Final 2022 Draft Grade

[Hoose]

2 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

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

Yup. 

[Breeze]

We should save this thread for a year.  Not to call anybody out for their predictions, but because we’ll get the same positive or negative vibe from the same posters no matter who’s drafted next year.  Or maybe this is the same thread from last years draft?

[AKB]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  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.

we are talking about the second TE taken, are you as well? 

[Mackrel829]

5 hours ago, csmopar said:

The D factors in there.

 

I'm confused that you think he took good players at good value but gave him a D for strategy because he 'drafted for need', especially when he only took 1 WR.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Overall draft is a B for me. We addressed 4 major needs at WR with Pierce, TE with Woods, LT with Raimmann, and S with Nick Cross. Will these players end up being good is the major question. I think they will but not sure great so hence the B. Overall offseason is an A. Yes an A, with the addition of Matt Ryan, Yannick, and Gilmore, we are the team to beat in the AFC South. Titans lost Brown, Matt is better than Tannehill, the defenses are pretty even, and Henry isn't better than Taylor. That is pretty even. Vrabel may be a better coach than Frank but is close.

[Nickster]

4 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

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

Nah.  I like to speculatively talk ball.  That’s why I’m a member of a fan message board.

[sb2001]

The homer part of me says A+, but the reality side of me says C-

[CoachLite]

"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson comes afterward" - Vernon Law. We're just grading the test.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Overall draft is a B for me. We addressed 4 major needs at WR with Pierce, TE with Woods, LT with Raimmann, and S with Nick Cross. Will these players end up being good is the major question. I think they will but not sure great so hence the B. Overall offseason is an A. Yes an A, with the addition of Matt Ryan, Yannick, and Gilmore, we are the team to beat in the AFC South. Titans lost Brown, Matt is better than Tannehill, the defenses are pretty even, and Henry isn't better than Taylor. That is pretty even. Vrabel may be a better coach than Frank but is close.

I will add to this, I think our pass rush will be better this year. Based on trading for Yannick and Paye will be better as well. In the WR room I can see Pittman putting up pro bowl numbers with Matt at QB. Hines is going to have a big year too. Keep in mind Nelson was playing injured a lot of the season, he will be 100 percent this year. 

[chad72]

8 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

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.  

 

I agree with the B+ as well. The Day 2 picks will define the success of this draft, everything else is gravy.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I agree with the B+ as well. The Day 2 picks will define the success of this draft, everything else is gravy.

Yeah I went B. I am pretty pleased.

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, Mackrel829 said:

 

I'm confused that you think he took good players at good value but gave him a D for strategy because he 'drafted for need', especially when he only took 1 WR.

I give it a D because I feel that he may have changed his approach vs previous years. Combine that with the focus on high RAS vs production, it has me a bit concerned. 
 

overall though, I like his class, but that doesn’t mean the strategy will pay off. I get nervous when people make sudden strategy changes in crucial times. 

[Yoshinator]

27 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I give it a D because I feel that he may have changed his approach vs previous years. Combine that with the focus on high RAS vs production, it has me a bit concerned. 
 

overall though, I like his class, but that doesn’t mean the strategy will pay off. I get nervous when people make sudden strategy changes in crucial times. 

Just remember. Teams always draft for need at least most of the draft. It's just usually BPA at a position of need. This is what the forum was discussing before the draft, and that's what Ballard did. Day 2 was ridiculously good. The first 3 picks were BPA at need with high RAS scores (yes, you can argue Pierce over Moore, but look at their heights, Pierce can play the outside opposite Pittman and fits us better), and Cross is a 20 year old S with production and pure upside that somewhat fit a need.

 

Day 3 was filling needs a bit with high RAS scores and not as much value as we may have hoped (I can't defend that Ballard went BPA on day 3 besides Curtis Brooks), so I'm not sure how much production we'll get out of those players, but it seems we are getting high-level athletes with tremendous upside. Ballard wants to NAIL these picks if they succeed. If you hit on the type of players we drafted, these are guys who can be the top guys at their position.

 

We aren't going high floor this year, we are going high ceiling, and even the UDFA class reflects that.

[coltsfanej]

Basing this solely on draft picks and not taking the 1st for Wentz into account, I give this draft an A-.  I love the Raimann pick and think he could end up being a major steal. I would have been happy with him as our first pick.  I like Pierce but thought he was more in the 65-75 range. But Chris Simms loves the kid and I think had him ranked as #3 WR in the draft. I think he should make immediate impact as a deep threat with the upside to be a lower level #1/upper level #2, similar to Pittman. 

I like the upside of the Woods pick.  Of all the TE in this draft he probably has the the highest ceiling with being a freak athlete. 
 

I loved the Cross pick. Adds another level of speed to the back end. If he develops and Blackmon can stay healthy they have the potential to be a top 5 safety duo in the league. 
 

A couple of the later picks are probably not guys I would taken at that point but it doesn’t make much sense to me to complain about late round picks. 
 

Overall I’m very happy with this draft. There are a few picks where I would have went a different direction but that’s always going to be the case. 

[Never_Quit]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

I give it a D because I feel that he may have changed his approach vs previous years. Combine that with the focus on high RAS vs production, it has me a bit concerned. 
 

overall though, I like his class, but that doesn’t mean the strategy will pay off. I get nervous when people make sudden strategy changes in crucial times. 

 

Ballard has always focused on physical traits. Its often been said that TY wouldnt have been drafted by this regime. 

 

The fact that RAS correlates strongly with the picks might just be a coincidence. Was there any evidence they were focusing on it specifically? 

[Dobbinblitz]

Reggie may have had a voice in the Draft room with the WR/TE selections - all excel with contested catches.

Bradley's Defense absolutely needed a safety that can cover a lot of ground in Centerfield.

 

It's possible Ballard leaned further toward positions of need in this draft because he knows the core of this team is firmly in their window of opportunity.

 

All said and done, Ballard has done well to recover from the Wentz debacle both Pre-draft and this weekend. 

[Bolt Colt]

B+ overall.

A little bit of a head scratcher on some of the later picks but time will tell. Hope they all are big contributors.

Knock on wood!!!

[jvan1973]

12 hours ago, Moe said:

So you have watched all the Colts prospects?

No. That's why I don'* on them

[RollerColt]

NFL Network gave us a C. The lowest grade of all teams. However, they factored the Wentz trade and losing our #1 this year. 

[MikeCurtis]

INCOMPLETE

 

Absolutely Love the picks, but until they play, tough to give an accurate grade

[Ragsman144]

I’d give them a B+.  I liked the first 4 picks. Rainmann was a good pick. He transitioned from te to LT and was a quick study. I didn’t know a lot about some of the later guys taken. Seems like they were depth pics. I did follow the receiver we got with our first pick. I am a Notre Dame fan and remember him torching our defense. Also, Jack Coan was a great pickup as an ufa. 

[Dingus McGirt]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

NFL Network gave us a C. The lowest grade of all teams. However, they factored the Wentz trade and losing our #1 this year. 

A “C” … INDEE on their staff?

[RollerColt]

Just now, Dingus McGirt said:

A “C” … INDEE on their staff?

They did give us an A- for day 2 picks and a B for day 3.

 

Day 1 was a D thanks to the Wentz trade. 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

NFL Network gave us a C. The lowest grade of all teams. However, they factored the Wentz trade and losing our #1 this year. 

Maybe I can see that, maybe not.  If you consider that we gave up a #1 for a player who is no longer here, yes, that's a big minus.

 

But we also gave up a third for Matt Ryan, and what kind of impact would we have gotten from using that third rounder differently.

 

 A lot of teams used draft picks for existing players this year, and that move kind of gets blended into free agency thinking and other factors.  Purely if you look at what the Colts did on draft day with the picks they had to draft players, I think they did very well. 

[shasta519]

Not that grades matter right now…but I give it a B.
 

Don’t know much about the late round guys yet, so let’s just leave them out.

 

Really like the Raimann pick, but also recognize that he’s going to be a 25 year-old rookie in Sept. Don’t know if the injury red flags were true, but he either fell for a reason or wasn’t really the 1st round talent that PFF purported him to be. But at worst, it’s a worthwhile lottery pick for that spot.

 

I think Pierce is a solid WR2 prospect. Will have to wait to see on that one. There’s a whole thread devoted to the pick though.

Woods reminds me of MAC. There’s raw upside with his length and speed, but lots to develop (with only one year of pass catching). A bit more lumbering than an elite athlete on tape, but should be a RZ threat pretty quickly.

 

I like that Cross seems to fit the SS type,

from what I understand about Bradley’s scheme. My only concern (as it always is with Ss) would be his overall pass coverage. (I really wanted Kerby Joseph there because I think he can play FS).
 

I think it’s a solid draft. Definitely addressed needs. Overall, there seemed to be a focus on higher floor players, with some upside if they can develop certain aspects. 

[MikeCurtis]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

They did give us an A- for day 2 picks and a B for day 3.

 

Day 1 was a D thanks to the Wentz trade. 

Getting a "D" for a pick you DONT make seems a bit unfair

 

We got a starting QB for a year, that really netted out as the DIFFERENCE between a 1st and 2nd

[hoosierhawk]

Saw grades of 7 different sources. there was 1A, 1 A-,2 B+, 2 B and 1 C. the C was from NFL.com and was heavily rated for no 1st round choice.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Never_Quit said:

 

Ballard has always focused on physical traits. Its often been said that TY wouldnt have been drafted by this regime. 

 

The fact that RAS correlates strongly with the picks might just be a coincidence. Was there any evidence they were focusing on it specifically? 

I think it’s part of it, but since RAS is relative, it’s often going to be higher when athleticism AND size is a desired trait.

[RollerColt]

3 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Getting a "D" for a pick you DONT make seems a bit unfair

 

We got a starting QB for a year, that really netted out as the DIFFERENCE between a 1st and 2nd

Exactly. We also took that starting QB, traded him for some

picks and managed to get Matt freaking Ryan. 

[hoosierhawk]

2 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Getting a "D" for a pick you DONT make seems a bit unfair

 

We got a starting QB for a year, that really netted out as the DIFFERENCE between a 1st and 2nd

Why a D vs an F ,lol. What did we do to deserve a D?

[RollerColt]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Maybe I can see that, maybe not.  If you consider that we gave up a #1 for a player who is no longer here, yes, that's a big minus.

 

But we also gave up a third for Matt Ryan, and what kind of impact would we have gotten from using that third rounder differently.

 

 A lot of teams used draft picks for existing players this year, and that move kind of gets blended into free agency thinking and other factors.  Purely if you look at what the Colts did on draft day with the picks they had to draft players, I think they did very well. 

Absolutely agree. I have no idea how well our draft picks will do of course, but I felt like we had a pretty successful offseason all things considered. We admitted to our mistakes, owned up and managed to improve the team. 

[John Hammonds]

I liked the trade-down when it happened.  It made sense.  There were about 8 guys highlighted on my board when we got to 42, and instead of getting only one of them at 42, we got three of them at 53, 73, and 77.  Genius.

 

I like the players.  They have talent, athleticism, and fit the needs we had as a team.  Good job.

 

Let's also not kid ourselves.  We did not pick any players in the top 50.  These players fell down to the slots in which they were picked for a reason.  Will any of these guys become multi-pro bowler NFL stars?  Unlikely.  Very unlikely.  My bet is that the ceiling for all of them are the Castonzo level.  A really good, really dependable player who is central to your team and their success, but does not make the pro bowl.  Ok, it's possible that someone makes 1 pro bowl.  Maybe 2.  So, we're talking a Pittman level?  Whatever.  At best.

 

We did good.  We got the right guys for the right positions (mostly) that filled the gaps in our roster.  Not only for depth, but also a starter or two.  It was a good draft, and worthy of kudos.

 

Grade:  solid B

[Myles]

46 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Getting a "D" for a pick you DONT make seems a bit unfair

 

We got a starting QB for a year, that really netted out as the DIFFERENCE between a 1st and 2nd

I disagree.  We used our first round pick on a player who is not on the team anymore.   CFor me that leaves us with a C grade in this draft so far.

[shasta519]

38 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Getting a "D" for a pick you DONT make seems a bit unfair

 

We got a starting QB for a year, that really netted out as the DIFFERENCE between a 1st and 2nd

It shouldn’t be part of the draft grade, I agree.

 

But it also shouldn’t be downplayed like that. It was still a costly mistake. 

 

[Pelt]

2022 - TBD

 

2019 - C/C-

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, RollerColt said:

NFL Network gave us a C. The lowest grade of all teams. However, they factored the Wentz trade and losing our #1 this year. 

See I don’t think that should be a factor in draft grades. 

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

A “C” … INDEE on their staff?

We’d have an F- if that were the case 

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

grade D, ballard seemed to draft for position of need to fill weakness his method has created. some better talent was available that he passed on to fill the teams need with just average talent

[Fluke_33]

An A until they play a few years.  Impossible to give a true grade now.  

[Hawkeyecolt]

Ballard has always drafted for need. It’s pretty well documented. There was an article at the Athletic about it last week. Ballard said as much on PMS last week too. Unless there’s an outlier there they’re going with need.  It’s why they chose Pittman before Taylor. Ballard said every GM is going to tell you BPA but they’re lying. 
 

Speaking of BPA, BPA on Ballard’s board isn’t the same as some *’s board at ESPN, NFL.com, a fan forum, or even some other GM’s board. I’ll trust Ballard’s board. 
 

My draft crushes were Watson and Woods. I’ll happily give up Watson for Pierce if that means getting Raimann too. Could Cross have a little Bob Sanders in him?  Figured they were going to get some depth behind Grover and they did. Two DT’s with upside. The Colts have been watching Ogletree for three years so they see something. Ballard loves the Yale kid. Nothing wrong with a couple of projects there and still getting the UDFA class he got. 
 

Ballard made sure he was getting to the 8-9 man DL rotation that he wants and made sure the Colts don’t wind up in a Sendajo/Addai situation again. 
 

Tough to give a A+ without a first rd pick. Since the Wentz deal indirectly led to Ryan showing up and getting AJ Brown out of the division I will still give it an A-