2017 O-line Construction

[Tmoney]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is when you start talking in Moneyball terms, thinking about wins above replacement and law of diminishing returns and things like that. I can't absolutely quantify it, but the point is that if you have a good team and a good QB, the difference between a great RB and a decent RB isn't going to translate into a lot of wins. A great pass rusher over a decent pass rusher? Now your actually building something, especially since only one RB can carry the ball at a time, while two pass rushers can impact the same play.

 

You also have to look at career longevity. I won't spend a lot of time trying to support this, but I think we'd all agree that the average career of a good RB is lower than the average career of a good player at almost every other position. And the average number of peak seasons is probably lower as well. I don't think it's a radical concept to say that RBs don't last as long as players at other positions.

 

I had no doubt Zeke would be special. The Cowboys love having him, and will probably love having him for the next 3-4 years. After that? I think he'll decline dramatically, and they'll move on pretty quickly. Best case, he's Adrian Peterson or Marshawn Lynch, two players who didn't really play on winning teams unless they had good QBing (2012 was an exception for Peterson, kind of proving the rule). How long will Ronnie Stanley and Jack Conklin last? What about DeForest Buckner or Sheldon Rankins? If they all ball out for the remainder of their rookie contracts, who will be the lowest paid on their next deal? 

 

It's not that individual RB performance isn't good for a team, it's not that they aren't great players -- they're probably the most athletic players on the team, in most cases. It's that they get punished and don't last, and because they take so much punishment, teams have spread out the risk over multiple players, and get similar production from a platoon as they would from one feature back. It's like having two catchers in baseball -- it's a super important position, but teams more and more use multiple catchers because the position is tough physically, and because they get more out of deploying a platoon situationally.

 

I'm not a RB hater, I just think first round picks should have greater potential to yield a long term starter. And at this point this is way TL;DR, so I'll leave it at that. /rant 

Just to where you say Zeke will decline in 3-4 years, really?? What on earth makes you think that? Not only is he a freak he's 225-230. Im thinking your reasonings are because of the amount of carries he has, and that's a fair point. But I don't think Zeke's had any major injuries in his whole football career. Zeke's pushing at a high level until he's about 30, and the league should just get use to it. For the colts, I'm not even looking at a RB until round 3, preferably 4. Fix the D, then we can upgrade from Turbin and whatever back we take this year.

[Restored]

Couple of things:

 

1. If Dalvin Cook is available by the time the Colts pick, they should take him. The reason why? He is rated as a top 10 talent  while many of the good pass rushers will be off the board by then.

 

2. Yes, running backs are devalued. This is in an era where having a decent offensive line can make most RB's look serviceable. But here's the thing, the Colts offensive line is still far from great and while Gore is defying the odds, it's a matter of time before the wheels come off.

 

Take Cook and watch how much more productive the Colts offense becomes.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:13 AM, FACE REALITY said:

when a person is 73 like i am 18 years seem like a moment ago, however what worked once can work again. it just takes one winning team to win with a strong ground game and the sheep will try to follow, then the game style changes again. i believe in taking an elite talent in the first no matter the position. many firsts are busts, go for the elite talent

There are posters that are "closed minded" that elite RB's are not best for the team.

As long as the 1st pick is on Defense they will be happy,any pick on defense. I think if Bjorn Werner or Dijon Smith some how re-entered the draft and Colts selected them again they would like it more than Cook/Fournette lol.

[OLD FAN MAN]

2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

There are posters that are "closed minded" that elite RB's are not best for the team.

As long as the 1st pick is on Defense they will be happy,any pick on defense. I think if Bjorn Werner or Dijon Smith some how re-entered the draft and Colts selected them again they would like it more than Cook/Fournette lol.

i concur

[OLD FAN MAN]

14 minutes ago, Restored said:

Couple of things:

 

1. If Dalvin Cook is available by the time the Colts pick, they should take him. The reason why? He is rated as a top 10 talent  while many of the good pass rushers will be off the board by then.

 

2. Yes, running backs are devalued. This is in an era where having a decent offensive line can make most RB's look serviceable. But here's the thing, the Colts offensive line is still far from great and while Gore is defying the odds, it's a matter of time before the wheels come off.

 

Take Cook and watch how much more productive the Colts offense becomes.

i agree

[Superman]

1 hour ago, FACE REALITY said:

elliot ,with dallas, gurley with the rams and gordon with sd are going to get their gms fired, those gms should have read the colts forum

 

No way the Rams or Chargers would have been better off with Peters, Shelton, Dupree, Ray, Thompson, Randall, Anthony, Brown, Collins, etc., right? 

 

No reason to put words in my mouth. The simple truth is that just because GMs pick backs in the first round doesn't mean they should. It's funny how it's great to second guess GMs all day long, until someone disagrees with you.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Tmoney said:

Just to where you say Zeke will decline in 3-4 years, really?? What on earth makes you think that? Not only is he a freak he's 225-230. Im thinking your reasonings are because of the amount of carries he has, and that's a fair point. But I don't think Zeke's had any major injuries in his whole football career. Zeke's pushing at a high level until he's about 30, and the league should just get use to it. For the colts, I'm not even looking at a RB until round 3, preferably 4. Fix the D, then we can upgrade from Turbin and whatever back we take this year.

 

Typically, how long do high usage backs last in the NFL before they decline? Not much longer than 3-4 years, with or without major injury.

 

I made allowance for him to be a Lynch/Peterson kind of guy, but they are the outliers at this point. They were the only first round backs in '07. Since then:

 

2008: McFadden, Stewart, Jones, Mendenhall, Johnson

2009: Moreno, Brown, Wells

2010: Spiller, Mathews, Best

2011: Ingram

2012: Richardson, Martin, Wilson

2013: none

2014: none

 

How many of them even hit the kind of peaks that people want out of a first round back, not to mention sustained their peak for any significant stretch? None of them were Lynch/Peterson good, except maybe CJ2K, and he last five minutes. How many 29-30 year old backs play the way Lynch/Peterson played at that age? How many were even worthy of second contracts? And it's backs in general, not just first rounders. High usage = short career, no matter how good they are.

 

Elliott has to be an outlier to live up to his draft status, not just for a couple seasons, but for 8+ years. Maybe he is, but the odds don't favor that outcome.

 

By the way, I'm well aware that my stance would mean missing out on a generational back from time to time. I'm okay with that. I think really good backs are found in later rounds all the time, and they're good enough. It's also easier for a team to move on from a 3rd round back who had a great couple years than it is to move on from the guy you drafted in the top 20 and you know is going to break down before his second contract ends.

[OLD FAN MAN]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No way the Rams or Chargers would have been better off with Peters, Shelton, Dupree, Ray, Thompson, Randall, Anthony, Brown, Collins, etc., right? 

 

No reason to put words in my mouth. The simple truth is that just because GMs pick backs in the first round doesn't mean they should. It's funny how it's great to second guess GMs all day long, until someone disagrees with you.

the fact is gms still pick rbs in the first and it works for them, i understand some fans dont want rbs in the first but owners dont hire gms to draft the players fans and forum posters prefer, i respect your opinion  but i have a different one and that is take any player who can help the team the most regardless of the position he plays

[Superman]

1 minute ago, FACE REALITY said:

the fact is gms still pick rbs in the first and it works for them, i understand some fans dont want rbs in the first but owners dont hire gms to draft the players fans and forum posters prefer, i respect your opinion  but i have a different one and that is take any player who can help the team the most regardless of the position he plays

 

To the bolded, so what? This message board isn't about what owners want GMs to do, it's about what we think as fans.

 

And you don't really want to take any player who can help the team the most, regardless of position. You don't want a QB in the first round, no matter how good he would be, because a QB won't help the team. You are adjusting for how valuable a player will be for the Colts, and part of that has to do with what position he plays. I'm doing the same thing, except I don't think a RB would help the team long term.

 

I appreciate you saying you respect my opinion, but I'd rather not have my stance misrepresented. I don't think I'm better or smarter than NFL GMs. I just happen to think drafting RBs in the first round isn't the best use of a valuable resource. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

There are posters that are "closed minded" that elite RB's are not best for the team.

As long as the 1st pick is on Defense they will be happy,any pick on defense. I think if Bjorn Werner or Dijon Smith some how re-entered the draft and Colts selected them again they would like it more than Cook/Fournette lol.

 

Wow. I happen to think my stance is well thought out and balanced. Just because my mind is made up doesn't mean I'm closed minded.

[rockywoj]

I didn't know until today that Matt Khalil is likely going to be available in free agency.  It's surecshaping up to look like some of the highest rated OL prospects from the past few years, all of whom not having lived up to their billings, are going to be available.   I really wonder if any of them still have a high ceiling.

 

i'd still like to take a chance on Warmack at OG.  Khalil might make a really nice RT.   all these guys are still young and shouldn't be very expensive. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, so what? This message board isn't about what owners want GMs to do, it's about what we think as fans.

 

And you don't really want to take any player who can help the team the most, regardless of position. You don't want a QB in the first round, no matter how good he would be, because a QB won't help the team. You are adjusting for how valuable a player will be for the Colts, and part of that has to do with what position he plays. I'm doing the same thing, except I don't think a RB would help the team long term.

 

I appreciate you saying you respect my opinion, but I'd rather not have my stance misrepresented. I don't think I'm better or smarter than NFL GMs. I just happen to think drafting RBs in the first round isn't the best use of a valuable resource. 

and i would love the colts to draft a superstar rb in the first but i am not sure there is one there  this year, but i know we have big needs on defense, any playmaker will suit me, also we seem to have went away from the post topic

[LJpalmbeacher2]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Wow. I happen to think my stance is well thought out and balanced. Just because my mind is made up doesn't mean I'm closed minded.

 

I didn't mention you, in fact I don't even know who you prefer in the 1st rd.

It was others who CONSTANTLY HARP their dislike for a RB, even a possibly elite RB.

[ClaytonColt]

2 hours ago, FACE REALITY said:

the fact is gms still pick rbs in the first and it works for them

It depends how you define "works". How many Championships have those GM's won with the star running backs they drafted?

[braveheartcolt]

I don't want to draft a RB on day one. But if we do, and it works out, who cares. I just don't see it happening.

[Smonroe]

6 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

It depends how you define "works". How many Championships have those GM's won with the star running backs they drafted?

 

You have to go bac a long way, Jamal Lewis.   

[Mameluc]

On 8/2/2017 at 10:44 AM, Superman said:

I agree. I want to lock down RG and let Haeg and Clark work at RT. Reitz and Good are still here for depth. 

 

And of course, better play calling. 

I agree, just let those 2 battle out RT and consolidate ol with  RG I like Warford or Leary for that positoin. Maybe tj lang also cause of Philbin? Whatever the case is any of those 3 would be fine IMO