Offensive Line, What am I missing

[Smonroe]

34 minutes ago, MasterCrief said:

Agreed, but just to nitpick, with what I bolded, you are underselling Castonzo big time. The last time I checked, PFF had him as the second best run blocking tackle in the entire league. That's not "solid," that's elite.

 

If you watch the All22, you appreciate him more.  He’s no Joe Thomas, or T Glenn for that matter.  But he had a very good year and he’s AVAILABLE each week.  

 

If that’s someone’s definition of “suck”, give me four more on the line that suck that good.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

But taking Chubb is drafting based on need as well some think he's a guy for a 4-3 DE position so getting him just cause he was a good pass rusher in college is a bad idea. He's also don't seem to be a can't miss rusher like other years he just happens to be the best available. I'd rather take a guard then reach for a edge or I'd even take a CB or S before I took Chubb.

 

I don't want to reach for anyone, and I'm not promoting taking Chubb.

 

My point is that I disagree with taking a guard because we need a guard.

 

And my point regarding pass rushers is that it's a priority position that you can only really address high in the draft, unless you get lucky with a later pick. Positional value is different from need.

[ponyboy]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This illustrates the folly of needs-based drafting. You're prioritizing 2018 over the long term health of the roster. There is an obvious positional value advantage to drafting an edge rusher in the top five vs a guard in the top five.

 

 

In general that might be true, but It all depends on the players available.  In this draft, it might very well be the case that Nelson is a much better talent any available edge rusher (both short and long term) .  Do you see an elite edge rusher in the 2018 draft?  You can whiff reaching for perceived positional value just as easily as reaching for a need.

 

We have needs at almost every position, but IMO, there is nothing more important than fixing the OL for 2018 and the long term.  It can't be fixed in 2018 with FA alone.  It will require a combination of at least one FA and at least one 2018 draftee starting on this OL.

 

If Nelson is that good and can be a Pro-Bowl level contributor out of the gate, then that goes a long way to fixing the OL when combined with a top FA signing.   Hopefully the Colts could get a couple trade down opportunities and still pick him up somewhere in the top 8.

 

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

 

In general that might be true, but It all depends on the players available.  In this draft, it might very well be the case that Nelson is a much better talent any available edge rusher (both short and long term) .  Do you see an elite edge rusher in the 2018 draft?  You can whiff reaching for perceived positional value just as easily as reaching for a need.

 

We have needs at almost every position, but IMO, there is nothing more important than fixing the OL for 2018 and the long term.  It can't be fixed in 2018 with FA alone.  It will require a combination of at least one FA and at least one 2018 draftee starting on this OL.

 

If Nelson is that good and can be a Pro-Bowl level contributor out of the gate, then that goes a long way to fixing the OL when combined with a top FA signing.   Hopefully the Colts could get a couple trade down opportunities and still pick him up somewhere in the top 8.

 

Nelson vs. edge rushers will depend on how Nelson is rated vs how each edge rusher is rated. I can't speak to that right now.

 

What I'm talking about is taking Nelson over a similarly rated edge rusher because 'we need to fix the line.' If I had Nelson and an edge rusher rated similarly, I'd lean to the edge rusher because of positional value, which is also related to the scarcity of good edge rushers. That's not reaching for positional value.

 

And then there's the idea that fixing any position is accomplished by drafting at those positions, which is again a needs-based idea that I disagree with. Draft picks bust as often as they hit, including first rounders. Just because we draft a highly rated lineman doesn't mean we've fixed the line, and in 2018, the more definitive step toward fixing the line is absolutely via free agency. Signing Pugh and Norwell, for instance, is better than signing one of the two and playing a rookie, in terms of 2018 performance. Even if that rookie is the supposedly pro-ready and Pro Bowl caliber Nelson. It would cost more, but this is the year that doesn't matter as much for the Colts.

 

Doesn't mean I don't want Nelson. I'm hesitant to embrace any interior lineman in the top five, would be much more excited about it in a trade back to 8-ish if that yielded another first rounder. 

[richard pallo]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nelson vs. edge rushers will depend on how Nelson is rated vs how each edge rusher is rated. I can't speak to that right now.

 

What I'm talking about is taking Nelson over a similarly rated edge rusher because 'we need to fix the line.' If I had Nelson and an edge rusher rated similarly, I'd lean to the edge rusher because of positional value, which is also related to the scarcity of good edge rushers. That's not reaching for positional value.

 

And then there's the idea that fixing any position is accomplished by drafting at those positions, which is again a needs-based idea that I disagree with. Draft picks bust as often as they hit, including first rounders. Just because we draft a highly rated lineman doesn't mean we've fixed the line, and in 2018, the more definitive step toward fixing the line is absolutely via free agency. Signing Pugh and Norwell, for instance, is better than signing one of the two and playing a rookie, in terms of 2018 performance. Even if that rookie is the supposedly pro-ready and Pro Bowl caliber Nelson. It would cost more, but this is the year that doesn't matter as much for the Colts.

 

Doesn't mean I don't want Nelson. I'm hesitant to embrace any interior lineman in the top five, would be much more excited about it in a trade back to 8-ish if that yielded another first rounder. 

Let's hope Ballard signs two guards in FA, Pugh and Norwell for instance.  But if we are picking in the top five and can't swing a trade Ballard will pick the BPA.  If Barkley is the highest rated player, and that's what I'm reading, he will be the pick.  If he's gone it would be the next BPA.  I'm reading Nelson is rated higher than Chubb.  That would make Nelson the pick.  I'm hoping for a trade back but I'm okay with Barkley, Nelson or Chubb.  He could find two new starting guards in FA and still take Nelson if he's the BPA when we pick.  At least that's his philosophy.  We will know more after the combine and the final rankings come out. 

[ty4atd]

Without a trade back Nelson has like a 2% chance of being the pick. this he's the best guard prospect ever crap is dumb they said the exact same things about DeCastro in 2012 and he went 24th. Guards don't go top 5 if they go OL first round it's probably Mcglinchey because he can play RT and if he doesn't hold down that spot he can move inside.

[richard pallo]

4 minutes ago, ty4atd said:

Without a trade back Nelson has like a 2% chance of being the pick. this he's the best guard prospect ever crap is dumb they said the exact same things about DeCastro in 2012 and he went 24th. Guards don't go top 5 if they go OL first round it's probably Mcglinchey because he can play RT and if he doesn't hold down that spot he can move inside.

If you let positional value trump BPA ratings then you are really not taking the BPA.  You can't really have it both ways unless there is a tie.  Ballard has stated he goes for BPA.  We will never know for sure without seeing our board and player rankings.  I believed him last year when Hooker fell so far.  This year we will really see if he drafts that way. It will be apparent if we can't find a partner and he has to pick in the top five. 

[ty4atd]

Ok that may be the case if Nelson is significantly higher ranked than another player. Just for example if we pick 2nd and Sam Darnold is the top player would he pick him because of BPA? No, so BPA might be Ballard's way of drafting but if they are similarly rated then he will take the more important/harder to find player. 

[Colts_Fan12]

1 minute ago, ty4atd said:

Ok that may be the case if Nelson is significantly higher ranked than another player. Just for example if we pick 2nd and Sam Darnold is the top player would he pick him because of BPA? No, so BPA might be Ballard's way of drafting but if they are similarly rated then he will take the more important/harder to find player. 

Who is similarly related to Nelson? McGlinchey isn't that's for sure 

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Let's hope Ballard signs two guards in FA, Pugh and Norwell for instance.  But if we are picking in the top five and can't swing a trade Ballard will pick the BPA.  If Barkley is the highest rated player, and that's what I'm reading, he will be the pick.  If he's gone it would be the next BPA.  I'm reading Nelson is rated higher than Chubb.  That would make Nelson the pick.  I'm hoping for a trade back but I'm okay with Barkley, Nelson or Chubb.  He could find two new starting guards in FA and still take Nelson if he's the BPA when we pick.  At least that's his philosophy.  We will know more after the combine and the final rankings come out. 

 

If Ballard takes Barkley in the top five, I'll have lots of negative things to say about Ballard. 

[Defjamz26]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This illustrates the folly of needs-based drafting. You're prioritizing 2018 over the long term health of the roster. There is an obvious positional value advantage to drafting an edge rusher in the top five vs a guard in the top five.

 

There's the matter of value above replacement -- the best edge rusher prospect vs the 5th best prospect is a bigger difference than the best OL prospect vs the 5th best OL prospect. 

 

You can only get an elite pass rusher in the draft. Good OL hit free agency every year.

 

My stance on this matter isn't about Nelson vs Chubb. I haven't watched enough of either to have an opinion there. My point is that, in principle, when you're picking in the top five, you want to come away with a prospect that you would otherwise not have a shot at, and that you can't replace. 

 

As far as it being cheaper, if we come out of free agency having spent $25m on two offensive linemen, and don't do anything else, I'll be satisfied. It's time to bite the bullet and throw serious resources at the OL. 

Good post as always.

 

First, drafting Nelson isn't needs based drafting when he is being heralded as one of the safest prospects in the draft and a top player regardless of position. He's probably the 2nd best player behind only Barkley. I'd consider taking Barkley as well at number 3. Chubb would be a needs based pick. He's the best pass rusher in the draft but he's not Clowney, Bosa, or Garrett, so I'm not sure why people think he goes number 3 overall to us. If the thought behind taking Chubb is that we'll never be picking high enough to get an elite pass rusher like him and those type of guys never hit FA, then that is actually needs based drafting. Drafting is about acquiring the most elite players. The only time the rules change are for QBs. If you pass on Nelson who is more elite, because Chubb plays a more "premium position". You do yourself a disservice. That's why as it stands, I'd take Barkley or Nelson over Chubb.

 

As for FA, what you're describing isn't Ballards MO. He only shelled out money for Sheard, Simon, and Hankins because the defense was so bad when he came in that he had no other choice. There weren't even any young guys with potential (besides Anderson) at those positions. You can't just easily find pass rushers and defensive lineman like that in the draft. I wouldn't be 100% opposed to it, but the OL isn't bad enough that we have to sell out to fix it. I love Nelson, but we could even get a guard like Will Hernandez or Billy Price in the 2nd round. The resources to throw at the OL isn't money, but draft picks. Pugh or Norwell and then draft a guard. Look at the Steelers line. 3 pro bowlers, and 2 of them they drafted. Villanueva was an UDFA. So was their LG. You don't need money to build an O-line.

[ty4atd]

Chubb, Barkley, Fitzpatrick, Key possibly more once bowl season and the combine are done. McGlinchey or Connor Williams at least can play tackle and if they struggle move inside, like most of the best guards in the NFL.

[Colts_Fan12]

10 minutes ago, ty4atd said:

Chubb, Barkley, Fitzpatrick, Key possibly more once bowl season and the combine are done. McGlinchey or Connor Williams at least can play tackle and if they struggle move inside, like most of the best guards in the NFL.

Chubb has doubts as a 3-4 edge Barkley is a RB in a really deep class Fitz is good I'd take him Key is not being talked about a top 5 pick he has struggled this year 

[Defjamz26]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If Ballard takes Barkley in the top five, I'll have lots of negative things to say about Ballard. 

But if he fixes the line through FA/the draft, will you still have the same reaction?

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Good post as always.

 

First, drafting Nelson isn't needs based drafting when he is being heralded as one of the safest prospects in the draft and a top player regardless of position. He's probably the 2nd best player behind only Barkley. I'd consider taking Barkley as well at number 3. Chubb would be a needs based pick. He's the best pass rusher in the draft but he's not Clowney, Bosa, or Garrett, so I'm not sure why people think he goes number 3 overall to us. If the thought behind taking Chubb is that we'll never be picking high enough to get an elite pass rusher like him and those type of guys never hit FA, then that is actually needs based drafting. Drafting is about acquiring the most elite players. The only time the rules change are for QBs. If you pass on Nelson who is more elite, because Chubb plays a more "premium position". You do yourself a disservice. That's why as it stands, I'd take Barkley or Nelson over Chubb.

 

As for FA, what you're describing isn't Ballards MO. He only shelled out money for Sheard, Simon, and Hankins because the defense was so bad when he came in that he had no other choice. There weren't even any young guys with potential (besides Anderson) at those positions. You can't just easily find pass rushers and defensive lineman like that in the draft. I wouldn't be 100% opposed to it, but the OL isn't bad enough that we have to sell out to fix it. I love Nelson, but we could even get a guard like Will Hernandez or Billy Price in the 2nd round. The resources to throw at the OL isn't money, but draft picks. Pugh or Norwell and then draft a guard. Look at the Steelers line. 3 pro bowlers, and 2 of them they drafted. Villanueva was an UDFA. So was their LG. You don't need money to build an O-line.

 

If Nelson is better than Chubb, that's a different story than taking Nelson because he would play right away and we have a need at guard. The first is sticking to your board; the second is drafting for need.

 

I obviously disagree with the idea that the only time you judge for positional value is for QBs. Elite pass rushers are almost as scarce as good QBs. RBs are far more prevalent than both. The impact of a good guard and the value above replacement (the difference between a very good guard and an average guard, and how it affects the outcome of games) for that position is very relevant, and it's why guards don't go in the top five. Same for RBs, not to mention the longevity of even good RBs. Everyone wants to hop on the Ezekiel Elliott train, but let's see where Elliott is four years from now.

 

We don't know Ballard's MO in free agency. We don't have enough of a sample size. He came in and made a lot of changes, partly based on what his coaching staff asked for, and they are going to be gone. The entire staff was high on a couple of young linemen who have been bad all season. This offseason will be significantly different, and while that doesn't mean that Ballard is going to throw money around, it's hard to imagine him shying away from a couple big ticket acquisitions. And the most immediate need is OL.

 

As for the idea that you don't have to spend money to build a line, you don't have to spend money to do anything. Good drafting is the key. Here we are, though, with bad line play, despite several draft picks spent on linemen. Throw both resources at the line and work out the roster mechanics later on. We know there are only two starting caliber linemen on this roster right now. I'd like to have a legit starting five next season, and that's not going to happen relying exclusively on the draft.

 

I'm fine with just one FA guard, but I'd rather have two. If we sign a guard and a tackle, that's fine also. But we don't know what will happen in the draft, and I'd like for us to be two deep across the board before the draft even happens, so that we don't have to rely on rookies and have contingencies for injury. 

[Superman]

Just now, Defjamz26 said:

But if he fixes the line through FA/the draft, will you still have the same reaction?

 

Yes. I vehemently disagree with spending a high pick on a RB, in every instance.

[ty4atd]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yes. I vehemently disagree with spending a high pick on a RB, in every instance.

The Rams, Cowboys and Jags must be upset about their running back picks.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

If Nelson is better than Chubb, that's a different story than taking Nelson because he would play right away and we have a need at guard. The first is sticking to your board; the second is drafting for need.

 

I obviously disagree with the idea that the only time you judge for positional value is for QBs. Elite pass rushers are almost as scarce as good QBs. RBs are far more prevalent than both. The impact of a good guard and the value above replacement (the difference between a very good guard and an average guard, and how it affects the outcome of games) for that position is very relevant, and it's why guards don't go in the top five. Same for RBs, not to mention the longevity of even good RBs. Everyone wants to hop on the Ezekiel Elliott train, but let's see where Elliott is four years from now.

 

We don't know Ballard's MO in free agency. We don't have enough of a sample size. He came in and made a lot of changes, partly based on what his coaching staff asked for, and they are going to be gone. The entire staff was high on a couple of young linemen who have been bad all season. This offseason will be significantly different, and while that doesn't mean that Ballard is going to throw money around, it's hard to imagine him shying away from a couple big ticket acquisitions. And the most immediate need is OL.

 

As for the idea that you don't have to spend money to build a line, you don't have to spend money to do anything. Good drafting is the key. Here we are, though, with bad line play, despite several draft picks spent on linemen. Throw both resources at the line and work out the roster mechanics later on. We know there are only two starting caliber linemen on this roster right now. I'd like to have a legit starting five next season, and that's not going to happen relying exclusively on the draft.

 

I'm fine with just one FA guard, but I'd rather have two. If we sign a guard and a tackle, that's fine also. But we don't know what will happen in the draft, and I'd like for us to be two deep across the board before the draft even happens, so that we don't have to rely on rookies and have contingencies for injury. 

With RB's, remember that there are more Ezekiell Elliots, than there are David Johnson and Kareem Hunt's. Positional value is overrated. People will always use the rare exceptions to the rule like Brady, Arian Foster, Jack Doyle, etc... to try and make it seem tangible but its not. It only applies to Kickers, punters, and Fullbacks. You take the best player available regardless of position. Just because Trent Richardson busted at #3 overall and Hunt looks like a steal coming out of the 3rd round doesn't mean you don't draft Saquan Barkley high. That goes for any position. It's all about good scouting.

 

And I agree that good drafting is the key. I think Ballard owes it to himself to try and build an O-line through the draft first. He can't just keep throwing cash out to fix Grigson's mistakes. Because that'll be the story every year. Our most maligned position group needs to be fixed immediately so lets throw cash at Free agents. This year its the O-line. Next year since no one wants to take skill positions high, it'll be WRs. I'm not saying don't use FA for the line at all, just to spread the wealth instead. I'd rather have one guard and Trumaine Johnson, than 2 guards. If there are any big ticket acquisitions it should be on a defensive player. Or maybe a guy like Landry if he hits the market. A line is only hard to build if your name is Ryan Grigson.

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Yes. I vehemently disagree with spending a high pick on a RB, in every instance.

Then you apparently don't believe in drafting BPA.  That statement contradicts what you have been saying in other posts.  I guess you mean BPA as long as it's not a RB.   I hate to say it but the notion of never taking a RB in the 1st rd. is over.  It's been proven with Gurley who some mention as an MVP candidate, the Cowboys went into the tank without Elliot and they still had that great line,  The presence and contributions from Fournette makes Bortles look like a real QB.  Just because you have a deep RB class doesn't mean you pass on the BPA.  There are many GM's who don't agree with you on that one.  

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ty4atd said:

The Rams, Cowboys and Jags must be upset about their running back picks.

 

So many people fail to understand the difference between player evaluation and maximizing draft value.

 

Gurley, Elliott and Fournette are all good players. I want the players who have the potential to be best for the team for the next decade, players that will be worthy of second contracts with the Colts, players who will be difference makers in the win column. 

[ty4atd]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So many people fail to understand the difference between player evaluation and maximizing draft value.

 

Gurley, Elliott and Fournette are all good players. I want the players who have the potential to be best for the team for the next decade, players that will be worthy of second contracts with the Colts, players who will be difference makers in the win column. 

Ok and why couldn't Barkley or a RB be a player like that? I understand positional value but it doesn't mean that no RB can be worth a high pick.

[BOTT]

2 hours ago, ty4atd said:

The Rams, Cowboys and Jags must be upset about their running back picks.

I wouldn't say the jags are thrilled about their top pick being average.

[OLD FAN MAN]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Let's hope Ballard signs two guards in FA, Pugh and Norwell for instance.  But if we are picking in the top five and can't swing a trade Ballard will pick the BPA.  If Barkley is the highest rated player, and that's what I'm reading, he will be the pick.  If he's gone it would be the next BPA.  I'm reading Nelson is rated higher than Chubb.  That would make Nelson the pick.  I'm hoping for a trade back but I'm okay with Barkley, Nelson or Chubb.  He could find two new starting guards in FA and still take Nelson if he's the BPA when we pick.  At least that's his philosophy.  We will know more after the combine and the final rankings come out. 

i concur

[ty4atd]

9 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I wouldn't say the jags are thrilled about their top pick being average.

He's helped their Bortles become half butt decent and helped the D by playing keep away with the ball. Having a RB that teams fear has put more men in the box and let the WRs go 1 on 1 and make plays. 

[aaron11]

11 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I wouldn't say the jags are thrilled about their top pick being average.

hes 8th in rushing this year, i bet they are fine with it

 

you were knocking gurley last year who is currently third too.  elliot was also high in the rankings

 

all three of these guys have lived up to their draft spot 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Then you apparently don't believe in drafting BPA.  That statement contradicts what you have been saying in other posts.  I guess you mean BPA as long as it's not a RB.   I hate to say it but the notion of never taking a RB in the 1st rd. is over.  It's been proven with Gurley who some mention as an MVP candidate, the Cowboys went into the tank without Elliot and they still had that great line,  The presence and contributions from Fournette makes Bortles look like a real QB.  Just because you have a deep RB class doesn't mean you pass on the BPA.  There are many GM's who don't agree with you on that one.  

 

BPA is a misnomer, one that I really don't use. I said don't reach for need, and don't prioritize 2018 over the long term health/makeup of the roster. 

 

Gurley, Elliott and Fournette are outstanding players, but one outstanding RB doesn't win games. Look at Gurley's Rams in 2015. You need good QB play, good line play, and good coaching.

 

Also, RBs don't last in the NFL. We can talk about these three when it's time for them to sign new contracts. We can look at Le'Veon Bell right now, who, if he even gets a second contract from the Steelers, will not play it out. When Fournette has slowed down and is only playing 9 games a year on one year contracts, Deshaun Watson will still be a Pro Bowl QB leading his team to wins.

 

And it's awesome that NFL GMs don't agree with me. NFL GMs do dumb stuff all the time. The same front office that drafted Gurley drafted Tavon Austin at #8, and paid him $40m. I'm not saying that I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is a * who doesn't know anything. I'm saying that I have basic principles that I believe in and that I believe can be balanced with one another. 

[aaron11]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

BPA is a misnomer, one that I really don't use. I said don't reach for need, and don't prioritize 2018 over the long term health/makeup of the roster. 

 

Gurley, Elliott and Fournette are outstanding players, but one outstanding RB doesn't win games. Look at Gurley's Rams in 2015. You need good QB play, good line play, and good coaching.

 

Also, RBs don't last in the NFL. We can talk about these three when it's time for them to sign new contracts. We can look at Le'Veon Bell right now, who, if he even gets a second contract from the Steelers, will not play it out. When Fournette has slowed down and is only playing 9 games a year on one year contracts, Deshaun Watson will still be a Pro Bowl QB leading his team to wins.

 

 

watson is on IR while fournette is still carrying the load in Jacksonville

 

i dont think thats a good comparison.  running QBs dont last long either 

[ty4atd]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

hes 8th in rushing this year, i bet they are fine with it

 

you were knocking gurley last year who is currently third too.  elliot was also high in the rankings

 

all three of these guys have lived up to their draft spot 

and a year after having the 22nd ranked run game in the NFL they are #1 now and Bortles looks like a new QB and they have basically the same OL except for Cam Robinson at LT. 

[BOTT]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

hes 8th in rushing this year, i bet they are fine with it

 

you were knocking gurley last year who is currently third too.  elliot was also high in the rankings

 

all three of these guys have lived up to their draft spot 

Yes, I'm sure they are thrilled that he is averaging a mere 4 ypc.  Basically, outside of two long runs of 75 and 95 the guy has been a disappointment.

 

i knocked Gurley' production,  but I never knocked his talent.  Still wouldn't draft him that high.

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, ty4atd said:

Ok and why couldn't Barkley or a RB be a player like that? I understand positional value but it doesn't mean that no RB can be worth a high pick.

 

Because RBs don't last in the NFL. And the impact that RBs typically have on wins doesn't match up with premium positions -- QB, T, pass rushing linemen, players who cause turnovers, etc., at positions that typically aren't available in free agency. 

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, BOTT said:

  Basically, outside of two long runs of 75 and 95 the guy has been a disappointment.

 

 

no he hasn't.  he moves the chains, thats what they need him to do 

[BOTT]

Just now, aaron11 said:

no he hasn't.  he moves the chains, thats what they need him to do 

Yeah, I'm sure 4 yards and a cloud of dust is what the jags were expecting.

[aaron11]

elliot has done well too

 

im not hoping for barkley, but i wont be mad if we get him either.  i want to go defense and spend that money we have on Oline.

[aaron11]

Just now, BOTT said:

Yeah, I'm sure 4 yards and a cloud of dust is what the jags were expecting.

he was never a speed demon

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

watson is on IR while fournette is still carrying the load in Jacksonville

 

i dont think thats a good comparison.  running QBs dont last long either 

 

Goodness. Just because there's a draft every year doesn't mean your picks only matter in Year 1. We can compare Fournette and Watson three years from now and talk about it then. 

 

Also, Fournette isn't carrying the load in Jacksonville. The defense is setting the tone, and they're actually getting good QBing for a change. Fournette is playing well, but to suggest that he's carrying the Jags is nonsense.

[BOTT]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

he was never a speed demon

He ran fast enough to have 75 and 95 yard runs.  I have only seen him play a couple times, but I don't see a guy with elite traits.  He's been knicked up quite a bit, so maybe that has played a part.

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Goodness. Just because there's a draft every year doesn't mean your picks only matter in Year 1. We can compare Fournette and Watson three years from now and talk about it then. 

 

Also, Fournette isn't carrying the load in Jacksonville. The defense is setting the tone, and they're actually getting good QBing for a change. Fournette is playing well, but to suggest that he's carrying the Jags is nonsense.

i just meant that he is still playing while watson is the one that is hurt

 

[ty4atd]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Because RBs don't last in the NFL. And the impact that RBs typically have on wins doesn't match up with premium positions -- QB, T, pass rushing linemen, players who cause turnovers, etc., at positions that typically aren't available in free agency. 

QBs and pass rushers I will give you, but single OL don't have a much of a impact as a RB, The OL is more about having 5 guys communicate and play well together as a unit. Look at Cleveland how many games did Joe Thomas win them? Who not being there hurt the Cowboys more this year no Tyron Smith or no Zeke? Now I know we need to improve our OL but an elite RB helps more than one elite T.   

[Myles]

Nelson would be best for this team.

[BOTT]

11 minutes ago, ty4atd said:

QBs and pass rushers I will give you, but single OL don't have a much of a impact as a RB, The OL is more about having 5 guys communicate and play well together as a unit. Look at Cleveland how many games did Joe Thomas win them? Who not being there hurt the Cowboys more this year no Tyron Smith or no Zeke? Now I know we need to improve our OL but an elite RB helps more than one elite T.   

I don't know, the Cowboys are 0-2 without Smith.