NFL.Com's Chad Reuter 3 Rd Mock

[PeterBowman]

pretty interesting:

Rd: 1 pk 26---- Kelvin Harmon  WR NC State

Rd: 2 pk 34---Renell Wren DT Arizona St

Rd: 2 pk 59---Joejuan Williams CB Vanderbilt

Rd: 3 pk 89---Amani Hooker S Iowa 

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

Ballard isn't gonna take a WR in the first. He's been a part of 13 NFL Drafts, and Alshon Jeffery is the earliest he has ever taken a wideout, and that was at 48. Of the other 25 guys he's selected in rounds 1/2....zero WRs. He builds the trenches, then fortifies the trenches, then builds everything else. 

 

I love the other 3 picks, practically perfect. If you switch the Joejuan Williams pick with a WR, and the 1st rounder with an edge guy, I think it's pretty spot on.

[our_dbs_rock]

1 hour ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

Ballard isn't gonna take a WR in the first. He's been a part of 13 NFL Drafts, and Alshon Jeffery is the earliest he has ever taken a wideout, and that was at 48. Of the other 25 guys he's selected in rounds 1/2....zero WRs. He builds the trenches, then fortifies the trenches, then builds everything else. 

 

I love the other 3 picks, practically perfect. If you switch the Joejuan Williams pick with a WR, and the 1st rounder with an edge guy, I think it's pretty spot on.

 

I hate this type of argument about drafting a position.  All it reminds me of, is all the talk of Dungy never having a DB drafted in the first two rounds.......Then they took Marlin Jackson in the 1st and Kelvin Hayden in the 2nd.

[BProland85]

Yeah I’m not a huge fan of this draft. I want impact guys at DL first and foremost. And there will be good WRs in rounds 2 and 3. 

[Matthew Gilbert]

37 minutes ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

I hate this type of argument about drafting a position.  All it reminds me of, is all the talk of Dungy never having a DB drafted in the first two rounds.......Then they took Marlin Jackson in the 1st and Kelvin Hayden in the 2nd.

Dungy was never a GM. 

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

1 hour ago, our_dbs_rock said:

 

I hate this type of argument about drafting a position.  All it reminds me of, is all the talk of Dungy never having a DB drafted in the first two rounds.......Then they took Marlin Jackson in the 1st and Kelvin Hayden in the 2nd.

 

I mean, what more do people need to see to understand that the guy is building the trenches first, has literally NEVER taken a WR that early...I just don't get why people think otherwise? Everything he's ever done and said suggest that he's gonna build the dline, and try to create a parish. Just listen/read. 

[Yoshinator]

8 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I mean, what more do people need to see to understand that the guy is building the trenches first, has literally NEVER taken a WR that early...I just don't get why people think otherwise? Everything he's ever done and said suggest that he's gonna build the dline, and try to create a parish. Just listen/read. 

While that's 100% true, each draft is an independent event. It could end up that all the D-Lineman Ballard wants get taken early and he doesn't want to reach for the next BPA one on his board. Likewise, a WR (Kelvin Harmon as a hypothetical example), could fall to 26, and maybe Ballard has him ranked 15th and it's a major BPA pick. You never know from draft to draft.

[Superman]

There's a big difference between picking in the top 15 -- and especially the top 10 -- and picking at #26. I think it's obvious that Ballard wants to build the trenches, but that doesn't mean he'll never pick a receiver in the first round, especially toward the end of the first. 

 

And I definitely don't think we can determine his overall draft strategy based on what his previous teams did. He wasn't the final decision maker, and every draft is different. 

 

I doubt he takes a receiver in the first, but never say never.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

While that's 100% true, each draft is an independent event. It could end up that all the D-Lineman Ballard wants get taken early and he doesn't want to reach for the next BPA one on his board. Likewise, a WR (Kelvin Harmon as a hypothetical example), could fall to 26, and maybe Ballard has him ranked 15th and it's a major BPA pick. You never know from draft to draft.

 

Put it this way...if you had to gamble one of your vehicles or your home on which direction Ballard is going with his first selection...are you going WR?

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

There's a big difference between picking in the top 15 -- and especially the top 10 -- and picking at #26. I think it's obvious that Ballard wants to build the trenches, but that doesn't mean he'll never pick a receiver in the first round, especially toward the end of the first. 

 

And I definitely don't think we can determine his overall draft strategy based on what his previous teams did. He wasn't the final decision maker, and every draft is different. 

 

I doubt he takes a receiver in the first, but never say never.

 

I'd be stunned if he did...and disappointed. He can get great value at WR with either of the second rounders, so why not take a top-level guy at another position of need? Hell, I'd rather he took Hockenson in the first than a WR. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Put it this way...if you had to gamble one of your vehicles or your home on which direction Ballard is going with his first selection...are you going WR?

Depends on the first 25 picks. Still a while to go before the draft and we don't who is available at our pick yet. More likely than not we go D-Line, CB or O-Line, but there are situations where Ballard won't reach. More than likely Ballard will get a player he wants, but there's a small enough difference between the 26th pick and the 34th that Ballard may go BPA at WR or some other position just to secure a certain player, and go after a different player he likes at 34. Not enough info as of now. I believe Ballard when he says something, but he won't sacrifice the draft to stick to it either. You have to change on the fly if required.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I'd be stunned if he did...and disappointed. He can get great value at WR with either of the second rounders, so why not take a top-level guy at another position of need? Hell, I'd rather he took Hockenson in the first than a WR. 

 

To me, it's all about the board. We'll see how it shapes up. I don't think Ballard will take a receiver in the first, but it depends on who's available, and whether the phone is ringing. If Hockenson is still there, he could easily be the best player remaining, but you could say the same about Hollywood Brown or Metcalf also.

[DougDew]

I think the important thing is that the high draft picks are players that contribute at a high level.  Second is they are consistent with positional value to some degree.  Third that they are actually in the trenches.

 

I read a lot about this building the trenches first thingy.  Not sure why its so important to get the lines before the skilled.

 

I don't care if he builds from the trenches out or the out in, as long as he gets good players.  You need both, not just the trenches.  And I don't see why it matters which ones you get under contract first.  Their contracts will just expire first.

[our_dbs_rock]

2 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I mean, what more do people need to see to understand that the guy is building the trenches first, has literally NEVER taken a WR that early...I just don't get why people think otherwise? Everything he's ever done and said suggest that he's gonna build the dline, and try to create a parish. Just listen/read. 

 

He has been a GM for 2 drafts.  "literally" means very little  If he main goal is to build the lines then why did he take a safety with a limited playing history in his first draft?

 

3 hours ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

Dungy was never a GM. 

 

I understand that, but at the same time Dungy was a well respected coach and I'm pretty sure he had a say in the players drafted.

 

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To me, it's all about the board. We'll see how it shapes up. I don't think Ballard will take a receiver in the first, but it depends on who's available, and whether the phone is ringing. If Hockenson is still there, he could easily be the best player remaining, but you could say the same about Hollywood Brown or Metcalf also.

 

I agree 100%.  I doubt a receiver is drafted but you can never guess 100% of the time what talent will be available.

 

With a sample size of 2 drafts, there really is no way to predict a pattern.

[#12.]

WR in the first - it depends on what we do in free agency.  It depends on how the draft falls.  I highly doubt Ballard has selected a first round position in early February.  One, they're far from finished with the evaluation process, and two, he has no idea how it will all unfold.

 

Also, there is little difference between our first and early second round picks.  If they do take a WR, what difference would it make if they take a WR late first or early second?

 

Truth is, depending on what they do in free agency and depending upon how it unfolds, they could take any number of positions.

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I'd be stunned if he did...and disappointed. He can get great value at WR with either of the second rounders, so why not take a top-level guy at another position of need? Hell, I'd rather he took Hockenson in the first than a WR. 

He CAN get good value at WR in the 2nd round. However, that doesn’t mean he WILL, or that he CANT get good value in the first round at WR. You’re talking as if the draft is absolute, and it’s not. You don’t know who will be on the board and how high they’ll be valued. Punter, kicker, and QB are the only positions you can rule out completely in the 1st round. Everything else is fair game. 

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

I'm done talking about it, everything Ballard hints at suggests he's gonna take a player that will enable them to better rush the passer...like everything he's said. He even openly discusses the fanbases "want" for a WR...https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/how-does-chris-ballard-view-colts-wide-receiver-need-2019...and then says that they have great guys in-house. I understand everyone wanting offensive skill players, because it's fun to put up points. I remember the Manning years, and they were a LOT of fun, but our defense held us back way too often, and Peyton had a ton of weight put onto his shoulders. Had that regime done their due diligence on the other side of the ball, Peyton may have hoisted a couple more Lombardi's. 

 

Either way, I support whatever the braintrust decides, I'm just all but certain that it won't be a WR with the first couple, at least. 

[Four2itus]

Saying the Ballard shouldn't take a WR at #26, is like saying....his big board should not have a WR in the top 26. If he does...and the WR falls, welcome to reality. 

[austriancolt]

I like the idea of playing with two Hookers

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

3 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Saying the Ballard shouldn't take a WR at #26, is like saying....his big board should not have a WR in the top 26. If he does...and the WR falls, welcome to reality. 

 

There will be, bare minimum, 2 QBs taken before 26 (probably 4), and I guarantee Ballard doesn't have them on his board. There will be an RB, possibly 2 taken, and I guarantee he doesn't have them in his top 26. These selections will knock a few of the guys he covets into range. 

 

Basically, the guys on the top of his list are gonna be there at 26. He isn't gonna have Bosa or Quinnen Williams there, because that isn't logical, and it's a waste of time and process to even investigate a guy that is surefire Top 10 when you're selecting at 26. Out of the guys he will be looking at (Polite, Burns, the Clemson DL, Dre'Mont and Tillery, etc), one will fall to 26, based on the number of QBs and other various players being selected that the Colts simply have no interest in. 

 

You guys are right, there are WRs on their board...but to think that they're anywhere towards the top just isn't indicative of everything the man has been saying for the last several months (and years if you've really been paying attention). In order for a WR to be selected at 26, there would basically have to be a non-stop run on DT, 3T, and Edge guys from 1 to 25, and that obviously isn't gonna happen. 

[twfish]

Surprised to see tillery fall so far in his mock, FWIW I am completely okay with Harmon in the first. I disagree that edge is our largest priority, I believe DT is. We got lewis and turray last year plus another year of sheard

[Superman]

4 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

You guys are right, there are WRs on their board...but to think that they're anywhere towards the top just isn't indicative of everything the man has been saying for the last several months (and years if you've really been paying attention). In order for a WR to be selected at 26, there would basically have to be a non-stop run on DT, 3T, and Edge guys from 1 to 25, and that obviously isn't gonna happen. 

 

Speaking for myself, my beef isn't with the idea that Ballard has signaled he wants to build the trenches. That's obvious. And his comments with Dakich were a plain signal as well.

 

My beef is with the idea that his comments about his roster priorities are a specific indication about how he'll approach the draft. I have several issues with that "definitive" interpretation of his comments.

 

1) Outside of the top 10-15 picks, the first round becomes kind of an amalgamation of prospects. The elite guys are gone at the top, the QBs are mostly gone, and you're dealing with really good prospects that every team probably has rated differently. So the really blue-chip guys at the positions that Ballard has called out probably aren't there at #26, and we're left talking about BPA based on the Colts' board, and positional value.

 

2) Your assumption about what might happen in the top 25 leans specifically toward the defensive side of the ball (bolded). I assume that's because you think the OL is set, so 'building the trenches' is going to be more focused on the DL. There's nothing wrong with that presumption, but where I take issue is that you begin leaning toward needs-based drafting, rather than sticking to the board.

 

3) Speaking of needs-based drafting, you seem to be saying that because Ballard values the trenches, he can't/won't have WRs rated highly on his board, certainly not above trench players, and that's a major point of contention for me also. It would be no surprise to me if Chris 'I want to build the trenches' Ballard has DK Metcalf top ten on his board, and Montez Sweat down in the mid 20s (as a for instance). I would have a problem with Ballard reaching for need in that situation. I'd have a problem with him reaching past Dalton Risner in that situation, even though everyone feels like the OL is set. "Don't reach for need," that's poor drafting.

 

I'm just saying, I don't disagree that Ballard wants to focus on the trenches and that, all things equal, he'd lean toward the DL early in the draft. But it really depends on how the draft goes. And there would probably have to be a significant disparity between a WR remaining at #26 and everyone else for Ballard to take a WR this year. 

 

My thinking is the same at any position, regardless of the perceived needs of the team, the perceived strengths of the draft, or where the Colts are picking. 

[shasta519]

10 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

I'm done talking about it, everything Ballard hints at suggests he's gonna take a player that will enable them to better rush the passer...like everything he's said. He even openly discusses the fanbases "want" for a WR...https://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/kevins-corner/colts-coverage/how-does-chris-ballard-view-colts-wide-receiver-need-2019...and then says that they have great guys in-house. I understand everyone wanting offensive skill players, because it's fun to put up points. I remember the Manning years, and they were a LOT of fun, but our defense held us back way too often, and Peyton had a ton of weight put onto his shoulders. Had that regime done their due diligence on the other side of the ball, Peyton may have hoisted a couple more Lombardi's. 

 

Either way, I support whatever the braintrust decides, I'm just all but certain that it won't be a WR with the first couple, at least. 

 

“Somebody that allows you, that if T.Y.’s getting doubled, he can win the single, he can win the one-on-one on the other side consistently. To me, that’s a really good two. That came out of the tight end position for us this year; that was (Eric) Ebron. So if you’re gonna put two on T.Y. (Hilton), good; well then we’re gonna hurt you with our tight end position. When you can get three — when you can get that No. 2 wideout, have a tight end and have T.Y. — that’s what made Kansas City so difficult. because, you know, you’ve got Travis Kelce, you’ve got Tyreek Hill, then you’ve got Sammy Watkins. That made them very difficult to defend.”

 

That quote sounds like he is search of a WR2. How he gets that player/s...who knows. But I think he is going to put a bit more investment into the position than he has.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Speaking for myself, my beef isn't with the idea that Ballard has signaled he wants to build the trenches. That's obvious. And his comments with Dakich were a plain signal as well.

 

My beef is with the idea that his comments about his roster priorities are a specific indication about how he'll approach the draft. I have several issues with that "definitive" interpretation of his comments.

 

1) Outside of the top 10-15 picks, the first round becomes kind of an amalgamation of prospects. The elite guys are gone at the top, the QBs are mostly gone, and you're dealing with really good prospects that every team probably has rated differently. So the really blue-chip guys at the positions that Ballard has called out probably aren't there at #26, and we're left talking about BPA based on the Colts' board, and positional value.

 

2) Your assumption about what might happen in the top 25 leans specifically toward the defensive side of the ball (bolded). I assume that's because you think the OL is set, so 'building the trenches' is going to be more focused on the DL. There's nothing wrong with that presumption, but where I take issue is that you begin leaning toward needs-based drafting, rather than sticking to the board.

 

3) Speaking of needs-based drafting, you seem to be saying that because Ballard values the trenches, he can't/won't have WRs rated highly on his board, certainly not above trench players, and that's a major point of contention for me also. It would be no surprise to me if Chris 'I want to build the trenches' Ballard has DK Metcalf top ten on his board, and Montez Sweat down in the mid 20s (as a for instance). I would have a problem with Ballard reaching for need in that situation. I'd have a problem with him reaching past Dalton Risner in that situation, even though everyone feels like the OL is set. "Don't reach for need," that's poor drafting.

 

I'm just saying, I don't disagree that Ballard wants to focus on the trenches and that, all things equal, he'd lean toward the DL early in the draft. But it really depends on how the draft goes. And there would probably have to be a significant disparity between a WR remaining at #26 and everyone else for Ballard to take a WR this year. 

 

My thinking is the same at any position, regardless of the perceived needs of the team, the perceived strengths of the draft, or where the Colts are picking. 

 

Two things:

 

1) I don't know what's gonna happen in Free Agency, nobody does. They could land edge rushers or DTs or WRs, thus reducing the priority for that position via the draft. 

 

2) Your first paragraph says that it's obvious that Ballard wants to build the trenches, and the second paragraph says that his comments about roster priorities AREN'T indicative of how he'll approach the draft? What? How else is he gonna do it? The only other option is FA, which I touched on in my first point. Ballard is gonna either A) Draft guys to create pass-rush or B) Acquire them in FA. There's no two ways about it. This is obviously my take on it, but the way he incessantly mentions pass-rush as the top priority, and continuously highlights his desire to build thru the trenches...I'm left with one conclusion (as long as 2+2 still equals 4), the man is gonna take players that can create a pass rush early and often, as long as those needs aren't already fully addressed in free agency. 

[lollygagger8]

Cmon April 25th 

[twfish]

1 minute ago, lollygagger8 said:

Cmon April 25th 

This is going to be a very entertaining off season between F/A and draft. Oh man this is gonna make me excited for September

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

“Somebody that allows you, that if T.Y.’s getting doubled, he can win the single, he can win the one-on-one on the other side consistently. To me, that’s a really good two. That came out of the tight end position for us this year; that was (Eric) Ebron. So if you’re gonna put two on T.Y. (Hilton), good; well then we’re gonna hurt you with our tight end position. When you can get three — when you can get that No. 2 wideout, have a tight end and have T.Y. — that’s what made Kansas City so difficult. because, you know, you’ve got Travis Kelce, you’ve got Tyreek Hill, then you’ve got Sammy Watkins. That made them very difficult to defend.”

 

That quote sounds like he is search of a WR2. How he gets that player/s...who knows. But I think he is going to put a bit more investment into the position than he has.

 

Yeah, well...that's because you quoted the part that strengthens your argument. You left the parts out where he talks about Deon Cain being special, and getting every opportunity to be that guy. Also, the part about Inman producing quality numbers in a relatively short timeframe in the system, and their expectation that he will experience growth in year two (should he be re-signed -practically a guarantee-).

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

3 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Cmon April 25th 

 

I'm fired up for March 1-4, I love the scouting combine. Amazing how 4 days in Indy can so dramatically altar the landscape of the draft. Gonna be interesting to see who rises and who falls. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Two things:

 

1) I don't know what's gonna happen in Free Agency, nobody does. They could land edge rushers or DTs or WRs, thus reducing the priority for that position via the draft. 

 

2) Your first paragraph says that it's obvious that Ballard wants to build the trenches, and the second paragraph says that his comments about roster priorities AREN'T indicative of how he'll approach the draft? What? How else is he gonna do it? The only other option is FA, which I touched on in my first point. Ballard is gonna either A) Draft guys to create pass-rush or B) Acquire them in FA. There's no two ways about it. This is obviously my take on it, but the way he incessantly mentions pass-rush as the top priority, and continuously highlights his desire to build thru the trenches...I'm left with one conclusion (as long as 2+2 still equals 4), the man is gonna take players that can create a pass rush early and often, as long as those needs aren't already fully addressed in free agency. 

 

I don't see what's confusing about that. Just because he wants to build the trenches doesn't mean he'll only draft trench players in the first round. He's made two first round picks already, one was a trench player, the other wasn't.

 

Big picture and in a general sense, I'm saying roster priorities don't dictate draft strategy.

 

And you mention yourself the use of free agency to attack roster priorities, which is how I would do it. At least, to a reasonable degree.

 

Of course, pass rushers -- interior or edge -- don't usually hit free agency. This year there might be one or two that hit the market, but I'm not holding my breath. That influences my draft strategy, which is why I was such a big proponent of drafting Bradley Chubb last year. So far, I'm not over the moon about any pass rusher this year, especially not someone projected to be available at #26. So if it were me, I'd be very interested in what happens with Lawrence and Flowers, etc., in free agency.

 

Then I can go into the draft and take players based on my board, not based on perceived needs.

 

I think our conversation is about roster building and draft theory. I'm not trying to predict the future, I'm just saying that just because Ballard says pass rush is more important to him than receivers -- and I fully agree -- doesn't mean that he is definitely going to draft a pass rusher in the first round, nor does it mean he definitely will not draft a receiver in the first round.

[shasta519]

25 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Yeah, well...that's because you quoted the part that strengthens your argument. You left the parts out where he talks about Deon Cain being special, and getting every opportunity to be that guy. Also, the part about Inman producing quality numbers in a relatively short timeframe in the system, and their expectation that he will experience growth in year two (should he be re-signed -practically a guarantee-).

 

I actually posted that quote because it was left out of the article that you linked...even though it was certainly relevant to the WR topic and part of the original interview transcript (which was the basis for the article...and most of the recent ones written about Ballard).

 

As for the Cain quote...I don't think think he says that at all:

 

“Yeah, I mean, we think he’s good enough. But he hasn’t played, you know? And he’s coming off a knee injury. We love Deon Cain. We think Deon’s got big upside. To say he’s going to be that guy next year, to me…”

 

Of course Dakich cuts him off mid-sentence....but Ballard is basically just echoing what most here say...that Cain has big upside but hasn't played a snap...and that the Colts probably aren't going to rely on him to be the guy next year...but they are excited about his future. 

 

As for Inman...I think we all agree that he will be back...just that he won't be the WR2 and prevent them from investing in the position. BTW...where are you getting that quote about Inman growing in the system?

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't see what's confusing about that. Just because he wants to build the trenches doesn't mean he'll only draft trench players in the first round. He's made two first round picks already, one was a trench player, the other wasn't.

 

Big picture and in a general sense, I'm saying roster priorities don't dictate draft strategy.

 

And you mention yourself the use of free agency to attack roster priorities, which is how I would do it. At least, to a reasonable degree.

 

Of course, pass rushers -- interior or edge -- don't usually hit free agency. This year there might be one or two that hit the market, but I'm not holding my breath. That influences my draft strategy, which is why I was such a big proponent of drafting Bradley Chubb last year. So far, I'm not over the moon about any pass rusher this year, especially not someone projected to be available at #26. So if it were me, I'd be very interested in what happens with Lawrence and Flowers, etc., in free agency.

 

Then I can go into the draft and take players based on my board, not based on perceived needs.

 

I think our conversation is about roster building and draft theory. I'm not trying to predict the future, I'm just saying that just because Ballard says pass rush is more important to him than receivers -- and I fully agree -- doesn't mean that he is definitely going to draft a pass rusher in the first round, nor does it mean he definitely will not draft a receiver in the first round.

 

Hey man, I could be dead wrong, but i just don't see him going that far from his mantra, and taking a WR in the first...especially with everything he's said lately. A buddy and I were actually having a lot of conversations toward the end of the season, and believe it or not, I was a huge proponent of them taking a WR early. I wanted Nkeal Harry, bad...but, I then found out he's pretty slow, and may not be able to get the separation needed at the next level. Anyways, not to get off point lol, I wanted/want them to get another wideout, heck get a couple. My whole thing is, I just don't see it happening. Just like the people wanting AB or Lev, and not actually thinking about how Ballard operates. It's like anything else in your life, you have to play the odds, go off of probability...and the most probable outcome to me is them selecting someone along the D-line with that 1st rounder. It's not like I don't understand what you guys are saying, that you'd rather have one of the better WR prospects in this draft than maybe the 7th or 8th best rusher, and that's how you all believe Ballard has it drawn up on his board. In my eyes though, with how deep this class is along the defensive front, the 7th or 8th guy may still be lights out in the NFL, and I also think that really solid WRs will be available with both picks in the 2nd, and probably even our 3rd...whereas, rushers at that point are of 3rd-world quality. Anyways, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out, from FA to the draft. Above all else, I trust the powers that be, for the first time in a while, and will be content with whichever decisions they ultimately deem appropriate. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

that you'd rather have one of the better WR prospects in this draft than maybe the 7th or 8th best rusher, and that's how you all believe Ballard has it drawn up on his board. In my eyes though, with how deep this class is along the defensive front, the 7th or 8th guy may still be lights out in the NFL, and I also think that really solid WRs will be available with both picks in the 2nd, and probably even our 3rd...whereas, rushers at that point are of 3rd-world quality.

 

So that goes back to my original stance: it's all about the board. 

 

I'm just saying, I don't interpret Ballard's comments to mean that he won't draft a WR in the first round, this year, or any other year.

 

Now, if I were betting, no way would I wager that we draft a WR in the first round this year.

[akcolt]

1 hour ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Yeah, well...that's because you quoted the part that strengthens your argument. You left the parts out where he talks about Deon Cain being special, and getting every opportunity to be that guy. Also, the part about Inman producing quality numbers in a relatively short timeframe in the system, and their expectation that he will experience growth in year two (should he be re-signed -practically a guarantee-).

I'm with you I don't see Ballard taking a WR day 1. I'm guessing pass rush might be there early and yes the best way to predict someone's behavior is looking at their past.  That and listen to them. 

 

I don't think Ballard sees WR as the huge hole the board does. I think he tries to get better like he will at every spot on the roster but it is not a 911.  He addressed it last year drafting Cain and Fountain snagged Pascal as an UDFA then traded for Johnson. There were growing pains but WR isn't a position you see a lot of rookies making an immediate impact.  I am not saying we stand pat just that CB doesn't see that group totally void of talent. I agree we bring back Inman.