Grantland: Colts Have Sucked At Drafting Since 2007
Former Football Outsiders and current Grantland writer Bill Barnwell has penned a nice little column telling us Colts fans something we already knew (and some of us refuse to admit): The Colts have been terrible in the draft from 2007 to the present.
Don't believe what you read. The 0-13 season endured by this year's dreadful Indianapolis Colts team didn't start with a 27-point loss to the Texans in Week 1. It didn't start with their 20-point loss to the Rams in the opening week of the NFL preseason in August. It didn't start when Peyton Manning underwent neck fusion surgery, or when he was placed on the Physically Unable to Perform list, or even when he first started feeling neck pain all the way back in February. No; this disastrous waste of the disposable income of the fine people of Indianapolis dates back much further than all that. In fact, it started all the way back in April of 2007, while the Colts were basking in the glow of their first Super Bowl win since 1970.
The article offers a wonderful summary of just how bad things have been for the Colts front office since they won the Super Bowl in 2007 (for the 2006 season). For frequent readers of our little blog, Barnwell's observations about the drafts will not read as anything revealing. Only the staunchest of Polian defenders, or the abjectly insane, continue to trumpet that the Colts drafted well from 2007 to today.
Or, in the case of Nate Dunlevy, who is already attacking Barnwell for his logical and insightful piece, both.
Look, I can understand people having a 'wait and see' approach to the 2011 draft class, especially a player like Anthony Castonzo. That makes sense. But for 2007-2010, the Colts drafts are awful.
No, really. They were.
If you can't face that now, you're not just carrying water for the team, you're parting oceans for them.
You make 'blind homers' look like Skip Bayless with X-Ray vision. If you're like our ole buddy Nate, who is still clinging desperately to this funny little notion that the 2008 draft was the most efficient Colts draft ever (HA!), it's just hard to take you seriously on this subject, especially after Barnwell has now, essentially, validated all the work done by people like Matt Grecco in recent months.
That said, we eagerly await Nate's next article, which we estimate will be a 10,000 word mad ranting attempting to 'convince' Barnwell that his logical opinions on the Colts recent drafts are 'WRONG!' Should be a fun read.
Grantland: The Collapse Of The Colts Has Been Years In The Making
41 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
He is wrong about Donald Brown's future
Then it became too long to read, and while I mostly agree I wonder if he mentioned draft positions.
hahahahah i did the same thing
Fav fighters - Machida, Faber, Koch, Hominick, Pettis, Hardy, Stout, Cerrone and killer Cain
"I'm so fast that, last night, I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Ali
So
Bill Barnwell writes a hit piece (never forget that Grantland’s founding editor is a notorious Patriots partisan) and he’s a genius. Nate Dunlevy researches the issue to reach a rational conclusion and he’s the crazy one?
Injuries?
You can call a player a bust if they underachieve as a result of injuries, I get it. But to say that it’s a shitty job of drafting because a player got injured down the road doesn’t makes shit’s worth of sense. This article is complete hindsight. I am not really sure how you can blame Gonzo’s injuries on bad drafting. Call him a bust, but I wouldn’t say he was a shitty pick. If healthy, he’s a great player. You can’t scout for freak circumstance and unpredicatable scenarios. I suppose the Redskins did a terrible job of drafting wen they picked Sean Taylor because he was killed. If Andrew Luck gets drafted and then dies or gets injured is that the FO’s fault? Is that shitty drafting? If Edge doesn’t regain his form after his ACL, I guess the Colts did a terrible job of drafting with him too.
by steveoly32 on Dec 16, 2011 3:43 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Its not that it's a bad pick
it’s the fact that he refuses time after time to admit the player can’t play for whatever the reason talent or injury. It hurts the team because they hang on to too many players for too long and it prevents them from bringing in players that might be able to play.
Actually the reason they hang on to players tend to be for financial reasons and because whatever free agent they could grab wouldn’t be any real different.
The sad thing is Edge didn't really regain his form as much as he evolved his game.
One of my biggest Colts regrets is that torn ACL.
How does he do it?
Very good article
I agreed with all of it except this:
“With 16 games of Manning, the Colts would have likely been a 6-10 or 7-9 team.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
moron
we would have been 11-5 or 10-6 and won our division
Fav fighters - Machida, Faber, Koch, Hominick, Pettis, Hardy, Stout, Cerrone and killer Cain
"I'm so fast that, last night, I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Ali
uhm
11-5 or 10-6 might not be enough to win this division. The Texans are 10-3 already, and would be regardless of whether Manning played. That Week 1 game is among the games I’ve got in the hypothetical “losses even with Manning” column.
thats fair then
see i had us winning that with manning
and winning our other meeting.. at the worst splitting the pair
Fav fighters - Machida, Faber, Koch, Hominick, Pettis, Hardy, Stout, Cerrone and killer Cain
"I'm so fast that, last night, I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Ali
Just like last year, Week 1 was their Super Bowl. They prepared well and whooped ass last year, and that was with a shit defense. The result would likely be the same this year. But yeah, next thursday’s game at home, especially against Yates, would’ve been a different story.
Then again, the only reason the Colts beat them last year at home was because Kubiak’s game planning and coaching was so abysmal. It’s possible that their run game alone would still be enough to beat a Manning-led Colts 2011 team.
Who knows. I’m just trying to be conservative. And even the conservative me only sees losses to Houston, New Orleans, maybe Atlanta, maybe New England, and Baltimore. Certainly enough to win a wild card even without beating out Houston. Just enough to give us all hope before another colossal D/ST letdown in the playoffs.
To me it’s just as well. The AFC is toast against the Packers/Saints anyway. If it’s truly Super Bowl or bust, the degree to which the bust happens isn’t really all that relevant to me. Might as well get better picks out of it.
This is a great assessment
I think we could have beat baltimore for sure. We didn’t even play that terrible for a team with absolutely no confidence
Fav fighters - Machida, Faber, Koch, Hominick, Pettis, Hardy, Stout, Cerrone and killer Cain
"I'm so fast that, last night, I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Ali
Could go either way. While obviously Manning’s presence would necessarily mean the other team approached the game differently (meaning you can’t just say “Manning’s worth 14 points per game so the game would’ve just ended as Colts+14”) the Ravens game is the one that I think might have had the most difference in their play… I think that if necessary, their offense could’ve done a lot more that game. The Ravens are very Jekyll and Hyde, which is why I refuse to take them (mostly Flacco) seriously as a SB threat, but on the days when Flacco is playing well and Cameron isn’t being stupid, their offense can be pretty incredible. So while yeah, a Manning-led Colts team could still win, the Ravens on that day probably eased off on the throttle offensively too. I didn’t see as much of that from any other team on the schedule, or at least I didn’t get the sense that they were capable of much much more.
His draft analysis, like many others, is based entirely on the first round.
And, no, it’s impossible to argue that the Colts have drafted as well in the first round as they did from 1998 to 2006. But that doesn’t mean that the drafts have been “terrible.” It means they are finally regressing to the mean in the first round. Do you realize how unlikely it is to get a player like Reggie Wayne at the 30th pick? The Colts run was amazing! Just because there’s been a drop off doesn’t mean that it’s terrible. The “it’s either great or it’s awful” method of analyzing drafts is incredibly naive and stupid.
But the article, and BBS’s analysis forgets all about the later picks, as well as comparing the Colts drafts to other teams. People like Nate Dunleavy and others have done that work. And it turns out well for the Colts. Comparing the 2007-2010 first rounders to the 1998-2006 first rounders will definitely show a drop off. But that doesn’t mean that the whole drafts are “terrible.” That’s just lazy.
by James Broschat on Dec 16, 2011 3:56 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Idiotic
Both the Grantland article and this.
Mr. Wells, if you want to know why people are are frustrated with you and the direction of this blog, it’s because of amateurish pieces like this. Insulting and denigrating those who are more optimistic than you (and who don’t have some vendetta against the front office) is just childish and downright sloppy.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make their points or evidence any less valid. Honestly, the shoddy attack pieces sans research you seem to spit out every week are far more difficult to take you seriously.
by TrueBlue87 on Dec 16, 2011 4:25 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Derp derp more of the same
No attempt to quantify performance, other than OMG HUGHES HAS ONLY ONE SACK.
No attempt to account for draft position. You mean Edge was a better pick than Brown?? Who could have guessed?!?
No comparison to how other teams drafted. You think Pollack is a bust? Ask Tampa how Dexter Jackson is working out for them.
Throw in a healthy dose of cherry picking. Apparently Gonzo is a bust because he got hurt but Sanders gets a pass. Oh, and I guess this year we love Addai and hate Brown so we just won’t mention all the hate Addai was still getting hate well into his third year with the Colts. He’s great now and Brown’s a bust. A guy wrote the words down so it must be true. Derp.
Of course it’s a lazy piece. It’s comparing the biggest misses of the last five years to the biggest hits of the previous nine. Wow, I’m on the edge of my seat wondering how this comparison will play out. Is there some competition to see who can write the biggest hackjob on the post-2006 Colts?
Using logic against the Colts hate has become completely pointless. It’s not like bringing a knife to a gunfight, it’s like bringing bacon to a foam party; the two things just have no relation to each other.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
by szquirrel on Dec 16, 2011 5:11 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Loved the response, however "Ask Tampa how Dexter Jackson is working out for them." made me laugh.
Considering he won Super Bowl XXXVII MVP, I think he worked out just fine for them.
EVH+DLR=BFFs........ God I Hope So!!
You're thinking of the wrong Dexter Jackson.
Dexter Jackson got taken right before Mike Pollak and has exactly 0 career NFL catches.
What if Peyton was fightin' dogs instead of Mike Vick?
-Jadakiss
by melvin shot out of a gun bullit on Dec 17, 2011 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Totally wasn't aware of this. Thanks for letting me know.
That makes a lot more sense then.
EVH+DLR=BFFs........ God I Hope So!!
I like his comparison to the late 90's 49ers with Steve Young....
To our current situation. I think it is a valid point.
Does not take a brain surgeon
to figure out Colts have missed on a lot of picks lately
Apparently it does, gauging by all of the responses.
Funny thing is I never visit 18to88. Why? Don’t want to read blind homerism.
by SoCalHoosier on Dec 16, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
You can't compare apples to oranges
Unless your BBS trying to prove a point. You won’t read Nate but you’ll read BBS who links his own articles to prove a point.
by VERNON HOWELL on Dec 16, 2011 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
It’s more like comparing urine and feces. Both vain fools who think they know more about football than they really do and clearly have an agenda.
by southerncolt2 on Dec 16, 2011 10:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That's not their point.
I think their point is that they don’t need anyone (BBS or Nate) to tell them whether the picks have been good or bad. You can see how they’re doing by watching them play. Someone using stats to show that our draft picks mediocre play is actually good doesn’t make me feel good. It just tells me we shouldn’t expect much more out of them, and we need to replace them.
I guess if it makes you feel better to know that we, statistically, are doing as mediocre as most other teams in drafting then that’s nice for you. But that’s not really an attitude that wins Superbowls. We may not have had many high draft choices, but we nailed guys like Saturday and Bethea (without which we probably would not have made either Superbowl). You’ve got to hit on some of the late round talent. You cannot depend on a streak of top 10 draft picks to remain competitive.
by ActionOxford on Dec 16, 2011 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
There isn’t even blind homerism anymore. It’s just either threats claiming that getting rid of Polian will set the team back for a decade or advertisements for his books. Lately there was a flashy video of a book signing edited oddly so that it seemed they were trying to hide that nobody was there buying Nate’s books. Good stuff.
by southerncolt2 on Dec 16, 2011 10:43 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I've stayed away from this site for about 3 weeks.
I came back to see if anythings changed and I see it hasn’t.
by VERNON HOWELL on Dec 16, 2011 10:30 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I have to preface the meat of my comment with the fact that I think 18to88 is absolute garbage and merely the ramblings of a pompous tool who has never played a down of organized football or possibly any team sport. He spends most of his time hocking his crappy books these days. He’s actually convinced his readers that Don Brown is not a mediocre player but an elite playmaker, that line play is irrelevant, and that playoff success is roll of the dice luck. All 3 of those things make my brain hurt with their idiocy. However he’s right about drafting being a crapshoot. We really haven’t done worse or better than I expect. The only inexcusable choice was Hughes when scouting reports said he was useless in our defensive scheme.
by southerncolt2 on Dec 16, 2011 10:40 PM EST via mobile reply actions
This story is as close to reality as it gets
Some people refuse to accept it, or just don’t want to even look at any other alternative that doesn’t include Manning. Get used to it folks!!!!! Colts need to make a clean break of anything related to Polian, Caldwell, or Manning. I don’t think anyone will be knocking down Caldwell or Polian’s door. Manning, that is another story. He will certainly find somewhere else to play, IF, and that is a HUGE if, if he is able to play. If he is, I still don’t think it makes much business sense to pay all that money to a 36 year old QB off of 3 neck surgeries. Go with Luck, hire a new head coach, bring in Norv Turner to run the offense, Mike Singletary to run the defense, then go from there. I’ve said a lot of the same things some of these articles have said but whatever, I’m going to keep posting. I love the Colts and I’m going to keep voicing my concerns or ways to improve, even if some are just a “wish list”. I haven’t read too many suggestions that was any better than mine or any less outlandish. Some of you need to get over yourselves and be a fan and stop acting like you are better or “smarter” than the rest of the posters. We all have different ideas and opinions, doesn’t make it wrong or any less plausible than the next person.
by Dito29 on Dec 17, 2011 12:06 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

by 

































