Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Ongoing Colts 2018 draft talk........


Myles

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Does kiper have Barkley as #1 player (talent wise) or #1 player (draft eise)?

i imagine its talent wise.  But as we know, and some are pointing out about Nelsons "rating", being the best player, doesnt mean you'll go #1 for many reasons including position.  BPA is relative.  

#1 "player" in the draft doesnt mean (necessarily) #1 selected.

 

Yeah....

 

I think it's BPA, regardless of position...    and yes,  Kiper is not trying to suggest this is the order in which they will be drafted...

 

As of today Kiper thinks Barkley is the top talent...    it's subject to change, so who knows who it will be come April...   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Exactly so if we trade back with a team for a QB Nelson wouldn't be a reach so there is no issue like everyone thinks 

 

I wanted to follow up....

 

I just double checked ESPN.....

 

Kiper has Nelson 7th overall.      McShay has him 17th,  but going 14th in his first mock.

 

Just wanted to keep that straight since you were curious......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

Has anyone seen Barkley compared to Cook and Fournette from last year. Like  If the three were in same draft, how they would rank?

im wondering how they rank barkley compared to those top backs from last year.

Barkley would likely be the top ranked back slightly above Fournette but some might have Fournette and ahead of Cook for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of us want Nelson, but none of us want to draft him 3rd overall. Probably 90% of the board agrees with the trade down scenarios and the ideal position would be for us to get 2nd overall so we can trade to a QB needy team. 

 

An an even greater mistake would be drafting McGlinchey at number 3 than drafting the superior Nelson. OTs are so often overdrafted because they are a premier position and that is exactly what that would be. Not to try to play the ‘appeal to authority’ card, but I’m an Irish fan, and Nelson is a far better prospect than McGlinchey and if an overdraft were to occur, I would prefer it to be him. Still gonna stay firmly in the ‘trade down’ camp. Nobody is really sticking out yet. I fear it’s a 2013 type of draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Peytonator said:

I think a lot of us want Nelson, but none of us want to draft him 3rd overall. Probably 90% of the board agrees with the trade down scenarios and the ideal position would be for us to get 2nd overall so we can trade to a QB needy team. 

 

An an even greater mistake would be drafting McGlinchey at number 3 than drafting the superior Nelson. OTs are so often overdrafted because they are a premier position and that is exactly what that would be. Not to try to play the ‘appeal to authority’ card, but I’m an Irish fan, and Nelson is a far better prospect than McGlinchey and if an overdraft were to occur, I would prefer it to be him. Still gonna stay firmly in the ‘trade down’ camp. Nobody is really sticking out yet. I fear it’s a 2013 type of draft. 

Drafts like 2009 and 2013 are very bad, but even in those, there are guys who will hit. I have no right to judge this draft yet, as I have not watched any film yet, and won't until the bowl games are over. I may do a few mock drafts on first-pick in order to learn player names though and get a general feel for where everyone is going in the draft. Nelson is the early guy I want at this point, and I'd love to trade down for him if possible. It all comes down to if Ballard is intelligent enough to get max value out of a trade down WHILE still getting the guy he originally wanted. If he can do that this year a couple times in the draft while adding some picks, he'll have my respect. Hooker fell to us last year, now I want to see him use our draft capital with probably a top 5 pick at least to put together a solid draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Drafts like 2009 and 2013 are very bad, but even in those, there are guys who will hit. I have no right to judge this draft yet, as I have not watched any film yet, and won't until the bowl games are over. I may do a few mock drafts on first-pick in order to learn player names though and get a general feel for where everyone is going in the draft. Nelson is the early guy I want at this point, and I'd love to trade down for him if possible. It all comes down to if Ballard is intelligent enough to get max value out of a trade down WHILE still getting the guy he originally wanted. If he can do that this year a couple times in the draft while adding some picks, he'll have my respect. Hooker fell to us last year, now I want to see him use our draft capital with probably a top 5 pick at least to put together a solid draft.

 

 

Yeah I can't disagree with you on that. I'm either in favor of Nelson or Hurst, but I think both can be had between 8-12. The 2013 draft was among the worst we've seen in a while, but there were still plenty of good players drafted, Grigson just missed. There were like 20 of us here that wanted Xavier Rhodes in the first, we don't need to rehash that, but Grigson just plain missed, just as he did on a lot of his picks. I believe Ballard will be much better. He killed it in free agency, and while his draft class hasn't exactly lit it up yet, I still liked most of the picks and you really can't judge them on one year with a lame duck coach. Until he gives me reason to doubt him, I'm putting my faith in Ballard to right this ship. Love that dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard is not your typical GM. Remember...he stated that he wouldnt make draft picks based on NEED. He said he would draft based on BPA because he prefers depth at every position  (like in Kansas City).

Sitting at #3 the best player available is Barkley. Everyone knows this. It's not an offensive lineman, defensive player or QB. What Ballard does would be fine with me. Our number 1 goal is to find a head coach that can get our team back to its winning ways. 2nd goal is/can be a #1 goal, but seeing that Luck had the entire season to heal up after surgery, I see that as a problem solved. I really think Luck will come back strong, despite what others believe. I like to think positive. Everything will fall into place. Let's just trust the process Ballard is installing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr_486lo said:

Ballard is not your typical GM. Remember...he stated that he wouldnt make draft picks based on NEED. He said he would draft based on BPA because he prefers depth at every position  (like in Kansas City).

Sitting at #3 the best player available is Barkley. Everyone knows this. It's not an offensive lineman, defensive player or QB. What Ballard does would be fine with me. Our number 1 goal is to find a head coach that can get our team back to its winning ways. 2nd goal is/can be a #1 goal, but seeing that Luck had the entire season to heal up after surgery, I see that as a problem solved. I really think Luck will come back strong, despite what others believe. I like to think positive. Everything will fall into place. Let's just trust the process Ballard is installing. 

If we can't trade back and Ballard has to draft at #3 then Ballard should take Barkley like you referenced.  That's assuming we have him rated as the BPA. The good news is it is also a position of need.  I'm also expecting a few OL additions in FA as well.  So I could really get excited about a Barkley pick but my first choice would be to trade back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ar7 said:

 

I don't disagree that the lack of talent will get exposed at some point. Coaching will not address all of the issues. I just think that the Colts can use free agency to improve the offensive line. Plus, i'd rather have a top defensive prospect than a top guard.

It isn’t going to be a great FA class for tackles, but Pugh and Norwell might both be available. I don’t think the Colts sign both, and there’s a chance they sign neither. However, if they do sign one, you still have a hole at the other guard spot as I don’t expect Mewhort to be back. We’ll have to draft an OG/OT high regardless of how you slice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Not everybody sees the best player as the same.

 

With 32 teams you have 32 different Big Boards of priority.     No two boards look the same.

 

You could rate most any player different than another team based on who your coach is and the type of system that the team runs....

 

The original comment was, go 1st pick with whichever the coach's history was. I.E., go offense if the new HC is offensive minded, or go defense if HC is defensive minded. It didn't even touch on scheme.

 

I'm aware draft boards look different from one team to another, but whatever our draft board looks like, take the best guy provided he is a fit. That's what a good GM does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The original comment was, go 1st pick with whichever the coach's history was. I.E., go offense if the new HC is offensive minded, or go defense if HC is defensive minded. It didn't even touch on scheme.

 

I'm aware draft boards look different from one team to another, but whatever our draft board looks like, take the best guy provided he is a fit. That's what a good GM does.

 

I'm sorry.....

 

I thought someone (you?) commented that you wouldn't base your pick around who your coach is.     I took that to mean not just offense or defense,  but to scheme as well.      So, a defensive minded coach might want a certain lineman depending on if he runs a 3-4 or a 4-3.     Different requirements.

 

You might want a different quarterback depending on what you ask a QB to do.    Same with other positions.

 

That's all I was referring to......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2017 at 2:27 PM, dw49 said:

 

Agree  with your thoughts However if you mentioned Washington and if they end up needing a QB , you'd have to put Cousins in the mix which would make the end number of teams needing a QB the same.

 

 

Oh indeed...I think it’s all but certain Alex Smith, Eli Manning, and Tyrod Taylor will in all likelihood be playing somewhere else...maybe Cousins too...but I don’t think that stops 4 qbs going first rd and maybe even Jackson too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

Oh indeed...I think it’s all but certain Alex Smith, Eli Manning, and Tyrod Taylor will in all likelihood be playing somewhere else...maybe Cousins too...but I don’t think that stops 4 qbs going first rd and maybe even Jackson too.

 

Talk is Giants want Manning to play another year to groom the rookie. Problem with NY is they will never want to win the finale vs AZ... I don't think anyway. I'm not sure Tyrod Taylor is going to QB one of those QB needy teams. Alex Smith could fill a void as you say. Miami might pick up Smith or Taylor ? I think the likelihood is we pick 3rd or 4th as Houston is a hot mess and we probably win that one. So we stay at 3 or go to 4 if SF doesn't beat Tenn. today. Very unlikely you get a mother load for the 3rd pick. Still could trade down is Ballard wants to go O line in the first I guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr_486lo said:

Ballard is not your typical GM. Remember...he stated that he wouldnt make draft picks based on NEED. He said he would draft based on BPA because he prefers depth at every position  (like in Kansas City).

Sitting at #3 the best player available is Barkley. Everyone knows this. It's not an offensive lineman, defensive player or QB. What Ballard does would be fine with me. Our number 1 goal is to find a head coach that can get our team back to its winning ways. 2nd goal is/can be a #1 goal, but seeing that Luck had the entire season to heal up after surgery, I see that as a problem solved. I really think Luck will come back strong, despite what others believe. I like to think positive. Everything will fall into place. Let's just trust the process Ballard is installing. 

Actually I will disagree with you.  Most GM's base draft picks on BPA and not need.   So that would make him more typical....  BTW.  BPA is always the best way to draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

Oh indeed...I think it’s all but certain Alex Smith, Eli Manning, and Tyrod Taylor will in all likelihood be playing somewhere else...maybe Cousins too...but I don’t think that stops 4 qbs going first rd and maybe even Jackson too.

I think this talk of Eli Manning's demise is way too premature. He threw for 434 yards and 3 TDs today. That is without a running game and 5 of his receivers on IR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think this talk of Eli Manning's demise is way too premature. He threw for 434 yards and 3 TDs today. That is without a running game and 5 of his receivers on IR.

Oh I do too...just not sure if NY ruined things beyond repair with the benching. I could see a team like Denver or Minnesota or Jacksonville being willing to take a couple years or Eli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Oh I do too...just not sure if NY ruined things beyond repair with the benching. I could see a team like Denver or Minnesota or Jacksonville being willing to take a couple years or Eli.

I am quite sure Eli will be picked up if the Giants cut him. He has a contract that is signed till 2019 and if they cut him the dead cap space would be over 12 million dollars. If they waited till the end of next season the dead cap space would be a touch over 6 million.

They would have to trade him if they wanted him gone. John Mara said publically he wanted Eli next season and is repairing the damage done by McAdoo and Reese.

That don't mean they wouldn't pick a QB with their pick be no means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

Talk is Giants want Manning to play another year to groom the rookie. Problem with NY is they will never want to win the finale vs AZ... I don't think anyway. I'm not sure Tyrod Taylor is going to QB one of those QB needy teams. Alex Smith could fill a void as you say. Miami might pick up Smith or Taylor ? I think the likelihood is we pick 3rd or 4th as Houston is a hot mess and we probably win that one. So we stay at 3 or go to 4 if SF doesn't beat Tenn. today. Very unlikely you get a mother load for the 3rd pick. Still could trade down is Ballard wants to go O line in the first I guess.

 

Rumor mill here in Western NY is saying Bills will go after Smith.  They have a couple of No.1's.  Will move on from Taylor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

So we lose our 1st round pick if we beat Houston?

 

No , if we beat Houston , we would pick 3rd in round one and as low as 7th in round 2. This assumes a loss at Baltimore.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

No , if we beat Houston , we would pick 3rd in round one and as low as 7th in round 2. This assumes a loss at Baltimore.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

Is that because we would have same number of wins with other teams i guess?

Hopefully no more coin tosses. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Is that because we would have same number of wins with other teams i guess?

Hopefully no more coin tosses. haha

 

 

Yes , it's very possible that the Colts , Houston ,TB , SF and Chicago could all finish with 4 wins. No coin flips unless Strength of schedule ends up tied. Chicago , Houston and the Colts each have a winnable game. 

 

Colts win strength of schedule tie breaker with all these teams. So they clinch 3rd pick with 1 loss.  Now when you go to the second round , the order reverses. So the team that picked 7th i the 1st round would pick 3rd in the 2nd round and the team that picked 3rd would pick 7th. Pretty sure it just reverses order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, richard pallo said:

If we can't trade back and Ballard has to draft at #3 then Ballard should take Barkley like you referenced.  That's assuming we have him rated as the BPA. The good news is it is also a position of need.  I'm also expecting a few OL additions in FA as well.  So I could really get excited about a Barkley pick but my first choice would be to trade back. 

If he addresses the guard positions real good in FA I could see him taking Barkley also

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously trading back would be preferred if he wants to take Nelson.   I wouldn't be upset if he took Nelson at 3 or 4 if they couldn't trade down.  

 

Quenton Nelson, G, Notre Dame
Height: 6-5. Weight: 325.
Projected 40 Time: 5.15.
Projected Round (2018): Top-25.

12/9/17: Nelson has dominated for Notre Dame in 2017, showing the ability to overwhelm defensive linemen as a run blocker and pass protector. After surveying sources from around the league including multiple general managers, Nelson is a consensus elite prospect for the 2018 NFL Draft. However, he might go behind lesser prospects in the draft just because he is a guard and many teams don't value guards that high.

Nelson is the most talented and polished offensive lineman in the 2018 NFL Draft class, regardless of position. He also is one of the safest prospects in the draft class. Some team sources think that Nelson could be the best guard in the NFL during his pro career and could be better than former Patriots All-Pro Logan Mankins. Some have higher grades on Nelson than they did on Mankins, David DeCastro and Brandon Scherff.

7/17/17: Nelson was dominant in 2016 and could have been a first-round pick if he had entered the 2017 NFL Draft. Nelson is strong at the point of attack to open holes in the ground game and athletic in pass protection. He was excellent at protecting quarterback DeShone Kizer in 2016. Sources said that Nelson was receiving first-round grades, and one national scout told WalterFootball.com that they think Nelson is a future Pro Bowler similar to Logan Mankins when he came into the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Myles said:

Obviously trading back would be preferred if he wants to take Nelson.   I wouldn't be upset if he took Nelson at 3 or 4 if they couldn't trade down.  

 

Quenton Nelson, G, Notre Dame
Height: 6-5. Weight: 325.
Projected 40 Time: 5.15.
Projected Round (2018): Top-25.

12/9/17: Nelson has dominated for Notre Dame in 2017, showing the ability to overwhelm defensive linemen as a run blocker and pass protector. After surveying sources from around the league including multiple general managers, Nelson is a consensus elite prospect for the 2018 NFL Draft. However, he might go behind lesser prospects in the draft just because he is a guard and many teams don't value guards that high.

Nelson is the most talented and polished offensive lineman in the 2018 NFL Draft class, regardless of position. He also is one of the safest prospects in the draft class. Some team sources think that Nelson could be the best guard in the NFL during his pro career and could be better than former Patriots All-Pro Logan Mankins. Some have higher grades on Nelson than they did on Mankins, David DeCastro and Brandon Scherff.

7/17/17: Nelson was dominant in 2016 and could have been a first-round pick if he had entered the 2017 NFL Draft. Nelson is strong at the point of attack to open holes in the ground game and athletic in pass protection. He was excellent at protecting quarterback DeShone Kizer in 2016. Sources said that Nelson was receiving first-round grades, and one national scout told WalterFootball.com that they think Nelson is a future Pro Bowler similar to Logan Mankins when he came into the NFL.

And just to piggyback off of this, check out this article of perfect team fits for a few of the prospects. And guess who they think is a perfect fit for the Colts (hint: it’s not Bradley Chubb).

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2749692-most-ideal-landing-spots-for-2018-nfl-drafts-top-prospects?share=other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, richard pallo said:

If we can't trade back and Ballard has to draft at #3 then Ballard should take Barkley like you referenced.  That's assuming we have him rated as the BPA. The good news is it is also a position of need.  I'm also expecting a few OL additions in FA as well.  So I could really get excited about a Barkley pick but my first choice would be to trade back. 

Barkley is definitely a talent.   I've only skimmed across a couple videos so far so I have more digging to do.  My only thing that I've seen so far is all his production seems to come from shotgun looks.   I don't really see much of anythng coming out of the I formation or any kind of single back looks.   I don't forsee any major issues, but that's what I've noticed so far.    Also haven't been able to form any opinions on him as a blocker yet either.  But again I have more homework to do.    I think he's an option for us depending on what we do in the FA period and where he's ranked on Ballards board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, krunk said:

If he addresses the guard positions real good in FA I could see him taking Barkley also

 

 

I just think RB is a deep position this year, plus having a dominant OL is much more important than a great RB. So I'd still be in favor of trading down to where Nelson should be drafted, and take him. You could dangle Barkley as trade bait for a team wanting a dynamic RB who is a better prospect than Elliott was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only concern is, Are the Colts drafting in 2017 for BPA. According to Draft History (i.e. FS HOOKER), The Colts always draft BPA. 

 

With that beening said, If RB Barkley is BPA, will the Colts draft RB Barley at #3. 

 

If not, would you as "Colts GM" have drafted RB Zeke Elliott with top 5 pick? (Mainly because Barkley is rated as Elliott production)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

I know its tempting but a guard at #3?  

I'd be Ok with it with Nelson.   Just because from everything I have seen and read, he is as close to a sure this as Manning was.   He's a great run blocker and pass protector.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'd be Ok with it with Nelson.   Just because from everything I have seen and read, he is as close to a sure this as Manning was.   He's a great run blocker and pass protector.  

Ok but I sure hope we can get the second pick and get a sweet deal to trade back and get two #1 this year and more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

Ok but I sure hope we can get the second pick and get a sweet deal to trade back and get two #1 this year and more

Trading down a bit and drafting Nelson would be ideal.  

 

Those who want to draft Barkley, have you given up on Mack already?   I recall so many people, early this season, saying Mach should be our starter.   I think that Mack and Gore would be great behind a better line.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Myles said:

Trading down a bit and drafting Nelson would be ideal.  

 

Those who want to draft Barkley, have you given up on Mack already?   I recall so many people, early this season, saying Mach should be our starter.   I think that Mack and Gore would be great behind a better line.  

I like Gore for one more year and Mack to be the #2 and our future starter. We have so many other needs than RB. Want a dominating edge rusher and a stalwart at ILB. Those two spots make our defense MUCH better. Simon, Sheard, Woods, Hankins and Anderson. That would be a solid front 7 plus you got love Farley at one CB spot and Hairston or Wilson at the other, finally Hooker and Geathers.   2 new players would make a massive difference  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't understand this, so please explain.     This is how I see it based upon what we know.   By accounts, Purdy has played better than Jimmy G.  If you believe the training camp stories where the players were telling media and the coaches that Purdy was the real deal when he got a chance to play in TC, Purdy was good right away and need little actual development by NFL coaches.   If Lynch knew this would happen, why did he wait until the very last pick of the drat to select Purdy?  To say it wasn't luck, but rather skill and knowledge, you'd have to believe that...going into the draft... Lynch knew Purdy would be good (or else why pick him), and also knew that not one other team thought he would be good, so he knew he could just wait until pick 250..    He knew the other GMs thought Purdy would not even be even good right away, but not even a good enough prospect to take a flyer on him and snipe him at pick 249?  Sure, he benefits from Shanahan's system, but my goodness, his success is not THAT system dependent that some team would not have selected him in round 4, 5, 6, 7. with all of the comp picks added on as merely a prospect.  They all ignored Purdy.      How do folks hold the GM player evaluation process in such high regard when we all know that GMs miss.  Both with picking busts and missing good players.  Why is pointing that out a negative?  We all know it.  And why does Ballard deserve to be shielded from it?
    • Maybe he needs lessons in how to manage his image and draft stock as the more he does this type of stuff, he could drop out of the Top 5 that his Dad feels he would go at. With 6 teams taking QBs this year, and 3 last year, in Round 1, the demand won't be as high and the supply will still be good enough. If his OL doesn't protect him well like during their losing streak, is he going to throw his OL under the bus next? I rarely see Deion or Shedeur taking ownership of their on the field issues or have the humility to say "it was my fault". They talk like they are in denial that a team could shellack them or they always lost to a team that they could have beat, that is the impression that I get, and it gets old.
    • No, why would I notice something like that?     No.  He may have said that, but that isn't the video I'm talking about.  There is a video of him in the draft room exactly at pick 53, looking at his draft board (we see his face so the board is unseen behind the camera)  looks around the room talking to the staff, and finally says, "lets go with the wide out".  Nothing about that suggests that he had that specific debate between those two players AP and JW, ahead of time to where it was a clear decision to take AP over JW the day before the draft.  Maybe you never saw that video.   Yes, everybody has the same info on the players.  All players are ranked as the top 250 prospects on all 32 teams' prospect board within a variance of about 5% throughout the ranking.  The difference is in how teams use the info that forms their actual draft boards.  So when Ballard says...and he just did in this presser...".Nobody has any idea how this stuff will play out"....he's talking about how no one GM (meaning himself) knows how all 31 GM are going to use the information.  He has absolutely no working knowledge that tells him a player isn't going to be sniped ahead of him, (See ATL trying to trade up for Latu) That's why he. and other GMs, have a GROUP of players they are comfortable taking at a certain slot.  It may work out to  where the highest ranked player within that group is still available, but that's not the same thing as "targeting that player"    Trading UP is the proof that a GMs targets a specific player, like CAR just did with Brooks at 46, Ballard previously did with JT at 41, and Grigsy did with TY at the end of round 2, etc.  There are examples all over the NFL where teams trade up to get players they targeted, but standing pat or trading down is not how they "target" a specific player.  That's where they settle for one of a group of players that they think will be there when they pick.  In round 1, they can better predict if a player will come to them, but not so much in round 2, 3, 4, etc.  The margin of error in their assessment of what other teams with do is just too big.  No, there is no proof that Ballard targets a mid round player by waiting for him...or trading down for him.  Its more likely that he picks the best player out of the group of players he will settle for.     You probably should adjust your understanding of the concept of GMs "targeting players" to what it actually is.  Its not easy, because their are a lot of paid talking heads in the media using the term wrongly, IMO.   Do you think teams wanting a top 10 LT (and which team would not even shuffle their oline or cap to accommodate) would pass on him through pick 77 because he was 3 years older than the typical college graduate, when LTs have careers that typically span 10 years or more?  It makes no sense that they would be hung up on that three years.   Before your time, a truly great GM, Bill Polian, took LB Rob Morris at pick 26 because he was a player who was thought to be able to start immediately and because it was a position of need.  At the first round presser, BP call RM, "overaged", because he was 24 or 5 coming off his mission from BYU.  Overaged by three years, and still took him in the first round because he "strongly thought" he was a player who could step in and fill a position of need right away.  He didn't wait until the third round because of concern about how old he would be years down the road when he had to think about a second contract.  So, yes, when teams think a player won't be able to step in and play well right away, they slide to the mid rounds.  Those are called "developmental players".   That was the Luck/Griffin year...and yes, pundits all over the place had him ranked as a third rounder.  Seems SEA had him ranked no differently than others on their draft board.    Again, the prospects are ranked similarly.  Who teams want to draft out of a grouping is obviously different.    The point being made by me...and Ballard...is that no GM knows what the other 31 GMs will do at any given moment....they don't know the other teams' draft boards.   But they all know the traits of the players and have similar ideas about what kind of prospect they will be, and whether or not they can play right away or take a season or two to earn a starting job.  That part of the evaluation is all the same amongst 32 teams, IMO.   Because they don't know what other teams will do, and don't know other teams draft boards is why why Frank was high fiving.  There was excitement  in getting the players they wanted, in that no other team took them or sniped them.  If they knew what other GMs were going to do, they would have known they would have gotten those players and it would be non suspenseful.    But. its possible that Ballard was way off in how he ranked his prospects compared to other teams back then, and everybody was excited when they didn't have to be.     And I'm not going to believe for a moment, that Ballard lets himself be some dullard blank canvas between the ears that won't make a pick until his HC draws him a picture of who to pick.  Especially on the defense and in every round.  Especially when he deliberates with only himself and then he's the one telling the others in the room "lets go with the wide out".  Sorry, not buying it.   Yes, that difference is what dictates their draft boards.  But, they all have the same knowledge of what the different player traits are.  They know which ones are fast, slow, twitchy, good balance, arm length, etc.  As the Raimann example, they all evaluate him as being a successful NFL LT.  His experience at a small school, weight (like Freeland), years as an olineman when he was a former TE, all weigh into their conclusion about how long they think it would take him to be a starter.  They all saw his traits and experience as not being worthy of a pick higher than 77, and they misjudged how quickly he learned the NFL game.    Same with Mathis, Saturday, Brady, Purdy, etc... all the teams know what these players traits are, and they all feed them through the same evaluation process, and that process misses players from time to time.  Contrast that thought with what I've been reading, that Ballard knew Raimann was good and dropped him only because of age, which means that better GMs like Polian, NE, and Lynch must have known those players would be what they would be....and knew that no other team figured it out so they waited.  To me, that makes no sense.  IMO, they all got lucky relative to how well they thought each player would play when they drafted them.   That's great.  And I sincerely hope that you've enjoyed your career.     But, I'm the kind of person that doesn't care about credentials.  I judge the content for what it says.   Thanks for staying calm.  
    • The secondary could use some help, but I don't think it will make or break the season.   Two things will make or break the season: One, can Richardson improve his accuracy and thread the needle on clutch 3rd and longs, and two, can he stay healthy?
    • Yeah, he is a sore loser. He can take that L and go home for the summer. He could have hurt someone with that 2nd throw, he threw it hard. 
  • Members

    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,833

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shive

      Shive 5,791

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • B~Town

      B~Town 311

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 2006Coltsbestever

      2006Coltsbestever 41,576

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • KB

      KB 1,147

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 6,239

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chad72

      chad72 18,315

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dingus McGirt

      Dingus McGirt 3,608

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • #12.

      #12. 3,318

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fourstar40

      Fourstar40 20

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...