Why Won't they Unleash Dorsett?

[cmgww]

If we're gonna unleash him, I sure hope it's away from PR's. Two muffs, and a ridiculous fair catch inside the 10 were far more than enough ST failure for me. 

 

Josh Cribbs is still available................................................................................................................................................................................................

Dude, chill. He's a rookie, it was his first game....on the road in a tough loud stadium...in the rain. Rookies make mistakes. I'm not too keen on him returning punts right now either, but in time he could be a great ST weapon. As a WR he will see more time with TY out. We will see Monday night what he's made of....

[Coltsman1788]

Dude needs to learn how to hold onto the football. Don't worry we will see plenty of him next week with Hilton out. On second thought that may be cause TO worry. Lol

[John Waylon]

Dude, chill. He's a rookie, it was his first game....on the road in a tough loud stadium...in the rain. Rookies make mistakes. I'm not too keen on him returning punts right now either, but in time he could be a great ST weapon. As a WR he will see more time with TY out. We will see Monday night what he's made of....

I'd like to think it wasn't his first attempt at catching a football.

The fair catch inside the 10 was not only a mind numbing mistake, but a lack of coaching preparation as well. That is the kind of stuff that ST coaches are supposed to have drilled into the heads of their unit.

You set your feet on the 10 and don't even think about moving backwards. Fair catching it does no good, if they down it instead you're still dead to rights at the same spot, and it's far more likely to bounce into the end zone for an easy touchback.

You can't blame that on the situation being his first game or in the rain or any of that. That is stuff you go over before even entering the field.

[GoColts8818]

It sounds like TY is going to be out at least Monday night if not a week or two after that.  We will get a good look at Dorsett over the next few weeks.  If he plays well and Moncrief plays like he did Sunday you might very well see Dorsett jump him on the depth chart moving forward. 

[GoColts8818]

Dude needs to learn how to hold onto the football. Don't worry we will see plenty of him next week with Hilton out. On second thought that may be cause TO worry. Lol

He's making a basic rookie mistake looking to run before he secures the football.  Hopefully some time in the film room and the coaches will get that into him.  Still I expect to see Whalen back their fielding punts Monday. 

[Clem-Dog]

I'm good with Whalen fair catching the majority of returns until Dorsett is readily prepared to contribute on STs.

[Mr.Debonair]

who would you take, Pep or Arians?  To even make that statement I just made seems so ridiculous because the no-brainer would be Bruce...... That just tells me how far we have taken a step back.  Pep DID have some good play-calling games last year.  I think he learns from his mistakes and will adjust accordingly and have himself a good game come this MNF.  I'm looking forward to seeing him mix things up better, have better balance, etc, etc,.... Buffalo was very hard to calls plays against in defense of Pep.

Well based on what I've seen, Luck had more of a hand than Pep did. Calling plays at the line. Rex did a great job confusing him and causing him to audible out of plays. Played right into Buffalo's hand

[C0LT5]

Moncrief is OK, but he is not better than Dorsett at all.  He may know the play book, the routes, but that's it.  Defenses do not fear him or respect his game no separation at all.  The two catches Dorsett had the defenses played off him because they had no choice.  Play the man who has the ability to change the game, Dorsett.  Outside of that Pittsburgh game I can not remember when he ever got behind the defense. 

 

Thanks, I feel much better about my memory now. Moncrief burned Cincy and the Redskins last year.

[UKColt13]

Give him until mid season, but he's a rookie in his first regular season game. 2 catches for 40/50 is not bad, especially considering he's only #4 on the depth chart.

[indyagent17]

Whalen should return punts end of story. Dorsett should simply focus on receiving

[will426]

He saw the field when TY went out. He looked good when out there too. Despite only getting 2 receptions, he nearly matched Moncrief's yardage at 45. (Moncrief's had 46) I'm sure with TY out he will get his chance to shine. I think he might out play Moncrief and Johnson.

instantly was a threat I was saying this and I got the "he sucks on pr response" he matched moncrief in two catches that's good to me

[krunk]

Oh they'll be unleashing him soon in the passing game for sure.  I wish we would have unleashed him with a couple screens against the Bills.  I bet that would have really aided in getting them out of those blitz looks.  I truly hate that he fumbled those punt returns, but I attribute that more to nerves and lack of concentration.  I think the young lad deserves a couple more tries at it because he looked lightning fast out there if he would have caught it and gotten up field.

[Defjamz26]

Give him until mid season, but he's a rookie in his first regular season game. 2 catches for 40/50 is not bad, especially considering he's only #4 on the depth chart.

When your number 1 WR gets injured though, you expect the staff to give a guy like him more snaps. Moncrief was fine but AJ wasn't getting it done. Rookie or not, he makes a difference when he's on the field.

[will426]

When your number 1 WR gets injured though, you expect the staff to give a guy like him more snaps. Moncrief was fine but AJ wasn't getting it done. Rookie or not, he makes a difference when he's on the field.

Yeah you don't sit a 1st round WR to fill in only if your playermaker goes down you play him with you playmaker smh..Ty gets easy separation dorsett does too and both run 4.3s so you have to give a cushion that's basically OPEN yet the staff is too stupid

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

You called him a wasted pick.

He isn't that far down the depth chart. The Colts WR corpa has been undermined by injuries and ineffective play the last three seasons. Already Hilton isn't 100%.

He also isn't a project, so we can move on from that.

Ideally a first round pick would play a big role right away, but that's not a strict condition for first rounders. Nor is it rare for first rounders to take some time before they start contributing. Shane Ray played 15 snaps yesterday.

The draft is for adding talent within the parameters of your team philosophy, not for filling needs or addressing concerns with roster management. Take the best players for your team, and your team gets better.

That strictly goes against the BPA philosophy.

[JR Indy]

Thanks, I feel much better about my memory now. Moncrief burned Cincy and the Redskins last year.

If the coaches put Dorsett in (which is looking like a strong possibility now, Donte numbers should improve, because one guy will have a very hard time stopping Dorsett. But not to play him is not very smart

[Superman]

That strictly goes against the BPA philosophy.

 

?

[BlueShoe]

Every time I've seen Dorsett catching a pass no one is even close to him. He's beating coverage rather easily, and it's been going on since pre-season. But the staff seems to be playing it safe with him. The staff didn't play him heavily until the 4th quarter but it was too late.

As soon as Hilton went down he should have seen his workload. I'm not sure why they're shy about playing him.

Well for what it's worth, I picked up Dorsett in both of my fantasy leagues because it's easy to see what is about to happen. I will keep him on the bench a few weeks, but he will break out soon.

[Yarmish]

Do we just not spend enough times on special teams? It's amazing how long it has been so shoddy besides the on sides kicks.

[Bubbz]

Why are you under the impression Dorsett won't see the field?

He's not 4th on tbe depth chart. There are two starters, and each starter has a backup. Then there are 3WR and even 4WR sets. Fourth on the depth chart would mean three people have to get hurt or benched for him to play.

I'm not surprised you have an issue with "don't draft for need," as all anyoneever wants to talk about is need, but the draft is not about filling needs. It's about adding the best players you can, and always has been. That's the reason it exists. Sometimes need becomes more of an issue. It's still not the point of the draft to fill needs.

Overall, I don't get why we're talking about Dorsett's reps after one game. Or even one season.

this gets thrown around a lot here. but teams will not always draft the bpa, need is/ or should be part of the determining factor in who they pick. otherwise we could take another te or wr the next 4 years if it worked out that way.

[will426]

Do we just not spend enough times on special teams? It's amazing how long it has been so shoddy besides the on sides kicks.

we've never been good at it in the Peyton era either they just need to fair catch

[Introspect]

He is not unleashed because our play callers are not creative and are predictable. LET BALLERS BALL!!

[BleedBlu8792]

That strictly goes against the BPA philosophy.

 

Umm what? Dorsett, which Grigson firmly stated, was the "Colts" best pick available and by a large margin - again - from the mouth of Grigson. I'm not sure you comprehended the quote at hand.

[akcolt]

I'd like to think it wasn't his first attempt at catching a football.

The fair catch inside the 10 was not only a mind numbing mistake, but a lack of coaching preparation as well. That is the kind of stuff that ST coaches are supposed to have drilled into the heads of their unit.

You set your feet on the 10 and don't even think about moving backwards. Fair catching it does no good, if they down it instead you're still dead to rights at the same spot, and it's far more likely to bounce into the end zone for an easy touchback.

You can't blame that on the situation being his first game or in the rain or any of that. That is stuff you go over before even entering the field.

No one has ever made that mistake?

You think our coaches are the first to tell him what everyone knows about fielding a punt against your own goal line?

[akcolt]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-11-06/sports/0611060171_1_dolphins-ball-10-yard-line

Please read this and gain some perspective he's one of the best KR/PR in NFL history.

[Superman]

this gets thrown around a lot here. but teams will not always draft the bpa, need is/ or should be part of the determining factor in who they pick. otherwise we could take another te or wr the next 4 years if it worked out that way.

 

I'm not speaking to what teams 'always' do in the draft. But they should draft BPA, with respect to their own scouting (my BPA isn't necessarily the same as your BPA), team philosophies (ZBS or MBS? Zone coverage or man coverage? 3-4 DL or 4-3 DL? etc.), and positional value (no RBs early, no specialists before late rounds, no QBs early if you already have a good one, etc.). 

 

It's really not that hard to understand. If you use the draft to acquire talent, you'll acquire more and better talent over the years. If you use the draft to try to fill needs, you'll miss out on better talent, and as a result, have less of it over the years. Fill roster holes in free agency, both primary and secondary free agency. Figure out roster management during camp. But the draft is for acquiring the best players you can, with respect to your team philosophies and positional value, and as dictated to you by your scouting. 

[Superman]

Please read this and gain some perspective he's one of the best KR/PR in NFL history.

 

Hester would go on to set return records that very season, and of course, took back the opening kickoff in that year's Super Bowl. 

[Mr.Debonair]

Everyone keeps talking about how he called fair catch inside the 10 but is ignoring the fact that in that same exact game, I believe the punt prior, Griff did the same thing. Both possessions started at the 9 yard line. 

[will426]

Everyone keeps talking about how he called fair catch inside the 10 but is ignoring the fact that in that same exact game, I believe the punt prior, Griff did the same thing. Both possessions started at the 9 yard line.

hm they're just mad about the muff he lost this game first half anyway because of play calling and he wasn't even used till hilton got hurt..he's not even known for being a Pr in college like TY was..he's just faster than Ty but they have totally different vision on those situations

[John Waylon]

No one has ever made that mistake?

You think our coaches are the first to tell him what everyone knows about fielding a punt against your own goal line?

Exactly. You just strengthened my point.

This is stuff that has been drilled into him long before he got here.

[Bubbz]

I'm not speaking to what teams 'always' do in the draft. But they should draft BPA, with respect to their own scouting (my BPA isn't necessarily the same as your BPA), team philosophies (ZBS or MBS? Zone coverage or man coverage? 3-4 DL or 4-3 DL? etc.), and positional value (no RBs early, no specialists before late rounds, no QBs early if you already have a good one, etc.). 

 

It's really not that hard to understand. If you use the draft to acquire talent, you'll acquire more and better talent over the years. If you use the draft to try to fill needs, you'll miss out on better talent, and as a result, have less of it over the years. Fill roster holes in free agency, both primary and secondary free agency. Figure out roster management during camp. But the draft is for acquiring the best players you can, with respect to your team philosophies and positional value, and as dictated to you by your scouting. 

Again, youre failing to adress my points that there should be certain exceptions to drafting only BPA. You have reiterated countless times that teams should solely draft BPA, and your tone indicates that to do otherwise would be dogma. If next year our board indicates that the BPA at our pick in round 1 is a wide receiver should we draft one if Moncrief and Dorsett combine for 3000 yards? Would we draft a a TE if Fleener and Allen combine for 20 tds?

 

Anothe thing to consider is BPA is no where close to an exact science. It is very difficult to quantify who will be the better overall football player across multiple positions and rank all these kids. I dont think there would be anything wrong if Grigson looked at our roster after this season and observed hypothetically that our oline is still trash and our d is 20th in the league. He then makes the decision that he is going to draft BPA at any position aside from QB, WR, and TE in the first, second, and possibly third round. That still isnt exactly drafting solely on positional need, it is just saying "hey we are really strong at these positions and it would be overkill and stupid to draft them with so many other problem areas on the team that could be adressed. I dont think its that hard to understand that sometimes drafting solely based on BPA can be realatively stupid based on how your roster looks, the previous few drafts, and how good you already are in a certain area.

 

Again, even if you choose to draft like this, there could still be exceptions. The colts could end up picking 2nd overall and there is a player projected to be better than Calvin Johnson at WR. We take him. That is understandable.The point I am making is that building a talented football roster has so many dimensions to it, that making a claim that drafting "only BPA" is rather silly when there are thousands of factors of building a good roster to take into consideration. Also, considering that the term BPA is hardly quantifiable, it makes it rather silly to entertain the notion that you could very well draft a position several years in a row that you have continually been very talented at.  I dont see how this is so hard for you to understand. Sometimes you can look at your roster and say "we are going to draft BPA but in rounds 1, 2, and maybe 3 we will not be considering any skill positions because we are extremely strong at these positions and took some last year in the draft." I dont think that is an earth shattering idea, nor difficult to grasp. Just my opinion.

[Superman]

Again, youre failing to adress my points that there should be certain exceptions to drafting only BPA. You have reiterated countless times that teams should solely draft BPA, and your tone indicates that to do otherwise would be dogma. If next year our board indicates that the BPA at our pick in round 1 is a wide receiver should we draft one if Moncrief and Dorsett combine for 3000 yards? Would we draft a a TE if Fleener and Allen combine for 20 tds?

 

Anothe thing to consider is BPA is no where close to an exact science. It is very difficult to quantify who will be the better overall football player across multiple positions and rank all these kids. I dont think there would be anything wrong if Grigson looked at our roster after this season and observed hypothetically that our oline is still trash and our d is 20th in the league. He then makes the decision that he is going to draft BPA at any position aside from QB, WR, and TE in the first, second, and possibly third round. That still isnt exactly drafting solely on positional need, it is just saying "hey we are really strong at these positions and it would be overkill and stupid to draft them with so many other problem areas on the team that could be adressed. I dont think its that hard to understand that sometimes drafting solely based on BPA can be realatively stupid based on how your roster looks, the previous few drafts, and how good you already are in a certain area.

 

Again, even if you choose to draft like this, there could still be exceptions. The colts could end up picking 2nd overall and there is a player projected to be better than Calvin Johnson at WR. We take him. That is understandable.The point I am making is that building a talented football roster has so many dimensions to it, that making a claim that drafting "only BPA" is rather silly when there are thousands of factors of building a good roster to take into consideration. Also, considering that the term BPA is hardly quantifiable, it makes it rather silly to entertain the notion that you could very well draft a position several years in a row that you have continually been very talented at.  I dont see how this is so hard for you to understand. Sometimes you can look at your roster and say "we are going to draft BPA but in rounds 1, 2, and maybe 3 we will not be considering any skill positions because we are extremely strong at these positions and took some last year in the draft." I dont think that is an earth shattering idea, nor difficult to grasp. Just my opinion.

 

How about this, for starters: The draft is not for targeting and filling positions of need.

 

You're coming up with these hypotheticals about how BPA doesn't hold true, as if there's a rigid set of rules of what determines BPA, when there's not. Really, my point is that you don't say 'our biggest need is X, so we're going to draft that position in the first round.' That's how you pass up on great prospects, and then two years later, the lesser player you drafted to fill the need isn't what you need him to be, and you now have a need at the position you tried to fill, and at the position which you passed on in the first place. (See: Werner over Rhodes, 2013)

 

You're also ignoring draft day trades, which happen all the time. For the first time this year, Grigson actually traded down. So if you're at #32 next year (being optimistic, yes I am), and your scouting tells you that the BPA is another WR, and you have three 1,000 yard receivers on your roster already, locked down under contract, and you don't think the WR available is an absolute STUD who will upgrade your team, then trade down. Or maybe even target a guy that you really like at a premium position, and trade up for him. 

 

I am NOT saying that you just have to make a static list of players at every position and put them in order from 1-500, and then wait for your pick to come up, and take the highest remaining guy on your list. I'm confident that no QBs were on Grigson's board in 2015, particularly in the first round (although I wonder what would have happened if Mariota somehow dropped to #29). I'm confident that guys like Grady Jarrett, Jake Fisher, TJ Clemmings, etc., weren't on his board, due to not being good scheme fits. I am willing to bet that Tevin Coleman was on his board, but he didn't take him at #61 or #65 because of positional value, which is partly influenced by the roster.

 

Just to be clear, again, my point is that the draft is not for saying 'we need a DL, so we're going to take one in the first round.' That approach leads to passing on good players in favor of drafting lesser players at presumed positions of need.

 

And to the bolded, I disagree with the notion that our WR corps has been all that good. Since mid-2013, it's been TY Hilton and an assorted collection of stiffs and raw youngsters who either can't put down the grass or need more development.

[MR. Blueblood]

How about this, for starters: The draft is not for targeting and filling positions of need.

 

You're coming up with these hypotheticals about how BPA doesn't hold true, as if there's a rigid set of rules of what determines BPA, when there's not. Really, my point is that you don't say 'our biggest need is X, so we're going to draft that position in the first round.' That's how you pass up on great prospects, and then two years later, the lesser player you drafted to fill the need isn't what you need him to be, and you now have a need at the position you tried to fill, and at the position which you passed on in the first place. (See: Werner over Rhodes, 2013)

 

You're also ignoring draft day trades, which happen all the time. For the first time this year, Grigson actually traded down. So if you're at #32 next year (being optimistic, yes I am), and your scouting tells you that the BPA is another WR, and you have three 1,000 yard receivers on your roster already, locked down under contract, and you don't think the WR available is an absolute STUD who will upgrade your team, then trade down. Or maybe even target a guy that you really like at a premium position, and trade up for him. 

 

I am NOT saying that you just have to make a static list of players at every position and put them in order from 1-500, and then wait for your pick to come up, and take the highest remaining guy on your list. I'm confident that no QBs were on Grigson's board in 2015, particularly in the first round (although I wonder what would have happened if Mariota somehow dropped to #29). I'm confident that guys like Grady Jarrett, Jake Fisher, TJ Clemmings, etc., weren't on his board, due to not being good scheme fits. I am willing to bet that Tevin Coleman was on his board, but he didn't take him at #61 or #65 because of positional value, which is partly influenced by the roster.

 

Just to be clear, again, my point is that the draft is not for saying 'we need a DL, so we're going to take one in the first round.' That approach leads to passing on good players in favor of drafting lesser players at presumed positions of need.

 

And to the bolded, I disagree with the notion that our WR corps has been all that good. Since mid-2013, it's been TY Hilton and an assorted collection of stiffs and raw youngsters who either can't put down the grass or need more development.

If the bolded is true then why does everybody involved in the draft process, teams, tv broadcast personnel, draft experts, etc spend so much time determining the needs of team's rosters for the draft?

 

Obviously the tv anchors do it cause they have air time to fill, but why waste the time if teams don't give a squat about drafting players to fill needs?

 

You talked about me doubling down on a flawed philosphy, I don't know why you are so doggedly taking this one to the grave with you when it it not the absolute truth that you think it is.

[Superman]

If the bolded is true then why does everybody involved in the draft process, teams, tv broadcast personnel, draft experts, etc spend so much time determining the needs of team's rosters for the draft?

 

Obviously the tv anchors do it cause they have air time to fill, but why waste the time if teams don't give a squat about drafting players to fill needs?

 

You talked about me doubling down on a flawed philosphy, I don't know why you are so doggedly taking this one to the grave with you when it it not the absolute truth that you think it is.

 

So because Mike Mayock and Mel Kiper spend time talking about team need, you think that means teams should draft for need?

 

None of those guys have ever run a draft. They haven't built or managed a 90 man roster, or had to make cut day decisions. They have never signed a free agent or traded for a player to fill a need. They haven't made the mistake of targeting a player in the draft for need, then cutting him three years later, while one of the better players they passed on is signing a long term extension. They get paid to talk on TV. And often, the things they say make no sense. Look at the Kiper/McShay mock draft in April, and how ridiculous it turned out. They're up there trying to justify reaching for need every other pick, and in between, talking about how 'this guy should have been gone 20 picks ago, so I'm taking him here even though it's not a need...' 

 

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the work that those guys do. But just because they waste time talking about need doesn't mean that GMs do or should draft for need. I can't believe that's your argument.

 

Not only that, but once again, I am not saying that every GM always drafts BPA with no regard for need. I'm talking about draft practice, and I'm saying that good GMs don't pass on better players to reach for lesser players at a position of need. 

 

Anecdotal: The Colts needed corners in 2012. Grigson had traded for or signed a bunch of low level guys, and the only corner worth mentioning was Jerraud Powers. We took Fleener in the second. When we picked again in the third, as much as you could justify reaching for a corner, we took another TE because he was so definitively the best player on Grigson's board. And while everyone griped and complained for the next four months about 'but we don't have any corners!', Grigson defended his pick. And in training camp, he pulled off a trade for Vontae Davis, who has since been our best corner. 

 

You don't have to draft for need in order to build a complete roster. In fact, drafting for need undermines your ability to add talented players. It's a proven and fundamental philosophy since the inception of the draft, and is the reason the draft was instituted in the first place. Fill needs in free agency, look for opportunities to trade for good players when the cost is right, and add the best, most talented players you can in the draft. That's the reason Dwayne Allen is a Colt.

[jabbanobadda]

You are going to see why Dorsett was the first pick on Monday night, that's assuming the coaching staff is smart enough to play him...at WR of course.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Andrew has the smarts and play calling ability to run an Offense like Brady and the Pats do. The quick hitters. He needs too with the Line we have. Dorsett can be our Edelman if used right.

[MR. Blueblood]

So because Mike Mayock and Mel Kiper spend time talking about team need, you think that means teams should draft for need?

 

None of those guys have ever run a draft. They haven't built or managed a 90 man roster, or had to make cut day decisions. They have never signed a free agent or traded for a player to fill a need. They haven't made the mistake of targeting a player in the draft for need, then cutting him three years later, while one of the better players they passed on is signing a long term extension. They get paid to talk on TV. And often, the things they say make no sense. Look at the Kiper/McShay mock draft in April, and how ridiculous it turned out. They're up there trying to justify reaching for need every other pick, and in between, talking about how 'this guy should have been gone 20 picks ago, so I'm taking him here even though it's not a need...' 

 

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the work that those guys do. But just because they waste time talking about need doesn't mean that GMs do or should draft for need. I can't believe that's your argument.

 

Not only that, but once again, I am not saying that every GM always drafts BPA with no regard for need. I'm talking about draft practice, and I'm saying that good GMs don't pass on better players to reach for lesser players at a position of need. 

 

Anecdotal: The Colts needed corners in 2012. Grigson had traded for or signed a bunch of low level guys, and the only corner worth mentioning was Jerraud Powers. We took Fleener in the second. When we picked again in the third, as much as you could justify reaching for a corner, we took another TE because he was so definitively the best player on Grigson's board. And while everyone griped and complained for the next four months about 'but we don't have any corners!', Grigson defended his pick. And in training camp, he pulled off a trade for Vontae Davis, who has since been our best corner. 

 

You don't have to draft for need in order to build a complete roster. In fact, drafting for need undermines your ability to add talented players. It's a proven and fundamental philosophy since the inception of the draft, and is the reason the draft was instituted in the first place. Fill needs in free agency, look for opportunities to trade for good players when the cost is right, and add the best, most talented players you can in the draft. That's the reason Dwayne Allen is a Colt.

Finally, you budged a little.  Teams don't have to draft for need, but teams have and will draft for need, which is the thing all along that I have said. TEAMS DON'T DRAFT BY NEED is your stance.  Rosters have players (that were drafted) that are there because a team needed somebody to fill that need on their roster.  To say that teams won't/don't draft based off of need and be so rigid on that statement is completely false.  Just off this last draftI can't believe that you think only filling team needs happens in FA just because you want it to be that way (in theory maybe, in reality not so much).  Bill Polian was never a fan of using Free Agency, so I guess he never really went about addressing holes on this team in your opinion because FA wasn't a solution that Polian wanted/liked to use.  

 

2015 Draft 1st rd Dorsett- this pick goes to your theory, I'll give you that

                  3rd rd Anderson- D-line was a weakness and the team needed help at that position

                  4th rd Geathers- Even though they went out and signed Lowery in FA S was still a position of need and concern

                  5th rd Parry- D-line especially in run defense was a need for this team

                  6th rd Robinson-  RB position even with Gore and Boom (now on IR) was still a position of need

                  6th rd Herrera- especially after week 1 we would say that our ILBs are a concern and a position of need

                  7th rd Good- O-line seems to always be a position of need

 

So out of 7 picks, 6 were picked, IMO, to help fill voids or needs or deficiencies on this team, which has been my stance.  1 was picked as the BPA to help the team out (although some could still argue WR was a position of need).

 

You think the draft is nothing or should be nothing but basically BPA while I think it is used for both, nothing is changing eithers mind.  

 

I know this will be a relief for you, but I'm out, not going to respond anymore. 

 

P.S.  Dwayne Allen is a Colt because we also needed another TE, to say that the drafting of Fleener filled the team's needs at that position would be false too.  And if you truly are going by talent and BPA to fit your philosophy (like you have stated is the way to draft) many would argue and have argued to this day that Allen should've went in the 2nd and Fleener fall to the 3rd, as he is the better all around TE.  But hey, we are all arm chair GMs, even you. 

[Clem-Dog]

It's not always one or the other, sometimes bpa and need intersect i.e. Mewhort and Henry Anderson. Regardless, drafting bpa over need is apparently crucial enough that every GM claims to use this strategy even if they're not actually true to this approach. That's because bpa is the most logical approach to building a great team. The Pats use this approach year in and year out and the results are undeniable.

[Superman]

TEAMS DON'T DRAFT BY NEED is your stance.

That's absolutely 100% false. I've said several times in this very thread that I am NOT talking about what teams in general do and don't do. I'm talking about what they should and shouldn't do.

 

Sometimes need becomes more of an issue. It's still not the point of the draft to fill needs.

I'm not speaking to what any or every team does in the draft room. I'm talking about draft theory.

I'm not speaking to what teams 'always' do in the draft. But they should draft BPA...

Not only that, but once again, I am not saying that every GM always drafts BPA with no regard for need. I'm talking about draft practice, and I'm saying that good GMs don't pass on better players to reach for lesser players at a position of need.

 

 

Finally, you budged a little.  Teams don't have to draft for need, but teams have and will draft for need, which is the thing all along that I have said. TEAMS DON'T DRAFT BY NEED is your stance.  Rosters have players (that were drafted) that are there because a team needed somebody to fill that need on their roster.  To say that teams won't/don't draft based off of need and be so rigid on that statement is completely false.  Just off this last draftI can't believe that you think only filling team needs happens in FA just because you want it to be that way (in theory maybe, in reality not so much).

 

...

 

You think the draft is nothing or should be nothing but basically BPA while I think it is used for both, nothing is changing eithers mind.  

 

I know this will be a relief for you, but I'm out, not going to respond anymore. 

 

P.S.  Dwayne Allen is a Colt because we also needed another TE, to say that the drafting of Fleener filled the team's needs at that position would be false too.  And if you truly are going by talent and BPA to fit your philosophy (like you have stated is the way to draft) many would argue and have argued to this day that Allen should've went in the 2nd and Fleener fall to the 3rd, as he is the better all around TE.  But hey, we are all arm chair GMs, even you.

 

I would like to reiterate again that your bolded lines are not accurate. See above.

 

And since you're not responding anymore, I'll just say that we could disagree all day about the practice used by teams during the draft, but since neither of us was in the draft room, it's impossible to determine the truth. But on Allen, Grigson himself stated exactly what I said about that pick. It makes no sense to basically ignore what the man himself has said, multiple times.

 

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/Colts-Draft-Strategy-Need-or-Best-Available-Player/c10c756d-7be4-4745-bc5f-0590ace46fe3

“I’m sure that Chuck (Pagano) would want the ties to go to the defense, but he’s great,” joked Grigson, before telling the story of Pagano endorsing Grigson’s decision in the war room to take two tight ends back-to-back in 2012 (Coby Fleener and Dwayne Allen). “‘Grigs, let’s take the best player on the board, man.’ When we get really down to brass Titans, he’s on board with best player available. It’s really hard. We just won’t do it. We really, really needed a corner in (the third round) that year but when Dwayne’s (Allen) up there on the board right here and your corner is down here, that just goes against (my philosophy).”