Kudos to Raimann!

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

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.  

Ok, he's top 5...... of what list.  I don't know how there can be a linear comparison of a GM who has been here 7 years with other GMs who have been a GM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,,,,,,,,9, 10 ,years.   Kind of a made up comparison for those who like lists I guess.. 

 

But  I don't have an issue with a list calling him top 5 on it.  Doesn't make his rational but lucky picks steals.

 

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...and that's why it was great...he saw something others probably didn't.  But none of my favorable opinion of the pick back then was based on "love"...its based on rational thought.

 

[smittywerb]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Ok, he's top 5...... of what list.  I don't know how there can be a linear comparison of a GM who has been here 7 years with other GMs who have been a GM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,,,,,,,,9, 10 ,years.   Kind of a made up comparison for those who like lists I guess.. 

 

But  I don't have an issue with a list calling him top 5 on it.  Doesn't make his lucky picks steals.

 

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...and that's why it was great...he saw something others probably didn't.  But none of my favorable opinion back then was based on love...its based on rational thought.

 

Bro, lists aren’t the end all be all but when it comes to giving your OPINION vs something that has been researched and comes to a COMPUTED ranking, then yeah what you says really holds no value.

 

and you keep using the word lucky.  How many other GMs get LUCKY as Ballard? lol like dude, it’s comical that you refuse to say this was a genius pick by Ballard (so far).  I mean let’s use your logic, he was drafted in the THIRD round, so that means 31 other GMs were UNLUCKY?  lol Luck is nothing but being prepared for an opportunity when it presents itself.  
 

Im not the biggest Ballard and I don’t think he’s the best GM, but he’s a good one that has flaws that holds him back.  See, it’s ok to give fair assessments.  

[DougDew]

Just now, smittywerb said:

Bro, lists aren’t the end all be all but when it comes to giving your OPINION vs something that has been researched and comes to a COMPUTED ranking, then yeah what you says really holds no value.

 

and you keep using the word lucky.  How many other GMs get LUCKY as Ballard? lol like dude, it’s comical that you refuse to say this was a genius pick by Ballard (so far).  I mean let’s use your logic, he was drafted in the THIRD round, so that means 31 other GMs were UNLUCKY?  lol Luck is nothing but being prepared for an opportunity when it presents itself.  
 

Im not the biggest Ballard and I don’t think he’s the best GM, but he’s a good one that has flaws that holds him back.  See, it’s ok to give fair assessments.  

Ok.

[ColtStrong2013]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But  I don't have an issue with a list calling him top 5 on it.  Doesn't make his rational but lucky picks steals.

 

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...and that's why it was great...he saw something others probably didn't.  But none of my favorable opinion of the pick back then was based on "love"...its based on rational thought.

 

When he traded up for JT, was it lucky that he made that decision? Would it have been irrational and unlucky for him to sit on his hands and someone else "luck" into JT as a player?

I'm not arguing, just for what it's worth. I'm just looking for clarification to that thought process.

[DougDew]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

When he traded up for JT, was it lucky that he made that decision? Would it have been irrational and unlucky for him to sit on his hands and someone else "luck" into JT as a player?

I'm not arguing, just for what it's worth. I'm just looking for clarification to that thought process.

Why are folks broadening this topic to the entire Ballard career?  It was a good move to trade up ahead of JAX to take JT.  I wouldn't use the word steal or luck to describe picking JT.  JT was a known quantity who has played like that known quantity, and Ballard made a move to get him.  Good for Ballard..

 

[smittywerb]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why are folks broadening this topic to the entire Ballard career?  It was a good move to trade up ahead of JAX to take JT.  I wouldn't use the word steal or luck to describe picking JT.  JT was a known quantity who has played like that known quantity, and Ballard made a move to get him.  Good for Ballard..

 

See, the issue is you’re presenting the Raimann pick as if he threw a dart at the board and got lucky.  I’m pretty sure Ballard and his team had a list, predicted where players would be picked, and executed as the draft played itself out.  That isn’t luck bro, that’s being prepared.  It takes a lot to draft a player.  It isn’t an internet simulation.  It takes A LOT of work and working components.  So to discredit this pick as lucky is literally slapping Ballard and his team (scouts, coaches, etc) in the face.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

See, the issue is you’re presenting the Raimann pick as if he threw a dart at the board and got lucky.  I’m pretty sure Ballard and his team had a list, predicted where players would be picked, and executed as the draft played itself out.  That isn’t luck bro, that’s being prepared.  It takes a lot to draft a player.  It isn’t an internet simulation.  It takes A LOT of work and working components.  So to discredit this pick as lucky is literally slapping Ballard and his team (scouts, coaches, etc) in the face.

There is nothing about my posts that suggests Ballard threw a dart. 

 

Raimann was known to be a quality developmental LT, who fell.  Ballard didn't throw a dart.  He saw that Raimann fell, and picked him because the Colts needed a LT..whereas other GMs also knew that Raimann fell but probably had other needs besides a LT.

 

None of that suggests that Ballard knew Raimann would be top 10 in his second year.  That turned out to be lucky...not GM shrewedness.

 

And as I said above, Ballard obviously valued Raimann "his top 10 LT" below AP and Woods, based upon where each was picked.  There is very little to suggest that Ballard saw something in Raimann that other GMs didn't

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

None of that suggests that Ballard knew Raimann would be top 10 in his second year.  That turned out to be lucky...not GM shrewedness.

Nor did Bill Bellichick when he picked Tom Brady at pick 199… It was lucky, and it was also the steal in all of NFL history.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Nor did Bill Bellichick when he picked Tom Brady at pick 199… It was lucky, and it was also the steal in all of NFL history.

I think it defies the English language to describe something as both lucky and a steal in the same sentence.  Lucky is correct.

 

Not my fault others get so upset about it, then lash out.  But that's the forum.

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think it defies the English language to describe something as both lucky and a steal in the same sentence.  Lucky is correct.

 

Not my fault others get so upset about it, then lash out.  But that's the forum.

so essentially, you just don’t believe in the concept of a steal in the draft… 
 

I’m not lashing out, so I hope you aren’t referring to me in that statement. I would agree there is seemingly a lot of aggressive behavior on this forum lately. 

[KB]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think it defies the English language to describe something as both lucky and a steal in the same sentence.  Lucky is correct.

 

Not my fault others get so upset about it, then lash out.  But that's the forum.

So is your issue with the statement really the definition of steal? Just like other words in the English language, a word can be used in many different ways. This instance is what is known as a "draft steal". According to Google a draft steal is defined as: a player who was drafted at a low spot yet goes on to have a stellar and productive career is known as a draft steal.

 

Acquiring draft steals is a must for GMs to have a competent roster. Whether lucky, calculated, or whatever it is something that GMs are credited for. Ballard will always receive credit for finding/choosing a franchise LT in the third round.

[#12.]

Outside of 2022, Ballard's generally made smart decisions when it comes to the O-line.  He's also done fairly well with LBs and RBs.  

 

Everything else could be better.  On defense, he's arguably better in free agency/trades than he is in the draft, so he shouldn't shy away from it.  

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

so essentially, you just don’t believe in the concept of a steal in the draft… 
 

I’m not lashing out, so I hope you aren’t referring to me in that statement. I would agree there is seemingly a lot of aggressive behavior on this forum lately. 

I think I said that early on here. 

 

I said above that maybe Robert Mathis was a steal.  Polian probably valued undersized pass rushers more than others, and knew others would not pick him because of what he knew they did not value.  So its possible that he knew Mathins was going to be good soon, but didn't need to pick him earlier.  But more likely than not, Polian probably got lucky.

[Yoshinator]

The Raimann pick was a great value pick that fell to the third round. He was very raw and was once thought to go in the late 1st or early 2nd round, but he fell a bit and Ballard snatched him up. Ended up working out. There are always steals in the NFL Draft based on preferences (or lack of), and other teams trying to fill needs where better players drop.

 

We were the beneficiaries and got a franchise LT. Got very lucky!  

[DougDew]

20 minutes ago, KB said:

So is your issue with the statement really the definition of steal? Just like other words in the English language, a word can be used in many different ways. This instance is what is known as a "draft steal". According to Google a draft steal is defined as: a player who was drafted at a low spot yet goes on to have a stellar and productive career is known as a draft steal.

 

Acquiring draft steals is a must for GMs to have a competent roster. Whether lucky, calculated, or whatever it is something that GMs are credited for. Ballard will always receive credit for finding/choosing a franchise LT in the third round.

Nope, its more than that.  Its the connectivity of the word steal to imply Ballard is better than all of the other GMs who did not steal him.  Ballard did not know he would be top 10, he valued him the same.  saw that he fell, and picked him for need, while the only reason most GMS didn't because they did not have that level of need at pick 75. 76, 77, or 78 etc.

 

Nothing about the pick suggest Ballard was any better around the issue of Raimann.  So saying that Ballard stole him is factually wrong, and just another attempt to make a narrative about Ballard positivity out of thin air.

 

Which is okay to point out, because there are so many aggressive comments and aggressive emojis that try to portray anything non-positive about Ballard is some sort of "hate". 

[KB]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nope, its more than that.  Its the connectivity of the word steal to imply Ballard is better than all of the other GMs who did not steal him.  Ballard did not know he would be top 10, he valued him the same.  saw that he fell, and picked him for need, while the only reason most GMS didn't because they did not have that level of need at pick 75. 76, 77, or 78 etc.

 

Nothing about the pick suggest Ballard was any better around the issue of Raimann.  So saying that Ballard stole him is factually wrong, and just another attempt to make a narrative about Ballard positivity out of thin air.

 

Which is okay to point out, because there are so many aggressive comments and aggressive emojis that try to portray anything non-positive about Ballard is some sort of "hate". 

Ok. So you just don't want Ballard to get an attaboy from the fans. Got it.

[GoColts8818]

45 minutes ago, KB said:

Ok. So you just don't want Ballard to get an attaboy from the fans. Got it.

Ding ding you figured you it out!

[jvan1973]

3 hours ago, KB said:

Ok. So you just don't want Ballard to get an attaboy from the fans. Got it.

Same old same old.   

[jvan1973]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Nope, its more than that.  Its the connectivity of the word steal to imply Ballard is better than all of the other GMs who did not steal him.  Ballard did not know he would be top 10, he valued him the same.  saw that he fell, and picked him for need, while the only reason most GMS didn't because they did not have that level of need at pick 75. 76, 77, or 78 etc.

 

Nothing about the pick suggest Ballard was any better around the issue of Raimann.  So saying that Ballard stole him is factually wrong, and just another attempt to make a narrative about Ballard positivity out of thin air.

 

Which is okay to point out, because there are so many aggressive comments and aggressive emojis that try to portray anything non-positive about Ballard is some sort of "hate". 

What is an aggressive emoji?

[csmopar]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.