Kudos to Raimann!

[compuls1v3]

 

This kid had a STELLAR 2nd year.  What a steal for Ballard!

 

 

https://atozsports.com/indianapolis/colts-nfl-2023-breakout-player-pff-pro-football-focus-lt-bernhard-raimann/?fbclid=IwAR2XL37EPue_sdigIK28ZZ1DfuISPmSsVAd3nKMYxPgBhCCYYReQxdqWHfY

 

 

 

[Indyfan4life]

That’s awesome. He can only get better from here on out. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

Yep...he's a keeper. Yet another steal by the incompetent Ballard.

[DavePSL]

Agreed, Ballard killed it on this one. As we all know, LT's don't come cheap. Ballard can pick Olman , that is fact!

[Colt.45]

Freeland is going to replicate this next year.

The patience paid off with Raimann. Clutch

[BProland85]

26 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Freeland is going to replicate this next year.

The patience paid off with Raimann. Clutch

Freeland only needs to be a very good swing tackle. 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, BProland85 said:

Freeland only needs to be a very good swing tackle. 

Exactly- 

 

man, if Smith can stay healthy, Anthony Richardson (if he can stay healthy too) is going to play with one of the best tackle combos in the league. 

[IndyColtsFan411]

I'd like to see the Colts draft a dominant RT and move Smith inside to guard.  Would seriously solidify our OL.  IMO

[#12.]

30 minutes ago, IndyColtsFan411 said:

I'd like to see the Colts draft a dominant RT and move Smith inside to guard.  Would seriously solidify our OL.  IMO

 

I'm trying to remember.  Didn't we try that for a minute last year?

[KB]

1 hour ago, IndyColtsFan411 said:

I'd like to see the Colts draft a dominant RT and move Smith inside to guard.  Would seriously solidify our OL.  IMO

He is a top 10 tackle. He won't be moved inside anytime soon. Probably not until his last few years in the league, and probably not then either. 

[DougDew]

Raimann is playing well, probably above expectations at this point given his draft position.  A steal?    It doesn't work that way.  

 

Raimann, who is outplaying his drat position, was passed over by Ballard twice, just like every other GM did.  Its not like The Ballard knew he was 1st or 2nd round talent, knew that other GMs didn't know this, and shrewdly waited until pick 79 to select Raimann because he saw something in Raimann that the others didn't, and knew he would still be there.   

 

Raimann fell a little in the draft, and was sitting there at pick 79, and Ballard picked him because he NEEDED a LT more than the other GMs that didn't pick him.  And IIRC, he picked the perpetually/weirdly injured TE Woods before Raimann, so Ballard's player valuation doesn't really look that exceptional.  He picked a guy at a position of need who was staring him in the face because he fell a bit.   That's the way it works.  

 

Raimann deserves the credit for being the player he is.  And probably that really good oline coach that Reich had that helped Raimann develop after a few rough games at the start.

 

 

[KB]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Raimann is playing well, probably above expectations at this point given his draft position.  A steal?    It doesn't work that way.  

 

Raimann, who is outplaying his drat position, was passed over by Ballard twice, just like every other GM did.  Its not like The Ballard knew he was 1st or 2nd round talent, knew that other GMs didn't know this, and shrewdly waited until pick 79 to select Raimann because he saw something in Raimann that the others didn't, and knew he would still be there.   

 

Raimann fell a little in the draft, and was sitting there at pick 79, and Ballard picked him because he NEEDED a LT more than the other GMs that didn't pick him.  And IIRC, he picked the perpetually/weirdly injured TE Woods before Raimann, so Ballard's player valuation doesn't really look that exceptional.  He picked a guy at a position of need who was staring him in the face because he fell a bit.   That's the way it works.  

 

Raimann deserves the credit for being the player he is.  And probably that really good oline coach that Reich had that helped Raimann develop after a few rough games at the start.

 

 

How is getting a top 10 LT in the 3rd not a steal? Is Puka not a steal for the Rams since he was passed up in 4 other rounds? Sounds more like a reach to not give props to Ballard for making a good selection.

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, KB said:

How is getting a top 10 LT in the 3rd not a steal? Is Puka not a steal for the Rams since he was passed up in 4 other rounds? Sounds more like a reach to not give props to Ballard for making a good selection.

It might be a steal, but why credit a GM for that?  He just picked the guy that was sitting there available.  Did LAR think Puca was going to be as good as he is, and the GM knew that no other GM knew what he knew so he let him drop?  It doesn't work like that.

 

The way it works is this.  IND needed a LT.  LAR needed a WR.  They both drafted a guy that NOBODY forecasted to be a top 10 anything.  If they would have thought that each would have been top 10 early....,they would also figure that other GMs knew that (or else they are tremendously egotistical and conceited)..and they would have drafted each player with their first round pick (or at least before Jelani Woods and Alec Pierce).  That's what the NFL does with LTs they think will be top 10 LTs and top 10 WRs early...they draft them in the first round so nobody else drafts them.. 

 

The fact that LAR and IND did not do that shows that they knew nothing substantially more than any other GM about how the player would turn out....they may all have thought they were good developmental players.  The reason they were picked is because the the team needs aligned with the each players availability and forecast.  (After we picked AP and Woods before Raimann,,LOL)

 

If you want to equate GM stealing a player with a GM getting lucky, I'll agree to that, but I doubt that's the way most see it.

 

I think Ballard would have looked more astute if he picked Raimann ahead of AP and Woods....and not have passed on him twice like every other GM did.

[GoColts8818]

14 hours ago, Colt.45 said:

Freeland is going to replicate this next year.

The patience paid off with Raimann. Clutch

I am not sure I’d bet on that.  Raimann was grading out very well the back half of the season once Saturday took over.  We never saw that with Freeland this year.  Also, with Smith having a whole off-season to get healthy, Freeland go back to being a backup.  

33 minutes ago, KB said:

How is getting a top 10 LT in the 3rd not a steal? Is Puka not a steal for the Rams since he was passed up in 4 other rounds? Sounds more like a reach to not give props to Ballard for making a good selection.

When you don’t like Ballard and don’t want to give him credit for anything.

[compuls1v3]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It might be a steal, but why credit a GM for that?  He just picked the guy that was sitting there available.  Did LAR think Puca was going to be as good as he is, and the GM knew that no other GM knew what he knew so he let him drop?  It doesn't work like that.

 

The way it works is this.  IND needed a LT.  LAR needed a WR.  They both drafted a guy that NOBODY forecasted to be a top 10 anything....if they would have thought thst each would have been top 10 early....,they would also figure that other GMs knew that (or else they are tremendously egotistical and conceited)..and they would have drafted each player with their first round pick (or at least before Jelani Woods and Alec Pierce).  That's what the NFL does with LTs they think will be top 10 LTs and top 10 WRs early...they draft them in the first round. 

 

The fact that LAR and IND did not do that shows that they knew nothing substantially more than any other GM about how the player would turn out....they may all have thought they were good developmental players.  The reason they were picked is because the the team needs aligned with the each players availability and forecast.  (After we picked AP and Woods)

 

If you want to equate GM stealing a player with a GM getting lucky, I'll agree to that, but I doubt that's the way most see it.

So how would you define a steal in a draft?  Just because he was a position of need means he's not a steal?  Sounds odd to me.

[csmopar]

53 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Raimann is playing well, probably above expectations at this point given his draft position.  A steal?    It doesn't work that way.  

 

Raimann, who is outplaying his drat position, was passed over by Ballard twice, just like every other GM did.  Its not like The Ballard knew he was 1st or 2nd round talent, knew that other GMs didn't know this, and shrewdly waited until pick 79 to select Raimann because he saw something in Raimann that the others didn't, and knew he would still be there.   

 

Raimann fell a little in the draft, and was sitting there at pick 79, and Ballard picked him because he NEEDED a LT more than the other GMs that didn't pick him.  And IIRC, he picked the perpetually/weirdly injured TE Woods before Raimann, so Ballard's player valuation doesn't really look that exceptional.  He picked a guy at a position of need who was staring him in the face because he fell a bit.   That's the way it works.  

 

Raimann deserves the credit for being the player he is.  And probably that really good oline coach that Reich had that helped Raimann develop after a few rough games at the start.

 

 

And yet, if he had a top 5 grade by the pundits going into the draft, and Ballard had taken him at say 6th overall, and then he busted out, you’d be screaming at Ballard for taking a LT that high… 

[KB]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

It might be a steal, but why credit a GM for that?  He just picked the guy that was sitting there available.  Did LAR think Puca was going to be as good as he is, and the GM knew that no other GM knew what he knew so he let him drop?  It doesn't work like that.

 

The way it works is this.  IND needed a LT.  LAR needed a WR.  They both drafted a guy that NOBODY forecasted to be a top 10 anything....if they would have known that,,,they would also figure that other GMs knew that (or else they are tremendously egotistical and conceited)..and they would have drafted each player with their first round pick (or at least before Jelani Woods and Alec Pierce).  That's what the NFL does with LTs they think will be top 10 LTs and WRs early...they draft them in the first round. 

 

The fact that LAR and IND did not do that, shows that they knew nothing substantially more than any other GM about how the player would turn out....they may all have thought they were good developmental players.  The reason they were picked is because they were available and the team needs aligned with the each players availability and forecast. 

 

If you want to equate GM stealing a player with a GM getting lucky, I'll agree to that, but I doubt that's the way most see it.

A GM getting a steal in the draft is absolutely luck. Most of drafting is luck.

 

You're saying because he wasn't projected to be a top end LT but ended up being one, he isn't a steal? 

 

A LT, let alone a top of the league one, usually has to be targeted in Rd 1. Even further than that, LT is seen as one of the most important positions in the league (QB, LT, DE), so good LTs have to be taken top 10 usually. To find that in the third round is the meaning of a steal.

 

Puka just got close to 1500 yards in his rookie season, and he isn't a steal in the 5th because nobody thought he would do that well?

 

I'd say a steal on draft day is getting a player who plays far above their draft position.

 

Top 10 at a premium position in the 3rd round.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

So how would you define a steal in a draft?  Just because he was a position of need means he's not a steal?  Sounds odd to me.

I wouldn't.  I  don't think I've every used the word seriously. 

 

Doesn't the would steal mean that you know what something is and found a way to get it before others found out what it was?  I think what happened is more like everybody thought the black box contained a nice glass vase, then you open it and it turns out to be crystal.  I would not call that a steal.

 

If Ballard would have thought Raimann would be a top 10 LT by his second year...he would not have waited until pick 79 to select him.  No, I don't think its a steal the way most use that word around here.

[DougDew]

20 minutes ago, csmopar said:

And yet, if he had a top 5 grade by the pundits going into the draft, and Ballard had taken him at say 6th overall, and then he busted out, you’d be screaming at Ballard for taking a LT that high… 

LOL.  Like some others who have been around so long here, you still don't get it either.  So thanks for not understanding it, then applying that bad thought to my thinking.

 

 If everybody had Pene Sewall a top 10 LT and he busts, I would not blame the GM who drafted him.  I would blame him if he was  one of a few GMs who rated him that high.   

 

I would be screaming if it was a G though, even if the G didn't bust.

[twfish]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It might be a steal, but why credit a GM for that?  He just picked the guy that was sitting there available.  Did LAR think Puca was going to be as good as he is, and the GM knew that no other GM knew what he knew so he let him drop?  It doesn't work like that.

 

The way it works is this.  IND needed a LT.  LAR needed a WR.  They both drafted a guy that NOBODY forecasted to be a top 10 anything.  If they would have thought that each would have been top 10 early....,they would also figure that other GMs knew that (or else they are tremendously egotistical and conceited)..and they would have drafted each player with their first round pick (or at least before Jelani Woods and Alec Pierce).  That's what the NFL does with LTs they think will be top 10 LTs and top 10 WRs early...they draft them in the first round so nobody else drafts them.. 

 

The fact that LAR and IND did not do that shows that they knew nothing substantially more than any other GM about how the player would turn out....they may all have thought they were good developmental players.  The reason they were picked is because the the team needs aligned with the each players availability and forecast.  (After we picked AP and Woods before Raimann,,LOL)

 

If you want to equate GM stealing a player with a GM getting lucky, I'll agree to that, but I doubt that's the way most see it.

 

I think Ballard would have looked more astute if he picked Raimann ahead of AP and Woods....and not have passed on him twice like every other GM did.

JFC dude, I hope you at least laugh when you're typing stuff up like this

[csmopar]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL.  Like so many who have been around so long here, you still don't get it either.  So thanks for not understanding it, then applying that bad thought to my thinking.

 

 If everybody had Pene Sewall a top 10 LT and he busts, I would not blame the GM who drafted him.  I would blame him if he was  one of a few GMs who rated him that high.   

 

I would be screaming if it was a G though, even if the G didn't bust.

Yet you are infact discrediting Ballard for finding  said LT that many GMs passed over. 
 

what about Tom Brady, do the Patriots get any credit for finding him in 6th?

 

or 

 

JT, does Ballard get any credit for finding JT in the second?

 

or 

 

does Polian get credit for finding Bracket or Bethea?

 

 

Going off your own words, that answer is no. 

[Defjamz26]

Rainman was a great pick by Ballard. Shows his ability to find starters at different points in the draft. He also drafted AR last year. Brent’s looks like he will be good too, so WR and a true 10+ sack a year edge player are the last premium positions he needs to nail. 
 

I think Ballard will be the Colts GM for a long time. Aside from the disaster that was the 2019 draft class, he’s had at least 1 hit in every draft

 

2017- Grover Stewart

2018- Nelson, Leonard, and Smith

*2019- Okereke and EJ Speed

2020-JT and Pittman

2021- Fries? Kwity and Dayo show promise

2022- Rainman

2023- Jury still out but good return on Downs and Jones. Promise shown by AR and Brent’s.

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, twfish said:

JFC dude, I hope you at least laugh when you're typing stuff up like this

Why retort with such a baiting post?  You should get called out for it.

 

You choose:

 

Everybody, including you, thinks a black box contains a nice glass vase worth $100.  So you let 78 other boxes get chosen.  Then then you choose that black box and you find out it has a crystal vase worth $500.  

 

Which is the better word to describe that? A Steal.  Or luck.

 

A steal would be when you knew the black box had the $500 vase AND you knew that nobody else knew what you knew, so you let 78 other boxes get chosen first.

 

Doesn't happen that way when drafting players.

 

 

[compuls1v3]

32 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I wouldn't.  I  don't think I've every used the word seriously. 

 

Doesn't the would steal mean that you know what something is and found a way to get it before others found out what it was?  I think what happened is more like everybody thought the black box contained a nice glass vase, then you open it and it turns out to be crystal.  I would not call that a steal.

 

If Ballard would have thought Raimann would be a top 10 LT by his second year...he would not have waited until pick 79 to select him.  No, I don't think its a steal the way most use that word around here.

I'm confused.  What is your definition of a steal in the draft?

[KB]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why retort with such a baiting post?  You should get called out for it.

 

You choose:

 

Everybody, including you, thinks a black box contains a nice glass vase worth $100.  So you let 78 other boxes get chosen.  Then then you choose that black box and you find out it has a crystal vase worth $500.  

 

Which is the better word to describe that.  Steal.  Or luck. ?

 

A steal would be when you knew the black box had the $500 vase AND you knew that nobody else knew what you knew, so you let 78 other boxes get chosen first.

 

Doesn't happen that way when drafting players.  Sorry to burst irrational bubbles of positivity.

 

 

There's alot left out for this to be compared to the draft. Was this vase picked at the end of the count? Draft picks arnt seen as equal so you can't say 78 boxes all presumed to have $100 (be really boring looking into draft prospects if they were all valued the same). Ones that are viewed as top 10 LTs would be viewed as vases. Alot missing.

 

For just the scenario, alot of people would use the phrase "well that was 'a steal'". A steal and luck are synonymous.

[twfish]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why retort with such a baiting post?  You should get called out for it.

 

You choose:

 

Everybody, including you, thinks a black box contains a nice glass vase worth $100.  So you let 78 other boxes get chosen.  Then then you choose that black box and you find out it has a crystal vase worth $500.  

 

Which is the better word to describe that.  Steal.  Or luck. ?

 

A steal would be when you knew the black box had the $500 vase AND you knew that nobody else knew what you knew, so you let 78 other boxes get chosen first.

 

Doesn't happen that way when drafting players.  Sorry to burst irrational bubbles of positivity.

 

 

YOU should be called out for being either such a troll or a positive energy black hole. EVERY Single one of your post is negative in some way shape or form and usually is never constructive, just negative for the sake of negative no matter the case.

 

Why don't you just take that black box and allow yourself to be happy we got a player in the third round that if a redraft would happen he would be a first rounder.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, compuls1v3 said:

I'm confused.  What is your definition of a steal in the draft?

As I said, I don't think I ever used the word.   Others use it, and I cringe when I read it.

 

Its possible that Robert Mathis was a steal, in that Polian probably figured that other GMs didn't value an undersized pass rusher as much as he did.  But now others do too.

 

Ever watched the show Storage Wars?  Somebody sees something that they know others don't see or know its value.  They get it cheap.  You could say they stole the item more than they got lucky, because they knew the item and knew nobody else did.

 

The way the draft works, if Ballard knew Raimann would have been a top 10 LT, he would not have picked AP and JW before Raimann.  Steal is the wrong word, and lucky is a better word.

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, twfish said:

YOU should be called out for being either such a troll or a positive energy black hole. EVERY Single one of your post is negative in some way shape or form and usually is never constructive, just negative for the sake of negative no matter the case.

 

Why don't you just take that black box and allow yourself to be happy we got a player in the third round that if a redraft would happen he would be a first rounder.

I'm not aware that forums exist to create black holes of inescapable positivity that crush rational discussion.  You must live in a different universe than me.

 

Every year, WalterFootball has a redraft of previous years' drafts.  Each year, players exceed their draft position as a matter of commonplace.   GMs generally don't get praised for something that randomly happens each year.  JFC, don't you get that? 

[chad72]

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why retort with such a baiting post?  You should get called out for it.

 

You choose:

 

Everybody, including you, thinks a black box contains a nice glass vase worth $100.  So you let 78 other boxes get chosen.  Then then you choose that black box and you find out it has a crystal vase worth $500.  

 

Which is the better word to describe that? A Steal.  Or luck.

 

A steal would be when you knew the black box had the $500 vase AND you knew that nobody else knew what you knew, so you let 78 other boxes get chosen first.

 

Doesn't happen that way when drafting players.

 

 

 

 

Doug, here is how I see it. You feel a great value pick doesn't equate to a steal in the draft, and to me, you might be just arguing semantics or your interpretation of the draft process. Let me give you an example. It is like an early hotel reservation one had six months ago that appreciated in value as one got closer to summer. So it could be quantified as a steal in terms of money. 

 

Typically great value and steal can be interchangeably used in terms of a draft pick, IMO. You think of it as Ballard sticking to his board and drafting Raimann where he was supposed to be drafted and Raimann outplaying expectations due to coaching. Braden Smith, even though he was rated Rounds 2-3, Ballard got him early in Round 2 valuing him greater than what other teams likely valued him. 

 

Same thing with Shaq Leonard. Though Leonard didn't work out eventually, Braden Smith has been an impact player on our OL at the edges. Maybe Smith and Leonard are your definitions of value recognition that can equate to a steal that reflects more on the GM than coaching??? 

 

To most, if a player is drafted Round 3 and plays like a first rounder for an impact position (WR/QB/LT/Pass rusher/CB), they got great value and thus it is a steal. If you move up for a Round 3 rated player and draft him Top of Round 2, and he reinforces those expectations, only that counts as a steal to you because the GM had the foresight with his scouting to recognize something that other GMs don't recognize. Did I capture your stance right?

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

 

Doug, here is how I see it. You feel a great value pick doesn't equate to a steal in the draft, and to me, you might be just arguing semantics or your interpretation of the draft process. Let me give you an example. It is like an early hotel reservation one had six months ago that appreciated in value as one got closer to summer. So it could be quantified as a steal in terms of money. 

 

Typically great value and steal can be interchangeably used in terms of a draft pick, IMO. You think of it as Ballard sticking to his board and drafting Raimann where he was supposed to be drafted and Raimann outplaying expectations due to coaching. Braden Smith, even though he was rated Rounds 2-3, Ballard got him early in Round 2 valuing him greater than what other teams likely valued him. 

 

Same thing with Shaq Leonard. Though Leonard didn't work out eventually, Braden Smith has been an impact player on our OL at the edges. Maybe Smith and Leonard are your definitions of value recognition that can equate to a steal that reflects more on the GM than coaching??? 

 

To most, if a player is drafted Round 3 and plays like a first rounder for an impact position (WR/QB/LT/Pass rusher/CB), they got great value and thus it is a steal. If you move up for a Round 3 rated player and draft him Top of Round 2, and he reinforces those expectations, only that counts as a steal to you because the GM had the foresight with his scouting to recognize something that other GMs don't recognize. Did I capture your stance right?

Yes, I agree.  But why credit the GM for the steal when he simply got lucky that the round 3 player is playing a top 10?

 

Use the word steal if you want, I get it.  But using it in a way that credits a GM for doing the stealing in front of the nose of all other GMs is not even close to the truth about how the draft works and why each year players all over the NFL outplay their draft positions.

[KB]

Just now, DougDew said:

I'm not aware that forums exist to create black holes of inescapable positivity that crush rational discussion.  You must live in a different universe than me.

 

Every year, WalterFootball has a redraft of previous years' drafts.  Each year, players exceed their draft position as a matter of commonplace.   GMs don't get praised for something that randomly happens each year.  JFC, don't you get that? 

GMs definitely get praise for getting players that provide better value than their draft position. Why wouldn't they?

 

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

As I said, I don't think I ever used the word.   Others use it, and I cringe when I read it.

 

Its possible that Robert Mathis was a steal, in that Polian probably figured that other GMs didn't value an undersized pass rusher as much as he did.  But now others do too.

 

Ever watched the show Storage Wars?  Somebody sees something that they know others don't see or know its value.  They get it cheap.  You could say they stole the item more than they got lucky, because they knew the item and knew nobody else did.

 

The way the draft works, if Ballard knew Raimann would have been a top 10 LT, he would not have picked AP and JW before Raimann.  Steal is the wrong word, and lucky is a better word.

Then why wouldn't Raimann be seen as a steal if Mathis is? Raimann was viewed as a good prospect from the get go, but he was an older prospect that needed polishing as football was new to him still. He was viewed as a 1st rd pick by most.

 

Mathis wasn't a sack artist in college. He was quick and gave effort. He was a special teamer that worked his way up the roster to being a legend for this team. He was definitely a steal too. Just like Jeff Saturday was as an undrafted free agent.

 

You're logic dosnt make sense. If GMs knew they were going to preform so well (because they have the power of foresight somehow) that they would of drafted them early isn't how it works. All anyone can do is project how they will do, and then make the pick. You're reaching for ways to discredit, and they don't make sense.

[Smonroe]

3 hours ago, #12. said:

 

I'm trying to remember.  Didn't we try that for a minute last year?

 

IDK, last year was just a bad dream.  

[MikeCurtis]

I think we will see the same in Blake Freeland in 2-3 years

 

The kid needs serious weight training, but seems to have the movement skills just like Raiman has

[Patrick Miller]

15 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Exactly- 

 

man, if Smith can stay healthy, Anthony Richardson (if he can stay healthy too) is going to play with one of the best tackle combos in the league. 

Yeah but smith can’t stay healthy. Neither can Kelly.

[ColtStrong2013]

13 minutes ago, Patrick Miller said:

Yeah but smith can’t stay healthy. Neither can Kelly.

Kelly’s missed a few games here and there and Smith a little more so, but they both average 13-15 games a season for us. It’s not as bad as people make it… O-lineman are going to get hurt. It’s part of the game 

[compuls1v3]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

As I said, I don't think I ever used the word.   Others use it, and I cringe when I read it.

 

Its possible that Robert Mathis was a steal, in that Polian probably figured that other GMs didn't value an undersized pass rusher as much as he did.  But now others do too.

 

Ever watched the show Storage Wars?  Somebody sees something that they know others don't see or know its value.  They get it cheap.  You could say they stole the item more than they got lucky, because they knew the item and knew nobody else did.

 

The way the draft works, if Ballard knew Raimann would have been a top 10 LT, he would not have picked AP and JW before Raimann.  Steal is the wrong word, and lucky is a better word.

So correct me if I'm wrong, to you, there is no such thing as a "steal" in the draft.  Just making sure I understand.  I guess we have different views on the subject.  That's ok.

[smittywerb]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Raimann is playing well, probably above expectations at this point given his draft position.  A steal?    It doesn't work that way.  

 

Raimann, who is outplaying his drat position, was passed over by Ballard twice, just like every other GM did.  Its not like The Ballard knew he was 1st or 2nd round talent, knew that other GMs didn't know this, and shrewdly waited until pick 79 to select Raimann because he saw something in Raimann that the others didn't, and knew he would still be there.   

 

Raimann fell a little in the draft, and was sitting there at pick 79, and Ballard picked him because he NEEDED a LT more than the other GMs that didn't pick him.  And IIRC, he picked the perpetually/weirdly injured TE Woods before Raimann, so Ballard's player valuation doesn't really look that exceptional.  He picked a guy at a position of need who was staring him in the face because he fell a bit.   That's the way it works.  

 

Raimann deserves the credit for being the player he is.  And probably that really good oline coach that Reich had that helped Raimann develop after a few rough games at the start.

 

 

 

Dude, you can give Ballard criticism and props when deserved and he deserves his props here.

 

In what world does selecting a top 10 FRANCHISE LT in the 3rd round is not a steal?  
 

Maybe he fell because Ballard knew he would.  On the flip side, he selected Leonard in the second and all the talking heads said it was a horrible pick.  His injury derailed his career, not his talents.  So it looks like Ballard somewhat knows who to let fall and who he should go and get.

 

The hate is real.  

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

Dude, you can give Ballard criticism and props when deserved and he deserves his props here.

 

In what world does selecting a top 10 FRANCHISE LT in the 3rd round is not a steal?  
 

Maybe he fell because Ballard knew he would.  On the flip side, he selected Leonard in the second and all the talking heads said it was a horrible pick.  His injury derailed his career, not his talents.  So it looks like Ballard somewhat knows who to let fall and who he should go and get.

 

The hate is real.  

Nah.  Thinking he drafts just like other GMs who have random hits and misses is not hate.  It might seem like hate from the perspective of a reader who lives in an inescapable black hole of positivity and doesn't realize it, but who knows.

 

BTW, I said the Leonard pick was great....at the time he made it.  When the folks who persistently criticize the "junior GMs" here didn't even know who Leonard was.

 

Just offering that for what ever reason Leonard has to do with the topic.

[smittywerb]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nah.  Thinking he drafts just like other GMs who have random hits and misses is not hate.  It might seem like hate from the perspective of a reader who lives in an inescapable black hole of positivity and doesn't realize it, but who knows.

It was a while back, but there was a post that showed that Ballard is one of the best drafting GMs in the league.  Think he was top 5.  So “think” all you want but the numbers says otherwise.

 

But let’s just say he does draft like any other GM.  Relevant to this post, list me the GMs since he’s been ours that have DRAFTED top 10 LTs past the second round. 
 

yeah, the hate is real.  It’s fine to criticize someone when it’s needed, but to refuse to give someone their props when it’s time to is the definition of hating.  

[ColtStrong2013]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nah.  Thinking he drafts just like other GMs who have random hits and misses is not hate.  It might seem like hate from the perspective of a reader who lives in an inescapable black hole of positivity and doesn't realize it, but who knows.

 

If he drafts like other gms, and it's all about luck, then we can agree that his philosophy on the draft is sound. Which is: The more darts on the dart board, the better chance of scoring and even hitting a bullseye...

 

I don't disagree with you. But I don't agree if you are implying he isn't better with drafting than others. A good deal of GM's never draft an all-pro player in an entire career. He got two in the same draft his second go round. 

You can admit he has a sound draft philosophy and is better than a great deal of GM's at the process, and also admit he's had shortcomings regarding overall roster building.