Grigsons draft strategy (BPA)

[jim scheurich]

I have a sinking feeling that myself along with at least half of the colts fans are going to be pretty upset after the draft. Grigson says looks weak to draft for need. wonder how he rates looking strong Vs. looking stupid???

[CheezyColt]

Colts fans will certainly be upset after the draft, but it has more to do with unrealistic expectations than anything else. Drafting for need is weak. I agree with Grigson there. People are going to tear whatever pick he makes to shreds and call him names no matter who he picks. It's got to be exhausting being so permanently upset at something we have no control over. 

[stitches]

The good news is that there aren't many WRs and RBs that are likely to be high on his board And BTW I absolutely agree with his BPA strategy...

[Zach Boyd]

I absolutely agree with his BPA approach the problem is he never selects the BPA I realize in his mind he does but he has proven for four years now that he just hasn't been a great talent evaluator !!! If a guy is on your board as the eightenth best player but in reality he is the 45th best player that does not make it logical it just means that he does not evaluate talent as well as others . Being off by five picks is fine being off by a half a round or even more in some cases is just puzzling . I just feel like he tries to get to cute at times I.E. phillip dorsett etc..

[funktacious2]

25 minutes ago, Zach Boyd said:

I absolutely agree with his BPA approach the problem is he never selects the BPA I realize in his mind he does but he has proven for four years now that he just hasn't been a great talent evaluator !!! If a guy is on your board as the eightenth best player but in reality he is the 45th best player that does not make it logical it just means that he does not evaluate talent as well as others . Being off by five picks is fine being off by a half a round or even more in some cases is just puzzling . I just feel like he tries to get to cute at times I.E. phillip dorsett etc..

We've barely seen Dorsett play.  Some seem to think he could be really good. Let's give him a couple of years. He was hurt and not all receivers break out in year one. Nooowww Werner and Richardson. Those are first round failures.

[MSColtsFan]

21 minutes ago, Zach Boyd said:

I absolutely agree with his BPA approach the problem is he never selects the BPA I realize in his mind he does but he has proven for four years now that he just hasn't been a great talent evaluator !!! If a guy is on your board as the eightenth best player but in reality he is the 45th best player that does not make it logical it just means that he does not evaluate talent as well as others . Being off by five picks is fine being off by a half a round or even more in some cases is just puzzling . I just feel like he tries to get to cute at times I.E. phillip dorsett etc..

Mayock for one had Werner and Dorsett within a handful of picks of where they were taken.  Richardson was a bad decision, but he too was rated highly (we all have learned incorrectly now, just like Werner).  And Luck remains the number one prospect in theory and reality from that draft.  And the funny thing is Grigs I think has done better than many GMs with later picks.  The Colts have starters and had production in all of his drafts except 2013 which was, at least to me, his worst.  But he hit on many in later rounds in all other years.  It's the huge misses with two first rounders and the unknown of Dorsett which makes him seem lost.  I'm not sure perception is reality though.  

 

But those players were ranked on many boards exactly where they were taken.  I don't think he missed.  I think the players failed.  It happens.  

[hoosierhawk]

I agree to a point. but if you're drafting at 18 and your board says BPA is a WR and 19 is either a OL or a OLB do you take the WR? I don't.

 

 

[krunk]

2 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

I have a sinking feeling that myself along with at least half of the colts fans are going to be pretty upset after the draft. Grigson says looks weak to draft for need. wonder how he rates looking strong Vs. looking stupid???

That's not what he said. You are back stretching the truth again.

[weslo1812]

3 hours ago, Zach Boyd said:

I absolutely agree with his BPA approach the problem is he never selects the BPA I realize in his mind he does but he has proven for four years now that he just hasn't been a great talent evaluator !!! If a guy is on your board as the eightenth best player but in reality he is the 45th best player that does not make it logical it just means that he does not evaluate talent as well as others . Being off by five picks is fine being off by a half a round or even more in some cases is just puzzling . I just feel like he tries to get to cute at times I.E. phillip dorsett etc..

Your blaming only Grigson here....does he not have scouts and coaches that evaluate talent and help put the board together??? Do you think Grigson is the only one who evaluates and only his say and opinions are considered when putting the board together??? That's alot of people's issue here is they wanna act like Grigson is basically the only one who scouts and he's the one who soley puts the draft board together and that everything is him and only him and so all blame goes just to him. That's not accurate nor fair at all!!! am I saying he's completely innocent, no. But he's not the only one in the process so he doesn't really deserve all the blame. And while he AND his staff may not be great talent evaluators he's not horrible either...look at guys like Parry, Anderson, Moncrief, Hilton who we got in round 3 or later. So that shows something. We just have to get better at getting our First round picks right...that's really been the issue.

[loudnproudcolt]

Grigson will be put on the barbeque no matter what. I think the only pick most people would like is if Conklin were to fall to us, or someone who was rated much higher dropped due to QB's going ahead of us.

 

The only other way I see him not being crucified after next Thursday, if we are able to move back, and pick up a couple of extra choices. Everyone wants that, it is just not easy. 2 to tango.

 

For my part, I would be pleased with Conklin, but I just don't understand when Ryan Kelly is ranked by most experts in their top 50, and essentially after the 15th pick, all those players come into play, why except for a few people on this board don't see him as BPA and a need. Jeremiah has him rated as his 21st best player. Does that not fit the BPA and need unless someone really good drops. I want something who is quality, and each source I hear say they are plug and play players immediately. That is rare for lineman these days, and where we pick, Kelly and possibly Conklin would be the only two players who we can plug and play. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Kelly is not sexy, but it is a solid pick I think we would be happy with for the next decade.

[Carlos Danger]

In my view, its hard for Grigson to mess up the draft with all of the needs on this team...

 

I do think that the media will jump all over him regardless, but there are a ton of ways to nail this draft, especially if we get a quality center, free safety, and edge rusher, but there are a bunch of players that can help us immediately at DL, ILB, and OG as well. 

[SaturdayAllDay]

4 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

I agree to a point. but if you're drafting at 18 and your board says BPA is a WR and 19 is either a OL or a OLB do you take the WR? I don't.

 

 

Depends. If the WR is seen as a way better prospect, then yes. If they are similar in grades then you take the player who fits a need. That's how BPA works and how it is implemented by every gm who uses the BPA approach. Not sure why people seem to think that it would be so black and white. 

[richard pallo]

For the most part I think GM's draft BPA in position of need not just BPA.  The only teams that might not are teams who have very strong playoff teams without glaring needs and who could take BPA regardless.  And even then they could still go need.  We did it last year and took Dorsett because we thought we had a SB team after FA.  Carolina could do it this year but now they lost Norman so now they have a need.  It will be interesting to see what they do.  This years draft is supposed to be filled with highly ranked DL.  Using BPA there should be a boatload taken in the 1st. round this year.   But I think teams will try to fill a need and take BPA in position of need.   Two teams just traded up to take QB's who were not BPA  but players they needed and are BPA for their position.   I don't think Grigson will just take BPA. This is a new year.   He has some glaring needs now and he will use his draft position to fill them.  We don't know where he has Spence or Kelly or Ragland or Whitehair on his board but I think it's reasonable to assume we are not just going BPA  and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  

[jskinnz]

12 hours ago, krunk said:

That's not what he said. You are back stretching the truth again.

 

Shocking that he is back with the same inability to comprehend

[jskinnz]

15 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

I have a sinking feeling that myself along with at least half of the colts fans are going to be pretty upset after the draft. Grigson says looks weak to draft for need. wonder how he rates looking strong Vs. looking stupid???

 

So are you of the belief that biggest needs should be addressed in order of importance?

 

If picking at 18 and the highest rated player in their position of need is at 30th on the Colts board, you would advocate picking that player at 18 regardless?

[rockywoj]

I still think BPA is generally a bit of a fallacy.  BPA ALWAYS has to be balanced by need, and vice versa.

 

It is rare that a single player is just so heads and tails above all others available at the same pick number.  There is usually a grouping of players that are similarly rated and THAT is where need comes in.  If you have a group of players available that are all roughly rated at about the same talent level, with all things being equal, then you choose the one from the group that best fills need.  To do otherwise, well I consider such to be assinine, for the BPA argument is usually splitting hairs.

 

Sure, if there is an absolute clear cut separation between the talent of one player and all the rest, then unless the team is already super deep at the position, then go ahead and choose the BPA, but like I said, usually the talent level at any given pick number entails a group of players all similarly rated.

 

Amazing to me how "BPA" has so many disciples considering it gospel when in fact to be so polarized is such a narrow view.

[jim scheurich]

19 hours ago, krunk said:

That's not what he said. You are back stretching the truth again.

That's what I read on colts.com

[jim scheurich]

7 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

So are you of the belief that biggest needs should be addressed in order of importance?

 

If picking at 18 and the highest rated player in their position of need is at 30th on the Colts board, you would advocate picking that player at 18 regardless?

It would depend on the position.  in some cases I would. Obviously I think of building a team differently than most do. I think of a house. Fix what needs fixed the most, and what u can afford to fix. then move on to what needs fixed 2nd priority, so on...

[Superman]

Didn't you start this same thread a month ago?

[krunk]

13 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

That's what I read on colts.com

 

That's not what you read.  He did not say "Only go BPA, Ignore need at all times".  This is how you planted the head line.  He said when player A is clearly better than player B,C, D who are need players he is going to take player A because his scouts put a lot of work into identifying the best prospects so it would defy the scouting process.   He's already spoken before at this time last year stating that if the BPA is very close talent wise to the need players on the board he'll pick a need player.   You put things out there for us to read it as "Grigson said forget about needs" and it's not what he said. 

[jim scheurich]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

Didn't you start this same thread a month ago?

similar, I read grigsons article on .com and couldn't help myself. I almost didn't say anything, but I did.

[jim scheurich]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

 

That's not what you read.  He did not say "Only go BPA, Ignore need at all times".  This is how you planted the head line.  He said when player A is clearly better than player B,C, D who are need players he is going to take player A because his scouts put a lot of work into identifying the best prospects so it would defy the scouting process.   He's already spoken before at this time last year stating that if the BPA is very close talent wise to the need players on the board he'll pick a need player.   You put things out there for us to read it as "Grigson said forget about needs" and it's not what he said. 

Dude, I was only generalizing what he said. The article said drafting for need is weak, how do u want me to take that? I saw it would be disrespectful to scouts. so what?

[krunk]

5 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

Dude, I was only generalizing what he said. The article said drafting for need is weak, how do u want me to take that? I saw it would be disrespectful to scouts. so what?

The article did not say drafting for needs is weak.  He said it's weak to pick need players when you have top level talent available on the board. It defies the scouting process.  That's a totally different thing than saying "Drafting for needs is weak".  Grigson does draft for needs and he's given us his criteria for when he chooses to do that. 

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

similar, I read grigsons article on .com and couldn't help myself. I almost didn't say anything, but I did.

You misunderstood it both times

[krunk]

6 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

Dude, I was only generalizing what he said. The article said drafting for need is weak, how do u want me to take that? I saw it would be disrespectful to scouts. so what?

 

What do you mean so what?  He's advised by his scouts, so he should say screw what they tell him?

[jim scheurich]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

The article did not say drafting for needs is weak.  He said it's weak to pick need players when you have top level talent available on the board. It defies the scouting process.  That's a totally different thing than saying "Drafting for needs is weak".  Grigson does draft for needs and he's given use his criteria for when he chooses to do that. 

weak to take need players is all I needed to see. Maybe, probably I'm oversimplifying things, I have a tendency to do that. 

[Cynjin]

Just now, jim scheurich said:

weak to take need players is all I needed to see. Maybe, probably I'm oversimplifying things, I have a tendency to do that. 

 

Admitting there is a problem is the first step toward rehabilitation.

[jim scheurich]

6 minutes ago, krunk said:

 

What do you mean so what?  He's advised by his scouts, so he should say screw what they tell him?

Does he have an opinion?

[krunk]

1 minute ago, jim scheurich said:

Does he have an opinion?

 

Surely he does but how often do you think that is going to fall outside of the information his scouts gathered?  Not a whole lot. 

[jim scheurich]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

 

Surely he does but how often do you think that is going to fall outside of the information his scouts gathered?  Not a whole lot. 

probably not. I just hope he makes some good decisions on the draft days. That is all I'm trying to say, There are some positions that are hurting more that others. I just don't want to see more others.

[jim scheurich]

12 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Admitting there is a problem is the first step toward rehabilitation.

thanks for the thoughts. Ill be o.k.

[Defjamz26]

8 hours ago, rockywoj said:

I still think BPA is generally a bit of a fallacy.  BPA ALWAYS has to be balanced by need, and vice versa.

 

It is rare that a single player is just so heads and tails above all others available at the same pick number.  There is usually a grouping of players that are similarly rated and THAT is where need comes in.  If you have a group of players available that are all roughly rated at about the same talent level, with all things being equal, then you choose the one from the group that best fills need.  To do otherwise, well I consider such to be assinine, for the BPA argument is usually splitting hairs.

 

Sure, if there is an absolute clear cut separation between the talent of one player and all the rest, then unless the team is already super deep at the position, then go ahead and choose the BPA, but like I said, usually the talent level at any given pick number entails a group of players all similarly rated.

 

Amazing to me how "BPA" has so many disciples considering it gospel when in fact to be so polarized is such a narrow view.

Exactly how I see it. BPA is a loose term. There are other factors that come into play.

 

Also, anyone who says that teams who draft for need aren't successful is wrong.

 

A lot of this argument is speculative though because we never know what a team's draft board looks like.

[CoachLite]

BPA is part of a good draft strategy IF the war room can evaluate talent to determine "best". I think this is where Grigson (and everyone else) is suspect.

[GwinnettColt]

Drafting for BPA is questionable when you haven't done much in FA to fill holes.  

 

I like the idea of BPA in major areas of need, whatever they may be at that time. 

[jskinnz]

BPA is part of a good draft strategy IF the war room can evaluate talent to determine "best". I think this is where Grigson (and everyone else) is suspect.

I don't understand this. Every team has hits and misses with their board / rankings. It is not an exact science that is full proof.

So accepting that as true would the same same issues be in effect if drafting by need? I mean wouldn't they still evaluate incorrectly ?

[jskinnz]

 

So are you of the belief that biggest needs should be addressed in order of importance?

 

If picking at 18 and the highest rated player in their position of need is at 30th on the Colts board, you would advocate picking that player at 18 regardless?

It would depend on the position.  in some cases I would. Obviously I think of building a team differently than most do. I think of a house. Fix what needs fixed the most, and what u can afford to fix. then move on to what needs fixed 2nd priority, so on...

Yeah the concept eluded you in the thread a month ago. It appears you have not learned since then either.

[CoachLite]

If there is a player that is far and away a "better football player" than others that are available in the draft, but one you have no need for, then that player becomes an excellent trading opportunity. It is a waste of talent and a mistake to have players on your team that you don't need (you can't use to great advantage).

 

"Our offense has fielded 11 of the best wide receivers in the league, all at once," Splat.

[throwing BBZ]

On 4/22/2016 at 9:16 PM, Zach Boyd said:

I absolutely agree with his BPA approach the problem is he never selects the BPA I realize in his mind he does but he has proven for four years now that he just hasn't been a great talent evaluator !!! If a guy is on your board as the eightenth best player but in reality he is the 45th best player that does not make it logical it just means that he does not evaluate talent as well as others . Being off by five picks is fine being off by a half a round or even more in some cases is just puzzling . I just feel like he tries to get to cute at times I.E. phillip dorsett etc..

 

 Thank you Zach.
They supposedly had Dorsett on our board at 18. Way over rated his return skills i am left to guess.
    His record is weak, and Player development has also been unacceptable.
  
 

[jvan1973]

7 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Thank you Zach.
They supposedly had Dorsett on our board at 18. Way over rated his return skills i am left to guess.
    His record is weak, and Player development has also been unacceptable.
  
 

GMs don't develop players

[Superman]

15 hours ago, GwinnettColt said:

Drafting for BPA is questionable when you haven't done much in FA to fill holes.  

 

I like the idea of BPA in major areas of need, whatever they may be at that time. 

 

That's a cop out. It's still drafting for need. Obviously you'd take the best player at whatever position of need you have, but it's still drafting for need.