Interesting Article: "Perfect Blueprint for Rebuilding Your NFL Team Through the Draft"

[masterlock]

This is a decent article on rebuilding. Nothing earth-shattering, but it puts a few things into perspective versus what the Colts have done.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1588394-the-perfect-blueprint-for-rebuilding-your-nfl-team-through-the-draft

[Gavin]

Good read, I particularly agree with the "Find Playmakers" statements and "Don't Pass Up Great Value....Not sure I agree with taking a QB if you have one, I prefer just to go out and get a vet who was not real good as a starter but can fill in and win a few games games if need be....Such as Matt Moore if Hasselbeck happens to retire

[Dark Superman]

Very interesting.

[gacker65]

Interesting read.

[Bleedin Blue]

This article is 2 years old. 

[crazycolt1]

This article is 2 years old. 

Your point? Has the blueprint expired?

[Bleedin Blue]

Yes...maybe.

[21isSuperman]

 

If you're not picking at the very top of the draft, things get a lot trickier. When teams reach for quarterbacks in the first round because they "need a quarterback," it's often a disaster, so don't take a quarterback in the first round unless he's the right quarterback.

Every year, there are QBs who are taken too early because teams need them.  EJ Manuel, Christian Ponder, Tim Tebow, and Ryan Tannehill were all 2nd round prospects (even later for Tebow) in my opinion.

 

 

The model here is Seattle, where the Seahawks have added pure edge-rusher Cliff Avril and inside/outside guy Michael Bennett to an already-fearsome defensive end group that includes Bruce Irvin and Chris Clemons. New coordinator Dan Quinn will find uses for all of them; I promise.

The article is about drafting prospect, but Bennett and Avril were both free agent acquisitions.

 

Your point? Has the blueprint expired?

I think the blueprint is different.  The blueprint used to be the way of the Colts, Steelers, and Pats during the 2000s: draft well and don't rely much on free agency.  Nowadays, it's become more of balance.  Get guys who will fit your system regardless of where they come from.  If you can trade for a guy that will help your team, do it.  If you can draft a guy that will help, do it.  If you can find a free agent who can really help, do it.  I think the model used to be focusing solely on the draft (especially with big name free agents becoming busts in places like Washington), but that's changing now to be more of just getting the player you want/need.

 

The million dollar question with the draft is do you pass on a talented player who plays a position you're set at for a player you need, but is lower ranked?  I'm personally an advocate of taking the best/highest ranked player available, but there are many exceptions to that rule.  It's not possible to make a blanket statement about what kind of players to take at any point in the draft

[FanFromtheWasteland]

Just remember that everything looks great on paper but rarely translates more than 60% in reality

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

First step is getting a franchise QB and we have that. The second thing should be linemen, then linemen and

after that is more linemen.

 

Quality linemen allow the QB time to complete passes, the RB's holes to run through, put pressure

on opposing QB's and stuff the opponent's run game. We need to focus on the schtoinking lines

in the off season!!!

[crazycolt1]

Every year, there are QBs who are taken too early because teams need them.  EJ Manuel, Christian Ponder, Tim Tebow, and Ryan Tannehill were all 2nd round prospects (even later for Tebow) in my opinion.

 

The article is about drafting prospect, but Bennett and Avril were both free agent acquisitions.

 

I think the blueprint is different.  The blueprint used to be the way of the Colts, Steelers, and Pats during the 2000s: draft well and don't rely much on free agency.  Nowadays, it's become more of balance.  Get guys who will fit your system regardless of where they come from.  If you can trade for a guy that will help your team, do it.  If you can draft a guy that will help, do it.  If you can find a free agent who can really help, do it.  I think the model used to be focusing solely on the draft (especially with big name free agents becoming busts in places like Washington), but that's changing now to be more of just getting the player you want/need.

 

The million dollar question with the draft is do you pass on a talented player who plays a position you're set at for a player you need, but is lower ranked?  I'm personally an advocate of taking the best/highest ranked player available, but there are many exceptions to that rule.  It's not possible to make a blanket statement about what kind of players to take at any point in the draft

I agree to a certain degree with your comment but the free agents are a little more trickier. A lot of free agents are free agents for a good reason. Most turn out to be high dollar band aids. With the rookie cap in place I think it becomes more important to draft and then develop.

[a06cc]

There isn't a blueprint. You always have a 50/50 shot with whoever you bring in. You can look at past top free agents and how they've busted for teams thinking they were getting a quality player.

[austriancolt]

Draft the best player available at a position of need! 

[21isSuperman]

I agree to a certain degree with your comment but the free agents are a little more trickier. A lot of free agents are free agents for a good reason. Most turn out to be high dollar band aids. With the rookie cap in place I think it becomes more important to draft and then develop.

I think drafting and developing is the most important tool a team can use, but signing free agents helps.  You have a better idea as to what you're getting since they've played in the pro game and you have pro film on them.  Drafting and developing is the most important thing to do, but you can't expect any team to hit on 100% of their draft picks.  So signing free agents has a very important place in building a complete team

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

Your point? Has the blueprint expired?

 

No it means Grigson followed it by drafting  12 # 1 like #18 in 98 .. 

 

but if there's a Peyton Manning there to be taken, take him. He'll make you look smart for the next 10 years.

[jlid]

This will be blasphemy to most on this board, the "we need to sign this guy and this guy, and draft these 7 guys and we'll win the Super Bowl" crowd, but I'd love to see the front office recognize we're 2 years away from being a real contender and set us up for a more sustained run starting then instead of going for the hope of instant gratification our lukewarm draft picks really don't provide.  Honestly, we've done as well as we can realistically hope for over the last 15 years given our total lack of draft flexibility.

 

If I were GM, this is what my model would be, and I'm speaking in general terms using this year's draft as an example and not having done any actual research on this draft or the next(either of which may be rich in what we need).  I would "sacrifice" an offseason to get ahead of the curve on draft pick flexibility.  Outside of a difference maker falling to us at a position of need, I'd trade down, trade down, and trade down again, happily accepting the "1-round up next year" trades.  Build a little depth this year, go into next year not as substantially improved as fans will want, but then go into next year's draft as one of those teams with 7 or 8 picks in the 1st 4 rounds.  From there I keep trading, up if I identify a true difference maker, down if I want depth, or to the future for even more picks if it seems like a weak draft for what we need.  And I would ALWAYS be on the lookout for a developmental QB with mid-round picks.  They're future draft pick gold if you hit on one that simply looks good in the preseason.  Rinse and repeat until the off chance of there being a draft where we actually wanted 11 or 12 players out of it.

 

We've actually drafted insanely well for the draft picks we've had the last 15 years, but our options have always been limited and that in my opinion is what's kept us to just 1 ring