Analyzing our drafting possibilities, and grading them

by fpacheco on Apr 10, 2009 1:13 AM EDT

Let's imagine it's April 25th at night. The Colts took 2 of these 3 players in the first round: a LB, a WR and a DT. I'll analyze those possibilities LB-DT, DT-LB, WR-LB, etc. and grade them.

Option A:

1st WR (a la Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt)

2nd DT (a la Ziggy Hood or Ron Brace).

This would be like the best possible thing we could do. Grabbing Ziggy so late in the second would be excellent, as many are predicting him even in the 1st, and also we would've gotten a 1st-round-value WR to be our third guy. The LB possition would be left for later but in my opinion there is enough value in the second day to grab a good COLTS LB. Grade: A.

Option B:

1st DT (a la Peria Jerry or Ziggy Hood)

2nd WR (a la Brian Robiskie or Derrick Williams)

Peria Jerry is a good player but we need a bigger guy I think, and Ziggy would be a reach (why? Because he's not that apart from Ron Brace in my draft board, and they're both 2nd rounders for me). Brian Robiskie is a very intriguing prospect, because even though he wasn't that good statistically last year, he is tall (6'3) and he's a good route runner. He'd be like what Roy Hall never became. Grade: B.

Option C:

1st LB (a la James Laurinaitis or Clay Matthews)

2nd DT (a la Ron Brace or Ziggy Hood)

I think a player with Laurinaitis value is too good to pass up if he gets to No. 27. We've added depth to the LB position, but not THIS value, so... As I said before, grabbing Brace or Ziggy in the 2nd round that late is something we should be very happy about. Now, the problem is...where the heck is our WR? Can a 3rd rounder do it? Can Pierre do it? Can Roy...just kidding. Grade: B+.

Option D:

1st DT (a la Peria or Ziggy)

2nd LB (a la Marcus Freeman or who-knows-who-else)

The first round pick would be ok, but as I said before, it's better to pick Hood-Brace later. A LB in the second round would be more Polian-esque, and Marcus Freeman is a good, not-undersized-in-our-system guy that the only question that he raises is "Can he stay healthy?". Still, as I have said before, that question is always up there when it comes to Colts player, so... Like in option C, WHERE IS OUR WR?. For me, there's no "A" without a WR. Grade: C

Option E:

1st LB (a la James Laurinaitis or Clay Matthews)

2nd WR (a la Brian Robiskie or Derrick Williams)

Interesting. A valuable LB and a potential-filled WR. I like it, I really like it. Specially if the names of those to players are James Laurinaitis and Brian Robiskie. DT could be adressed later; there's always the "Ed Johnson-Eric Foster" of the year or we could get something in the 3rd round. Grade: A.

Option F:

1st WR (a la Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt)

2nd LB (a la Marcus Freeman)

I like this combination, a supposedly better WR in the 1st round and an intriguing prospect in the 2nd. Still, I prefer option E rather than this one. Grade: B+.

Now...there's always a chance Bill Polian trades down our first pick. And this could turn out to be GREAT! Imagine this scenario: We're on the clock, Hakeem Nicks, Peria Jerry and let's say even Kenny Britt are gone. What do you do? Do you take Ziggy Hood when you know you could get him in the earlier-middle 2nd? No, let's trade down! You trade for an earlier or middle 2nd rounder and you may get Ziggy or Ron Brace there. Or you can take Brian Robiskie there and then use the your second 2nd rounder to draft Ron Brace or Brian Cushing. Plus, we would have more picks, maybe even three 2nd rounders, or an extra, early 3rd. I would grade that with an "A" anyday. :D

What do you think? If you like it you can always rec it ;)

Poll

Which option do you like the most?

A: WR-DT

16 votes

B: DT-WR

31 votes

C: LB-DT

9 votes

D: DT-LB

11 votes

E: LB-WR

9 votes

F: WR-LB

2 votes

Neither, we need to draft a HB, OT, etc. on Day One.

10 votes

88 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 52 comments | 6 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Again...

How many teams have or even need 4 First Round players just to catch the ball (Clark, Gonzo, Wayne and a 1st round pick this year)?! That’s just insane. Add to that that Hall is a 5th rounder, Tamme is a third rounder and Santi is a 6th rounder. Do you not even realize that Clark also plays in the slot (its the reason we drafted Santi so Santi could play TE while Clark was in the slot) or that it takes 3-4 years to develop a WR in the Colts offense? The “draft a WR in round 1” crowd really is clueless in terms of draft strategy.

Again Manning has enough “toys” right now. Its time to take care of the real needs that this team has at OL, RB, DT, LB and CB. Also, its not as if having 4-5 receiving options ever did anything for us… we NEVER won Super Bowls due to Manning’s stats; we won because our offense, defense and special team all played well at the same time. Its time to put the horse before the cart people.

by MasterRWayne on Apr 10, 2009 2:47 AM EDT reply actions

f'in dot

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 10, 2009 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions

huh

its not as if having 4-5 receiving options ever did anything for us… we NEVER won Super Bowls due to Manning’s stats; we won because our offense, defense and special team all played well at the same time.

How do you think the Colts even made the playoffs with that historically bad run defense? How do you think they won 12+ games, 6 straight years, with a defense in the bottom half of the league 3 of those years? And if the Superbowl season is the blueprint for all success shouldn’t let the defense suck, then have everything come together at exactly the right time to make the D good?

The 2006 special teams were awful. Including in the playoffs. Have you repressed the memory of the opening kickoff of the Super Bowl? And Hobbs’ 80 yard kickoff return in the AFCCG?

The Colts have been an annual contender because of the high powered offense (consisting of Peyton and his 5 toys).

I got Summer hatin' on me cuz I'm hotter than the sun. Spring hatin' on me cuz I ain't never sprung
Winter hatin' on me cuz I'm colder than Y'all. And I will never, I will never, I will never Fall.
-Lil Wayne, Mr. Carter

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions

How do you think the Colts even made the playoffs with that historically bad run defense? How do you think they won 12+ games, 6 straight years, with a defense in the bottom half of the league 3 of those years?

Well, it had nothing to do with Peyton needing 5 receiving threats I’ll tell you that much. The only constant here is Peyton Manning, not his receivers. Go look at Marvin Harrison’s playoff stats, they’re abysmal. In fact, Gonzo’s playoff stats are just as good if not better.

And if the Superbowl season is the blueprint for all success shouldn’t let the defense suck, then have everything come together at exactly the right time to make the D good?

No, the blueprint has nothing to do with the regular season. It has to do with the basic concepts of winning football: running the ball and stopping the run. If you can do this, Peyton Manning and his toys are then able to dominate teams and have their way with them as opposed to having to constantly make miraculous comebacks all the.

The Colts have been an annual contender because of the high powered offense (consisting of Peyton and his 5 toys).

You’re still missing the fact that it wasn’t the “high powered offense” that got them to the Super Bowl in the first place. Refer to above.

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 10, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions

all the time...

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 10, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

why is running the ball and stopping the run more important than passing the ball and stopping the pass?

Mgrex’s stuff and the other stats work out there has shown pretty clearly that passing and pass D is more related to winning. (remember to use efficiency or per attempt stats, because teams passing to catch up and running to bleed the clock screws total stats).

Indy couldn’t run the ball and the run D was nothing special this past year and they still won 12 games made the playoffs, while teams that could run and could stop the run, but didn’t have any passing game did little to nothing. Running the ball and stopping the run is an old cliche that doesn’t reflect what’s really important for a team.

and if you are going to use the FJM quote style, you should actually address the chunk you quote. I talk about the Colts consistent regular season success and playoff appearances and you talk about Marvin’s playoff stats compared to Gonzos? That doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

The defense played two great games to get them to the superbowl after the offense played 16 great games to get them to the playoffs and another to win the AFCCG. 17>2 especially when the 2 wasn’t even the latest games.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Mgrex’s stuff and the other stats work out there has shown pretty clearly that passing and pass D is more related to winning. (remember to use efficiency or per attempt stats, because teams passing to catch up and running to bleed the clock screws total stats).

Unless those stats were based solely on playoff games, they are moot.

Indy couldn’t run the ball and the run D was nothing special this past year and they still won 12 games made the playoffs, while teams that could run and could stop the run, but didn’t have any passing game did little to nothing. Running the ball and stopping the run is an old cliche that doesn’t reflect what’s really important for a team.

I’m pretty sure those other teams didn’t have a guy named PEYTON MANNING. Besides, you are completely missing my point yet again. The run defense has been horrible for the last eleventy billion years, and as of late, the Colts couldn’t run the ball on a high school team. So why even bother mentioning the superb passing game and pass defense, when that’s not something we really have to worry about?

The overall point I’m trying make is that a team needs to be able to perform in every aspect of the game in order to win the Super Bowl as evidenced in the 2006 playoffs.

and if you are going to use the FJM quote style, you should actually address the chunk you quote. I talk about the Colts consistent regular season success and playoff appearances and you talk about Marvin’s playoff stats compared to Gonzos? That doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

I don’t know who or what FJM is but I’ve been doing that type of quoting for a while. Regardless, you were trying to claim that all of the records the Colts have set was due to all the receiving threats Peyton has had over the years. I’d beg to differ. I think the records that the Colts have set were due to Peyton Manning. Peyton has performed in the playoffs in spite of having the second best receiver in league history on his right. They won the Super Bowl in spite of having “teh most s1kk offense evarrr.” All this crap about how Peyton needs as many weapons as possible is just that, crap. Get the guy a goddamn dominant defense and running game, and you’ll really see what he can do.

The defense played two great games to get them to the superbowl after the offense played 16 great games to get them to the playoffs and another to win the AFCCG. 17>2 especially when the 2 wasn’t even the latest games.

This argument is just stupid. I’m not wasting my time.

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 10, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Unless those stats were based solely on playoff games, they are moot.

Oh I forgot that playoff games are magically different from the regular season. Or is it because all the rules change in the playoffs? You know with the 12 minute quarters, the 5th down rules and the tug of war. Explain to me why a playoff game is fundamentally different from a regular season game in what it takes to win, because I don’t see a thing?

Regardless, you were trying to claim that all of the records the Colts have set was due to all the receiving threats Peyton has had over the years. I’d beg to differ. I think the records that the Colts have set were due to Peyton Manning.

ugh arff ahh phoow…. (cough, cough) sorry I had to get all those words you shoved in my mouth out. Point me to were I made a distinction between Peyton and his targets (in fact I specifically included Peyton and his toys together). I was emphasizing the massive role the Colts passing game has played in their success. Peyton and his targets are the passing game. We haven’t had a season with Peyton without his receiving threats so

I think the records that the Colts have set were due to Peyton Manning.

is just a guess. While saying “The Colts have been an annual contender because of the high powered offense (consisting of Peyton and his 5 toys).” is a statement of fact. It’s saying what has happened.

This argument is just stupid. I’m not wasting my time.

You expect to be taken seriously and convince people when your response to it is simply “that’s stupid”. Make an actual fucking argument or don’t waste your time on replying at all. At least that one was more honest than the constant misrepresentation of what the other person is saying.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions

k, moving on

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 10, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

tug of war

Hmm, interesting idea as opposed to the coin flip…

by coltsfanawalt on Apr 10, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

...

Your argument is seriously flawed Shake. Stopping the run is important just as the ability to run is also important. The more things you can do offensively and defensively the more productive you become. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

by MasterRWayne on Apr 10, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Why is it just important?

KR said it was more important. I said it the stat studies showed it’s less. Why do you think it’s as important?

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

I never said it was more important. However when your strengths lie in the passing game and the pass defense, it becomes more important to get the run defense and running game back on par with the other areas. That’s basically my argument.

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 10, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

apologies for the misunderstanding

I wouldn’t see a WR or CB pick as trying to improve the strength (at least in the long term view) as much as maintaining it. Indy’s proven they can be successful passing the ball, defending the pass, and trying to pull together a run D and run O from what’s left. So I see keeping the Pass O and (to a lesser extent) the Pass D up to standard as an absolute necessity.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't even know what I'm replying to

I don’t want to get involved in the argument, but, I’d like to see the winning percentage of teams who had more carries than pass attempts vs teams that had more pass attempts than carries.

Seeing how running sets up the pass, I think it’d be a relevant stat.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Apr 10, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

you'd have to set a cutoff by score and time remaining

to separate out the running out the clock and passing to keep up.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

Then you have to take out garbage time passing numbers. That’s subjective. And if you’re winning, and running out the clock, that means you’re being successful at running does it not? If you can’t get a first down running, and you have to punt or try to pass (Bills vs Jets, Rosencopter vs Colts) I think it factors in. If you’re passing late in the game, Peyton has pretty much shown he can come back from some ridiculous deficits. That’s adding in a variable that is subjective. Over the course of thousands of games, as mgrex03 uses, it’ll balance itself out.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Apr 10, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions

teams clearly run more when they are leading late

and pass more when they are down. That would massively skew the results of any pure att vs win% numbers.

Teams wouldn’t win because they were running more, they’d be running more because they are winning. You don’t have to go into games subjectively. Just look at it through 3 quarters or something similar when the score is far less likely to effect the run-pass ratio.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions

do I really have to link FO's "Kneel to Win" article again?

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Uh

No, and no need to be condescending. Trust me, I read it before you linked it. However, what I am saying, is that running the ball late in a game, even while leading, is a strategy to win. Just keeping the ball away from their offense is a victory if you have the lead. Maybe if you do a cutoff of leading by 17 or more with 2 minutes remaining, then I could see a cutoff. But even that isn’t a surefire win, as proven by Peyton numerous times. That’s why it’s subjective. You could be down 16 points and score, convert a 2 point conversion, onside recovery, score 2 point conversion. If you have to punt the ball because you can’t convert by running, the other team has succeeded, not you. It doesn’t matter if you’re winning or not. Just look at the San Diego game. We were leading, so we were running. We couldn’t get anywhere running, so we passed. So under what you’re saying, we should count the yards from passing, but not the rushing yards? That’s not a very even measuring stick. And using 3 quarters is a bit silly too. If the Colts are up by two field goals, and we’re playing Carolina with 4 minutes to go in the fourth, they’re PROBABLY going to try to run on us even though they’re losing. And they stand a good chance to be successful while giving Peyton little to no time on the field. That’s why you can’t introduce a variable into it. You DON’T KNOW what would happen. What’s the cutoff for time? What’s the cutoff for score? That’s subjective.

If you are running the ball, regardless if you are winning or not, you’re imposing your gameplan on the other team if you’re being successful. I’d think 3rd and 2 would basically be the evidence of that.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Apr 10, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions

the issue is that after a certain point

the causality flips.

If you are running the ball, regardless if you are winning or not,

The problems is that teams are very often running the ball because they are winning.

Preferably to find the relative importance of pass vs run I’d use efficiency stats vs win%.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Alright

So by that logic, every TD, yards, anything gained while rushing should just be thrown out the window? If Bettis scores that TD in the playoffs in 2005, it doesn’t count? That’s absurd. The Colts would’ve failed to keep him out of the endzone. However, when we recovered the fumble, and if Peyton had thrown a TD, or Vanderjagt makes the FG, we go to OT and possibly win. Do you not see that? I mean that’s pretty simple.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Apr 10, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions

what is this stuff about only rushing yards not counting?

I’m not sure where it’s coming from. I was just suggesting removing an obvious source of bias from the numbers if you were going to run them. Look at pass vs run ratio through 3 quarters when the numbers are more than likely causing the score as opposed to being caused by the score.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I'd say it's really all about...

Number of and time of possessions. Peyton Manning is one of the best QBs in the history of the NFL, but he’s no better than Jim Sorgi when he’s sitting on the sidelines. We MUST do something to get him the ball more often and the running game improvement is needed to keep drives going because if only Peyton and the WRs are able to keep drives going its too easy for defenses to throw everything at Peyton with the pass rush and keep people back to make it difficult for the receivers to get open.

by bamock on Apr 10, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

When we cant stop the run, Manning is on the sidelines longer than he should be. We all witnessed it plenty of times last year. But im confident that Coyer and Caldwell are gonna fix this. They are gonna bring alot to this defense.

by ColtsPurdueFanFromKY on Apr 10, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Bingo

Time of possession and controlling the clock. When you get to the playoffs, you aren’t playing Houston, Cincinnati and Detroit anymore. You are playing against good teams which have also won 10-12 games (usually) and have good coaches that know how to game plan.

I can’t even think of the last playoff game that I walked away from thinking that the Colts out-gameplanned the other team….it is almost ALWAYS the other way around. If the other team knows that the Colts can’t run the ball against anyone and they are going to pass 40 times, the other team can blitz a LB and drop 7-8 into coverage, all the while pressing the WR’s at the line and making Peyton look average because no one can get open.

At the same time, if the other team knows that, typically, the Colts win with Peyton and the passing game, they will run the ball down our throats to eat up the clock, keep Peyton on the sidelines and wear out our midget defenders.

And if the Colts are content with that, then fine. But the fans have an expectation that the Colts have one of the top 3 greatest QBs in history and should put a Super Bowl product and gameplan on the field and not expect that the other team isn’t going to learn something from what ended up being an almost meaningless regular season game and use it to beat us when it counts.

by AceOfSpades on Apr 10, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

+1

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Apr 10, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Completely agree

I don’t see how some people dont realize this. But I dont want to sit through another year like last year, where we are great at passing/pass defense but we cant get it done on either sides of the running game. Why would someone rather have Hakeem Nicks over Jerry or Hood? Its sad when our DTs look like linebackers. Our front 7 got pushed around so bad in some games. Our passing game alone cant win the Super Bowl, the Colts have to get it done in the trenches, and Coyer is someone who knows that. An improved run offense/defense is going to make Manning alot better than Hakeem Nicks in the slot.

by ColtsPurdueFanFromKY on Apr 10, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions

for the record

I want Jerry and Hood over Nicks. There might be someone out there that wants Nicks over the DTs, but I can’t remember anyone so would be inclined to call that a strawman.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I wasnt referring to you particuarly

I recall you saying on here many times that Jerry is the guy you want in the 1st

by ColtsPurdueFanFromKY on Apr 11, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Couldn't have said it shorter yourself

by ctnyc on Apr 12, 2009 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions

And when mgrex gets to the Time of Possession stat I requested,

we’ll see how much “controlling the clock” is related to winning. Common sense doesn’t always rule. A team can have horrible time of possession and still win most of their games if they are scoring quickly or if their defense is of the bend, but don’t break variety. I’m very curious of the results.

Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.

Man, I need a life...

Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: In my bedroom, I have 3 footballs with both Mike Vanderjagt's and Gilbert Gardner's signatures on them. Interesting story. Maybe I'll tell you about it sometime.

by Cassieper on Apr 11, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions

True Cass...

However, put the ball in the hands (increase TOP) for a team who scores quickly = what? Avg. score in 4 min… 6 min. more TOP an extra 3-7 points a game. Right?

by bamock on Apr 11, 2009 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Bingo!

Very well said Ace. Lets just take the offense… if we can run and have a good Oline it improve are passing game as well by forcing teams out of Nickel and Dime formations. It was so bad last year teams were running Nickel on us on 1st down.

In football everything feeds off each other and right now we have passing and pass defense covered; now its time to focus on running and run defense.

by MasterRWayne on Apr 11, 2009 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions

Could not agree more

with AceOfSpades. I remember having an argument here last year about the “we do what we do” approach that Dungy had to making adjustments. I never understood why he had that attitude. I hope Caldwell shows a little more versatility and spontaneity.

by ctnyc on Apr 12, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions

I miss the good ole days of excellent run defense

You know, year 10,999,997,992 B.C.

by LovinBlue on Apr 10, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I've said this before regarding drafting a WR in the few couple rounds:

I don’t think adding a WR is a neccessity for the offense right now. Either way, I will not be against whatever Polian and the Colts decide to do with that first pick even if its a WR. If the Colts do not draft a WR, it won’t be because they think it will take too much time to groom that player while Manning is coming to an end of his career. He still has at least 5 seasons left in my opinion, so really they could add more talent around him while his talent starts to decline just a bit in that last season or two and still have that prolific offense, while possibly making the transition to a new QB hopefully better.

Im neutral on drafting a WR in the first but
What about when Manning is going into his last 2 or 3 years at whichever age (could be from 35-37 or 37-39)? Gonzo will be at his best, Wayne will be on his decline but still effective, Clark should still be really effective, but I wouldn’t mind having another receiving threat . If Warner, who’s old, did not have the receiving core he had this year, the Cardinals would not have gone to the Super Bowl and Warner would be retired. If Farve had Arizona’s recieving core, Farve would still be in the league. They have helped prolong his career, which could be the case with Manning but how dare I compare Warner and Manning with a little touch of Farve. Im just saying the more talent the better as Mannings career comes to an end his last couple of seasons.

by ColtsFanNChiTown on Apr 10, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Okay

So what about Brady and Roethlisberger (sp?)? I don’t think he Steelers have all world WRs, but they can run the ball and stop the run. That, with a little situational game-planning and hard nosed execution, got them 2 Super Bowls in 4 years.

Brady and the Pats actually accomplished less once they started getting high profile receivers. They won the SB with lesser talent on offense and more playmakers and smarter players on defense.

by AceOfSpades on Apr 10, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions

despite their traditional image the steelers weren't much of a ground team

29th in YPC, 15th in DVOA, 23rd in yards.

on the defensive side they could definitely stop the run, HOWEVER. They were the number 1 pass D, yardage D and scoring D. They were not the top run D (they were second to the Vikings, a team that could run the ball and stop the run and the pass, but couldn’t pass their way out of a paper bag).

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Oline

OLine and pass blocking are much more important to a QB then any receiver will ever be and what use is a million receiving threats if you have no running game to keep defenses guessing?

by MasterRWayne on Apr 10, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Im with you there

If theres no running game Manning is more predictable. If we cant stop the run, we have to sit there and watch teams run it down our throat like we all saw many times last year…and as a result Manning was not on the field near as much as he should have been. If we have balance, he will be alot better off than he would with another 1st round receiver

by ColtsPurdueFanFromKY on Apr 10, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Huh?

Yes and that has netted us ONE Super Bowl. If we would put more picks into Oline and Dline we would be better served there rather than upgrading a position that is already stacked. Again this isn’t a hard concept… you fix the things that need improving rather than wasting your time improving what is already great.

by MasterRWayne on Apr 10, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm for improving the lines

of the players that are likely to drop my top 2 are DTs and 3 of my top 5 are on the line (and a 4th is a RB which I’m sure you also approve of). I don’t believe in taking an inferior player when there is a better one who is also at a position where he can contribute.

I’ve said again and again. I’m not against building the lines. I’m for taking the best player that can contribute to the team. That includes the line and a few other spots.

by shake n bake on Apr 10, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Even though...

At the 27th pick we will have the opportunity to take one of the best interior linemen in the past 10 years in Mack and Robinson? Or a top rated DT, OT or LB could fall to us as well? I think those are better options than taking a WR. Again the talent level with the top 50 picks. Just think about it… trying to differentiate the talent levels of the top 50 college football players in the world. Its almost impossible to pick a BPA from that group and thats why your “BPA” argument is such bull. The talent is just too close and therefore its more about the players attitude (are they coachable?), injury history, college experience and team needs. BPA starts to play a much bigger role in rounds 3-7 when the talent gap widens significantly.

by MasterRWayne on Apr 11, 2009 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't think the talent level is so close over the top 50

I think their are clear significant differences in the value of top 50 players.

YOU think there is no big difference between the top 50, so YOU think my BPA argument is bull. Simply restating over and over an assumption we don’t share doesn’t convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with you. Try to convince me/us the top 50 is nearly the same in value, or drop it.

by shake n bake on Apr 11, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I think the numbers alone support MRW’s assessment anyways. There are thousands of colleges, and even more college football players. If you think that there are only 32 players in the entire country worthy of a first round pick then that’s just crazy.

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 11, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions

you could use that exact argument on anything

so there’s no top elite group in anything? There are thousands of people that played QB at a high level If you think that there are only 32 players in the entire country worthy of being a NFL starter then that’s just crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

by shake n bake on Apr 11, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions

wat?

This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
Oh and I write words and stuff for Stampede Blue.

by KingRichard on Apr 11, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

wat wat?

which part didn’t you get?

by shake n bake on Apr 11, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

You're asking for a big picture...

And really that is difficult to do. There are SOOO many variables it is fruitless, nearly, to pose the question this way. I respect where you’re going with this and will even rec. the post. However, what will be available and what people want may conflict. Also, the MVPA could differ based on who is available, to pick a position and lock it down to a round is almost impossible to do, I assure Bill Polian has NEVER done this. I like how you’re thinking, I’m just not sure it works this way. In fact, it is that it doesn’t work this way that I even put the time and energy into writing YOU DECIDE posts on different positions which I feel could be legitimate in EVERY round, including the first. However, maybe for others it is a simpler way to think of it. So… Rec’d.

by bamock on Apr 10, 2009 4:46 AM EDT reply actions

Good post

I do like the effort, and it’s a very good post, but let me give you some advice. Everytime you put up a combo of players to take, you have to have decent knowledge of every other teams needs, who fits their system, who has a propensity to reach in previous drafts, who the wildcard teams are (Raiders, Detroit etc.), and which teams are switching systems and who’s in charge of the team now. You pretty much have to visualize each scenario. Quite a few teams would take him simply because he’s BPA and they might not need him now, but in a year or two they might. The absolute bottom end I see for Hood would be pick # 54 or 55. Having a backup for Williams ready to go if they get suspended or to be the successor to Pat Williams (who’s going to be 37 years old this season) would be a huge present for them. And if Atlanta skips DT in the first, which I kind of have a hard time thinking they do, there’s no doubt in my mind they’ll take Hood.

Now you mention trading down to try to get this to work. Well, if we trade down and Hood’s looking like he might come to our pick, you’ve left the door wide open for someone to trade up to take him. It’s not nearly as expensive to move up in the second as it is in the first. And several teams would be more than willing to give up their pick to get extra ones later.

I mean I’d LOVE, absolutely LOVE this draft :

1. Laurinaitis (LB)
2. Gilbert (If I was going to do a what if, I’d be putting Gilbert in round 2, not Hood) (UT)
3. Jennings (RB)
4. Baker (NT)
4. Barden (WR)
5. Phillips (LB)
6. Parrish (OT)
7. Boone (OT)

The thing is, there’s about a 1% chance of those dudes being available in those rounds.

Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.

by monstersbox on Apr 10, 2009 9:16 AM EDT reply actions

Yo people! Rec this puppy

I just did.

SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Apr 10, 2009 4:07 PM EDT reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Stats Prove It: Brady Is Now a Choker

by rmexico6000 9 days ago

135 comments | 8 recs

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Network Bar

Stampede Blue -

Analyzing our drafting possibilities, and grading them

Which option do you like the most?

A: WR-DT

B: DT-WR

C: LB-DT

D: DT-LB

E: LB-WR

F: WR-LB

Neither, we need to draft a HB, OT, etc. on Day One.

Do you like this story?

Comments

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Secondary Sidebar

Search

User Tools

FanPosts

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

Recent Posts

In Association With

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Vox Media Hot Topics

Community Masthead

Head Writer, Editor-In-Chief

Contributing Writers

SB Nation Newsletters