Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Superman

Supes 2018 draft analysis

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

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.

I think Adams could give Ant Walker a run for his money and challenge for the starting spot at Mike.  If not there I think he could make a good case for one of the other spots.  I like the way that kid plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

 

 

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.

Ballard got Nelson plus 3 additional 2nd round picks.   A+

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

@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...

 

I disagree with this approach to building a roster, for several reasons.

 

First, I disagree with needs-based drafting. It's a great way to miss out on great players, and still wind up with needs all over the place. I believe the draft is for grabbing the best players you can who fit your team well, and you use the other methods of player acquisition to supplement and round out your roster. This is how you build a roster with 10-12 really good to great players, another 15 really good role players, and a continual pipeline of homegrown talent to replace the players who leave, retire, etc. Roster mechanics aren't on my mind on draft day.

 

Second, teams around the league will change every year. (For instance, the Jags had a great DL last year, but Campbell had a career year at 31 years old, and Jackson had a career year as well. It's time for a regression from the Jags DL, and if it's not this year, it will be next year, but it's coming.) I don't think you draft to combat other teams. Back to point one, take the best players you can.

 

Third, yes, someone has to block for Luck, and I agree that it's super important. But there are good interior OL in free agency every year. We could have signed one or two guards who would play at a high level this season if we wanted. It's not accurate to suggest that the only option we had was to draft Nelson or subject Luck to more bad OL play. (I also think there's a lot the coaching staff can/will do to protect the QB, no matter who's playing OL.)

 

Related to the previous point, while there are good OL in free agency every year, there are almost never good edge rushers in free agency. This speaks to positional value. If you want someone like Chubb -- who I think would have been the perfect pick at #3 -- you basically have to draft him, bottom line. 

 

I'm a strong believer in positional value, and there are a lot of variables, but let's not make this into 'we have to protect Luck.' You can't have this hyper focus on one need in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

I have faith in Desir/Wilson/Hairston, it's just the depth behind them that concerns me. Historically, that position group for the Colts begins to drop like flies right around the time training camp gets underway. I do think that we'll see a couple of veterans signed after tomorrow's deadline, so I'm definitely hoping that Ballard can grab a capable CB or 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

So you give Nelson a B+ and you say he's no worse than the 3rd best player in the draft even though we picked him at 6? If you think we got a top 3 player guaranteed at 6 (which if true would probably be a hall of famer), how do you not give that an A+? The positional value is irrelevant, you would still get a HOF guard. That's really inconsistent there.

I would have given it a lower grade, it doesn't matter how good of a guard he might be, the positional value of taking a Guard in the top 10 is about as low as you can go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

I would have given it a lower grade, it doesn't matter how good of a guard he might be, the positional value of taking a Guard in the top 10 is about as low as you can go.

I totally disagree.   We locked that spot up for many years and will be better off for it.   We also got three 2nd rounders in the deal.   A+.    The running game will be better, the passing game will be better and the playbook can expand.  

I suppose we could have drafted a QB at #6 if you wanted to play that "value" card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supe I know you were very high on Chubb. But definitely not a lock to become an elite player either. Maybe Ballard seen something he didn't like when it came to Chubb. If he loved him, I really don't think he makes that trade until draft day. I'm in the miniority but I have my doubts about Chubb. What if turay turns out to be a better pass rusher than Chubb? I guess time will tell. I do strong agree with you on signing norwell, then that would've opened up the possibility for better positional value at 6. But that's what made me love the Nelson pick even more, because we didn't sign any needed oline help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

I can live with the Smith pick. But after using their biggest chip on a G...I would much have rather went in another direction...or at least chanced that he was available later (same with Leonard). If Nelson is truly an All-Pro G, I don't think it was necessary to use the #37 pick on G too. It is what it is...but the Colts are being about as inefficent as a team can get when it comes to building an interior OL. Recent Super Bowl teams haven't need that type of draft capital. Like everyone, I just hope it finally works.

 

As for Kirk, I was a huge fan...and felt he was underrated as a draft target. I think he would have thrived in an offense that understood how to get him in space (which I assume Reich would, given the Hines pick). I just hope at least one of Fountain and Cain can make it...but history is against one of them being good, let alone both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stitches said:

 

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). 


Yeah, Matt Miller also talked up his potential quite a bit. He had him pegged as a 3rd rounder but gave the pick a B+ for us, talked up the fit. That seems like kind of the general opinion from what I've read, that even though most had him around that late 2nd/3rd round area, that he went to the best possible fit.

I personally really like the pick, and was pleasantly surprised we took him when we did. I figure Ballard knew there was a risk that he'd get taken in between our second and third 2nd rounder with the run on LBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, boo2202 said:

Supe I know you were very high on Chubb. But definitely not a lock to become an elite player either. Maybe Ballard seen something he didn't like when it came to Chubb. If he loved him, I really don't think he makes that trade until draft day. I'm in the miniority but I have my doubts about Chubb. What if turay turns out to be a better pass rusher than Chubb? I guess time will tell. I do strong agree with you on signing norwell, then that would've opened up the possibility for better positional value at 6. But that's what made me love the Nelson pick even more, because we didn't sign any needed oline help

You are in the minority, but not alone with Chubb.   I feel the same way.   I don't feel overly confident that he will be as good as many hope.   I could be wrong though.   We would have had to stay at #3 to draft him which would have cost us 3 extra 2nd round picks that this team desperately needed.   So the Colts could have had:

Chubb

or

Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame

Braden Smith, G, Auburn

Kemoko Turay, DE, Rutgers

A 2nd rounder in 2019 (probably a good one)

 

Seems like a slam dunk to me.   Luck agrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myles said:

Ballard got Nelson plus 3 additional 2nd round picks.   A+

 

 

 

I just can't agree with the idea that a G is an A+ pick. Was Brandon Scherff an A+ pick? If you think it is, that's fine...we just disagree on the positional value aspect...which has to be considered. I think Scherff was a good pick, but not a great pick. It certainly hasn't moved the needle for WAS.

 

The trade back was tremendous. But if we want to include the trade back in the grade...then I am going to judge the pick on the trade back he passed on. Ballard at least had the same offer that TB got from BUF...#53 and #56 to move back to #12.  

 

And (IMO) Edmunds/James/LVE + (5) 2nd round picks >>> Nelson + (3) 2nd round picks. That would have been an A+...and it was certainly possible.

 

Heck, Ballard could have reached for Wynn at #12 and then still had two more 2nd round picks, which could have turned into Guice and Oliver...for example. And that would have been better than drafting Nelson. The difference between Wynn and Nelson likely isn't that huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Four2itus said:

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. 

 

But what about opportunity cost?

 

Much like staying pat at #3 and taking Chubb (for example) would have cost the Colts three additional 2nd round picks...staying pat at #6 and taking Nelson cost the Colts two additional 2nd round picks. We know at least that trade back offer was on the table at the time of the pick.

 

IF, after the fact, we learned that Ballard was offered three 2nd round picks to trade back from #3 to #6...and he passed to stay pat and take Chubb...many people would have criticized him (especially since he could have had Nelson and those picks).

 

For me, the same thought process applies. Except this time it's staying pat for Nelson when he could have Edmunds, James, LVE, etc. AND two more 2nd round picks. I guess it comes down to your opinion of those other players...but the potential for that pick was higher than what the Colts ended up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I just can't agree with the idea that a G is an A+ pick. Was Brandon Scherff an A+ pick? If you think it is, that's fine...we just disagree on the positional value aspect...which has to be considered. I think Scherff was a good pick, but not a great pick. It certainly hasn't moved the needle for WAS.

 

The trade back was tremendous. But if we want to include the trade back in the grade...then I am going to judge the pick on the trade back he passed on. Ballard at least had the same offer that TB got from BUF...#53 and #56 to move back to #12.  

 

And (IMO) Edmunds/James/LVE + (5) 2nd round picks >>> Nelson + (3) 2nd round picks. That would have been an A+...and it was certainly possible.

 

Heck, Ballard could have reached for Wynn at #12 and then still had two more 2nd round picks, which could have turned into Guice and Oliver...for example. And that would have been better than drafting Nelson. The difference between Wynn and Nelson likely isn't that huge.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

The game is constantly evolving, and positional value evolves with it.  Now unless the NFL changes the rules DRASTICALLY, then we'll never see a K, P, or long-snapper ever valued high enough to be picked in the 1st round (unlike the silly example some posters are using for their argument), but I think Ballard is ahead of the curve here on the increasing value of good interior linemen.

 

Guys like Aaron Donald, JJ Watt, and Fletcher Cox are making pass-blocking guards more important.  And the Colts are going to be dealing with a few pretty good interior pass-rushers in the AFC South with JJ Watt, Jurrell Casey, Malik Jackson, and Calais Campbell on the schedule six times.  There's only a handful of games this year where the Colts DON'T have to face an elite interior DLineman.

 

The Nelson pick is an A+.  Since I'm a Notre Dame fan and I wanted this pick from day 1, I personally give it an A++.  :D

 

:clover::coltshelmet::yahoo:

Exaggerating to make a point is NEVER "silly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stitches said:

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... 

The Browns picked Nevada guard Austin Corbett at No. 33 to try out at left tackle, which he played a little in college.  They are thinking of moving Joel Bitonio, another guard out of Nevada who played left tackle in college, from left guard to left tackle if Corbett fails there.  This is all in an effort to replace Joe Thomas.  Even if their third option, moving right tackle Shon Coleman to the left side, works, then Corbett likely plays right tackle.  Any way you look at it, the pick of Corbett the guard was intended to replace a tackle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boo2202 said:

Supe I know you were very high on Chubb. But definitely not a lock to become an elite player either. Maybe Ballard seen something he didn't like when it came to Chubb. If he loved him, I really don't think he makes that trade until draft day. I'm in the miniority but I have my doubts about Chubb. What if turay turns out to be a better pass rusher than Chubb? I guess time will tell. I do strong agree with you on signing norwell, then that would've opened up the possibility for better positional value at 6. But that's what made me love the Nelson pick even more, because we didn't sign any needed oline help

Many Browns fans were upset that they passed on Chubb for Ward.  Many viewed Chubb as a better overall talent than the Browns 2017 #1 pick Garrett!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

The Browns picked Nevada guard Austin Corbett at No. 33 to try out at left tackle, which he played a little in college.  They are thinking of moving Joel Bitonio, another guard out of Nevada who played left tackle in college, from left guard to left tackle if Corbett fails there.  This is all in an effort to replace Joe Thomas.  Even if their third option, moving right tackle Shon Coleman to the left side, works, then Corbett likely plays right tackle.  Any way you look at it, the pick of Corbett the guard was intended to replace a tackle. 

Except for Corbett played LT for Nevada... all 4 years.  No one tried him at guard until the senior bowl where he worked at RT, and both guard spots.  He was projected at guard by some analyst but that does not mean they drafted a guard to try out at LT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, backshoulderfade said:

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.

Yeah, whenever people talk about where to take a guy in the draft or guards vs pass rushers, my eyes glaze over. I'm just glad we landed Nelson. I never thought we had a shot at him so, I was kinda dumbfounded we actually got to claim him. I couldn't tell ya when to take anybody just whether or not the guy we drafted can help or not. Nelson is an instant upgrade & will protect Luck for the next decade. A+ in my view.

6 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

If you can't get any of the premium pass rushers, you draft the O-linemen that can stop them.

Short, succinct, & right on the money. I like posters who just cut through all the jargon & state the obvious. I wonder sometimes if some INDY fans think our GM didn't do enough to land Chubb. At #6 it's foolish to move & given Luck's recovery situation, I would have pursued Nelson too. It's not my goal in life to dissect draft classes, all I care about is can our offense produce & Nelson gives Andrew a few more seconds to throw. A great pick IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

So you give Nelson a B+ and you say he's no worse than the 3rd best player in the draft even though we picked him at 6? If you think we got a top 3 player guaranteed at 6 (which if true would probably be a hall of famer), how do you not give that an A+? The positional value is irrelevant, you would still get a HOF guard. That's really inconsistent there.

 

 

I have to agree with you. Plus he says that he did not like what Tampa received to move back and was happy with staying at 6. So now , IMO , to give the pick a B+ , you have to say you liked another player more at 6 than Nelson. Who would that be ? You had the following non QB's follow Nelson.  Smith , McGlinchey, Fitzpatrick and then the 2 DT's .That takes you all the way from 6 to 14. So who is the guy that Ballard should have taken to rate an A ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Yeah, whenever people talk about where to take a guy in the draft or guards vs pass rushers, my eyes glaze over. I'm just glad we landed Nelson. I never thought we had a shot at him so, I was kinda dumbfounded we actually got to claim him. I couldn't tell ya when to take anybody just whether or not the guy we drafted can help or not. Nelson is an instant upgrade & will protect Luck for the next decade. A+ in my view.

Short, succinct, & right on the money. I like posters who just cut through all the jargon & state the obvious. I wonder sometimes if some INDY fans think our GM didn't do enough to land Chubb. At #6 it's foolish to move & given Luck's recovery situation, I would have pursued Nelson too. It's not my goal in life to dissect draft classes, all I care about is can our offense produce & Nelson gives Andrew a few more seconds to throw. A great pick IMO.

If Nelson was a pretty good guard then I would have had a problem with it.  However whenever I watched the tape I felt I was looking at a flat out beast so I didn't have much problem with the pick either Sw1.  If there was any time to go against conventional wisdom I think this was the year to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on the offensive side of the ball we did very well. It was almost like we are starting all over with a Luck trying to give him the things to be successful in this league to protect our investment in him. I probably rather have a tackle then another guard with our second round but I understand. Probably like to have a corner instead of two pass rushers. I’ll trust our coaches with the defensive picks. I think they ALL have potential...I see the flashes but I don’t see any of them having it all together. Offensively OL, RB, WR I give the draft a B+...the defensive guys first impression I feel more like a C-....but I will reserve judgment until they get a chance to perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

(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.)

Yes, that's what so hard about evaluating players. Physical attributes, breaking down secondaries, & being good community leaders. I look forward to reading your Jacoby Brissett evaluation Superman. I'm not as gifted at critiquing drafts, or skill sets like you, krunk, & Jared are, but I value what you guys have to say even when you fail to see eye to eye on a player or what position they were taken in. 

 

Nice write up Superman. It clearly took some time to jot down your thoughts & you write in such a way that you never make anyone feel foolish, overwhelmed, or out of their element. 

 

I get the value in certain positions--Center, LT, DE, Corner. I know there's a method to the proverbial madness. I just laugh when I hear GMs talk about sticking to their board because every draft has it's format to it based on what it's top heavy in: WRs, TE, offensive linemen, safeties, etc. etc. 

 

Anyhow, I can't wait to read your breakdown on our backup QB. I like Jacoby a lot too & sometimes, I wonder if I give the kid too much slack because I like Bill Parcels so much. I get what you mean man. Character vs intelligence on the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article Super. Thanks for the evaluation. I think the Nelson pick is an A. Some prognosticators had him as the best player in the draft. My prediction: the Colts will be happy they drafted him every day of his career here. 

 

I agree with you that the Leonard pick seemed like a panic selection at that point. I suspect the team's need for a LB and the board getting mighty thin caused that pick to be earlier than many expected.  But I think he's going to be a good player and in time will justify his high 2 selection slot. Its just that there were some CBs and WRs who were there for the taking who could have really helped this team. For that reason,and after reflection since draft day, I would elevate his grade to a B-. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dw49 said:

I have to agree with you. Plus he says that he did not like what Tampa received to move back and was happy with staying at 6. So now , IMO , to give the pick a B+ , you have to say you liked another player more at 6 than Nelson. Who would that be ? You had the following non QB's follow Nelson.  Smith , McGlinchey, Fitzpatrick and then the 2 DT's .That takes you all the way from 6 to 14. So who is the guy that Ballard should have taken to rate an A ?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Many Browns fans were upset that they passed on Chubb for Ward.  Many viewed Chubb as a better overall talent than the Browns 2017 #1 pick Garrett!

 I would like to know who the Many are. Every comparison I ready and it was Many said Chubb was not as elite a prospect as Clowney or Garrett. I like Chubb and I do think he will be good but I have my doubts about him being elite. Time will tell.

The Colts were not going to solve all there problems in one draft. Ballard took the approach to try to shore up the OL first, improve the DL and LB and add some offense weapons rather than water down the draft by trying to cover everything. Next years FA and draft will concentrate on other positions to shore up. Weather you agree with the approach or not again only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, krunk said:

If Nelson was a pretty good guard then I would have had a problem with it.  However whenever I watched the tape I felt I was looking at a flat out beast so I didn't have much problem with the pick either Sw1.  If there was any time to go against conventional wisdom I have this year was it

Ah huh. Most guards aren't worthy of a top 10 pick, but Nelson is anything but ordinary. I get it. Every once in awhile, the only logical move is to throw the script away & make an exception because they fell in your lap by happenstance & sheer serendipity. I agree 100% krunk. 

 

I am surprised that John Elway passed on Nelson given his HOF QB background & Denver did have a OL need as well. I know; I know Miller & Chubb were a wrecking crew too tailor made to bypass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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

I agree...I also think Smith as a talent might be a higher grade but Nelson is a safer player. We have to consider who we passed on to get Nelson. In the end we won’t know the result of this draft for quite some time. Nelson was my floor for this pick. That said it would be a pretty high floor. I’m not worried you graded him a B+. Those that were high on Chubb or Smith or another player might grade taking a guard in the top 10 not very well. Those that loved the idea are going to say anything less than an A is absurd. I think B+ is a fair accessment given what we gave up and the impact of the position and given we may have gotten almost as good a starting guard in round 2...an all sec player at the very same position a round later. I think it’s fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with this approach to building a roster, for several reasons.

 

First, I disagree with needs-based drafting. It's a great way to miss out on great players, and still wind up with needs all over the place. I believe the draft is for grabbing the best players you can who fit your team well, and you use the other methods of player acquisition to supplement and round out your roster. This is how you build a roster with 10-12 really good to great players, another 15 really good role players, and a continual pipeline of homegrown talent to replace the players who leave, retire, etc. Roster mechanics aren't on my mind on draft day.

 

Second, teams around the league will change every year. (For instance, the Jags had a great DL last year, but Campbell had a career year at 31 years old, and Jackson had a career year as well. It's time for a regression from the Jags DL, and if it's not this year, it will be next year, but it's coming.) I don't think you draft to combat other teams. Back to point one, take the best players you can.

 

Third, yes, someone has to block for Luck, and I agree that it's super important. But there are good interior OL in free agency every year. We could have signed one or two guards who would play at a high level this season if we wanted. It's not accurate to suggest that the only option we had was to draft Nelson or subject Luck to more bad OL play. (I also think there's a lot the coaching staff can/will do to protect the QB, no matter who's playing OL.)

 

Related to the previous point, while there are good OL in free agency every year, there are almost never good edge rushers in free agency. This speaks to positional value. If you want someone like Chubb -- who I think would have been the perfect pick at #3 -- you basically have to draft him, bottom line. 

 

I'm a strong believer in positional value, and there are a lot of variables, but let's not make this into 'we have to protect Luck.' You can't have this hyper focus on one need in the draft.

I agree that drafting for need versus talent isn't always wise, however, in this particular instance the need was equal to the talent.

 

Had Chubb been on the board and he drafted Nelson over him then I think we'd have an argument. At this point we're just splitting hairs I think.

 

Either way the Colts are vastly improved with two athletic, intelligent, strong young guards to sandwich Kelly and hopefully keep a clean pocket for Luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree with this approach to building a roster, for several reasons.

 

First, I disagree with needs-based drafting. It's a great way to miss out on great players, and still wind up with needs all over the place. I believe the draft is for grabbing the best players you can who fit your team well, and you use the other methods of player acquisition to supplement and round out your roster. This is how you build a roster with 10-12 really good to great players, another 15 really good role players, and a continual pipeline of homegrown talent to replace the players who leave, retire, etc. Roster mechanics aren't on my mind on draft day.

 

Second, teams around the league will change every year. (For instance, the Jags had a great DL last year, but Campbell had a career year at 31 years old, and Jackson had a career year as well. It's time for a regression from the Jags DL, and if it's not this year, it will be next year, but it's coming.) I don't think you draft to combat other teams. Back to point one, take the best players you can.

 

Third, yes, someone has to block for Luck, and I agree that it's super important. But there are good interior OL in free agency every year. We could have signed one or two guards who would play at a high level this season if we wanted. It's not accurate to suggest that the only option we had was to draft Nelson or subject Luck to more bad OL play. (I also think there's a lot the coaching staff can/will do to protect the QB, no matter who's playing OL.)

 

Related to the previous point, while there are good OL in free agency every year, there are almost never good edge rushers in free agency. This speaks to positional value. If you want someone like Chubb -- who I think would have been the perfect pick at #3 -- you basically have to draft him, bottom line. 

 

I'm a strong believer in positional value, and there are a lot of variables, but let's not make this into 'we have to protect Luck.' You can't have this hyper focus on one need in the draft.

Ballard is gonna prove alot of ya'll wrong with this way of thinking....we been missing out on position needs for years on the draft especially on defense and it showed every season 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super, just for clarification, would you have rather had Chubb than Nelson and the three 2nd rounders are am I reading it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Super, just for clarification, would you have rather had Chubb than Nelson and the three 2nd rounders are am I reading it wrong?

 

Given our original draft position, yes, I'd rather have Chubb. And that's nothing against Nelson, but picking at #3 was our best shot at getting a dynamic pass rusher. Turay and Lewis might wind up being really good pass rushers, but the odds favor Chubb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Ballard is gonna prove alot of ya'll wrong with this way of thinking....we been missing out on position needs for years on the draft especially on defense and it showed every season 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

I agree that drafting for need versus talent isn't always wise, however, in this particular instance the need was equal to the talent.

 

Had Chubb been on the board and he drafted Nelson over him then I think we'd have an argument. At this point we're just splitting hairs I think.

 

Either way the Colts are vastly improved with two athletic, intelligent, strong young guards to sandwich Kelly and hopefully keep a clean pocket for Luck!

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Given our original draft position, yes, I'd rather have Chubb. And that's nothing against Nelson, but picking at #3 was our best shot at getting a dynamic pass rusher. Turay and Lewis might wind up being really good pass rushers, but the odds favor Chubb.

 

Just so I understand you...

 

You're not suggesting you'd prefer having Chubb rather than trading down and ending up with Nelson AND Smith AND Turay AND the 5th or 6th round pick we also traded back for as well as the 2nd round pick we're also getting next year.

 

You're not suggesting that are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my ancient perspective, I will say that I just cannot imagine enjoying 2 consecutive drafts, hiring a top flight offensive mind, and returning Andrew Luck that I won't thoroughly enjoy this season. I think they will surprise a lot of genius sportswriters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

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

 

 

Don't forget we have another 2nd next year . So we're not done with that one yet. Anyway B+ ... A ... no big deal . But I have a feeling that in a year or 2 , your going to say you wouldn't trade Nelson for Chubb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Don't forget we have another 2nd next year . So we're not done with that one yet. Anyway B+ ... A ... no big deal . But I have a feeling that in a year or 2 , your going to say you wouldn't trade Nelson for Chubb. 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Just so I understand you...

 

You're not suggesting you'd prefer having Chubb rather than trading down and ending up with Nelson AND Smith AND Turay AND the 5th or 6th round pick we also traded back for as well as the 2nd round pick we're also getting next year.

 

You're not suggesting that are you?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do  respect your opinion Super but do have a differing opinion. Like Chubb but I personally don't think he is elite and do not feel he was the prospect Garrett was but who knows. I value Nelson even though he is am IOL as high as Chubb and the rest,(2nd round) guys are gravy. We don't need 1 good talent, we need many. We can re-evaluate this 2-3 years down the road. I just hope I am right.:highfive2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...