Offensive Line, What am I missing

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

With RB's, remember that there are more Ezekiell Elliots, than there are David Johnson and Kareem Hunt's.

 

No there aren't. What are you talking about? Most RBs taken in the top half of the first round bust, over the last decade plus. There are only four or five worth mentioning, and that's including Gurley, Elliott and Fournette, and none of those players have more than a season and a half of production. Again, let's see how long they last.

 

Meanwhile, the middle rounds are littered with RBs who do a solid to great job for multiple seasons. 

 

Quote

Positional value is overrated.

 

No it's not. If you want an elite pass rusher, you have to draft him, period. And if you draft him, 9 times out of 10, you're drafting him in the top half of the first round. Meanwhile, elite RBs come in various rounds, and you can get solid production out of journeyman RBs like LeGarrette Blount, if you have a good roster around them.

 

Quote

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.

 

No you don't, which is why you're not advocating drafting a QB at #3. And you've spent plenty of time advocating needs-based drafting.

 

My point has very little to do with bust potential. Any player at any position can bust, regardless of draft spot. It's about impact on wins and the likelihood that the player will be a foundational piece for the next decade.

 

And any position can work out in later rounds. But there are some positions that are far more scarce, even at the top of the draft, and even more so later in the draft. For every Pro Bowl level edge rusher or QB drafted after Day 1 of the draft, there are three RBs. Positional value.

 

Quote

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.

 

To the first bolded, why? Ballard can sign free agent linemen and draft OL prospects, and he should. This has nothing to do with Ryan Grigson. Ballard endorsed Grigson's 2016 picks on the OL, and three of the four haven't worked out. It's also nonsense to say Grigson is the only GM who has ever had trouble building a line. Two thirds of the league has poor line play. The Pats can't pass protect. 

 

I'm all about signing Trumaine Johnson, and I'd rather have a guard plus him than two guards as well. Again, I'm not saying we have to sign two guards, but I'm not passing on a guard just so I can draft Nelson at #3, either. 

 

Understand, the Colts are in a unique position this year. It's rare to have a franchise QB (assuming Luck comes back and plays at a high level, which is the assumption I'm working from until I see/hear otherwise), a top five draft pick, and $90m in cap space. They aren't going to throw money at every problem spot every offseason, but realistically, the Colts could sign the two best OL on the market and Trumaine Johnson in 2018, and still have money left over. I don't expect that to happen, but it's feasible.

 

And then two months later, they could be on the clock at #3. This is the year that the Colts can shore up needs and add playmakers at premium positions, all in one offseason. Whatever happens in the draft and free agency isn't going to be the blueprint moving forward, because we won't be in this position after this season. 

 

I don't think a guard at #3 is maximizing value, just like I don't think a RB is maximizing value, but at least a guard would be worthy of a second contract. 

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

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

 

 

In Year 1.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, BOTT said:

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

 

Right, the first two games without Elliott, where everyone is saying that the Cowboys fell apart because Elliott was gone.

 

Then Smith comes back and they win 3 of 4. 

[aaron11]

Just now, Superman said:

 

In Year 1.

thats not a good sign for his longevity

 

he likes to run too

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

thats not a good sign for his longevity

 

he likes to run too

 

He had a freak injury that no one even saw, reportedly non contact. Has nothing to do with how he plays, and it probably won't stop him from coming back and playing just as well as he was playing, a legitimate MVP candidate at the time. 

 

Let's not act like Deshaun Watson is RG3. 

[Defjamz26]

1 hour 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.

 

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. 

I’d have to strongly disagree with the bolded. Did you see the 2012 Vikings? AP literally ran them into the playoffs. And before you scream defense, remember this was before they had Anthony Barr, Xavier Rhodes, Erik Kendricks, and Danielle Hunter. And their HC was Leslie Frazier who was terrible. An Outstanding RB can win you a game. Just ask LeSean McCoy. But Bradley Chubb isn’t going to win you any games. A good RB is going to have more snap to snap impact than any edge rusher. No edge guy is going to get a sack or pressure every single snap. An elite RB can average 100 yards a game, convert multiple 3rd and shorts, chew up clock, and wear down a defense. You’re  downplaying the difference a good RB makes.

 

Also this motto that RBs have short runs is a bit overstated. That mainly applies to busts. Frank Gore has been in the league a while. AP is at a decade. Ingram was drafted in 2011 by the Saints and is having his best season. Darren McFadden retired last month after 10 seasons. But even so, sometimes those 7 years is all you need. You get a franchise QB and defense, you don’t need an 10 year RB. The Broncos didn’t have Terrell Davis for long, but Shannon Sharp admitted that without him they probably don’t win any Super  Bowls.

[Dark Superman]

With the way our roster stands right now, it would make more sense for the Colts to select Connor Williams in the draft since Costanzo is a free agent after the 2018 season. Williams can play both tackle spots as well. I would be thrilled with either Nelson or Williams TBH.

[Superman]

32 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.   

 

An elite tackle is a long term building block, one that will help make life easier on everyone on the offense, and the team as a whole. 

 

I'm not downplaying how good RBs are, or how important it is to have a productive run game. My problem is with the long term value of one player at that position, especially considering how you can get value out of that position without using a high draft pick.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I’d have to strongly disagree with the bolded. Did you see the 2012 Vikings? AP literally ran them into the playoffs. And before you scream defense, remember this was before they had Anthony Barr, Xavier Rhodes, Erik Kendricks, and Danielle Hunter. And their HC was Leslie Frazier who was terrible. An Outstanding RB can win you a game. Just ask LeSean McCoy. But Bradley Chubb isn’t going to win you any games. A good RB is going to have more snap to snap impact than any edge rusher. No edge guy is going to get a sack or pressure every single snap. An elite RB can average 100 yards a game, convert multiple 3rd and shorts, chew up clock, and wear down a defense. You’re  downplaying the difference a good RB makes.

 

Also this motto that RBs have short runs is a bit overstated. That mainly applies to busts. Frank Gore has been in the league a while. AP is at a decade. Ingram was drafted in 2011 by the Saints and is having his best season. Darren McFadden retired last month after 10 seasons. But even so, sometimes those 7 years is all you need. You get a franchise QB and defense, you don’t need an 10 year RB. The Broncos didn’t have Terrell Davis for long, but Shannon Sharp admitted that without him they probably don’t win any Super  Bowls.

 

Adrian Peterson in 2012 is the only example in the last decade of a RB carrying his team to the playoffs. Most of the time, if a RB is your best player, you're not going anywhere. That's called an outlier.

 

And this isn't about Chubb, but an elite pass rusher is the second most important single player on a football team. You don't have to have an elite RB to produce on the ground or control the clock. Especially if you have a good line. Having an elite pass rusher isn't replaceable, you can't manufacture that impact through committee. 

 

And again, you point out statistical outliers, most of whom don't contribute to winning seasons. Frank Gore has only sniffed the playoffs when he had good QB play and a great defense. Ingram is having his best season in a timeshare, again pointing out the positional value of RBs (and his backfield counterpart was a 3rd round pick). Darren McFadden didn't have a productive career. Terrell Davis was 20 years ago; you might as well have brought up Edgerrin James. 

 

We can go round and round on this, but it's my stance. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with it, but it's not frivolous, it's thought out and reasoned. Early success from a few RBs doesn't change my stance. If we draft Saquon Barkley early in the first round, I'll be highly disappointed, even if he's the consensus best player on the board. And it's not because I don't like him or that I don't think he'll be good. I thought Richardson would be good, but was disappointed in the idea of using a first rounder on him. I had already begun to sour on first round RBs when we drafted Donald Brown. 

[chrisfarley]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:36 PM, DarkHorse said:

If you want immediate results you sign 2 veteran free agent guards such as Norwell and Pugh.  Let Mewhort walk.  We have the cap space use it on the line.  If we can get these two players or someone of there caliber we don't have to use our first round pick on a guard.  As good as Nelson is and I do want him I'd rather spend that pick on Bradley Chubb, as long as we get two good guards in free agency. Rookies take time to devolp.  We need results now. 

walterfootball has us taking Saquon Barkley, ugh (with Chubb not even gone yet at #3)

[Defjamz26]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Adrian Peterson in 2012 is the only example in the last decade of a RB carrying his team to the playoffs. Most of the time, if a RB is your best player, you're not going anywhere. That's called an outlier.

 

And this isn't about Chubb, but an elite pass rusher is the second most important single player on a football team. You don't have to have an elite RB to produce on the ground or control the clock. Especially if you have a good line. Having an elite pass rusher isn't replaceable, you can't manufacture that impact through committee. 

 

And again, you point out statistical outliers, most of whom don't contribute to winning seasons. Frank Gore has only sniffed the playoffs when he had good QB play and a great defense. Ingram is having his best season in a timeshare, again pointing out the positional value of RBs (and his backfield counterpart was a 3rd round pick). Darren McFadden didn't have a productive career. Terrell Davis was 20 years ago; you might as well have brought up Edgerrin James. 

 

We can go round and round on this, but it's my stance. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with it, but it's not frivolous, it's thought out and reasoned. Early success from a few RBs doesn't change my stance. If we draft Saquon Barkley early in the first round, I'll be highly disappointed, even if he's the consensus best player on the board. And it's not because I don't like him or that I don't think he'll be good. I thought Richardson would be good, but was disappointed in the idea of using a first rounder on him. I had already begun to sour on first round RBs when we drafted Donald Brown. 

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that RBs don’t contribute to winning seasons as much as other positions. There’s no way the Cowboys win all those games in 2014 without Murray. We see the current Cowboys about 2-3 games behind where they should be without Zeke. Your stance is your stance though.

 

To the bolded, I think both of those players are examples of bad scouting and drafting. That shouldn’t ruin your take on RBs being drafted in the 1st. Sometimes in the draft, these RBs are way more talented than the next best edge rusher, LT, or DT. It doesn’t matter if they’ll only play 8 years. If they help you win, then that’s all that matters.

 

All I know is that I don’t see a bunch of 3rd round running backs in the Hall of Fame. AP is a 1st ballot HOF and he was also a 1st rounder. Like you said though, your opinion is your opinion and I respect it even though I don’t agree with it.

[Dark Superman]

People on here act like it would be a mistake drafting Saquon Barkley. There's a lot of people on here who claim Barkley would be a waste of a pick because we have no offensive line to run behind. We still have to go through free agency before the draft rolls around, so there's no telling what kind of moves Ballard will make in free agency. We will just have to wait and see.

Barkley is probably the most talented prospect I have seen since Edge. Saquon didn't run behind a dominant offensive line at Penn State. I literally watched this kid create his own plays with very little space to work with. His vision and ability to change direction is top notch and even with a struggling line, he's good enough to create plays with his vision and feet. Plus, the kid can block and catch the ball out of the backfield. If Chris Ballard ended up drafting Saquon Barkley, you guys shouldn't look at it as a waste, but a gift. Pairing Barkley with Luck and Hilton would give defenses nightmares, especially if Ballard builds up the offensive line and gives Luck more weapons to work with.

 

I'm 100% on the Saquon Barkley train. If the Colts go a different route by drafting Chubb or an offensive lineman..I'm cool with that as well. 

[Surge89]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

An elite tackle is a long term building block, one that will help make life easier on everyone on the offense, and the team as a whole. 

 

I'm not downplaying how good RBs are, or how important it is to have a productive run game. My problem is with the long term value of one player at that position, especially considering how you can get value out of that position without using a high draft pick.

 

I've read your responses.  And while you have decent logic behind them I'm going to give an equally thought out rebuttal. 

 

1. Barkley is likely to be a generational talent in a class where there's most likely not going to be a generational pass rushing talent.  

 

2. Judging all RBs as equal doesn't help your cause here.  A majority of RBs aren't worth the first round pick I agree but top tier RBs are premium and it's not often you get the chance to pair a blue chip QB with a blue chip RB especially with having the QB seasoned.  Extremely rare opportunity.

 

3.  Luck is 28.  Not 21.  There is a span of approximately 8 years of prime top tier QB we have left out of Luck and by all means Barkley is a high percentage chance to be a great player for 8 years.  Again another extremely rare opportunity.

 

4.  And the last piece that fits all of this together.  We have a Free agent class that is loaded with the one position we desperately need.  G.  I'm not sure if you see it yet but yet again another extremely rare opportunity to fix the most massive problem of our offense by throwing money at it to proven commodities....

 

If you can't get behind the Barkley train after that I won't try any more but it could be truly something special we get a chance at here and it's shortsighted to overlook it just because of predetermined positional value (which I don't disagree with lol..., but not in this scenario).

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

I've read your responses.  And while you have decent logic behind them I'm going to give an equally thought out rebuttal. 

 

1. Barkley is likely to be a generational talent in a class where there's most likely not going to be a generational pass rushing talent.  

 

2. Judging all RBs as equal doesn't help your cause here.  A majority of RB aren't worth the first round pick I agree but top tier RBs are premium and it's not often you get the chance to pair a blue chip QB with a blue chip RB especially with having the QB seasoned.  Extremely rare opportunity.

 

3.  Luck is 28.  Not 21.  There's is a span of approximately 8 years of prime top tier QB we have left out of Luck and by all means Barkley is a high percentage chance to be a great player for 8 years.  Again another extremely rare opportunity.

 

4.  And the last piece that fits all of this together.  We have a Free agent class that is loaded with the one position we desperately need.  G.  I'm not sure if you see it yet but yet again another extremely rare opportunity to fix the most massive problem of our offense by throwing money at it to proven commodities....

 

If you can't get behind the Barkley train after that I won't try any more but it could be truly something special we get a chance at here and it's shortsighted to overlook it just because of predetermined positional value (which I don't disagree with lol..., but not in this scenario).

I am on the Barkley train, most in here are not. If we don't take Barkley and take Chubb I will be ok with it because we need help on Defense so either way I am good. I believe Barkley has the potential to be really Great is all I am saying. If you look at film on him and look at film on Fournette, Barkley looks much more crisp and quicker. Barkley has caught 47 passes this season as well. He is a Great Receiver for a RB, something Luck would feast off of.

[Superman]

On 12/23/2017 at 6:52 AM, Defjamz26 said:

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that RBs don’t contribute to winning seasons as much as other positions. There’s no way the Cowboys win all those games in 2014 without Murray. We see the current Cowboys about 2-3 games behind where they should be without Zeke. Your stance is your stance though.

 

To the bolded, I think both of those players are examples of bad scouting and drafting. That shouldn’t ruin your take on RBs being drafted in the 1st. Sometimes in the draft, these RBs are way more talented than the next best edge rusher, LT, or DT. It doesn’t matter if they’ll only play 8 years. If they help you win, then that’s all that matters.

 

All I know is that I don’t see a bunch of 3rd round running backs in the Hall of Fame. AP is a 1st ballot HOF and he was also a 1st rounder. Like you said though, your opinion is your opinion and I respect it even though I don’t agree with it.

 

Demarco Murray was mostly average for three seasons, partly due to injury. Then he had a really good year behind a really good line. He signed a huge deal with the Eagles, had an awful season, was traded to the Titans where he's been decidedly average again, and is now in a timeshare for the most average team in the league. Would you use a first round pick for that kind of impact?

 

By the way, he was drafted in the third, further illustrating that you can get good backs throughout the draft. 

 

My opinion on backs isn't shaped by Brown and Richardson (and I don't think Richardson is a case of bad scouting, it's a case of a player going bad). It's supported by them. 

 

There's no question that RBs are talented. They're generally the best athletes on the field, pound for pound. Their speed, power, toughness, durability, agility, etc., is a great combination of traits that almost no other position is required to have, and they touch the ball more than any other position, outside of QB. My opinion is not that the RB position isn't important. It's that you can get similar output from a committee of talented backs without using high draft picks, and you can churn that committee every couple of years to rely on fresh legs and a dynamic combination of backs with complementary traits. 

 

I'm not saying there are no first round backs that make a difference for their teams. I'm saying the impact from one elite back doesn't outweigh the impact from a tandem of really good backs so much that it's worth using a high first round pick. And I'm saying the likelihood of hitting on highly picked back and getting elite production out of him for several seasons is lower than hitting on another position and getting a long career out of that player. 

 

There may be some outliers. Maybe Barkley is one of them. But I wouldn't draft him in the first half of the first round, and if that means I miss out on a HOF back, I can live with that. 

 

My fourth draft principle is maximize value. If Barkley is far and away the best player on the board, I would rather trade back a handful of spots and pick up extra picks in that draft. I think that would benefit my team more than taking a RB at #2 or #3. As it stands, I hope the Browns trade out and another team takes Barkley at#1. That might still let us get a haul from another team that wants a QB. 

[superrep1967]

On 12/21/2017 at 8:35 PM, IrishColt22 said:

Will we ever stop talking about our OL. This has just gone on for so long. I think we have to finally address it this year and that starts with taking the best OL man which is Nelson regardless if it's at 3 or a trade back (can't be too far back or he will be gone). AC,Nelson, Kelly is a nice start. In the 2nd if they are still there one of Price or Hernandez to put the other side of Kelly and let Clark/Haeg/Goode fight it out for RT. A second option for the right would to be sign Pugh put him at RG, maybe draft Braden Smith and put him in the mix to fight it out for RT. Then get an ILB to round off the first 3 rounds (jefferson, Smith, Jewel) if they last.

A better coaching staff would help too.

[Defjamz26]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:00 AM, chrisfarley said:

walterfootball has us taking Saquon Barkley, ugh (with Chubb not even gone yet at #3)

If you’re picking that high, you go with the generational blue chip prospects that will dominate from day 1. In this draft there are 2: Saquon Barkley and Quenton Nelson. I’d go with Barkley because he’s the best player in this draft. Chubb is overrated. He’s not an elite edge prospect, just a good one. I don’t see can’t miss when I watch Chubb. And McGlinchey held him in check except for giving up one pressure when they played. Why would I take a guy who got handled by a guy who’s going to be drafted in the 10-25 range number 3 overall? 

[jbaron04]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 PM, Shafty138 said:

we need to spend 5 or more picks in the draft this year, AND 67,423,764 in cap space on the Oline?!?!  Surely you just threw a random percentage out there man.....  that would be like 12 new guys on the line.....   if you were to sign the top RT scheduled to be a FA at 2 times his 2017 cap hit, that's approx. 4.4M, top tier LG available 8 - 16M, LT 10 - 20M.  at the highest insane we don't care about overpaying numbers, that's 3 new starters basically, at 40.4M  nowhere near 75%  and these guys are worth nowhere near that much, this years FA OL pretty much sucks.  on top of that, you want 5 Rookies on the OL?  that's 8 new dudes, and still under 75% of both resources combined.... lol

I was being over the top just to make a point . not really go spend 100m on the O-line 

[Crunked]

The thing to keep in mind long term, is where do you want your money? Where do you want your talent? Short term, we are flush with funds......remember the end of the Polian era? no money to play with to speak of, ultimately it led to a mass exodus of players (ala the first rebuild) .....project out the thinking, if we keep drafting 1st round O-line we hopefully will have a great O-line....but we will be throwing to Walmart greeters....and count on part time bar bouncers to play defense.....because if they are good( our all first round O-line) at some point we have to pay the piper with big second contracts.....sign a FA or two if you can, short term pain, draft developmental mid rounders to get coached up while your FA's shine....long term gain!......use the $ for talent at the skill positions on both sides of the ball in the interim and moving forward.

 

The line assessment is tough, I think its a combination of technique, talent, scheme, injury and coaching....you can put them in any order, as it typically changes from play to play....sort of like a rotten apple, I think we are all sharing our theory on "how" it became rotten....but we are missing the obvious, that it "IS" rotten......and that's the problem. We may never know which came first in this problem .....did this cause that, or that cause this...... the problem is an overall one, and until we start correcting various elements of the problem, we can not hone in on the root cause....(ironically if we clean house with coaches this off season, and turn over the other half of the roster, we will have changed everything, and then we will be in re-assessment mode....which won't be a bad thing....

[throwing BBZ]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:31 AM, Defjamz26 said:

I’d sign one but Nelson is going to be cheaper and more than likely better than whoever else we could sign. I think it’s smarter to only sign one guard and draft Nelson. It’ll pay off long term. Nelson won’t need any time to develop. Chubb will.

 

YES, let's go all out this off season. Because with a New coach, a bunch of new players, young players,
the FUTURE IS NOW. We ain't got time.   chuckle

 So we can finish 8-8 next season.