Chris Ballard Press Conference @ Noon

[DougDew]

53 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I don't agree with this. Ballard thinks this TE class is as deep as he has seen. So he could just be looking to get good value at the position when he can. He said the same thing about S as well. And if he drafted a S early...I don't think that would mean that Geathers suddenly loses a bunch of snaps. More likely, that S was his BPA and will develop for a season and then compete with Green/Geathers long-term for a starting spot.

 

Similarly, looking at the TE position from a long-term standpoint, Doyle has no guaranteed money past next season and Swoope will be an RFA. So it makes sense to draft a TE now and have him develop for a season or two. Then, in a season or two, they can decide to commit long-term to Swoope or let him go...or even let Doyle go.

Drafting players in the 4th round means you intend to develop them into starters or meaningful backups...or....you let them go if they don't show you anything.  If you take better players in earlier rounds, or Jake Butt in the 4th because he dropped because of injury, that just made Swoope less of a need.

 

If he drafts a TE in the first three rounds then he is not really expecting them to "develop".  He's expecting them to contribute right away as a meaningful player.  Who does he expect to get less playing time because of that....the $10 million dollar man Doyle or minimum wage Swoope?

 

Yes, if OJ Howard is there at pick 50 my statements mean nothing because you take Howard anyway.  And if he picks a TE at 160 because he's the BPA then, then that means nothing about Swoope.

[jet1968]

I hope he meant the defensive BPA, at least for the first 3 rounds.

[Shive]

2 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

How can we watch it now that it's over? I only caught the last 5 minutes. 

http://www.colts.com/videos/videos/Chris-Ballard-Full-Pre-Draft-Press-Conference/a087afb8-b066-4157-9e04-2fa9cedb89f4

 

I'd also be willing to bet most of the folks taking digs at BPA haven't watched the actual press conference. He actually goes into how the range for players typically goes.

[#12.]

I'm still trying to determine why, how and at what point a majority of this forum decided O-line is not an area of need.

[#12.]

 

Stephen Holder‏ @HolderStephen

Chris Ballard says they will take a potentially elite player even if the position is loaded

 

 

 

 

 

Do we have that problem anywhere?

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, myic90 said:

 

Why? Everything he's said, Grigson's said before. A very good FA notwithstanding, this is the crucial period for Ballard as a GM.

 

And to many others:

 

Enough with those moronic "BPA? guess we're taking a qb" nonsense. It's best player available on our draft board, not mike mayock's.

 

Let me put it in overly simplified terms:

 

Everything is weighted. Need from 0 to 1. Player positional ability from 1-100. The combination of those will result in a weighted grade and ranked on our draft board.

 

Let's say Watson is graded as a 90 on ability but on our need multiplier, it's a 0.5 (i.e. not needed). His final grade on our board will be 45.

 

Now take some random edge rusher from xyz state. His ability is a 60, our need multiplier is a 0.9 (heavy need). His final grade will be a 54, and he will be graded higher on our board than Watson even though he's a 3rd day prospect.

 

Obviously this is over simplified and there's many many more factors like leadership, injury history, potential, coachability, system fit, legal history and others but this is an example of how it works.

 

When we say BPA, It's the best grade on OUR DRAFT BOARD.

 

So stop with the nonsense please and thank 

 

Doesn't the integration of a multiplier imply that BPA is at best, a very misleading term, and every team drafts almost entirely based on need?

 

That was my point. I think people bring up QB because it is such an obvious example. But you could extend that to almost any position of strength. Of course there are exceptions, but you can't create a viable strategy focusing on the exceptions. 

 

I feel like it's a term some GM threw out there to justify a controversial choice and everyone took it way too literally. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[King Colt]

wake me when it' over

[austriancolt]

I don't like the BPA approach. If your BPA is a QB and you already have a great QB do you still go BPA? If your BPA is a WR but your lacking talent all over your defense and you have some good WR already you go BPA? Thats not the way you will improve this roster and Colts failed with this approach already over the last year.

 

I think you have to draft the best player available at a position of need unless there is a once in a lifetime player at a position you are already stacked with talent. You have to know your needs and then go with the best player available...

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours ago, James Ducheteau said:

At some point they could be...like the 3rd or so...then what, you draft a qb?

 

 Listen to the ___ press conference and learn something.
 He made it as simple as possible so a beginner should get the picture.

[coltsfeva]

4 hours ago, James said:

Don't know why so many people are against picking offense early, when according to Ballard they'll only do that if the offensive player is BPA by a certain margin. 

If the talent is equal, it's going to be defense. Sounds like the most sensible strategy to me instead of this "defense no matter what" approach.

 

 

I get what you are saying but there should be a starting CB or pass rusher at 15.  The three offensive positions one could make a case for is Oline, RB and TE. IMO are not as pressing, since the Oline started to come together, the emergence of Eric Swoope and Robert Turbin. 

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, austriancolt said:

I don't like the BPA approach. If your BPA is a QB and you already have a great QB do you still go BPA? If your BPA is a WR but your lacking talent all over your defense and you have some good WR already you go BPA? Thats not the way you will improve this roster and Colts failed with this approach already over the last year.

 

I think you have to draft the best player available at a position of need unless there is a once in a lifetime player at a position you are already stacked with talent. You have to know your needs and then go with the best player available...

 

Good heavens...

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

Stephen Holder‏ @HolderStephen

 

Chris Ballard says they will take a potentially elite player even if the position is loaded

 

 

 

 

 

Do we have that problem anywhere?

No, not even QB

[masnerj]

I hate to say this but after watching his press conference and hearing him discuss the BPA stuff, I immediately thought of one player as a gut feeling for the Colts at 15: Christian McCaffrey.

 

I don't know how, I can't explain it, its not rational but something about what he said in the press conference has convinced me that if Christian McCaffrey is on the board at 15 and none of the top 5-6 type guys have dropped, we pull the trigger and draft him. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, myic90 said:

 

Why? Everything he's said, Grigson's said before. A very good FA notwithstanding, this is the crucial period for Ballard as a GM.

 

And to many others:

 

Enough with those moronic "BPA? guess we're taking a qb" nonsense. It's best player available on our draft board, not mike mayock's.

 

Let me put it in overly simplified terms:

 

Everything is weighted. Need from 0 to 1. Player positional ability from 1-100. The combination of those will result in a weighted grade and ranked on our draft board.

 

Let's say Watson is graded as a 90 on ability but on our need multiplier, it's a 0.5 (i.e. not needed). His final grade on our board will be 45.

 

Now take some random edge rusher from xyz state. His ability is a 60, our need multiplier is a 0.9 (heavy need). His final grade will be a 54, and he will be graded higher on our board than Watson even though he's a 3rd day prospect.

 

Obviously this is over simplified and there's many many more factors like leadership, injury history, potential, coachability, system fit, legal history and others but this is an example of how it works.

 

When we say BPA, It's the best grade on OUR DRAFT BOARD.

 

So stop with the nonsense please and thank you.

 

This is all good stuff.

 

In addition to the bolded, teams weight their board according to positional value as well. That would fall under "others," and it explains why you don't draft Roberto Aguayo in the third round.

[myic90]

43 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

Doesn't the integration of a multiplier imply that BPA is at best, a very misleading term, and every team drafts almost entirely based on need?

 

That was my point. I think people bring up QB because it is such an obvious example. But you could extend that to almost any position of strength. Of course there are exceptions, but you can't create a viable strategy focusing on the exceptions. 

 

I feel like it's a term some GM threw out there to justify a controversial choice and everyone took it way too literally. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not really. When GMs use the term BPA, they always mean according to their draft board. It's the fan that's misconstrued what that term refers to.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

just stop. you're still at it I see

For what reason is there this irrational support for Swoope?  He's a UDFA with no football experience but great measurables.  Hes a project.

 

He's Adongo.  Except he is good enough to stick around longer and made some plays during one season when our starter was chronically hurt.  He's a great story so far, but there is no reason not to draft Jake Butt in the 4th if he is there and his meds check out.  Butt has more experience and was actually good enough in high school to be recruited by a major college, and had success at the major college.

 

Sorry, if a real TE with real college experience is drafted anywhere above round 4, or Butt is drafted at all, its bye bye to Swoope's playing time.  It might not work out that way because the rookie might end up stinking and Swoope beats him out, but if Ballard picks a TE that high he's not intending for the rookie to sit on the bench behind Swoope despite what he has said about Swoope publicly.

 

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

58 minutes ago, #12. said:

I'm still trying to determine why, how and at what point a majority of this forum decided O-line is not an area of need.

 

The combination of the OL making encouraging strides towards the end of last year, and the fact that this year's crop of OL isn't nearly as good as last year's draft class is what's making it feel like more of a secondary need at this point. I wouldn't be upset if they took Lamp or Ramczyk in the first round, but I would be pretty nervous about either of them starting due to the growing pains that rookie OL tend to have.

[krunk]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

For what reason is there this irrational support for Swoope?  He's a UDFA with no football experience but great measurables.  Hes a project.

 

He's Adongo.  Except he is good enough to stick around longer and made some plays during one season when our starter was chronically hurt.  He's a great story so far, but there is no reason not to draft Jake Butt in the 4th if he is there and his meds check out.  Butt has more experience and was actually good enough in high school to be recruited by a major college, and had success at the major college.

 

Sorry, if a real TE with real college experience is drafted anywhere above round 4, or Butt is drafted at all, its bye bye to Swoope's playing time.  It might not work out that way because the rookie might end up stinking and Swoope beats him out, but if Ballard picks a TE that high he's not intending for the rookie to sit on the bench behind Swoope despite what he has said about Swoope publicly.

 

 

 

So Chris Ballard is Irrational?  You know the guy who writes his checks.  The guy who's praised Swoope on more than one occasion this offseason.  You know the guy who had nothing to do with putting Swoope on the Colts.  You know the guy who got rid of Dwayne Allen to keep Swoope on the roster.  We are giving him the praise he deserves just like his boss is.    Sounds more like you're being irrational.

[BigQandTheManiac]

It doesn't take much to tick a lot of you off on this forum does it??? Lol geez some of you guys need to RELAX. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sorry, if a real TE with real college experience is drafted anywhere above round 4, or Butt is drafted at all, its bye bye to Swoope's playing time.  It might not work out that way because the rookie might end up stinking and Swoope beats him out, but if Ballard picks a TE that high he's not intending for the rookie to sit on the bench behind Swoope despite what he has said about Swoope publicly.

 

That kind of goes against his whole "each guy is going to have to earn it, regardless of where he's drafted" mantra, which I fully believe to be true. I don't see Ballard as the type that's going to draft someone and them force him onto the coaches just because he wants him to get playing time like Grigson supposedly did. If he picks a guy that ends up not putting in the work needed to crack the starting lineup, that player will ride pine.

[krunk]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

For what reason is there this irrational support for Swoope?  He's a UDFA with no football experience but great measurables.  Hes a project.

 

He's Adongo.  Except he is good enough to stick around longer and made some plays during one season when our starter was chronically hurt.  He's a great story so far, but there is no reason not to draft Jake Butt in the 4th if he is there and his meds check out.  Butt has more experience and was actually good enough in high school to be recruited by a major college, and had success at the major college.

 

Sorry, if a real TE with real college experience is drafted anywhere above round 4, or Butt is drafted at all, its bye bye to Swoope's playing time.  It might not work out that way because the rookie might end up stinking and Swoope beats him out, but if Ballard picks a TE that high he's not intending for the rookie to sit on the bench behind Swoope despite what he has said about Swoope publicly.

 

 

Anybody who reads this post can clearly see who's being irrational bro.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, krunk said:

 

So Chris Ballard is Irrational?  You know the guy who writes his checks.  The guy who's praised Swoope on more than one occasion this offseason.    Sounds more like you're being irrational.

Its all speculation about what Ballard might draft.  

 

So you're saying that because he has praised a player who has come from nothing into a potential NFL player with meaningful playing time that Ballard has scratched TE off of the list, any TE, before round 4?  

 

I don't know what he thinks of Swoope long term.  If he drafts a TE or not with a meaningful draft pick this offseason will tell us more about what he really thinks of Swoope than the comments he made publicly.

 

Personally, I'm fine with Swoope.  I wouldn't plan on drafting a TE at all, but would plan to sign a priority UDFA to take the third TE spot, or a vet minimum this summer as experienced insurance.  But if a high pedigree TE is BPA with one of our 4th round picks, my plan for the TE position has just changed.

 

Bottom line:  I doubt that Swoope has shown enough to impact Ballard's long term assessment of the TE position despite nice public comments.

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its all speculation about what Ballard might draft.  

 

So you're saying that because he has praised a player who has come from nothing into a potential NFL player with meaningful playing time that Ballard has scratched TE off of the list, any TE, before round 4?  

 

I don't know what he thinks of Swoope long term.  If he drafts a TE or not with a meaningful draft pick this offseason will tell us more about what he really thinks of Swoope than the comments he made publicly.

 

Personally, I'm fine with Swoope.  I wouldn't plan on drafting a TE at all, but would plan to sign a priority UDFA to take the third TE spot, or a vet minimum this summer as experienced insurance.  But if a high pedigree TE is BPA with one of our 4th round picks, my plan for the TE position has just changed.

 

Bottom line:  I doubt that Swoope has shown enough to impact Ballard's long term assessment of the TE position despite nice public comments.

You've got two utterly long post trashing a player that you're fine with?

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

That kind of goes against his whole "each guy is going to have to earn it, regardless of where he's drafted" mantra, which I fully believe to be true. I don't see Ballard as the type that's going to draft someone and them force him onto the coaches just because he wants him to get playing time like Grigson supposedly did. If he picks a guy that ends up not putting in the work needed to crack the starting lineup, that player will ride pine.

No no no, I'm talking about predraft and in-draft strategy, not competition after players are signed or validating a draft pick. 

 

Its obvious that if you draft somebody at pick 15 you expect him to start rather than somebody you pick up as an UDFA.  Example, when you draft olineman, you'd expect Ryan Kelly to start and Denzelle Good to probably not even make the team.  Same goes with 2nd  rounders over 5th rounders.  But things might not go as expected after the pads are put on.

 

Of course come training camp and preseason everything is based on merit, but going into the draft GMs evaluate players and think about their ability to contribute right away.  Yes, anybody picked in round 4 or higher is expected to be good enough to take PT away from a current second stringer. 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, krunk said:

You've got two utterly long post trashing a player that you're fine with?

Not being gushy in favor of a player is not the same thing as trashing him.  Swoope is fine.  He made some plays when he got PT after DA got hurt or in situational packages.  Just like Bryan Fletcher did in 2006. There is nothing to trash.  Of course, there is also nothing shown to prevent me from picking Jake Butt in late round 4.

 

So why is Swoope better than Bryan Fletcher?

[BOTT]

43 minutes ago, masnerj said:

I hate to say this but after watching his press conference and hearing him discuss the BPA stuff, I immediately thought of one player as a gut feeling for the Colts at 15: Christian McCaffrey.

 

I don't know how, I can't explain it, its not rational but something about what he said in the press conference has convinced me that if Christian McCaffrey is on the board at 15 and none of the top 5-6 type guys have dropped, we pull the trigger and draft him. 

This forum and gut feelings.....

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, #12. said:

I'm still trying to determine why, how and at what point a majority of this forum decided O-line is not an area of need.

I don't that's it.  People don't think it's wise to spend a first on a guard when you have a young player like Haeg on the roster.  Some, like Bill Polian, didn't believe in taking guards in the first at all.

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

That kind of goes against his whole "each guy is going to have to earn it, regardless of where he's drafted" mantra, which I fully believe to be true. I don't see Ballard as the type that's going to draft someone and them force him onto the coaches just because he wants him to get playing time like Grigson supposedly did. If he picks a guy that ends up not putting in the work needed to crack the starting lineup, that player will ride pine.

 

To say nothing of the general expectation that Jake Butt might not even play this year... 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To say nothing of the general expectation that Jake Butt might not even play this year... 

 

Well... there is that. And also the fact that Butt is NOT more experienced than Swoope. No matter how you slice it, Butt hasn't played a single down of NFL football, while Swoope has been learning the ropes at the NFL level for the past 3 years, and he produced when he was called upon.

[krunk]

55 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not being gushy in favor of a player is not the same thing as trashing him.  Swoope is fine.  He made some plays when he got PT after DA got hurt or in situational packages.  Just like Bryan Fletcher did in 2006. There is nothing to trash.  Of course, there is also nothing shown to prevent me from picking Jake Butt in late round 4.

 

So why is Swoope better than Bryan Fletcher?

Dear God.  You mean the slow as molasses non athletic  Bryan Fletcher? Swoope is much faster and a way better athlete than Fletcher hands down.  No one has really been hyping Swoope on this forum at an unreasonable level.  Everyone has been excited with his progress and some of what he showed when given a decent amt of playing time. 

 

You seem to be the only one taking our satisfaction with his progress and turning it into 20 times more than that.  And it's bad because no one is even against the Colts drafting an additional tight end at some point next week.   You haven't heard anybody say Swoope is the answer to all things Tight End.  We just are not deniers and down players of his talent.  We won't say we see something bad when we really see something good .

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, krunk said:

Dear God.  You mean the slow as molasses non athletic  Bryan Fletcher? Swoope is much faster and a way better athlete than Fletcher hands down.  No one has really been hyping Swoope on this forum at an unreasonable level.  Everyone has been excited with his progress and some of what he showed when given a decent amt of playing time. 

 

You seem to be the only one taking our satisfaction with his progress and turning it into 20 times more than that.  And it's bad because no one is even against the Colts drafting an additional tight end at some point next week.   You haven't heard anybody say Swoope is the answer to all things Tight End.  We just are not deniers and down players of his talent.  We won't say we see something bad when we really see something good .

I'm not downplaying his talent.  I'm not downplaying his athleticism.  I never downplayed Adongo's either.

 

I'm looking objectively into why he wasn't drafted.  Football experience and skill at playing the position.  All of that has improved to a nice level.

 

Bryan Fletcher had as much impact his one year than Swoope has had. As another comparison, I never much cared for Jacob Tamme, but there is no way I could say he isn't better than Swoope based upon his longevity and production.

 

And there they are, Swoope, Fletcher, Tamme.  All nice to have on a team but none impact draft strategy at TE.

 

That's what I thought the thread is partially about, the possibility of drafting a TE and taking PT away from Swoope...or Fletcher...or Tamme back in the day.. 

[Defjamz26]

My takeaways :

 

-I have us taking one in the 4th round but it's very possible the Colts take a safety in the first 3 round. He thinks the class is really deep and I agree

 

-Grigson said the same thing, but Ballard also confirmed that teams DO draft for need. Just not how we think. They go with need when the players on the board are similarly graded. It explains a lot of recent picks by different teams that I thought were reaches.

 

- Seems like unless guys like Fournette and Howard fall to our picks, we'll see a defensive heavy draft.

 

-I get the feeling that Conley and McDowell have a high probability of being our pick. Can't really explain it, it's just kind of a feeling I got based on certain things he said and inferences I made

 

-A lot of our mocks might be way off, including mine. We've all basically kind of mocked the same positions in each round. CB,LB, FS or LB, CB, RB. But based on some things he said the draft might not shape out anything like most of us are predicting. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

-I get the feeling that Conley and McDowell have a high probability of being our pick. Can't really explain it, it's just kind of a feeling I got based on certain things he said and inferences I made

 

I don't think McDowell will be the pick. I would not be surprised to find out that he's not on the Colts board at all. 

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

My takeaways :

 

-I have us taking one in the 4th round but it's very possible the Colts take a safety in the first 3 round. He thinks the class is really deep and I agree

 

I can't totally figure the impact that the Butler signing has on the draft strategy, but it has some impact.  Not only did he sign him, the Colts said that he will play safety.  I'm not sure why you announce that. 

 

Since saying that he will play FS but only signing him for one year tells me he has little confidence in Green or Butler to be the long term answer.  

 

So that makes me think he'll draft FS pretty high in order to get a long term starter at the position.

 

Unless its all a smoke screen.

[NagelHausForge]

6 hours ago, James Ducheteau said:

I don't know man, trusting until trust is lost hasn't worked out to well for a whole lot of idgenious people

 

Did you really just try to equate trusting a Football GM to betrayals of indigenous in the past?  Seriously?

[Defjamz26]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think McDowell will be the pick. I would not be surprised to find out that he's not on the Colts board at all. 

Although it's not all said and done, Ballard confirmed today that they haven't removed any guys off their board. But I was thinking about the when he said "Ignore the noise. I don't care about what everyone says about him. We'll get to know him." Everyone seems to be saying Malik has questionable effort (although the tape shows otherwise) but his talent is tremendous. He strikes me more as a guy that Ballard would take a chance on more than Mixon. Aside from being raw, I don't really see the issues with Malik. Just my two cents.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think McDowell will be the pick. I would not be surprised to find out that he's not on the Colts board at all. 

He was a top 30 visit. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

39 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

My takeaways :

 

-I have us taking one in the 4th round but it's very possible the Colts take a safety in the first 3 round. He thinks the class is really deep and I agree

 

-Grigson said the same thing, but Ballard also confirmed that teams DO draft for need. Just not how we think. They go with need when the players on the board are similarly graded. It explains a lot of recent picks by different teams that I thought were reaches.

 

- Seems like unless guys like Fournette and Howard fall to our picks, we'll see a defensive heavy draft.

 

-I get the feeling that Conley and McDowell have a high probability of being our pick. Can't really explain it, it's just kind of a feeling I got based on certain things he said and inferences I made

 

-A lot of our mocks might be way off, including mine. We've all basically kind of mocked the same positions in each round. CB,LB, FS or LB, CB, RB. But based on some things he said the draft might not shape out anything like most of us are predicting. 

We haven't met with Conley

[Defjamz26]

1 minute ago, Majin Vegeta said:

We haven't met with Conley

You don't meet with every prospect you draft. Teams don't like to show their hands. That's why sometimes they'll interview guys who are teammates of a guy they really want. Just to find out info on them while being discreet. Conley is definitely on the Colts draft board as is Myles Garrett, Mitchell Trubisky, and Mike Williams. We probably won't draft those guys but it doesn't mean we haven't done our HW on them. Teams look at every player, even ones they haven't met in person. Ballard knows who Conley is.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

You don't meet with every prospect you draft. Teams don't like to show their hands. That's why sometimes they'll interview guys who are teammates of a guy they really want. Just to find out info on them while being discreet. Conley is definitely on the Colts draft board as is Myles Garrett, Mitchell Trubisky, and Mike Williams. We probably won't draft those guys but it doesn't mean we haven't done our HW on them. Teams look at every player, even ones they haven't met in person. Ballard knows who Conley is.

Just seems odd not meeting with him if you're considering taking him in the 1st.  It's obvious why we wouldn't meet with Garret or Trubisky. One is being picked #1 overall and one's a QB.