Supes 2018 draft analysis

[Four2itus]

Good work, and well thought. If I would discuss with you, it would be this...

 

If you are going to comment on the diminished value in relation to getting a OG at 6, should one not balance that thought process with the value of added picks? To me, unless most of the competition add through the trade fails, it is an A+ based on value alone. The added value changes what is good value at that spot because of the increased chances of success. As all things, time will tell. 

[Myles]

40 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

@Superman Great write up, thank you for putting the time in to this.

 

One question, I can understand your reasoning vis a vis Nelson and positional value, but were there any players on the board who if taken at #6 you'd have given an A or A+ grade for? Or was Nelson the BPA? 

I think he was the BPA and also a huge need for the Colts.   That is an A+ in my book.  

[DaColts85]

1 hour ago, ClaytonColt said:

I keep hearing how guards are increasing in value but yet we were the only team to select one in the first round?

 

The perception may have more to do with some of the wages given out recently however that's surely more to do with the increased amount of cap space around the league and the fact that All Pros quality  guards have hit the market. 

 

Still there's only 5 guards (right or left) earning over $10m in the entire NFL compared to

 

12 left tackles,

14 cornerbacks,

15 edge rushers,

17 interior defensive lineman 

17 wide receivers

 

So even in terms of wages they're still not seen as being worthy of massive resources league wide.

Only Nelson was drafted in the first??

 

Isiah Wynn Frank Ragnow and Billy Price were both drafted 1st round.  All 3 are slated as Guards.  Within the first 39 picks you had 8 interior guys drafted and only 2 Tackles.  That basically shows the value right there doesn't it?

[stitches]

1 hour ago, ClaytonColt said:

Just realised there was just 10 guards taken in the entire draft and we took a fifth of them.

 

8 guards drafted over the full seven rounds by the other 31 teams??

 

But yeah, definitely a position growing in importance in today's NFL. 

Some of the other interior linemen are listed at C but have position versatility and can play either guard or center. Ragnow and Billy Price have full seasons playing at guard. Price for example has only 1 year playing center(the last year) and 3 years playing guard, they just list him there because that's what he did last. Others are transition guard projects (Connor Williams, Isaiah Wynn(seems like the Pats will try him at tackle, but most analysts seem to think he will need to play guard too), etc.)... James Daniels is another interior lineman with versatility - he's again listed as C but but has games started at guard, too... 

[ClaytonColt]

21 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Only Nelson was drafted in the first??

 

Isiah Wynn Frank Ragnow and Billy Price were both drafted 1st round.  All 3 are slated as Guards.  Within the first 39 picks you had 8 interior guys drafted and only 2 Tackles.  That basically shows the value right there doesn't it?

I guess if were counting every tackle and centre that could feasibly play guard then there will be more. 

 

In terms of guys who played guard in college, who are nailed on to only play guard in the pros  then, yes, there was only one.

 

The salaries is a lot more clear cut I would think anyway as that represents players with known positions rather than the projections on the new draft picks.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

I guess if were counting every tackle and centre that could feasibly play guard then there will be more. 

 

In terms of guys who played guard in college, who are nailed on to only play guard in the pros  then, yes, there was only one.

 

The salaries is a lot more clear cut I would think anyway as that represents players with known positions rather than the projections on the new draft picks.

Very few players are nailed to only play guard. In this draft it's practically... only Will Hernandez in the top 2 rounds. Pretty much every other interior lineman drafted has position versatility. Hell, some people suggest Nelson was so polished and good at guard and has such good attributes that the Colts should try him at tackle first and only move him to guard if he fails at OT(he was also recruited to play tackle). I don't necessarily agree, but there is an argument there...

 

Position versatility is a PLUS, not a negative. 

[ClaytonColt]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Very few players are nailed to only play guard. In this draft it's practically... only Will Hernandez in the top 2 rounds. Pretty much every other interior lineman drafted has position versatility. Hell, some people suggest Nelson was so polished and good at guard and has such good attributes that the Colts should try him at tackle first and only move him to guard if he fails at OT(he was also recruited to play tackle). I don't necessarily agree, but there is an argument there...

 

Position versatility is a PLUS, not a negative. 

I agree that versatility is a plus but counting every centre as a guard (I'm sure Kelly could play guard if necessary for example) along with a good number of the tackles who aren't quite good enough for that premier position may give a misleading number.

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I agree that versatility is a plus but counting every centre as a guard (I'm sure Kelly could play guard if necessary for example) along with a good number of the tackles who aren't quite good enough for that premier position may give a misleading number.

I think Kelly had never started or played at guard. His position was C through and through... from freshman to senior. (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm talking about those players having full seasons of experience and good performances at other positions(Ragnow, Price, Wynn, etc). Those are not players you consider as capable of playing guard, just to try it... you do it because you have a certain sample of them performing well there. 

[DaColts85]

21 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I guess if were counting every tackle and centre that could feasibly play guard then there will be more. 

 

In terms of guys who played guard in college, who are nailed on to only play guard in the pros  then, yes, there was only one.

 

The salaries is a lot more clear cut I would think anyway as that represents players with known positions rather than the projections on the new draft picks.

You might want to do a little more research.  Nelson played Tackle for one whole year.  Majority any player in this draft has versatility as stiches even said.  McGlinchey and Kolton Miller are the only guys drafted that are looking like Tackles only.  Every other guy will be an interior guy as I mentioned.

[ClaytonColt]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I think Kelly had never started or played at guard. His position was C through and through... from freshman to senior. (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm talking about those players having full seasons of experience and good performances at other positions(Ragnow, Price, Wynn, etc). 

I didn't say he had. I'm simply saying I'm pretty sure he could.

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

I don't think positional value is irrelevant.The easiest way I've found to explain that is to go to the extreme - imagine a punter or a kicker was the best player in the draft. Lets say he kicks with 95% success rate FGs of 40 yards and lower and 90% rate for 50-55 yarders... even thought this is very much HOF type of performance at the position, pretty much everybody would kill Ballard if he drafted him at 6.... or 16... or hell even 36... positional value matters. The question with guards is - how much does it matter? Like... if you have a grade 8.5 for a pass-rusher and a 9.2 on a guard, would you rather have the guard or the pass-rusher? What about a 8.7 corner back? or 8.0 QB? Where's the line for each position? IMO there is unexplored analytics perspective to positional value that teams very likely are missing or at the very least I doubt they have explored in a very sound and coherent advanced analytics way. 

 

I personally am starting to value guards a bit more after the last couple of off-seasons when guards started getting paid almost the same as tackle money. This means they are becoming valuable commodity. For example, right now the value of guards is much higher than the value of running backs for example... or even safeties... and maybe even linebackers - I have to check the numbers but I think guards are getting more guaranteed money than all of those positions in the last 2 FA classes. This of course is not a perfect measure for how positions should be valued since it's the same teams that set the initial value through draft evaluations and picks that determine how much the players are paid and thus - there might be a disparity between the actual value a position contributes to wins and the money that position is getting paid. But back on the point - that's why I personally didn't knock Ballard for taking Nelson this high - the position is getting more valuable it seems, and the other top players we had available at 6 were again at positions that are not very valuable(safeties, linebackers, interior linemen with questionable 3downs potential like Vea, Payne?).. so in essence we had a draft where the best available players were at low-value positions... I really don't mind if we just got the best player from all of those. 

 

I think one reason that OGs are getting more GTD money in FA than those other positons is because of the quality and quanity of the FAs available. Teams seem to have no problem letting good OGs walk.

 

Conversely, if a team has a great S or ILB they aren't letting them go. Even NE, who is notorious for letting players walk, re-signed Hightower and McCourty.

 

This is one of the reasons I prefer FA to address the OG position (at least one of them)...because you can legitimately find Pro Bowl plug-and-play talent. Drafting one at #6 (with the requisite contract) just seems so inefficient...not to mention the opportunity cost associated. 

 

Likewise, drafting any OL player that early in the draft is very dicey. First it's risky because many OL players are not sure things because OL players aren't as prepared for the NFL as they used to be. Like half of OL players picked that early have been bad picks...Chance Warmack, Jonathan Cooper, Luke Joeckel, Matt Kalil, Eric Fisher, Ereck Flowers, D.J. Fluker...just in recent years. Second, the overall impact is somewhat limited. So they basically have to be great to be worth the pick...and there is very little margin for error.

 

I do like the idea of having a stud OG...I just don't like picking one that early. And honestly, you will have a hard time convincing me that Nelson was worth turning down two additional 2nd round picks.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

5 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:

It’s kinda relevant. If someone takes a kicker in the first round, and that kicker happens to turn into Adam Vinateri level, you still wouldn’t give the pick an A (especially at the time of the draft).

 

Its the same thing here, just not quite as extreme. I love the Nelson pick as much as the next guy, but there’s no denying, there are other, more valuable positions than G (although I think Guards are slowly gaining more value).

 

The fact that Q was a consensus top 10 pick DESPITE his position tells me even more about how great of a player he can be, which is even more exciting.

 

100% yes to the bolded. Elite guards are getting insane 2nd contracts now, so I think the narrative that the guard position is somehow of "lower value" isn't as true now as it once was, at least not amongst NFL GMs who've watched their QBs get mangled for year after year.

 

This entire forum (myself included) would've been just fine shelling out $14mil/yr to sign Norwell in free agency, so it's hard for me to understand taking issue with the Nelson pick. If he's half as polished of a prospect as everyone believes he is, & we get elite guard play for his entire 5 year rookie deal, I'd say we're making out like bandits.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Boiler_Colt said:

I disagree about Leonard being a huge reach. He was a really popular name on here prior to the draft and was indeed mocked in the second round in a lot of places. Zerlien had him mocked to us at #49. Is 36 a little high? Probably, but he was certainly the top 4-3 WILL left on the board and Ballard had to have him so I'm good with it.

 

I stand by my grade on Leonard, but I do like him as a prospect, and my concluding comments might have given the impression that I don't. I was finishing this late at night and probably didn't choose my words as carefully as I should have.

 

I also didn't see Zierlien's mock with Leonard in the second round. I felt he was a reach, and that's partly influenced by my ranking of other players that were still on the board -- Christian Kirk, Harold Landry, Josh Jackson. And I felt like those guys were more universally liked, which makes me think Ballard could have turned this pick or the next into something else, and still gotten Leonard. But that's impossible to know. I'm just not thrilled with the value.

[backshoulderfade]

In a division with JJ Watt, Jurrell Casey and the Jags' d-line, I don't buy the lower value argument.

 

Add in how much better Castonzo and Kelly are going to look with Nelson on double teams, and his awareness to identify blitzers late in the play I think there is pretty solid reasoning behind it.

[Boiler_Colt]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I stand by my grade on Leonard, but I do like him as a prospect, and my concluding comments might have given the impression that I don't. I was finishing this late at night and probably didn't choose my words as carefully as I should have.

 

I also didn't see Zierlien's mock with Leonard in the second round. I felt he was a reach, and that's partly influenced by my ranking of other players that were still on the board -- Christian Kirk, Harold Landry, Josh Jackson. And I felt like those guys were more universally liked, which makes me think Ballard could have turned this pick or the next into something else, and still gotten Leonard. But that's impossible to know. I'm just not thrilled with the value.

I wanted Leonard in the second round, but at 36 did surprise me. Going into the 2nd round I wanted Landry and Josh Jackson too. However, after hearing Rick Venturi make the rounds on local radio the past week, he was pretty adamant that Landry didn't fit the scheme as he's ideal for the 3-4 and that Josh Jackson didn't fit the athletic profile that Ballard showed he values. So while I was disappointed at the time, I understand. I would say Braden Smith was a reach at 37 too, but the runs on positions push players up the board.

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I stand by my grade on Leonard, but I do like him as a prospect, and my concluding comments might have given the impression that I don't. I was finishing this late at night and probably didn't choose my words as carefully as I should have.

 

I also didn't see Zierlien's mock with Leonard in the second round. I felt he was a reach, and that's partly influenced by my ranking of other players that were still on the board -- Christian Kirk, Harold Landry, Josh Jackson. And I felt like those guys were more universally liked, which makes me think Ballard could have turned this pick or the next into something else, and still gotten Leonard. But that's impossible to know. I'm just not thrilled with the value.

Greg Cosell raved about Leonard, too. He said he was his favorite off the ball linebacker to watch. I posted in another thread his quote on him... I will try to find it. I don't know if(and how highly) you value his evaluations, he's my favorite from the evaluators that we have access to through the media. 

 

Edit: here it is

 

Greg Cosell on Darius Leonard on the Ross Tucker podcast:

https://www.podcastone.com/episode/RTFP-821-Greg-Cosell

 

Go to 20.20

 

Quote

"He's a small school guy and I absolutely loved him on tape. I think he's got size, length, great movement, great play speed and range. The more that I watched Darius Leonard, the more I believed he's a high level prospect who could become excellent 3 downs linebacker in the NFL. He was one of my favorite players to watch from the linebacker position."

 

I remember him talking about him in another podcast too and he thinks he has star potential in the league(can't seem to find it right now). 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

@Superman Great write up, thank you for putting the time in to this.

 

One question, I can understand your reasoning vis a vis Nelson and positional value, but were there any players on the board who if taken at #6 you'd have given an A or A+ grade for? Or was Nelson the BPA? 

 

3 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

100% yes to the bolded. Elite guards are getting insane 2nd contracts now, so I think the narrative that the guard position is somehow of "lower value" isn't as true now as it once was, at least not amongst NFL GMs who've watched their QBs get mangled for year after year.

 

This entire forum (myself included) would've been just fine shelling out $14mil/yr to sign Norwell in free agency, so it's hard for me to understand taking issue with the Nelson pick. If he's half as polished of a prospect as everyone believes he is, & we get elite guard play for his entire 5 year rookie deal, I'd say we're making out like bandits.

 

There's a lot of discussion on this already, but allow me to distill my thoughts a little further.

 

First, I think Nelson was easily BPA, and it's hard to imagine any team's board not having him at the top player left. Even QB needy teams would acknowledge Nelson's standing at #6. That means...

 

Secondly, I wouldn't have been thrilled and over the moon about any player at #6, and I said that before the draft. Nelson is a rock solid pick, the best decision that could have been made besides flipping the pick for a great return, and evidently that offer wasn't out there for us. But definitely, Nelson > Smith, Edmunds, James, McGlinchey, etc. 

 

And keep in mind, my grade here is also influenced by the fact that, as it turns out, we could have had Chubb at #3. That would have been an A, for me. Picking up the extra three picks balances this out, but losing out on a potential Pro Bowl player at -- IMO -- the second most important position in football is something that Ballard calculated and was obviously okay with. It stings for me, a little, because all said, Chubb > Nelson, IMO.

 

As for positional value, it's something I believe in wholeheartedly. It's referenced in the last of my four core draft principles. And I think it's super important when you're at the top of the draft. I think Ballard probably did a good job of maximizing value overall, and he used one of those extra picks to draft Kemoko Turay, who has potential as an edge rusher. But Chubb seems like a lock, to me.

 

And my thinking on positional value is heavily influenced by what happens in free agency, among other things. I would have loved to see the Colts sign Norwell, but the fact that an All Pro guard was available in free agency (and that's been the case every year for the last four seasons, at least) speaks to the value of the position relative to others. No All Pro pass rushers hit free agency, basically ever. If you want a blue chip pass rusher, you have to draft him. We were in position to do so, and didn't. We could have signed Norwell (or another free agent guard) and drafted Chubb, and I think that would have represented better value for us.

 

It's not that interior linemen aren't good players, or that they aren't important. The difference between interior OL and pass rushers comes down to scarcity. Good interior OL aren't rare; good pass rushers are.

 

TL;DR, my grade basically comes down to the fact that I think we missed out on the rare opportunity to add an upper echelon talent at the second most important position, a position where we need a lot of help, and instead drafted an awesome player at a position that I think we could have addressed more efficiently using a different strategy.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I stand by my grade on Leonard, but I do like him as a prospect, and my concluding comments might have given the impression that I don't. I was finishing this late at night and probably didn't choose my words as carefully as I should have.

 

I also didn't see Zierlien's mock with Leonard in the second round. I felt he was a reach, and that's partly influenced by my ranking of other players that were still on the board -- Christian Kirk, Harold Landry, Josh Jackson. And I felt like those guys were more universally liked, which makes me think Ballard could have turned this pick or the next into something else, and still gotten Leonard. But that's impossible to know. I'm just not thrilled with the value.

 

You definitely knows much more than me on this, Super, but I’m not sure that Ballard has the luxury of truly picking BPA, because there is a ton of need to address on this team too. I think Ballard saw Leonard as the last chance to get a starting caliber ILB and pulled the trigger, perfect value be damned. His spot is a massive need on this team, so I’m cool with the reach. Anyway, nobody knows whether it is indeed a reach before he starts playing. Just something to keep in mind. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

 

You definitely knows much more than me on this, Super, but I’m not sure that Ballard has the luxury of truly picking BPA, because there is a ton of need to address on this team too. I think Ballard saw Leonard as the last chance to get a starting caliber ILB and pulled the trigger, perfect value be damned. His spot is a massive need on this team, so I’m cool with the reach. Anyway, nobody knows whether it is indeed a reach before he starts playing. Just something to keep in mind. 

 

There are needs all over the place. WR is a need, and Christian Kirk was one of my favorites. Edge rusher is a need, and Harold Landry was one of the best players left -- maybe not a perfect scheme fit, so that might have something to do with it. Corner is a need, Jackson was there. 

 

Again, this is based on my own thinking of how these players were valued, which could be totally off. Ballard might have known for a fact that another team was closing in on Leonard. I can't know that, but I didn't think Leonard was being considered that highly.

 

And of course, if Leonard winds up being a great player, it will mean Ballard is smarter than a lot of other people. We already know he's smarter than me.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You took a lot of time to write this up, so for that I wont debate it too much but Nelson should be an A+, JMO. He IMO is the 2nd best player in the Draft only behind Barkley. I also think Hines will be better than Wilkins, so I give Hines the A and Wilkins who I like a B+.

 

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. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

I love the discussions, Draft grades before the players play are good dialog for fans, but the activity on the field will be a better way of grading.

 

Most definitely. I just wanted to go on the record with my thoughts on how Ballard handled the draft. The next three years will tell whether he did a good job, not anyone's day-after draft grades. 

3 hours ago, Jdubu said:

we have seen the price for a top guard go 13+ million/season in free agency now

 

Good pass rushers don't hit free agency. That's the difference for me.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, krunk said:

Judging between the two 7th rounders I have to say I agree with Supe as far as which one is the better player of the two.  I like Matthew Adams a lot better than Franklin.

I don't know much about Franklin but I do like Adams a lot. He plays with a high motor and is not afraid to hit someone at all. If he can be coached up I think he can become a good rotational player.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I don't know about the Franklin grade.  Seems kind of harsh.  I don't think Ballard would have drafted him if he didn't think he was fast enough for our team and also considering how much attention he put on getting us faster with his pre draft comments.  According to the hype on the internet he has a very high football IQ and is mature beyond his years.  He reportedly killed it at his pro day and his measurable's were solid when compared to the combine results.  A three time team captain and a natural leader.  I believe they see him as a Mike which makes sense to me.  I really think he has a shot to make the team and be a solid player for us. 

 

So I was excited to watch Franklin because he had good workout numbers, he's highly spoken of, and he seems like a great person. I even read his article on PT before I watched him. 

 

(Off topic, but I think the world of Jacoby Brissett as a person also. Later this offeason I plan on posting something regarding Brissett's play, and let's just say my opinion of his as a person is different from my opinion of him as a starting level NFL QB. Point being, I am trying to separate my football thoughts from my character thoughts.)

 

Then I started watching him. He looks stiff and slow and unable to cover in man, he didn't look good in zone coverage, he's kind of squatty and lacking in length, etc. I made it a point to find the play where he chased down Hines, and even then, I didn't see impressive speed (all-out effort, for sure, and that's admirable). I rewatched a couple of his games because there's a big difference in my eyes between his workout results and his movement ability on the field. 

 

I get that he's a late 7th rounder and there are no perfect prospects down there, and I get going with the high character guy over maybe a better athlete. It also seems like he would have had a lot of offers as a UDFA. I'm just not impressed with his play. He did have one nice interception, and he made some plays in the backfield, but like I said, I think he's a straightline player who will be outmatched in space. And that's something I'm tired of out of our off ball linebackers.

[Superman]

32 minutes ago, stitches said:

Greg Cosell raved about Leonard, too. He said he was his favorite off the ball linebacker to watch. I posted in another thread his quote on him... I will try to find it. I don't know if(and how highly) you value his evaluations, he's my favorite from the evaluators that we have access to through the media. 

 

Edit: here it is

 

Greg Cosell on Darius Leonard on the Ross Tucker podcast:

https://www.podcastone.com/episode/RTFP-821-Greg-Cosell

 

Go to 20.20

 

 

I remember him talking about him in another podcast too and he thinks he has star potential in the league(can't seem to find it right now). 

 

That's good stuff. Did Cosell project what round he thought Leonard should be drafted in?

[shasta519]

Good work. I agree with Nelson and Day 4 grades. But my grades are not as kind for Day 2. 

 

Darius Leonard looks like an interesting prospect, but like you, I think he was a bit of a reach. And honestly, I would have rather waited drafted someone like Warner a round later...or just waited to see if Leonard was still there.

 

And given who was available, the Leonard and Smith picks were a bit disappointing. Josh Jackson was a 1st round CB prospect who seemed like a perfect fit for the defense...and Christian Kirk was my favorite WR in the entire draft.

 

At the end of the 2nd round, I was hoping that Ballard pulled the trigger on Oliver after passing on Jackson. But instead the Colts got a very raw pass rusher in Turay and a situational pass rusher Lewis. I like Turay's upside, but I am not high on Lewis.

 

Given the talent that was available, I think Ballard could have possibly knocked it out of the park...but ultimately I felt very underwhelmed as each pick was announced. 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's good stuff. Did Cosell project what round he thought Leonard should be drafted in?

I don't think he ever projects rounds to players. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

But.... man...... I see the thoughts by a few folks that call Nelson HOF,   I get the opinion that he has a CHANCE to be HOF, but that is a huge jump.  I think thats probably what you meant. (right?)

 

Yes, in a way, but maybe not just a chance, but a very good chance.  He has been compared to both Alan Faneca, and Steve Hutchinson.  Weren't they both HOF finalist this year?  I'll bet both get in, and very soon.  Hopefully Nelson will too in 15-20 years from now.  But he has to stay healthy and compete to expectations and his best potential.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

There are needs all over the place. WR is a need, and Christian Kirk was one of my favorites. Edge rusher is a need, and Harold Landry was one of the best players left -- maybe not a perfect scheme fit, so that might have something to do with it. Corner is a need, Jackson was there. 

 

If I had 1 gripe about his draft, is that Ballard should've grabbed a corner in the 2nd, especially since they ended up picking 4 times in that round. And I guess I've become a little unclear as to how Ballard is evaluating corners. Were the guys available in this draft ALL man coverage guys that just wouldn't be an ideal fit in a predominantly zone scheme, or is there something else that I'm just overlooking?

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

And given who was available, the Leonard and Smith picks were a bit disappointing. Josh Jackson was a 1st round CB prospect who seemed like a perfect fit for the defense...and Christian Kirk was my favorite WR in the entire draft.

 

Yeah, it felt like this was a reach for need, IMO. I could see Leonard over Jackson, but I agree with you on Kirk.

 

No beef with Smith, IMO. I liked that pick.

[hoosierhawk]

Supe, I get what you are saying about Nelson vs Chubb but there was no assurance that Chubb was going to be available at three if we stayed there. Also, the trade gave us as it turned out not only Nelson but Smith and a DT that has a lot of potential. It also has the potential of prolonging Lucks' career which is most important.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

If I had 1 gripe about his draft, is that Ballard should've grabbed a corner in the 2nd, especially since they ended up picking 4 times in that round. And I guess I've become a little unclear as to how Ballard is evaluating corners. Were the guys available in this draft ALL man coverage guys that just wouldn't be an ideal fit in a predominantly zone scheme, or is there something else that I'm just overlooking?

 

I think he focused on other positions in the first 3-4 rounds, simply put. I think there were several corners that would have fit our defense.

 

That said, I am not as concerned about our corners as other people seem to be. And I get the feeling that, once the compensatory period ends (might be over tomorrow), Ballard will sign another FA or two. It's also probably the least critical position on defense -- either CB or Sam backer -- so I'm not getting worked up over having to play some lower ranked journeymen at corner this season.

 

By the way, don't get me wrong, I'm not turning up my nose at good corners, either. I just think we'll be okay.

[bananabucket]

I agree with most of this analysis, good stuff.  My biggest issue is that we should have knocked round 2 out of the park ( especially considering who was available), and instead we took reaches and projects.  That's all well and good if they work out, but we could have had some serious talent and one of the best on-paper classes I've ever seen.  I don't think I'll ever not be salty about that.  We should still be alright because we are bound to hit on enough of the picks due to the sheer volume, I just don't see this as a draft that turns a team around.  And I think one was there for the taking.

[stitches]

@Superman Can you do evaluation of some of the UDFAs we got? I personally like Skai Moore much better than both linebackers we got in the 7th. WR Steve Ishmael is another one of note. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Supe, I get what you are saying about Nelson vs Chubb but there was no assurance that Chubb was going to be available at three if we stayed there. Also, the trade gave us as it turned out not only Nelson but Smith and a DT that has a lot of potential. It also has the potential of prolonging Lucks' career which is most important.

 

As it turned out, Chubb was available at #3. Now, Ballard strikes me as a thorough and contemplative decision maker, so I think he ran a bunch of scenarios and was aware that trading down to #6 could cost him a chance at Chubb. I also think he figured one of Chubb, Nelson or Barkley would be there at #6, and was fine with whichever of the three was there. 

 

I personally had Chubb ahead of Barkley and Nelson, so that's where I diverge from Ballard.

 

As for prolonging Luck's career, that's not a big motivation for me with regard to the #3 pick in the draft. To me, the biggest and most impactful change to protect the QB is the scheme change, which should bring with it better offensive play calling. There are a lot of ways to protect the QB, even with average interior linemen.

 

And as I said earlier, we could have signed good interior linemen to protect Luck. Didn't have to use a premier pick on one.

 

Last thing, just to repeat so my opinion of Nelson doesn't get lost, I think he's a great prospect, and I've made my peace with the pick (I had done that a week before the draft). I just don't think it represented the best value, and that's a big deal to me because I don't expect the Colts to be picking in the top five again any time soon.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

@Superman Can you do evaluation of some of the UDFAs we got? I personally like Skai Moore much better than both linebackers we got in the 7th. WR Steve Ishmael is another one of note. 

 

I've only watched Skai Moore, and I agree, I think he's a really good pick up for us. I don't know how many more I'll be able to watch before camp...

[Coffeedrinker]

Nice write up Superman.  I don't agree with everything but that does not stop me from enjoying the read and the time it took for you to write it.

 

I do disagree about Leonard.  He wasn't on my radar but when you look at the the LBers taken after him and that Chargers, Green Bay and the Dolphins were all looking for a LBer I don't think he was a reach at all because I don't think he would have been there when they drafted Turay.

 

Now could they have worked out a trade?  Who knows but maybe what they were offered they weren't comfortable that Leonard would still be there.

 

I also disagree about Wilkins... I have not watched much of him since he was drafted but what I have watched makes me think of a looks like tarzan runs like Jane.  I watched some games of Hines and then Wilkins and I thought about how Hines runs bigger than his size and Wilkins runs smaller.

 

I do agree with your assessments of Adams and Franklin.  I think Adams is going to be a player in the NFL for quite a few years.  Franklin lunges too much at his tackles, I think that will lead to a lot of missed tackles in the NFL.  Not to say he can't improve but I think we will hear Adams' name quite a bit this season, Franklin I could see being on the practice squad or primarily a special teamer in 2018.

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I've only watched Skai Moore, and I agree, I think he's a really good pick up for us. I don't know how many more I'll be able to watch before camp...

I wish there was tape on BYU's DT Tomasi Lauilile. I couldn't find any but he had 3 sacks in 7 games(injury) in 2016 and was suspended(academically) for the last year. His athletic testing is amazing. He ran 4.77 40 at 301 pounds... 7.21 3 cone. He had the 6th best SPARQ score from any DL player this year and scored 9.22 on RAS, which is again elite. He's an athletic freak for sure. I just wanted to see how he uses his athleticism on the field. Here's the only thing I found of him:

 

 

[Scott Pennock]

@Superman I love your write up and thoughts on each pick, but, positional relevance should be thrown out in this situation and I'll explain why. Somebody has to block these guys, especially up the middle:

 

Jaguars Front 7

Telvin Smith

Myles Jack

Dante Fowler

Yannick Ngakoue

Calais Campbell

Marcel Darius

Taven Bryan

 

Titans Front 7

DaQuan Jones

Jurrell Casey

Wesley Wooyard

Rashaan Evans

Brian Arapko

Derrick Morgan

Harold Landry

 

Texans Front 7

Whitney Mercilus

J.J. Watt

Duke Ejiofor

Jadavian Clowney

Bernardrick McKinney

Zach Cunningham

 

Our offensive line has been a turnstile and Luck/Brissett have not had an opportunity to step up into a clean pocket very much, if ever. So getting a talent such as Nelson should be a no brainer A+ and Smith at his talent level at A-!!!!

 

Keep in mind had McGlinchey not been at ND then Nelson would have been thier LT. He is skilled enough...

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I also disagree about Wilkins... I have not watched much of him since he was drafted but what I have watched makes me think of a looks like tarzan runs like Jane.  I watched some games of Hines and then Wilkins and I thought about how Hines runs bigger than his size and Wilkins runs smaller.

 

 

Not hard to understand how you could watch him and think he's a little soft as a runner. I like what he can do though, and I saw some ability to shrug off tacklers and get yards after contact. I think he'll need to correct his pad level to gain consistent yardage in the NFL.

[krunk]

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

I wish there was tape on BYU's DT Tomasi Lauilile. I couldn't find any but he had 3 sacks in 7 games(injury) in 2016 and was suspended(academically) for the last year. His athletic testing is amazing. He ran 4.77 40 at 301 pounds... 7.21 3 cone. He had the 6th best SPARQ score from any DL player this year and scored 9.22 on RAS, which is again elite. He's an athletic freak for sure. I just wanted to see how he uses his athleticism on the field. Here's the only thing I found of him:

 

 

You will probably have to find a full BYU game or two and watch a couple quarters.