Early Tidbits Concerning Colts Picking 2nd or 3rd

[dgambill]

3 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Not a lot of people were saying Bosa was "special" that year.  There is no shame in not being as athletically gifted as Garrett and Clowney.

Yep....no shame in that. I’d take a double digit sack producer at this point....and who knows...maybe he turns into a Von Miller later.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Theres NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYY Cleveland doesn't take 1 of these QB'S #1 IMO! You just can't be that stupid every year, but they have Houston's #1 pick to I believe? I guess they could chance it.

[dw49]

33 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

If we beat Houston, I think the Browns get the 4th pick.  A ton of evaluation left to go.  Jackson, Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, Allen - the order will probably be fluid until the combine is done. 

 

Bottom line, they have to take the best one of the group.  But if they're that close, one will be available at 4.

 

 

If Houston loses , there is no question the pick the Browns receive will be 1.4. There would be 3 teams ties at 4-12 and the SOS mathematically is impossible to change in week 17. The order will be...

 

1.3 Colts

1.4 Houston 

1.5 Tampa Bay .

[dw49]

39 minutes ago, Buddy Lee said:

Sounds like Elway and the Colts in 83.

 

 

I think more similar to The Eli Manning draft of 2004. Elway was treating to play baseball and the Yankees played along with that nonsense. So the perception was that Elway had some decent leverage. Those in the know hardly thought so. Trouble was Tiger Irsay had way too much to drink one night and traded him to Denver.

 

Manning really had nothing more than threatening to sit out the entire year and re enter for the following year's draft. He could not even go back to school.

 

Maybe Rosen's leverage is a little different as he can return to UCLA. Ironic that the Giants are the team  of choice in both instances.

[Defjamz26]

3 hours ago, BOTT said:

Not a lot of people were saying Bosa was "special" that year.  There is no shame in not being as athletically gifted as Garrett and Clowney.

There’s no shame but a guy like that shouldn’t go top 5 in that case.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

There’s no shame but a guy like that shouldn’t go top 5 in that case.

 

Bosa has lived up to his draft status, and I didn't think he would.

[Defjamz26]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Bosa has lived up to his draft status, and I didn't think he would.

Bosa had exceptional length and his hand usage was advanced.

[BOTT]

23 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

There’s no shame but a guy like that shouldn’t go top 5 in that case.

Well, there will be very few edge rushers picked in the top 5 if they have to live up to those athletic standards.

[Fluke_33]

12 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Bosa had exceptional length and his hand usage was advanced.

that's what she said?  sorry.  couldn't help it.

[BOTT]

15 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Bosa had exceptional length and his hand usage was advanced.

33 3/8 isn't exceptional length

[Defjamz26]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Been watching Chubb the last couple of days. He's not Von Miller / Khalil Mack, that's obvious. Not nearly as explosive as Garrett, either. At first I was thinking he reminded me of Chandler Jones, but he's bigger and a little bit more explosive, IMO. His tape actually reminds me of Joey Bosa.

 

You might remember, I wasn't that impressed with Bosa's tape. I didn't see great explosiveness or bend, nor did I see good pass rush moves. He was technically sound, played with power, balance, leverage, and had some tenacity, but he didn't strike me as an excellent pass rush prospect. Some of his workout numbers were incredible, others were so-so. I just wasn't wowed by his tape and didn't think he was a top 10 player. 

 

Bosa has obviously been a better pass rusher than I expected 11 sacks in a shortened season last year, 11 sacks so far this year. Good for him and the Chargers.

 

In Chubb's case, his tape looks like Bosa's, to me. He's disruptive, tenacious, has motor, plays with strength and leverage, has active and violent hands, stays in the backfield, chases down ball carriers, has solid closing ability, and has enough range to drop into coverage on occasion. He also has a couple of effective pass rush moves -- a rip/dip, and a counter. But he doesn't look like a dynamic guy who will give OTs fits every single down. He doesn't have the bend around the corner, doesn't have an explosive first step, and doesn't have that one outstanding move that will defeat blockers. 

 

I'm not arguing that Chubb will do what Bosa has done. I do think he'll be good, more of a Chandler Jones kind of guy with the potential for 10-12 sacks every year. If he has a good three cone and a good combination of broad jump, vertical jump and short shuttle, I'll give him a thumbs up as an edge rush prospect. But he's probably not the elite pass rush prospect that he's being propped up to be so far. Still should be a good player, though.

Yeah that was my issue too. I see him as a good pass rusher, not an elite one. I’m not necessarily a believer in positional value, so for me that rules him out of the top 5 for me. If I’m spending a top 5 pick it’s on someone who is going to dominate almost every game and play.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Bosa had exceptional length and his hand usage was advanced.

 

No, I don't think he did....

 

Check Bott's post above....

 

Not sure anyone here was on the Bosa bandwagon when he was drafted.....

 

[GoColts8818]

8 hours ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Theres NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYY Cleveland doesn't take 1 of these QB'S #1 IMO! You just can't be that stupid every year, but they have Houston's #1 pick to I believe? I guess they could chance it.

Depends on how many are there.  They could draft a guy like Barkley number one and if all four of the top QBs come out they would be guaranteed to get one at least at four assuming the Texans pick stays at four.  If they beat the Colts it could slide back and that might change the Browns plans.

[stitches]

8 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Bosa had exceptional length and his hand usage was advanced.

Chubb's hand usage is very similarly advanced. 

[Buddy Lee]

18 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I think more similar to The Eli Manning draft of 2004. Elway was treating to play baseball and the Yankees played along with that nonsense. So the perception was that Elway had some decent leverage. Those in the know hardly thought so. Trouble was Tiger Irsay had way too much to drink one night and traded him to Denver.

 

Manning really had nothing more than threatening to sit out the entire year and re enter for the following year's draft. He could not even go back to school.

 

Maybe Rosen's leverage is a little different as he can return to UCLA. Ironic that the Giants are the team  of choice in both instances.

You have your history right! I agree.

[Buddy Lee]

We ended up with Chris Hinton and Mark Hermann if I recall.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Yeah that was my issue too. I see him as a good pass rusher, not an elite one. I’m not necessarily a believer in positional value, so for me that rules him out of the top 5 for me. If I’m spending a top 5 pick it’s on someone who is going to dominate almost every game and play.

 

Yeah, I'm not upgrading an edge rusher just because he's an edge rusher. For me, the only position you reach for is QB, and even then, that's not the best position to find yourself in.

[dw49]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I'm not upgrading an edge rusher just because he's an edge rusher. For me, the only position you reach for is QB, and even then, that's not the best position to find yourself in.

 

I would rather have Barkley or trade down a few spots and draft Nelson. Chubb might be the best pass rush option in the draft but I don't think he's special. The problem is you may have to trade down more than a few spots to make a deal . So I guess if Ballard also likes Nelson and is not sold on Chubb , you really have to like the worst case scenario at say picking 10th ? Now if there is a coveted QB in the spot we pick , there is way more "wiggle room " as you can always trade some of the bigger package to move back up or just enjoy all the "extra compensation,"  

 

Also possible that we pick 3rd and there is no highly sought player sitting there. Could be just as simple as picking say Nelson , Chubb or Barkley.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I would rather have Barkley or trade down a few spots and draft Nelson. Chubb might be the best pass rush option in the draft but I don't think he's special. The problem is you may have to trade down more than a few spots to make a deal . So I guess if Ballard also likes Nelson and is not sold on Chubb , you really have to like the worst case scenario at say picking 10th ? Now if there is a coveted QB in the spot we pick , there is way more "wiggle room " as you can always trade some of the bigger package to move back up or just enjoy all the "extra compensation,"  

 

Also possible that we pick 3rd and there is no highly sought player sitting there. Could be just as simple as picking say Nelson , Chubb or Barkley.

 

I'd trade back to #10 before drafting Barkley, assuming the offer gives me another top 45 pick. I'd rather have the draft capital.

[loudnproudcolt]

Right now you have 4 qb's you are talking about, and I believe after the combine, heck even before there really are five. Why no one has Lamar Jackson in the group no one is talking about I don't know. Walter Football site seems to like him a lot. He improved quite a bit on his pocket presence and accuracy this year, and he is going to wow at the combine from an athletic point of view. If all QB's come out, you are going to have 5 QB's to talk about in the 1st round, Darnold, Rosen, Jackson, Mayfield, and Allen.

 

One other point, I don't think we can know how this is going to apply to the draft until we get through FA since there are going to be some good QB's moving around this year in FA, which rarely happens. I think Brees stays put, Manning also and will mentor a year or two before retirement since I don't think he wants to go to another team, and Mara seems to feel the same.

So you have Alex Smith and Kirk Cousins. Tyrod Taylor, Dalton, and Tannehill may become available. Of course if the last four leave, all those teams now need franchise QB's. It is going to be a wild FA with the decision teams make on QB's.

My main point is Lamar Jackson is going to come into the conversation which is good for us.

[Dingus McGirt]

6 minutes ago, loudnproudcolt said:

Right now you have 4 qb's you are talking about, and I believe after the combine, heck even before there really are five. Why no one has Lamar Jackson in the group no one is talking about I don't know. Walter Football site seems to like him a lot. He improved quite a bit on his pocket presence and accuracy this year, and he is going to wow at the combine from an athletic point of view. If all QB's come out, you are going to have 5 QB's to talk about in the 1st round, Darnold, Rosen, Jackson, Mayfield, and Allen.

 

One other point, I don't think we can know how this is going to apply to the draft until we get through FA since there are going to be some good QB's moving around this year in FA, which rarely happens. I think Brees stays put, Manning also and will mentor a year or two before retirement since I don't think he wants to go to another team, and Mara seems to feel the same.

So you have Alex Smith and Kirk Cousins. Tyrod Taylor, Dalton, and Tannehill may become available. Of course if the last four leave, all those teams now need franchise QB's. It is going to be a wild FA with the decision teams make on QB's.

My main point is Lamar Jackson is going to come into the conversation which is good for us.

Don't forget Jay Cutler.   :^)

[Myles]

 Not counting the draft:

Brees

Cousins

Alex Smith

Tyrod Taylor

Manning

McCarron

Bridgewater

Keenum

Cutler

Gabbert

Fitzpatrick

Matt Moore

OsWeiller

Bortles

Glennon

Tannehill

Bradford

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'd trade back to #10 before drafting Barkley, assuming the offer gives me another top 45 pick. I'd rather have the draft capital.

 

Most draft charts show the difference between 3 and 10 to be around 1000 points. Then they show pick 45 to be worth around 450 points.   The more I look at these charts , I think they are useless . It really would vary  so much on who was at 3 and how strong the top 3rd of round 2 is. 

[dgambill]

19 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

that's what she said?  sorry.  couldn't help it.

 

19 hours ago, BOTT said:

33 3/8 isn't exceptional length

We are still talking about arm length correct??!

[PeterBowman]

7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

 

We are still talking about arm length correct??!

I hope so, if not, then that would be a little overkill lol

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

Most draft charts show the difference between 3 and 10 to be around 1000 points. Then they show pick 45 to be worth around 450 points.   The more I look at these charts , I think they are useless . It really would vary  so much on who was at 3 and how strong the top 3rd of round 2 is. 

I’m pretty sure unless we are just moving 1 maybe 2 spots we should land a future first out of any deal. I can’t see a scenerio that a team moving up multiple spots into the top 5 doesn’t give up a first. I really would hope Ballard could get us minimum that and if he doesn’t I’d be very disappointed. I don’t value moving back and passing on an elite prospect at the top to just get a few picks later in the draft. If I’m moving back I’m getting compensated a premium.

3 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

I would rather have Barkley or trade down a few spots and draft Nelson. Chubb might be the best pass rush option in the draft but I don't think he's special. The problem is you may have to trade down more than a few spots to make a deal . So I guess if Ballard also likes Nelson and is not sold on Chubb , you really have to like the worst case scenario at say picking 10th ? Now if there is a coveted QB in the spot we pick , there is way more "wiggle room " as you can always trade some of the bigger package to move back up or just enjoy all the "extra compensation,"  

 

Also possible that we pick 3rd and there is no highly sought player sitting there. Could be just as simple as picking say Nelson , Chubb or Barkley.

I don’t understand this call for Nelson so high. Investing in a guard in the top 10...heck top 20 sounds too rich for me. I don’t know too many elite guards and even that there are plenty of good ones that come much later. I’d much rather take a tackle and then move them inside if it didn’t work out then invest a top 10 in a guard who doesn’t even block elite pass rushers.

[dw49]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

I’m pretty sure unless we are just moving 1 maybe 2 spots we should land a future first out of any deal. I can’t see a scenerio that a team moving up multiple spots into the top 5 doesn’t give up a first. I really would hope Ballard could get us minimum that and if he doesn’t I’d be very disappointed. I don’t value moving back and passing on an elite prospect at the top to just get a few picks later in the draft. If I’m moving back I’m getting compensated a premium.

I don’t understand this call for Nelson so high. Investing in a guard in the top 10...heck top 20 sounds too rich for me. I don’t know too many elite guards and even that there are plenty of good ones that come much later. I’d much rather take a tackle and then move them inside if it didn’t work out then invest a top 10 in a guard who doesn’t even block elite pass rushers.

 

I'm not calling for Nelson at 3. The point I was making is if there is no team that wants to give up "good " or "fair" compensation for moving up to 3 , we could be stuck with just taking our highest rated guy at 3 . I have no idea what Ballard's board might look like but it's not impossible Nelson could be 3rd ? But I do agree with you that not too many guards are drafted at pick 1.3.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

I'm not calling for Nelson at 3. The point I was making is if there is no team that wants to give up "good " or "fair" compensation for moving up to 3 , we could be stuck with just taking our highest rated guy at 3 . I have no idea what Ballard's board might look like but it's not impossible Nelson could be 3rd ? But I do agree with you that not too many guards are drafted at pick 1.3.

Oh it wasn’t just meant to be you singled out on the Nelson thing it is just I’ve seen more threads and posts devoted to him I just think that a lot of people haven’t really thought through it. If we play our cards right and have some chips fall our way we could end up with not 1 or maybe even 2 picks but several first rd picks and perhaps an elite player to boot.

[dw49]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

Oh it wasn’t just meant to be you singled out on the Nelson thing it is just I’ve seen more threads and posts devoted to him I just think that a lot of people haven’t really thought through it. If we play our cards right and have some chips fall our way we could end up with not 1 or maybe even 2 picks but several first rd picks and perhaps an elite player to boot.

 

 

I think that last scenario is very possible if we can somehow lose and get a Giant win. But I think we are playing at a better level than Houston and the Giants will for sure pull Eli early and do whatever else to lose that game. So we'll need both guys to come out and 1 more QB to reach the top of the draft board for that 3rd pick to be really valuable. 

[dw49]

On 12/24/2017 at 5:53 PM, dw49 said:

Early betting lines on the 2 games that matter are out.

 

Colts are even. I would expect us to be around minus 2 as we get closer to next Sunday.

 

Washington is 3 to 3.5 right now. I'm thinking that ones goes to 4.5. They are just better than NY and is home field really a significant edge in that game ? I doubt it.

 

Here's another interesting item that certainly effects the top of round one.

 

Neither Rosen or Darnold are locks to come out . Darold is only 20 years old and the word so far is that he could indeed go back to SC for another year. We did see similar with both our guys... Manning and Luck. As to Rosen , here something I just saw in Roto World.

 

 

According to ESPN's Adam Schefter, UCLA QB Josh Rosen prefers to play for the Giants and would be "hesitant to come out in next year's draft" if the Browns pursue him with the first overall pick.

Rosen is still deciding whether to enter the upcoming draft, where he would likely be a first-round selection. Per Schefter, he wants no part of the Browns, however, and may be tempted to return to UCLA for his senior year if it meant avoiding Cleveland. ESPN's Todd McShay projects Rosen as the No. 1 pick while Mel Kiper has him at No. 4. The winless Browns are a lock to draft a quarterback after missing on Carson Wentz and Deshaun Watson the past two years.

Source: ESPN.com 

Dec 24 - 9:42 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Ha... I figured the game would go from even to Colts minus 2.. 2.5. Today it sitting at 3.5 with some minus 4's to be found out there. Giant game remains about the same. Skins look very attractive to me .

[Myles]

14 hours ago, dgambill said:

I’m pretty sure unless we are just moving 1 maybe 2 spots we should land a future first out of any deal. I can’t see a scenerio that a team moving up multiple spots into the top 5 doesn’t give up a first. I really would hope Ballard could get us minimum that and if he doesn’t I’d be very disappointed. I don’t value moving back and passing on an elite prospect at the top to just get a few picks later in the draft. If I’m moving back I’m getting compensated a premium.

I don’t understand this call for Nelson so high. Investing in a guard in the top 10...heck top 20 sounds too rich for me. I don’t know too many elite guards and even that there are plenty of good ones that come much later. I’d much rather take a tackle and then move them inside if it didn’t work out then invest a top 10 in a guard who doesn’t even block elite pass rushers.

Everything on Nelson has him as a ready to play great at pass protection and run blocking.    I would be very happy if we traded down a couple spots and grabs him.   I wouldn't be disappointed if we ended up taking him at 3.    The O-line is what I want fixed for years to come.   It makes everything better.   It's not flashy, but at this point, the Colts need to improve the line.    Perhaps they can get enough in free agency, but we'll have to wait and see.   I just hope they don't just improve the line a little and go into next season with it.  Luck won't last long and it'll be another year of talking about what to do with our high draft pick.

 

[dgambill]

45 minutes ago, Myles said:

Everything on Nelson has him as a ready to play great at pass protection and run blocking.    I would be very happy if we traded down a couple spots and grabs him.   I wouldn't be disappointed if we ended up taking him at 3.    The O-line is what I want fixed for years to come.   It makes everything better.   It's not flashy, but at this point, the Colts need to improve the line.    Perhaps they can get enough in free agency, but we'll have to wait and see.   I just hope they don't just improve the line a little and go into next season with it.  Luck won't last long and it'll be another year of talking about what to do with our high draft pick.

 

The thing with a guard...they don’t block even the best two pass rushers on the other team. He may be great and if we land him later in the first after a trade back ok...fine...but not with a top 10 pick. If you don’t even block the most important players on the other team I can find adequate people to fill your position later say in rd 2 and there would still be a top prospect act your position. We could fix the guard spot sure but that does almost zilch to protect Luck because the two most important postions haven’t been addressed. That’s my only issue. Not to say we couldn’t draft him but I could only see that scenerio I’d say we traded with Buffalo for like pick 18 and 25 or whatever those picks end up being and also land a #1 next year. Then we could address guard and maybe lb. But top 10...I need a franchise left tackle, pass rusher, qb, shut down corner. Somebody that can have a huge impact on the game with their play alone. Every position is important...but let’s be honest a great guard is only as effective in changing the game as the players he is playing beside. Zack Martin is as good as he is because he is playing next to Travis Frederick and Tyron Smith and company. (Also Martin was a converted tackle) If the unit has weakness it gets exploited. At least a tackle can protect a qb from the most dangerous player on the opposing defense even if the inside guys aren’t great. The issue with our line play are on the outside...pass rush and protection just aren’t up to par. Run stuffers and road grader guards are easier to find then elite pass rushers and protecters. Of course you need them all to have a great unit but how many elite pass rushers or franchise left tackles ever make it to free agency or get traded....and how many guards or DTs? It’s night and day.

[Myles]

22 minutes ago, dgambill said:

The thing with a guard...they don’t block even the best two pass rushers on the other team. He may be great and if we land him later in the first after a trade back ok...fine...but not with a top 10 pick. If you don’t even block the most important players on the other team I can find adequate people to fill your position later say in rd 2 and there would still be a top prospect act your position. We could fix the guard spot sure but that does almost zilch to protect Luck because the two most important postions haven’t been addressed. That’s my only issue. Not to say we couldn’t draft him but I could only see that scenerio I’d say we traded with Buffalo for like pick 18 and 25 or whatever those picks end up being and also land a #1 next year. Then we could address guard and maybe lb. But top 10...I need a franchise left tackle, pass rusher, qb, shut down corner. Somebody that can have a huge impact on the game with their play alone. Every position is important...but let’s be honest a great guard is only as effective in changing the game as the players he is playing beside. Zack Martin is as good as he is because he is playing next to Travis Frederick and Tyron Smith and company. (Also Martin was a converted tackle) If the unit has weakness it gets exploited. At least a tackle can protect a qb from the most dangerous player on the opposing defense even if the inside guys aren’t great. The issue with our line play are on the outside...pass rush and protection just aren’t up to par. Run stuffers and road grader guards are easier to find then elite pass rushers and protecters. Of course you need them all to have a great unit but how many elite pass rushers or franchise left tackles ever make it to free agency or get traded....and how many guards or DTs? It’s night and day.

I disagree.    If I can solidify the left guard with the best out there, I am doing it.   The run game will benefit and the passing game will benefit.   All mock drafts have him easily going in the top 10.   No way he is there at 18.  

 

[rockywoj]

If you have a great interior OL, the pocket will not get pushed up into Luck’s face.  When the heat comes from the edges, he can then just step up into the pocket, buying some extra check-down time.  Plus, a very good running game is born out of the push of the interior OL, with your linemen getting into position at the second level.

 

if an all-pro OG is there for the taking, given the Colts perpetual OL issues, you take him and don’t look back.   Of course, though, I agree that if there’s a trade-back opportunity that allows you to still get your guy, then you pull that trigger.

[DaColts85]

I would say if we were able to trade back with someone like the Broncos and still pick at #6, Nelson would be someone I would target if he is still there.  You hopefully grab someone like Norwell in FA.  Then pair him and Nelson with a healthy Kelly and you have a solid interior.  The running game will show immediate improvements and so should the passing game.  Allowing Luck time to throw, plus giving TY time to break away, and you get a prolific offense.  I am fine with AC and Good at the OT spots for 2018 if we can get a solid interior line.  Just one of many scenarios though.

[Narcosys]

I'm confused, was this supposed to be about who we should draft?

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

I'm confused, was this supposed to be about who we should draft?

Just about every thread involving the draft devolves into who to pick. Personally I would be very disappointed if we took a guard in the top 10. We had great guard play out of Jack before he got hurt. I think the difference between avg guard play and great is small as far as the affect on the field as opposed to a pass rusher or qb or left tackle. We have a bigger need at tackle in my opinion than the interior line. So if you want a lineman in the first let’s talk tackles then. Even tackles that don’t turn out great have a decent shot at moving to guard and being good. Why not Williams if you want a lineman so bad? I swear this board and its Notre Dame fascination is crazy sometimes. Nelson is a great guard prospect...but taking him in the top ten imo seems like over compensating. I wasn’t thrilled we took a center at like #16 or whatever it was for Kelly a slam dunk prospect and we’ve watched Person step up and play just as well if not better. There is a reason left tackles get paid far and away more than any other lineman....because they are more valuable and they are harder to find.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, DaColts85 said:

I would say if we were able to trade back with someone like the Broncos and still pick at #6, Nelson would be someone I would target if he is still there.  You hopefully grab someone like Norwell in FA.  Then pair him and Nelson with a healthy Kelly and you have a solid interior.  The running game will show immediate improvements and so should the passing game.  Allowing Luck time to throw, plus giving TY time to break away, and you get a prolific offense.  I am fine with AC and Good at the OT spots for 2018 if we can get a solid interior line.  Just one of many scenarios though.

Will the Colts be playing beyond 2018? So if we agree they will then let’s have a little foresight and see that left tackle is going to be a pretty big priority moving forward. I’d also like to think we won’t be picking in the top 10 again soon but heck if we take a guard maybe you have a different plan then me. Let’s get elite talent at the most important positions while we are up here. Whether that’s left tackle or pass rush or corner or even qb if Lucks health is a concern.

[dgambill]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I disagree.    If I can solidify the left guard with the best out there, I am doing it.   The run game will benefit and the passing game will benefit.   All mock drafts have him easily going in the top 10.   No way he is there at 18.  

 

So what if you can solidify the left tackle position if the best is there? Remember this is a pick that will hopefully affect the team for the next 8 years minimum.

[Myles]

53 minutes ago, dgambill said:

So what if you can solidify the left tackle position if the best is there? Remember this is a pick that will hopefully affect the team for the next 8 years minimum.

Nelson would be a pro bowler for the next 10 years.   That is a wise pick.