Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Kiper's 3 Round "Grade: A" Mock


Recommended Posts

Quote

Indianapolis Colts

Round 1 (18): Taylor Decker, OT, Ohio State

Round 2 (48): Su'a Cravens, S/LB, USC

Round 3 (82): Austin Johnson, DT, Penn State

Analysis: I have offensive line as a need if I'm the GM here, and Decker makes sense at No. 18. He played both left tackle and right tackle for Ohio State, and while you don't assume he's going to simply come in and lock down the left side, I'm drafting with idea that I can't go wrong by adding O-line help. It's all about getting better in front of my franchise player both in the running game and in pass protection. With Cravens I'm getting the good kind of "tweener" -- a guy who could be a safety or an undersized outside linebacker, but I consider both of those need positions on this roster, and the talent is significant here. Johnson steps in as rotation help early on as an interior defender on the defensive line.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/insider/story/_/id/15189670/mock-draft-2016-nfl-draft

 

Kiper's "Grade A" mock gets a C-.  The only saving grace here is the Austin Johnson pick.  Taylor Decker is fine, but his reasoning for taking him has never made sense.  You don't take him with an eye of improving the OL, just because "you can't go wrong adding O-line help."  You take him, because he's the best player there, and that will just not be the case at 18, IMO.  Cravens I just don't think will be a scheme fit.  As a currently 1-gap odd front, Cravens will have to be someone who can evade blockers without giving up gap control, and I think he'll struggle with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CheezyColt said:

Yeah... not a fan of this.  Better options than Decker, IMO and I'm not sure where we would use Cravens.

 

Only place for him with Geathers out there is if the base defense was a nickel Hybrid with Cravens taking Freeman's spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

Kiper has mocked him to us so many times with the same rationale. We could draft any DL who he has graded higher and I feel he will give it a bad grade.

After months of senseless and ridiculous mock drafts by media pundits(some have us TRADING UP to get Conklin or Decker), right now I have more trust in Grigson than in the media to make the pick, and that's a sentence I never expected to utter. I feel like most of those media people just watched 3 games of the Colts and switched us off for the rest of the season. They just know "Colts need to protect Luck" and go on to give us horrible value RT instead of great players on the board on positions of much bigger need - pass-rush, ILB, S, C, G... damn it... If it was me and some ridiculous value isn't there, I'd be OK with us not drafting an OT at all in this draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I entered the topic thinking "If this is another mock with us taking Decker or Kelly in the 1st I'm done ". And sure enough I'm right.

 

Why do people keep mocking us Decker? The needs are on the interior of the line. Just seems like a lazy analysis to me. Just like how everyone mocks TEs to Green Bay round 1 every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People just don't get it LOL. That's NOT a grade A mock. Taylor Decker would be a terrible pick.  A grade A mock rounds 1-3 is getting 3 day 1 starters.

 

1 Noah Spence EDGE

2 Christian Westerman G

3 Karl Joseph Safety

 

That's a Grade A mock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/insider/story/_/id/15189670/mock-draft-2016-nfl-draft

 

Kiper's "Grade A" mock gets a C-.  The only saving grace here is the Austin Johnson pick.  Taylor Decker is fine, but his reasoning for taking him has never made sense.  You don't take him with an eye of improving the OL, just because "you can't go wrong adding O-line help."  You take him, because he's the best player there, and that will just not be the case at 18, IMO.  Cravens I just don't think will be a scheme fit.  As a currently 1-gap odd front, Cravens will have to be someone who can evade blockers without giving up gap control, and I think he'll struggle with that.  

How do you know Cravens wouldn't be used as the Dime Linebacker or even at Sam Linebacker along with Walden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

LOL if we did draft Decker I would break something. I see bust written on that kid's forehead. But even if he played alright, we need interior linemen. Not tackles.

i think the plan would be to put decker at RT and kick reitz over to guard.

 

im with you though for the most part. i think one of the top defenders has to fall to 18 since at least two of those picks are going to be QBs, and some offensive skill players are bound to come off the board

 

it could actually end up being a good draft board for us, but they cant afford to blow it this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stitches said:

After months of senseless and ridiculous mock drafts by media pundits(some have us TRADING UP to get Conklin or Decker), right now I have more trust in Grigson than in the media to make the pick, and that's a sentence I never expected to utter. I feel like most of those media people just watched 3 games of the Colts and switched us off for the rest of the season. They just know "Colts need to protect Luck" and go on to give us horrible value RT instead of great players on the board on positions of much bigger need - pass-rush, ILB, S, C, G... damn it... If it was me and some ridiculous value isn't there, I'd be OK with us not drafting an OT at all in this draft.

I'm assuming they are either trying to be funny which I have felt that way at points. Or they feel Conklin will be gone before our pick so Decker will truly be the BPA for O line, we need O line so therefore they feel we should take Decker. They are not allowing us BPA, only BLA. Best Lineman Available at our pick only. Anything else and they feel we have failed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stitches said:

After months of senseless and ridiculous mock drafts by media pundits(some have us TRADING UP to get Conklin or Decker), right now I have more trust in Grigson than in the media to make the pick, and that's a sentence I never expected to utter. I feel like most of those media people just watched 3 games of the Colts and switched us off for the rest of the season. They just know "Colts need to protect Luck" and go on to give us horrible value RT instead of great players on the board on positions of much bigger need - pass-rush, ILB, S, C, G... damn it... If it was me and some ridiculous value isn't there, I'd be OK with us not drafting an OT at all in this draft.

It's terrible logic. I'm not against needs based drafting as long as it is BPA driven. OT is not our biggest need, nor do I think a scenario exists where Taylor is BPA at 18.  So I don't think Kiper has a clue.

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I entered the topic thinking "If this is another mock with us taking Decker or Kelly in the 1st I'm done ". And sure enough I'm right.

 

Why do people keep mocking us Decker? The needs are on the interior of the line. Just seems like a lazy analysis to me. Just like how everyone mocks TEs to Green Bay round 1 every year.

It baffles me. I'm not against us taking Decker, I'm against us taking him for these those reasons alone, when that seems to be disposition for Kiper. All I'm hearing is stupid.

57 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

People just don't get it LOL. That's NOT a grade A mock. Taylor Decker would be a terrible pick.  A grade A mock rounds 1-3 is getting 3 day 1 starters.

 

1 Noah Spence EDGE

2 Christian Westerman G

3 Karl Joseph Safety

 

That's a Grade A mock.

This would be better. Not ideal, IMO, but better. I think you have your 2nd and 3rd backwards base on player grades, but that's no big deal. I see Spence as a day 2 prospect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Cravens a SAM? How?

What do u mean how? He's played on the strongside before. I think the colts have a pretty good idea what they want done with the guy. We have showed interest more than once. I can't agree with the not a scheme fit part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's terrible logic. I'm not against needs based drafting as long as it is BPA driven. OT is not our biggest need, nor do I think a scenario exists where Taylor is BPA at 18.  So I don't think Kiper has a clue.

It baffles me. I'm not against us taking Decker, I'm against us taking him for these those reasons alone, when that seems to be disposition for Kiper. All I'm hearing is stupid.

This would be better. Not ideal, IMO, but better. I think you have your 2nd and 3rd backwards base on player grades, but that's no big deal. I see Spence as a day 2 prospect. 

 

It just seems like he and others just say " Oh Luck was injured and the Colts line is bad so they'll take whatever offensive lineman is there". That's terrible reasoning. 

 

I don't want Decker at 18, but I'm not opposed to taking an offensive lineman there. Just like when we get mocked Kelly at 18. It's a reach but we need a center so I guess value means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

People just don't get it LOL. That's NOT a grade A mock. Taylor Decker would be a terrible pick.  A grade A mock rounds 1-3 is getting 3 day 1 starters.

 

1 Noah Spence EDGE

2 Christian Westerman G

3 Karl Joseph Safety

 

That's a Grade A mock.

 

1.     It's not a grade A draft if Noah Spence is not on our board,  and the likelihood is strong that he's not on our first round board.     How far down he is is anyone's guess.

 

2.    Odds are strong that Joseph is not there at 81 when we pick in the 3rd round.    I'd love to get him,  but I don't see him lasting that long....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Remember with Kiper.....    he was the first draft analyst to mock Ryan Kelly to the Colts.   It hasn't always been about Decker.    And Kiper's exercise here does not allow for trades.

 

The Kelly pick is even worse than Decker. IMO. I can get on board with him looking at C and OG, but he doesn't seem to have the first clue with maximizing value out of each pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

It just seems like he and others just say " Oh Luck was injured and the Colts line is bad so they'll take whatever offensive lineman is there". That's terrible reasoning. 

 

I don't want Decker at 18, but I'm not opposed to taking an offensive lineman there. Just like when we get mocked Kelly at 18. It's a reach but we need a center so I guess value means nothing.

Agree with u on the terroble reasoning bit.  I don't see OL being a value pick at 18 under any circumstance outside of Tunsil or Stanley. IMO.

56 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

1.     It's not a grade A draft if Noah Spence is not on our board,  and the likelihood is strong that he's not on our first round board.     How far down he is is anyone's guess.

 

2.    Odds are strong that Joseph is not there at 81 when we pick in the 3rd round.    I'd love to get him,  but I don't see him lasting that long....

 

I do agree with this however. I think his Westerman and Joseph picks are backward (if we get Joseph at all). But I'm still not a fan of Spence at 18. Talent-wise u don't think we should take him at 18, let alone red flags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, krunk said:

What do u mean how? He's played on the strongside before. I think the colts have a pretty good idea what they want done with the guy. We have showed interest more than once. I can't agree with the not a scheme fit part.

Fair enough. I think you couldn't be any more wrong, but I won't push it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, krunk said:

What do u mean how? He's played on the strongside before. I think the colts have a pretty good idea what they want done with the guy. We have showed interest more than once. I can't agree with the not a scheme fit part.

 

I think he means Cravens is not a 3-4 Sam. He's really not even a 4-3 Sam. Whatever he does, he needs to be on the weakside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It's terrible logic. I'm not against needs based drafting as long as it is BPA driven. OT is not our biggest need, nor do I think a scenario exists where Taylor is BPA at 18.  So I don't think Kiper has a clue.

 

He does have a clue, that's what makes it so bad. He's just being boorish. Taylor will be a good player. He could start at RT right away, and he has some guard potential, probably his best potential as a matter of fact. I think he'll be fine. But like you said, he's not going to be near the top of a reasonable board at #18. I haven't done an actual board, and I probably won't before the draft, but I think Decker is probably in the mid to late 30s on my list. If you just have to give the Colts an OL, I think Kelly and Whitehair should be ahead of Decker, and Kelly plays the position the Colts need the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Bucannon.

That's the guy, thanks. I drafted him in my fantasy league (it's a dynasty league where the draft pool is the same year's  rookie class).  Just his name was evading me. Great talent for for what the Cards use him as, though it took a solid year to get him settled in. Cravens can be that type, but we don't have a good enough front to let him roam free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He does have a clue, that's what makes it so bad. He's just being boorish. Taylor will be a good player. He could start at RT right away, and he has some guard potential, probably his best potential as a matter of fact. I think he'll be fine. But like you said, he's not going to be near the top of a reasonable board at #18. I haven't done an actual board, and I probably won't before the draft, but I think Decker is probably in the mid to late 30s on my list. If you just have to give the Colts an OL, I think Kelly and Whitehair should be ahead of Decker, and Kelly plays the position the Colts need the most.

Maybe you are right, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who says something in the name of being boorish. Reputation only goes so far,or at least that's how it should be.

 

Anyway, nothing against Decker. I do like him, just not where he continually gets mocked to the Colts at 18. I think it's fair to draft him in the early 20s (say 24-ish) and he should at least be the 5th tackle off the board, which is in the ballpark of what you are saying. Probably reasonably drafted somewhere in the middle. If that's our guy, fine...trade your butt down and stop being an * at #18, Kiper.

 

PS, Kelly and Whitehair are fine talents as well. I get this weird suspicion the Whitehair will be gone by the early 30s, but that's unadulterated speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Sam - in either alignment -  is what I was aiming at. CravenS will struggle at both in my opinion FWIW.

His best bet is s 4-3 SAM IMO. It makes the best use of his talents and will mask his flaws. I don't think there's any shot that he could be a 3-4 SAM. No one should suggest that. If he were to play anywhere in a 4-3 it'd be the spot Freeman played as the coverage LB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think he means Cravens is not a 3-4 Sam. He's really not even a 4-3 Sam. Whatever he does, he needs to be on the weakside.

He can do either to me. Obviously he'd need to gain some weight to do so in a 3-4 defense but I'm not the first to say he could play the Sam in a 3-4 defense. His main thing would be Will because of his ability to chase but he's versatile enough to do more than just the Will. I'm sure that's why the Colts have shown him a decent ant of attention. He's not off limits at much off anything. He even gets sacks when asked to sack the QB. I think he fits just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

His best bet is s 4-3 SAM IMO. It makes the best use of his talents and will mask his flaws. I don't think there's any shot that he could be a 3-4 SAM. No one should suggest that. If he were to play anywhere in a 4-3 it'd be the spot Freeman played as the coverage LB.

He has an outside chance at 4-e Sam, bit I think his best bet is at weakside and nickel back hybrid mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. 1 minute ago, OffensivelyPC said:

    He has an outside chance at 4-e Sam, bit I think his best bet is at weakside and nickel back hybrid mentioned above.

    Sam wont be is main position. I agree its the will, but do you really think he will stay at 223 lbs in the NFL? He's going to bulk up to at least 240 and add strength. I think they like him because of the variety of things they could ask him to do situationally. To me he's not stuck playing any one linebacker position. He can be used a multitude of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, krunk said:
  1. Sam wont be is main position. I agree its the will, but do you really think he will stay at 223 lbs in the NFL? He's going to bulk up to at least 240 and add strength. I think they like him because of the variety of things they could ask him to do situationally. To me he's not stuck playing any one linebacker position. He can be used a multitude of ways.

The problem with that rationale for some teams is that when you go and change a guy to the degree you are suggesting, it comes at the expense of some of the traits that currently make him appealing. So for instance, there's a good possibility  Cravens speed and agility will take a hit if you bulk him up. The question is, by how much? And no one can really answer that question until after he was drafted. So teams who feel that he must bulk up in order to find a fit within their system may shy away from him because they feel a second round pick does not justify that gamble (i.e. the risk outweighs the reward).

 

Plus, even if Cravens did bulk up, he is still terribly short lengthed that he will probably struggle quite a bit with shedding blockers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The problem with that rationale for some teams is that when you go and change a guy to the degree you are suggesting, it comes at the expense of some of the traits that currently make him appealing. So for instance, there's a good possibility  Cravens speed and agility will take a hit if you bulk him up. The question is, by how much? And no one can really answer that question until after he was drafted. So teams who feel that he must bulk up in order to find a fit within their system may shy away from him because they feel a second round pick does not justify that gamble (i.e. the risk outweighs the reward).

 

Plus, even if Cravens did bulk up, he is still terribly short lengthed that he will probably struggle quite a bit with shedding blockers.

our will linebackers play at 240lbs. Sylvestre came into the league at 221 and is now 242. Cravens is going to bulk up regardless no matter what linebacker you put him at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say a C-.

 

Decker is okay but overrated. Unless it's Conklin I'm not a fan of taking any of the usual suspect Olinemen in the 1st.

Cravens is a tweener, who again is overrated. Too small to impactful at LB, not good enough in coverage to be a Safety for us.

Johnson is good. Not sure he's there in the 3rd though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The problem with that rationale for some teams is that when you go and change a guy to the degree you are suggesting, it comes at the expense of some of the traits that currently make him appealing. So for instance, there's a good possibility  Cravens speed and agility will take a hit if you bulk him up. The question is, by how much? And no one can really answer that question until after he was drafted. So teams who feel that he must bulk up in order to find a fit within their system may shy away from him because they feel a second round pick does not justify that gamble (i.e. the risk outweighs the reward).

 

Plus, even if Cravens did bulk up, he is still terribly short lengthed that he will probably struggle quite a bit with shedding blockers.

He is an inch shorter than Walden

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...