Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Ballard just said he wants more picks in the draft


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Trading down "should" be on a case by case scenario (depends on how the draft play put). At some point you have to pick a "good" player, especially if you have confidence in your scouting department t

Take the best player with your pick. Missing a player trading down is a lack of confidence. Trading down if it doesn’t work out then it’s not as big a mistake. Colts need difference makers not just vo

This is entirely dictated by how the draft unfolds..... and how we have our board stacked.   Ballard won’t trade down just for the sake of trading down.   He hammered home the BPA

13 hours ago, Blueblood23 said:

You don’t know who the Colts would have selected had they stayed put.

And you don't know if the BPA they did select would have panned out or not. How about you do some research to back up your claims and research the top 10 draft players we could have selected had we stayed put, and how well they panned out.

 

Better yet, just do the top 5 for each.  One stipulation, don't go and say they would have picked someone 15-20 picks after that actually panned out, you have to be at least realistic for your results to be credible.

 

If you don't want to put in the effort to back up your statements, then no one will take you seriously and you need to stop being so pompous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you just want Ballard to take the  popular picks that the media have told you we should pick.  It’s exciting and makes for great entertainment but Ballard was brought in because Irsay thought Chris could build a Super Bowl team.  Not the media. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Narcosys said:

And you don't know if the BPA they did select would have panned out or not. How about you do some research to back up your claims and research the top 10 draft players we could have selected had we stayed put, and how well they panned out.

 

Better yet, just do the top 5 for each.  One stipulation, don't go and say they would have picked someone 15-20 picks after that actually panned out, you have to be at least realistic for your results to be credible.

 

If you don't want to put in the effort to back up your statements, then no one will take you seriously and you need to stop being so pompous.

There is no way to have done any research in the minds of the Colts brass in knowing what players they would have selected had they stayed put. No one on the planet would have had Leonard going that high. There are other players teams take that are not rated by the various services that are a head scratcher to the casual fan. The Bears took Kyle Long high years ago going from memory. We just don’t know who anyone takes during the draft as trades, anticipation, emotion or other factors occur during the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blueblood23 said:

There is no way to have done any research in the minds of the Colts brass in knowing what players they would have selected had they stayed put. No one on the planet would have had Leonard going that high. There are other players teams take that are not rated by the various services that are a head scratcher to the casual fan. The Bears took Kyle Long high years ago going from memory. We just don’t know who anyone takes during the draft as trades, anticipation, emotion or other factors occur during the process.

But you seem to have all the answers here Mr. Armchair GM.  

 

you want to state they should pick BPA, but you haven't gone back to do any research to suggest that the Colts would have been better off if they had stayed put in previous drafts. If you can prove that BPA is better than picks, then you might have some credibility. But sitting here and arguing that your position is right, or that your strategy would be better than a seasoned GM, without any weight behind it is pointless. 

 

I'm merely challenging you to back up your statements. Now here you are back peddling and trying to find a scapegoat, while still defending your position. You can't have it both ways. Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2020 at 6:29 AM, BornHoosier said:

WOW, what a thought out post but what I can't rap my head around is what if CB and Staff trade back & miss out on real pro bowl talent that was there at 34/44?  In this draft, there are pro bowl talent at 34/44 but can not say the same after that as the later the pick the more questions there are.  It would be quite the gamble for this staff to trade back & still get the quality of picks.  Remember, this Colts Team is not rebuilding but just a few difference makers from representing the AFC so why GAMBLE?

 

Every pick is a what if and gamble.  What if they didn't trade back and draft a bust? It was a gamble. 

 

Your line of thinking follows a false assumption that at any given players draft ranking means they are better than those that follow. Which cannot be proven to be true or false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2020 at 11:50 PM, Blueblood23 said:

Take the best player with your pick. Missing a player trading down is a lack of confidence. Trading down if it doesn’t work out then it’s not as big a mistake. Colts need difference makers not just volume

 

 

20 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

There is no way to have done any research in the minds of the Colts brass in knowing what players they would have selected had they stayed put

 

 

Here is the disconnect between your positions:  In your first statement it is clear that it is of your opinion and your mindset that staying put is best and trading back is weak. 

 

Then in your next statement you claim you can't say one way or another that staying put would have been better because you don't know the Colts brass mindset.  

 

You are trying to argue one point by looking through opposing mindsets, that doesn't work. You need to take your approach that you believe to be better, and do your own research based on what you believed was the Colts need at the time and who you would have picked at their original positions.  

 

Heck one pick is easy, we know the colts selected Leonard with a pick they already had, not one they received in a trade back. There's one answer for you already. You just need to figure out the other picks. Then do a critical evaluation as to whether you think your team structure would have been better than what we got. 

 

Pretty simple, take ya maybe 30 minutes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

 No one on the planet would have had Leonard going that high. 

To pick a nit here.  I'll raise my hand.  But admittedly, not at 37.

 

Since I know that GMs, especially Ballard, draft for need; in the 2018 draft we needed both Gs and a rangy ILB.  I wanted Roquan Smith because he was the best rangy (non thumper) ILB in the draft.  Seeing that 6 was a bad place for Smith, I read up on who was the next best rangy ILB was. 

 

While other ILBs were ranked higher than Leonard, most of them had the thumper description that I knew we did not want. 

 

Leonard was clearly the next best rangy ILB, had all of the traits and production, but what held him back was that he came from a small school.  Some pundits had him mocked in the second round.   I cheered when CB selected him knowing that if he didn't get Leonard at 36 or 37, Leonard would be gone by our high third round pick.

 

There were plenty of indications that Leonard would go by at least mid round second. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • FWIW I thought this from last weeks mail bag was funny because it seems to support what both you and I are saying.  If what I understand your point being is the dline including Buckner played similarly well both games and my belief that 3techs don’t need to record sacks and tfls to be dominant. : “I can understand why fans who watched last Sunday's opener against the Jaguars, and then checked out the box score afterwards, might come away with the conclusion that DeForest Buckner didn't have much of an impact on the game. After all, the Colts traded away their 13th-overall pick in this year's NFL Draft to acquire Buckner, and then immediately handed him a huge contract extension, so expectations are high. I get that. But looking back at the film, I think what's evident is Buckner deserves a little bit more credit beyond his stat-sheet line of six tackles (one for a loss). As the defensive line started to gel in the second half — that's when it limited Jacksonville to six combined rushing yards and had three of its four sacks — you began to feel Buckner much more consistently, and the attention placed on him allowed for others (I thought linebacker Bobby Okereke was fantastic in the second half) to make plays. Buckner also had the eighth-best week among all NFL interior defensive linemen in run stop win rate in Week 1, according to ESPN. Now, moving forward, of course you want to see more of those impact-type plays out of Buckner — sacks, big run stuffs, forced fumbles, defensive touchdowns, etc. But I think it's also important to to remember there are other ways for the three-tech to impact the game, and Buckner did a pretty good job of that last Sunday.”  
    • I’m a little surprised you don’t see a difference in dline play between  the two games.  I don’t have access to any of the services but I would suspect that The grades are significantly higher for the dline in Sunday compared to the Jax game.   but Sunday was even more dominant than i thought, and I thought it was dominant.  Between the opening drive during which MN gained 75 and scored a FG and their last meaningless drive for 75 yds and a TD, the Colts gave up a total of 25 other yds.    against Jax, we gave up around 60 yds rushing in the 1st half and the dline looked less than dominant then imo.  Jax had 5 of 8 drives during which they scored if you throw out the kneel downs at the end of each half.   Percentage of  tackles and sacks for linemen were very similar in both games.  You said that colts had more pressures during the mn game and I said probably a function of Jax short passing attack.   buckner had 6 tackles v Jax and 3 v mn.  He had no sacks v Jax but 1.5 tfl.  He had 1.5 sacks v mn but no other tfl.  Statistically counting sacks, tackles, and tfl he was “better” V Jax.  But you probably don’t think He was better Iwould suspect.   i would be shocked if the dline didn’t grade out higher v. Mn than Jax even though the tackles, tfl, and sacks were very similar over all.   im sure teams keep advanced stats that show a clearer pic of when a d lineman wins or loses on each Play that doesn’t necessarily match easier to see stats like tackles, etc.   do you have access to the grades?  I’d really be interested in the units grades in the two games.   i agree there can be other factors like obviously opponent strength and the play of LBs and dbs.  And mn looks like they might suck pretty bad surprisingly to me.  I think the main problem with lasts weeks game imo is the LBs are weak in coverage and Indy is as a result susceptible to short passing attacks.     that being said, rarely do dlines dominate the LOs like the colts did.   i maintain that a guy like Buckner and dts in general could have nit recorded a sack, had only a couple of tackles and be more dominant than In a game where he recorded a few tackles and a couple of sacks.    
    • Let's hire an exorcist!  
    • Didn't Nick Bosa get hurt this week too?
    • This might be helpful.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...