McShay/Kiper Mock Draft

[Superman]

But if Smith is actually a good player who will start now and long term, what's wrong with taking him at 61 even if he isn't BPA?

 

I think drafts and BPA lists are very different things.  Say that the list shows he is in the 80's because there are 15 WRs, OLBs, and DTs ahead of him.  Since the Colts are not interested in devoting more cap or roster space to WRs, OLBs,or DTs he gets drafted higher than the BPA list would dictate.  IMO, if Smith is actually a T that can start next year and for the long term, what does it matter that there are 15 WRs, OLBs, and DTs that push him down the BPA list?

 

Unless McShay is simply saying that Smith is 3rd 4th round talent and isn't starting material but the Colts draft him here because hope he is and they want a T.....then that is a reach, IMO.

 

I don't think you select a 43 DT at 61 because he is the BPA.  If the Colts need a starting T more than they need a rotational DT, the proper move is to trade down, as long as you think that T can start and be a solid player long term and you can get a rotational DT later.

 

If the Colts need a RT (and that's debatable in itself), then where do you get the starter if you don't draft him at 61? 

 

I think the problem with McShay's example is that he thinks the Colts need a RT more than a quick DT, which is what is driving the Smith pick over Bennett.

 

Lots of presumptions here that I disagree with, especially the idea that the Colts aren't interested in devoting more roster space to DL. I don't agree with the idea that OL is a bigger need than DL right now, as much as it's a need. 

 

More importantly, I don't agree with the idea that you say "X is a bigger need than Y, so let's draft a player who plays X over a better player at Y." Unless you're talking about a QB or a non premium position, I don't think that's the way to draft.

[ColtsBlueFL]

That's the worst board I've seen

 

 

I just want everyone to know the ground rules they followed for this--

 

"This is not about whom we project -- it's about which player we would take at each slot.

 

Thing is, because we have to alternate picks, we won't always get the player who seems like the best fit for each slot, because that player could be taken the pick before. The ground rules are simple: alternate picks; no trades; no deals that say "I won't take Player X if you don't take Player Y." It's just "This is whom I'd take" at every slot on the board for three full rounds."

 

I have a feeling some are comparing apples to oranges.

[NewColtsFan]

Thanks for your resume.

Nobody cares that you don't watch film and regurgitate what other people write. The issue starts when you condescend someone who formed their own opinion, which you enjoy doing.

 

Like I said,  you're argumentative.....    and, as predicted,  you didn't disappoint.

 

I didn't give my resume,  but you asked for facts to back up my claim.    When I gave them,  you answered with a cheap shot.

 

Losers do that when proven wrong.

 

If I was going to condescend -- at you put it -- I would've ripped Dustin for his top-64.    Feel free to go to that thread and see what I said....    I applauded him for having the courage of his convictions.    He doesn't follow the heard.    He doesn't have group-think.     Those are compliments.     Hello?!?

 

I didn't say a single negative word.    I didn't challenge him on a single thing.  

 

So please, spare me using big words which you clearly demonstrate you don't know their meaning.

 

Argumentative and hypocritical.    That pretty much sums you up.

[Dustin]

If I was going to condescend -- at you put it -- I would've ripped Dustin for his top-64.    Feel free to go to that thread and see what I said....    I applauded him for having the courage of his convictions.    He doesn't follow the heard.    He doesn't have group-think.     Those are compliments.     Hello?!?

 

And turned right around and liked a post saying it was the worst BB someone had seen in 30 years. 

[Archer]

How not to draft: 

 

61. Indianapolis Colts

McShay's pick: Donovan Smith, OT, Penn State

Offensive linemen have flown off the board in this mock draft, so I had to reach for Smith a little bit here. But I really needed to get a tackle who can help protect Andrew Luck long term.

 

63. Seattle Seahawks

McShay's pick: Michael Bennett, DT, Ohio State

Bennett is the No. 39 prospect on my board, so this is a value pick as much as anything else. He's a disruptive player from the 3-technique position.

 

Not only is DL a more critical need for the Colts, but he obviously thinks Bennett is a better prospect. But he'd reach for the OL out of a sense of need... That makes no sense.

 

That's funny, because McShay's logic is very counter to Grigson's strategy.  He's very clearly stated that he sticks to his board and will only default to need if there are a bunch of guys grouped tightly at the top of the list at different positions.  That being said, I've had Donovan Smith as my Colt pick in Round 2 for some time.  I like him way more than most (normal) people do, so I consider him the BPA @ #61...

[NewColtsFan]

And turned right around and liked a post saying it was the worst BB someone had seen in 30 years. 

 

Really?    You're going to give me a hard time over a "like"....?

 

Seriously?

 

Are you under the impression that you've never given a "like" to someone who disagrees with me?

 

Come on now.......     Someone needs a little thicker skin.....

[BlueShoe]

 

Hate the Colts pick. 

 

Landon Collins doesn't go in the first.

 

Vic Beasley doesn't go in the first. 

 

If the draft falls that way then I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

[wig]

Like I said, you're argumentative..... and, as predicted, you didn't disappoint.

I didn't give my resume, but you asked for facts to back up my claim. When I gave them, you answered with a cheap shot.

Losers do that when proven wrong.

If I was going to condescend -- at you put it -- I would've ripped Dustin for his top-64. Feel free to go to that thread and see what I said.... I applauded him for having the courage of his convictions. He doesn't follow the heard. He doesn't have group-think. Those are compliments. Hello?!?

I didn't say a single negative word. I didn't challenge him on a single thing.

So please, spare me using big words which you clearly demonstrate you don't know their meaning.

Argumentative and hypocritical. That pretty much sums you up.

This isn't condescending?

Yeah.... especially when their opinions make yours look foolish.....

I understand why you'd be reluctant to embrace that.......

I know you have trouble following along, but I asked for tangible evidence regarding this post, or why/how their opinions have made Dustin look foolish, if you need it broken down.

[NewColtsFan]

This isn't condescending?

I know you have trouble following along, but I asked for tangible evidence regarding this post, or why/how their opinions have made Dustin look foolish, if you need it broken down.

 

Save your breath........

 

We're done.     I'm not going to dissect Dustin's board.    Simply print his top-64 and match it up with any list on ESPN.com,  NFL.com or CBS Sports.com

 

That will give you your answer.    But you do your own work,  I'm not going to do the work for you.

 

I've wasted enough time on you.

[wig]

Save your breath........

We're done.

I've wasted enough time on you.

Probably a good idea on your behalf. You've made yourself look bad enough.

[NewColtsFan]

Probably a good idea on your behalf. You've made yourself look bad enough.

 

If I'm making myself look bad to you -- then it's win-win for me!

[That Guy]

It's like picking March Madness brackets...  It makes EVERYONE look foolish (but this draft more than others)...

[Superman]

That's funny, because McShay's logic is very counter to Grigson's strategy.  He's very clearly stated that he sticks to his board and will only default to need if there are a bunch of guys grouped tightly at the top of the list at different positions.  That being said, I've had Donovan Smith as my Colt pick in Round 2 for some time.  I like him way more than most (normal) people do, so I consider him the BPA @ #61...

 

I agree (not on Smith, but on your reasoning). I'd have no beef if that's how McShay explained the pick. "I really like this guy and think he's one of the very best players left on the board, and he fills a need." Fine. 

 

But he admitted it's a reach for need, then two picks later, says "this guy is a great value because he's the #39 player on my board, even though it doesn't fill a need." You reach at #61, then make a great value pick at #63? Like you said, it's counter to what Grigson has said he wants to do, but worse, it spills the bounds of common sense.

 

Grigson brought up the Dwayne Allen pick in his interview yesterday. He said there was a corner they wanted in the third, but he was a little further down their board. Allen was easily the best player, to them. So they took Allen. At the time, everyone considered corner to be the biggest need on the team; you might remember, Grigson traded for or signed several low level corners that offseason. Jerraud Powers was the only one of note on the roster. You could easily justify reaching for a corner there, especially after taking Fleener in the second. By taking another TE, they continued with an unbalanced roster all the way to training camp, then traded for Vontae Davis.

 

That kind of illustrates, in my mind, why you don't reach for need. You take the best players, and figure out the roster mechanics later. If you have a logjam that's costing you depth at another position, you can make a trade. If you really feel like you need a starter, but you don't like the value in the draft or just can't get the guy you really want, you can identify a way to add a relatively low cost player after the draft (Davis, Adams, etc.) It's not the end of the world if you come out of the draft without a perfectly balanced roster. That can be fixed pretty easily. But if you're passing up on better talent, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

[feelingluck-y]

Terrible mock draft. There is no way Vic Beasly gets out of the top 15 and if he falls to us then.. Welcome to the Colts!! I don't like Shane Ray at all.. Think he is going to be an average player.

[DougDew]

Lots of presumptions here that I disagree with, especially the idea that the Colts aren't interested in devoting more roster space to DL. I don't agree with the idea that OL is a bigger need than DL right now, as much as it's a need. 

 

More importantly, I don't agree with the idea that you say "X is a bigger need than Y, so let's draft a player who plays X over a better player at Y." Unless you're talking about a QB or a non premium position, I don't think that's the way to draft.

I responded to Gavin to. In the context of McShay's mock and explanation of the picks you pointed out, I think part of what McShay is saying is that the Colts have such a need at T that they do not have the luxury of taking the 39th BP at 61, and must draft a starting T at 61, even though he may be the 75th best player, because one won't be available at 93 or any time this offseason and we'd be stuck starting the season with a gaping hole on the OL.

I don't necessarily disagree with that draft strategy...if the Colts were actually in that situation. But I don't think the Colts are in that situation and should take the DT over the OT since the disparity in BPA is so great.

As a general comment, you have to look at your roster as you draft. A 5 to 10 spot of BPA difference should not trump a need. But when the difference in BPA is 39 and 75 and the disparity in roster need is no where near that big, you go BPA.

[Dustin]

I haven't watched Donovan, but apparently he had been invited to the draft?

[Superman]

I responded to Gavin to. In the context of McShay's mock and explanation of the picks you pointed out, I think part of what McShay is saying is that the Colts have such a need at T that they do not have the luxury of taking the 39th BP at 61, and must draft a starting T at 61, even though he may be the 75th best player, because one won't be available at 93 or any time this offseason and we'd be stuck starting the season with a gaping hole on the OL.

I don't necessarily disagree with that draft strategy...if the Colts were actually in that situation. But I don't think the Colts are in that situation and should take the DT over the OT since the disparity in BPA is so great.

As a general comment, you have to look at your roster as you draft. A 5 to 10 spot of BPA difference should not trump a need. But when the difference in BPA is 39 and 75 and the disparity in roster need is no where near that big, you go BPA.

 

Yeah, to me, that bolded part is How to Ruin Your Draft 101. If it's the end of April and you feel like you have a gaping hole at RT, then you probably should have done something about that during the last two months. If you're passing on the player that is so clearly better because you want to fill a need, then you're doing it wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

If you do think you should be grabbing that player around #75, then trade back up and get him. Their mock didn't include any trades, obviously, so that wasn't an option. But in that context, it still doesn't make sense to draft for need at #61 and then draft for value at #63. It's like he doesn't really believe in what he's doing.

[DougDew]

Yeah, to me, that bolded part is How to Ruin Your Draft 101. If it's the end of April and you feel like you have a gaping hole at RT, then you probably should have done something about that during the last two months. If you're paying on the player that is so clearly better because you want to fill a need, then you're doing it wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

If you do think you should be grabbing that player around #75, then trade back up and get him. Their mock didn't include any trades, obviously, so that wasn't an option. But in that context, it still doesn't sense to draft for need at #61 and then draft for value at #63. It's like he doesn't really believe in what he's doing.

I agree. I didn't want to complicate my response more than I had to, that if a team finds itself in that situation then they have a FA problem. Again, I think what McShay did does not reflect the round 2 situation correctly.

I think he thinks the Seahawks have a complete enough roster to pick 39 at 63 just because of value. It's interesting that he must not have thought the same thing about NE, who picks 62. They have secondary problems compared to last year that really didn't get solved in the past two months. It happens.

Haven't seen his second round mock...wonder who he shows NE taking.

Edit: apparently he thinks teams from 40 to 62 would also pass on BPA. He must feel that GMs draft more for need than what they claim to.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I see that they had us getting Shane Ray in the first and Donovan Smith in the second, but who did they have us nabbing in the third?  Wasn't this a three-round mock?

 

James Sample  -  S Louisville

[BOTT]

I think your putting way to much into those numbers when the tape tells a different story, He has to add some strength and develop his pass rush moves some

That graph is fairly consistent when predicting success

[Superman]

I agree. I didn't want to complicate my response more than I had to, that if a team finds itself in that situation then they have a FA problem. Again, I think what McShay did does not reflect the round 2 situation correctly.

I think he thinks the Seahawks have a complete enough roster to pick 39 at 63 just because of value. It's interesting that he must not have thought the same thing about NE, who picks 62. They have secondary problems compared to last year that really didn't get solved in the past two months. It happens.

Haven't seen his second round mock...wonder who he shows NE taking.

Edit: apparently he thinks teams from 40 to 62 would also pass on BPA. He must feel that GMs draft more for need than what they claim to.

 

It's like you said, I don't think OT is such a big need for us that we need to reach like that in the 2nd round. Not only that, I don't think Smith is that much better than the guys who will be there at the end of the 3rd, especially in terms of ability to start at RT right away. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

I agree (not on Smith, but on your reasoning). I'd have no beef if that's how McShay explained the pick. "I really like this guy and think he's one of the very best players left on the board, and he fills a need." Fine. 

 

But he admitted it's a reach for need, then two picks later, says "this guy is a great value because he's the #39 player on my board, even though it doesn't fill a need." You reach at #61, then make a great value pick at #63? Like you said, it's counter to what Grigson has said he wants to do, but worse, it spills the bounds of common sense.

 

Grigson brought up the Dwayne Allen pick in his interview yesterday. He said there was a corner they wanted in the third, but he was a little further down their board. Allen was easily the best player, to them. So they took Allen. At the time, everyone considered corner to be the biggest need on the team; you might remember, Grigson traded for or signed several low level corners that offseason. Jerraud Powers was the only one of note on the roster. You could easily justify reaching for a corner there, especially after taking Fleener in the second. By taking another TE, they continued with an unbalanced roster all the way to training camp, then traded for Vontae Davis.

 

That kind of illustrates, in my mind, why you don't reach for need. You take the best players, and figure out the roster mechanics later. If you have a logjam that's costing you depth at another position, you can make a trade. If you really feel like you need a starter, but you don't like the value in the draft or just can't get the guy you really want, you can identify a way to add a relatively low cost player after the draft (Davis, Adams, etc.) It's not the end of the world if you come out of the draft without a perfectly balanced roster. That can be fixed pretty easily. But if you're passing up on better talent, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

This is good stuff.  When your scouting is finished , and your board is completed, you trust it and go with it.  It must be hard when the names start peeling off on draft day.  And folks you hoped would still be there aren't, and the best players left at a position of need don't grade to the spot your selecting at.  Grigson proved he'll stick to his board. He'll trust his scouts, and his own assessments and the order.  Not all GM's will do this.  Some will panic and reach for need at a last second . Nothing is more demoralizing to the scouts in the war room than a GM that pulls this maneuver.  Most GM's will stick to their value list.  Some will have to select based on need at times, and others will try to trade because the value list doesn't equate to their selection.  But it is really hard for some  GM's to pull off trades. So you have to be ready with the pick on your board.  And even those that do like to trade draft day, it's still  tough to pull the trigger.

 

I heard a story (I think from Dave Wandstedt) about the Cowboys 1991 draft.  Pre-draft dealings left the Cowboys with 3 first round selection.  on their 3rd which was #20 overall, Jimmy Johnson was dealing with Detroit while on the clock.  after haggling a long time, the GM's struck a deal.  But there was no time to do the paperwork on the trade and get it up to the commish in time for the announcement.  So JJ says to Detroit, "Just tell me who you want!  I will get him, then we'll trade and do the paperwork before our pick" (which was Detroit's 2nd, 3rd and 4th picks).  So if you look up the 1991 draft, you'll see the Cowboys took Kelvin Pritchett, but if you look up Detroit's 1991 roster, you'll see Pritchett's name on there. Sometimes there's no trading partner when you want one, and other times a trading partner just can't/won't pull the trigger under the gun.

 

Nobody's mock(s) and nobody's simulated draft will resemble what will really transpire, if nothing else because of the uncertainty of the GM's and their actions/reaction above.

[Archer]

I agree (not on Smith, but on your reasoning). I'd have no beef if that's how McShay explained the pick. "I really like this guy and think he's one of the very best players left on the board, and he fills a need." Fine. 

 

But he admitted it's a reach for need, then two picks later, says "this guy is a great value because he's the #39 player on my board, even though it doesn't fill a need." You reach at #61, then make a great value pick at #63? Like you said, it's counter to what Grigson has said he wants to do, but worse, it spills the bounds of common sense.

 

Grigson brought up the Dwayne Allen pick in his interview yesterday. He said there was a corner they wanted in the third, but he was a little further down their board. Allen was easily the best player, to them. So they took Allen. At the time, everyone considered corner to be the biggest need on the team; you might remember, Grigson traded for or signed several low level corners that offseason. Jerraud Powers was the only one of note on the roster. You could easily justify reaching for a corner there, especially after taking Fleener in the second. By taking another TE, they continued with an unbalanced roster all the way to training camp, then traded for Vontae Davis.

 

That kind of illustrates, in my mind, why you don't reach for need. You take the best players, and figure out the roster mechanics later. If you have a logjam that's costing you depth at another position, you can make a trade. If you really feel like you need a starter, but you don't like the value in the draft or just can't get the guy you really want, you can identify a way to add a relatively low cost player after the draft (Davis, Adams, etc.) It's not the end of the world if you come out of the draft without a perfectly balanced roster. That can be fixed pretty easily. But if you're passing up on better talent, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Grigson told a story in that conference about almost trading up for a player he really wanted last year, and then the player miraculously falling to our pick anyway.  I figure he was talking about Jonathan Newsome, but I suppose it could be about Moncrief,..

[Superman]

Grigson told a story in that conference about almost trading up for a player he really wanted last year, and then the player miraculously falling to our pick anyway. I figure he was talking about Jonathan Newsome, but I suppose it could be about Moncrief,..

Yeah I think they passed on Newsome for Moncrief, and then Newsome was still there in the fifth anyways. I thought Newsome was a late round guy and would have been a little mad about him in the third. But the way it worked out, there's nothing to complain about. I really like both of those players.

[FalseStart]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHiUqL2KLiM

Levity...