Guards drafted

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

It makes no difference what other team do or what they have done in the past.

Ballard's #1 priority was to protect Luck. He did exactly what was wanted by most Colt fans.

This positional value means nothing when your QBs are hit, sacked and injured more that any QBs in the league.

It is shown we can win a lot of games with Luck on the field. Without him our winning percentages go way down.

Add the two guards and I suspect our running game will also improve. That in itself will help Luck and also control the ball game much better.

The old saying that games are won and lost in the trenches and it's always been that way and it's not going to change.

I’m not sure about that to be honest. It’s definitely a copycat league and I certainly wouldn’t advocate following the strategy of a bad team either on or off the field so why ignore the good ones?

 

I’m guessing that all of the teams with elite quarterbacks prioritize protecting that key player. I doubt the Patriots are ambivalent about whether Brady is on the field. My point is simply that other teams find a way to do this using lesser resources which frees them up to pick theoretically better players in the positions which make more difference to results.   

I think that the saying about the importance of the trenches is true to some extent but is also extremely simplistic in others. The O-line is not simply about the talent of the individuals, it’s about the cohesion of the unit, coaching to improve how they work together and scheme to lessen any deficiencies.

 

If the trenches were sooo crucial in terms of talent then I would expect to see a host of Championship winning teams with a host of first or second rounders on the line. I genuinely don’t see that though which leads me to be slightly sceptical about whether we are overplaying the amount of pure talent that should be needed.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

I’m not sure about that to be honest. It’s definitely a copycat league and I certainly wouldn’t advocate following the strategy of a bad team either on or off the field so why ignore the good ones?

 

I’m guessing that all of the teams with elite quarterbacks prioritize protecting that key player. I doubt the Patriots are ambivalent about whether Brady is on the field. My point is simply that other teams find a way to do this using lesser resources which frees them up to pick theoretically better players in the positions which make more difference to results.   

I think that the saying about the importance of the trenches is true to some extent but is also extremely simplistic in others. The O-line is not simply about the talent of the individuals, it’s about the cohesion of the unit, coaching to improve how they work together and scheme to lessen any deficiencies.

 

If the trenches were sooo crucial in terms of talent then I would expect to see a host of Championship winning teams with a host of first or second rounders on the line. I genuinely don’t see that though which leads me to be slightly sceptical about whether we are overplaying the amount of pure talent that should be needed.

Well there is only how many championship teams?  One thing they all have in common is their trench playing.

Bringing Brady into the debate is not exactly the norm because he may have the quickest release in the league. (he also has a great running game)

We don't have that in Luck so we have to get that extra protection time wise for him.

Ballard is building this team as he see fit for a reason. From the inside out, instead of the outside in. Only time will have the answers

No GM is going to make everyone happy and I understand that but till we see the end results no one really knows.

[ClaytonColt]

29 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Well there is only how many championship teams?  One thing they all have in common is their trench playing.

Bringing Brady into the debate is not exactly the norm because he may have the quickest release in the league. (he also has a great running game)

We don't have that in Luck so we have to get that extra protection time wise for him.

Ballard is building this team as he see fit for a reason. From the inside out, instead of the outside in. Only time will have the answers

No GM is going to make everyone happy and I understand that but till we see the end results no one really knows.

Well there are 4 teams playing in the Championship games every year so it’s a decent sample size. I don’t recall any of them having a team built the way we have thouhg.  

 

I was just using Brady as an example of an elite quarterback who the team will want to be protected. I could have used any of the others.  All teams will want to protect their QB, it isn’t particular to just us but they find different ways to do it.

 

You could say that the one thing they all have in common is their trench play (I think there’s other things as well tbh but never mind) but they all get that trench play using less resources than we have which allows their supposedly talented players to be spread throughout the whole squad and in several premier positions.

 

Like you say. We’ll have to see how it plays out.  I just remember a lot of these positives being thrown around when Kelly was drafted but the positive play from the centre of the line didn’t have any positive effect on results. I hope that the Nelson pick has more of a positive impact.

[Valpo2004]

20 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Slightly pedantic I know but there are only 5 guards earning over $10m. The other three earn exactly that amount.

 

When you compare that to any other premier position (wide receivers, tackles, interior linemen, edge rushers, corners and of course quarter backs) then it's still clear they're still in the lower half when it comes to value, even after the recent contracts given out.

 

But the same poster who claimed we shouldn't have drafted a guard so highly claimed we should have drafted a running back, which by positional value is just above kickers and punters!

 

Good guards are worth more then good RB's and the difference is extremely significant.  

[Myles]

6 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

 

 

 frees them up to pick theoretically better players in the positions which make more difference to results.   

 

I think this is where you are wrong.   In my opinion, Nelson and Smith will help the running game significantly and also help the passing game.   Those will make a huge difference to the "results".   

[ClaytonColt]

30 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think this is where you are wrong.   In my opinion, Nelson and Smith will help the running game significantly and also help the passing game.   Those will make a huge difference to the "results".   

I don't know if I'm wrong as such, it's very much in the region of "we'll see" at the moment in terms of how it affects us.

 

Across the league you could definitely surmise that certain positions have more impact on the results than others. The use of drafts picks and how the salaries are distributed would probably give a pointer to which ones these are.

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

But the same poster who claimed we shouldn't have drafted a guard so highly claimed we should have drafted a running back, which by positional value is just above kickers and punters!

 

Good guards are worth more then good RB's and the difference is extremely significant.  

I'd certainly have applied the same logic about positional value if we'd drafted a running back!

[Myles]

1 hour ago, ClaytonColt said:

I don't know if I'm wrong as such, it's very much in the region of "we'll see" at the moment in terms of how it affects us.

 

Across the league you could definitely surmise that certain positions have more impact on the results than others. The use of drafts picks and how the salaries are distributed would probably give a pointer to which ones these are.

I do agree that this will be determined on a wait and see basis. 

 

The worst offensive lines belonged to the worst teams in the NFL in 2017 (on average).   That shows me that a solid offensive line has more impact than other positions.  The Colts made the choice to not wait too long to fix this aspect.   It would be different if the Colts only had a couple holes to fill on their team, but they lost that luxury. 

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, ClaytonColt said:

I'd certainly have applied the same logic about positional value if we'd drafted a running back!

running backs can impact the game as much as anyone except  QBs and maybe elite edge rushers.

 

the only good argument against drafting them high is longevity.  i would have been fine with putting barkley with luck and drafting guards in the second since that would put our offense on the map 

[Coffeedrinker]

I disagree with the premise that other successful teams weren't built the way the Colts were.  I think all successful teams have drafted the BPA at their pick and that is what the Colts have done.

 

And you can't really say that the current successful teams did not draft a generational talent at guard because if there had been others then Nelson would not be considered a generational talent.  The Colts have had 7 1st and 2nd round picks and they have used those to draft 5 defensive players (covering all three levers of the D) and 2 guards, one a once in a generation talent and one perhaps the best zone blocking guard in the draft.  If someone doesn't see the value in those picks then all the talking in the world (or in this case typing) won't do a bit of good.

 

 

[ClaytonColt]

26 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I disagree with the premise that other successful teams weren't built the way the Colts were.  I think all successful teams have drafted the BPA at their pick and that is what the Colts have done.

 

And you can't really say that the current successful teams did not draft a generational talent at guard because if there had been others then Nelson would not be considered a generational talent.  The Colts have had 7 1st and 2nd round picks and they have used those to draft 5 defensive players (covering all three levers of the D) and 2 guards, one a once in a generation talent and one perhaps the best zone blocking guard in the draft.  If someone doesn't see the value in those picks then all the talking in the world (or in this case typing) won't do a bit of good.

 

 

In the last 2 years you're correct. In the years before that how were we built in term of a split between offense and defense with premier picks?

[Coffeedrinker]

20 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

In the last 2 years you're correct. In the years before that how were we built in term of a split between offense and defense with premier picks?

I'm with Myles on this one, this comment is confusing.  You are complaining how Ballard is doing things because of what Grigson did before him?

 

I think your complaint is 2 years too late and yes Grigson did not do a good job of building a roster... that is why he was fired and no longer has any job (that I know of) in the NFL.

[ClaytonColt]

56 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm with Myles on this one, this comment is confusing.  You are complaining how Ballard is doing things because of what Grigson did before him?

 

I think your complaint is 2 years too late and yes Grigson did not do a good job of building a roster... that is why he was fired and no longer has any job (that I know of) in the NFL.

I think you're mistaken. I haven't mentioned Ballard or Grigson at all.

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, ClaytonColt said:

I think you're mistaken. I haven't mentioned Ballard or Grigson at all.

No I'm not mistaken. 

[ClaytonColt]

2 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

No I'm not mistaken. 

 

Can you show me where I mentioned them please as I wasn't particularly focused on either one of them?

[Coffeedrinker]

8 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

 

Can you show me where I mentioned them please as I wasn't particularly focused on either one of them?

It doesn't matter whether you mentioned them by name.  You complain that the Colts drafted 2 guards in the first two rounds and say "successful teams don't do things like that".  So whether you type Ballard's name or not that is complaint about Ballard.  Then when it's pointed out that Ballard has spent 5 of 7 premium draft picks on defensive you ask what happened before that.  Again, it doesn't matter whether you type Grigs' name or not, that is who was responsible for for building the roster.

 

And if you are looking at the past 3 years, 5 years or 10 years and saying that is not how to build a roster than that is just stupid because the Colts have had 2 GMs in the past 3 years and 5 years and 4 in the past 10 years.

[ClaytonColt]

Just now, Coffeedrinker said:

It doesn't matter whether you mentioned them by name.  You complain that the Colts drafted 2 guards in the first two rounds and say "successful teams don't do things like that".  So whether you type Ballard's name or not that is complaint about Ballard.  Then when it's pointed out that Ballard has spent 5 of 7 premium draft picks on defensive you ask what happened before that.  Again, it doesn't matter whether you type Grigs' name or not, that is who was responsible for for building the roster.

 

And if you are looking at the past 3 years, 5 years or 10 years and saying that is not how to build a roster than that is just stupid because the Colts have had 2 GMs in the past 3 years and 5 years and 4 in the past 10 years.

It's not particularly a complaint. Purely an observation and a different opinion.

 

It's not particularly stupid. I just wasn't talking about an individual person, it was simply about the way the squad is structured and balanced as a whole. They could have a different GM every year and the observation about the construction would be the same.

[Coffeedrinker]

5 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

It's not particularly a complaint. Purely an observation and a different opinion.

 

It's not particularly stupid. I just wasn't talking about an individual person, it was simply about the way the squad is structured and balanced as a whole. They could have a different GM every year and the observation about the construction would be the same.

if you want to claim it's an observation not a complaint fine.  

 

But it is particularly stupid and your comment about a different GM every year re-enforces that.  Because it shows a lack of understanding of the real world.

[ClaytonColt]

Just now, Coffeedrinker said:

if you want to claim it's an observation not a complaint fine.  

 

But it is particularly stupid and your comment about a different GM every year re-enforces that.  Because it shows a lack of understanding of the real world.

Why? Should we just wipe the slate clean and forget what platform we're building on just because there's a new guy in the GMs office? That's a particularly easy way to set yourself backwards rather than adding to what you already have. The squad is a whole not just "Ballard guys" and "Grigson guys" 

 

It is an observation rather than a complaint. I'm hardly stomping my feet about it but just intrigued that we seem to be going down a path in terms of resource allocation that I've never seen work before.

[Coffeedrinker]

27 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Why? Should we just wipe the slate clean and forget what platform we're building on just because there's a new guy in the GMs office? That's a particularly easy way to set yourself backwards rather than adding to what you already have. The squad is a whole not just "Ballard guys" and "Grigson guys" 

 

It is an observation rather than a complaint. I'm hardly stomping my feet about it but just intrigued that we seem to be going down a path in terms of resource allocation that I've never seen work before.

Are you really this thick or just being purposely obtuse?

 

For a team that fired the previous GM, then, the new GM forgets what platform the other GM was building on.  He evaluates the current roster and develops a plan for keeping the good pieces and a plan replacing the bad pieces.  No team would fire a bad GM and then require the new GM to continue going down the same road.

 

As far as your last sentence, you don't have to be stomping your feet to be complaining.  Again you can call it whatever you want; you call it an observation I call it complaining.   If you haven't seen Ballard's approach work before then I would make the observation that you have not paid attention to football very much.

 

 

[ClaytonColt]

3 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Are you really this thick or just being purposely obtuse?

 

For a team that fired the previous GM, then, the new GM forgets what platform the other GM was building on.  He evaluates the current roster and develops a plan for keeping the good pieces and a plan replacing the bad pieces.  No team would fire a bad GM and then require the new GM to continue going down the same road.

 

As far as your last sentence, you don't have to be stomping your feet to be complaining.  Again you can call it whatever you want; you call it an observation I call it complaining.   If you haven't seen Ballard's approach work before then I would make the observation that you have not paid attention to football very much.

 

 

Easy with the insults big fella!

 

Evaluating the roster and building around the good pieces is exactly the what I mean by building on the platform the other GM left. It's why I'm not discounting the fact that Ballard has been left players like Kelly and Castanzo on the line (and Mewhort if fit).

 

I've paid plenty of attention to Ballards approach but that doesn't mean I have to just nod my head to every decision without ever questioning anything.

[Coffeedrinker]

11 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Easy with the insults big fella!

 

Evaluating the roster and building around the good pieces is exactly the what I mean by building on the platform the other GM left. It's why I'm not discounting the fact that Ballard has been left players like Kelly and Castanzo on the line (and Mewhort if fit).

 

I've paid plenty of attention to Ballards approach but that doesn't mean I have to just nod my head to every decision without ever questioning anything.

I'm through with this after this post, if you respond I will read it but I'm done. 

 

It's not an insult you are being thick headed or obtuse, I'm not sure which.

 

No one ever said you had to just nod your head to every decision.  But you are making comments on things Ballard has done questioning why he did it because Grigson did other things and then saying you've never seen a successful team do those things.  If you don't like spending a 1st and 2nd round pick on guards that's fine.  But to claim it's poor drafting because Grigson already spent a 1st round pick on a center and a 2nd round pick on a guard and Chris Polian already spent a first round pick on a LT is nonsense. Especially when the guard has a degenerative knee issue and his NFL future is questionable at this point.

[Myles]

17 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

I think you're mistaken. I haven't mentioned Ballard or Grigson at all.

I agree with Coffee.   Although you have not mentioned them by name, it was insinuated greatly.   Purhaps you have just had trouble expressing your point, but it is a little confusing.  

 

Ballard has been following through on his path which is clear.   The difference between the Colts of 2016 and the Colts of 2018 is big.  There is still a long way to go, but there is competition and depth that wasn't there before.   The O-line looks to be on the right track and dare I say a strength of this team.  

 

Perhaps now the teams best player will be able to play without taking the hits he has so far in his career.  I find it crazy that some of the people who claim Luck playing on this team can be a +8 in the win column, but then don't understand why Ballard drafted pieces to build the wall to protect him.

[ClaytonColt]

21 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree with Coffee.   Although you have not mentioned them by name, it was insinuated greatly.   Purhaps you have just had trouble expressing your point, but it is a little confusing.  

 

Ballard has been following through on his path which is clear.   The difference between the Colts of 2016 and the Colts of 2018 is big.  There is still a long way to go, but there is competition and depth that wasn't there before.   The O-line looks to be on the right track and dare I say a strength of this team.  

 

Perhaps now the teams best player will be able to play without taking the hits he has so far in his career.  I find it crazy that some of the people who claim Luck playing on this team can be a +8 in the win column, but then don't understand why Ballard drafted pieces to build the wall to protect him.

Fair enough. I can accept their are other points of view. You are incorrect that it was insinuated at all though as my point is not, and has never been, about individual GMs but simply about the make up of the roster as a whole.

 

I'm also pleased that Luck can play without getting killed but simply point out that there are other ways to do this and reference how other teams achieve the same outcome (i.e. protecting the QB) without focusing such resources on the O-Line.

 

If I was criticizing I would be saying that this method doomed us to failure, we're going to have a losing season, etc, etc however I have said none of this. I'm simply interested to see whether our focus on the O-Line produces better overall results than a team who use low round picks to partially fill their line and compliment their more talented linemen and are therefore free to build the other areas of the team with high end talent. Just an observation and as I said before then we'll definitely see how it plays out.

[Myles]

17 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

 

I'm also pleased that Luck can play without getting killed but simply point out that there are other ways to do this and reference how other teams achieve the same outcome (i.e. protecting the QB) without focusing such resources on the O-Line.

 

If I was criticizing I would be saying that this method doomed us to failure, we're going to have a losing season, etc, etc however I have said none of this. I'm simply interested to see whether our focus on the O-Line produces better overall results than a team who use low round picks to partially fill their line and compliment their more talented linemen and are therefore free to build the other areas of the team with high end talent. Just an observation and as I said before then we'll definitely see how it plays out.

Every team and every situation is different.   Many of the teams you think the Colts should follow didn't have the bare roster the Colts had.   Drastic times call for drastic measures is very fitting for this team.   Nearly everyone agrees that with Luck, this team can make the playoffs and without him we are picking in the top 10 again.   It sure makes sense to protect him for the next 5-10 years of his career the best way possible.  We tried signing Norwell, but he went elsewhere.  

 

Even with losing Gore, I bet the yards per carry increase in 2018.  That is a huge win.   I bet the sacks go down whether it is Luck or Brissett playing.   That is also huge.   

[crazycolt1]

13 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Easy with the insults big fella!

 

Evaluating the roster and building around the good pieces is exactly the what I mean by building on the platform the other GM left. It's why I'm not discounting the fact that Ballard has been left players like Kelly and Castanzo on the line (and Mewhort if fit).

 

I've paid plenty of attention to Ballards approach but that doesn't mean I have to just nod my head to every decision without ever questioning anything.

Did you bother to read the finer points of Ballard's two hour meeting with the press explaining why he drafted like he did? Have you bothered to go through every draft pick and notice what they all have in common?

[ClaytonColt]

12 minutes ago, Myles said:

Every team and every situation is different.   Many of the teams you think the Colts should follow didn't have the bare roster the Colts had.   Drastic times call for drastic measures is very fitting for this team.   Nearly everyone agrees that with Luck, this team can make the playoffs and without him we are picking in the top 10 again.   It sure makes sense to protect him for the next 5-10 years of his career the best way possible.  We tried signing Norwell, but he went elsewhere.  

 

Even with losing Gore, I bet the yards per carry increase in 2018.  That is a huge win.   I bet the sacks go down whether it is Luck or Brissett playing.   That is also huge.   

All fine with me. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating though I suppose.

 

To some extent I'm not that fussed about increasing the yards per carry or sack numbers in isolation though (although I agree they help) I'm just solely concerned with wins and losses and team success. If we get more wins than we did the last time Luck played a full season then I'll be happy. If we suffer less sacks but still lose 9 games then I won't really have seen a benefit.

[ClaytonColt]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Did you bother to read the finer points of Ballard's two hour meeting with the press explaining why he drafted like he did? Have you bothered to go through every draft pick and notice what they all have in common?

Yes I did. They all have athleticism and (in the most part) character in common.

 

Why do you ask?

[crazycolt1]

Just now, ClaytonColt said:

Yes I did. They all have athleticism and (in the most part) character in common.

 

Why do you ask?

6 of the 11 drafted were team captains and 3 more were team leaders.

That in itself tells us that Ballard was not only going for good players but players that will help this team win. Players like these play as team players and don't have a personal agenda when it comes to team play. Just adding depth at a few positions was a huge need. Ballard did that. No matter how Ballard goes about building this team IMO we improved a lot.

Wins and losses at this point is not the measuring stick of a successful year. You can't expect Ballard to take a 4-12 team and make a playoff contender out of them under the circumstances.

We still haven't a clue of the coaching staff yet. To automatically assume we have improved on that issue has yet to be determined. That is an issue that not too many has addressed and it could very well be the most important.

[ClaytonColt]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

6 of the 11 drafted were team captains and 3 more were team leaders.

That in itself tells us that Ballard was not only going for good players but players that will help this team win. Players like these play as team players and don't have a personal agenda when it comes to team play. Just adding depth at a few positions was a huge need. Ballard did that. No matter how Ballard goes about building this team IMO we improved a lot.

Wins and losses at this point is not the measuring stick of a successful year. You can't expect Ballard to take a 4-12 team and make a playoff contender out of them under the circumstances.

We still haven't a clue of the coaching staff yet. To automatically assume we have improved on that issue has yet to be determined. That is an issue that not too many has addressed and it could very well be the most important.

Yep. Like I said good character guys and athletes. I'm fine with that and it's very positive. It doesn't contradict the point I was making though does it? Both sit alongside each other very comfortably.

 

If we're not measuring the team by wins and losses then I guess that's why we're on different pages. They're simply the only meaningful measuring stick to me. If we don't care about winning then I suppose we can pretty much just draft anybody.

[crazycolt1]

31 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Yep. Like I said good character guys and athletes. I'm fine with that and it's very positive. It doesn't contradict the point I was making though does it? Both sit alongside each other very comfortably.

 

If we're not measuring the team by wins and losses then I guess that's why we're on different pages. They're simply the only meaningful measuring stick to me. If we don't care about winning then I suppose we can pretty much just draft anybody.

Didn't Ballard say it was a three year building process?  Like it or not that is his plan.

Part of the problems of the past is not building a great core group of players to get wins for the future. We have seen the results all too many times in getting lots of wins in regular season but then see the end results of losing in the playoffs. Those losses are harder to take than not making the playoffs at all to me. I for one am sick and tired of being almost good enough.

IMO Ballard is attempting to build a winning team with a group of players who are home grown to say and he then will add the free agents at the right time to sustain a winning team. But without the core of good players free agents are just expensive band aids.

[Valpo2004]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:02 PM, aaron11 said:

running backs can impact the game as much as anyone except  QBs and maybe elite edge rushers.

 

the only good argument against drafting them high is longevity.  i would have been fine with putting barkley with luck and drafting guards in the second since that would put our offense on the map 

 

There is not only that.  There is the fact that the difference between the best RB in the league and the #32 isn't nearly as great as the difference between the best and worst starting guards.

 

Also injury rates apply to RB's.  

 

Those are big reasons why their pay is really low and their positional value is really low.  

[aaron11]

10 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

There is the fact that the difference between the best RB in the league and the #32 isn't nearly as great as the difference between the best and worst starting guards.

how do you figure that?  who is the #32 guard in the league anyway?

[chad72]

22 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Didn't Ballard say it was a three year building process?  Like it or not that is his plan.

 

Part of the problems of the past is not building a great core group of players to get wins for the future. We have seen the results all too many times in getting lots of wins in regular season but then see the end results of losing in the playoffs. Those losses are harder to take than not making the playoffs at all to me. I for one am sick and tired of being almost good enough.

 

IMO Ballard is attempting to build a winning team with a group of players who are home grown to say and he then will add the free agents at the right time to sustain a winning team. But without the core of good players free agents are just expensive band aids.

 

Exactly!!! Without that core, we are always behind the 8 ball.

 

Lose Bethea and get Laron Landry, you have an expensive hole in the safety position and you are scrambling again and again and again to catch up with the safety position. Swing and a miss with Bjoern Werner, and we are scrambling constantly for pass rush. You have to get that core from the draft and hit on the draft picks.

 

3rd down O, 3rd down D, and turnover differential all get better once a young team works together and grows, and results in more Ws, IMO. 

[Valpo2004]

6 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

how do you figure that?  who is the #32 guard in the league anyway?

 

I don't know it's hard to measure those things.

 

My point is that the difference in talent level between the top and the bottom in terms of starters at the very least is very low with RB's.

 

You can tell that with the contracts they get and you can tell that with the way team's rotate RB's out quite a bit but wouldn't ever think of rotating guards out.

 

The fact that they get the ball a lot doesn't mean they are valuable. 

 

I would say the biggest thing hurting their value is that the talent level difference is so low that most teams just rotate them instead of sticking with 1 back and giving him 75% of the work load.  

[tikyle]

On 4/30/2018 at 10:27 AM, Valpo2004 said:

 Grigson never showed this level of commitment to protecting the franchise.  

 

This is a false statement.  Grigson showed a high level of commitment to protecting Luck, he just drafted bums. I count 10 offensive lineman in 5 drafts.

 

2012

Justin Anderson 7th

2013

Hugh Thornton 3rd

Khaled Holmes 4th

2014

Jack Mewhort 2nd

Ulrick John 7th

2015

Denzelle Goode 7th

2016

Ryan Kelly 1st

Le'Raven Clark 3rd

Joe Haeg 5th

Austin Blythe 7th

 

On the flip side Ballard has drafted 3 in 2 drafts.

 

2017

Zach Banner 4th

2018

Quenton Nelson 1st

Braden Smith 2nd

 

[Valpo2004]

13 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

This is a false statement.  Grigson showed a high level of commitment to protecting Luck, he just drafted bums. I count 10 offensive lineman in 5 drafts.

 

2012

Justin Anderson 7th

2013

Hugh Thornton 3rd

Khaled Holmes 4th

2014

Jack Mewhort 2nd

Ulrick John 7th

2015

Denzelle Goode 7th

2016

Ryan Kelly 1st

Le'Raven Clark 3rd

Joe Haeg 5th

Austin Blythe 7th

 

On the flip side Ballard has drafted 3 in 2 drafts.

 

2017

Zach Banner 4th

2018

Quenton Nelson 1st

Braden Smith 2nd

 

 

Look at where he drafted them.  

 

If you look at the first 2 rounds, Grigson drafted 2 OL and Ballard has drafted 2 OL.  But Ballard hasn't been here nearly as long as Grigson was.  

 

Drafting a bunch of day 3 guys doesn't count as commitment.  Being committed to get better in an area means spending your top picks on the area.  6 of 10 of those guys are day 3 guys for Grigs. 

[aaron11]

23 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I don't know it's hard to measure those things.

 

My point is that the difference in talent level between the top and the bottom in terms of starters at the very least is very low with RB's.

 

You can tell that with the contracts they get and you can tell that with the way team's rotate RB's out quite a bit but wouldn't ever think of rotating guards out.

 

The fact that they get the ball a lot doesn't mean they are valuable. 

 

I would say the biggest thing hurting their value is that the talent level difference is so low that most teams just rotate them instead of sticking with 1 back and giving him 75% of the work load.  

i disagree with almost all of this.  getting the ball a lot does make them valuable imo

 

 barkley just went #2 in the draft, they dont get paid a lot because they start to wear down by their second contract.  teams get good value out of them on rookie contracts and then let them go.

 

there is no guarantee an elite guard will re sign at the end of their contract, we just saw norwell walk in fa

[Valpo2004]

8 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i disagree with almost all of this.  getting the ball a lot does make them valuable imo

 

 barkley just went #2 in the draft, they dont get paid a lot because they start to wear down by their second contract.  teams get good value out of them on rookie contracts and then let them go.

 

there is no guarantee an elite guard will re sign at the end of their contract, we just saw norwell walk in fa

 

No guarantee that anyone will, but you can do things to help ensure that they do.  

 

The best thing you can honestly do IMO is offer them an extension before their contract year is up.  Everyone knows that they are just one play away from a bad injury harming their value or worse ending their careers.  So guys with games left to play are likely to take the money for the security of it.  

 

Also franchise tags can help you ensure that they bargain with you.  

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i disagree with almost all of this.  getting the ball a lot does make them valuable imo

 

 barkley just went #2 in the draft, they dont get paid a lot because they start to wear down by their second contract.  teams get good value out of them on rookie contracts and then let them go.

 

there is no guarantee an elite guard will re sign at the end of their contract, we just saw norwell walk in fa

But we will have Nelson and Smith for their whole rookie contracts.

Norwell is now paid a 30 million dollar guaranteed contract. I say we come out with a couple of top tier offensive linemen for a fraction of what Norwell is being paid.