Supes 2018 draft analysis

[Scott Pennock]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not splitting hairs, I just considered everything we know about the pick and how it was made. I think B+ is a really good grade, but I'm not thrilled with the value for a guard in the top ten. It's not keeping me up at night; I think some in this thread are more upset with me saying it's a B+ pick than I am with the pick, for sure.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I will now for the amusement!

[poilucelt]

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle on this, because I don't see it so much a "Nelson vs Chubb" issue as maybe using the 1st 3 selections for a different combination of the same positions. If it were me, I might've been inclined to go with Roquan at #6, followed by Braden Smith and James Daniels (in whichever order) with the next 2 picks.

 

From the sound of it, Ballard didn't have Daniels rated as highly as B. Smith (or Hernandez, Wynn or, of course, Nelson) but most of the write-ups I saw on Daniels had him rated at least as highly as Smith, and IIRC the Bears have already announced they're moving Daniels to left guard.

 

I suppose it just comes down to how critically you regard the LB position, especially in Tampa 2, versus how critically you view the situation with the Colts' offensive line (specifically, IMO, with Mewhort). And how you calculate the odds of Leonard matching Roquan's potential contribution in comparison to B Smith-Daniels matching Nelson-B Smith's potential contribution. Either way, you get a fast LB and 2 solid OLs, so I just hope it pans out.

 

The only other move I questioned (and still do to an extent) was the Lewis pick. I don't remember being blown away by him when I saw Ohio State last fall, and I believe he actually played fewer minutes last season (thanks in part to Bosa and Hubbard) than he did in 2016. What really bugged me more than the pick itself was giving up #178 to move up 3 spots and make it--especially with guys like Carter, Thomas and Hill all still sitting there.

 

Apparently, as suggested, Ballard 1) really valued Lewis higher than any of those other 3 and 2) was convinced either the Raiders or the Giants would pick him before he fell to #67. Not sure I buy that, but what's done is done. Kind of a shame, since Ballard could've used #178 for another LB prospect like C. Sam, or even a CB like P. Nickerson.

 

Not sure who's gonna be the main "3-Under" guy in Eberflus' defense (Ridgeway? Woods?) but if whoever that is doesn't work out, the 2019 draft is shaping up as possibly the deepest in defensive linemen in recent memory. Clemson alone may have all 4 of its starting DLs go in the 1st round, which is sick. Depending on how the 2018 season plays out, maybe Ballard will have a shot at one of them next April. And 2 more promising players in Round 2, courtesy of the J-E-T-S Jets.

[NewColtsFan]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Kind of, but not really. In my world, we take Smith at #36 instead of Leonard. I'm concerned about Turay. And I don't know how far down the rabbit hole we're going to go with the other picks that got moved around, but I don't see those as significant draft capital.

 

And as we all know, I wanted a guard in free agency. So that scratches the itch on the OL.

 

So yes, I think the better value in the draft would have been Chubb. I don't see that collection of players and picks as valuable as I see Chubb. And it's not just because he's a pass rusher; I believe in Chubb, I think he's just as good a prospect as Myles Garrett was. 

 

Edit: By the way, this is the same kind of decision point that Ballard discussed. It's why he didn't want to move down again. He could have added the #12 pick, gotten Derwin James, plus another couple of seconds, maybe thrown in a future first. But it was important to him to get a blue chip prospect, which he did. The difference is that I think there was a similar breakpoint between Chubb and Nelson.

 

There was no future first to add...   if you read the stories from Buffalo..    their  goal was to not trade a future first and they didn't.   They didn't trade any future picks at all.   So the ship on that idea sailed...

 

Did you see the analytical breakdown the team released on Turay and Lewis which showed roughly similar stats to Chubb on roughly HALF the snaps? 

 

Either way...   I was stunned at your overall evaluation and I'm stunned at this answer so I'll just chalk it up to agree to disagree...    that's what makes the world go around...

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think he's the third best player in the draft, and we had a chance to get one of the players I have rated ahead of him. 

Yeah fair enough, your write up was so thorough and Good that I couldn't really nit pick it too much . On my Board for us I had Barkley 1 but knew he would be gone, Nelson 2, Chubb 3.

[BlueShoe]

I am a huge Leonard fan. I have scouted him for the past several months and have yet to see him miss a tackle. He plays extremely well in space too. 

 

I am quite sure he was high on most teams boards. I thought he had an outside chance to be a first round pick.

 

Leonard is going to be tremendous. 

[Surge89]

20 hours ago, Superman said:

Here are my grades/thoughts on the draft.

 

1/6 -- Quenton Nelson, G, Notre Dame, B+

 

2/4 -- Darius Leonard, LB, South Carolina St, C-

 

2/5 -- Braden Smith, G, Auburn, A-

 

2/20 -- Kemoko Turay, EDGE, Rutgers, B-

 

2/32 -- Tyquan Lewis, EDGE, Ohio State, B

 

4/4 -- Nyheim Hines, RB, NC State, B+

 

5/22 -- Daurice Fountain, WR, Northern Iowa, A-

 

5/32 -- Jordan Wilkins, RB, Ole Miss, A

 

6/11 -- Deon Cain, WR, Clemson, A

 

7/3 -- Matthew Adams, LB, Houston, B+

 

7/17 -- Zaire Franklin, LB, Syracuse, D

 

 

Shortened your quote for the sake of the thread.

 

Always love to hear your perspective!  I'll say that I was initially underwhelmed with taking a guard in the top 10 but after seeing 4 guards go over corners and pass rushers I was glad we took Nelson.  On the third day I was thrilled.  Lots of value and players who can provide a higher tier of depth which is what this team needs badly.

 

But that leaves the second day. And let me first say that these opinions are just shaped on what I have watched on these guys through my draft process so take with a grain of salt lol. Anyways, boy did I have my share of complaints on the second day.  Unlike you I loved the Leonard pick and don't see him a reach at all.  Also unlike you I despise the Smith pick and not only see it as a reach but a comical reach with Connor Williams still on the board.  Not only did I have Smith a whole round lower (and I loved this guard class...) But there were some especially talented corners still available.  I find it funny that people aren't mentioning the positional value when it comes to this pick.  We took a guard and reached for him when there were edge rushers, corners, linebackers and right tackles still on the board...

 

The last 2 picks of the second round are equally as bad as the Smith pick.  Next year there will be a plethora of edge talent defensive tackle talent.  There was no reason to reach for needs here when there was value at right tackle, receiver, runningback and linebacker.  Take what the draft gives you instead of reaching for need.  Just by position these picks are extremely short sighted and have utter dissappointment from me.  As far as the prospects go I loved Turay before the draft.  But in no shape or form did I see an oft injured high upside unrefined edge rusher as a second round pick.  Bad value is bad value here.  And Lewis is even worse.  Basham has a better shot and making an impact then Lewis does. 

 

All in all the draft was ok.  It could have been way better.  But I expect that next year when we are drafting another set of edge rushers there will be some wondering why we drafted 2 in one of the weakest edge classes in the past 5 years...

[stitches]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The grade I gave takes the trade down from #3 into consideration.

So does that mean you would rather us not have traded in the first place?

 

Here's an interesting exercise...

 

Would you rather have Chubb at 3 or what we got through the trade(Nelson, Smith, Turay and 2019 second)?

 

Would you rather have Chubb at 3 or your choice of what we could have gotten(your choice of players at #6, #37 and #49 + 2019 second)? And who are the players you would have selected(and that were available at those positions)? 

 

(For the record I'm torn on the first one, but if I could have Nelson(6), Landry(37), Connor Williams(49) + second in 2019, I would have chosen this one)...

[LockeDown]

Nelson is being universally compared

to the greatest of all time and Leonard got more praise from Greg Cosell  than did Edmunds and other options at LB. I’d say that was a good 1-2 punch.

[shasta519]

51 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Shortened your quote for the sake of the thread.

 

Always love to hear your perspective!  I'll say that I was initially underwhelmed with taking a guard in the top 10 but after seeing 4 guards go over corners and pass rushers I was glad we took Nelson.  On the third day I was thrilled.  Lots of value and players who can provide a higher tier of depth which is what this team needs badly.

 

But that leaves the second day. And let me first say that these opinions are just shaped on what I have watched on these guys through my draft process so take with a grain of salt lol. Anyways, boy did I have my share of complaints on the second day.  Unlike you I loved the Leonard pick and don't see him a reach at all.  Also unlike you I despise the Smith pick and not only see it as a reach but a comical reach with Connor Williams still on the board.  Not only did I have Smith a whole round lower (and I loved this guard class...) But there were some especially talented corners still available.  I find it funny that people aren't mentioning the positional value when it comes to this pick.  We took a guard and reached for him when there were edge rushers, corners, linebackers and right tackles still on the board...

 

The last 2 picks of the second round are equally as bad as the Smith pick.  Next year there will be a plethora of edge talent defensive tackle talent.  There was no reason to reach for needs here when there was value at right tackle, receiver, runningback and linebacker.  Take what the draft gives you instead of reaching for need.  Just by position these picks are extremely short sighted and have utter dissappointment from me.  As far as the prospects go I loved Turay before the draft.  But in no shape or form did I see an oft injured high upside unrefined edge rusher as a second round pick.  Bad value is bad value here.  And Lewis is even worse.  Basham has a better shot and making an impact then Lewis does. 

 

All in all the draft was ok.  It could have been way better.  But I expect that next year when we are drafting another set of edge rushers there will be some wondering why we drafted 2 in one of the weakest edge classes in the past 5 years...

 

Good point about Williams being available. I would have preferred an OT instead of double-dipping on Gs early. I don't think I ever recall a team doing that. 

 

I was also perplexed that Ballard passed on Jackson, Oliver and Davis at CB. He drafted Wilson last year in the 2nd round, so obviously he values it to a degree. But it seems like he was focused on positions and drafting multiple at a few of them. 

 

I agree regarding the 2nd round...I felt it got more underwhelming with every pick. I too didn't understand drafting edge players in a pretty weak class (the fact that players like Turay and Lewis were near the top 5 drafted at that position speaks to that weakness). Ballard did say he liked the depth of edge talent, but he has also been very forward about wanting to build up the trenches...which implies he drafted for need...and it could have even reached on those picks. 

 

I think this 2nd round could have been the stuff of legends. And maybe it still could be...I am just not as high on these players as others...especially considering they followed taking a G with the #6 pick. 

[stitches]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

There was no future first to add...   if you read the stories from Buffalo..    their  goal was to not trade a future first and they didn't.   They didn't trade any future picks at all.   So the ship on that idea sailed...

 

Did you see the analytical breakdown the team released on Turay and Lewis which showed roughly similar stats to Chubb on roughly HALF the snaps? 

 

Either way...   I was stunned at your overall evaluation and I'm stunned at this answer so I'll just chalk it up to agree to disagree...    that's what makes the world go around...

 

 

I understand @Superman 's position ... it all really falls down on how high you value Chubb. If you think Chubb is a Bosa/Garrett/Mack type of a difference maker you can make the argument that this is more valuable than pro bowl guard + 3 second round picks. Seems like Superman values him similarly to those players. I'm half the way there, too. I think Chubb is a high end prospect at high end importance position, but his 3cone and shuttle at the combine dampened my enthusiasm for him a bit. I guess we will see in due time whether he will join that group of elite pass-rushers or not.

 

Something else in evaluating the trade is that it happened at a certain point of time when we had incomplete information about the way the draft would go. For example -

- we didn't know that the Giants wouldn't pick Chubb at 2, what if they did pick him?

- we didn't know that Chubb wouldn't be available at 6, what if he was? 

- we didn't know whether we will get close to the same package on draft day than we did at the time we made the trade 

 

Those were all non-insignificant chance events. Ballard had to make a decision with all those uncertainties. What happens if we don't make the trade and the Giants pick Chubb at 2 and now the Jets have more information that QBs are falling and decide to not trade up or don't have the same urgency to trade up and make a much worse offer? I don't think we can judge the trade with hindsight of what happened on draft day. You have to judge it taking in consideration everything that COULD have happened on draft day. I still think the reasoning and value for the trade were very solid and I wouldn't nick Ballard's draft grade for it. You have to evaluate the trade at the moment it happened and you have to evaluate the pick at the moment it happened. That's why my personal grade for the trade was A+(I thought it was great value) and for the pick was A(I thought it was the best available player and a player at a position of need in a draft where all other available prospects were at similarly low value positions).  

[DaveA1102]

I can see both sides of the argument in terms of Nelson's quality and the implied "positional value", but here is where I stand on this.

 

Q: What is the most important factor in the future success of the Indianapolis Colts?

A: Andrew Luck's health

 

Q: How does a GM ensure, as far as possible, Andrew Luck stays healthy?

A: Invest your draft capital in the best linemen you can get

 

Looking at the picks on their own in a vacuum, I can see the argument that taking two guards in first 37 picks (including at #6) is a lot, but it addresses the most important issue in our franchise now, and for the next ten years.

 

Surely positional value, in this instance, has to weigh in the positional value of protecting one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL?

 

I have never proclaimed to have an extensive knowledge of college football and so I am sure some of you come from a place of knowledge of the players and their tape but, for me, I like what Ballard achieved in the draft and what it could potentially mean for the franchise in the coming years.

 

[oldunclemark]

I think players can be rated only in terms of how they fit us and whether they can play.

I don't think that some one else who could have been drafted in that slot is a legitimate consideration.

You could always have drafted someone else..

 

If the guy becomes a quality starter..it was a good pick wherever you drafted him.

[krunk]

27 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I think players can be rated only in terms of how they fit us and whether they can play.

I don't think that some one else who could have been drafted in that slot is a legitimate consideration.

You could always have drafted someone else..

 

If the guy becomes a quality starter..it was a good pick wherever you drafted him.

Yeah Ballard made it clear what his criterias were.  The areas of the team he was prioritizing versus others let's you know why he didn't make such and such pick. We say the other player was better, but if he didnt make the pick then it's sort of obvious he didn't feel the same way we did.  He made a set of criterias and got the guys who best fit what he was looking to do with his team.

[shasta519]

19 hours ago, Myles said:

Ballard hit a home run.   Traded back 3 spots for 3 extra 2nd round picks and still got one of the top players in the draft which was a need for the Colts.  

Ok, so you picked a guard from the past few years in Scherff.   Nope, probably not an A+.   Was Amobi Okoye an A+?  

The difference between Wynn and Nelson IS huge.  

 

I picked Scherff because he was a top 5 pick and has developed into one of the best OGs in the NFL...not because he was a bust. He's actually a pretty good comp for this discussion.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

I picked Scherff because he was a top 5 pick and has developed into one of the best OGs in the NFL...not because he was a bust. He's actually a pretty good comp for this discussion.

So the Colts got Nelson 1 spot further back.   Nelson is also thought of as much better than Scherff was.   Scherff had a suspect pass protection game which is not the case with Nelson.   If Nelson holds his own and makes 2 pro bowls in his first 3 seasons like Scherff, I'm sure Ballard will be thrilled.   Luck too.  

[Superman]

7 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

Q: How does a GM ensure, as far as possible, Andrew Luck stays healthy?

A: Invest your draft capital in the best linemen you can get

 

I would say invest your resources in the best linemen you can get, and the most readily available asset we had this offseason was cap space. Which is why I wanted Norwell.

[DaveA1102]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I would say invest your resources in the best linemen you can get, and the most readily available asset we had this offseason was cap space. Which is why I wanted Norwell.

 

It's a fair point, but that's a huge amount of money for us to invest while not being ready to be contenders and, to be fair, we don't even know whether colts made an offer and how much it was.

 

We could have been right there in the bidding but if I am Norwell and looking to be a part of a team challenging for a superbowl, not hard to pick.

[Superman]

50 minutes ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

It's a fair point, but that's a huge amount of money for us to invest while not being ready to be contenders and, to be fair, we don't even know whether colts made an offer and how much it was.

 

We could have been right there in the bidding but if I am Norwell and looking to be a part of a team challenging for a superbowl, not hard to pick.

 

So the backup plan was Matt Slauson?

 

My point, in response to your post, is just that drafting a guard at #6 isn't the only way to protect Luck. I don't think it's the most efficient way, and it might not even be the most effective way.

 

I'm very okay with the pick, I completely understand the reasoning behind it and how great it can be for us, assuming Nelson is as good as we think he is (and there's no reason to think otherwise, IMO). I'm just not crazy about trading down in a draft where we could have taken a really good pass rusher at #3, and coming away with an interior lineman at #6. And that's completely about the value of that resource compared to the value of the player, and nothing else.

[Superman]

19 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Did you see the analytical breakdown the team released on Turay and Lewis which showed roughly similar stats to Chubb on roughly HALF the snaps? 

 

 

Can you share a link so I can refresh my memory? I saw that last week, but I remember it as saying they had a similar rate of pressure as Chubb -- percentage of pass rush snaps on which they pressured the QB -- not the same stats on half the snaps. Chubb had 20 sacks over the last two seasons; Turay and Lewis combined for 20 sacks in their last two seasons. So there's something more to that...

[Superman]

16 hours ago, Surge89 said:

Unlike you I loved the Leonard pick and don't see him a reach at all.  Also unlike you I despise the Smith pick and not only see it as a reach but a comical reach with Connor Williams still on the board.  Not only did I have Smith a whole round lower (and I loved this guard class...) But there were some especially talented corners still available.  I find it funny that people aren't mentioning the positional value when it comes to this pick.  We took a guard and reached for him when there were edge rushers, corners, linebackers and right tackles still on the board...

 

That's why it's tricky to talk about value, especially after the top of the first round. Everyone's board is different. I don't see Smith as a reach, and I like him nearly as much as Williams. Because of his athleticism and versatility, it's not hard to see someone having Smith ahead of Williams, IMO.

 

And then we see Leonard differently for similar reasons. I still think there were better players available, based on my viewing and grading.

 

I keep bringing up Harold Landry, but he might not have been viewed as a good scheme fit for the Colts new defense.

[krunk]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Can you share a link so I can refresh my memory? I saw that last week, but I remember it as saying they had a similar rate of pressure as Chubb -- percentage of pass rush snaps on which they pressured the QB -- not the same stats on half the snaps. Chubb had 20 sacks over the last two seasons; Turay and Lewis combined for 20 sacks in their last two seasons. So there's something more to that...

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/4/29/17299994/colts-rookie-pass-rusher-kemoko-turay-has-incredibly-high-ceiling

[Tracy Denton]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Can you share a link so I can refresh my memory? I saw that last week, but I remember it as saying they had a similar rate of pressure as Chubb -- percentage of pass rush snaps on which they pressured the QB -- not the same stats on half the snaps. Chubb had 20 sacks over the last two seasons; Turay and Lewis combined for 20 sacks in their last two seasons. So there's something more to that...

On only 548 career rushes in four years (a season’s worth for some), Turay notched an incredible 16 sacks, 24 QB hits and 70 hurries. My only concern is him staying healthy, But I am sure CB has done his homework on that.

[dw49]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Maybe so. Lost in all the back and forth is the fact that I'm a huge Nelson fan.

 

 

Really hard IMO to quantify all the values in Ballard moving fro 3 to 6 . Is Chubb worth Nelson plus 3 2nd rounders ? I'd say no and you say yes. Who's right ?     I dunno...

 

If you go by point values Ballard killed it. I read an article that went through all the first round trades and they put a fairly complex $ value on the deals. For instance Tampa Bat received something like $1.40 on the dollar for their trade with Buffalo . NO took a pretty big beating as I remember etc.. etc. The article ended by saying nothing came close to (approx) the $2.00 on the dollar Indy received from the Jets. But does that mean your wrong ? Not really .. like I said , IMO , it's hard to quantify the "position" value you used as part of your analysis.

 

But one more thing I'll throw out there. You mentioned that you factored in that you wanted to sign Norwell  and that would solve much of the O line issue. That's fine , although now you get Nelson and Smith , which I think is FAR better but you also have to add in the player the colts sign for 13 mill per year not named Norwell into the "whole ball of wax." 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Can you share a link so I can refresh my memory? I saw that last week, but I remember it as saying they had a similar rate of pressure as Chubb -- percentage of pass rush snaps on which they pressured the QB -- not the same stats on half the snaps. Chubb had 20 sacks over the last two seasons; Turay and Lewis combined for 20 sacks in their last two seasons. So there's something more to that...

 

 

I read all  that stuff too and watched some films on Turay. I think basically "they" were saying that Turay was as "disruptive" as any lineman in the country. Lots of pressures and hits but his game needs a bit of refining to finish plays off with sacks. I think that's why Ballard made the comment that the guy is saw at the senior bowl was already an excellent pass rusher. He  didn't deny he needed some work  but I think he was saying Turay is already a good pass rusher ?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/4/29/17299994/colts-rookie-pass-rusher-kemoko-turay-has-incredibly-high-ceiling

 

Right, so PFF calls it Pass Rush Productivity, a metric that accounts for total sacks, hits and hurries (subjective), compared to total pass rush opportunities, weighted toward sacks. The numbers in this article are raw, but still show that Turay had fewer total pressures, but far fewer total snaps, so likely had a much higher rate of pressure. Washed for sacks, his PRP is still probably higher than the guys the article is comparing him with, including Chubb.

 

The only thing that you have to temper PRP with is the fact that Turay was a designated pass rusher at times, not an every down edge defender like Chubb. 

 

Good comparison in the article, also: Turay compares to Yannick Ngakoue. 

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Really hard IMO to quantify all the values in Ballard moving fro 3 to 6 . Is Chubb worth Nelson plus 3 2nd rounders ? I'd say no and you say yes. Who's right ?     I dunno...

 

If you go by point values Ballard killed it. I read an article that went through all the first round trades and they put a fairly complex $ value on the deals. For instance Tampa Bat received something like $1.40 on the dollar for their trade with Buffalo . NO took a pretty big beating as I remember etc.. etc. The article ended by saying nothing came close to (approx) the $2.00 on the dollar Indy received from the Jets. But does that mean your wrong ? Not really .. like I said , IMO , it's hard to quantify the "position" value you used as part of your analysis.

 

But one more thing I'll throw out there. You mentioned that you factored in that you wanted to sign Norwell  and that would solve much of the O line issue. That's fine , although now you get Nelson and Smith , which I think is FAR better but you also have to add in the player the colts sign for 13 mill per year not named Norwell into the "whole ball of wax." 

 

This is all good stuff, and I agree with it, for the most part. I definitely don't think Ballard lost the trade with the Jets, and everyone knows I appreciate value on trades and even the benefit of adding multiple players in the top 50. 

 

 

I'm not going to keep kicking at this. I'm more than okay with how it went down.

 

[dw49]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is all good stuff, and I agree with it, for the most part. I definitely don't think Ballard lost the trade with the Jets, and everyone knows I appreciate value on trades and even the benefit of adding multiple players in the top 50. 

 

 

I'm not going to keep kicking at this. I'm more than okay with how it went down.

 

 

 

I know you are good with Nelson and I'm not trying to nitpick . 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Can you share a link so I can refresh my memory? I saw that last week, but I remember it as saying they had a similar rate of pressure as Chubb -- percentage of pass rush snaps on which they pressured the QB -- not the same stats on half the snaps. Chubb had 20 sacks over the last two seasons; Turay and Lewis combined for 20 sacks in their last two seasons. So there's something more to that...

 

Sorry.....     there's so much to go through,  it took me a little while....

 

Here's a story called "Looking at the draft through the Scouts Eyes"....   From Zack Keefer at Indy Star....

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/58112-keefer-through-the-scouts-eye-meet-the-new-colts/

 

The key section for you is about halfway down...   a scout is talking about Turay...   keep reading as the part is broken up by a picture, so there's more to read than you might expect......

 

Also....     in a thread about Tyquan Lewis it talked about his numbers....

 

I know Chubb had 25 sacks in his career....   5/10/10...    

 

And Lewis had.....  23 sacks in his career....   8/8/7

 

I"ll keep looking....

 

Here's a tweet about Lewis and his athletic testing.    Seems very high.

 

https://twitter.com/MathBomb/status/982277471893577728/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.colts.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcore%26module%3Dsystem%26controller%3Dembed%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FMathBomb%2Fstatus%2F982277471893577728

 

There's another tweet that I can't seem to capture or link that talked about Lewis being ranked 9th in the country in run stop percentage at 9.1.     Lewis who can also play DT as well as DE,  is also a force against the run....      It's in the Lewis thread from draft day...

 

[OffensivelyPC]

On 5/7/2018 at 4:55 AM, Superman said:

Here are my grades/thoughts on the draft.

 

4/4 -- Nyheim Hines, RB, NC State, B+

It's great to hear how they plan to use this guy, including as a slot receiver and returner. He's quick and fast, good with the ball in his hands, does a good job catching the ball and can make defenders miss in a variety of ways. He's small but won't be an every down guy, and he doesn't have a lot of miles on his legs (347 plays from scrimmage in three seasons). If they get him the ball in space, he can be a good weapon. He should also be a really good gunner on punt coverage.

 

 

I disagree that he won't be a full time back.  He won't be initially, but he's got enough build for it to happen.  He runs like he's Frank Gore, and minus 14 pounds, he has the body of Frank Gore.

[superrep1967]

On 5/7/2018 at 8:32 AM, lollygagger8 said:

I wanted Nelson from the get go, so I think the move down from #3 to #6 was an absolute rock solid move. That said, I would give the Quenton Nelson pick an A+. Even Ballard said it was the easiest pick he's ever been a part of. 

 

I thought for sure the Colts were going to pick Josh Jackson with the first 2nd round pick. I hope Leonard proves us all wrong. 

 

I agree with everything else except the Nimes pick. That to me was a crazy good value pick and worth an A. 

 

Ballard strengthened the lines just like he said he was going to do. 

Yes, Ballard is a man of his word. 

[Hoose]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I would say invest your resources in the best linemen you can get, and the most readily available asset we had this offseason was cap space. Which is why I wanted Norwell.

This is where I agree with the Supe. I think Norwell was worth the $ required to sign him. And it would have opened up the draft for a different player at the top of the 2nd round. Perhaps a top CB that they are still missing. Ballard missed on this. But given the failure to sign Norwell, getting a second top O lineman at the top of the 2nd was ok with me. 

[Vexed]

Whereas I totally see the argument with positional value, and tend to lean that way myself, I think if you have a chance to grab a potential HOF type player you pull the trigger and “positional” be damned. The biggest thing I think we are overlooking with the Nelson pick is the term “culture”. Nelson just doesn’t block people, he detonates them, and that type of aggression is just the kind of culture chris wants to build. CB has stated lately that we got pushed around way too much in the trenches last year, so Q’s approach to the game and that aggression he plays with will help start that culture fire CB wants burning in the locker room. So for me he rates as a player-A+, and as a culture warrior-A++ In my humble opinion of course.

[HectorRoberts]

I love the Adams Pick I think he has a chance to start very early on this year. 

Over all I think Ballard drafted some very good ROOKIES, I think over the span of 2-3 year all of these guys will have some strong roles of this team. 

[stitches]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So the backup plan was Matt Slauson?

 

The backup plan was an average-ish interior lineman in Jensen who got 8 figures a year too... I'm OK with not giving him 11M a year or whatever he got from the Bucs. 

[stitches]

5 hours ago, Tracy Denton said:

On only 548 career rushes in four years (a season’s worth for some), Turay notched an incredible 16 sacks, 24 QB hits and 70 hurries. My only concern is him staying healthy, But I am sure CB has done his homework on that.

Worth pointing out that having fewer snaps signifies that he likely was predominantly put on as a situational pass-rusher. This means he was in game predominantly on passing downs thus he had the most opportunities to rush the passer and much higher % of his snaps were pass-rushing snaps compared to the other more well-rounded players like Chubb and Landry. 

[VaAllDay757]

On 5/7/2018 at 8:36 PM, Superman said:

 

Nah. First of all, Ballard has openly discussed the folly of needs-based drafting himself.

 

Second, the problem we've had is poor talent evaluation. Grigson's worst draft pick, IMO -- Werner -- was probably a needs-based pick, when Xavier Rhodes was a better prospect. 

True but he made some nice picks last year based needs for example....quincy wilson probably the best corner in the 2nd round and malik hooker but I'm not just talking about it grigson....polian made some bad draft decisions too

[BPindy]

8 hours ago, Hoose said:

This is where I agree with the Supe. I think Norwell was worth the $ required to sign him. And it would have opened up the draft for a different player at the top of the 2nd round. Perhaps a top CB that they are still missing. Ballard missed on this. But given the failure to sign Norwell, getting a second top O lineman at the top of the 2nd was ok with me. 

 

Yeah Norwell would’ve allowed us to take a different player in the 2nd which would’ve been nice, but we couldn’t really do anything about it. We were in play for Norwell, and everything I read said we had a very hefty offer. He clearly wanted a contending team though, nothing Ballard can do about it.

[Myles]

10 hours ago, Vexed said:

Whereas I totally see the argument with positional value, and tend to lean that way myself, I think if you have a chance to grab a potential HOF type player you pull the trigger and “positional” be damned. The biggest thing I think we are overlooking with the Nelson pick is the term “culture”. Nelson just doesn’t block people, he detonates them, and that type of aggression is just the kind of culture chris wants to build. CB has stated lately that we got pushed around way too much in the trenches last year, so Q’s approach to the game and that aggression he plays with will help start that culture fire CB wants burning in the locker room. So for me he rates as a player-A+, and as a culture warrior-A++ In my humble opinion of course.

Nice post.  

[DougDew]

22 hours ago, Hoose said:

This is where I agree with the Supe. I think Norwell was worth the $ required to sign him. And it would have opened up the draft for a different player at the top of the 2nd round. Perhaps a top CB that they are still missing. Ballard missed on this. But given the failure to sign Norwell, getting a second top O lineman at the top of the 2nd was ok with me. 

The question for me is how and when do we use the abundant cap space?  Resigning our own?  Who is worth it and when does their rookie contract expire?

 

Do we build our roster with It?  if so, that's why we should have signed Norwell (if possible).

 

Do we wait until we are closer to the SB, then sign good FAs to get us over the top?  (Which is what Grigson tried with Cole, AJ, and Gore ).  A decent strategy...buy a championship when you're close.

 

It seems like Ballard is content on using draft picks as the major resource and is waiting to do something with the cap space at a later date.  In which case, drafting a G with an elite pick seems inconsistent, because good Gs are usually available as free agents in any offseason. 

 

I would have preferred to take the Buffalo trade and get two more good players in the second round after reaching a bit for Wynn at 12.....or possibly Edmunds or James.  Any of which also has the capability of being an all pro.

[NewColtsFan]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:49 PM, Superman said:

 

Can you share a link so I can refresh my memory? I saw that last week, but I remember it as saying they had a similar rate of pressure as Chubb -- percentage of pass rush snaps on which they pressured the QB -- not the same stats on half the snaps. Chubb had 20 sacks over the last two seasons; Turay and Lewis combined for 20 sacks in their last two seasons. So there's something more to that...

 

Sorry.....    not trying to beat a dead horse here....   but, by coincidence,  this story about Turay just popped up on the website....    the quote from the Colts scout might be longer and more detailed than what was originally provided in another link...

 

So,  I thought I'd pass it along....    good details on the numbers that have Ballard and the scouts so encouraged for Turay....

 

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/Through-The-Scout’s-Eye-Kemoko-Turay/12fdc338-bda5-4f52-8100-365fbc83ed66

 

Still looking for more on Lewis....     I thought I had seen more than the comps on sacks which was favorable...    Lewis had almost as many in far fewer snaps....      but I'm not finding it yet...