Depending on health, Colts run D could be NASTY good.

[Lawrence Owen]

But it all depends on people staying healthy.  

D-line:  When Anderson was healthy, they limited main RB's to VERY low averages (3 YPC or less).  It was back-ups ,aka change of pace backs, that would slip through occasionally and burn us for a 30 yarder once or twice/game.  If Anderson, Langford, Parry, and Jones can stay 'for the most part" healthy the majority of the year, Our D-line could be top 5 in the NFL.

LB's:  DQ can tackle. He may not be the greatest coverage lb in the NFL, but he can tackle downhill.  Freeman's loss could actually be our gain.  Again, depending of their health, Moore and Irving are both known as hard tacklers.  We may loose some coverage skills with this set-up, but tackling should not be among the downgrades.  

X factor:  Geathers.  If he is the new starting S beside Adams, He is our new  (forgive the comparison) "Bob Sanders".  In the time he played last year, he showed us he is more that eager/capable as an 8th man-in-the-box.

 

So in turn, we had the pieces last year for a great run D, but it just was not our time.  Current starter's and injuries hampered the run d progression.  And I did not even delve into the new change in Defensive co-ordinater.

[CR91]

Add in drafting A'Shawn Robinson and no one will run on us

[GoColtsWin]

Having an anchor at NT wouldn't hurt, but I do like who we have in the trenches now. Our D-line is a real strength on our team now. 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

26 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

But it all depends on people staying healthy.  

D-line:  When Anderson was healthy, they limited main RB's to VERY low averages (3 YPC or less).  It was back-ups ,aka change of pace backs, that would slip through occasionally and burn us for a 30 yarder once or twice/game.  If Anderson, Langford, Parry, and Jones can stay 'for the most part" healthy the majority of the year, Our D-line could be top 5 in the NFL.

LB's:  DQ can tackle. He may not be the greatest coverage lb in the NFL, but he can tackle downhill.  Freeman's loss could actually be our gain.  Again, depending of their health, Moore and Irving are both known as hard tacklers.  We may loose some coverage skills with this set-up, but tackling should not be among the downgrades.  

X factor:  Geathers.  If he is the new starting S beside Adams, He is our new  (forgive the comparison) "Bob Sanders".  In the time he played last year, he showed us he is more that eager/capable as an 8th man-in-the-box.

 

So in turn, we had the pieces last year for a great run D, but it just was not our time.  Current starter's and injuries hampered the run d progression.  And I did not even delve into the new change in Defensive co-ordinater.

 

Thank You Mr.Obvious

 

It all depends on staying healthy ... 

[BullsColtsFan1]

I sure hope so!  It's been a while since the Colts had a great run defense.  Add some play making pass rushers and the Colts D will be solid!

[Valpo2004]

I don't know why people keep saying we should draft a DL guy in the first.  With Anderson in there our DL was pretty good last year.  

 

We need secondary help, especially at safety and we could use improvements and younger blood for every position on our linebacking corps.  But DL is a relative strength.  I'd say it's the 3rd strongest position group we have behind QB and WR/TE

 

 

[cdgacoltsfan]

45 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

But it all depends on people staying healthy.

D-line:  When Anderson was healthy, they limited main RB's to VERY low averages (3 YPC or less).  It was back-ups ,aka change of pace backs, that would slip through occasionally and burn us for a 30 yarder once or twice/game.  If Anderson, Langford, Parry, and Jones can stay 'for the most part" healthy the majority of the year, Our D-line could be top 5 in the NFL.

LB's:  DQ can tackle. He may not be the greatest coverage lb in the NFL, but he can tackle downhill.  Freeman's loss could actually be our gain.  Again, depending of their health, Moore and Irving are both known as hard tacklers.  We may loose some coverage skills with this set-up, but tackling should not be among the downgrades.

X factor:  Geathers.  If he is the new starting S beside Adams, He is our new  (forgive the comparison) "Bob Sanders".  In the time he played last year, he showed us he is more that eager/capable as an 8th man-in-the-box.

 

So in turn, we had the pieces last year for a great run D, but it just was not our time.  Current starter's and injuries hampered the run d progression.  And I did not even delve into the new change in Defensive co-ordinater.

The problem is, its a passing league.

[krunk]

33 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

The problem is, its a passing league.

 

Tell that to all the teams in our division who are stacking up on running backs and the teams who when they see we have problems stopping the run they run it down our throats.

[MSColtsFan]

26 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

The problem is, its a passing league.

This year the Colts will play half of their games against teams who finished in the top half of the NFL in rushing last season.  And all three divisional opponents added RBs.  I'd be shocked if Tennessee finished 25th again, with DeMarco.  He'll get fed. 

 

You're right, it is a passing league, but when you know it's going to be pass, force it to be pass, playing defense gets a lot easier.  That starts with stopping the run, by doing so on the field, or taking leads in games. 

 

9 of the top 10 rushing defenses in the NFL last season made the  playoffs, The Jets were the only exception, and they went 10-6 and were the last team to be eliminated from playoff contention.  Denver and Carolina ranked 3 and 4, as the SB teams.  Stopping the run still matters I think. 

[krunk]

52 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

I don't know why people keep saying we should draft a DL guy in the first.  With Anderson in there our DL was pretty good last year.  

 

We need secondary help, especially at safety and we could use improvements and younger blood for every position on our linebacking corps.  But DL is a relative strength.  I'd say it's the 3rd strongest position group we have behind QB and WR/TE

 

 

 

If a DL is the best player available on the board and it's clearly that way do you think Grigson is going to pick a need? If you do, then you didn't listen to his press conference.

[chad72]

If anything, it is our pass D that needs the most work from pass rush to 2nd CB to LB coverage.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

We need to give our DLine a nick name,

How bout BLUE CRUSH?

any suggestions???

[MarquisJ]

whoever the BPA when the colts pick trust that they will pick that player regardless of need

[BProland85]

I still feel that Indy needs to add another talented DL player early before I could see them being a nasty DL. Anderson is very good, but Langford isn't getting any younger and adding a potential dominant DL player like Vernon Butler or Billings would go a long way to improving this defense. 

[Hoosiernsavga]

Well i think it will be either Nasty as in bad.

Or just Good.

Add Billings then it will be Nasty Good   

[jskinnz]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

But it all depends on people staying healthy.  

D-line:  When Anderson was healthy, they limited main RB's to VERY low averages (3 YPC or less).  It was back-ups ,aka change of pace backs, that would slip through occasionally and burn us for a 30 yarder once or twice/game.  If Anderson, Langford, Parry, and Jones can stay 'for the most part" healthy the majority of the year, Our D-line could be top 5 in the NFL.

LB's:  DQ can tackle. He may not be the greatest coverage lb in the NFL, but he can tackle downhill.  Freeman's loss could actually be our gain.  Again, depending of their health, Moore and Irving are both known as hard tacklers.  We may loose some coverage skills with this set-up, but tackling should not be among the downgrades.  

X factor:  Geathers.  If he is the new starting S beside Adams, He is our new  (forgive the comparison) "Bob Sanders".  In the time he played last year, he showed us he is more that eager/capable as an 8th man-in-the-box.

 

So in turn, we had the pieces last year for a great run D, but it just was not our time.  Current starter's and injuries hampered the run d progression.  And I did not even delve into the new change in Defensive co-ordinater.

 

I like the enthusiasm and I guess time will tell if you are right but I kind of think the overall premise of the thread is flawed.  The yards gained by those 2nd tier, change of pace backs count as well and show that the Colts' Run D really was not very good.  Losing Anderson certainly hurt but let's not pretend teams could never run on them when he was in the line up.  26th in total D and 25th in rushing defense indicate they were not very good.  

[Valpo2004]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

 

If a DL is the best player available on the board and it's clearly that way do you think Grigson is going to pick a need? If you do, then you didn't listen to his press conference.

 

And that's my problem.  He'd pick another WR again if he thinks that's the BPA.

 

Our draft strategy should be BPA in a position of need.  Not just BPA.

 

Go straight BPA and we may end up drafting a quarterback in the first round.  

[BPindy]

3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

And that's my problem.  He'd pick another WR again if he thinks that's the BPA.

 

Our draft strategy should be BPA in a position of need.  Not just BPA.

 

Go straight BPA and we may end up drafting a quarterback in the first round.  

 

Yeah no way on earth is a QB going to be BPA in this draft

[krunk]

11 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

And that's my problem.  He'd pick another WR again if he thinks that's the BPA.

 

Our draft strategy should be BPA in a position of need.  Not just BPA.

 

Go straight BPA and we may end up drafting a quarterback in the first round.  

 

BPA has been discussed on here ad nauseum.  Have you seen him take any quarterbacks BPA? No so obviously there are considerations and things you have to adjust in the decision making. 

[Valpo2004]

49 minutes ago, bap03Colts said:

 

Yeah no way on earth is a QB going to be BPA in this draft

 

Maybe not this year. . . Could be in the future.

[Valpo2004]

38 minutes ago, krunk said:

 

BPA has been discussed on here ad nauseum.  Have you seen him take any quarterbacks BPA? No so obviously there are considerations and things you have to adjust in the decision making. 

 

It's simply the wrong headed strategy and this team is left all the more bereft of talent for Grigson having used it.  

[krunk]

14 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It's simply the wrong headed strategy and this team is left all the more bereft of talent for Grigson having used it.  

 

I'm not going to get in to that argument it's been discussed enough.  Plenty of teams use the BPA draft strategy including the Baltimore Ravens and Ozzie Newsome and they've never had problems with Talent on that team. Just say you don't like Grigson for whatever the reason. BPA drafting is a proven draft strategy.  The reason the Ravens ended up with Jonathan Ogden was through BPA drafting.  Lawrence Phillips was on the board and the Ravens "Needed A Running Back" . Even the Ravens owner encouraged Newsome to take Phillips. Ozzie Newsome passed on Phillips and took Ogden. Why?  He said that Ogden was the Best/Highest Rated Player Available.  For some reason when Grigson uses the same logic he gets called a fool. How can you be wrong headed or a fool to seek out the top level football player in any round over the clearly average player? 

[BPindy]

13 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It's simply the wrong headed strategy and this team is left all the more bereft of talent for Grigson having used it.  

 

...so you think that reaching for a player that fills a need when there's superior talent on the board somehow leaves the Colts with less talent?

[Jason_]

37 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

And that's my problem.  He'd pick another WR again if he thinks that's the BPA.

 

Our draft strategy should be BPA in a position of need.  Not just BPA.

 

Go straight BPA and we may end up drafting a quarterback in the first round.  

 

good lord....first, Grigson very clearly explained that if 2 players were graded very closely that need would come into factor.  The only time it doesn't is when the top rated player on their board is graded "significantly" higher than the #2 guy on their board.  That was one of the reasons Dorsett was picked.  The other is that WR WAS A NEED when Dorsett was drafted.  It wasn't the team's biggest need, but it was still a need none-the-less. 

[jskinnz]

27 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

And that's my problem.  He'd pick another WR again if he thinks that's the BPA.

 

Our draft strategy should be BPA in a position of need.  Not just BPA.

 

Go straight BPA and we may end up drafting a quarterback in the first round.  

 

That is an awful draft strategy.

 

I think people take BPA way too literally.  Most teams will have a small cluster of 4-5 players whose value (ranking) is a fit at that team's draft position. The Colts are clearly are not taking a QB at 18. If the highest rated player at their largest need is rated 28th, it is a monumentally stupid decision to take that player at 18.  

 

Another misconception is that teams should draft in the order of need. Again - monumentally stupid.

 

[krunk]

The thing that ruffles my feathers the most is that Grigson always factors need into his decision making.  He just won't take the need player when a situation exists where there is a top flight player to be had.  A player that is head and shoulders above everyone else on the board at the time of the pick.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  As the draft moves along you'll end up having to take some need players anyway because the talent gaps and scores won't be that far apart and he'll go with need players in that case.

[will426]

5 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

I don't know why people keep saying we should draft a DL guy in the first.  With Anderson in there our DL was pretty good last year.  

 

We need secondary help, especially at safety and we could use improvements and younger blood for every position on our linebacking corps.  But DL is a relative strength.  I'd say it's the 3rd strongest position group we have behind QB and WR/TE

 

 

Well I'm one of those who say draft dline because the edge rushers aren't good in this draft and once again olbs aren't the only ones who cause pressure or get sacks in a Dline strong draft class why force yourself to pick a someone who isn't as talented as the person on the dline? And we could keep rotating the dline constantly 

[will426]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I like the enthusiasm and I guess time will tell if you are right but I kind of think the overall premise of the thread is flawed.  The yards gained by those 2nd tier, change of pace backs count as well and show that the Colts' Run D really was not very good.  Losing Anderson certainly hurt but let's not pretend teams could never run on them when he was in the line up.  26th in total D and 25th in rushing defense indicate they were not very good.  

Did you add the fact that they also had to be on the field 24/7 because of the offense we usually got gashed late when the offense finally started to get going and by then the defense could not hold up any longer..so i still think it wasn't as bad as people make it seem I blame the season on the offense more than I would on the defense 

[IinD]

No problem adding D help, guys are guaranteed to get injured every year.

 

Besides, they are nowhere near the point where you'd say 'wow, why'd they add more talent to that dominant line?'....

[BOTT]

4 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

And that's my problem.  He'd pick another WR again if he thinks that's the BPA.

 

Our draft strategy should be BPA in a position of need.  Not just BPA.

 

Go straight BPA and we may end up drafting a quarterback in the first round.  

DL is stil a need.  Let's not act like the colts front is loaded with talent.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

8 hours ago, chad72 said:

If anything, it is our pass D that needs the most work from pass rush to 2nd CB to LB coverage.

 

Pass Rush/DL are very closely correlated to pass defense.  A faster pass-rush means less coverage time for DBs/LBs.

 

I think Vontae is elite, I think between our recent FA signing/Butler/D'Joun we may be OK at DB (we could always look for upgrades), but I think getting a very good 2nd CB will not do much if we don't address our issues with ability to rush the passer, whereas improving our pass rush will be able to make our DBs look better.

[southwest1]

5 hours ago, krunk said:

The thing that ruffles my feathers the most is that Grigson always factors need into his decision making.  He just won't take the need player when a situation exists where there is a top flight player to be had.  A player that is head and shoulders above everyone else on the board at the time of the pick.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  As the draft moves along you'll end up having to take some need players anyway because the talent gaps and scores won't be that far apart and he'll go with need players in that case.

This is probably the best explanation of why Ryan frustrates some fans including myself. BPA is usually the approach most GMs follow across the league & I understand why in theory. Supremely athletic guys with a knack for mastering playbooks & rising up to meet their level of competition are an asset when a starters 1st contract is about to expire because if you groom a guy on the practice squad & gradually amp up his reps in regular season games, GMs can release the starter, save money, & slide the 2nd stringer into the starting rotation if he's good enough. 

 

But, at some point, GMs can't keep picking WR candidates at high spots in the draft or assume late round draft picks at LB, pass rusher, or secondary help can fill a hole on your roster simply based on better coaching by new staff hires. 

 

Maybe you're right krunk & new OL coaching & DC coaching will be a vast improvement with new blood on our sidelines, but sometimes it's worth taking a guy in an earlier round just to ensure that the draft pick's level of competition is higher at the college level to ensure that the selection in question can make a faster contribution. The objective here is to win a SB with the least amount of resistance or growing pains possible. 

 

Regulars on here like Dustin, Jvan, Gavin, Archer, Lollygager8, & krunk are much smarter than me when it comes to draft selection than I will ever be & that's cool with me. I guess I just don't wanna squander Luck's talented gifts or lose out on Lombardi trophy runs due to an unnecessary pounding both physically & psychologically that's all. I want a sense of urgency here & Grigs isn't giving that feeling or mindset to me. JMO. 

 

Remember, when we got humiliated in the "Deflate Game?" That was a lost Championship Game opportunity to me & those opportunities can never be retrieved once they get blown & slip thru our franchise's fingers. It just bothers me when we blow golden opportunities to get to a SB. Okay, I'm done ranting now. 

[southwest1]

7 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

good lord....first, Grigson very clearly explained that if 2 players were graded very closely that need would come into factor.  The only time it doesn't is when the top rated player on their board is graded "significantly" higher than the #2 guy on their board.  That was one of the reasons Dorsett was picked.  The other is that WR WAS A NEED when Dorsett was drafted.  It wasn't the team's biggest need, but it was still a need none-the-less. 

True Jason with TY Hilton's contract yet to be ironed out at the time & Reggie Wayne then at the twilight of his soon to be HOF career, I'll accept why Grigs pulled the trigger on the move. Plus, his value on special teams had potential too given his lightning speed. Even I couldn't deny that once I calmed down that is.  

[krunk]

8 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

This is probably the best explanation of why Ryan frustrates some fans including myself. BPA is usually the approach most GMs follow across the league & understand why in theory. Supremely athletic guys with a knack for mastering playbooks & rising up to meet their level of competition are an asset when a starters 1st contract is about to expire because if you groom a guy on the practice squad & gradually amp up his reps in regular season games, GMs can release the starter, save money, & slide the 2nd stringer into the starting rotation if he's good enough. 

 

But, at some point, GMs can't keep picking WR candidates at high spots in the draft or assume late round draft picks at LB, pass rusher, or secondary help can fill a hole on your roster simply based on better coaching by new staff hires. 

 

Maybe your right krunk & new OL coaching & DC coaching will be a vast improvement with new blood on our sidelines, but sometimes it's worth taking a guy in an earlier round just to ensure that the draft pick's level of competition is higher at the college level to ensure that the selection in question can make a faster contribution. The objective here is to win a SB with the least amount of resistance or growing pains possible. 

SW1 who said there's anything wrong with taking a need player in the 1st round? A need player can be the Best And Highest scored player on the board and if that be the case you take him. Where I and for that matter Grigson have a problem with the need player is when there is a much better prospect on the board and you skip that prospect for the inferior player. To put this in lineman terms since all you guys love talking about linemen. If Laremy Tunsil was available by some act of God was available at 18 and we needed pass rushers are you telling me you would be okay with skipping over the chance to draft Tunsil just so we can fill our needs with Camalei Correa? No you would take Tunsil before your eyes blinked! And you would find a later round to add the pass rusher. You may then turn around and find a situation in the second round where a pass rusher you thought would go in the first round is still sitting on the board. We might also need a ILB, but that pass rusher is sitting there as the clear cut BPA well above any linebacker on our needs list. Guess who we are going to pick? We are going to pick that BPA pass rusher and not the lesser ILB. So we went BPA while also filling our needs. Just because you go BPA doesnt mean needs wont be met. There's all kinds of ways to fill needs, but a small window to add long term difference makers to the roster. As Superman always says, the draft is primarily for adding talent to the roster. Adding difference makers first ensures that when you do fill needs you are doing it with quality. I'm fine with adding top rated linemen in any round as long as the lineman is truly the Top Scored player on the Colts board or at least neck and neck with the other players on the board. I have a problem with adding linemen who are vastly inferior to players we have scored higher and are available.

[southwest1]

7 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

That is an awful draft strategy.

 

I think people take BPA way too literally.  Most teams will have a small cluster of 4-5 players whose value (ranking) is a fit at that team's draft position. The Colts are clearly are not taking a QB at 18. If the highest rated player at their largest need is rated 28th, it is a monumentally stupid decision to take that player at 18.  

 

Another misconception is that teams should draft in the order of need. Again - monumentally stupid.

 

Good point jskinnz. BPA isn't usually just 1 guy at a given position because every GM has more than 1 choice to pick from if another team swoops in & takes your guy courtesy of a trade. Yes, I realize it's a captain obvious statement on my part. I will own that. 

 

I just want to see strides moving forward. What do I mean by that? More than just division titles. Learning how to beat squads we struggle against like Pittsburgh & NE. That's what I need to see from Grigs. Moves that stop lopsided AFC foe massacres if nothing else.

[Lawrence Owen]

Another issue is that Indy has had a premiere passing attack for many, many years.   And 75% of teams we face use the strategy to run  the ball as much as possible to keep our offense off the field.  This leads to chunky numbers in the run game.

Last year with Luck out  more than 1/2 the season, our passing attack was not the down field threat it has been in  the past.  With Luck back, and our new D-line, I believe it could go back to them trying to run the ball on us at the beginning of a game, but HAVING to go more towards the passing route against us because they begin to fall behind on the scoreboard.  this would fall back into our hands if we can grab a pass rusher in this draft.  Our d-line not only can bottle a run game, but put pressure on QB's.  Langford had a good season this way, and though Anderson did not have many sacks, he had quite a few pressures.  Having another pass rusher with Mathis on this defense would then be even better. especially in this circumstance.

IDK how our new #2 CB is going to work out, but he's got to be better then our last one.  And we really haven't seen Smith in enough action to determine his contribution.  

Stopping the run is a MUST, and I think we have the tools for it right now. We just need our pass rush to get better, and more consistency from our #2 CB.  

And i believe in BPA as well....to a point.  if you board has a WR, QB, O-lineman, pass rusher in that order left on your pick...you have to skip the first two...but if your board have the o-line and pass rush talent another level lower than WR or qb..then you have to go with BPA....IMO.

[southwest1]

20 minutes ago, krunk said:

SW1 who said there's anything wrong with taking a need player in the 1st round? A need player can be the Best And Highest scored player on the board and if that be the case you take him. Where I and for that matter Grigson have a problem with the need player is when there is a much better prospect on the board and you skip that prospect for the inferior player. To put this in lineman terms since all you guys love talking about linemen. If Laremy Tunsil was available by some act of God was available at 18 and we needed pass rushers are you telling me you would be okay with skipping over the chance to draft Tunsil just so we can fill our needs with Camalei Correa? No you would take Tunsil before your eyes blinked! And you would find a later round to add the pass rusher. You may then turn around and find a situation in the second round where a pass rusher you thought would go in the first round is still sitting on the board. We might also need a ILB, but that pass rusher is sitting there as the clear cut BPA well above any linebacker on our needs list. Guess who we are going to pick? We are going to pick that BPA pass rusher and not the lesser ILB. So we went BPA while also filling our needs. Just because you go BPA doesnt mean needs wont be met. There's all kinds of ways to fill needs, but a small window to add long term difference makers to the roster. As Superman always says, the draft is primarily for adding talent to the roster. Adding difference makers first ensures that when you do fill needs you are doing it with quality. I'm fine with adding top rated linemen in any round as long as the lineman is truly the Top Scored player on the Colts board or at least neck and neck with the other players on the board. I have a problem with adding linemen who are vastly inferior to players we have scored higher and are available.

Thank you for your detailed explanation regarding how you look at best player available krunk. Your Tunsil example is a good one because if talent falls in the draft & is just sitting out there waiting to find an NFL home it doesn't mean that their skill set sucks. It usually just means that teams are set at the left tackle spot. 

 

I guess I just need to view the later rounds as not subpar talent just guys that played ball at smaller schools or they were passed over due to ACL tears or recovering knee or shoulder surgeries for instance. I will admit to you that I typically saw lower draft rounds as a wider gap to close performance wise on an NFL scale. Quality doesn't deteriorate based on round just a guy's level of competition in a given college conference. Fair point. 

 

I just want to see better yards on the ground & less contact on Luck this year. Anyway, thanks for your feedback krunk. I appreciate it. 

[krunk]

27 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Thank you for your detailed explanation regarding how you look at best player available krunk. Your Tunsil example is a good one because if talent falls in the draft & is just sitting out there waiting to find an NFL home it doesn't mean that their skill set sucks. It usually just means that teams are set at the left tackle spot. 

 

I guess I just need to view the later rounds as not subpar talent just guys that played ball at smaller schools or they were passed over due to ACL tears or recovering knee or shoulder surgeries for instance. I will admit to you that I typically saw lower draft rounds as a wider gap to close performance wise on an NFL scale. Quality doesn't deteriorate based on round just a guy's level of competition in a given college conference. Fair point. 

 

I just want to see better yards on the ground & less contact on Luck this year. Anyway, thanks for your feedback krunk. I appreciate it. 

Remember Tom Brady came from the 6th round.  Jeff Saturday undrafted, Donald Driver 7th round pick,   Arian Foster undrafted.  The very early rounds are supposedly your biggest shot to get "Elite Talent" but really it can be found anywhere if your scouting is on point.  Draft is just like the Real Estate market, some investors like to acquire deals in the nice areas next to the good schools, but there's other investors who buy deals in the slums and marginal neighborhoods while making a killing.  The lower rounds are viewed like that bad neighborhood by most fans but it's been proven you can get good deals/players there.  Allow your mind to understand BPA drafting can still lead to you filling need positions as there are scenarios that exist where you may pass over one lower scored need position and fill another need position with BPA. Not that you were "trying to fill needs", it just happens that the board produced a BPA player who was at a need position.  This can happen in any round.  The other scenario using Grigsons example is when the BPA player is scored within the same range of your needs player. In that scenario Grigson will take the need player.  This is in any round. 

[JPFolks]

13 hours ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

The problem is, its a passing league.

We need a young safety who can cover and stop the run both.  But he HAS to be able to cover as we have weak LB coverage.  I don't think Geathers is that guy.  

[krunk]

7 hours ago, JPFolks said:

We need a young safety who can cover and stop the run both.  But he HAS to be able to cover as we have weak LB coverage.  I don't think Geathers is that guy.  

 

It remains to be seen with Geathers in terms of the coverage JP, but I have to say I am a bit skeptical until I'm proven wrong.