PFF Picks TJ Lang for Colts

[Luck2Hilton4TD]

http://horseshoeheroes.com/2017/02/18/pro-football-focus-picks-packers-t-j-lang-free-agent-colts-sign/

 

I'd probably rather spend big money on a defensive player myself or get the younger Zeitler if go that route. 

[Finball]

I agree. Zeitler might be the only high end FA that I'd be willing to go after very, very hard. I think most defensive players have either too many concerns in their past play or would just get too much money for the production they provide.

[UKColt13]

Nice pick. 

 

I cant see Zeitler leaving Cincy when they have the money to sign him. 

 

He won't command as much as Zeitler will either. 

 

Aside from maybe Melvin Ingram I can't see any better overall players hitting the market.

 

We have the money to pick up Lang and a couple of quality defensive players without killing our cap.

[Indy Fan]

If Zeitler or Lang hit FA they would be my top priority as there are some high estimated figures for the edge players. Having a quality guard to help mentor and solidify the o-line will do wonders for Luck's health. Cincy also had to sign Whitworth and I think the reports are they really will only sign one. Lang has stated he is willing to take a pay cut to stay in GB so if one gets to FA then we need to pony up.

[NewColtsFan]

 

For what it's worth....

 

Spotrac projects Zeitler to get roughly a contract of 5/50.      Personally,  I have no desire to pay a guard that kind of money.        

 

I think Lang's projection is closer to 3/21-24.         I'm not wild about spending that,  but I'd be happier with this deal than the one for Zeitler.

 

[AZColt11]

For a 2 year deal I don't think it would be that bad, and then if it doesn't work out you don't have a lot invested.

[COLTS449]

With Zeitler being younger he will get more money. We can probably sign Lang for 3/24 to go along with 2 other big time signings like Perry and Bouye.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

23 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

For what it's worth....

 

Spotrac projects Zeitler to get roughly a contract of 5/50.      Personally,  I have no desire to pay a guard that kind of money.        

 

I think Lang's projection is closer to 3/21-24.         I'm not wild about spending that,  but I'd be happier with this deal than the one for Zeitler.

 

Exactly, plus he will be 30 in September...and like you said, I would never want top pay a guard 10 million a year.

[krunk]

I'm wondering if we do anything at all.  Wouldn't surprise me if they just keep Haeg as the starter at guard and go with Clark as the starter at tackle.  From there you just make sure you have quality back up players who can fill in.   I'm okay with the idea of bringing in TJ Lang, but then that would mean one of Clark or Haeg would have to go to the bench.  Not sure if you wan't to stunt their development.  We'll see I guess................

[Superman]

On 2/19/2017 at 9:42 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

For what it's worth....

 

Spotrac projects Zeitler to get roughly a contract of 5/50.      Personally,  I have no desire to pay a guard that kind of money.        

 

I think Lang's projection is closer to 3/21-24.         I'm not wild about spending that,  but I'd be happier with this deal than the one for Zeitler.

 

 

They project Lang at four years, ~$34m. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/t.j.-lang-5669/market-value/

 

I don't know if there's proven to be any real world correlation between Spotrac's projections and the contracts these players sign, but I do like their methodology. In this case, I could see Lang signing for that kind of contract, so long as the structure doesn't tie the team down past Year 1. I'd do it with $9m cash in Year 1, $6m in Year 2, and no issues with dead money, if I wanted him.

 

But for the Colts, I wouldn't spend $8m/year on a guard right now. Lang seems like a perfect fit, but too costly. We already have a lot of money committed to the line over the next two years, with AC and then Mewhort's contract pending. If they can do a reasonable deal for Mewhort right now -- somewhere around $5m/year, which I doubt -- then I could come to grips with a big contract for another guard. Still not ideal, but I would assume our OL would be a strength for the next two seasons, health permitting.

[NewColtsFan]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

They project Lang at four years, ~$34m. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/t.j.-lang-5669/market-value/

 

I don't know if there's proven to be any real world correlation between Spotrac's projections and the contracts these players sign, but I do like their methodology. In this case, I could see Lang signing for that kind of contract, so long as the structure doesn't tie the team down past Year 1. I'd do it with $9m cash in Year 1, $6m in Year 2, and no issues with dead money, if I wanted him.

 

But for the Colts, I wouldn't spend $8m/year on a guard right now. Lang seems like a perfect fit, but too costly. We already have a lot of money committed to the line over the next two years, with AC and then Mewhort's contract pending. If they can do a reasonable deal for Mewhort right now -- somewhere around $5m/year, which I doubt -- then I could come to grips with a big contract for another guard. Still not ideal, but I would assume our OL would be a strength for the next two seasons, health permitting.

 

Goodness!     Either they updated that projection,  or I really brain cramped on that!    And I think we all know which really happened.

 

4/34?      No, thank you.      Not for a guy who is turning 30 for this season.      And I like the player,   but not that contract.      I still hope Philbin says the solution at right guard is already on the roster.    Phil bin worked with some free agents and lower level draft picks in Green Bay and did well with them.     I hope he can work his magic in Indy as well.

 

EDIT NOTE:    I see where my confusion came from.   While they say that Lang's Market Value is $8.4 Mill,   their projection of his deal is $7.5 Mill per.   4/30.   It's a few lines below the MV.       4 years is rich for me.     I could live with 3/24 or so.

This will be an interesting one to follow.

 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Goodness!     Either they updated that projection,  or I really brain cramped on that!    And I think we all know which really happened.

 

4/34?      No, thank you.      Not for a guy who is turning 30 for this season.      And I like the player,   but not that contract.      I still hope Philbin says the solution at right guard is already on the roster.    Phil bin worked with some free agents and lower level draft picks in Green Bay and did well with them.     I hope he can work his magic in Indy as well.

 

EDIT NOTE:    I see where my confusion came from.   While they say that Lang's Market Value is $8.4 Mill,   their projection of his deal is $7.5 Mill per.   4/30.   It's a few lines below the MV.       4 years is rich for me.     I could live with 3/24 or so.

This will be an interesting one to follow.

 

 

Their base value for him is four years, ~$30m. Once they adjust for recent signings, they come up with the value of four years, $34m.

 

If you really like him, I don't see that much of a difference. And three years, $24m is right in the middle in terms of yearly average, just a year shorter. If you use a 'pay as you go' structure, as I suggested earlier, then three years vs four years isn't really going to make a difference. It's a one year commitment either way.

 

For the Colts, I'm not confident the solution at RG is already on the roster. I'm hopeful that Good or Haeg can prove worthy, that would be awesome. I think Haeg is a good fit at guard in a ZBS, if he gets stronger. Good has some tools as well, so I'm not saying we should just move on from either of them. But I think we're all frustrated with the yearly OL struggle, and I'd at least add some veteran competition at RG. I haven't watched any OL prospects yet, but I'd even draft a guard in the 2nd or 3rd, if there's someone I like (and I'm sure there will be). 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

On 2/19/2017 at 8:45 AM, UKColt13 said:

Nice pick. 

 

I cant see Zeitler leaving Cincy when they have the money to sign him. 

 

He won't command as much as Zeitler will either. 

 

Aside from maybe Melvin Ingram I can't see any better overall players hitting the market.

 

We have the money to pick up Lang and a couple of quality defensive players without killing our cap.

 

Between Bengals Twitter, and several of my friends that are diehard Bengals fans, no one seems to think Zeitler is coming back. In fact, most of them think it's way more likely that they keep Whitworth and let Zeitler walk.

[AKB]

I think another offseason with Heag/Clark will do them justice. 

 

They are our answer at RG/RT. Now we just need solid depth. 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Their base value for him is four years, ~$30m. Once they adjust for recent signings, they come up with the value of four years, $34m.

 

If you really like him, I don't see that much of a difference. And three years, $24m is right in the middle in terms of yearly average, just a year shorter. If you use a 'pay as you go' structure, as I suggested earlier, then three years vs four years isn't really going to make a difference. It's a one year commitment either way.

 

For the Colts, I'm not confident the solution at RG is already on the roster. I'm hopeful that Good or Haeg can prove worthy, that would be awesome. I think Haeg is a good fit at guard in a ZBS, if he gets stronger. Good has some tools as well, so I'm not saying we should just move on from either of them. But I think we're all frustrated with the yearly OL struggle, and I'd at least add some veteran competition at RG. I haven't watched any OL prospects yet, but I'd even draft a guard in the 2nd or 3rd, if there's someone I like (and I'm sure there will be). 

 

Draft a guard in the 2nd or the 3rd?      Goodness!

 

If I'm not interested in drafting a RB in the 2nd or 3rd,  then I'm certainly not willing to draft a guard there as well.

 

I'd rather sign a decent veteran free agent guard then draft one that high.     If I'm dating a lineman it's with the 2nd pick in the 4th round.     That's where I think the value matches the need.      Right after we've drafted our next starting RB high in the 4th.

 

I'm hopeful we're all waiting for some offense on Saturday morning when Day 3 of the draft starts....

 

Since Ballard wasn't the GM and doesn't really have much of a track record,  I don't have a real feel for what he's willing to do.      I'm just hoping it starts with defense....

 

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Draft a guard in the 2nd or the 3rd?      Goodness!

 

If I'm not interested in drafting a RB in the 2nd or 3rd,  then I'm certainly not willing to draft a guard there as well.

 

I'd rather sign a decent veteran free agent guard then draft one that high.     If I'm dating a lineman it's with the 2nd pick in the 4th round.     That's where I think the value matches the need.      Right after we've drafted our next starting RB high in the 4th.

 

I'm hopeful we're all waiting for some offense on Saturday morning when Day 3 of the draft starts....

 

Since Ballard wasn't the GM and doesn't really have much of a track record,  I don't have a real feel for what he's willing to do.      I'm just hoping it starts with defense....

 

 

You know I'm not a fan of needs-based drafting or slotting certain picks for certain positions. I want the Colts to add good players on both sides of the ball, and maximize their resources. I think it's pretty obvious the Colts need to add high caliber defensive prospects, but I don't agree with shying away from OL at any point of the draft, with the exception of the first half of the first round. 

 

I do agree, we don't know much about Ballard's approach at this point. He's made one move, and that move was obvious to everyone. Waiting for him to actually start putting his mark on the roster, which hasn't happened yet. But I don't think he'll be drafting based on need, either.

[wig]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You know I'm not a fan of needs-based drafting or slotting certain picks for certain positions. I want the Colts to add good players on both sides of the ball, and maximize their resources. I think it's pretty obvious the Colts need to add high caliber defensive prospects, but I don't agree with shying away from OL at any point of the draft, with the exception of the first half of the first round. 

 

I do agree, we don't know much about Ballard's approach at this point. He's made one move, and that move was obvious to everyone. Waiting for him to actually start putting his mark on the roster, which hasn't happened yet. But I don't think he'll be drafting based on need, either.

 

Needs based is great for mock drafts and. . . well I guess that's it. 

[I'm mad, bro]

6 hours ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

Exactly, plus he will be 30 in September...and like you said, I would never want top pay a guard 10 million a year.

Zietler is 26 rn...are you talking about Lang?

[TheRustonRifle#7]

2 hours ago, I'm mad, bro said:

Zietler is 26 rn...are you talking about Lang?

Yes...

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You know I'm not a fan of needs-based drafting or slotting certain picks for certain positions. I want the Colts to add good players on both sides of the ball, and maximize their resources. I think it's pretty obvious the Colts need to add high caliber defensive prospects, but I don't agree with shying away from OL at any point of the draft, with the exception of the first half of the first round. 

 

I do agree, we don't know much about Ballard's approach at this point. He's made one move, and that move was obvious to everyone. Waiting for him to actually start putting his mark on the roster, which hasn't happened yet. But I don't think he'll be drafting based on need, either.

 

The problem with "needs" based drafting is when teams do it when the talent ISN'T there.    When a team reaches.    As Brian Billick has famously said "'need' is a terrible judge of talent"     And I agree with that.

 

But here's the deal,   the strength of this draft is defense.    And the talent is going to be there clearly in the first three rounds to draft defense, defense and more defense WITHOUT having to reach for a player who doesn't deserve to be taken there.     I would NOT recommend drafting defensive players when they're just not there.   But they are there this year and we need to take advantage of it.

 

Plus,  if you can make the argument that it's not smart/wise to draft a RB in the first round,  then I can clearly make an argument that at this point,  taking a guard in the 2nd round is putting too many assets into one area.   How many O-lineman over how many years started off as either an undrafted free agent,  or middle or late draft pick.     Too many times to count.     What we're talking about is the difference between you being willing to spend a 2 on a non-premium position in a year where (A) we desperately need defense and (B) the strength of this draft IS defense and me willing to spend a late 4 on the same non-premium position.       I think to pass on a defensive player for an offensive player at a non-premium position is terribly unwise.

 

I think the Draft Gods have smiled upon the Colts this year.    This draft matches up with our needs.    Defense and a future starting running back.      I'd like not to spit in the faces of those Gods.

 

[Smonroe]

20 hours ago, AustinnKaine said:

I think another offseason with Heag/Clark will do them justice. 

 

They are our answer at RG/RT. Now we just need solid depth. 

 

Hope so.  They both showed improvement as the season went on.  

 

Still, it wouldn't hurt to pick up a vet G.  I hate seeing that push up the middle.  

[Superman]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The problem with "needs" based drafting is when teams do it when the talent ISN'T there.    When a team reaches.    As Brian Billick has famously said "'need' is a terrible judge of talent"     And I agree with that.

 

But here's the deal,   the strength of this draft is defense.    And the talent is going to be there clearly in the first three rounds to draft defense, defense and more defense WITHOUT having to reach for a player who doesn't deserve to be taken there.     I would NOT recommend drafting defensive players when they're just not there.   But they are there this year and we need to take advantage of it.

 

Plus,  if you can make the argument that it's not smart/wise to draft a RB in the first round,  then I can clearly make an argument that at this point,  taking a guard in the 2nd round is putting too many assets into one area.   How many O-lineman over how many years started off as either an undrafted free agent,  or middle or late draft pick.     Too many times to count.     What we're talking about is the difference between you being willing to spend a 2 on a non-premium position in a year where (A) we desperately need defense and (B) the strength of this draft IS defense and me willing to spend a late 4 on the same non-premium position.       I think to pass on a defensive player for an offensive player at a non-premium position is terribly unwise.

 

I think the Draft Gods have smiled upon the Colts this year.    This draft matches up with our needs.    Defense and a future starting running back.      I'd like not to spit in the faces of those Gods.

 

 

That's a fair perspective.

 

I'd like to point out that the Colts need to improve at OL. Let's not scratch that off our needs list just yet, since we're making an argument based on needs.

 

Overall, though, my point is just that I think the OL problem might wind up being addressed in the draft. I am not saying that the Colts should or will target a guard in any round. I'm saying that if it were up to me and the board was telling me that a guard was the best pick when we're on the clock, I'm not passing on that guard just because we need defense. I want to add good players and make the roster better, that's what the draft is for. Adding a good guard would make the roster better, and if the value makes sense to me -- considering my board, and any offers that might be on the table -- then I'm fine with taking a guard in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

And as it pertains to resources, I have no problem with spending a high pick on an OL to protect my QB (something that we've been failing at, miserably) and to balance out the offense (something we're also not doing a good job of). It's fine that you're willing to spend a 4th, but theoretically, the higher a player is picked, the more likely he is to be a starting caliber player. 

 

I also don't think we should be expecting the Colts to try to address all their defensive needs in one draft. I know that's how many fans are going to grade this draft, but that's not a realistic measuring stick. I don't think good teams draft based on need, I think they grab the best players they can to improve their roster, and they do that year after year, stacking good drafts together, and eventually, they have good rosters. I think everyone is anticipating a couple of Colts drafts that catapult the team back into contention, but that's not how it's going to work. 

 

Long story short, and I know we're well past that, if my board said an OL was the best value in the 2nd or 3rd round, my first inclination would be to trade back. If I couldn't, or didn't like the offers, I'd be fine with taking the OL. I wouldn't reach past a better player at a position that would help my team just because it's not the biggest need on my team at the moment. I'm not clamoring for an OL at any point, just saying that I believe in sticking to your board. If I really like the value on a guard in the 2nd or 3rd round, I'd take him. 

[AKB]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's a fair perspective.

 

I'd like to point out that the Colts need to improve at OL. Let's not scratch that off our needs list just yet, since we're making an argument based on needs.

 

Overall, though, my point is just that I think the OL problem might wind up being addressed in the draft. I am not saying that the Colts should or will target a guard in any round. I'm saying that if it were up to me and the board was telling me that a guard was the best pick when we're on the clock, I'm not passing on that guard just because we need defense. I want to add good players and make the roster better, that's what the draft is for. Adding a good guard would make the roster better, and if the value makes sense to me -- considering my board, and any offers that might be on the table -- then I'm fine with taking a guard in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

And as it pertains to resources, I have no problem with spending a high pick on an OL to protect my QB (something that we've been failing at, miserably) and to balance out the offense (something we're also not doing a good job of). It's fine that you're willing to spend a 4th, but theoretically, the higher a player is picked, the more likely he is to be a starting caliber player. 

 

I also don't think we should be expecting the Colts to try to address all their defensive needs in one draft. I know that's how many fans are going to grade this draft, but that's not a realistic measuring stick. I don't think good teams draft based on need, I think they grab the best players they can to improve their roster, and they do that year after year, stacking good drafts together, and eventually, they have good rosters. I think everyone is anticipating a couple of Colts drafts that catapult the team back into contention, but that's not how it's going to work. 

 

Long story short, and I know we're well past that, if my board said an OL was the best value in the 2nd or 3rd round, my first inclination would be to trade back. If I couldn't, or didn't like the offers, I'd be fine with taking the OL. I wouldn't reach past a better player at a position that would help my team just because it's not the biggest need on my team at the moment. I'm not clamoring for an OL at any point, just saying that I believe in sticking to your board. If I really like the value on a guard in the 2nd or 3rd round, I'd take him. 

Like you said, I would much rather trade back if G happens to be the BPA. I agree that the offensive line is a need. However you could argue that if our defense was improved we wouldn't be forced into as many passing downs --> thus putting more pressure on our young OL. 

 

I hope, that if guard is BPA we do trade back. I think that this year needs to be focused on defense. Our line really started to come together once some solidarity was finally established. 

 

I enjoyed your post anyhow. 

 

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

I think that this year needs to be focused on defense.

 

That's the thing I don't think is practical. I think good drafting results in a good roster when, over a period of time, you draft good players, don't reach for need, and do so year after year after year. Not one year focused on one side of the ball, no matter what your needs are. The draft isn't for needs, it's for acquiring talented prospects so that you can develop them and your roster can gradually improve.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

That's a fair perspective.

 

I'd like to point out that the Colts need to improve at OL. Let's not scratch that off our needs list just yet, since we're making an argument based on needs.

 

Overall, though, my point is just that I think the OL problem might wind up being addressed in the draft. I am not saying that the Colts should or will target a guard in any round. I'm saying that if it were up to me and the board was telling me that a guard was the best pick when we're on the clock, I'm not passing on that guard just because we need defense. I want to add good players and make the roster better, that's what the draft is for. Adding a good guard would make the roster better, and if the value makes sense to me -- considering my board, and any offers that might be on the table -- then I'm fine with taking a guard in the 2nd or 3rd.

 

And as it pertains to resources, I have no problem with spending a high pick on an OL to protect my QB (something that we've been failing at, miserably) and to balance out the offense (something we're also not doing a good job of). It's fine that you're willing to spend a 4th, but theoretically, the higher a player is picked, the more likely he is to be a starting caliber player. 

 

I also don't think we should be expecting the Colts to try to address all their defensive needs in one draft. I know that's how many fans are going to grade this draft, but that's not a realistic measuring stick. I don't think good teams draft based on need, I think they grab the best players they can to improve their roster, and they do that year after year, stacking good drafts together, and eventually, they have good rosters. I think everyone is anticipating a couple of Colts drafts that catapult the team back into contention, but that's not how it's going to work. 

 

Long story short, and I know we're well past that, if my board said an OL was the best value in the 2nd or 3rd round, my first inclination would be to trade back. If I couldn't, or didn't like the offers, I'd be fine with taking the OL. I wouldn't reach past a better player at a position that would help my team just because it's not the biggest need on my team at the moment. I'm not clamoring for an OL at any point, just saying that I believe in sticking to your board. If I really like the value on a guard in the 2nd or 3rd round, I'd take him. 

 

Good post.     Agree with much/most of it.

 

That said,  and I don't want to split hairs or get into too much draft minutia,  but stacking of the board and how the grades shake out is, to me,  as much art as it is science.  

 

At the risk of mentioning he who should not be mentioned,  Grigson made a point that I very much agree with two years ago during the Dorsett controversy.      In a nutshell,  he said if there were a bunch of players who had roughly the same grade then he was going to take the player at the position of the most need.     But if there was one player who clearly had a much higher grade,   then he was taking that player no matter if the need was there or not.        I agreed with that then and now.

 

But the devil is in the details.     Grades often come down to a fraction of a point.   A very tiny margin.   But for purposes of ranking players at some point someone is going to get a slightly higher grade.     So grades for four closely ranked players might look like 6.24, 6.23, 6.22 and 6.21.      Tiny margins of difference.     I think teams --- good teams and bad --- will often take a player who has a slightly lower score if the player fills the need.      The score difference might be imperceptible to most,  but there is a slight difference.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is at what point do you consider a team to be reaching?    How big a difference in score makes a pick a reach in your eyes?      You might subscribe to the literal version of "next player up on my board is the guy who I'm taking"     I'm sure some GM's do that.      Or,  you might subscribe to "when the margin is that small,  I'm OK with going with the need player."

 

I think there's a difference of opinion on this within the 32 GM's in the NFL,  as well as the hundreds of GM wannabe's right here on Colts.com!       

 

What's your view?

 

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

At the risk of mentioning he who should not be mentioned,  Grigson made a point that I very much agree with two years ago during the Dorsett controversy.      In a nutshell,  he said if there were a bunch of players who had roughly the same grade then he was going to take the player at the position of the most need.     But if there was one player who clearly had a much higher grade,   then he was taking that player no matter if the need was there or not.        I agreed with that then and now.

 

But the devil is in the details.     Grades often come down to a fraction of a point.   A very tiny margin.   But for purposes of ranking players at some point someone is going to get a slightly higher grade.     So grades for four closely ranked players might look like 6.24, 6.23, 6.22 and 6.21.      Tiny margins of difference.     I think teams --- good teams and bad --- will often take a player who has a slightly lower score if the player fills the need.      The score difference might be imperceptible to most,  but there is a slight difference.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is at what point do you consider a team to be reaching?    How big a difference in score makes a pick a reach in your eyes?      You might subscribe to the literal version of "next player up on my board is the guy who I'm taking"     I'm sure some GM's do that.      Or,  you might subscribe to "when the margin is that small,  I'm OK with going with the need player."

 

I think there's a difference of opinion on this within the 32 GM's in the NFL,  as well as the hundreds of GM wannabe's right here on Colts.com!       

 

What's your view?

 

This is all fair. The first and most important thing to me is to scout honestly, stacking your board based on how you evaluate the players, not being influenced by your needs or what positions you'd prefer to address in the draft. If you do that, then you do the rest -- stick to your board, don't reach for need, and maximize value.

 

So if my evaluation groups a number of players together, and I honestly feel that they're all equal as prospects, then I am okay with saying 'I'll draft this player at a position of needs over another player that I have graded equally (or close to it) at a position that's not as needed.' But you have to keep your scouting and evaluation process pure. That one player plays a position of need is not part of my scouting process.

 

And of course, it comes down to my evaluations vs your evaluations, one team to the next. People suggest that GMs reach or could have had a player in a later round, but we never really know that for sure because we never see a team's board. People might say the Cowboys reached for Frederick, but I believe they had him ranked as a top 20 player on their board, despite general consensus. The Colts said Dorsett was their 16th ranked prospect (?), but another team might have had him 40th.

 

It's valuable to have some indication of what other teams think about players, so you have an idea of where your pick/player might be valued. That allows you to maximize value. But you can never really know what other teams are going to do, so you have to trust your own process and evaluations.

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is all fair. The first and most important thing to me is to scout honestly, stacking your board based on how you evaluate the players, not being influenced by your needs or what positions you'd prefer to address in the draft. If you do that, then you do the rest -- stick to your board, don't reach for need, and maximize value.

 

So if my evaluation groups a number of players together, and I honestly feel that they're all equal as prospects, then I am okay with saying 'I'll draft this player at a position of needs over another player that I have graded equally (or close to it) at a position that's not as needed.' But you have to keep your scouting and evaluation process pure. That one player plays a position of need is not part of my scouting process.

 

And of course, it comes down to my evaluations vs your evaluations, one team to the next. People suggest that GMs reach or could have had a player in a later round, but we never really know that for sure because we never see a team's board. People might say the Cowboys reached for Frederick, but I believe they had him ranked as a top 20 player on their board, despite general consensus. The Colts said Dorsett was their 16th ranked prospect (?), but another team might have had him 40th.

 

It's valuable to have some indication of what other teams think about players, so you have an idea of where your pick/player might be valued. That allows you to maximize value. But you can never really know what other teams are going to do, so you have to trust your own process and evaluations.

 

Sincere follow-up.      Not trying to mess with you,  just curious.

 

The draft is under way.     And Alabama tight end OJ Howard is, let's say,  ranked 12th on our board.

 

And when it comes time to pick,  do we take Howard as the highest rated player,  but not at a position of immediate need,  or do take a good pass rusher who might be ranked, say 16th on our board.

 

I'm trying to get a feel for just how far do you want to press your interest in BPA.      Up to now we've been talking about a 1st round RB as an alternative to defense.     Would a player like Howard change your view?

 

 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sincere follow-up.      Not trying to mess with you,  just curious.

 

The draft is under way.     And Alabama tight end OJ Howard is, let's say,  ranked 12th on our board.

 

And when it comes time to pick,  do we take Howard as the highest rated player,  but not at a position of immediate need,  or do take a good pass rusher who might be ranked, say 16th on our board.

 

I'm trying to get a feel for just how far do you want to press your interest in BPA.      Up to now we've been talking about a 1st round RB as an alternative to defense.     Would a player like Howard change your view?

 

I don't think so. I really like OJ Howard, too.

 

But let's say, theoretically, that's my board. First, who's at 13, 14 and 15, and are they still available? Second, what's the difference in grade between Howard at 12 and the edge rusher at 16? Would I consider them to be graded closely, in the same bucket, so to speak? Third, who's calling me, who's taking my call, and what are they offering? Only if I thought there was a great difference between Howard at 12 and the next player on my board would I seriously consider taking Howard, and I think there are enough contingencies in this theoretical scenario that I probably wouldn't take him; worst case, I'd trade back. Best case, I feel good enough about 13-16 that they can be my pick.

 

And understand, it's not just BPA. It's a combination of all my personal draft principles. If I've scouted honestly, then I can trust my board. The players between 12-16 are in play if I stick to my board. I'm not going to reach for a pass rusher if I really feel there are 4 better players still available. And if I can maximize value with a trade back instead of taking a non-premium position in the first half of the first round, I'm okay with that.

[Track Guy]

On February 20, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Superman said:

But for the Colts, I wouldn't spend $8m/year on a guard right now. Lang seems like a perfect fit, but too costly. We already have a lot of money committed to the line over the next two years, with AC and then Mewhort's contract pending. 

 

The way I see it, we are actually not spending all that much on the O-line right now. We'll be starting Kelly at C and probably Clark at RT. Haeg and Good as depth. All rookie contracts. Mewhort this year is on his rookie contract. a 3 year 25 mil contract to a guy like Lang would make a ton of sense to me. We have cap room, mine as well use it on good players who will make a big impact.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Track Guy said:

 

The way I see it, we are actually not spending all that much on the O-line right now. We'll be starting Kelly at C and probably Clark at RT. Haeg and Good as depth. All rookie contracts. Mewhort this year is on his rookie contract. a 3 year 25 mil contract to a guy like Lang would make a ton of sense to me. We have cap room, mine as well use it on good players who will make a big impact.

 

It partly depends on what happens with Mewhort (and when), and what the extended plan is for Castonzo (can't keep paying him like a top ten tackle if he's not playing like one). 

 

If you assume that Mewhort gets ~$6m/year on an extension this offseason, and assume that Castonzo sticks around, then you'll be looking at extending Kelly by 2020, at the latest (he's eligible prior to 2019). That's not that long away. Mewhort, Castonzo and Lang would account for ~$27m on the cap in 2017, about 15% of the cap. It's also something like $30m in cash in 2017 for those three. That's a lot of money for three players who don't touch the ball, especially when there's a good chance that two of them -- AC and Lang -- won't be on the roster two years from now due to age and/or performance.

 

End of the day, I think adding Lang would be a major upgrade to the offensive line, and then you have four options at RT in Clark, Haeg, Reitz and Good, and three of them can backup both guard spots as well. Lang can also play RT if necessary. This is not a bad option, but it is costly.

 

And then there's the 'what if it doesn't work out' possibility, when you potentially look back two years from now, $16m later, and regret signing a 30 year old guard. Not that I don't believe in Lang, but it's a possibility, always.

 

I can't argue we don't have the cap flexibility. It's not that this would hurt the team at all. It's just not my preferred plan moving forward.