Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

OffensivelyPC

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    8,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

OffensivelyPC last won the day on April 18 2018

OffensivelyPC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,954 Hall of Famer

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

15,072 profile views
  1. I agree with this. Thus far, the TE position has been patchwork. If there was a list of the top 5 hardest positions to transition ot the NFL, it'd include QB, DT, Edge, and TE in most every list. I think Ballard agrees or thinks the same and drafts accordingly.
  2. That was good fun to watch. Thanks for sharing!
  3. And what's great about Ballard and Reich is, for us fans, they are pretty transparent. More so than other coaches/GMs that I can personally remember. Maybe I'm just looking back at past Colts combos since we knew them better than most other GM/coach combos for other teams. But when they say they want to do something, they do that thing. It's the same with player deveopment. Really liked what Ballard and Reich both had to say about the 10 or so questions on Eason - look, he's a 4th rounder and needs to get better as a field general . . . we'll talk about him as a starter when he starts improving in those areas. Like you said, they're on the same page, and it shows. From there, its' getting the right coaching plan and the players working like today might be their last day on the job.
  4. Oh I'm not either. They get there somehow. I just don't think I agree with it wholesale. CBs are important and they are up there in terms of positional value. I just don't think you get there by analytics alone.
  5. Re the "4 times the value Kinlaw would" - that is nonsense in IMO. Weird that they'd say that, even if exaggerated. I think it diminishes the value of a strong DT. You think most teams would choose [name your favorite CB in the league] over Aaron Donald? I'd be curious to see league wide vote on that from 32 GMs. But on the positional value question is so scheme dependent. But I've seen things like multipliers on player grades(i.e. 1.12 x [Player Grade]) . But that requires you to have a uniform scouting grade - that can spit out a grade based on your evaluation and that number has equal weight across the board. That takes time (a lifetime maybe?) in and of itself. Then you've got to know your system inside and out. I've also seen multipliers for team needs. I don't know that I'd ever bump a player grade based on team need. But I would not be surprised if teams do that. If I were GM, I'd just always keep need in the back of my mind that, if ever I'm staring at a group of 10 players are all within a small margin of each other, I'd pull the trigger on (or trade down to get) a lower graded player. That's why, back to the Kinlaw statement, PFF's grading system has inherent flaws. Like you said, it just stops at the player grade part. Their positional value is based on their analytics of what they think the players that offer the most positional value is. They land on CB quite a bit, even over a dominant pass rushing DE/DT, which is why I'd be curious what the vote on NFL GMs would be on Donald vs. best shutdown corner. Me personally, I see dominant defensive linemen, specifically edge rushers, take over games far more often than I do shut down CBs. I know they can cite guys like Richard Sherman who take away a 1/3 of the field, but those guys are rare and play like that for a very short period of time. But a guy like Aaron Donald or even younger guys like Joey Bosa and Myles Garrett walked into the league playing at a high level. Those guys I think will do it for longer. I think that's worth more and I really honestly think most teams think the same. Yet PFF I've heard time and again state the CB positional value is more than other defensive players. lol I know I didn't get you anywhere closer to an answer. If anything, I just gave you my confirmation that it's practically impossible for someone outside the organization to assess positional value.
  6. Cutting out the rest for space, but I read it all and appreciate every word. I don't even really disagree with anything you said. But I think the bottom line is, there's a time and/or place for these evaluations. I think that probably teams engage in some sort of similar, more official sort of analysis when evaluating in house, at least from the GM down. I know that is outside the scope of what we are discussing, but still, I don't think it's wholly irrelevant. The analysis probably takes into account what individual scouts saw, projected, and what else have you, and how the coaches coached him up, and then assessed the "final" product. Not final as in his career is over, what did he achieve? But final as in, by year two, he should be at X, at year three, he should be at Y. How accurate was the scouts assessment, and then look over that over the body of that scouts work. The curious thing is, how does a GM know that it's a coaches failure or a scouts misjudgment? I dunno, and we probably can't know until we see guys getting pink slips, whether it's a coach, scout or GM. That all fits into the broader scope of how does Ballard identify talent and get the most out of his draft picks, which is what you are concerned with. But I think your method of analyzing and "grading" Ballard's work in your way helps isolate a certain part of a GMs job, adding talent through the draft. So going back to the bottom line, there is a place for all different sorts of methods of evaluating offseason work, whether that's trading for existing players, future picks, FA signings, and drafting players. It's all relevant provided the analysis is an accurate portrayal that's as objective as a subjective person could possibly make it.
  7. I'm not a huge fan of this approach for a few reasons - reasons that probablly don't matter to you, but I'm not attempting to change your mind how you choose to grade. Just shed some light on why grades never matter without context. First, we're given a set of picks, for every draft, provided we do'nt forfeit them for malpractice. How we use those picks, now or in the future, it's still using part of the draft "allowance" or draft capital. So to me, using a pick in this years draft to acquire a player is part of the draft grade because we used part of the draft capital. Second, under your draft methodology, you'd have no real way to calculate the value gained or lost by a trade. Green Bay could have been correct moving up to grab Jordan Love, but what if they incorrectly assessed their opponents (or worse, overvalued Love?). By your methodology, they got Love and missed out on a late round prospect who wouldn't really (or accurately, I think) compute under your methodology. On the other hand, had the Packers stayed pat, and still got Love, and then they have their late round prospect. And if it's trade for trade, okay, you can always resort to the draft trade chart, but the value of any pick fluctuates in any given year, not to mention how each individual team values them. The Colts could have gotten whatever the 49ers got from their 13th pick (to say nothing about whether we would use it differently). Instead, we got our draft class and Buckner. Like you said before, I don't think it really matters how anyone grades things, we all see things differently. But where these draft grades always use the same general measuring sticks (the school GPA system, rank 1-32, rank on a scale of 1 to 100), we often see the grades and assume they're using the same methodology. Tha'ts a bad assumption on our part, but an assumption we're often forced to make because the graders don't always/often share their methodology. That therefore makes everything bereft of consistency. At least when people do share their methodology, you can understand where they are coming from and take it a little more seriously, and weed out the bad, non-thought out pieces. It makes it more helpful when I read differing opinions that differ from mine.
  8. Us picking a RB was about the only thing I predicted right. Never thought it would be a trade up in the 2nd, though. But Itheorized Ballard doesnt strike me as the type to overpay a RB the money it would likely cost to resign Mack. That was the logic anyway. Certainly didn't think itd be a top 2 RB though...
  9. I picked Glasgow as the biggest head scratcher only because I didn't feel that way about any of our picks. My knee jerk was about Blackmon like everyone else, but the more I looked into it, the more I liked it. Thought Ballard moved up and down the draft reasonably so I never really got the impression we were drafting guys we had no business taking.
  10. Well, we get to pontificate next offseason. A lot of you seem happy with that. Good for you getting your way...
  11. Yeah, but Chris is a win now guy. Who knows what that kind of guy will do?!
  12. What is the matter with you?
  13. lol he got clowned on so hard around here. Almost forgot abotu him.
  14. I think it would be a travesty if we took Jurts or Eason. You can't coach accuracy on the former. And in the latter, I don't like it when I hear questionable work ethic on top of seeing ghosts while under pressure. I'm coming around on Fromm, but he's still not really a guy I want to bet my career on. I could be wrong, some of you have made some good points. But still . . . I don't think anyone really thinks of a franchise QB and imagines Fromm.
×
×
  • Create New...