Colts have the 15th pick in the draft. (MERGE)

[stitches]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I get your point, and I'm assuming it's partly tongue in cheek, but I want to counter as a point of discussion.

 

First, I don't think this is a representation of real player evaluation. I think it's the way a lot of fans view draft prospects, but I think NFL teams evaluate by watching the prospects play, and matching what they see with what they know about the player and the team he's on. For example, it's likely that Player 1 has better coaching and better teammates, which contributes to his production and performance. Being able to make that distinction requires being familiar with the respective rosters, staffs, and schemes of both teams. And that level of nuance is something that most people on the Internet can't be bothered with. But the total evaluation could easily lead a staff to believe that Player 2 is the better prospect, and it's not simply about the RAS score.

 

Second, to get in the weeds on the RAS thing... There are about 20,000 scholarship players in every year class in D1 football. About 400 of them will make it to the NFL, and about half of those will last more than two seasons in the NFL. The overwhelming majority of the rest are simply not good enough physically -- not big enough, fast enough, strong enough, or not willing/able to maximize the physical talents they have. 

 

Athletic testing and physical measurements are a way to determine a baseline of ability, and RAS is a composite of that testing. We have decades of testing, and can analyze what traits are common among successful players at their respective positions. It makes sense to apply that knowledge to scouting, and I would bet that the majority of players who are at the bottom end of testing don't even make it, let alone have significant success. And then, for the outlier standout performers who don't test well, there are other questions to be considered. Was the performance mostly based on favorable circumstances, or is there a significant trait/ability that makes up for other deficiencies?

 

Long story short, there is an obvious correlation between testing and NFL success, and RAS is kind of a representation of testing that makes it somewhat easier to digest and compare athletic prospects. But I don't think any decisions are being made solely on the basis of that comparison.

Yep. The simplest way I've found to put it is - football is an athletic sport. It's only natural for a sport in which athleticism conveys competitive advantage that athletic testing is correlated with success. Now... athleticism is obviously not everything and there are other skills and factors you should consider, but one thing is for sure for me - ignore athletic testing at your own risk.  

[Solid84]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I get your point, and I'm assuming it's partly tongue in cheek, but I want to counter as a point of discussion.

 

First, I don't think this is a representation of real player evaluation. I think it's the way a lot of fans view draft prospects, but I think NFL teams evaluate by watching the prospects play, and matching what they see with what they know about the player and the team he's on. For example, it's likely that Player 1 has better coaching and better teammates, which contributes to his production and performance. Being able to make that distinction requires being familiar with the respective rosters, staffs, and schemes of both teams. And that level of nuance is something that most people on the Internet can't be bothered with. But the total evaluation could easily lead a staff to believe that Player 2 is the better prospect, and it's not simply about the RAS score.

 

Second, to get in the weeds on the RAS thing... There are about 20,000 scholarship players in every year class in D1 football. About 400 of them will make it to the NFL, and about half of those will last more than two seasons in the NFL. The overwhelming majority of the rest are simply not good enough physically -- not big enough, fast enough, strong enough, or not willing/able to maximize the physical talents they have. 

 

Athletic testing and physical measurements are a way to determine a baseline of ability, and RAS is a composite of that testing. We have decades of testing, and can analyze what traits are common among successful players at their respective positions. It makes sense to apply that knowledge to scouting, and I would bet that the majority of players who are at the bottom end of testing don't even make it, let alone have significant success. And then, for the outlier standout performers who don't test well, there are other questions to be considered. Was the performance mostly based on favorable circumstances, or is there a significant trait/ability that makes up for other deficiencies?

 

Long story short, there is an obvious correlation between testing and NFL success, and RAS is kind of a representation of testing that makes it somewhat easier to digest and compare athletic prospects. But I don't think any decisions are being made solely on the basis of that comparison.

I get what you're saying and I think you are right to a degree, but I think RAS is a starting point for evalutaion, not the reason to draft a player. I'm much more into the intangibles.

 

To me a player with great intangibles, but average RAS will beat out a player with great RAS, but average intangibles every time. There may be a correlation between NFL success and testing, but we also see tens of athletic freaks wash out every year because they don't have the will, drive or basic capacity for learning that's needed to be an NFL level player.

 

The nature of intangibles of course make them so much harder to evalutate than athletic ability, so it's easier to just go for RAS and hope the intangibles can be taught or learned through exposure and experience. I do however think the last part is a bad assumption to make. 

 

The obvious example of the above would be Tom Brady. Another would be James Harrison who nobody wanted until he signed the Pittsburgh undrafted. He went on to go to the pro bowl 5 times and win 2 SBs because he simply out-worked everyone else - will, drive and capacity to learn.

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Thank you for engaging in a non-grumpy way.

 

I feel RAS is/was used far too much as a tie breaker, not as the sole criteria (not advocating to go after 5-7 RAS players at all, no that is not what I am saying), because I can't explain away Ben Banogu and Kemoko Turay (am sure I can give more examples if I dig deeper into my research). I get drafting them but not as early as they were drafted. Day 3, like Adetomiwa Adebawore they drafted in 2023, I could understand but we haven't gotten enough contributors from Day 2 of the draft over the years. Maybe Ballard was refining his own draft process, learning on the job as some say, to not take swings too early on projects. Tyquan Lewis, it took several years for him to come to his element. There was a reason Robert Mathis was drafted in Round 4. That is when upside players should be drafted, IMO. If you hit, by all means, credit to the GM for taking the flier but if it busts, it doesn't cost the team other quality players you could have had earlier instead of pursuing players more for the upside than what they have done.

 

I love Alec Pierce but his 9.8 versus Josh Downs' 8.99 RAS, hasn't truly been reflective of their NFL success. No, I am not ready to give up on Pierce and I do understand Minshew is a big part of him being held back. But in Year 1 of Downs, you can see which player stepped up and made the bigger impact. Yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek but also in part due to how few difference makers we have on our roster and every Day 1/Day 2 draft miss takes another 2-3 years to change/reverse course with other moves, which is why we haven't truly made noise for our division. 

 

Maybe the others want me to just shake Pom-Poms, not happening with me.

 

I think your earlier example isn't showing RAS being a tie breaker. It's showing RAS overriding other factors. I think if you give anyone two prospects who are mostly equal, everyone is taking the guy who is bigger/more athletic. And if not, they're considering some other factor that stands out.

 

I'd also say that we don't know why Banogu and Turay were drafted, but reducing it down to RAS is probably overly simplistic. I might also argue that our coaching staff wasn't doing a great job of developing young players, period. Look at the OL deterioration, for example. (Speaking of which, Raimann is a RAS star who was considered a project, struggled as a rookie, and had a nice second year. We have proof of concept, and he's just the most recent example.)

 

The Pierce/Downs discussion is probably a good way to analyze this further. First, 8.99 RAS isn't bad at all; it's actually higher than Pittman's (8.29), so I'd say Ballard has already shown a willingness to draft WRs who aren't RAS stars. Second, Downs has traits that make him a desirable prospect, despite his lack of size. You can even contextualize his speed -- his 40 is so-so, but the 10 yard split is elite, and he's meant to be a slot guy. That also helps explain his production, compared to Pierce. And then we can discuss the expected draft value of a WR who's 6'3" and runs a 4.4 forty, compared to a 5'9" guy who runs a 4.5. And of course, Ballard drafted both guys, so it should demonstrate that he's not stuck in one lane or the other.

 

The bolded is the big thing. I think some draft decisions turned out to be mistakes, and it's possible that RAS has been weighted too heavily in some evaluations. I don't know how we could make that determination though; there are just too many factors and variables to consider. I would think that the entire staff evaluates their processes and adjusts accordingly, and I think they would have learned some valuable lessons from previous years. But bottom line, the roster isn't good enough at this point, and that's partly a reflection of player evaluation. 

[Solid84]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

(Speaking of which, Raimann is a RAS star who was considered a project, struggled as a rookie, and had a nice second year. We have proof of concept, and he's just the most recent example.)

It's interesting you bring this up as proof of concept for what we're doing currently, because I think Raimann is a prime example of why intangibles are so EXTREMELY important.

 

Raimann was a former TE who switched to tackle. I saw mentioned several times in different profiles on him how he was extremely quick to pick up the tackle position after he switched - capacity for learning and applying it on the field. He got great athletic ability and no doubt that's part of why he's a success, but to me the real difference has been his ability to apply what he's been taught.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I get what you're saying and I think you are right to a degree, but I think RAS is a starting point for evalutaion, not the reason to draft a player. I'm much more into the intangibles.

 

To me a player with great intangibles, but average RAS will beat out a player with great RAS, but average intangibles every time. There may be a correlation between NFL success and testing, but we also see tens of athletic freaks wash out every year because they don't have the will, drive or basic capacity for learning that's needed to be an NFL level player.

 

The nature of intangibles of course make them so much harder to evalutate than athletic ability, so it's easier to just go for RAS and hope the intangibles can be taught or learned through exposure and experience. I do however think the last part is a bad assumption to make. 

 

The obvious example of the above would be Tom Brady. Another would be James Harrison who nobody wanted until he signed the Pittsburgh undrafted. He went on to go to the pro bowl 5 times and win 2 SBs because he simply out-worked everyone else - will, drive and capacity to learn.

 

I don't know what you're including in intangibles. For a WR, route running isn't necessarily measurable, but I don't view it as an intangible.

 

You say a lot of freak athletes wash out. The truth is most prospects wash out, for various reasons. At least if you draft a guy who is a good athlete, you know he can compete physically. And even if Rodney Thomas can't hold up as a starting defensive player, he's physically capable enough to be a STer and a reserve. But no, it's not a reason to draft a player, and I don't think any team is just drafting RAS stars, no matter how it's perceived by the fans and media.

 

Just a point on Brady, QB is the position where athletic testing has the least historical correlation to NFL success (partly skewed by guys like Brady, but also probably changing in recent years).

 

And Harrison is probably not a great example for this discussion, either. He had a few off field issues throughout his amateur career, which is why he wound up at Kent State instead of a major school. He wasn't even invited to the Combine, so him not being drafted wasn't about athletic testing. And then he got shuffled around and wasn't a starter for five years. He wasn't overlooked because of his measurements; it was more likely the intangibles, ironically.

 

To the bolded, there's probably a market inefficiency in there somewhere. Take Anthony Richardson -- freak athlete, super raw, never received any real coaching before he got to the NFL, but the tape shows signs of ability and promise. So now, you project what he can become in a pro setting -- and drafting is mostly a matter of projection anyway -- and determine whether the risk outweighs the reward. Some teams might eliminate such a raw player from consideration, so maybe a team with a greater appetite for risk can get that kind of prospect at a reduced price. I probably wouldn't advocate for trying to exploit a market inefficiency high that high in the draft, but this probably explains why Patrick Mahomes was available at #10.

 

Anyway, long story short, my point is I don't think the Colts are using RAS in the way people are suggesting. JMO.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

It's interesting you bring this up as proof of concept for what we're doing currently, because I think Raimann is a prime example of why intangibles are so EXTREMELY important.

 

Raimann was a former TE who switched to tackle. I saw mentioned several times in different profiles on him how he was extremely quick to pick up the tackle position after he switched - capacity for learning and applying it on the field. He got great athletic ability and no doubt that's part of why he's a success, but to me the real difference has been his ability to apply what he's been taught.

 

Sure, and that's all important, and I believe that was a major part of the evaluation. 

 

However, the measurements and testing provide a baseline of physical ability. And his overall size and movement ability make up for his lack of experience and arm length. The arm length especially is a Ballard staple, and something that probably would have eliminated Raimann from consideration if Ballard were as sharply focused on metrics as people claim.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DattMavis said:

I think it’s fair to critique PFF’s grades, but I actually agree with this. He is helped greatly by the rest of the defense, especially the LBs who help a lot in coverage.

 

RYS barely even plays. He got 279 defensive snaps all year, about 24% of total snaps. His highest percentage was 41.7%, and he pulled four zeros over the season. He got a lot more time later in the year, mostly due to injuries. He's mostly been forgettable for the Ravens.

[Solid84]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know what you're including in intangibles. For a WR, route running isn't necessarily measurable, but I don't view it as an intangible.

 

You say a lot of freak athletes wash out. The truth is most prospects wash out, for various reasons. At least if you draft a guy who is a good athlete, you know he can compete physically. And even if Rodney Thomas can't hold up as a starting defensive player, he's physically capable enough to be a STer and a reserve. But no, it's not a reason to draft a player, and I don't think any team is just drafting RAS stars, no matter how it's perceived by the fans and media.

 

Just a point on Brady, QB is the position where athletic testing has the least historical correlation to NFL success (partly skewed by guys like Brady, but also probably changing in recent years).

 

And Harrison is probably not a great example for this discussion, either. He had a few off field issues throughout his amateur career, which is why he wound up at Kent State instead of a major school. He wasn't even invited to the Combine, so him not being drafted wasn't about athletic testing. And then he got shuffled around and wasn't a starter for five years. He wasn't overlooked because of his measurements; it was more likely the intangibles, ironically.

 

To the bolded, there's probably a market inefficiency in there somewhere. Take Anthony Richardson -- freak athlete, super raw, never received any real coaching before he got to the NFL, but the tape shows signs of ability and promise. So now, you project what he can become in a pro setting -- and drafting is mostly a matter of projection anyway -- and determine whether the risk outweighs the reward. Some teams might eliminate such a raw player from consideration, so maybe a team with a greater appetite for risk can get that kind of prospect at a reduced price. I probably wouldn't advocate for trying to exploit a market inefficiency high that high in the draft, but this probably explains why Patrick Mahomes was available at #10.

 

Anyway, long story short, my point is I don't think the Colts are using RAS in the way people are suggesting. JMO.

I don't view route running as an intangible directly. It would fall under the ability apply what you're being taught. 

 

To me RAS is the baseline not the reason as I said. A RAS-y player with little to no production is day 3 player. But at this point I think it's indisputable RAS is pretty high on Ballard's list and I do think it sometimes gets in the way of what's in front of him.

 

Look at Kwity Paye - RAS of 9.34 but a total of 11 sacks in 4 years at Michigan. That production has pretty much carried over to the NFL. I distinctly remember reading a draft profile saying something like he didn't have the awareness or instincts needed to be a playmaker.

 

And sure we drafted at 21, so how much of a slamdunk can you really expect at a position that's already much more miss than hit? But we also had other needs - LT for example.

 

And to the Brady part. Ballard still drafted the most RAS-y QB... ever? He stayed put because he was certain he would get the best player in the draft (to be fair he still could) and stayed put because he knew no teams ahead of him wanted AR as bad as he did. The gamble wasn't that the Panthers or Houston would take him. The gamble was if a team behind us would trade in front of us and grab him.

 

Harrison still got to where he did on the back of his work ethic. Something too many lack.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Colts just go to ras.football and sort by postion and RAS then go "Pick him". Not at all. I do think they value athletic ability more than most other teams in the league. It's not like the old joke about Al Davis always picking the fastet WR in the league.

 

Edit: Looked up Kwity's profile and it was the one from NFL.com - Link

Quote

Doesn't have natural instincts and awareness of a playmaker.

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

To me RAS is the baseline not the reason as I said. A RAS-y player with little to no production is day 3 player. But at this point I think it's indisputable RAS is pretty high on Ballard's list and I do think it sometimes gets in the way of what's in front of him.

 

The bolded is what I think is a stretch. There are just too many other factors involved, some of which we'll never know because we don't have scouting reports. But it's easier to just say 'Ballard made this decision because he loves RAS.'

 

Also, by your criteria here, Anthony Richardson is a Day 3 prospect. I don't think you believe that about him, so IMO, it illustrates the fact that other factors must be at play, while still acknowledging that Ballard (and staff) are really intrigued by freakishly athletic prospects.

 

Quote

 

Look at Kwity Paye - RAS of 9.34 but a total of 11 sacks in 4 years at Michigan. That production has pretty much carried over to the NFL. I distinctly remember reading a draft profile saying something like he didn't have the awareness or instincts needed to be a playmaker.

 

And sure we drafted at 21, so how much of a slamdunk can you really expect at a position that's already much more miss than hit? But we also had other needs - LT for example.

 

 

I don't think I agree on Paye. I think we're seeing a young player start to get better at rushing the passer, which is normal for young edge players. 

 

Quote

And to the Brady part. Ballard still drafted the most RAS-y QB... ever? He stayed put because he was certain he would get the best player in the draft (to be fair he still could) and stayed put because he knew no teams ahead of him wanted AR as bad as he did. The gamble wasn't that the Panthers or Houston would take him. The gamble was if a team behind us would trade in front of us and grab him.

 

I'm not sure if I get your point. Ballard drafted Eason in the 4th round. I don't think RAS would have prevented him from drafting Brady in the 6th. I think athletic testing is becoming a bigger factor in QB evaluations than they were 25 years ago, but it's still the position with the least correlation to athletic testing.

 

My point on Richardson is that these "intangibles" were just as much of a factor as the athletic testing, maybe more. And if you apply similar logic to evaluations at other positions, there's probably an inefficiency somewhere. (This is something I've been thinking about at WR. I've always valued technicians at WR, but everyone plays zone, so refined route running isn't as valuable as it was 15 years ago. So I've probably overvalued certain technical receivers in comparison with more athletic players at times.)

 

Quote

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Colts just go to ras.football and sort by postion and RAS then go "Pick him". Not at all. I do think they value athletic ability more than most other teams in the league. It's not like the old joke about Al Davis always picking the fastet WR in the league.

 

The bolded is my point. And maybe I'm just not in on the joke, but it seems like people are suggesting exactly that.

 

The Colts probably do value athletic ability more than most other teams, their roster is certainly among the most RAS-y. But what I think is more important is whether they over value athletic ability in the draft. If they're allowing RAS to outweigh all the other factors in the evaluation, that's a problem, but I don't think that's happening.

[Zoltan]

10 hours ago, DougDew said:

I read it as saying that Ballard would choose RAS over college production.  You might not, but many people share that opinion.

 

I think you're making a logical fallacy when thinking that Ballard is working with the same information we are. Remember it's not just Ballard they have a whole team of people from area scouts on up watching tapes, interviewing the players, and gathering way more information than we will ever have.

 

As for college production I would say it really can't be trusted unless you are looking at specific games, due to the fact all teams play multiple easy wins which hyper-inflate their stats. I think that has been one of my biggest arguments when it comes to prospects on this board, where someone states look at this guys production this year, but when you look at the game to game the player has amazing games against D2 teams and has bad games against good opponents. So it's like yes he had a good season but when they play an equally talented roster that player disappears.

 

[Solid84]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is what I think is a stretch. There are just too many other factors involved, some of which we'll never know because we don't have scouting reports. But it's easier to just say 'Ballard made this decision because he loves RAS.'

 

Also, by your criteria here, Anthony Richardson is a Day 3 prospect. I don't think you believe that about him, so IMO, it illustrates the fact that other factors must be at play, while still acknowledging that Ballard (and staff) are really intrigued by freakishly athletic prospects.

I absolutely think and recognize the Colts value more than (and scout for more than) RAS. But, when I year after year hear Ballard say "he'll always choose upside"... I gotta say it scares me a little, because I think that's a really narrow view of why you pick talent.

 

No I don't think AR is a day 3 player, but while we're on AR I'll say if we hadn't taken him at 4 I could've seen him fall to mid 1st or maybe later. Now, Ballard picking him at 4 could make him a genius, too much of a risk taker/trying to out-smart the market or it could mean he just over values athletic ability. Time will tell. Incidentally drafting a raw QB in the first who needs time to develop kinda neutralises the "QB on a rookie deal"... at least if he needs 3-4 years to develop to where we need him to. Fingers crossed he doesn't need that long.

 

Quote

I don't think I agree on Paye. I think we're seeing a young player start to get better at rushing the passer, which is normal for young edge players. 

I not sold on Paye yet. Paye has generated less pressure each season he's been here - 39, 34 and 28 in '21, '22 and '23 respectively. I hope he can get it together of course. Ballard said he needed to work on his pass rush as well, so he's under pressure (the pun!).

 

Quote

I'm not sure if I get your point. Ballard drafted Eason in the 4th round. I don't think RAS would have prevented him from drafting Brady in the 6th. I think athletic testing is becoming a bigger factor in QB evaluations than they were 25 years ago, but it's still the position with the least correlation to athletic testing.

 

My point on Richardson is that these "intangibles" were just as much of a factor as the athletic testing, maybe more. And if you apply similar logic to evaluations at other positions, there's probably an inefficiency somewhere. (This is something I've been thinking about at WR. I've always valued technicians at WR, but everyone plays zone, so refined route running isn't as valuable as it was 15 years ago. So I've probably overvalued certain technical receivers in comparison with more athletic players at times.)

My point was at a position with the least historical correlation to NFL success Ballard still drafted the highest RAS player ever (I believe).

 

I know Richardson has intangibles that raises him above being "just a RAS player". But, to pick a guy at 4 with the least (by far) amount of college experience and with questions about accuracy, those intangibles certainly have to be off charts for him to topple the guys in front of him. Do you think his intangibles are so much better than Stroud's or Young's? Or Levis' for that matter.

 

Look, I'm not saying AR can't or won't be great, but I don't buy he wasn't picked where he was in large part due to his RAS.

 

Quote

The bolded is my point. And maybe I'm just not in on the joke, but it seems like people are suggesting exactly that.

 

The Colts probably do value athletic ability more than most other teams, their roster is certainly among the most RAS-y. But what I think is more important is whether they over value athletic ability in the draft. If they're allowing RAS to outweigh all the other factors in the evaluation, that's a problem, but I don't think that's happening.

I can't speak for everyone of course, but I don't think most people actually believe Ballard just looks at RAS.

[w87r]

15 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Look at Kwity Paye - RAS of 9.34 but a total of 11 sacks in 4 years at Michigan. That production has pretty much carried over to the NFL.

He had 23.5 sacks in "4" years at Michigan.(not sure where 11 came from? Left out his 12.5 sack season for some reason?)

 

He has 18.5 sacks in 3 NFL seasons. 

 

 

He played in 2 games as a freshman and 4 games as a senior? Calling that 4 years is quite a stretch. Definitely trying to make him look worse,  but far from an accurate description of his college career.

 

14 hours ago, Solid84 said:

Paye has generated less pressure each season he's been here - 39, 34 and 28 in '21, '22 and '23 respectively.

I see you talk about pressures frequently, do you not think that the conservative nature of our defense as a whole, greatly reduces our overall pressure count from our DL?

 

I do, and don't think it's debatable.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think fans try to make Paye out  to something even Ballard didn’t expect. If Paye was expected to be a more dominating pass rush he would have went much earlier. He is a good edge setter who can get close to ten sacks. Still very valuable but he isn’t worth the 13million 5th year option. Ballard should decline the option and try to extend him for less.

[Solid84]

38 minutes ago, w87r said:

He had 23.5 sacks in "4" years at Michigan.(not sure where 11 came from? Left out his 12.5 sack season for some reason?)

 

He has 18.5 sacks in 3 NFL seasons. 

 

 

He played in 2 games as a freshman and 4 games as a senior? Calling that 4 years is quite a stretch. Definitely trying to make him look worse,  but far from an accurate description of his college career.

That's interesting. PFF has him with 2, 2, 5 and 2 sacks at Michigan. 

 

Michigan have him with 11.5 - Link

Sports Referance have him with 11.5 - Link

 

Then 3 years. Or 2.5 years. Some of these top DE propects frequently have 11+ in ONE year. Paye was raw and his production hasn't really improved in my opinion.

 

I'm not trying to bash him at all. But we needed pass rush and what we've gotten is an edgesetter. I hope he gets better, I REALLY do, because we need more production from our front 4.

 

Quote

I see you talk about pressures frequently, do you not think that the conservative nature of our defense as a whole, greatly reduces our overall pressure count from our DL?

 

I do, and don't think it's debatable.

I think you're right to a degree. Our defense is almost exclusively "rush the front 4" with very little blitzing, so it's natural our pressure would almost exclusively come from those front 4. But when you rely on those front 4 you also need those guys to be really good at pass rushing. I don't think they are good enough as a unit. DeFo is our best Dlineman by margines in my opinion, but beyond him I feel we're lacking. I mean, hypothetically, don't you think if we had Myles Garrett, DeFo, Chris Jones and TJ Watt lining up we would get more pressure? I do - conservative scheme or not. Elite DEs (and pass rush DTs) are rare and expensive when available, but when you only rush 4, you need them and you keep trying to find them until you do.

 

Personally I think only rushing 4 is an outdated way of playing football. Not saying this to bash anyone, just an observation and my personal opinion. The NFL is a passing league now, so you need put pressure on the QB (any level of pressure - sack, hit or hurry) consistently, because given enough time any QB and receiver will find holes in a zone defense

[w87r]

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/kwity-paye-1.html

 

 

 

Edit lol, I was looking at TFL.

 

 

Either way point stands. He only played 2 + seasons at Michigan for 11 sacks

 

 

Has 18.5 in 3 years for Colts.

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/kwity-paye-1.html

 

You're looking at tackles for loss where he had 23.5

 

Sacks are 11.5

[w87r]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

You're looking at tackles for loss where he had 23.5

 

Sacks are 11.5

 

Yeah, I caught it.

 

 

[KB]

13 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I think fans try to make Paye out  to something even Ballard didn’t expect. If Paye was expected to be a more dominating pass rush he would have went much earlier. He is a good edge setter who can get close to ten sacks. Still very valuable but he isn’t worth the 13million 5th year option. Ballard should decline the option and try to extend him for less.

Reminds me of Erik Waldon in a way. Just not as durable. He is the type of DE you want on the strong side of the line. Just not the type most would like drafted in the first round.

[Solid84]

18 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I think fans try to make Paye out  to something even Ballard didn’t expect. If Paye was expected to be a more dominating pass rush he would have went much earlier. He is a good edge setter who can get close to ten sacks. Still very valuable but he isn’t worth the 13million 5th year option. Ballard should decline the option and try to extend him for less.

Here's my question.

 

If we're playing Paye as an edgesetter and Grover as a run stopper... where's the pressure coming from? DeFo and Ebukam alone? In my opinion we can't afford an edgesetter when we only rush 4. We can barely afford Grover as solely a run stopper.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Here's my question.

 

If we're playing Paye as an edgesetter and Grover as a run stopper... where's the pressure coming from? DeFo and Ebukam alone? In my opinion we can't afford an edgesetter when we only rush 4. We can barely afford Grover as solely a run stopper.

It helps to make for a high floor team, but not a perennial playoff contender.

[chad72]

24 minutes ago, KB said:

Reminds me of Erik Waldon in a way. Just not as durable. He is the type of DE you want on the strong side of the line. Just not the type most would like drafted in the first round.

 

Erik Walden and Jabaal Sheard types, yes.

 

Bill Polian did point out in a post draft day call that Paye didn't have the production he would have liked in a DE for a first rounder (in other words, he wouldn't have drafted him). I am sure if we dig through the internet for a search, we will find it. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

44 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Here's my question.

 

If we're playing Paye as an edgesetter and Grover as a run stopper... where's the pressure coming from? DeFo and Ebukam alone? In my opinion we can't afford an edgesetter when we only rush 4. We can barely afford Grover as solely a run stopper.

Every team needs edge setters. Let’s not act like Paye plays 100% of the snaps. Of course every team wants a guy who is good at setting edge and give them 16 sacks. Not sure that guy is found often. I get it’s a passing league but if your going to start a good pass rusher who can give you 16 sacks your probably sacrificing something.

[KB]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

Here's my question.

 

If we're playing Paye as an edgesetter and Grover as a run stopper... where's the pressure coming from? DeFo and Ebukam alone? In my opinion we can't afford an edgesetter when we only rush 4. We can barely afford Grover as solely a run stopper.

We've seen what it's like when our zone defense can't stop the run. If Grover was there to stop the run in the Bengals game we might of had a better chance. We definitely want more pressure from our line, but we also want to make sure they're stopping the run.

 

If we somehow acquire a quality pass rusher, I could see us letting Paye walk and having Ebukam take over in his spot. Ebukam did pretty well against the run and pass. Could of applied more pressure yes, but just might against RTs. 

 

This isn't to say I want Paye gone either. I think his situation is similar to Pittmans in the part that he is someone you want on the team, but his roster spot could be improved.

[Superman]

16 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I absolutely think and recognize the Colts value more than (and scout for more than) RAS. But, when I year after year hear Ballard say "he'll always choose upside"... I gotta say it scares me a little, because I think that's a really narrow view of why you pick talent.

 

I think he says if it's close, they'll choose upside, and I think that's valid. I don't think he's saying they'll reach for upside, although if they're over valuing physical traits that could be the result. But I don't think the view is as narrow as you make it seem. I could be wrong.

 

Quote

I not sold on Paye yet. Paye has generated less pressure each season he's been here - 39, 34 and 28 in '21, '22 and '23 respectively. I hope he can get it together of course. Ballard said he needed to work on his pass rush as well, so he's under pressure (the pun!).

 

Neither am I. I wouldn't exercise his 5th year option right now. But any disappointment related to Paye isn't necessarily because they over valued his athletic traits. 

 

Quote

 

My point was at a position with the least historical correlation to NFL success Ballard still drafted the highest RAS player ever (I believe).

 

I know Richardson has intangibles that raises him above being "just a RAS player". But, to pick a guy at 4 with the least (by far) amount of college experience and with questions about accuracy, those intangibles certainly have to be off charts for him to topple the guys in front of him. Do you think his intangibles are so much better than Stroud's or Young's? Or Levis' for that matter.

 

Look, I'm not saying AR can't or won't be great, but I don't buy he wasn't picked where he was in large part due to his RAS.

 

 

Yeah this is fair, no doubt he was picked where he was due to his athletic traits. I'm saying that's not the sole basis of the evaluation.

 

Regarding his intangibles, it's possible. We haven't heard a single negative thing about his personality, at any point. I think these teams dig deep on these guys, especially QBs at the top of the draft, and there's no way for us to have all the info. So I try not to pretend to know, but it seems like Richardson checks every box off the field. I think the same is probably true of Stroud.

 

I get some carefree vibes from Young, and I said so before the draft. He doesn't play with enough urgency, IMO, there are times when it shows up on his tape, and it's annoying to me. Not trying to read too much into it, but it's a thing. And we all know Levis had some serious question marks -- not just the mayo/banana stuff, not even the cannon arm stuff, but he just came across as insincere and robotic. Some insiders said he seemed like he was trying to say what everyone wanted to hear. 

 

And specific to Levis, he had better coaching, he's older, came from a more stable background, etc. It could be argued that he's pretty close to his ceiling already, while Richardson is just scratching the surface. Kind of an example of betting on upside.

 

Quote

I can't speak for everyone of course, but I don't think most people actually believe Ballard just looks at RAS.

 

I would hope not. I can usually pick up on sarcasm and silly stuff, but I keep seeing this repeated, in a more serious tone each time. 

 

By the way, there's plenty of room to be critical of Ballard's draft record. This is not meant as a defense of him, as if he's always nailing the draft. I just think it's a mischaracterization of the philosophy.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

Here's my question.

 

If we're playing Paye as an edgesetter and Grover as a run stopper... where's the pressure coming from? DeFo and Ebukam alone? In my opinion we can't afford an edgesetter when we only rush 4. We can barely afford Grover as solely a run stopper.

 

DEs have containment responsibilities in every 4-3 defense. Characterizing someone as an edge setter is kind of a misnomer. And while Paye isn't a game wrecker, it's not like he's a non factor in the pass rush. He's just as productive as Ebukam.

[Solid84]

39 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Every team needs edge setters. Let’s not act like Paye plays 100% of the snaps. Of course every team wants a guy who is good at setting edge and give them 16 sacks. Not sure that guy is found often. I get it’s a passing league but if your going to start a good pass rusher who can give you 16 sacks your probably sacrificing something.

I appreciate what Paye does as an edgesetter and if we were to replace him I wouldn't want to miss much if any of his ability against the run. But, players who can do both do exist - they are just rare/expensive.

 

That's my point. We need an upgrade, not a side-grade or a down-grade.

[Solid84]

10 minutes ago, KB said:

We've seen what it's like when our zone defense can't stop the run. If Grover was there to stop the run in the Bengals game we might of had a better chance. We definitely want more pressure from our line, but we also want to make sure they're stopping the run.

 

If we somehow acquire a quality pass rusher, I could see us letting Paye walk and having Ebukam take over in his spot. Ebukam did pretty well against the run and pass. Could of applied more pressure yes, but just might against RTs. 

 

This isn't to say I want Paye gone either. I think his situation is similar to Pittmans in the part that he is someone you want on the team, but his roster spot could be improved.

Agree. Ideally Paye is a rotational piece in my opinion. 

[OhioColt]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

DEs have containment responsibilities in every 4-3 defense. Characterizing someone as an edge setter is kind of a misnomer. And while Paye isn't a game wrecker, it's not like he's a non factor in the pass rush. He's just as productive as Ebukam.

Seems like an easy fix trading away our P15 to Raiders for Maxx Crosby like we done with Buckner.  Crosby also had a high 9 RAS but also would be insurance since Paye and Dayo’s contracts are up next season. 

[Solid84]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

DEs have containment responsibilities in every 4-3 defense. Characterizing someone as an edge setter is kind of a misnomer. And while Paye isn't a game wrecker, it's not like he's a non factor in the pass rush. He's just as productive as Ebukam.

I may wrongly be using that term for a guy who's mainly a run defender and who contains the QB rather than bringing pass rush.

 

I know I harp on about "pressure" over just using sacks, but he's not as productive as Ebukam when it comes to pressure (48 v. 28 this season).

 

I mean I don't think anyone would say our defense is as good as the Ravens for instance in putting pressure on the QB even though the teams had comparable sack numbers? A way to illustrate that is with pressure where we got a total of 281 and they got 397.

 

And if we want to take out the blitzing here's purely Dline production from both teams:

 

Colts: 254 total pressures (54 sacks, 49 hits, 151 hurries)

Ravens: 329 total pressures (48 sacks, 46 hits, 234 hurries)

 

Sacks are skewed a bit, because PFF don't use half-sacks. They have the Colts with 60 Sacks and the Ravens with 61.

[KB]

So since we're talking about DEs, what's everyone think of Jared Verse? He lacks bend is the biggest knock. Has a quick first step, can apply pressure, and is solid on the edge. Might be the upgrade at Paye's spot that's needed.

 

At this moment, I want him if we pick at 15 and all the weapons are gone.

[BProland85]

17 minutes ago, OhioColt said:

Seems like an easy fix trading away our P15 to Raiders for Maxx Crosby like we done with Buckner.  Crosby also had a high 9 RAS but also would be insurance since Paye and Dayo’s contracts are up next 

24 minutes ago, OhioColt said:

Seems like an easy fix trading away our P15 to Raiders for Maxx Crosby like we done with Buckner.  Crosby also had a high 9 RAS but also would be insurance since Paye and Dayo’s contracts are up next season. 

As much as I’d LOVE Crosby on the DL for the Colts, I still feel adding a top playmaker in the passing game or top shutdown corner is more important as Indy has some pieces already at DE. 

[OhioColt]

3 minutes ago, KB said:

So since we're talking about DEs, what's everyone think of Jared Verse? He lacks bend is the biggest knock. Has a quick first step, can apply pressure, and is solid on the edge. Might be the upgrade at Paye's spot that's needed.

 

At this moment, I want him if we pick at 15 and all the weapons are gone.

Personally I think Trice is going to be better.  Maxx Crosby is he truly wants traded would be my edge crush. 

[OhioColt]

2 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

Too many FA edge players this year and next to determine.  Crosby at least would lock down for 3 years.

 

Seen WR Tyler Locket’s name mentioned as a possible candidate along with Bears CB Jaylon Jones.  
 

The draft is deep with WR talent and could see us draft two. 
 

Still think we need a FS and CB opposite of Brents.

 

iLB we might try to bring back Anthony Walker Jr. or be happy to add Bobby Wagner who still playing well for his age. 

[KB]

11 minutes ago, OhioColt said:

Personally I think Trice is going to be better.  Maxx Crosby is he truly wants traded would be my edge crush. 

I havnt looked into Trice tbh. I've seen he has been mocked late first. Will give him a look.

 

Outside of the draft, I hope Josh Allen becomes available as a FA. Throw whatever at him to get him here. I'd definitely take Crosby too. 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, OhioColt said:

iLB we might try to bring back Anthony Walker Jr. or be happy to add Bobby Wagner who still playing well for his age.

IDK about pick 15, but I wouldn't mind seeing all 3 LBers upgraded.  And both Ss if Cross isn't well thought of.  The corners are fine, IMO, but the Colts have lacked true talent at the S and LB spots for a long time, especially in coverage.

[Superman]

32 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I may wrongly be using that term for a guy who's mainly a run defender and who contains the QB rather than bringing pass rush.

 

Edge setting is usually talking about run defense. But it's true that even on a pass rush, ends have to be disciplined and maintain their rush lanes, to keep the QB in the pocket.

 

Quote

I know I harp on about "pressure" over just using sacks, but he's not as productive as Ebukam when it comes to pressure (48 v. 28 this season).

 

I agree with you that pressure is important. But I was using the PFR pressure stats, and now that I look more closely, they don't seem to make sense. I'm assuming the numbers you're using are from PFF?

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, KB said:

So since we're talking about DEs, what's everyone think of Jared Verse? He lacks bend is the biggest knock. Has a quick first step, can apply pressure, and is solid on the edge. Might be the upgrade at Paye's spot that's needed.

 

At this moment, I want him if we pick at 15 and all the weapons are gone.

I think all the 3 top DEs (Dallas Turner, Jared Verse and Laiatu Latu) would be solid picks at 15.

[Solid84]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Edge setting is usually talking about run defense. But it's true that even on a pass rush, ends have to be disciplined and maintain their rush lanes, to keep the QB in the pocket.

 

 

I agree with you that pressure is important. But I was using the PFR pressure stats, and now that I look more closely, they don't seem to make sense. I'm assuming the numbers you're using are from PFF?

Yes, the numbers I used are from PFF.

[chad72]

12 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I think all the 3 top DEs (Dallas Turner, Jared Verse and Laiatu Latu) would be solid picks at 15.

 

Don't forget Chop Robinson. He has got serious chops, pun intended.   He has got the bend and the get off to be successful, IMO. 

[Solid84]

Daniel Jeremiah at NFL.com has made his first mock - DJ Mock Draft 1.0

 

He has Bowers falling to us. I can live with that lol.