Chris Ballard on Pat McAfee Show about the draft

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

"I (nobody) don't have any idea how this stuff will play out".  "We got lucky".   It means what it means.

 

Jesus, get off of it.  I'm not a Grigson fan and never was.  I was called that by people who probably think one GM should be fired because the new guy will have so much more genius and clairvoyance.   I'm not the guy who calls for firing the GM.  I know the next guy might not have any better success.  

 

Finally, after about 6 or 7 drafts did it start to sink in with many, that the new guy doesn't have gobs more special knowledge or talent than anybody else in that profession has. 

 

 He just doesn't!   

 The great news for us is Steichen's brilliance, and Irsays daughters scrutiny.

As Steichen proves himself his influence and power will grow.

 Year two looks to be a lot of hard work but better football. 

And yes Ballard needed a considerably better HC to make things go. 

 2025, we should be a very tough out on Sundays. I hope we oldsters make it!

  

[throwing BBZ]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We don't have to rehash this, right? You know where I stand, I know where you stand. My earlier post was tongue in cheek, with the expectation that you could take the joke. 

 

My thinking is that the Colts had several players rated similarly to AD Mitchell, which is why they were comfortable trading back. If they had him as a standout BPA on their board, they probably would have stayed at #46. JMO.

 

 With our need and what the rest of the mock World, talking heads thought of AD, we should have been trading up for AD, as we did Taylor.

 There is something known and dark with AD and that would be why he was still available and Ballard risked losing him. 

 We will surround him with good people and love to lift him up and watch him mature. He definitely can be a very important part of how we make it to an AFC Championship game. 

 Watching video of him using his shoulders to turn DB's is AWESOME. It works any lefel.

 

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We don't have to rehash this, right? You know where I stand, I know where you stand. My earlier post was tongue in cheek, with the expectation that you could take the joke. 

 

My thinking is that the Colts had several players rated similarly to AD Mitchell, which is why they were comfortable trading back. If they had him as a standout BPA on their board, they probably would have stayed at #46. JMO.

I only mentioned you to be sure you understood what I was thinking.  Actually, I don't always remember individual positions by forum members on specific topics.  Its not something that I retain on short term recall.

 

Yes, IMO, when a GM trades down, its because he strongly believes that there will be a group of 3 or 4 players still available at the spot he trades down.  I don't think Ballard was specifically thinking about AM at 52 when CAR offered the trade, but his eyes probably got bigger around pick 50 when AM was still falling.

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 He just doesn't!   

 The great news for us is Steichen's brilliance, and Irsays daughters scrutiny.

As Steichen proves himself his influence and power will grow.

 Year two looks to be a lot of hard work but better football. 

And yes Ballard needed a considerably better HC to make things go. 

 2025, we should be a very tough out on Sundays. I hope we oldsters make it!

  

Well, I'm a happy camper.  For the first time in 8 drafts, we have what looks to be a near-elite QB, LT, and EDGE on board now than at anytime since.  Sure things may not work out with individual players, but these are the best young prospects...taken with proper capital....that I can remember since we had an older Luck, AC, and Mathis.  

 

And now the WR room also looks like it should, compared to what it looked like during the Rivers/Wentz/Ryan years.  OMG.

 

As I said.  I'm finally a happy camper in terms of structure.  Now lets see the wins....and I'll have some patience since those guys are young.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

With our need and what the rest of the mock World, talking heads thought of Richardson, we should have been trading up for Richardson, as we did Taylor.

 

It's different with a QB at the top of the draft, vs a WR on Day 2, but Ballard doesn't seem like the type to panic or lurch, for better or worse, no matter how much they like/want/need a guy. If he was okay with sweating it out for Richardson, then I can see him being fine with whatever happened between #46 and #52. 

 

What I think is obvious is that no matter how much the Colts liked AD, they didn't view him as a sure thing, must have prospect. Otherwise, maybe they trade up, but they definitely don't trade back with him still on the board. If you're okay with the character stuff at #52, you're okay with it at #46. They traded back because they were okay with however it went.

 

And if AD had been gone at #52, they would have drafted someone else, or traded back again and then drafted someone else, and Ballard probably would have said the same thing about whoever got drafted as he did about AD -- we were lucky he was still there, we really liked him, etc. 

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  Its amazing that anybody would think of the draft working any other way.  Its even lucky to be sitting with the first pick when a generational QB declares for the NFL draft.  Or unlucky...like Pitt...when you need a QB and the best option coming out that year is Kenny Pickett.

 

Polian used to say...even when picking late in the first round..."the draft fell exactly the way we expected it to".  Always bluster, IMO.

 

Its like Poker.  You can strategize all you want, but if the cards fall against you, you are not going to win.  Nobody ever won a Table without luck working in their favor.  Its about experience and luck.  Genius or clairvoyance isn't part of it.  IMO. 

Agreed. But if we’re gonna say that a GM got lucky when a player becomes a star then I would say then when a GM has a pick bust; then it’s bad luck. It’s has to go both ways for this argument to be valid 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I only mentioned you to be sure you understood what I was thinking.  Actually, I don't always remember individual positions by forum members on specific topics.  Its not something that I retain on short term recall.

 

Yes, IMO, when a GM trades down, its because he strongly believes that there will be a group of 3 or 4 players still available at the spot he trades down.  I don't think Ballard was specifically thinking about AM at 52 when CAR offered the trade, but his eyes probably got bigger around pick 50 when AM was still falling.

 

You have interesting positions, and like chad said, it was pretty obvious where you were going with this one. 

 

There's a possibility that the Colts had a good read on what everyone from #46 to #52 was looking to do. Maybe they knew that none of those teams liked AD, so they were more willing to roll the dice. But another team could have moved up in front of them. So most likely, they were okay with missing out on him if that's the way it went. 

 

In reality, the Colts liked a ton of prospects in this draft. They only got nine of them. Before they picked AD, they probably watched a dozen guys that they were hoping for in the second round get picked by other teams. So the 'we got lucky' thing kind of misses me. If Cooper DeJean or Jackson Powers-Johnson lasted until the Colts pick, they probably would have said 'we got lucky,' just like they did about AD. It's just the way the draft works. You can't get everybody you like. If they had stayed at #46 and taken AD, I might take the 'we got lucky' comment more seriously.

[csmopar]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Well, I'm a happy camper.  For the first time in 8 drafts, we have what looks to be a near-elite QB, LT, and EDGE on board now than at anytime since.  Sure things may not work out with individual players, but these are the best young prospects...taken with proper capital....that I can remember since we had an older Luck, AC, and Mathis.  

 

And now the WR room also looks like it should, compared to what it looked like during the Rivers/Wentz/Ryan years.  OMG.

 

As I said.  I'm finally a happy camper in terms of structure.  Now lets see the wins....and I'll have some patience since those guys are young.

This might be the second most shocking post on this entire forum. The more shocking thing is that both Doug and Moosejaw appear to be content with the draft this year!!!

[RollerColt]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

So the 'we got lucky' thing kind of misses me. If Cooper DeJean or Jackson Powers-Johnson lasted until the Colts pick, they probably would have said 'we got lucky,' just like they did about AD. It's just the way the draft works. You can't get everybody you like. If they had stayed at #46 and taken AD, I might take the 'we got lucky' comment more seriously.

In reality all GMs do this. It's just how it is when working with the press. The last thing they want to do is paint their shiny new prospect in the negative. So it's easy to sit there on the mic and say "we really like this guy, we're really lucky he fell to us". And psychologically? It usually works. 

[Yoshinator]

2 hours ago, RollerColt said:

The one part that I disagree with is appeasing the fanbase. I don't think he honestly cares about our opinions. Specifically on this website which represents a tiny fraction minority of the fans. If he thinks the corner room is fine (which it seems like he does) then we may find that who we have is who we get. 

 

Which is why I think this will be a common complaint throughout the season. 

I meant indirectly. Ballard would be happy for his own personal reasons fixing it with the guy he deems fit in that scenario, and the fans would be happy because someone would be signed. Their interests would align indirectly.

[Superman]

48 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

In reality all GMs do this. It's just how it is when working with the press. The last thing they want to do is paint their shiny new prospect in the negative. So it's easy to sit there on the mic and say "we really like this guy, we're really lucky he fell to us". And psychologically? It usually works. 

 

Yeah, quite the opposite. In this case, Ballard went out of his way to defend AD publicly. I have little doubt that the off field concerns played a part in AD being the 10th WR to be drafted, when he's probably the 4th or 5th most talented prospect in the class (IMO). But it does the Colts no good for Ballard to acknowledge that in the presser.

 

Instead, you call out everyone who wondered about AD's character, and you talk about how lucky you are that he was still available when you were on the clock (even though you traded back instead of drafting him yourself). To me, it's clearly coachspeak. 

[RollerColt]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, quite the opposite. In this case, Ballard went out of his way to defend AD publicly. I have little doubt that the off field concerns played a part in AD being the 10th WR to be drafted, when he's probably the 4th or 5th most talented prospect in the class (IMO). But it does the Colts no good for Ballard to acknowledge that in the presser.

 

Instead, you call out everyone who wondered about AD's character, and you talk about how lucky you are that he was still available when you were on the clock (even though you traded back instead of drafting him yourself). To me, it's clearly coachspeak. 

That's what I was saying. Ballard wasn't going to say anything other than defending his choices and defending his new players. To me, coachspeak and GM speak is pretty similar. 

 

Take a look at the Falcons GM's pressers. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

You have interesting positions, and like chad said, it was pretty obvious where you were going with this one. 

 

There's a possibility that the Colts had a good read on what everyone from #46 to #52 was looking to do. Maybe they knew that none of those teams liked AD, so they were more willing to roll the dice. But another team could have moved up in front of them. So most likely, they were okay with missing out on him if that's the way it went. 

 

In reality, the Colts liked a ton of prospects in this draft. They only got nine of them. Before they picked AD, they probably watched a dozen guys that they were hoping for in the second round get picked by other teams. So the 'we got lucky' thing kind of misses me. If Cooper DeJean or Jackson Powers-Johnson lasted until the Colts pick, they probably would have said 'we got lucky,' just like they did about AD. It's just the way the draft works. You can't get everybody you like. If they had stayed at #46 and taken AD, I might take the 'we got lucky' comment more seriously.

I wasn't expecting to talk about Raimann, if that's what you're saying.  I brought it up to discuss the ideas that you have have also been saying about how the draft most likely works. 

 

As opposed to some...when AM becomes a star...would imply how Ballard knew he would be a star over every other GM, knew that no other GM would take AM, and patiently waited to get an offer from some team to gather more picks before finally picking the player he would have taken at 35 if he had the pick.   IOW, imply that there was no shred of luck to it at all.

 

I also brought it up to put it into perspective compared to how Polian used to say how it all "went as expected".  As Ballard admits "nobody knows how this stuff is going to play out".  Not even the GM.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Yoshinator said:

I know you're probably kidding, but the complaints would go away very quickly if we signed a veteran. In this case, it's somewhat likely Ballard will do something about it and appease the fanbase.

For what it’s worth….  Ballard has done an interview in the last day or so where he said he will never make a decision just to appease the fan base.  
 

I believe the interview was either with Pat McAfee or Rich Eisen.   

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

For what it’s worth….  Ballard has done an interview in the last day or so where he said he will never make a decision just to appease the fan base.  
 

I believe the interview was either with Pat McAfee or Rich Eisen.   

It was with McAfee, I did see that interview. I responded to this post with the following response when @RollerColt said something about it. 

 

25 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I meant indirectly. Ballard would be happy for his own personal reasons fixing it with the guy he deems fit in that scenario, and the fans would be happy because someone would be signed. Their interests would align indirectly.

Just in case you missed this response.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

This might be the second most shocking post on this entire forum. The more shocking thing is that both Doug and Moosejaw appear to be content with the draft this year!!!

LOL. Its not shocking at all if you bothered to understand anything about what my consistent message has been about capital being devoted to positional value...instead of Gs, ILBs, RBs, and goal keeper FSs.  When and if it would ever happen, I'd be happy.  I figured it would happen at some point.  

 

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Agreed. But if we’re gonna say that a GM got lucky when a player becomes a star then I would say then when a GM has a pick bust; then it’s bad luck. It’s has to go both ways for this argument to be valid 

Bust is a term used to describe a 1st round pick that went bad, and GMs should know enough about 1st round picks to not pick a bust.  That's my standard, and opinion.  QBs are an unusual pick, because so much "hope" and consequence is attached to the pick, so busts are going to happen with QBs.  GMs should never whiff on a position player in the 1st round, IMO.  

 

What were talking about here are guys that might play better than anyone figured...which we know because 31 GMs passed on lower round guys multiple times.  The evaluation processes that all teams use....and professional pundits as well....fail to capture that lower round prospect.  So when the standardized process fails to recognize proper value, a team being rewarded with great value can be described as having good luck.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I wasn't expecting to talk about Raimann, if that's what you're saying.  I brought it up to discuss the ideas that you have have also been saying about how the draft most likely works. 

 

As opposed to some...when AM becomes a star...would imply how Ballard knew he would be a star over every other GM, knew that no other GM would take AM, and patiently waited to get an offer from some team to gather more picks before finally picking the player he would have taken at 35 if he had the pick.   IOW, imply that there was no shred of luck to it at all.

 

I also brought it up to put it into perspective compared to how Polian used to say how it all "went as expected".  As Ballard admits "nobody knows how this stuff is going to play out".  Not even the GM.

 

Put it this way, your first post in this thread reminded me of your Raimann argument, and I figured it would come up eventually.

 

Regarding the reaction to Ballard if AD is a good player, meh. I don't think the main implication has been that Ballard played the game so well that he knew exactly what would happen before everyone else, and he got what he wanted. I think the argument is that whether a GM stays and picks a guy, or trades back and picks a guy, if the guy becomes a good player, it's a credit to the GM. Maybe you've interpreted that argument differently, but I think what you've said above is a misrepresentation.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Put it this way, your first post in this thread reminded me of your Raimann argument, and I figured it would come up eventually.

 

Regarding the reaction to Ballard if AD is a good player, meh. I don't think the main implication has been that Ballard played the game so well that he knew exactly what would happen before everyone else, and he got what he wanted. I think the argument is that whether a GM stays and picks a guy, or trades back and picks a guy, if the guy becomes a good player, it's a credit to the GM. Maybe you've interpreted that argument differently, but I think what you've said above is a misrepresentation.

Well, my Raimann opinion is the exact same opinion as my Polian/Mathis opinion and NE/Brady opinion that I've carried for about 15 years.  But seems to get lifted into an argument when luck is attributed to Ballard.

 

Conceptually, no GM is any better at finding "late round gems" than any other.  Looking at how they passed on a player several times just like every other GM did, they probably just get lucky.

 

And that's basically what Ballard said...at least in this case when a talented player was still on the board (not exactly got passed over several times)

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Well, my Raimann opinion is the exact same opinion as my Polian/Mathis opinion and NE/Brady opinion that I've carried for about 15 years.  But seems to get lifted into an argument when luck is attributed to Ballard.

 

Conceptually, no GM is any better at finding "late round gems" than any other.  Looking at how they passed on a player several times just like every other GM did, they probably just get lucky.

 

And that's basically what Ballard said...at least in this case when a talented player was still on the board (not exactly got passed over several times)

 

But Polian still gets the credit for taking the swing on Mathis like he gets the blame for his misses, has been most of our contention all along. Ballard should still get the credit for taking the swing on Raimann even if Raimann might have outplayed his draft slot like Polian having Mathis do that, which neither could have known. There has to be some level of scouting confidence (like with AD) to feel like they could take the leap of faith, it wasn't a blind leap of faith, it was founded in what they scouted the player could do. If the player did more than what he believed they could do, it is gravy.

 

So the GM knows the kind of player he is getting typically but how the player responds to coaching and shows heart and exceeds his draft slot, that is on the coaches and players, right? But the GM has to draft the player before the coaches can coach. That is purely logical.

[Solid84]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, quite the opposite. In this case, Ballard went out of his way to defend AD publicly. I have little doubt that the off field concerns played a part in AD being the 10th WR to be drafted, when he's probably the 4th or 5th most talented prospect in the class (IMO). But it does the Colts no good for Ballard to acknowledge that in the presser.

 

Instead, you call out everyone who wondered about AD's character, and you talk about how lucky you are that he was still available when you were on the clock (even though you traded back instead of drafting him yourself). To me, it's clearly coachspeak. 

But this doesn’t really fit with Ballard defending Stroud last offseason though? IIRC he did so after the draft?

[stitches]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, quite the opposite. In this case, Ballard went out of his way to defend AD publicly. I have little doubt that the off field concerns played a part in AD being the 10th WR to be drafted, when he's probably the 4th or 5th most talented prospect in the class (IMO). But it does the Colts no good for Ballard to acknowledge that in the presser.

 

Instead, you call out everyone who wondered about AD's character, and you talk about how lucky you are that he was still available when you were on the clock (even though you traded back instead of drafting him yourself). To me, it's clearly coachspeak. 

I feel like part of it is coachspeak, but part of it goes beyond that. He could have just said "we are really lucky he fell to us, so happy to draft him... On the character/attitude thing - we did our due diligence and we are happy to draft him. We think he is a good kid and we can work with him." Or something of the sort. But he went beyond that by directly targeting the reports and going off on them. Kind of like he did with Stroud last year. I think Ballard has a strong sense of justice and I don't think this is purely performative on his side. I think he really feels like those reports were not fair. And he's going to bat for his guy beyond what just picking him at any specific pick would mean. Picking him at any position simply means "we are good taking the risk for the potential reward if he pans out". Here it seems like Ballard is backing his guy not just in terms of risk/reward calculation. He is backing him character-wise. Which can backfire on him spectacularly if the guy starts having issues of that sort once he's in the league since Ballard's rant has already gone somewhat viral in NFL media. 

[chad72]

@stitches is it Latu on your avatar? If I didn't know any better, I thought he looked like the guy making his call to his Mom at the beginning of the Independence Day movie.  

 

 

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

But this doesn’t really fit with Ballard defending Stroud last offseason though? IIRC he did so after the draft?

 

No, I don't mean to suggest that Ballard's comments were insincere. I believe that he means everything he said, and feels strongly about it, and I think his outburst is a net positive, overall. 

 

But I also think it's calculated. You have a guy at a position that tends to attract divas, he might have a fragile ego, obviously has a giant chip on his shoulder, and he's hurt that he slid to the middle of the second round. And in this case, the Colts traded back before they drafted him, so there might still be some hard feelings on his part. For the GM to come publicly bang the table in your defense, it can be just the thing needed to make the player feel wanted.

 

And for that reason alone, there was no way Ballard was going to publicly acknowledge the character concerns in that setting. Not that Ballard ever would say anything negative about a player on the roster, especially someone he just drafted, but definitely not in that situation. 

 

I'm reminded of the Ebron situation, especially after he dragged Ballard over the weekend. The Colts were obviously not happy with Ebron after his decision to shut it down in November 2019. And after the season, when Ballard was asked about it, he simply said: "We'll probably move on." So Ballard isn't going to speak negatively about a player, even if he thinks it might be deserved.

 

@stitches I think this hits your reply also.

[stitches]

21 minutes ago, chad72 said:

@stitches is it Latu on your avatar? If I didn't know any better, I thought he looked like the guy making his call to his Mom at the beginning of the Independence Day movie.  

 

 

 Yep, Latu on draft day receiving the call from the Colts  

[DougDew]

42 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

But Polian still gets the credit for taking the swing on Mathis like he gets the blame for his misses, has been most of our contention all along. Ballard should still get the credit for taking the swing on Raimann even if Raimann might have outplayed his draft slot like Polian having Mathis do that, which neither could have known. There has to be some level of scouting confidence (like with AD) to feel like they could take the leap of faith, it wasn't a blind leap of faith, it was founded in what they scouted the player could do. If the player did more than what he believed they could do, it is gravy.

 

So the GM knows the kind of player he is getting typically but how the player responds to coaching and shows heart and exceeds his draft slot, that is on the coaches and players, right? But the GM has to draft the player before the coaches can coach. That is purely logical.

I think there are aspects of players that have better fits with certain teams than with others, and so that's why they are eventually picked.  And rosters have different levels of depth, impacting why they are picked by some teams and not others.  The FO knows players attributes, I'm not saying they just throw a dart.

 

I think all teams know exactly the same things about players.  They hire staff from other teams, who then go onto yet other teams.  They all have the same info, and their FO staffs have the same training as every other staff, and same third party vendor analytics.  Late round players that turn into all-stars were simply missed by "the system".  The one team who picked that player benefitted by some sort of miniscule motivation they had over another team, like no depth at EDGE or the desire to train a QB into hopefully becoming a backup.

 

I'm assuming ADM was picked by Ballard because of several risk factors coming together where it did.  Its worth taking the risk about attitude given his #1WR traits and production, combined with the knowledge that the Colts don't really have a #1Wr on the roster....like ADM can be.  

 

My opinion is that if you plucked Ballard out of his chair just before we went on the clock, and replaced him with any one of the other 31 GMs who were charged with the responsibility of picking player 52, any other GM probably would have made the same decision for the Colts that Ballard did.  Heck, I'd bet half of the fans would have too, and making picks isn't their full time job and background.

[RollerColt]

For what it’s worth: there are videos of a younger Chris Ballard ranting and cursing about college players getting anonymous negative reports. He really gets heated on that subject. 

[chad72]

47 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

My opinion is that if you plucked Ballard out of his chair just before we went on the clock, and replaced him with any one of the other 31 GMs who were charged with the responsibility of picking player 52, any other GM probably would have made the same decision for the Colts that Ballard did.  Heck, I'd bet half of the fans would have too, and making picks isn't their full time job and background.

 

I doubt that. The reason is because not a single WR was selected the rest of the 2nd round, as borne out by how that 2nd round went. So any other GM still chose not to draft a single WR in round 2after the AD pick (either felt they didn't need one or had already gotten one), so your statement is not supported by how things played out. Whether it was Ballard at 52 or Ballard at 56 that he traded down to, he would have still found AD as value and pulled the trigger, is my contention. All GM boards are not created equal, so you can't broad brush there.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think all teams know exactly the same things about players.  They hire staff from other teams, who then go onto yet other teams.  They all have the same info, and their FO staffs have the same training as every other staff, and same third party vendor analytics.  Late round players that turn into all-stars were simply missed by "the system".  The one team who picked that player benefitted by some sort of miniscule motivation they had over another team, like no depth at EDGE or the desire to train a QB into hopefully becoming a backup.

 

I think you're working from some assumptions that I don't agree with. First, it seems like you believe "the system" produces 32 relatively equal draft boards, and it's pretty obvious that's not the case. Second, it seems like you believe that if a team picks a player in the 4th round, that means they must have had a 4th round grade on him, otherwise they would have drafted him earlier.

 

It's possible that a team feels more strongly about a player than other teams. They could have Player X as their 30th player, and Player Y as their 35th player. The team is on the clock at #40, both players are still on the board, the team takes Player X. A few picks go by, Player Y is still on the board, they start trying to move up from wherever they sit in the next round, but a trade isn't coming together. They wind up staying put, and are able to draft Player Y -- their 35th ranked prospect -- at #75 or whatever. They had a high 2nd round grade on him, and got him in the middle of the third. Maybe they'd felt like they got lucky because things went their way. But drafting him in the third round doesn't mean they only viewed him as a third round prospect; what would make that scenario possible is the fact that every team works from their own board, and there are major variances from team to team. 

[sb41champs]

Great interview!!

 

Both the Colts 1st round and 2nd round picks fell right in to their laps!!

 

Preparation + luck are equal parts of the equation!!

[NewColtsFan]

39 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think there are aspects of players that have better fits with certain teams than with others, and so that's why they are eventually picked.  And rosters have different levels of depth, impacting why they are picked by some teams and not others.  The FO knows players attributes, I'm not saying they just throw a dart.

 

I think all teams know exactly the same things about players.  They hire staff from other teams, who then go onto yet other teams.  They all have the same info, and their FO staffs have the same training as every other staff, and same third party vendor analytics.  Late round players that turn into all-stars were simply missed by "the system".  The one team who picked that player benefitted by some sort of miniscule motivation they had over another team, like no depth at EDGE or the desire to train a QB into hopefully becoming a backup.

 

I'm assuming ADM was picked by Ballard because of several risk factors coming together where it did.  Its worth taking the risk about attitude given his #1WR traits and production, combined with the knowledge that the Colts don't really have a #1Wr on the roster....like ADM can be.  

 

My opinion is that if you plucked Ballard out of his chair just before we went on the clock, and replaced him with any one of the other 31 GMs who were charged with the responsibility of picking player 52, any other GM probably would have made the same decision for the Colts that Ballard did.  Heck, I'd bet half of the fans would have too, and making picks isn't their full time job and background.

Wow!    You're on fire today.   Post after post that are classically you.  Only you have these views.   That’s why these posts are so easy to remember for years.   I’m struggling to find anything to agree with.   Not that you’d care what my opinion is.  I just couldn’t help but finally respond today.   Sorry. 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Put it this way, your first post in this thread reminded me of your Raimann argument, and I figured it would come up eventually.

 

Regarding the reaction to Ballard if AD is a good player, meh. I don't think the main implication has been that Ballard played the game so well that he knew exactly what would happen before everyone else, and he got what he wanted. I think the argument is that whether a GM stays and picks a guy, or trades back and picks a guy, if the guy becomes a good player, it's a credit to the GM. Maybe you've interpreted that argument differently, but I think what you've said above is a misrepresentation.

 

 

This was my point that I posted not long after AD was selected. Many have said and are still saying that Ballard was a genius that figured out the 6 picks that followed him trading back in round 2. There's no was Ballard said something like "wow , I can't believe this guy fell to us ." I could take him here but , I know he's not going to be selected in the next 6 picks , so I'll trade back." It's way more likely that he trades up 4-5 spots if he valued AD that much  more than the other players at the top of his board.  I think Ballard did a really good job in this draft but there's no way in heck , he traded back with certainty that AD would be there at 52.

[Yoshinator]

8 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

This was my point that I posted not long after AD was selected. Many have said and are still saying that Ballard was a genius that figured out the 6 picks that followed him trading back in round 2. There's no was Ballard said something like "wow , I can't believe this guy fell to us ." I could take him here but , I know he's not going to be selected in the next 6 picks , so I'll trade back." It's way more likely that he trades up 4-5 spots if he valued AD that much  more than the other players at the top of his board.  I think Ballard did a really good job in this draft but there's no way in heck , he traded back with certainty that AD would be there at 52.

I think what happened is Ballard had a list of 3-4 guys he was willing to take on the trade-down. Mitchell was on top of his list. He might have thought because of the rumors of character concerns and poor work ethic that he may fall to 52, and he had a few backup options on top of his board behind him he was fine with. It was probably worth the gamble to Ballard to get two extra 5th round picks since we only had 7 picks at the time and Ballard likes to build through the draft.

[throwing BBZ]

17 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I hope flowers gets his explosiveness back because we need more speed and explosiveness at the other outside corner. I wish we had more speed. I would take a guy like Rodger’s over a guy like jones every day of the week. 

 

 Roger's could get turned but catch back up before the ball got there.

  I was rooting for Flowers especially because up he did run I n the 4.3s.

 It is so sad that "intelligent" posters here post endless endlessly that in Gus's D our corners don't need speed. 

 With two deep safeties any good QB will pick it apart with current rules.

Playing single high when they stack receivers the CB on the opposite side is really playing regular old everyday man. Per Pro football Reference Gus" played man 28% of the time. What kind of madness is it to put a 6'2" CB that ran a 4.57 on ANY of the Many 4.3's WR's? This is your plan?

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I think you're working from some assumptions that I don't agree with. First, it seems like you believe "the system" produces 32 relatively equal draft boards, and it's pretty obvious that's not the case. Second, it seems like you believe that if a team picks a player in the 4th round, that means they must have had a 4th round grade on him, otherwise they would have drafted him earlier.

 

It's possible that a team feels more strongly about a player than other teams. They could have Player X as their 30th player, and Player Y as their 35th player. The team is on the clock at #40, both players are still on the board, the team takes Player X. A few picks go by, Player Y is still on the board, they start trying to move up from wherever they sit in the next round, but a trade isn't coming together. They wind up staying put, and are able to draft Player Y -- their 35th ranked prospect -- at #75 or whatever. They had a high 2nd round grade on him, and got him in the middle of the third. Maybe they'd felt like they got lucky because things went their way. But drafting him in the third round doesn't mean they only viewed him as a third round prospect; what would make that scenario possible is the fact that every team works from their own board, and there are major variances from team to team. 

 

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

I doubt that. The reason is because not a single WR was selected the rest of the 2nd round, as borne out by how that 2nd round went. So any other GM still chose not to draft a single WR in round 2after the AD pick (either felt they didn't need one or had already gotten one), so your statement is not supported by how things played out. Whether it was Ballard at 52 or Ballard at 56 that he traded down to, he would have still found AD as value and pulled the trigger, is my contention. All GM boards are not created equal, so you can't broad brush there.

 

Ranked on their draft boards or ranked in terms of being an NFL prospect?  Yes, those aren't the same things.   In terms of NFL prospects, yes, I think all teams have pretty much the same 250 players ranked in pretty much the same order.  That's what the "Top 100 prospects means".  Its prospects.  Of course, they are more certain about the players they have ranked highly than the players they have ranked lower.  The margin of error for the lower players is higher than it is for the higher players, so there is a chance that a player with a 7th round grade by one team gets selected in the 5th round by another, over a 5th round ranking guy getting selected in the 3rd round by another.  I'd wager that teams have their top 25 ranked pretty much the same.   I'm speaking in terms of understanding the players' attributes, talents, Character risks, and abilities to play in the NFL...which is NOT the same as their draft boards...meaning who they might want to actually draft.

 

Draft boards would be based upon those attributes combined with the uniqueness of the teams,  So even though a team may think Marvin Harrison is the number 1 prospect, they may choose to pick their number 12 ranked prospect guy JJ McCarthy.  Knowing talent and needs, they probably have JJ higher on their Draft board than MHJ. 

 

But no, I do not think that each team knows how the other 31 teams have their draft boards ranked, with any degree of certainty.

 

I think every GM had ADM ranked as a prospect the same as every other, in terms of risks, talents, etc.  The team that actually picked him has unique reasons for picking him.  And if you put almost ay other GM in the place of Ballard at the time, who understands the Colts, he would have picked ADM for the Colts too.  And they too would have felt lucky that their, say, 35th ranked prospect was still available at pick 52.  Ballard said that "nobody has any idea how this stuff plays out"  Its not my opinion to argue with.  I'm trying to help those on the forum understand what he's saying, even if it conflicts with the opinions they've held for years.

 

 

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Wow!    You're on fire today.   Post after post that are classically you.  Only you have these views.   That’s why these posts are so easy to remember for years.   I’m struggling to find anything to agree with.   Not that you’d care what my opinion is.  I just couldn’t help but finally respond today.   Sorry. 

 

So you judge the validity of a post based upon consensus?  That's all you got?  Yeah, ok, the consensus apparently does not agree with me.  Big deal.

[dw49]

38 minutes ago, Yoshinator said:

I think what happened is Ballard had a list of 3-4 guys he was willing to take on the trade-down. Mitchell was on top of his list. He might have thought because of the rumors of character concerns and poor work ethic that he may fall to 52, and he had a few backup options on top of his board behind him he was fine with. It was probably worth the gamble to Ballard to get two extra 5th round picks since we only had 7 picks at the time and Ballard likes to build through the draft.

 

Yes , I agree with that. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

I doubt that. The reason is because not a single WR was selected the rest of the 2nd round, as borne out by how that 2nd round went. So any other GM still chose not to draft a single WR in round 2after the AD pick (either felt they didn't need one or had already gotten one), so your statement is not supported by how things played out. Whether it was Ballard at 52 or Ballard at 56 that he traded down to, he would have still found AD as value and pulled the trigger, is my contention. All GM boards are not created equal, so you can't broad brush there.

Are you saying that Ballard read the landscape and decided it was safe to trade down to 52 and still get ADM?  Nothing in his interview supports that.

 

Whose to say that if Ballard trades down once again because he thought no team would take a WR in the 2nd, that a team like SF now sees value in ADM, and possibly reevaluates and pushes to trade Deebo or Ayiuk.  Teams, draft boards can change as the draft is happening, and Ballard is right to say that nobody knows how this stuff will play out.  He doesn't know that another team won't trade up to 53, or 47 for that matter.

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Are you saying that Ballard read the landscape and decided it was safe to trade down to 52 and still get ADM?  Nothing in his interview supports that.

 

Whose to say that if Ballard trades down once again because he thought no team would take a WR in the 2nd, that a team like SF now sees value in ADM, and possibly reevaluates and pushes to trade Deebo or Ayiuk.  Teams, draft boards can change as the draft is happening, and Ballard is right to say that nobody knows how this stuff will play out.  He doesn't know that another team won't trade up to 53, or 47 for that matter.

 

No, that is not what I am saying.

 

I am saying 52 on his board and the players he is fine with at that point in time may not be 52 on someone else's board and his penchant wanting to take the chance on AD is not the same as another GM. So, your broad brushing that all GMs would have done the same at No.52 rings hollow to me, even if you won't admit it.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

No, that is not what I am saying.

 

I am saying 52 on his board and the players he is fine with at that point in time may not be 52 on someone else's board and his penchant wanting to take the chance on AD is not the same as another GM. So, your broad brushing that all GMs would have done the same at No.52 rings hollow to me, even if you won't admit it.

Okay, Its a hypothetical.  If another GM looked at AD, and looked at the Colts needs, they probably would have picked AD FOR THE COLTS at that point too.  Agree or not, fine, but the idea that no other GM actually picked another WR for his team doesn't really address that hypothetical.

 

Thinking that GMs are pretty much interchangeable, except for that 10% that are actually worse than the others, how many GMs had Tom Brady ranked something higher than 180 as a prospect, and how many GMs that actually were looking for a QB in some capacity had him ranked higher than 6th round on their team boards?    Its the same thing with all "late round gems" .  Fans seem to want attribute success of the late rounder to the prowess of their GM over the other 31.

[chad72]

Just now, DougDew said:

Okay, Its a hypothetical.  If another GM looked at AD, and looked at the Colts needs, they probably would have picked AD FOR THE COLTS at that point too.  Agree or not, fine, but the idea that no other GM actually picked another WR for his team doesn't really address that hypothetical.

 

 

A hypothetical that doesn't truly serve any purpose for me, so I will leave at that. The video a few posts above shows Joe Douglas happy that Mitchell was picked by the Colts (and not Malachi Corley that he wanted to draft) while he was trying to move up from No.72 and could only move up to No.65, so there is a good chance that is 1 GM (and possibly more that would address your hypothetical if you asked them) who wouldn't have picked AD at No.52 because he was in line to pick a WR too next.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Player pressers today. How in the world is speed almost 29 already? LB could become a real need soon with both speed and Franklin approaching 30.