Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

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. 

I agree with your assessment of all the players, but the hypothetical was under the same scenario as this year, with the only difference being having Dorsett on the team.

 

I disagree about taking BPA.  I think you need to take several things into consideration, including how you've ranked them, how they fill needs on your team, how strong the draft class is for various positions (eg. I would have been very happy taking Lockett later instead of Dorsett in the first), how guys fit your offensive and defensive systems, etc.  I don't disregard BPA, but I don't take it as the absolute determinant.

 

If you're running a cover 2 defense, do you draft Revis as first rounder if he's the best available player?  We saw how poorly he fit into a cover 2 in Tampa.  If you have Dallas' offensive line, do you take a C in the first round, despite having All-Pro caliber players along your interior OL?

 

If we assume teams go BPA, then that can lead to things like Jacksonville taking a punter ahead of Russell Wilson.  I think if you're too strict in your principles, then it could set you up for failure.  Let's go back to that hypothetical scenario.  Let's assume everything is the exact same as this year when it comes to the 2016 draft (and you can't trade your pick, you have to make a selection).  The only difference is that we have Dorsett on the roster.  You would take another receiver in the first round ahead of someone who could help the defense, simply because he's the BPA?  He might not see a lot of field time given your crowded group of pass catchers, but he's BPA.  I understand that one may always want to add talent to their team, but I'd rather take talent and fill an immediate need than talent and a lesser need.

 

Another hypothetical: You're John Schneider of the Seattle Seahawks.  On the board right now, there is a safety as your top ranked prospect (ranked 15th overall) and a wide receiver as one of your higher ranked prospects as well (ranked 26th overall) and you're picking at 30.  You have several safeties on your roster, and you have 2 safeties who you've recently given a lot of money to.  Your starting safeties have also been able to stay relatively healthy during their young careers thus far.  Do you take a safety and have him sit on your bench as a first round pick, or do you take the receiver?

 

Myself, I'd take the receiver.  The safety is the BPA, but the receiver is highly ranked as well and fills an immediate need.  You can take the safety, but he might be playing more special teams than defensive snaps, and I'd prefer to see more production out of my first round pick.  It's not a perfectly analogous hypothetical scenario, but I think it makes the point

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assessment of all the players, but the hypothetical was under the same scenario as this year, with the only difference being having Dorsett on the team.

I disagree about taking BPA. I think you need to take several things into consideration, including how you've ranked them, how they fill needs on your team, how strong the draft class is for various positions (eg. I would have been very happy taking Lockett later instead of Dorsett in the first), how guys fit your offensive and defensive systems, etc. I don't disregard BPA, but I don't take it as the absolute determinant.

If you're running a cover 2 defense, do you draft Revis as first rounder if he's the best available player? We saw how poorly he fit into a cover 2 in Tampa. If you have Dallas' offensive line, do you take a C in the first round, despite having All-Pro caliber players along your interior OL?

If we assume teams go BPA, then that can lead to things like Jacksonville taking a punter ahead of Russell Wilson. I think if you're too strict in your principles, then it could set you up for failure. Let's go back to that hypothetical scenario. Let's assume everything is the exact same as this year when it comes to the 2016 draft (and you can't trade your pick, you have to make a selection). The only difference is that we have Dorsett on the roster. You would take another receiver in the first round ahead of someone who could help the defense, simply because he's the BPA? He might not see a lot of field time given your crowded group of pass catchers, but he's BPA. I understand that one may always want to add talent to their team, but I'd rather take talent and fill an immediate need than talent and a lesser need.

Another hypothetical: You're John Schneider of the Seattle Seahawks. On the board right now, there is a safety as your top ranked prospect (ranked 15th overall) and a wide receiver as one of your higher ranked prospects as well (ranked 26th overall) and you're picking at 30. You have several safeties on your roster, and you have 2 safeties who you've recently given a lot of money to. Your starting safeties have also been able to stay relatively healthy during their young careers thus far. Do you take a safety and have him sit on your bench as a first round pick, or do you take the receiver?

Myself, I'd take the receiver. The safety is the BPA, but the receiver is highly ranked as well and fills an immediate need. You can take the safety, but he might be playing more special teams than defensive snaps, and I'd prefer to see more production out of my first round pick. It's not a perfectly analogous hypothetical scenario, but I think it makes the point

Superman v Superman... epic.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assessment of all the players, but the hypothetical was under the same scenario as this year, with the only difference being having Dorsett on the team.

 

I disagree about taking BPA.  I think you need to take several things into consideration, including how you've ranked them, how they fill needs on your team, how strong the draft class is for various positions (eg. I would have been very happy taking Lockett later instead of Dorsett in the first), how guys fit your offensive and defensive systems, etc.  I don't disregard BPA, but I don't take it as the absolute determinant.

 

If you're running a cover 2 defense, do you draft Revis as first rounder if he's the best available player?  We saw how poorly he fit into a cover 2 in Tampa.  If you have Dallas' offensive line, do you take a C in the first round, despite having All-Pro caliber players along your interior OL?

 

If we assume teams go BPA, then that can lead to things like Jacksonville taking a punter ahead of Russell Wilson.  I think if you're too strict in your principles, then it could set you up for failure.  Let's go back to that hypothetical scenario.  Let's assume everything is the exact same as this year when it comes to the 2016 draft (and you can't trade your pick, you have to make a selection).  The only difference is that we have Dorsett on the roster.  You would take another receiver in the first round ahead of someone who could help the defense, simply because he's the BPA?  He might not see a lot of field time given your crowded group of pass catchers, but he's BPA.  I understand that one may always want to add talent to their team, but I'd rather take talent and fill an immediate need than talent and a lesser need.

 

Another hypothetical: You're John Schneider of the Seattle Seahawks.  On the board right now, there is a safety as your top ranked prospect (ranked 15th overall) and a wide receiver as one of your higher ranked prospects as well (ranked 26th overall) and you're picking at 30.  You have several safeties on your roster, and you have 2 safeties who you've recently given a lot of money to.  Your starting safeties have also been able to stay relatively healthy during their young careers thus far.  Do you take a safety and have him sit on your bench as a first round pick, or do you take the receiver?

 

Myself, I'd take the receiver.  The safety is the BPA, but the receiver is highly ranked as well and fills an immediate need.  You can take the safety, but he might be playing more special teams than defensive snaps, and I'd prefer to see more production out of my first round pick.  It's not a perfectly analogous hypothetical scenario, but I think it makes the point

 

Revis was fine in a Cover 2. It was just a waste of his talent, and they had a bad pass rush. I get your point, but that has nothing to do with the draft. And your draft evaluation should adjust for players that fit in your scheme.

 

You're coming up with hypotheticals to shoehorn a non-BPA decision, but teams trade up and down all the time. More likely than the Cowboys staying at their spot and taking an interior lineman, they'd trade up and take a player they love, or trade down and stick to their board. Same with the Seahawks and a safety. They determined, during their scouting and evaluations, that they'd rather have Jimmy Graham than their #31 pick, and traded it. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

 

You're also pretending that a team can't adjust their board for positional values. The Jags taking a punter in the third round is just stupid, setting aside passing on Russell Wilson. The Raiders taking Janikowski in the first round is stupider. You don't take punters or kickers that high, no matter how good you think they are. If your scouting and draft prep process leaves you with a teams player as a top 150 player on your board (and I'm being generous), then your scouting and draft prep process is bad.

 

Same thing with RBs in the first round, with almost no exceptions, IMO.

 

This really isn't that crazy of a concept, nor is the old "but what if" thing people do when arguing against BPA. When you're setting up your board, based on your team philosophy and your scouting and all that, you take all this stuff into consideration. You counterbalance scouting against scheme, positional values against perceived player rankings from other teams, etc., etc. 

 

You draft talent, you fill needs with smart free agent signings, and you re-sign your best players as best you can, and everything else works out. I'd rather see my team try to manipulate the board and stockpile picks to increase the odds of hitting on some players than to reach past better players for other players at positions of perceived need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Revis was fine in a Cover 2. It was just a waste of his talent, and they had a bad pass rush. I get your point, but that has nothing to do with the draft. And your draft evaluation should adjust for players that fit in your scheme.

 

You're coming up with hypotheticals to shoehorn a non-BPA decision, but teams trade up and down all the time. More likely than the Cowboys staying at their spot and taking an interior lineman, they'd trade up and take a player they love, or trade down and stick to their board. Same with the Seahawks and a safety. They determined, during their scouting and evaluations, that they'd rather have Jimmy Graham than their #31 pick, and traded it. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

 

You're also pretending that a team can't adjust their board for positional values. The Jags taking a punter in the third round is just stupid, setting aside passing on Russell Wilson. The Raiders taking Janikowski in the first round is stupider. You don't take punters or kickers that high, no matter how good you think they are. If your scouting and draft prep process leaves you with a teams player as a top 150 player on your board (and I'm being generous), then your scouting and draft prep process is bad.

 

Same thing with RBs in the first round, with almost no exceptions, IMO.

 

This really isn't that crazy of a concept, nor is the old "but what if" thing people do when arguing against BPA. When you're setting up your board, based on your team philosophy and your scouting and all that, you take all this stuff into consideration. You counterbalance scouting against scheme, positional values against perceived player rankings from other teams, etc., etc. 

 

You draft talent, you fill needs with smart free agent signings, and you re-sign your best players as best you can, and everything else works out. I'd rather see my team try to manipulate the board and stockpile picks to increase the odds of hitting on some players than to reach past better players for other players at positions of perceived need.

I certainly understand your point.  BPA can be very helpful at times (just look at the Packers and Rodgers).  I just think sticking too strictly to it and not being flexible in your approach can be detrimental.  I'm not saying teams should completely disregard all their scouting and player ranking when the draft comes, but I think there should be some room for flexibility

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice discussion! BPA isn't as simple as some try to make it. Looking at a moving 3 year player personnel planning horizon, including possible trades for very good, but expensive, players, what is "best" does involve need requirements.

 

Looking only at immediate needs can get you fired in a couple of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly understand your point.  BPA can be very helpful at times (just look at the Packers and Rodgers).  I just think sticking too strictly to it and not being flexible in your approach can be detrimental.  I'm not saying teams should completely disregard all their scouting and player ranking when the draft comes, but I think there should be some room for flexibility

 

I agree, flexibility is what leads to Grigson trading down at the end of the 2nd. But to me, flexibility doesn't mean you reach for need when there are better players still on the board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to state the obvious.  It all depends on Luck.  Luck has been winning regardless of the team that surrounds him.  He has lost a top pass rusher(Mathis), his go-to WR (Wayne), his top RBs (Bradshaw/Vick) and he still won.  If he progresses this year, to the same degree he's been progressing, he can take us to the Super Bowl.  If we stay healthy with what we've added, I can see why Colts fans should be optimistic.  Everyone wants to take the pressure off Luck and I am one of them, but he can still win if it doesn't work out that way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to state the obvious.  It all depends on Luck.  Luck has been winning regardless of the team that surrounds him.  He has lost a top pass rusher(Mathis), his go-to WR (Wayne), his top RBs (Bradshaw/Vick) and he still won.  If he progresses this year, to the same degree he's been progressing, he can take us to the Super Bowl.  If we stay healthy with what we've added, I can see why Colts fans should be optimistic.  Everyone wants to take the pressure off Luck and I am one of them, but he can still win if it doesn't work out that way. 

Give Luck a defense like the Seahawks' that are consistent and he'll win more SB's than Tom Brady. Even if it was at the cost of our plethora of offensive weapons, Luck can make anyone look good so long as they can catch the ball thrown to them (DHB  :facepalm: ) and not run into the backs of their own OL (TR  :facepalm: ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Luck a defense like the Seahawks' that are consistent and he'll win more SB's than Tom Brady. Even if it was at the cost of our plethora of offensive weapons, Luck can make anyone look good so long as they can catch the ball thrown to them (DHB  :facepalm: ) and not run into the backs of their own OL (TR  :facepalm: ).

Colts make it further and further each year because their offense around Luck gets better and better each year (or maybe Luck is just the one getting better and better) …

Either way…. Offense + Time = better post season… last year they made it to the AFC championship sooooo… according to the equation, they just need to beef up the offense to make it to the super bowl. I don’t mean to over simplify it but honestly, that’s what its about… and it is kinda simple. (not saying I agree with it but if/when the colts go to the show, ill be a believer.)

 

#thebestdefenseisagoodoffense

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to be able to have a team that can win in the cold and slop, that normally comes in January and February

 

Try a racing bike on an advanced mountain terrain.........  the bike that was amazingly fast on clean pavement, now cant function

 

We saw this concept with Peyton, in cold weather, we normally didnt win

 

 

I think we have improved, but........... can we win in NE in January?    I dont know

 

I do think we are better than we were before.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm thinking the reason these Watson topics get locked is because the conversation starts veering into opinions about matters that are not relevant.  In this case, what Easterby is or isn't, and therefore by extension what HOU is or isn't by their employment of him.  Your opinion is determined by whatever lens you own, not proven facts.  Apparently, the locker room and NFL have a diverse set of lenses whereby some things are bigger deals to some players and not such a big deal to others.   It seems some support Watson holding out for a trade because their lens shows them that HOU is bad for the reasons of Easterby and McNair.    So they are supporting Watson holding out for a trade, but, its for different reason than Watson has expressed.   That's why I was wondering why irrelevant topics are being brought into a discussion about Watson and the reasons motivating a trade.  His reasons need to be understood because they would carry on to another owner.  Its not about the reasons we think he should want one, or the reasons why JJWatt thinks he should want one.    Watson's reasons are clearly about EB.  And if Watson is linking Bienemy to a violation of the Rooney Rule, the Rooney Rule has been around for about 15 years and the Texans have complied.  Its almost like he's taken a 3 minute look at the EB situation and expressed a public hot take conclusion without even knowing the Texans record of complying with the Rooney Rule.            
    • I agree what did most pundits say that we had the most complete roster in football last season.  Why, because Ballard built that through the draft for the most part and it hasn't put the team in salary cap hell like many other teams that don't even have the roster that we have so the credit goes to Ballard. 
    • I think the Browns were a lot better team after free agency. Are they championship level no but a lot better. I don't know why Dorsey got fired I thought he was doing a good job trying to make up for no talent.  My point is there are times that you need to dabble in free agency but it is better much better to go the draft rout.  
    • After the 49ers pulled off the exact trade up to the 3rd pick (that I suggested the Colts should do), I would fall over in laughter if they passed on Fields for Jones or Lance.  Fields is just as much the generational prospect as Lawrence.  When you look at the film and compare the numbers it really is a no brainer.  Here’s another Fields stat that puts him above the others.     The average rank of defenses that Fields has faced in his career is around low to mid twenties. Not too many cupcakes or soft touches.  Meanwhile Lawrence, Wilson, & Jones average defensive opponents is in the 40’s or much higher. So Fields put up better career numbers than all of the other QB’s while facing tougher competition week in and week out.     Better career accuracy. Better career rating past his first read (dispelled that lie about him).  Oh and he scored higher on an aptitude test than thousands of other professional athletes from multiple sports who have taken the same test.  Offered a scholarship to Harvard.  Kid is a smart pocket passer who is athletic and can run.  But he has no problem standing in the pocket and delivering accurate throws with conflict happening all around him.    I believe Kyle is just putting Fields to the ultimate test.  He remembers him from his high school QB camp where Fields took the things he learned there and improved his game to the point where he legitimately rivaled Lawrence as the best QB in the country.  Helped turn the best dual threat QB into the most accurate career passer in this draft.  And easily the most fundamentally sound.  That’s growth.    Also Kyle gets to see how Fields handles all of the chatter about Wilson & Jones & Lance being better.  How does he handle the 49ers not attending his first pro day?  How does he handle the leaks attacking his work ethic and commitment?  They could be looking for signs to how he will handle adversity on and off the field at the next level.  So far he’s been near perfect.  The fact he didn’t snap on Orlovsky shows great maturity.  Best QB in the draft. Just pray the Patriots don’t move up to 4th and get him if the 49ers are dumb enough to pass on him after moving up to the 3rd pick. 
    • Yes, I agree with you but I totally believe that Ballard has a plan and will do what's best for our team. I mean he knows better than any of us that he needs a left tackle and a pass rusher he's fully aware of it.  I have total and complete faith in Ballard that he'll put a championship level team on the field come week one. 
  • Members

    • The Peytonator

      The Peytonator 458

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BigO

      BigO 58

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfansince65

      coltsfansince65 849

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tvturner

      tvturner 470

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • hoosierhawk

      hoosierhawk 818

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ponyboy

      ponyboy 67

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dcuse

      Dcuse 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 2,317

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 106

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PrincetonTiger

      PrincetonTiger 8,508

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...