Finally, Someone Gets It!

[WarGhost21]

http://www.espn.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/20240/colts-need-for-an-offensive-lineman-in-the-first-round-isnt-as-big-as-it-looks

 

Over half of the mocks I've seen on the web have the Colts grabbing a OL in the 1st! Maybe this will put a stop to that once and for all!

[UKColt13]

If we take an OL in the first I might cry.

[ColtsBlitz]

If Mike Wells can see it, I'm sure Ballard can too. Hopefully it's a CB or LB, whatever has the best available player remaining

[NewColtsFan]

 

While I basically agree with the concept of not using a high pick on an offensive lineman (I have the Colts taking an OL in the 4th round, but Lamp is my exception.)    I'll go ahead and make the counter-argument here....

 

If our new and improved OL,  with Haeg at RG and Clark at RT,  is slow to get going this year then the media will be screaming bloody murder.   The first time Luck gets sacked or hit hard because of a problem on the right side,  Ballard is going to hear sounds he's never heard before in his life.   

 

Here's roughly what the media will say and write....

 

"The Colts have had 6 years to try and protect Andrew Luck and despite firing their old General Manager,  the new guy didn't learn from that!      The Colts STILL can't protect Luck!   Why didn't the Colts use their 1st round pick on ________ and finally be done with it?!?"    It'll be something along those lines,  except it not only will come from local media,  it will also come from national media too.    Inside the walls at Indy headquarters,  the noise will be incredibly loud and uncomfortable.

 

Politically speaking,  Ballard could stand up and say,  "I have this job, in part,  because the Colts have not protected Andrew Luck very well,  and I'm not going to make the same mistake.    I'm fixing that right now and we can now go and address the defense."      He'd be completely covered.    With what Luck has gone through the last two years it's hard to make an argument that getting Luck more O-line help is a poor decision.    And the downside of not getting more top-flight help would be huge....

 

[aaron11]

doesnt really matter what mocks say, or what we say here for that matter

 

the team will grab who they want, and ballard has preached BPA since hes been here

[backshoulderfade]

A stopped clock is right twice a day. That's the case here with Wells.

[#12.]

Luck missed half of last season and is currently recovering from surgery.  If I were Ballard, I would be inclined  to protect Luck and worry about everything else later.  No Luck, no team.  With no Luck, the overall difference to the team between Reuben Foster and what we currently have would be negligible.  

 

Plus, you can't fix it all in one year anyway, so protect your biggest asset first.

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, #12. said:

Luck missed half of last season and is currently recovering from surgery.  If I were Ballard, I would be inclined  to protect Luck and worry about everything else later.  No Luck, no team.  With no Luck, the overall difference to the team between Reuben Foster and what we currently have would be negligible.  

 

Plus, you can't fix it all in one year anyway, so protect your biggest asset first.

some of that is on luck himself, not the line

 

like when he chases down line backers trying to make a big tackle in pre season games. 

[21isSuperman]

If, for example, Lamp is the best player available by a wide margin, I have no problem with Ballard taking him.  If guys like Foster aren't available and the Colts can't find someone to trade down with, I wouldn't be upset with Lamp

[jvan1973]

[PeterBowman]

8 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

If, for example, Lamp is the best player available by a wide margin, I have no problem with Ballard taking him.  If guys like Foster aren't available and the Colts can't find someone to trade down with, I wouldn't be upset with Lamp

same here, he could be a plug and play player like Kelly was last year. And Ballard did say he'd go trenches if all else was equal anyways. If he went Offense at 15 this is who I'd want.

[21isSuperman]

6 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

same here, he could be a plug and play player like Kelly was last year. And Ballard did say he'd go trenches if all else was equal anyways. If he went Offense at 15 this is who I'd want.

I'd certainly rather have him than McCaffrey in the first round

[Coltfreak]

Just now, 21isSuperman said:

If, for example, Lamp is the best player available by a wide margin, I have no problem with Ballard taking him.  If guys like Foster aren't available and the Colts can't find someone to trade down with, I wouldn't be upset with Lamp

Much like last yr. We had the chance to get the #1 OC in the draft.   His value was a little lower than where he was drafted.   But he was the best player in the draft at that position.  And #2 and 3 where not near as good.  There was no chance we were going to get him in the second or even if we traded back. So they made a slight reach that was well worth it.    Lamp is bar far IMO the best Olineman in the draft, and he can play multiple positions.  He will not be available in the second.  He has the possibility to move to LT once a decision is made on AC when his contract comes up.   The drop off at Oline is substantial but the drop off on LB's and CB's etc is not near as big after the top couple of guys that we wont have a chance for anyway.

 

If they take Lamp in the first they will still get quality on the D side in rounds 2-5.  If they take D with the 1st the Olineman later will probably be JAG.

 

So they need to decide if Haeg is the future RG and go from there.

 

 

[PeterBowman]

I tell you what....imagine an O line consisting of Castonzo, Mewhort, Kelly, Lamp, Clark and Haeg as the jack of all trades back up.

 

If Clark keeps improving like he did the last part of last year, this could be more than just a solid O line, but a VERY GOOD o line.

[2006Coltsbestever]

28 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

If, for example, Lamp is the best player available by a wide margin, I have no problem with Ballard taking him.  If guys like Foster aren't available and the Colts can't find someone to trade down with, I wouldn't be upset with Lamp

I am not so sure we shouldn't take Lamp no matter who is there. I know we need Defense but we also need to build a wall to protect #12 so both are equally important IMO. I would be fine with Lamp.

[PeterBowman]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am not so sure we shouldn't take Lamp no matter who is there. I know we need Defense but we also need to build a wall to protect #12 so both are equally important IMO. I would be fine with Lamp.

You know I'm actually feeling this way and it's the same way I felt last year around this close to the draft about Ryan Kelly. It's not sexy but it really makes sense. Yes D is a priority but so is protecting Luck. Now if they view Haeg as the future RG, then great and go D. But if not, I don't see a problem with Lamp at all.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

You know I'm actually feeling this way and it's the same way I felt last year around this close to the draft about Ryan Kelly. It's not sexy but it really makes sense. Yes D is a priority but so is protecting Luck. Now if they view Haeg as the future RG, then great and go D. But if not, I don't see a problem with Lamp at all.

I feel the same way. The Cowboys picked O.Lineman for years and now Dak can sit in the pocket and eat a hamburger in there before he gets touched.

[alawai]

Nothing wrong with protecting your investment!

[masnerj]

After everything we have seen with Haeg and Clark, I think the coaching staff probably values Clark's chances at being the RT starter for years more than Haeg being the starter at RG for years. There is a reason that Haeg was picked so late. Even though he certainly outplayed his draft slot and has become a capable to decent starter for us who has incredible versatility, a decent NFL team doesn't just accept a "decent starter." 

 

I, for one, wouldn't be upset if we picked Lamp. He seems like a sure thing and would be good value (especially if we happen to drop down in the first or something and get him). Haeg is best suited as a very talented 6th OL rather than an outright starter. 

[DaColts85]

17 minutes ago, masnerj said:

After everything we have seen with Haeg and Clark, I think the coaching staff probably values Clark's chances at being the RT starter for years more than Haeg being the starter at RG for years. There is a reason that Haeg was picked so late. Even though he certainly outplayed his draft slot and has become a capable to decent starter for us who has incredible versatility, a decent NFL team doesn't just accept a "decent starter." 

Why do you say Clark has better chances starting at RT for years over Haeg starting at RG?  Just curious of why the "coaching staff" would say or see that?  Don't just base this off of a draft round either please.

[dodsworth]

2 hours ago, #12. said:

Luck missed half of last season and is currently recovering from surgery.  If I were Ballard, I would be inclined  to protect Luck and worry about everything else later.  No Luck, no team.  With no Luck, the overall difference to the team between Reuben Foster and what we currently have would be negligible.  

 

Plus, you can't fix it all in one year anyway, so protect your biggest asset first.

 

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

some of that is on luck himself, not the line

 

like when he chases down line backers trying to make a big tackle in pre season games. 

It's a combination of Grigson waiting until his last year to give some 

attention to the o line, play calling for slow forming routes and Luck 

holding onto the ball for 6 seconds when he only has 3.

[Superman]

Why do people continue to make prediction on the basis of perceived need? Needs based drafting isn't good drafting. 

[stitches]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

Why do people continue to make prediction on the basis of perceived need? Needs based drafting isn't good drafting. 

I think it's fair to do it when the argument you are responding to uses need-based drafting reasoning. For example if draft pundit says "The Colts need to protect Luck and here's an O-lineman to do it", it is very much reasonable to respond with - yes, we do need to protect Luck, but we might already have the people to do it on the roster, so drafting one in the first round might not be the best way to spend high end draft capital.

 

But overall I agree - as long as we get BPA, I don't care about what position it is(with a bit of wiggle room based on positional value).

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

I think it's fair to do it when the argument you are responding to uses need-based drafting reasoning. But overall I agree - as long as we get BPA, I don't care about what position it is(with a bit of wiggle room based on positional value).

 

We agree, but I'm responding to the idea that the Colts are going to make a first round pick on the basis of perceived need, on which Wells bases his entire position. Every year people do this, and every year, they miss the point: Good GMs don't reach for need.

 

Then, of course, people latch on to this flawed reasoning as confirmation of their own perception about what the Colts should/will do. At the end of the day, if the Colts take Lamp at #15, it will probably make the team better, and it will probably be a clear signal that they valued him higher than anyone on the board and they couldn't reach a good deal to move down. I'm fine with that.

 

The only issue I'll have is if they take a RB, WR or TE at #15 (or anywhere in the first, really). To me, that will signal that Ballard and crew aren't going to do a good job of maximizing value, but that's based on my perception of "value" as it relates to the Colts, and that's certainly not iron-clad fact, it's just my opinion. 

[OffensivelyPC]

The fact that you have to subjectively grade your needs  on top of subjectively grading prospects is proof you are twice as likely to screw it up. The less subjectivity there is the better. The only time needs come into play is if the BPA makes no sense at that pick (ie taking D Watson at 15) or you have 2 or more BPA options.

[D-lineman]

I  don't think a first round pick should be used on an offensive lineman; However I strongly believe either the second or third round pick should be used. Without Andrew luck, this team will not win regardless of how good the defense is. Luck has taken an utter beating since coming here. This is completely unacceptable. We still have many questions on our offensive line  including wondering if Jack Mewhort can stay healthy and who are right guard is going to be 

[BOTT]

9 hours ago, #12. said:

Luck missed half of last season and is currently recovering from surgery.  If I were Ballard, I would be inclined  to protect Luck and worry about everything else later.  No Luck, no team.  With no Luck, the overall difference to the team between Reuben Foster and what we currently have would be negligible.  

 

Plus, you can't fix it all in one year anyway, so protect your biggest asset first.

If the colts want to protect Luck they should have fired Chuck.

[jvan1973]

33 minutes ago, BOTT said:

If the colts want to protect Luck they should have fired Chuck.

How would firing Chuck protect luck?

[BOTT]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

How would firing Chuck protect luck?

The new coach would hire an OC the runs more of a quick rhythm offense that naturally protects the QB.  Plus, we have all seen the offense be far more efficient and effective when utilizing this philosophy.  

Chuck is the kind of guy that hires Bruce Arians....a guy known for letting his quarterbacks take a beating.

[jvan1973]

15 minutes ago, BOTT said:

The new coach would hire an OC the runs more of a quick rhythm offense that naturally protects the QB.  Plus, we have all seen the offense be far more efficient and effective when utilizing this philosophy.  

Chuck is the kind of guy that hires Bruce Arians....a guy known for letting his quarterbacks take a beating.

Impossible to know who Ballard and Irsay would hire

[BOTT]

9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Impossible to know who Ballard and Irsay would hire

True, but if they can't see the obvious, shame on them.

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

True, but if they can't see the obvious, shame on them.

If either found it obvious,  chud would be fired

[BOTT]

43 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If either found it obvious,  chud would be fired

Not necessarily. 

 

Don't won't to undermine Chuck 

 

Dont won't a new OC given that Luck won't be ready till training camp.

 

Dont won't to bring in a new OC when they might have a new HC next season.

[NewColtsFan]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

Why do people continue to make prediction on the basis of perceived need? Needs based drafting isn't good drafting. 

 

A number of points....    

 

I think there is more needs based drafting throughout the NFL than you're willing to acknowledge.    Even by good teams.

 

When the Colts took Moncrief with the 90th pick,  I think that was an obvious case of BPA....   WR was not a huge need,  but Moncreif was not supposed to be sitting there at 90,  so we grabbed him.    I was thrilled, too good to pass up.

 

But, specific to 2017,  this is a very unique draft.    Other than DT,  every position on the defensive side of the ball is stocked with quality and quantity.      How often does that happen?     So, we can literally pick what we want, when we want.      With that as the back-drop,  why wouldn't you take pass rush and corner as your first two picks (in either order) when you wouldn't be reaching?     They're the two most important positions on defense,  and they're our biggest need.      Why not do that?

 

Other positions will be there in the mid and late rounds.

 

I read a story recently that said a number of GM's believe that from roughly the middle of the 1st round to the middle of the 2nd round,  the grades for those 32 guys won't vary much.      Pick 48 might be just as good as pick 17.      This is a very unique draft indeed.

 

That said,  I've already posted numerous times that I'm incredibly interested in guys like Lamp and Reddick and Foster none of whom play OLB or Corner.     (I don't see Reddick as an Edge guy though he can clearly play it)    So,  I'm perfectly willing to break from my desire to address our two biggest needs.

 

I think the Colts are sitting pretty in this draft.     We can address so many of our needs.    And if we're lucky enough to find a few trading partners,   then we might just be able to fill more needs than we thought possible.

 

[Shepman]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We agree, but I'm responding to the idea that the Colts are going to make a first round pick on the basis of perceived need, on which Wells bases his entire position. Every year people do this, and every year, they miss the point: Good GMs don't reach for need.

 

Then, of course, people latch on to this flawed reasoning as confirmation of their own perception about what the Colts should/will do. At the end of the day, if the Colts take Lamp at #15, it will probably make the team better, and it will probably be a clear signal that they valued him higher than anyone on the board and they couldn't reach a good deal to move down. I'm fine with that.

 

The only issue I'll have is if they take a RB, WR or TE at #15 (or anywhere in the first, really). To me, that will signal that Ballard and crew aren't going to do a good job of maximizing value, but that's based on my perception of "value" as it relates to the Colts, and that's certainly not iron-clad fact, it's just my opinion. 

So you wouldn't take O J Howard at 15 because he is a TE?  Better go back to definition of BPA and read again.

[Yoshinator]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

Why do people continue to make prediction on the basis of perceived need? Needs based drafting isn't good drafting. 

Two reasons. 1st.) Ballard has said he wants to build the trenches, and O-Line (Lamp in particular) could be a big part of that where we pick. 2.) We don't know what type of GM Chris Ballard is in the draft yet, so we are guessing how he would approach the draft. Could be by need or BPA, we don't know yet what he'll do. He's never picked players in a draft before. Zero sample size.

[AZColt11]

To me, it's not so much what position you pick as much as it is what you could have had instead.  IF an OL is the best guy available, and the value is there, you take him.  If he isn't, you go with someone else.  IMHO, Lamp is the only guy I would even consider taking that high, and I would think about moving down at that.

[ClaytonColt]

That article makes sense to me. 

 

Genuinely can't believe how giddy this forum gets about offensive linemen. It's as if people believe that Luck will have 8 seconds to throw the ball and never get touched if we put yet another high pick on the line.

 

We all want to protect Luck. Every team wants to protect their quarterback but none of them do it solely through high end talent.

 

We have a lot of young guys competing for spots on the line already. It's time to let them develop as a unit and invest in our defense. 

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, BOTT said:

True, but if they can't see the obvious, shame on them.

Nothing is obvious. If Chuck has a winning record and makes the playoffs IMO he will not be fired. What you don't seem to understand is Chuck has yet to have a losing season. His first five years in the league is as good as anyone's in the league at this time. Your personal opinion of him means zero in what the Colts will do.

[BlueShoe]

20 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

If we take an OL in the first I might cry.

 

We could take on offensive lineman in the first round every year and I would rejoice and thank the Lord every day.