People who were not coaches and GMs may have given first round grades, but when the boards started speaking on draft day neither one of them were drafted in the first round so I don't see how it makes sense that we should have done so either. 

 

Malcolm Brown I highly doubt will be able to impact games this year the way Dorsett will.  The point he makes about having a balanced team is something we all want, but to me it glosses over the fact that we picked up a statistically better defensive lineman in Henry Anderson at a later point in the draft.  It wouldn't shock me at all if Anderson had a better season than Brown to be honest. And then we turned around a couple picks later and drafted David Parry who I feel is a really good NT. 

 

 I kind of knew we wouldn't be taking a D lineman in the 1st unless somehow the kid from USC fell in our lap, or maybe Danny Shelton perhaps.  It was already stated before the draft even happened that the Colts were confident in Chapman, Hughes, Kerr, Quarles.  Plus we'd already added Kendall Langford so it's not hard to assume that picking up a DL in the first wouldn't be a priority unless a superior D line talent like the ones I mentioned were still on the board.  It's real clear that the Colts did not deem Brown to be a superior talent more than what's already on the roster.  We still addressed our needs on the DL, we just did it later.

Not only did Grigson address the DL, but he also addressed the secondary, the LB position, and the safeties. He did this in the draft, FA, and UDFA.  And on top of all of this he added more firepower to the offense. 

 

I just don't see how it can be said he didn't make creating a balanced team a priority!

 

To each his own for those that disagree, but that's how I see it.....

[Narcosys]

Superman 21st has been in on more than one of these type of conversations. He believes what he believes and it's understandable his mind doesn't change I suppose. I don't see much else that's going to sway him. The thing that bothers me with the logic is the entire NFL deemed Goldman and Collins to be 2nd rounders. People who were not coaches and GMs may have given first round grades, but when the boards started speaking on draft day neither one of them were drafted in the first round so I don't see how it makes sense that we should have done so either.

Malcolm Brown I highly doubt will be able to impact games this year the way Dorsett will. The point he makes about having a balanced team is something we all want, but to me it glosses over the fact that we picked up a statistically better defensive lineman in Henry Anderson at a later point in the draft. It wouldn't shock me at all if Anderson had a better season than Brown to be honest. And then we turned around a couple picks later and drafted David Parry who I feel is a really good NT.

I kind of knew we wouldn't be taking a D lineman in the 1st unless somehow the kid from USC fell in our lap, or maybe Danny Shelton perhaps. It was already stated before the draft even happened that the Colts were confident in Chapman, Hughes, Kerr, Quarles. Plus we'd already added Kendall Langford so it's not hard to assume that picking up a DL in the first wouldn't be a priority unless a superior D line talent like the ones I mentioned were still on the board. It's real clear that the Colts did not deem Brown to be a superior talent more than what's already on the roster. We still addressed our needs on the DL, we just did it later.

Not only did Grigson address the DL, but he also addressed the secondary, the LB position, and the safeties. He did this in the draft, FA, and UDFA. And on top of all of this he added more firepower to the offense.

I just don't see how it can be said he didn't make creating a balanced team a priority!

To each his own for those that disagree, but that's how I see it.....

I'm not trying to sway his belief. There are different draft techniques and neither are wrong. I am stating what I believe is grigson approach and that fits city's believe in a different draft prices than him.

You make my point by saying that Collins was a second rounder at best but every Grigs critic wanted him drafted in the first. My point about Grigs not reaching for talent that doesn't justify the draft position. Grigs is looking for talent that fits the round, and then see if it fits a possible current or future need.

Thus we drafted Dorsett as he was the best talent available that fits a future need. Beyond TY we aren't sure who will be around in 2-3 years.

[krunk]

I'm not getting to sway his belief. There are different draft techniques and neither are wrong. I am staying what I believe is grigson approach and that fits city's believe in a different draft prices than him.

You make my point by saying that Collins was a second rounder at best but every Grigs critic wanted him drafted in the first. My point about grubs not reaching for talent that doesn't justify the draft position. Grigs is looking for talent that fits the round, and then see if it fits a possible current or future need.

Thus we drafted Dorsett as he was the best talent available that fits a future need. Beyond TY we aren't sure who will be around in 2-3 years.

 

 

I gave it quite a bit of thought after Dorsett was drafted and the conclusion I reached was that we needed him.  It was more than a luxury pick. Yes we had T.Y., Andre Johnson, Moncrief, but everything beyond that was unknowns and Johnson will probably only be here a good 3 years if even that.  Also you never know what will happen in the case of injuries during the season.  If T.Y. was to get injured and you don't draft Dorsett then you're left with Andre Johnson, Moncrief, and maybe Carter who we're still evaluating.  If Carter doesn't pan out then you're left with an older receiver in Johnson and a 2nd year player in Moncrief.  So basically all the speed on the team is zapped away just that fast.  That leaves us with the still lingering problem of not being able to get guys open against these elite defenses.   I just can't find too many ways to pout about the Dorsett selection now.

[krunk]

Seriously man look at our roster. We stacked in several areas. but our possible weakness's could be the O-Line, D-Line, and Safety. We have improved all of those areas a little bit don't get me wrong, but I do think a different move or two here and there would have made a pretty big difference. Knighton for example would have improved our Run D quite a bit.

 

In the case of Knighton which to me is similar to how they are treating the situation with Evan Mathis, I don't think that Grigson wanted to add another close to or over age 30 player to the roster.  Knighton I believe is 29 years old.  We already have Arthur Jones who is 29, then he added Langford who is also 29. To me Grigs decided to stick with the young guys, and add even more youth through the draft.  I could be wrong, but it seems that way.

[Superman]

Seriously man look at our roster. We stacked in several areas. but our possible weakness's could be the O-Line, D-Line, and Safety. We have improved all of those areas a little bit don't get me wrong, but I do think a different move or two here and there would have made a pretty big difference. Knighton for example would have improved our Run D quite a bit.

 

We need a QB, for sure...

[Superman]

In the case of Knighton which to me is similar to how they are treating the situation with Evan Mathis, I don't think that Grigson wanted to add another close to or over age 30 player to the roster.  Knighton I believe is 29 years old.  We already have Arthur Jones who is 29, then he added Langford who is also 29. To me Grigs decided to stick with the young guys, and add even more youth through the draft.  I could be wrong, but it seems that way.

 

There's also the issue of the run defense not actually being as bad as people make it out to be.

 

And then, the question marks that come with Knighton. Two years ago, he was seen as an under-achiever (which is saying something for a third rounder) who couldn't stay in shape or provide consistent production. It's been reported that he's been fined several hundred thousand dollars for failing to make weight. Earlier this month, he agreed with a reporter who guessed that he weighs around 370, and agreed that concerns over his weight, conditioning, and ability to contribute on third down contributed to his lack of options in free agency. 

 

When he's at his best, he's probably a 30 snap/game player who comes off the field in passing situations and plays mostly 0/1 nose tackle. Meanwhile, we're a defense that has plenty of girth and players who can hold the line in the middle, but gets sloppy at 3/5 DE/DT, and sometimes doesn't tackle well. Terrance Knighton would have been a decent addition, and everyone would have gone gaga over him, but he's not this cure-all that he's been promoted as. The fact that, in his prime, he had to settle for two mid-level, short term contracts, speaks volumes.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2325698-mike-freemans-10-point-stance-will-knightons-weight-keep-him-from-greatness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/06/08/how-much-does-terrance-knighton-weigh-and-how-much-does-he-want-to-weigh/

[krunk]

There's also the issue of the run defense not actually being as bad as people make it out to be.

 

And then, the question marks that come with Knighton. Two years ago, he was seen as an under-achiever (which is saying something for a third rounder) who couldn't stay in shape or provide consistent production. It's been reported that he's been fined several hundred thousand dollars for failing to make weight. Earlier this month, he agreed with a reporter who guessed that he weighs around 370, and agreed that concerns over his weight, conditioning, and ability to contribute on third down contributed to his lack of options in free agency. 

 

When he's at his best, he's probably a 30 snap/game player who comes off the field in passing situations and plays mostly 0/1 nose tackle. Meanwhile, we're a defense that has plenty of girth and players who can hold the line in the middle, but gets sloppy at 3/5 DE/DT, and sometimes doesn't tackle well. Terrance Knighton would have been a decent addition, and everyone would have gone gaga over him, but he's not this cure-all that he's been promoted as. The fact that, in his prime, he had to settle for two mid-level, short term contracts, speaks volumes.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2325698-mike-freemans-10-point-stance-will-knightons-weight-keep-him-from-greatness

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/06/08/how-much-does-terrance-knighton-weigh-and-how-much-does-he-want-to-weigh/

 

 

And I won't lie I lobbied for us to get Knighton at different points before the draft.  However I can't argue with what you've posted, nor will I argue against the logic that Grigson might have been using regarding age and going with youth.  They both make sense.

[21isSuperman]

This is what i am talking about.  Not saying you are wrong.  But you are wanting him to draft based on need regardless if the talent fits the round he would be drafted in.  Essentially you want him to try and reach to fit a need.  I think he assesses it the other way around, drafting based on talent, that deserves the round, and then that falls within a possible current or future need. 

 

You CAN find, but it is not a guarantee.  Of course no round is a guarantee, but your top 3 rounds are typically known as your safest bets.  Beyond that, its a crap shoot.

 

Basically i think Grigson probably saw drafting Landon or others at that position was too much of a reach based on their assessment of his talen.  He can be the best Safety available, but if the draft class is of low quality, then what does it matter.    Much like the special olympics comparison people use. 

I agree with your assessment.  Grigson must have thought Dorsett was a higher rated prospect than Goldman, Brown, or Collins.  I guess that's where the differences begin.  For me, if I have two guys that are both first round talents, and one guy fills a position of need for me while the other doesn't, I'd take the guy who fills the need.  With that said, if Grigson and the scouts had a big gap in their scores between Dorsett and the others (eg. Dorsett ranked as a top 10 prospect and Goldman was ranked 30, Brown 31, Collins, 32), then I would understand more.  But it would confuse me if Goldman/Brown/Collins weren't rated as first round guys by Grigson.

 

Superman 21st has been in on more than one of these type of conversations.  He believes what he believes and it's understandable his mind doesn't change I suppose.  I don't see much else that's going to sway him. The thing that bothers me with the logic is the entire NFL deemed Goldman and Collins to be 2nd rounders. People who were not coaches and GMs may have given first round grades, but when the boards started speaking on draft day neither one of them were drafted in the first round so I don't see how it makes sense that we should have done so either. 

 

Malcolm Brown I highly doubt will be able to impact games this year the way Dorsett will.  The point he makes about having a balanced team is something we all want, but to me it glosses over the fact that we picked up a statistically better defensive lineman in Henry Anderson at a later point in the draft.  It wouldn't shock me at all if Anderson had a better season than Brown to be honest. And then we turned around a couple picks later and drafted David Parry who I feel is a really good NT. 

 

 I kind of knew we wouldn't be taking a D lineman in the 1st unless somehow the kid from USC fell in our lap, or maybe Danny Shelton perhaps.  It was already stated before the draft even happened that the Colts were confident in Chapman, Hughes, Kerr, Quarles.  Plus we'd already added Kendall Langford so it's not hard to assume that picking up a DL in the first wouldn't be a priority unless a superior D line talent like the ones I mentioned were still on the board.  It's real clear that the Colts did not deem Brown to be a superior talent more than what's already on the roster.  We still addressed our needs on the DL, we just did it later.

Not only did Grigson address the DL, but he also addressed the secondary, the LB position, and the safeties. He did this in the draft, FA, and UDFA.  And on top of all of this he added more firepower to the offense. 

 

I just don't see how it can be said he didn't make creating a balanced team a priority!

 

To each his own for those that disagree, but that's how I see it.....

I understand your points.  I just want to comment on one thing.  The rest of the NFL didn't consider Goldman or Collins first rounders because the they were considered to be taken towards the end of the first round.  So no one would have taken Goldman over Leonard Williams, but that doesn't mean Goldman isn't a first round talent.  Plus, when you draft towards the end of the first round, like the Colts do, it becomes more of a blur

 

For me, need + first round talent > first round talent.  I'm not trying to say Dorsett is a bad football player.  I have full confident that he'll become a really good player and will contribute a lot.  I just think we could have gotten more of an impact from the other guys available.

 

With that said, I respect and understand both of your opinions

[Superman]

I understand your points.  I just want to comment on one thing.  The rest of the NFL didn't consider Goldman or Collins first rounders because the they were considered to be taken towards the end of the first round.  So no one would have taken Goldman over Leonard Williams, but that doesn't mean Goldman isn't a first round talent.  Plus, when you draft towards the end of the first round, like the Colts do, it becomes more of a blur

 

This topic is reminding me of the mock draft Kiper and McShay did live. Collins fell out of the first round, and they both sat there looking dumb, like "how did we let this happen?" Meanwhile, Dorsett went to the Texans at #16 (coincidentally, the team that reportedly was trying to move up to get Dorsett late in the first). 

 

Let's say Dorsett was the Colts #16 player, Goldman was their #27, and Collins was their #40 -- which is where the Kiper/McShay draft had them. Now, that's generous because reports say the Colts had second round grades on Brown and Goldman. Who knows where they rated Collins. But let's take those rankings as gospel for a minute. Should the Colts have taken Goldman or Collins, when they had a significantly better rating on Dorsett?

[21isSuperman]

This topic is reminding me of the mock draft Kiper and McShay did live. Collins fell out of the first round, and they both sat there looking dumb, like "how did we let this happen?" Meanwhile, Dorsett went to the Texans at #16 (coincidentally, the team that reportedly was trying to move up to get Dorsett late in the first). 

 

Let's say Dorsett was the Colts #16 player, Goldman was their #27, and Collins was their #40 -- which is where the Kiper/McShay draft had them. Now, that's generous because reports say the Colts had second round grades on Brown and Goldman. Who knows where they rated Collins. But let's take those rankings as gospel for a minute. Should the Colts have taken Goldman or Collins, when they had a significantly better rating on Dorsett?

That's the judgement call, I guess.  If player #16 and #27 are there, and one fills an immediate need while the other doesn't, who do you take?  I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here; there are just different ways of approaching the problem.  It depends on a lot of things.  You could take #16, but if you don't give him the opportunity to play and your coaches can't develop him, he won't turn out well.  You could take #27 and fill the need, but if he doesn't fit your defensive system, he won't turn out well.  There's a lot to it.  Given the situation we faced, I would have taken Goldman.  That doesn't mean Dorsett will be a bad football player.  I just think Goldman would have been the better choice and would have been able to make more of an impact.

[Superman]

That's the judgement call, I guess.  If player #16 and #27 are there, and one fills an immediate need while the other doesn't, who do you take?  I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here; there are just different ways of approaching the problem.  It depends on a lot of things.  You could take #16, but if you don't give him the opportunity to play and your coaches can't develop him, he won't turn out well.  You could take #27 and fill the need, but if he doesn't fit your defensive system, he won't turn out well.  There's a lot to it.  Given the situation we faced, I would have taken Goldman.  That doesn't mean Dorsett will be a bad football player.  I just think Goldman would have been the better choice and would have been able to make more of an impact.

 

If you accept the #16 and #27 rankings for Dorsett and Goldman respectively, then to me, you take the better player, assuming we're not talking about a QB or a non-premium position. Otherwise, why bother ranking them if you're just going to ignore your ranking? Fundamentally, we look at the draft differently. I think it's about taking the best players you can, and you think need should be a bigger factor. 

 

As for the need issue, I think it's debatable whether Goldman would have better filled a need and had more impact, and that likely hinges on us differing on how good Goldman actually is/will be.

[21isSuperman]

If you accept the #16 and #27 rankings for Dorsett and Goldman respectively, then to me, you take the better player, assuming we're not talking about a QB or a non-premium position. Otherwise, why bother ranking them if you're just going to ignore your ranking? Fundamentally, we look at the draft differently. I think it's about taking the best players you can, and you think need should be a bigger factor. 

 

As for the need issue, I think it's debatable whether Goldman would have better filled a need and had more impact, and that likely hinges on us differing on how good Goldman actually is/will be.

I think the ranking you give them is important, but not the only thing you should look at.  Hypothetically, if we run into the exact same situation next year (same group of pass catchers [with the addition of Dorset], all healthy, top ranked prospect available is a WR you ranked 16th overall, etc.), do you take the receiver again simply to stay with the BPA method?

[shakedownstreet]

 

i concur with this assessment

[Superman]

I think the ranking you give them is important, but not the only thing you should look at. Hypothetically, if we run into the exact same situation next year (same group of pass catchers [with the addition of Dorset], all healthy, top ranked prospect available is a WR you ranked 16th overall, etc.), do you take the receiver again simply to stay with the BPA method?

Even this year, I think we should have traded down. Definitely would feel the same way next year in a similar situation, but the value probably wasn't there. I would NOT have taken Goldman, though. Or Brown.

[21isSuperman]

Even this year, I think we should have traded down. Definitely would feel the same way next year in a similar situation, but the value probably wasn't there. I would NOT have taken Goldman, though. Or Brown.

Agreed, I would have loved to see a trade down.  But that doesn't mean Grigs didn't try to.  Regardless, if the trade down isn't available and you have to select a prospect, would you take the higher ranked WR in the hypothetical scenario next year?

[Superman]

Agreed, I would have loved to see a trade down.  But that doesn't mean Grigs didn't try to.  Regardless, if the trade down isn't available and you have to select a prospect, would you take the higher ranked WR in the hypothetical scenario next year?

 

I'm assuming a trade down is available, but just not at true value. I'd lean that way. But I wouldn't buck BPA just because BPA isn't a position of need. Exact same situation, I'd still take the BPA, even if it's a WR, before I reach for perceived need.

 

And it's also not as if WR wasn't a need.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

I'm not really sure how one could look at this year's roster and not think that it's improved. The releases of Landry and Richardson alone made our team drastically better.

[21isSuperman]

I'm assuming a trade down is available, but just not at true value. I'd lean that way. But I wouldn't buck BPA just because BPA isn't a position of need. Exact same situation, I'd still take the BPA, even if it's a WR, before I reach for perceived need.

 

And it's also not as if WR wasn't a need.

So you'd use a first round pick to add a WR to a group of pass catchers that includes Vincent Brown, TY Hilton, Dwayne Allen, Coby Fleener, Andre Johnson, Donte Moncrief, Duron Carter, and Phillip Dorsett?  I wouldn't be comfortable doing so.  I understand and appreciate the desire to go BPA, but I don't think that's the only thing you should consider when drafting someone.

[Superman]

So you'd use a first round pick to add a WR to a group of pass catchers that includes Vincent Brown, TY Hilton, Dwayne Allen, Coby Fleener, Andre Johnson, Donte Moncrief, Duron Carter, and Phillip Dorsett?  I wouldn't be comfortable doing so.  I understand and appreciate the desire to go BPA, but I don't think that's the only thing you should consider when drafting someone.

 

Vincent Brown likely won't be here. Allen and Fleener are free agents after this year, as is Hilton. Andre Johnson should be the real deal, but every other vet free agent we've signed has been underwhelming and ultimately, one and done. Carter is a flier. We don't know what the roster mechanics will bring come draft time next year. 

 

To me, it's simple. The draft is entirely about adding the best players available. It's not for targeting and filling needs; that's what free agency is for. And while there are adjustments to be made based on positional values and draft position and whatnot, nine times out of ten, you'll win taking the best player. You never go broke taking a profit.