Last Years Draft

[John Hammonds]

No matter what we think about CB's picks of Hooker and Wilson, I know that they're better than my picks for that year (Reuben Foster and Cordrea Tankersley), which goes to show that CB definitely knows a lot more about doing this than I do!

[Myles]

Ill give the 2017 draft a B-.   Booker is still a young unknown.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

6 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

So far Hooker, a 15th overall pick, is not giving the production you would like for a player drafted that high. Injuries of course not helped. He missed the entire 2nd half of season last year and has been nicked up and not so productive so far this season. We hope he can get and stay healthy and at least be a decent, consistent starter going forward. But I'm sure his durability AND availability going forward has many colt fans worried.

 

Quincy so far has not been good. His future with team is questionable.

 

Bashaam was cut.

 

Banner was cut.

 

Mack is a major talent. Only questions on him is durability/availability.

 

Hairston is a decent nickel corner on a team that is lacking in secondary talent. Certainly not a "core" player that we hear so much about building through the draft.

 

Walker is still pretty much unknown going forward. Some good play earlier but reports on here lately not as good. He too, like Hairston a player on a weak unit. 

 

In summary Mack may be the only player that can be above average. The book is still out on Hooker. Everyone else looks like they will only be 'just another guy' or Ballard will move on from them.

 

Anyway thats my opinion. If you truly like/excited by the '17 draft class thats fine.

 

Ok... none of that addresses what I asked you.

 

I asked you about our draft compared to the other 31 teams.  If our draft wasn't good, then no team had a good draft, because at this point, no team has more than 2 players from that draft that could be considered "above average" and a LOT of teams have 0 players from that draft that would be considered "above average"...

 

Again, perspective.  The Colts had a good draft compared to the other 31 teams.

[Yoshinator]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok... none of that addresses what I asked you.

 

I asked you about our draft compared to the other 31 teams.  If our draft wasn't good, then no team had a good draft, because at this point, no team has more than 2 players from that draft that could be considered "above average" and a LOT of teams have 0 players from that draft that would be considered "above average"...

 

Again, perspective.  The Colts had a good draft compared to the other 31 teams.

My personal problem with the 2017 draft was that Ballard hit on the late picks and missed the early picks. You can say it doesn't matter, that he still hit on picks and whatever, but I'd rather hit on 1st-3rd rounders that play like their draft position than 4th and 5th rounders that play like theirs (besides Mack). I've said in this thread already that I give Ballard a pass because he was handicapped by Grigson's scouts and Pagano's scheme, and I think we'll be in great shape going forward based on the 2018 draft and how he is drafting now, but the 2017 class was "average" at best, and we missed on a lot of important picks. We'll have to make up for those in this years draft. Luckily we'll have a couple extra picks to do so with our normal picks.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

but the 2017 class was "average" at best, and we missed on a lot of important picks.

 

Ok... I have a question for you, @LJpalmbeacher2 and @Moosejawcolt :

 

What would have made it a good draft?  Who should Ballard have taken with his picks instead of the players that he did pick?

 

TJ Watt instead of Hooker?

Juju Smith-Schuster instead of Wilson?

Kareem Hunt instead of Basham? (do you still take Mack in rd4?)

 

EVERY team wishes they had picked those guys.  Hindsight is 20/20.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok... I have a question for you, @LJpalmbeacher2 and @Moosejawcolt :

 

What would have made it a good draft?  Who should Ballard have taken with his picks instead of the players that he did pick?

 

TJ Watt instead of Hooker?

Juju Smith-Schuster instead of Wilson?

Kareem Hunt instead of Basham? (do you still take Mack in rd4?)

 

EVERY team wishes they had picked those guys.  Hindsight is 20/20.

Kareem Hunt 100%. That wasn't hindsight. Half the board here loved Kareem before the draft and were mocking him to us. That one wasn't hindsight. People will back me up on here on that one. Hooker I'm fine with, as he was BPA at a position of need, and we were mostly happy he fell. Joe Mixon was also available after Quincy Wilson in the 2nd. If Ballard wasn't interested in Hunt, he could of taken Mixon. That one is hindsight though.  Mostly opportunities to have an elite RB core, and you can't say we had Mack at the time or Ballard knew he was getting him, we didn't take him til the 4th round, and that would be hindsight on your part.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

14 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Kareem Hunt 100%. That wasn't hindsight. Half the board here loved Kareem before the draft and were mocking him to us. That one wasn't hindsight. People will back me up on here on that one. Hooker I'm fine with, as he was BPA at a position of need, and we were mostly happy he fell. Joe Mixon was also available after Quincy Wilson in the 2nd. If Ballard wasn't interested in Hunt, he could of taken Mixon. That one is hindsight though.  Mostly opportunities to have an elite RB core, and you can't say we had Mack at the time or Ballard knew he was getting him, we didn't take him til the 4th round, and that would be hindsight on your part.

 

So tell me: who should Ballard have picked?

 

Rd 1 (15)  --

Rd 2 (46) --

Rd 3 (80) --

Rd 4 (137) --

Rd 4 (143) --

Rd 4 (144) --

Rd 5 (158) --

Rd 5 (161) --

 

@LJpalmbeacher2  @Moosejawcolt  @MacDee1975  @jameszeigler834  @Jdubu ?

[oldunclemark]

You cant judge a draft accurately for 3 or 4 years

[a06cc]

22 hours ago, CR91 said:

I dont think Hooker is 100 percent back from his ACL injury. It just seems to me that injury has affected his closing speed and you can see hes late to the ball at times. His range seems to be lacking. Not sure if moncrief's td was his zone, but that is a prime example. As for Wilson, I just dont think hes a zone CB. He seems lost in space. It wouldnt surprise me to see ballard trade him

Agree about Hooker. Needed to sit this week out too. 

[Yoshinator]

13 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So tell me: who should Ballard have picked?

 

Rd 1 (15)  --

Rd 2 (46) --

Rd 3 (80) --

Rd 4 (137) --

Rd 4 (143) --

Rd 4 (144) --

Rd 5 (158) --

Rd 5 (161) --

 

@LJpalmbeacher2  @Moosejawcolt  @MacDee1975  @jameszeigler834  @Jdubu ?

Impossible to say, because when I change it up in the first 3 rounds, it creates a domino effect where every team would change 1 or more of their picks (including trades). I would of still taken Hooker, then went after Mixon in the 2nd round (Ballard took a chance on Tyreek Hill, so Mixon shouldn't of been a problem), and someone like Chris Godwin in the 3rd round who has good character and a locker room guy. After that, I would of taken Desmond King in the 4th round at CB like most of us wanted to go along with Hairston instead of Banner, who was a terrible pick that was just picked "because of his size". Keep the rest the same and you have a very good draft based on common sense.

 

Rd 1 (15)  -- Malik Hooker FS

Rd 2 (46) -- Joe Mixon RB

Rd 3 (80) -- Chris Godwin WR

Rd 4 (137) -- Desmond King CB

Rd 4 (143) -- Marlon Mack RB

Rd 4 (144) -- Grover Stewart DT

Rd 5 (158) -- Nate Hairston CB

Rd 5 (161) -- Anthony Walker ILB

 

This draft goes much more BPA and fixes our needs much better. We would get Hooker still. Two solid RBs to use as a tandem, a no2 WR, two solid CBs, Stewart as depth, and Walker as a no2 ILB. All possible by using the strategy Ballard used in this year's draft and his strategies from the past.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok... none of that addresses what I asked you.

 

I asked you about our draft compared to the other 31 teams.  If our draft wasn't good, then no team had a good draft, because at this point, no team has more than 2 players from that draft that could be considered "above average" and a LOT of teams have 0 players from that draft that would be considered "above average"...

 

Again, perspective.  The Colts had a good draft compared to the other 31 teams.

I agree.   While not a great draft, it was pretty good for Ballard when considering all the variables.   It wasn't Ballards first "true" draft.   Injuries played a factor.   available talent played a factor.   Most give him a C+ to a B-, which is fantastic for a first year GM.   I am happy with it and excited for the future.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree.   While not a great draft, it was pretty good for Ballard when considering all the variables.   It wasn't Ballards first "true" draft.   Injuries played a factor.   available talent played a factor.   Most give him a C+ to a B-, which is fantastic for a first year GM.   I am happy with it and excited for the future.

I think when you look at guys in the 2017 draft (like Quincy Wilson), you see that scheme fits are a huge deal, and Ballard learned that very quickly going into his second year as GM. I don't mind slight reaches if they are great scheme fits for us and perform well in our system.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Rd 1 (15)  -- Malik Hooker FS

Rd 2 (46) -- Joe Mixon RB

Rd 3 (80) -- Chris Godwin WR

Rd 4 (137) -- Desmond King CB

Rd 4 (143) -- Marlon Mack RB

Rd 4 (144) -- Grover Stewart DT

Rd 5 (158) -- Nate Hairston CB

Rd 5 (161) -- Anthony Walker ILB

 

Thank you.

 

I would say this is slightly better than what Ballard actually did.  It's actually almost identical. 

 

And you had the luxury of 20/20 hindsight a year and a half after the draft...

 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think when you look at guys in the 2017 draft (like Quincy Wilson), you see that scheme fits are a huge deal, and Ballard learned that very quickly going into his second year as GM. I don't mind slight reaches if they are great scheme fits for us and perform well in our system.

I think, what you are saying, is that Ballard did OK in that 2017 draft.   He was new to the GM role, had to draft to accommodate a future coach, and was not drafting in the best position each round.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think, what you are saying, is that Ballard did OK in that 2017 draft.   He was new to the GM role, had to draft to accommodate a future coach, and was not drafting in the best position each round.

It's passable, and I understand the circumstances he was in. When seeing the 2018 draft, it comforts me to know 1.) He learned to correct his mistakes from the 2017 draft, and 2.) He has his own scouts and is drafting for coach Reich and his scheme now. Instead of taking random BPA guys, Ballard is taking specific scheme fits that he sees as starters for this team, even if he has to reach a bit. As long as the results come close again to last year, I'm all for it.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok... none of that addresses what I asked you.

 

I asked you about our draft compared to the other 31 teams.  If our draft wasn't good, then no team had a good draft, because at this point, no team has more than 2 players from that draft that could be considered "above average" and a LOT of teams have 0 players from that draft that would be considered "above average"...

 

Again, perspective.  The Colts had a good draft compared to the other 31 teams.

 

What does other teams drafts have to do with our team??

 

The goal in the draft (and entire offseason) is to add as much talent as possible, not compare with other teams hits/missses in draft.

 

Besides, most other teams rosters have more talent than us AND and probably added talent in Free Agency. Something ballard is against doing. We can't afford to miss on draft classes as much as other teams since were behind in talent and don't look to supplement in FA as much as other teams.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

What does other teams drafts have to do with our team??

 

Because there's a difference between picking between two diamonds and two dog turds...

 

How much better could the Colts 2017 draft have really been?  Even if Ballard had a crystal ball and knew who was going to bust and who was going to be good, could he have had a "good" draft, according to your standard?

[LJpalmbeacher2]

55 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Because there's a difference between picking between two diamonds and two dog turds...

 

How much better could the Colts 2017 draft have really been?  Even if Ballard had a crystal ball and knew who was going to bust and who was going to be good, could he have had a "good" draft, according to your standard?

 

I haven't checked out the over 200 players that were drafted. Only the ones we drafted I guess. I think according to you, it was a terrible draft class overall and no team had a good draft. Is that what your implying?

 

Well then isn't a GM's job, especially a genius like ballard to know the '17 draft class is weak AND SHOULD get talent through trades and FA? 

 

Bottom line is this team Did Not add much talent in '17 offseason.

 

Your narrative is now jusifying a not so good '17 colt draft class by saying the entire class was not so good and ballard did as well or better as most other GM's. Lol. We won 4 games following that offseason.

[Colts_Fan12]

28 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I haven't checked out the over 200 players that were drafted. Only the ones we drafted I guess. I think according to you, it was a terrible draft class overall and no team had a good draft. Is that what your implying?

 

Well then isn't a GM's job, especially a genius like ballard to know the '17 draft class is weak AND SHOULD get talent through trades and FA? 

 

Bottom line is this team Did Not add much talent in '17 offseason.

 

Your narrative is now jusifying a not so good '17 colt draft class by saying the entire class was not so good and ballard did as well or better as most other GM's. Lol. We won 4 games following that offseason.

There are 31 other teams in the nfl to be a fan of if all you're gonna do is whine about Ballard everyday. He has done nothing but fix the o line that had been a problem for 5 seasons and get us promising young talent on D for the first time in god knows how long. we are headed in the right direction sorry it's not as fast as you and others want. The players you wanted in FA last year were all prolly getting way more money than they are worth. Ballard did the right thing keeping our money weather you think so or not 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Ok... I have a question for you, @LJpalmbeacher2 and @Moosejawcolt :

 

What would have made it a good draft?  Who should Ballard have taken with his picks instead of the players that he did pick?

 

TJ Watt instead of Hooker?

Juju Smith-Schuster instead of Wilson?

Kareem Hunt instead of Basham? (do you still take Mack in rd4?)

 

EVERY team wishes they had picked those guys.  Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Kamara or Mixon > Wilson or Hunt > Basham isn’t really hindsight...at least for me. I thought Kamara was the best RB in that class...and Hunt was not too far behind (and seemed like the majority of Colts fans wanted Hunt as well).

 

Ballard passed over three Pro Bowl caliber RBs to draft two bad players. He did this prior to Reich being hired and implementing a RBBC. 

 

If Mack is a considered a good pick...then passing on better players has to also be considered a bad move...because they were great picks. It was a phenomenal RB class...and this team was in dire need of one. So to only walk away with Mack is disappointing. If Ballard had waited on RB to draft other positions AND hit on those earlier picks...it might be different. But he didn’t...so it sort of backfired. But that’s the risk you run when you target positions...and when it doesn’t work or the Colts miss out on great players...that’s on the GM.

 

As for other players he could have drafted...Jourdan Lewis and Cooper Kupp were both popular Colts mock draft picks...and guys that I really liked.

 

I get that he can’t be expected to hit every pick...but I do think some criticism is fair. 

 

 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Thank you.

 

I would say this is slightly better than what Ballard actually did.  It's actually almost identical. 

 

And you had the luxury of 20/20 hindsight a year and a half after the draft...

 

 

How is that almost identical? 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Impossible to say, because when I change it up in the first 3 rounds, it creates a domino effect where every team would change 1 or more of their picks (including trades). I would of still taken Hooker, then went after Mixon in the 2nd round (Ballard took a chance on Tyreek Hill, so Mixon shouldn't of been a problem), and someone like Chris Godwin in the 3rd round who has good character and a locker room guy. After that, I would of taken Desmond King in the 4th round at CB like most of us wanted to go along with Hairston instead of Banner, who was a terrible pick that was just picked "because of his size". Keep the rest the same and you have a very good draft based on common sense.

 

Rd 1 (15)  -- Malik Hooker FS

Rd 2 (46) -- Joe Mixon RB

Rd 3 (80) -- Chris Godwin WR

Rd 4 (137) -- Desmond King CB

Rd 4 (143) -- Marlon Mack RB

Rd 4 (144) -- Grover Stewart DT

Rd 5 (158) -- Nate Hairston CB

Rd 5 (161) -- Anthony Walker ILB

 

This draft goes much more BPA and fixes our needs much better. We would get Hooker still. Two solid RBs to use as a tandem, a no2 WR, two solid CBs, Stewart as depth, and Walker as a no2 ILB. All possible by using the strategy Ballard used in this year's draft and his strategies from the past.

 

Yep. Here’s the thing. If you are drafting with a lame duck HC and uncertainty regarding the future defensive scheme...it makes far more sense to put  a bit more focus on offense...because they will transition better. Passing on all of that RB talent still irks me. And I would have been fine with WR on Day Two as well.

 

Passing on Kittle was also very disappointing...because he was so obviously going to be a steal...and many Colts fans wanted him. 

 

But honestly, just give me Hunt or Kamara and my outlook on that draft is

signicantly different. And give me one of those two + Kittle...and I am pleased as could be.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I haven't checked out the over 200 players that were drafted. Only the ones we drafted I guess. I think according to you, it was a terrible draft class overall and no team had a good draft. Is that what your implying?

 

Well then isn't a GM's job, especially a genius like ballard to know the '17 draft class is weak AND SHOULD get talent through trades and FA? 

 

Bottom line is this team Did Not add much talent in '17 offseason.

 

Your narrative is now jusifying a not so good '17 colt draft class by saying the entire class was not so good and ballard did as well or better as most other GM's. Lol. We won 4 games following that offseason.

 

For a guy who tries to claim you like Ballard your true colors surface from time to time.

 

Like here.    This post.

 

By the way,  you were one of the biggest complainers about the 18 draft. The draft that most everyone thinks is an absolute home run.   How does your criticism look now?

 

You continue to fool no one...  no one but you.

 

As for 17....  we acquired a fair amount of talent.   But we were without some guy named Luck.   Perhaps you’ve heard of him?  And Brissett, as talented as he is, was not ready for prime time.  That contributed heavily to a 4-win season.   It’s not like this hasn’t been discussed for nearly a year now.  So why you pretend not to understand is curious...   unless you’re making an anti-Ballard argument,  which you are.

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It's passable, and I understand the circumstances he was in. When seeing the 2018 draft, it comforts me to know 1.) He learned to correct his mistakes from the 2017 draft, and 2.) He has his own scouts and is drafting for coach Reich and his scheme now. Instead of taking random BPA guys, Ballard is taking specific scheme fits that he sees as starters for this team, even if he has to reach a bit. As long as the results come close again to last year, I'm all for it.

His own scouts?  The scouts are the same one who have been with the Colts for years. A couple of them have been on with the Colts for 19 years.

[SteelCityColt]

5 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

What does other teams drafts have to do with our team??

 

The goal in the draft (and entire offseason) is to add as much talent as possible, not compare with other teams hits/missses in draft.

 

Besides, most other teams rosters have more talent than us AND and probably added talent in Free Agency. Something ballard is against doing. We can't afford to miss on draft classes as much as other teams since were behind in talent and don't look to supplement in FA as much as other teams.

 

To answer the first question go look at the 2013 draft...

[Peterk2011]

9 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

My personal problem with the 2017 draft was that Ballard hit on the late picks and missed the early picks. You can say it doesn't matter, that he still hit on picks and whatever, but I'd rather hit on 1st-3rd rounders that play like their draft position than 4th and 5th rounders that play like theirs (besides Mack).

 

It's still too early to judge Jared. Don't forget that Wilson was one of the youngest, if not the youngest player of the draft when drafted. Regarding Hooker, the consensus opinion on him was that he was a rare talent, but veri inexperienced, who will need time to learn and adjust. I read a draft analysis about Hooker back then, which predicted him to be "sometimes painful to watch in his rookie year, picking it up in his sophomore year, and making the probowl in his third year". Without injury.

 

Those ACL injuries seem a routine thing to come back from nowadays, but one thing is to come back, and an other thing is to play at the same level as before. It still takes time get back to where the player was before the injury. Hooker torn his ACL+MCL in the middle of last season, so at the moment he is only in his 12th month. He has been been playing for 2 months, so his recovery was quicker than usual actually. And don't forget, he missed the entire offseason, so he is picking up his game while playing. Give the kid time, he will be fine. (Regarding his current hip injury, i am not worrying about it too much. It was Wilson who had hip issues before, not Hooker. He actually played through that injury last week. I bet illness - which was just recently been added to his injuries - is the reason he will miss the Titans game. He might've got a flu or something.)

 

Regarding Wilson, I don't like where he is at right now. He seems lost a bit. But still, this kid is very-very young. He is still younger than for example Josh Jackson of the 2018 draft class. Actually, he is younger than 2/3rd of the entire 2018 draft class. Vontae Davis was a former first rounder, and he was 2 years older, and had one more year of experience when Grigson traded for him. And he didn't look like his 2014-2016 himself at all back then.

[Crunked]

Malik Hooker addition

Frustration level analysis: Please circle all that apply.

 

#1 Hooker got injured last year and seemingly has been dinged up all this season, therefore his play is sub par

#2 Our defense is so bereft of talent we have to rely on him being good to compensate for the mediocre to bad around him.

#3 Even if he was healthy and performing at whatever you think a #15 level draft pick is, teams would just avoid him, we have 3-5 gaping holes elsewhere depending on what formation we are in, so he would still be a non factor most of the time.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

8 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I haven't checked out the over 200 players that were drafted. Only the ones we drafted I guess. I think according to you, it was a terrible draft class overall and no team had a good draft. Is that what your implying?

 

Well then isn't a GM's job, especially a genius like ballard to know the '17 draft class is weak AND SHOULD get talent through trades and FA? 

 

Bottom line is this team Did Not add much talent in '17 offseason.

 

Your narrative is now jusifying a not so good '17 colt draft class by saying the entire class was not so good and ballard did as well or better as most other GM's. Lol. We won 4 games following that offseason.

 

I'm not implying anything or giving an opinion either way on a draft class from a year ago because I know it's extremely premature to do so.

 

I'm simply asking you to give a point of reference for your opinion that it wasn't a good draft by Ballard.  (IE "Ok, if it isn't good, then what IS good?")  But you won't do it.  I keep lobbing easy underhand throws to you and you're just standing at the plate taking strikes.

 

Whatever, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but refusing to substantiate it makes you look like a negative nancy that just wants to complain.

 

Have a nice day and enjoy the game. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 hours ago, shastamasta said:

How is that almost identical? 

 

5/8 picks are exactly the same, and of the 3 different ones, one is still a CB (King instead of Wilson, and King was passed on by 31 other GMs) 

 

Plus, if Ballard had made those picks, everyone would have crucified him for not addressing the OLine or pass-rush.

 

7 hours ago, shastamasta said:

Ballard passed over three Pro Bowl caliber RBs to draft two bad players.

 

As did the other 31 GMs in the first two rounds...

 

Look, there were 4 mid-round gem RBs (Kamara, Hunt, Mixon, and Mack), 5 if you wanna count Connors, and the Colts walked away with one of them.

 

So even if you want to knock him for not taking Kamara, Hunt, or Mixon, Ballard did better than 27 other GMs in the RB dept in that draft.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

5/8 picks are exactly the same, and of the 3 different ones, one is still a CB (King instead of Wilson, and King was passed on by 31 other GMs) 

 

Plus, if Ballard had made those picks, everyone would have crucified him for not addressing the OLine or pass-rush.

 

 

As did the other 31 GMs in the first two rounds...

 

Look, there were 4 mid-round gem RBs (Kamara, Hunt, Mixon, and Mack), 5 if you wanna count Connors, and the Colts walked away with one of them.

 

So even if you want to knock him for not taking Kamara, Hunt, or Mixon, Ballard did better than 27 other GMs.

5/8 picks are the same because I didn't want to create some super, unrealistic draft where we got the best player in each round without any rhyme or reason. What I did follows my logic and what Ballard's standards are for players. Doing something like picking Kamara and Hunt in the 2nd and 3rd rounds is complete hindsight and dumb. I also wouldn't of called Ballard out for not addressing O-Line and pass rush because the O-Line stunk in that draft where Ballard himself only took a 4th round project with size, and a 3rd rounder in Basham. He was drafting for Pagano's schemes that year, and should of went after more offense as it's easier to fill and safer. Not to mention that was a top RB class, and Mack (although he is turning out well), wasn't much of a dive into an elite RB class.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I didn't want to create some super, unrealistic draft where we got the best player in each round without any rhyme or reason.

 

And I appreciate that because it seems like that's exactly what some of our forum members expected of Ballard.

 

Could Ballard have drafted better?  Sure, but we can say the same thing about the other 31 GMs.

 

Here's the crucial question, though:  Did he improve his team more than the other 31 GMs did in the 2017 draft?  Considering the Colts had more room for improvement than almost every other team, I would say yes he did.  But that's premature of me.  This is a topic best revisited in a few years.

[throwing BBZ]

11 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

What does other teams drafts have to do with our team??

 

The goal in the draft (and entire offseason) is to add as much talent as possible, not compare with other teams hits/missses in draft.

 

Besides, most other teams rosters have more talent than us AND and probably added talent in Free Agency. Something ballard is against doing. We can't afford to miss on draft classes as much as other teams since were behind in talent and don't look to supplement in FA as much as other teams.

 

 LMAO that you just don't seem to get team building, the salary cap, draft success probability, and yet you blow like the arctic wind in February. A lot of wind and negative.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

5/8 picks are exactly the same, and of the 3 different ones, one is still a CB (King instead of Wilson, and King was passed on by 31 other GMs) 

 

Plus, if Ballard had made those picks, everyone would have crucified him for not addressing the OLine or pass-rush.

 

 

As did the other 31 GMs in the first two rounds...

 

Look, there were 4 mid-round gem RBs (Kamara, Hunt, Mixon, and Mack), 5 if you wanna count Connors, and the Colts walked away with one of them.

 

So even if you want to knock him for not taking Kamara, Hunt, or Mixon, Ballard did better than 27 other GMs in the RB dept in that draft.

I hate to be a killjoy but Mack a gem?  Compared to Kamara, Hunt or Mixon?  He's had ,what, two good games in his career and a few good runs in others.  Hardly a gem.  Hopefully he's on track to get going and hopefully stay healthy while he's at it but a gem.  Not yet by any means.  Still has a lot to prove.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I hate to be a killjoy but Mack a gem?  Compared to Kamara, Hunt or Mixon?  He's had ,what, two good games in his career and a few good runs in others.  Hardly a gem.  Hopefully he's on track to get going and hopefully stay healthy while he's at it but a gem.  Not yet by any means.  Still has a lot to prove.  

 

Compared to Kamara, Hunt and Mixon maybe not, but compared to all the other picks from rounds 2-4?  Yeah, he was a gem.

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

5/8 picks are exactly the same, and of the 3 different ones, one is still a CB (King instead of Wilson, and King was passed on by 31 other GMs) 

 

Plus, if Ballard had made those picks, everyone would have crucified him for not addressing the OLine or pass-rush.

 

 

As did the other 31 GMs in the first two rounds...

 

Look, there were 4 mid-round gem RBs (Kamara, Hunt, Mixon, and Mack), 5 if you wanna count Connors, and the Colts walked away with one of them.

 

So even if you want to knock him for not taking Kamara, Hunt, or Mixon, Ballard did better than 27 other GMs in the RB dept in that draft.

 

He was "crucified" by many this year and look how that turned out. I don't see how he gets to be right this year AND not wrong last year...so I am not sure why that is relevant.

 

The fact that you are putting Mack in the same conversation as Hunt and Kamara shows your bias. Those are Pro Bowl caliber players. That's like when people were trying to say Turay was playing as well as Chubb (not that you said it). 

 

Only 12 teams drafted RB between the Colts 2nd round pick and when Mack was picked. And half of those (Mixon, Kamara, Hunt, Conners, Cohen, Mack) yielded RBs. That's six teams. 

 

But I don't really care about other teams...because you could play that silly game at every position (like CB or DE). I could through every team's draft and point out position-by-position where Ballard did worse vs x amount of teams. For another example, I am pretty sure most of the 31 other teams did better at drafting OL players last year. But that's really irrelevant.

 

What's relevant is that RB was a clear need and there was tremendous talent available. Ballard waited it out ot target other positions...and missed out on Pro Bowl cailber players. And then those picks he targeted instead were flops. There is no justifying or spinning that as a positive.

 

For the amount of credit he gets around here...he should be the one that picks a Kamara or Hunt. So when he doesn't (even though he could and should have)...I think it's fair to critcize him.

 

 

[dodsworth]

17 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Those hand picked scouts you are talking about were with the Colts long before Ballard was hired. He made a couple of changes to positions in charge of the scouts but some of those scouts have been with the Colts for over 15 years.

If you would have done a little research you would have known that.

Thanks Grigson/Pagano defender.

[crazycolt1]

12 minutes ago, dodsworth said:

Thanks Grigson/Pagano defender.

--

[BOTT]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I hate to be a killjoy but Mack a gem?  Compared to Kamara, Hunt or Mixon?  He's had ,what, two good games in his career and a few good runs in others.  Hardly a gem.  Hopefully he's on track to get going and hopefully stay healthy while he's at it but a gem.  Not yet by any means.  Still has a lot to prove.  

Irsay would never had signed off on draftimg Mixon

 

Mack may still have a lot to prove, but so does Mixon.