Final 2022 Draft Grade

[GoHorse1992]

What grade would everyone give this draft class as a whole right now? Yes, you cant really judge for another 2 to 3 years but as of right now, what does everyone think? I say a solid B+. I believe we addressed our most pressing needs with players who have great traits and can come in to compete. Would have liked more interior OL and DB depth on Day 3 but really no complaints to be had here. Great job, Ballard!

[PrincetonTiger]

A

[ColtJax]

C+.. Addressed needs, but tailed off at the end.

[TheNextGM]

A-

 

The trade back from 42 was risky but ended up netting a WR and an extra pick used on Raimann. 

[CoachLite]

A-. I thought the picks were quite good, and overall, the draft got us out of a draft-pick debt caused by the Carson Wentz situation. We're back on even footing for next year.

 

If (big IF) the pieces come together favorably, the short term looks good, if not great. Longer term, we have some challenges to address.

[Indeee]

If Pierce actually pans out, I will be surprised and happy and gladly state I was wrong about him, however until then

 

I would be shocked if any of the experts gave the Colts a grade above a low C or lower than that. 

 

This draft to me had to be about getting Wr's in a jam packed WR group to compete with the group of "hopeful" JAGS and all Ballard did was add 1 to this roster. 1. And this guy might be another JAG as well.

 

Sorry, that's pathetic. If they go sign OBJ I would feel a lot better but adding possibly Hilton? Come on. The joke keeps getting unfunnier. 

 

Hope I'm wrong. Not a fan at all of this draft. All I see is a bunch of depth guys at best. 

 

F

 

 

 

 

[csmopar]

I got to give the strategy a D. Not a fan of going need based vs Ballard’s normal BPA weighted against need approach. I am nervous about switching the approach of what has traditionally worked very well on such a crucial draft. And total freak athletes according to RAS makes me wonder why such a high importance was placed on that score. Combined with a scary weak prospect class from top to bottom I think the needs based strategy is very risky. 
 

Players taken: B. I think he took players who need polished but that aren’t complete projects. I think they will contribute a bit this year but their contributions may not be until a year or two down the road. Which goes against the win now mode we have been led to believe we are in.

 

Draft value: A. The trade back helped a TON. And I think we got good value in each player.

 

 

overall: B- borderline B

[Yoshinator]

I loved the RAS strategy and it gives this draft even more upside than it already had. Combining need with upside adds a new layer to our draft, and this is how you can possibly duplicate the 2018 draft again. So I loved the day 2 picks.

 

The day 3 picks were so-so. I thought it was more need and upside vs value which you could of gotten more of at that point. However, there is still huge upside to the picks. I'm all for the strategy, and going all-out on the RAS scores makes it so if we hit BIG on even two or three of the picks, it could turn into a few 10 year starters.

 

The UDFA period is also ridiculously good. We managed to get a lot of players so far that should of been drafted and can possibly make the team. We have so many ways to improve the team heavily that I don't see a way that this draft isn't a success in some way. My favorite draft since 2018.

 

Grade A+

[CurBeatElite]

15 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I got to give the strategy a D. Not a fan of going need based vs Ballard’s normal BPA weighted against need approach. I am nervous about switching the approach of what has traditionally worked very well on such a crucial draft. And total freak athletes according to RAS makes me wonder why such a high importance was placed on that score. Combined with a scary weak prospect class from top to bottom I think the needs based strategy is very risky. 
 

Players taken: B. I think he took players who need polished but that aren’t complete projects. I think they will contribute a bit this year but their contributions may not be until a year or two down the road. Which goes against the win now mode we have been led to believe we are in.

 

Draft value: A. The trade back helped a TON. And I think we got good value in each player.

 

 

overall: B- borderline B

I'm confused how you grade the players a B, the value A and your overall grade is lower than both of them.. I haven't watched all the press conferences, so maybe I'm missing something, but did Ballard explicitly say he drastically changed his strategy? Seems like it'd be very plausible for the BPA weighted against need approach you say Ballard used to utilize could have easily been utilized again.

 

........

 

I will give the draft an A-/B+... I think all 4 guys selected day 1 could be starters by the end of this year, if so, I think it'd lean towards an A.. if only 2 of them do, it's still a high B.. I think all guys have a legit shot at making the roster with the DT from Cincy, TE from Youngstown, CB from Yale being the major long shots... but even if they go to practice squad and the majority of guys make roster with 2-4 starters, it's still a good draft.

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

I'm confused how you grade the players a B, the value A and your overall grade is lower than both of them.. I haven't watched all the press conferences, so maybe I'm missing something, but did Ballard explicitly say he drastically changed his strategy? Seems like it'd be very plausible for the BPA weighted against need approach you say Ballard used to utilize could have easily been utilized again.

 

........

 

I will give the draft an A-/B+... I think all 4 guys selected day 1 could be starters by the end of this year, if so, I think it'd lean towards an A.. if only 2 of them do, it's still a high B.. I think all guys have a legit shot at making the roster with the DT from Cincy and CB from Yale being the major long shots... but even if they go to practice squad and the majority of guys make roster with 2-4 starters, it's still a good draft.

The D factors in there.

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

I'm confused how you grade the players a B, the value A and your overall grade is lower than both of them.. I haven't watched all the press conferences, so maybe I'm missing something, but did Ballard explicitly say he drastically changed his strategy? Seems like it'd be very plausible for the BPA weighted against need approach you say Ballard used to utilize could have easily been utilized again.

 

........

 

I will give the draft an A-/B+... I think all 4 guys selected day 1 could be starters by the end of this year, if so, I think it'd lean towards an A.. if only 2 of them do, it's still a high B.. I think all guys have a legit shot at making the roster with the DT from Cincy and CB from Yale being the major long shots... but even if they go to practice squad and the majority of guys make roster with 2-4 starters, it's still a good draft.

I think it’s a good draft. Which is what a B- to a B + is in my book. A great draft would be an A- to an A and a super star draft would be an A+

[CurBeatElite]

Just now, csmopar said:

The D factors in there.

So you saw the equation Ballard used in all past drafts and how he changed it this year? Did I miss him explicitly saying his strategy drastically changed? 

 

You state his old formula was BPA weighted against need.. I think it's very plausible that most of our picks fit that equation. 

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. My apologies if I missed Ballard stating his draft strategy is different than what it used to be.

 

I was confused at your initial post, because even with draft strategy accounted for.. at the end of the day, what matters is the players we wound up with and you graded the players themselves and their value higher than your overall grade (in other words, why is strategy even accounted for in your equation if all that matters is who we wound up with? ).

[hoosierhawk]

Last night A, today a B so overall a B+/A-. Very good draft and draft strategy for not having a #1.

[VaAllDay757]

34 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I got to give the strategy a D. Not a fan of going need based vs Ballard’s normal BPA weighted against need approach. I am nervous about switching the approach of what has traditionally worked very well on such a crucial draft. And total freak athletes according to RAS makes me wonder why such a high importance was placed on that score. Combined with a scary weak prospect class from top to bottom I think the needs based strategy is very risky. 
 

Players taken: B. I think he took players who need polished but that aren’t complete projects. I think they will contribute a bit this year but their contributions may not be until a year or two down the road. Which goes against the win now mode we have been led to believe we are in.

 

Draft value: A. The trade back helped a TON. And I think we got good value in each player.

 

 

overall: B- borderline B

Lol what? All teams draft a position of need in some point of the draft that strategy will never change and I'm glad ballard did it more with this draft 

[r a y s k i]

A

Woods could be a game changer, excited for how we will involve him

[throwing BBZ]

3 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

So you saw the equation Ballard used in all past drafts and how he changed it this year? Did I miss him explicitly saying his strategy drastically changed? 

 

You state his old formula was BPA weighted against need.. I think it's very plausible that most of our picks fit that equation. 

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. My apologies if I missed Ballard stating his draft strategy is different than what it used to be.

 

I was confused at your initial post, because even with draft strategy accounted for.. at the end of the day, what matters is the players we wound up with and you graded the players themselves and their value higher than your overall grade (in other words, why is strategy even accounted for in your equation if all that matters is who we wound up with? ).

 

  He is implying these players were not the highest graded players on our board when chosen. I think the first 3 were exactly who we wanted.
 And clearly the 4th pick was a guy they really wanted and they went all-in to get him.
  Pierce might have a very good Rookie year. 50  650  5tds
  Woods will be All-Rookie 50 600 7tds

 These 4 are an A.
  Grabbing 2 Bradley type DT's to compete for the backup role was rock solid.

  One of them will likely get some game day snaps as the season goes along.

   Love their athleticism. C+
   The TE will likely get some snaps this season for injuries. C
   The CB  C

   TOTAL Grade  B+
 

[csmopar]

10 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  He is implying these players were not the highest graded players on our board when chosen. I think the first 3 were exactly who we wanted.
 

 

This^

[AKB]

WR to pair with Pittman.

TE to replace Doyle. (yes I know this will take years, and doyle was one of a kind jack of all trades)

OL (Great competition for Pryor at LT, also flexible player)

S Cross rated as a 2nd round talent in next years draft, so getting him for a 3rd now was major. 

 

then more depth at DT, TE, and DB. 

 

Really good draft imo

[GoColts8818]

I say a solid B+ hard to give them an A without a first round pick and having traded that pick for a guy who wasn’t even here the next year but the Colts really made the most of what they had.  I think they got four future starters with their first four picks and if that’s the case that’s a great draft.  

[Bravo]

B

 

We all know how early grades go though…

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

WR to pair with Pittman.

TE to replace Doyle. (yes I know this will take years, and doyle was one of a kind jack of all trades)

OL (Great competition for Pryor at LT, also flexible player)

S Cross rated as a 2nd round talent in next years draft, so getting him for a 3rd now was major. 

 

then more depth at DT, TE, and DB. 

 

Really good draft imo

The only head scratcher for me was the 2nd TE

[AKB]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

The only head scratcher for me was the 2nd TE

Yeah I don't think we needed to grab him at that ranking, i think he will be the devlopmental TE that we always seem to carry for years before they play. 

 

Most are saying we could've gotten him as UDFA but I don't know enough about it tbh. 

[Carolina Colt]

I'd give this draft a B grade.  I think rounds 2 and 3 deserve a A- grade with some great picks.  I loved getting Rainmann in the spot we did.  That was a good value pick.  Woods is a one of a kind physical package and Nick Cross has the potential to be special in the defensive backfield.  I get the feeling we are going to see a lot of three safety packages next year.  Alec Pierce is going to bookend nicely with Pittman at the outside receiver slot but I wonder if we could have drafted him later in the draft picking up another of the receivers that went earlier with that pick.

 

For rounds 4 through 7 I'd give our draft a B- grade.  I like our additions to the defensive interior and the cornerback/safety/linebacker we picked up from Yale has a lot of physical upside.  I'm still questioning the drafting of another TE when we had already selected Woods earlier and we have Cox and Granson on the roster already.  I hope I'm wrong but that pick may have been better served selecting another receiver in this receiver heavy draft or filling another position of need.

[throwing BBZ]

11 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

Yeah I don't think we needed to grab him at that ranking, i think he will be the devlopmental TE that we always seem to carry for years before they play. 

 

Most are saying we could've gotten him as UDFA but I don't know enough about it tbh. 

 

  Hardly. If Mo goes down this is his replacement. And Mo will be hearing his footsteps over the 1-2 years, because Mo just isn't THAT good.

[icf]

Right now, I'd say a B.....but in the end, a lot will be determined by how Pierce turns out vs say Skyy Moore who they passed on.

 

For the record, a quick search turned up a couple of rankings ...

 

USA today gave them an A- 

Yahoo gave them a B

 

 

[Carolina Colt]

1 minute ago, icf said:

Right now, I'd say a B.....but in the end, a lot will be determined by how Pierce turns out vs say Sky Moore who they passed on.

 

For the record, a quick search turned up a couple of rankings ...

 

USA today gave them an A- 

Yahoo gave them a B

 

 

The Sporting News gave the Colts draft a B+ so far all of the grades I've seen haven't varied that much.

[tvturner]

I love the first 4 picks in the class. All of those guys have the potential to put on a show during the rookie year. 

Pierce is gonna be great in this offense, I'm excited for Jelani's development, and it's only a matter of time before Raimann is starting at LT/RG. Cross is probably going to be Khari's replacement too.

 

Brooks is a guy I looked at for one of the late rounders, I think he's gonna be a solid rotational guy for the next few years. I don't know much about the other 3 we drafted

 

The UDFA class for us has been strong so far

I'd give a A-

[Nickster]

I. HAVE. NO. IDEA.

[ADnum1]

32 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

WR to pair with Pittman.

TE to replace Doyle. (yes I know this will take years, and doyle was one of a kind jack of all trades)

OL (Great competition for Pryor at LT, also flexible player)

S Cross rated as a 2nd round talent in next years draft, so getting him for a 3rd now was major. 

 

then more depth at DT, TE, and DB. 

 

Really good draft imo

For all the reasons you mentioned, Ballard hit it out of the park.

 

We had to get more explosive at the WR position and Ballard drafted a 4.33 WR with Tyreek Hill like speed. 

 

This draft is an A and even the most hardened Ballard critic must now "Bend the knee" before Ballard

 

 

[Smonroe]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

I. HAVE. NO. IDEA.

Yeah, we’ll get back to you in three years.  

[Nickster]

19 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Yeah, we’ll get back to you in three years.  

They definitely tried to address our needs though.

[Patrick Miller]

B+...... hopefully as time goes on that will turn into an A+.

[Moe]

1 hour ago, rayski said:

A

Woods could be a game changer, excited for how we will involve him

Yes, I haven’t looked into the other picks but Woods looks like a monster can’t believe a man that size can move like that! Going to give it an A just on Woods.

[jvan1973]

It's always funny to read folks opinion on a draft class.   Kids they have never watched or talked to. Carry on

[Patrick Miller]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It's always funny to read folks opinion on a draft class.   Kids they have never watched or talked to. Carry on

Yeah but it's fun.  It's just another way to escape from the every day grind and speculate/ hope the the Colts knocked it out of the park!

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, Patrick Miller said:

Yeah but it's fun.  It's just another way to escape from the every day grind and speculate/ hope the the Colts knocked it out of the park!

I guess.  But bagging on players you have no clue about.   Like why.    Let them play and see what happens 

[Moe]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It's always funny to read folks opinion on a draft class.   Kids they have never watched or talked to. Carry on

So you have watched all the Colts prospects?

[JediXMan]

Give it a solid B attacked all the areas of need despite not having a 1st round pick. Had minor complaints like trying to get a CB earlier than the last round. Overall it was a good draft now we have to see how the develop.

[Dingus McGirt]

2 hours ago, Indeee said:

If Pierce actually pans out, I will be surprised and happy and gladly state I was wrong about him, however until then

 

I would be shocked if any of the experts gave the Colts a grade above a low C or lower than that. 

 

This draft to me had to be about getting Wr's in a jam packed WR group to compete with the group of "hopeful" JAGS and all Ballard did was add 1 to this roster. 1. And this guy might be another JAG as well.

 

Sorry, that's pathetic. If they go sign OBJ I would feel a lot better but adding possibly Hilton? Come on. The joke keeps getting unfunnier. 

 

Hope I'm wrong. Not a fan at all of this draft. All I see is a bunch of depth guys at best. 

 

F

 

 

 

 

Your dislike for Ballard is clouding your judgment.

[Smonroe]

29 minutes ago, Nickster said:

They definitely tried to address our needs though.

And did a fantastic job doing it.  But we won’t know the results for a few years.  
 

Still, I’m so looking forward to seeing these young men play.