DougDew

Sure, end of the season is best but ANY of the outlets that grade the acquisitions at this time of the year, or later, are no more "reputable" than others. Its all just opinion, with some thinking their opinion should matter more because of their credentials...when their reasoning provided often seems incomplete.

Going to reset the convo a bit...as I see it of course. IMO, the top half of the first round is where you find the playmakers...a difference-maker. The guys that other teams need to plan for, so to speak. What position(s) on the Colts needs that kind of player?...which means the rookie is intended to displace an existing starter very soon. Trade value chart shows that our picks 46 and 15 could get us to pick 7 (assuming TEN would make that trade). Is there a player you would use pick 46 to trade up for? Remember, this is a genuine difference-maker. If its a hit, the pick 46 you give up is peanuts in terms of price.

Didn't the Jets sign LT Tyron Smith in FA? He's a top 10 LT, IIRC. Would they take a G over Bowers?

Bowers likely doesn't get past NYJ. And will probably flourish with Rodgers.

That's a lot of what I said. Woods is an in line TE, not a Move So is Ogletree So is Mo. If Woods comes back, why do we need three In line TEs? Granson is a Move, but contract time is near. Mallory is a Move, but probably not "the guy" When Mo leaves, we'll have two In lines, and Mallory. So its a choice of keeping Granson, or upgrading. I'd rather have Bowers (or probably another drafted TE) under a rookie contract than paying Granson. I think Move TE is actually a need. Bowers, Mallory, Woods, and Ogletree would be a nice set of TEs.

Bowers could very well be the best player in the draft. If Woods is to play the Move TE role opposite Mo, that's a horrible usage of personnel, IMO. And then there is Granson, who is probably up for a contract soon, and Mallory. It seems to me that there is no room for woods other than the traditional blocking and occasional receiving type of TE, taking Mos spot. That leave Ogletree as Woods' backup, since he is probably also not a Move TE type. There is really only Granson and Mallory as the Move TE. If you figure that Mallory is backup quality, then Ballard needs to decide if he wants to extend Granson at some point, or upgrade the position. You see, despite the high-floor type of talent at TE, the Colts have redundancy and no real threat. I think TE like Bowers is just as much of a need as WR, and maybe corner if we will be playing lots of zone.. I still think that a true pass rusher from the edge position is the biggest need. But a true threat at TE is a big need too.

For most of his college career, IIRC, Woods was a blocking TE. He became more of a pass catcher after he transferred to play his senior year, also IIRC. I would wager that Woods could block as well as Mo, who isn't as great a blocker as billed, IMO. Woods taking over for Mo, and adding Bowers as a truly elite Move TE, would give the Colts one of the best TE rooms in the NFL. A very dangerous two TE set, and two good options for AR, whereas now its a mediocre bunch missing that star threat player. Would save some cap too with a Mo release.

Its hard to get a high quality DE outside of the first round. Has been my observation over the years, and corroborated by the stats posted above. Like QB, and LT, the traits simply have to be in the player. IMO, those are the three hardest positions to find (Raimann is an exception) Like QB, when you are in a position to take one, you take one. Unless there is no DE worth it at 15 of course. A down year perhaps.

With the amount of capital offered to Hunter, does it mean that Ballard is looking for an EDGE early?

I think the first sentence answers the question that's imbedded in the last sentence. The draft picks have to have a good return on investment. I think ROI is measured over a 3 to 5 years timeframe.

That's the way I remember it too. His sack production at MICH was not great, and he was also used in the interior at times. Lack of bend was a known issue (not that its everything). He was considered the best of a weak class. I think his natural position is LDE, and he is very good there, IMO. Polian didn't think he'd make a great NFL pass rusher, IIRC.

I'm not advocating taking a DE. With this thread talking mainly about the attributes of several players, I thought to approach the topic from what position has the least amount of ceiling to it. I think CB has some ceiling that we don't fully know. What is APs ceiling? What is Woods/Ogeltree's? What is Paye's ceiling...or Ebukam's? Eyesight or not, Paye is a not a bendy guy. Neither was Freeney, but he sacked the QB so well because of an awesome spin move he had. Mathis was bendy. So was Houston. So was Yannick, who came over with Gus. Since Paye does not have a spin move like Freeney, he probably was always destined for LDE, kinda like Bjoern Werner always was too despite the GM and HC drafting him like he could play RDE..

I didn't say that. It was John Waylon. I butted in to help you understand the concept from the perspective of building through the draft. If you did, I don't think that you would have asked the question. But , the word "consistently" can have varied meanings? If we are going to separate out 1st and 2nd round picks from the rest of the resources, then I guess the entire bucket of resources a team would have to build a team would be. 1. Drafting 1st and 2nd round picks. 2. Trading 1st and 2nd round picks.3 3. Drafting or trading all other picks. 4. Signing FAs. I would strongly assume that the GMs that perform 1 and 2 effectively would have their teams in the playoffs. I doubt that the playoff teams would use method's 3 and 4 as the measure by which their teams get into the playoffs. If so, then it would seem that signing FAs would be the preferred way to build a team. Just off the top. SF used 1st and 2nd for Aiyuk and Deebo, and traded a 2nd for McCaffrey? Philly used a 2nd for Hurts and used pretty high 1sts for Brown and Smith? LAR traded its 1st round QB to DET who traded its 1st round QB to LAR. LAR used a 1st for the best DT in the NL at one point, Donald? MIA drafted Tua, and used a first on Hill and a 1st or second on Waddle? When was the last time the Colts used something higher than a third round pick for a QB? Wentz was a 2nd? How many 1sts have the Colts used for dynamic playmakers that handle the ball? IIRC, AR is the first time in 7 years?

Yes, I know the history of Paye and Dayo. Paye was drafted to be the long term RDE, and that's where he started, but did not perform well enough there. Dayo is not a bendy guy. Neither were thought to be coming out of college. How do these 4 compare to some of the best EDGE pass rushers in the NFL? All either seem like LDE.s tweeners' or backups. Is Ebukam the long term solution? Does his contract reflect this...or a rotational stop gap? Would either Verse, Turner, or Latu be a better RDE rusher than what we have...a long term 3 down threat? Because EDGE is the most premier position, (the position with the highest value), IMO, than either WR or Corner........ if there is a player to support a top 15 pick.

Okay then, think about talent over three to 5 years....the term of a 1st rounder. Will JuJu, Jones, and Flowers develop into something? Think about ceiling, and what picking a corner at 15 would do if those other corners develop. Paye can flip sides. Do we pass on EDGE at 15 because we like Ebukam or Dayo or Lewis? Is AP's ceiling a 2 or a 4? It seems that we have a bigger hole at corner right now. But I think if you look at potential ceiling of EDGE and WR, it seems like those two spots don't have as high of a ceiling?

Well, to help narrow down who y'all think will be taken at 15.....let's think about which position is the weakest on the team? S....I doubt we take one at 15 CB....Ballard thinks there is talent there? Drafting more talent might just cause a bottle neck in a season or two while other positions might languish. EDGE... Should Paye be playing RDE, or LDE? Is Ebukam long term, or stop gap, rotational? WR...Should AP be a #2, or a #4 and first backup to both starting outside WRs? Special teams too? TE (Bowers only option at 15)....Like Corner, is there talent there, or are there too many of the same guys fighting for PT?

The GMs that have teams in the playoffs? Its 12 a season now and used to be 10. Unless they build via free agency, which would mean that building via the draft would be the wrong way.

Offseason resources are designed to be pretty equal among teams.

Right now its less than we have. A congratulatory feeling of Blackmon being signed would then be running it back with what you have.

Perfect.

I'll come off like the dreaded WL-Lover, which I'm not, but I have to defend him because the negative comments towards him seem to gloss over some things, as if there is a bias going in. At KY, I thought he played reckless hero ball, and figured he might be Wentz 2.0 in the NFL. Wouldn't mind having him, because that could be the result of youthful energy and immaturity...something that Wentz never grew out of. But he was definitely a risky prospect. Regardless of stats or rank, what impressed me last season was that he was the opposite of the hero ball guy. He stayed in the pocket, often too long, IMO, and scanned the field trying to make reads...and took a LOT of hits he should not have if he just ran the ball. Not only did he finish games, he took way more punishment than AR. He had nothing to work with outside of DHop and a one-pony Henry. The oline was trash. Next season he'll have Ridley, a new C, and probably a new LT after TEN pick 7. I think he has a bright future, and I don't care that he plays for TEN.

True. But one of the first things he said is that he wants to draft and develop a group of core players that are here for years. Good enough you don't want to churn. As of year 7, who are those players and what positions do they play?

I have been saying the same thing, but I've never been done with Ballard. I've never picked on Ballard directly as a lame, failure, GM in that sense. What I noticed was that the Colts (including the last pick with RG) went C, FS (monoskilled), LG, WILL, RG/RT, with picks like 18, 15, 6, 36, 37 while failing to address aging players like TY, AC and Mathis (who was never here). I didn't bash Ballard in as much as I said if you are going to use that much capital on those types of positions but not address the "more important" positions, its going to catch up to you. Its going to force you to hit on EDGE, #1WR, and LT with the first opportunity there is to get them. Still don't really have the EDGE or the #1, and there was a two year gap before the LT was filled. And then we needed to fill the QB spot because of Luck. That's a lot of perfection needed with important picks in succession. Picking those interior positions back to back to back, etc. backs yourself into a corner and makes it harder to punch out, so to speak. I have not been anti-Ballard, and some have misinterpreted what I'm saying (because they look at it through a Ballard thumbs up or thumbs down filter). What I have consistently said and will continue to say: We'll only be a perennial AFCCG contender when all of those positions are filled with AFCCG type of talent. Ballard may do it. His picks might develop. I'm not bashing or making prediction about them. But that's what its going to take to be that kind of perennial contender, and when we are, we'll see it in the quality of play from those premium spots. JMO. And no matter who's name is on the GM title. Are other positions important? sure. And different schemes and coaches might make some slightly more important than others, but they generally can be churned more easily. The core players you want to keep should be in spots that are harder to find...not the easier spots like G, RT, RB, and probably X WR, and now NT, etc. (3T is probably an important position, but it's not important enough to eliminate the need for and EDGE, unless the 3T is Chris Jones, Aaron Donald, or maybe Jeff Simmons.)

Hey I forgot about Kicker and Long Snapper. Their positions play only between the hash-marks too. LOL.

TEN also signed Chuke Awuzi (sp?), CB. They had cornerback issues last year on both sides, but appeared to have "fixed" the issue in about 13 days. I was meh on the potential Sneed to the Colts issue with the terms being rumored here, and thought Ballard made a good move to walk away. But those terms seem very reasonable and I can see how folks are disappointed. Maybe it was the 4 year term and Ballard or Irsay is stuck on only having 3 year deals this year? Bigger plan in the works?