What would be your strategy for the NFL Draft as GM?

[Yoshinator]

This is a topic that is somewhat discussed, but in very small detail and never has it's own thread. What would be your strategy in the NFL Draft as the GM of the Colts? Would you play it safe? Would you go high risk/high reward with guys like Joe Mixon? Would you just go BPA the whole draft? Would you completely focus on the defense? I'd like to know from everyone here what they would do. I believe we can have a successful draft at any position, 1-32, as long as we hit on around half our picks (3-4 this year). With us basically trading a 7th for a 4th, I think hitting on 4 picks is possible. If we do, we can more than likely gain on 20 plus teams talent-wise.

 

Personally, I'd build on defense and RB with safe picks I expected to succeed at the NFL level, and try to fix the team with as many BPA picks at those positions. Based on the lack of talent, I believe this particular draft would be easy for BPA and need to be exclusive. Even if we draft someone like Jamal Adams in the 1st, if he's available, you take him because of the huge talent he is. We need talent and leadership on defense. You take who you can get and build around it each additional round IMO.

 

Let me know what you'd do. Love to have some discussion and get some thoughts about this topic!

[AZColt11]

I would take BPA for defense, with a focus on a pass rusher.  If the top rushers aren't there, then LB, then DB, etc.  I have always thought units should be built from the lines on back, both sides of the ball.  So given that we need defense BADLY, I would focus on DE, then LB, then DB in that order.  This is the 1st round.

 

As far as "safe vs. explosive" I would say two guys I'm looking at are Derek Barnett (safe) vs. Tak McKinley (explosive).  I like both but, if pressed, I'm likely leaning safe here.  McKinley is likely the more boom or bust type but his injury history and his size scares me a little.  Barnett played a LOT and doesn't jump off the screen when you watch film but is a solid guy who plays the run and pass equally well IMHO.  Therefore, with the needs we have, I'm leaning toward Barnett here.

 

After that, I am still looking for defense.  Lots of holes., so little picks to patch them.  In fact, I would go D my first 3 picks.  IDEALLY, I would get one of the big EDGE rushers in the 1st, then a stud OLB in the 2nd, then a good CB or S in the 3rd.  In the 4th, with two picks, I go RB and another defensive player, BPA.  In the 5th I look for an OL that can help solidify the left side, either OG or T.  And lastly I pick another defensive player, whomever is the best left. 

 

I would have no problem spending 5 of my 7 picks on defense because you have to figure the draft usually 50% at best and we have so many holes to patch.  The offense was still a top 10 offense with a young OL and an aging RB.  The defense was bottom 5 so this is where I focus and why.  Then next year, I'm probably keeping that same strategy because I doubt we can totally heal this defense in one season.

 

Of course, whatever we do or don't do in FA could very well impact some of these draft decisions, but this is what I would do with what I know today.

[Yoshinator]

9 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

I would take BPA for defense, with a focus on a pass rusher.  If the top rushers aren't there, then LB, then DB, etc.  I have always thought units should be built from the lines on back, both sides of the ball.  So given that we need defense BADLY, I would focus on DE, then LB, then DB in that order.  This is the 1st round.

 

As far as "safe vs. explosive" I would say two guys I'm looking at are Derek Barnett (safe) vs. Tak McKinley (explosive).  I like both but, if pressed, I'm likely leaning safe here.  McKinley is likely the more boom or bust type but his injury history and his size scares me a little.  Barnett played a LOT and doesn't jump off the screen when you watch film but is a solid guy who plays the run and pass equally well IMHO.  Therefore, with the needs we have, I'm leaning toward Barnett here.

 

After that, I am still looking for defense.  Lots of holes., so little picks to patch them.  In fact, I would go D my first 3 picks.  IDEALLY, I would get one of the big EDGE rushers in the 1st, then a stud OLB in the 2nd, then a good CB or S in the 3rd.  In the 4th, with two picks, I go RB and another defensive player, BPA.  In the 5th I look for an OL that can help solidify the left side, either OG or T.  And lastly I pick another defensive player, whomever is the best left. 

 

I would have no problem spending 5 of my 7 picks on defense because you have to figure the draft usually 50% at best and we have so many holes to patch.  The offense was still a top 10 offense with a young OL and an aging RB.  The defense was bottom 5 so this is where I focus and why.  Then next year, I'm probably keeping that same strategy because I doubt we can totally heal this defense in one season.

 

Of course, whatever we do or don't do in FA could very well impact some of these draft decisions, but this is what I would do with what I know today.

Definitely something I would be in favor of. I just want two things in the first round. A solid upgrade at defense, and something even more important, a draft hit. We can't afford to miss. Keep grabbing BPA on defense and making sure you grab players who are safe and will hit. We need upgrades that can play for us for 10-12 years. If this class looks good, maybe take a risk or two next year, but we need to set a base to build off of in this years draft.

[ponyboy]

I would draft for value over need in the first three rounds.  I would be thrilled if the value is there for three defensive players in the first three rounds would wouldn’t shy away from great value on the OL or even RB.   If the value is close, I’d favor defense over offence.

 

A few principles:

- Value over need in the early rounds (within reason)

- I wouldn't trade next year's #1 in any circumstance.

- I wouldn't trade next year's #2 or #3 unless a great value was dropping and within reach.

- I wouldn't draft Tim Williams at #14 if the there is any truth to the character issues.

- I wouldn't reach for EDGE rusher at #14.

- I'm kind of hoping Adams or Hooker fall to #14.

- I would consider Mixon but not before the #4 comp pick.

- I would take RB or OL at #14 if I felt the value was much better then others available at that position.

- I'm a little concerned about injury issues with Fournette and hope he goes ahead of us.

- Consider addressing OL with Lang or Zeitler at guard and not looking OL in first 3 rounds (might have to let Jack walk next year if the 2016 rookie OL continue to improve in this scenario).

 

The dream scenario would be getting a great defensive player at #14.  Any one of the 7  bolded below might fit the bill.  And to complete the dream scenario, Tim Williams drops to the 2nd round pick (assuming he passes the interview)

 

Garrett, Allen, Adams, Thomas, Foster, Hooker, or Lattimore

 

What would it take for one of these seven to fall to #14 (excluding some disqualifying character issue or a trade up)?  Well, obviously, it would take 7 other players taken ahead of one of them.  A few scenarios.

- 3 QBs, 2 RB, 1 WR, and one of some other defender, a OL, or a TE (Howard maybe)

- 2 QBs, 2 RB, 2 WR, and one of some other defender, a OL, or a TE.

- 2 QBs, 2 RB, 1 WR, and two of some other defender, OL, or TE

 

So as I watch the raft unfold I'm hoping to see the QBs/RBs and OL line go ahead of us.  If none of the 7 above are available, then there is a group of defenders that I don’t feel as strongly about at #14 but still would like to have.  At that point I would consider Fournette or Cook if available, but would rather trade down.

 

In my dream scenario with a trade down, we end up with 3 picks in the top #50ish and we come out with

 

Zack Cunningham, one of McCaffery/Watt/Williams/McKinley/Jones/Humphrey/Reddick, and then Williams

 

I'm warming up to Cunningham in the first but hopefully in a trade down scenario.  Again, assuming a Williams slide in this scenario.  And, assuming one of McCaffery/Watt/McKinley/Jones/Humphrey/Reddick makes to the top part of round 2. I would also consider OL in this list if we don't add any in FA, but probably not at #14.

[Carlos Danger]

BPA...

If two prospects are rated similarly, tie goes to defense. 

 

 

[AZColt11]

4 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

- Consider addressing OL with Lang or Zeitler at guard and not looking OL in first 3 rounds (might have to let Jack walk next year if the 2016 rookie OL continue to improve in this scenario).

This would be my dream scenario as well.  The OL is young enough.  They could use a good, tough vet to settle the right side down.

 

4 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

 

The dream scenario would be getting a great defensive player at #14.  Any one of the 7  bolded below might fit the bill.  And to complete the dream scenario, Tim Williams drops to the 2nd round pick (assuming he passes the interview)

 

Garrett, Allen, Adams, Thomas, Foster, Hooker, or Lattimore

 

 

I would add Barnett to that mix.  Anybody that passes the late great Reggie White is pretty good.

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

I would draft for value over need in the first three rounds.  I would be thrilled if the value is there for three defensive players in the first three rounds would wouldn’t shy away from great value on the OL or even RB.   If the value is close, I’d favor defense over offence.

 

A few principles:

- Value over need in the early rounds (within reason)

- I wouldn't trade next year's #1 in any circumstance.

- I wouldn't trade next year's #2 or #3 unless a great value was dropping and within reach.

- I wouldn't draft Tim Williams at #14 if the there is any truth to the character issues.

- I wouldn't reach for EDGE rusher at #14.

- I'm kind of hoping Adams or Hooker fall to #14.

- I would consider Mixon but not before the #4 comp pick.

- I would take RB or OL at #14 if I felt the value was much better then others available at that position.

- I'm a little concerned about injury issues with Fournette and hope he goes ahead of us.

- Consider addressing OL with Lang or Zeitler at guard and not looking OL in first 3 rounds (might have to let Jack walk next year if the 2016 rookie OL continue to improve in this scenario).

 

The dream scenario would be getting a great defensive player at #14.  Any one of the 7  bolded below might fit the bill.  And to complete the dream scenario, Tim Williams drops to the 2nd round pick (assuming he passes the interview)

 

Garrett, Allen, Adams, Thomas, Foster, Hooker, or Lattimore

 

What would it take for one of these seven to fall to #14 (excluding some disqualifying character issue or a trade up)?  Well, obviously, it would take 7 other players taken ahead of one of them.  A few scenarios.

- 3 QBs, 2 RB, 1 WR, and one of some other defender, a OL, or a TE (Howard maybe)

- 2 QBs, 2 RB, 2 WR, and one of some other defender, a OL, or a TE.

- 2 QBs, 2 RB, 1 WR, and two of some other defender, OL, or TE

 

So as I watch the raft unfold I'm hoping to see the QBs/RBs and OL line go ahead of us.  If none of the 7 above are available, then there is a group of defenders that I don’t feel as strongly about at #14 but still would like to have.  At that point I would consider Fournette or Cook if available, but would rather trade down.

 

In my dream scenario with a trade down, we end up with 3 picks in the top #50ish and we come out with

 

Zack Cunningham, one of McCaffery/Watt/Williams/McKinley/Jones/Humphrey/Reddick, and then Williams

 

I'm warming up to Cunningham in the first but hopefully in a trade down scenario.  Again, assuming a Williams slide in this scenario.  And, assuming one of McCaffery/Watt/McKinley/Jones/Humphrey/Reddick makes to the top part of round 2. I would also consider OL in this list if we don't add any in FA, but probably not at #14.

Very solid post. Honestly, I'm probably not taking OL in any situation at #14 here. I just don't see any case where it's BPA. There are a few Defensive players who could push 1 of those 7 down to us. Derek Barnett, Taco Charlton, possibly someone like TJ Watt or Takarist McKinley if someone reaches for a pass rusher. I'd say the odds of one of them falling to us is 50/50. 

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

BPA...

If two prospects are rated similarly, tie goes to defense. 

 

 

Have to agree with this!

[Defjamz26]

BPA at defensive positions with RB and OG being the only positions where you go offense if it's BPA. That Includes 1st round at 14/15 where the BPA might be Cooke, Fournette, or a guy like Garett Bolles. I like Takk and Harris if we were picking in the 20s. I know people say trade back but that then defeats the purpose of drafting that high. I'm not totally opposed to it though.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

Defense. 

[Yoshinator]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

BPA at defensive positions with RB and OG being the only positions where you go offense if it's BPA. That Includes 1st round at 14/15 where the BPA might be Cooke, Fournette, or a guy like Garett Bolles. I like Takk and Harris if we were picking in the 20s. I know people say trade back but that then defeats the purpose of drafting that high. I'm not totally opposed to it though.

I think I'm at a point in this specific draft, with our needs the way they are, if we are reaching for a pick at a position of need, trade back so you can get them at proper value and get an extra pick, even if you get a slightly lower talent. Nothing worse than reaching on a pick in this deep draft and giving away value. Would rather have a slight worse player at great value and an extra 3rd that I trust Ballard on.

[Defjamz26]

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think I'm at a point in this specific draft, with our needs the way they are, if we are reaching for a pick at a position of need, trade back so you can get them at proper value and get an extra pick, even if you get a slightly lower talent. Nothing worse than reaching on a pick in this deep draft and giving away value. Would rather have a slight worse player at great value and an extra 3rd that I trust Ballard on.

And unlike Grigson I think he'll be smart about it. I don't think If a WR is sitting there, he's going to run to the podium for him. But I wouldn't be shocked if we traded back. And he won't reach for need so I wouldn't be shocked if at 14 or 15 you hear a RB or offensive lineman announced.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Defjamz26 said:

And unlike Grigson I think he'll be smart about it. I don't think If a WR is sitting there, he's going to run to the podium for him. But I wouldn't be shocked if we traded back. And he won't reach for need so I wouldn't be shocked if at 14 or 15 you hear a RB or offensive lineman announced.

Cook I would like as he's the best RB in the class, I would absolutely hate an OL at 14 or 15. There isn't anyone i really like as a 1st round guy. It's basically Cook or a Defensive player for me. I think an OL would have to really dominate at the combine and his pro day to be considered for 14 or 15. With the way we improved our OL last year (Grigson or not), I think if Ballard takes one, it will be after the 1st. I'm almost sure it will be BPA on defense 1st round as I believe that Ballard will want a signature guy on defense to start his run as GM.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Cook I would like as he's the best RB in the class, I would absolutely hate an OL at 14 or 15. There isn't anyone i really like as a 1st round guy. It's basically Cook or a Defensive player for me. I think an OL would have to really dominate at the combine and his pro day to be considered for 14 or 15. With the way we improved our OL last year (Grigson or not), I think if Ballard takes one, it will be after the 1st. I'm almost sure it will be BPA on defense 1st round as I believe that Ballard will want a signature guy on defense to start his run as GM.

That's IF a guy like that is there at our pick. No need to try and force it. And the OT class is poor but the OG class is deep. Bolles and Lamp are both first round guards. Ballard talked about the importance of trenches.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Defjamz26 said:

That's IF a guy like that is there at our pick. No need to try and force it. And the OT class is poor but the OG class is deep. Bolles and Lamp are both first round guards. Ballard talked about the importance of trenches.

They are 1st round guards, but late 1st round. I still think they would be reaches.

[BOTT]

16 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:

BPA...

If two prospects are rated similarly, tie goes to defense. 

 

 

Trade down

[Defjamz26]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

They are 1st round guards, but late 1st round. I still think they would be reaches.

A good player that can lock down a position for years is never a reach. I'd take a 10 year starter at OG over a 6-8 sack a year pass rusher any day.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Defjamz26 said:

A good player that can lock down a position for years is never a reach. I'd take a 10 year starter at OG over a 6-8 sack a year pass rusher any day.

Well, it depends who is left at Defense at 14 or 15. We could literally upgrade at every position on defense, so I believe an upgrade on defense is more effective. Just my opinion though.

[UKColt13]

With the news about Takk's surgery I'm expecting a small slip in his stock. Although the reason doesn't bother me as long as no surprises come from the surgery. I think trading down to the very early 20's and still picking him up might be a good option. This could allow us to pick up another 2nd in the process. Some people seem to think that Dalvin will still be around at #14 that would act as good bait.

 

I might be inclined to trade up from our second to the very top of the 2nd, losing our 3rd. At this point we could have a few options depending on how FA pans out. Jarrad Davis, Hasson Reddick, Christian McCaffrey, TJ Watt, any of the corner class that slips, Dan Feeney and others. For me I would look at Jarrad Davis or Reddick. Both would be massive upgrades to our LB corps offering coverage skills and much needed speed in the middle. I'd be happy with either of those next to either Antonio Morrison or a FA like Zach Brown.

 

With our 2nd 2nd, or however you want to word that, I'd go defense again. I want to find 3 quality building blocks for the defense. We have our young core on offense but we need to find that for our stop unit. Someone like Carlos Watkins from Clemson to bring a bit of pass rush to the interior defensive line unit. Langford I like a lot but he isn't getting any younger, and if Anderson doesn't bounce back to his rookie form then we are looking a bit bare. Watkins has good size and a good get off and led Clemson in sacks last year.

 

I would look at RB in the 4th. I wouldn't be too mad if we took Mixon but I can't quite bring myself to campaign for the pick. If he's there and he passes the interviews and the background check then I'm content with it.

 

After then I would go for as much upside as possible with a strong defensive bias.

 

With this draft I want to build the defense. And find at least 3 quality starters for the future.

 

Im usually a fan of BPA. But at this point we almost need to draft for need. And our need is Defense in general. Only offensive pick I want to see us draft is RB.

 

 

[rockywoj]

BPA balanced by need.   Like what most are saying, I would really be biased toward the D.  I am thinking the only way I go O early is if on the BPA ratings a player is screaming out loudly as being CLEARLY the best player available AND it's at an offensive position of obvious need.   Otherwise, I am sticking to building a well rounded team ... ergo, improving that defense!

[Luck 4 president]

Need before greed. A RB in the 1st is greed when we can get a franchise back in the 4th.

 

sign one elite lineman, pass rusher, and any other defensive position. Draft defensive BPA in each round. Use one of our fourths on a RB.

[rock8591]

Load up on defense, especially the LBs. The secondary will sort itself out.