Ballard's 2017 draft vs. Grigson's 2012

[DalTXColtsFan]

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

[Robin]

Its been one year with injuries too key players... they need more time before you can judge them.. and I think hilton is the only one left out of grigsons pick

[aaron11]

7 minutes ago, Robin said:

Its been one year with injuries too key players... they need more time before you can judge them.. and I think hilton is the only one left out of grigsons pick

not true

 

mewhort, kelly, green, clark, haeg, good, anderson, and geathers were all grigson picks

[Caleb Randolph]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

not true

 

mewhort, kelly, green, clark, haeg, good, anderson, and geathers were all grigson picks

Im pretty sure he meant just the 2012 draft class.

[LockeDown]

We traded Allen to our rival, let Fleener walk, Chapman injured all the time anded up a bust, Brazil was kicked off the team for offseason issues.  

[aaron11]

24 minutes ago, Caleb Randolph said:

Im pretty sure he meant just the 2012 draft class.

luck was in that class too 

 

i guess you could say that only the two best players on the team were from that draft 

 

 

[CanuckColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

So this is the big thing with Grigson. His picks looked good immediately but turned into not much. Hilton was fantastic though. 

 

The whole point Ballard is after is there are no short cuts to greatness. Wait and see. The comparison is only rookie year. I think we we can count on 4 of the players from Ballards first draft to contribute nicely. 

[SaturdayAllDay]

1 hour ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

Are we acting like Grigson didn't have a great 2012 draft?? He won Executive of the year for that draft class. 

 

Obviously Ballards first draft didnt win him executive of the year. That doesnt mean it wasnt good. Just that it wasnt a league best effort, which is a tall order for any rookie GM. 

 

The important thing going forward is that Ballard has to be consistently good, unlike Griggles, who had one stellar draft and then dropped the ball every year after that. 

[Robin]

37 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

luck was in that class too 

 

i guess you could say that only the two best players on the team were from that draft 

 

 

Well, u did say u left Luck out as he was a nobrainer.. so no credit to Grigson there..

 

I think its way to early to compare the two classes.. Hooker might be the best safety in the league in a couple of years.. He might be the worst who knows. Only time will tell

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, Robin said:

 Hooker might be the best safety in the league in a couple of years.. He might be the worst who knows. Only time will tell

i do agree with this

 

he could be great, or he could be out of the league because he cant tackle and gets hurt too much.  hes a high risk pick to me, but it could pay off

[SaturdayAllDay]

1 hour ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

Id also like to refute this as well. 

 

People seem to be expecting the world from 1st yr pass rushers. Did you know that from 2006 to 2016, that 1ST ROUND pass rushers averaged just a touch over 4 sacks in their rookie seasons?? Expecting anything more that what Basham got (2 sacks and a FF) from a 3rd round pick is kind of ridiculous, especially when you compare how little he actually saw the field compared to your average 1st round pick.

1st round rookie pass rushers averaged 45.8% of defensive snaps in 2017 (thats including Jonathan Allens 14.5%, which was only because he missed 10 games due to injury). Looking at Basham, he managed to get his stats on 20.8% of the Colts defensive snaps. He did about half of what is considered average for a 1st round pick, with less than half the opportunity that a 1st round pick was given.

 

If anything, he is playing above average for a 3rd round rookie.The big test for him will be to see if he makes the jump that highly touted pass rushers tend to make in their 2nd/3rd yr. 

[coltsblue1844]

Let's also realize that Grigson had the 1st pick in each round of his 1st draft, while Ballard had the 15th. Big difference between the two!

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, coltsblue1844 said:

Let's also realize that Grigson had the 1st pick in each round of his 1st draft, while Ballard had the 15th. Big difference between the two!

This...

 

Let's wait and compare this years draft with CB to 2012... but 6 years from now. 

 

I'm not sure how anyone can say 2012 was a great drafting year considering TY and Andrew are the only 2 left on board (albeit very good pro's). I don't give a damn (excuse my language) about how a player plays their rookie year. I want longterm success and Grigson had NONE with his draft picks aside from the aforementioned in parentheses. Ballard has a vision of leading drafts, stacking them on top of one another, developing the picks and retainingthem long term. 

 

Let's revisit this topic at the conclusion of this upcoming season, when we have a much greater comparison of last years rookie's in their second year. I think Ballard had a bit of bad luck with injuries, but I'm optimistic that the 2017 draft class will produce some great football players in the next few years. 

[atapcl]

Grigson was drafting first in the rounds so he had a little better positioning.

[MPStack]

Easier to grade the 2012 Grigson draft versus Ballard's draft after only one season. Kinda the norm that a lot of rookies don't contribute until year 2 or 3. 

[#12.]

Hard to say.  The rookies didn't get much of a chance under Chuck.  Hopefully a few of them make a 2nd year leap.  

[Zoltan]

4 hours ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

 

I like how you made a 5th round pick Hairston (who only played 2 seasons at CB before the season started), started at the nickel position almost all year, sound not that great. 5th round picks aren't usually starters, and he had a great start of the season, he did get worse towards the end of the season but the entire defense got worse. It's a looking at the glass half full/half empty situation.

 

2 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Id also like to refute this as well. 

 

People seem to be expecting the world from 1st yr pass rushers. Did you know that from 2006 to 2016, that 1ST ROUND pass rushers averaged just a touch over 4 sacks in their rookie seasons?? Expecting anything more that what Basham got (2 sacks and a FF) from a 3rd round pick is kind of ridiculous, especially when you compare how little he actually saw the field compared to your average 1st round pick.

1st round rookie pass rushers averaged 45.8% of defensive snaps in 2017 (thats including Jonathan Allens 14.5%, which was only because he missed 10 games due to injury). Looking at Basham, he managed to get his stats on 20.8% of the Colts defensive snaps. He did about half of what is considered average for a 1st round pick, with less than half the opportunity that a 1st round pick was given.

 

If anything, he is playing above average for a 3rd round rookie.The big test for him will be to see if he makes the jump that highly touted pass rushers tend to make in their 2nd/3rd yr. 

 

You have to also think about where these picks were taken, when you take someone in the 3rd or 4th round you don't expect them to be immediate starters. Usually you hope that they will eventually be starters but mostly rotational players at first.

 

As for a player like Grover Stewart there was a reason he didn't get much playing time, He came from a D2 school and even on his draft profile they said he was likely to take a "red shirt year" because he needed to gain weight and work on his technique especially since he will be going against better players.

 

Then we all know there was some weird situation all season with Wilson, when he played he did great yet they wouldn't let him play because of practice reasons, then there was a story about him being injured, it was weird.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 hours ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

Im not a Griggs fanboy But its no comparison, Griggs first draft blew ballards out of the water.

[aaron11]

16 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I like how you made a 5th round pick Hairston (who only played 2 seasons at CB before the season started), started at the nickel position almost all year, sound not that great. 5th round picks aren't usually starters, and he had a great start of the season, he did get worse towards the end of the season but the entire defense got worse. It's a looking at the glass half full/half empty situation.

 

nate did play a lot, but we were desperate for help at the position 

 

 he graded poorly for what its worth.

 

imo he seemed ok against bad teams but struggled against the few good teams we played last year like the steelers and seahawks 

[ColtStrong2013]

32 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Im not a Griggs fanboy But its no comparison, Griggs first draft blew ballards out of the water.

Will you say the same if in 4 years Hooker and Wilson are all-pro, Mack is still our change of pace back, Basham is producing 8 sacks a year, and Hairston is still a solid depth/nickelback? 

 

2012 produced a lot as rookies because they had to and a lot should be credited to Andrew Luck and Bruce Arians for putting the ball in those guys hands. Where are they all now and what are they doing? 

[Malakai432]

Kind of hard to compare the two thus far.  He did nail 2012 with Hilton and Luck.  So he nailed two players and one was a given.  Vick Ballard had potential, Fleener and Allen weren’t special at all.  All Ballard has to do is nail on more than 3-4 players in 4 years and he pretty much exceeds Grigson.  I guess that’s not saying much.  

[Jaredfor3]

I really don’t give Grigson credit for Luck. After all, it doesn’t take an NFL scout to know that Luck was hands down better than RG 3. I give him props for trading up to get T.Y. Hilton though. 

 

The only miss by Ballard was Zach Banner in the 4th round. The rest of them have upside! 

[chad72]

I started a thread for Cordy Glenn and stated my case for him to be our 2nd round pick once day 1 was done. I said he could be our version of Carl Nicks, who was the Saints OG at that time. Instead, Grigson went with Fleener. I felt we could have gotten great productivity from Cordy Glenn's rookie years if we had drafted him instead of shuffling journeymen. 

 

Plus, we kept rotating Avery, DHB, Hakeem Nicks, AJ at that #2 spot opposite TY and never have found an answer, IMO, and it is still a gaping hole. Dorsett, unfortunately, was not the answer either.

 

I know we lost Dallas Clark, Garcon, Collie, Gonzo, Marvin, and other TEs in a span of 2 years. However, outside TY, I thought Moncrief would be the answer and still believed he could have been given a chance with the new OC to utilize him (that is another story). It has either been woeful under utilization or underachievement from our TE position. Jack Doyle is the only one who has been a lunch pail guy though he doesn't jump out to you as a difference maker at the TE position. 

[Cynjin]

4 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Im not a Griggs fanboy But its no comparison, Griggs first draft blew ballards out of the water.

 

No it didn't. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

This is a bad take. 

[NorthernBlue]

If you’re only judging by 1 year, then sure. The 2012 one looks better. But it helps that that team

made the playoffs (Luck was pretty Huge in that). I think that this class has higher potential but time will tell.

[Zoltan]

6 hours ago, aaron11 said:

nate did play a lot, but we were desperate for help at the position 

 

 he graded poorly for what its worth.

 

imo he seemed ok against bad teams but struggled against the few good teams we played last year like the steelers and seahawks 

 

Considering that he was a 5th round pick and that was the 3rd year he has ever played Cornerback, I think he played pretty good. Also if you factor in he didn't allow a touchdown in the first ten weeks (214 coverage snaps), that's pretty good for a rookie with limited experience. Imagine how much better he can get.

 

[MTC]

It's too early to judge a draft class off of one season. Let's re-visit this in two or three years. 

[HectorRoberts]

12 hours ago, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

That first Grigson draft was actually very good he also brought in freemen that year. If he could have have 4 more drafts like he did that first year he would still probably have a job. On other hand defensive players take a little bit longer than offensive to develop and Ballard drafted very heavy on defense while grigson was very heavy on offense. With that said hooker, Wilson, Hairston, and Mack are thought to be starting right out the gate this season with Basham and Walker being in the conversation to compete to be starters this year as well. 

[Revala]

Waaayyyyy to early to be comparing the two, but if we must then here we go.

 

2012

 

1. Luck We can't truly credit Grigson with this pick. It was obvious.

2. Fleener I prefer Jack Doyle

3. Allen I prefer Jack Doyle

3. Hilton A home run right here. 

5. Chapman Showed a few flashes and then he was gone.

5. Ballard Showed a few flashes and then he was gone.

6. Brazill Showed a few flashes and then he was gone.

6. Anderson Showed a few flashes and then he was gone. 

7. Fugger Blank

7. Harnish Blank

 

2017

 

1. Hooker This is still up in the air. Has to prove he can stay on the field, but if can then I have little doubt he will be a true difference maker. 

2. Wilson Didn't see much playing time but looked good when he was out there. As of now he is the the number 1 corner and I could see him excelling in the new scheme

3. Basham Didn't look great in his first year. When he was drafted he seemed like a better fit as a 4-3 DE. Now I'm intrigued to see if there is any improvement.

4. Banner Cut early on. Bad pick

4. Mack Difference maker. Think he needs to be in a committee but he can definitely change a game. 

4. Stewart Now this is where you take a project player. With that being said it is too early to pass judgment.

5. Hairston Played a lot early and played well. He only just started playing cornerback(only two years in college) so this could be just the beginning 

5. Walker Jr. Maybe he fits better in the scheme or maybe he just continues to be a backup/ST. Time will tell.

[crazycolt1]

Grigson's first draft earned him the GM of the year as I recall.

All this talk of players is fine but one thing you are all overlooking is Grigson made his first draft while the Colts were 39 million in cap hades and this team had no offense at all. He had no choice but to draft offense. The only players worth a damn on offense was Wayne.

If you look at Fleener and Allen both of them had great rookie seasons. Why they disappeared over time I don't have a clue because both of their rookie seasons didn't tell that.

Now fast forward to today what good does it do to bring up the past?

I keep hearing how this roster is total junk and we have no talent. We need so many positions there is not a clear cut player to take in the draft because we are needing players all over the roster.

It's kind of funny, I thought all the problems were Pagano and how we had the talent to win but it was him who was causing this team to lose.

Now here we are with a whole new coaching staff and I don't see any of you bringing that up.

Grigson lost his job because he couldn't find the players needed to get better.

Now comparing Grigson to Ballard serves what purpose? 

I know it's the off season but c-mon. 

[DougDew]

If you want to compare draft classes, the proper Grigson draft to compare should be 2016 since he picked in the middle of the round....18...compared to CBs 15. They're about the same so far, IMO

 

Ryan Kelly:  Pro bowl player but injured

TJ Green: Struggling

LeRaven Clark:  Struggling

Ridgeway:  Nice player

Morrison: Struggling

Haeg: Nice player

Trevor Bates Gone

Austin Blythe. Gone

[NewColtsFan]

 

Let's not forget,  that it wasn't just the draft that earned Grigson NFL Exec of the Year.

 

It was also the fact that his team went 11-5 when it had an $80 payroll at a time when the rest of the NFL had a $120 Million payroll.    The Colts had to carry $40 Mill in Dead Cap money for a year.      That helped.

 

And he signed some decent free agent players who helped both sides of the ball.      That helped too.

 

Yes,  at the time his draft class was viewed as exceptional.   ESPN said top-10 all-time.    But now we all see how much that has changed over the years. 

 

But Grigson had a very good first year as a GM.    It wasn't just the draft.

 

[PeterBowman]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Let's not forget,  that it wasn't just the draft that earned Grigson NFL Exec of the Year.

 

It was also the fact that his team went 11-5 when it had an $80 payroll at a time when the rest of the NFL had a $120 Million payroll.    The Colts had to carry $40 Mill in Dead Cap money for a year.      That helped.

 

And he signed some decent free agent players who helped both sides of the ball.      That helped too.

 

Yes,  at the time his draft class was viewed as exceptional.   ESPN said top-10 all-time.    But now we all see how much that has changed over the years. 

 

But Grigson had a very good first year as a GM.    It wasn't just the draft.

 

I personally think that the early success doomed the initial rebuild. They didn't get to have a proper reset like they might be doing now. They went from a rebuild to win now in a matter of one year. Of course doing the win now poorly didn't help either.

[aaron11]

12 hours ago, Zoltan said:

 

Considering that he was a 5th round pick and that was the 3rd year he has ever played Cornerback, I think he played pretty good. Also if you factor in he didn't allow a touchdown in the first ten weeks (214 coverage snaps), that's pretty good for a rookie with limited experience. Imagine how much better he can get.

 

fair enough

 

we shouldnt expect amazing play from a 5th round rookie.  he could definitely get better

[ColtStrong2013]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Let's not forget,  that it wasn't just the draft that earned Grigson NFL Exec of the Year.

 

It was also the fact that his team went 11-5 when it had an $80 payroll at a time when the rest of the NFL had a $120 Million payroll.    The Colts had to carry $40 Mill in Dead Cap money for a year.      That helped.

 

And he signed some decent free agent players who helped both sides of the ball.      That helped too.

 

Yes,  at the time his draft class was viewed as exceptional.   ESPN said top-10 all-time.    But now we all see how much that has changed over the years. 

 

But Grigson had a very good first year as a GM.    It wasn't just the draft.

 

He also had a healthy Andrew Luck that won most of those games after being in a hole to start... Ballard didn't have that luxury, and it's going to pay off this draft for him... and likely next draft as well (with an added 2nd round pick,and possibly more with further trade downs) 

 

Let's judge Ballard next off season when he rolls over serious capspace, has two years of drafting and roster building under his belt, and a potentially star-studded Free Agency to bid on.

[dodsworth]

Grigson didn't know how to manage cap space by overspending 

on aging players. Obviously Ballard won't be overspending on anybody

so he has that part of his job figured out early in his tenure.

[Valpo2004]

On 4/1/2018 at 10:51 AM, DalTXColtsFan said:

Hooker:  Pro-bowl potential, hope his injury doesn't keep him from reaching it

Wilson - battled injury, didn't see much out of him

Basham - saw very little productivity out of him

Banner - didn't make the team

Stewart - didn't see much out of him

Mack - true playmaker/differencemaker as a complimentary running back.  Needs to prove he can be a #1

Hairston - seemed serviceable thrust into the duties asked of him

Walker - backup LB/special-teams player

 

I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Brazill, Chapman and Ballard collectively contributed more their rookie years than the above 8 players.  I left Luck off the list because he was a no-brainer.

 

Am I missing something? Was Ballard's first draft really any better than Grigson's?

 

It wasn't.  Grigson had a great first draft and sucked it up after that.  

 

Ballard's first draft was good but not great.  

 

But if Ballard can do it consistently I'd take a GM who can give you consistently good to decent drafts every year over one who has 1 great draft and then has 4 terrible drafts.  

 

I mean Grigson's 2nd best draft was his last one and in that one only Ryan Kelly panned out as a starter and Joe Haeg I think in the 5th panned out to be a decent backup.  

 

But TJ Green - Bust, LaRaven Clark - Bust

[Four2itus]

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

It's kind of funny, I thought all the problems were Pagano and how we had the talent to win but it was him who was causing this team to lose.

Now here we are with a whole new coaching staff and I don't see any of you bringing that up.

This times a thousand....

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, dodsworth said:

Grigson didn't know how to manage cap space by overspending 

on aging players. Obviously Ballard won't be overspending on anybody

so he has that part of his job figured out early in his tenure.

Say all the negative things about Grigson you care too but cap management is not one of them. He left this team in great shape as far as the cap is concerned.