What to do with the third pick?

[CR91]

Chubbs has been a popular pick as has Quentin Nelson, however I think the best thing we can do is trade back. We have a rare opportunity to take advantage of a top three pick and have a lot of holes to fill. There are plenty of QB hungry teams like the broncos, jets, and cards  who could be interested in trading up. imo, our biggest need is RT and the best Tackle in the draft is Mike Mcglinchey, but he is not worth a top three pick. I also think G is a need, but you usually don't see guards taken in the top three. What do you think is the best option for the colts?

[stitches]

If we stay at 3 pick the best value. I've liked Chubb at that position, but he's probably not Bosa/Garrett level of prospect, so lately I've been moving more and more towards Minkah Fitzpatrick. I think he might be the best defensive player in the draft and I think he plays CB in the league.

 

At this point I cannot justify picking any OT over Nelson with one wild card - Connor Williams, he will need to show in the pre-draft process he's worth it though. 

 

If possible I would like to trade the pick to some team in the top 10 and then pick Nelson + other valuable assets. 

[richard pallo]

Definitely trade back.  Ballard tried to do it last year and couldn't find a partner.  This year he should have no problem. 

[JMichael557]

You trade back if you can get the player that you still want by trading back. If not you take the best player. You have to have good players to win games. 

[BProland85]

If it were me playing GM, I'd find out which teams either need a franchise QB, or offensive playmaker to build their offense around (Saquon Barkley). I think RBs are now back in the discussion for getting drafted early especially when they have the talent of a Barkley, Elliott, and Gurley. If I got the offer I was looking for to trade out of #3, I'd then move down in the range where Quenton Nelson should be drafted and take him while also adding draft picks. If I don't get the offer that's worth moving down, I'm taking Barkley, provided that I signed some help at OL in free agency, and more specifically Andrew Norwell. Barkley would take a ton of pressure off Luck and would make this offense dynamic so long as the improved OL and coaching scheme keeps Luck upright. 

[CR91]

17 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

If it were me playing GM, I'd find out which teams either need a franchise QB, or offensive playmaker to build their offense around (Saquon Barkley). I think RBs are now back in the discussion for getting drafted early especially when they have the talent of a Barkley, Elliott, and Gurley. If I got the offer I was looking for to trade out of #3, I'd then move down in the range where Quenton Nelson should be drafted and take him while also adding draft picks. If I don't get the offer that's worth moving down, I'm taking Barkley, provided that I signed some help at OL in free agency, and more specifically Andrew Norwell. Barkley would take a ton of pressure off Luck and would make this offense dynamic so long as the improved OL and coaching scheme keeps Luck upright. 

 

I like Barkley, but you and I both know this forum would be in a uproar and people would be coming to Ballard's home with torches and pitchforks

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I like Barkley, but you and I both know this forum would be in a uproar and people would be coming to Ballard's home with torches and pitchforks

If we take Barkley I will be in the minority because I will be happy. I think he is best RB that is coming out of college in a long time. Having said that if we re-sign Gore and Draft Brad Chubb or Nelson 3rd overall I would be ok with that too. I think we are in a win/win situation no matter what we do. Mack will be better next season as well being it's year 2.

[Hoose]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

If we stay at 3 pick the best value. I've liked Chubb at that position, but he's probably not Bosa/Garrett level of prospect, so lately I've been moving more and more towards Minkah Fitzpatrick. I think he might be the best defensive player in the draft and I think he plays CB in the league.

 

At this point I cannot justify picking any OT over Nelson with one wild card - Connor Williams, he will need to show in the pre-draft process he's worth it though. 

 

If possible I would like to trade the pick to some team in the top 10 and then pick Nelson + other valuable assets. 

I would either take Chubb or trade back as you suggested so that I still had a shot at Nelson. 

[Dingus McGirt]

Let's address this AFTER the FA signing period.  :^)

[Reidm]

59 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Let's address this AFTER the FA signing period.  :^)

 

Now where's the fun in that 

[Nesjan3]

We almost have to trade back, IMO the best pick for our positions of need would be the Nelson guy who sounds like the best guard coming out of college in a long time, but can we pick a guard with a top 3 pick? I dont think so , the last time an OG was taken in the top 5 was Leonard Davis taken #2 by the Cardinals in 2001. The question for me is, how far do we trade back ensuring we get the best value for our pick, but making sure Nelson is still available. 

[PeterBowman]

I will say this.....if the Colts want Nelson that badly and they're unable to trade back, they should still take him. A few draft spots isn't that big a deal...now if yo can trade back and still get him, even better.

[dgambill]

4 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

We almost have to trade back, IMO the best pick for our positions of need would be the Nelson guy who sounds like the best guard coming out of college in a long time, but can we pick a guard with a top 3 pick? I dont think so , the last time an OG was taken in the top 5 was Leonard Davis taken #2 by the Cardinals in 2001. The question for me is, how far do we trade back ensuring we get the best value for our pick, but making sure Nelson is still available. 

Indeed most recently they have been taken in the 20s....last year Forest Lamp who this board loved went 38! Jonathon Cooper was the last top 10 to go..followed closely by Chance Warmack...two sure fire can’t miss once in a generation road grading guards...except that hasn’t been the case...well at least Cooper has finally improved some this year once he got placed next to a pro bowl center and future HOF left tackle. Guards are just not valued that high even if they are good. Here is a list of all time top 5 guards taken in the draft....

 

• Leonard Davis, 2001, Pick 2
• *Jonathan Ogden, 1996, Pick 4
• Bill Fralic, 1985, Pick 2
• Chris Hinton, 1983, Pick 4
• Ken Huff, 1975, Pick 3
• John Hicks, 1974, Pick 3
• John Hannah, 1973, Pick 4
• Tom Mack, 1966, Pick 2
• **Randy Beisler, 1966, Pick 4
• John Niland, 1966, Pick 5
• Fritz Barzilauskas, 1947, Pick 3
• Rudy Mucha, 1941, Pick 4

it just doesnt happen in the top 5....in fact even the first round the past several years is rare. I think Nelson is great but he is just as likely to bust as anyone....there are no guarantees in life...and if I’m investing top 5 pick I want a player that has a huge effect on the game...and a guard just isn’t that player. They don’t even block the opposing teams best players.

[Indy Fan]

4 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

We almost have to trade back, IMO the best pick for our positions of need would be the Nelson guy who sounds like the best guard coming out of college in a long time, but can we pick a guard with a top 3 pick? I dont think so , the last time an OG was taken in the top 5 was Leonard Davis taken #2 by the Cardinals in 2001. The question for me is, how far do we trade back ensuring we get the best value for our pick, but making sure Nelson is still available. 

Brandon Scherff 5th overall in 2015

[Nesjan3]

1 minute ago, Indy Fan said:

Brandon Scherff 5th overall in 2015

He was listed as a T in the draft and that is the position he played in college, but yes he has switched to and currently plays at G

[Indy Fan]

7 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

He was listed as a T in the draft and that is the position he played in college, but yes he has switched to and currently plays at G

He played tackle in college but was listed as OG for the draft. I remember this vividly as I had a bet with a buddy and sadly lost.

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/brandon-scherff?id=2552353

[Nesjan3]

9 minutes ago, Indy Fan said:

He played tackle in college but was listed as OG for the draft. I remember this vividly as I had a bet with a buddy and sadly lost.

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/brandon-scherff?id=2552353

Huh weird on the draft history page i have been pulling up he is listed as a T but in the one you have pulled up he is listed as a G..

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2015&round=round1#round1

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

Indeed most recently they have been taken in the 20s....last year Forest Lamp who this board loved went 38! Jonathon Cooper was the last top 10 to go..followed closely by Chance Warmack...two sure fire can’t miss once in a generation road grading guards...except that hasn’t been the case...well at least Cooper has finally improved some this year once he got placed next to a pro bowl center and future HOF left tackle. Guards are just not valued that high even if they are good. Here is a list of all time top 5 guards taken in the draft....

 

• Leonard Davis, 2001, Pick 2
• *Jonathan Ogden, 1996, Pick 4
• Bill Fralic, 1985, Pick 2
• Chris Hinton, 1983, Pick 4
• Ken Huff, 1975, Pick 3
• John Hicks, 1974, Pick 3
• John Hannah, 1973, Pick 4
• Tom Mack, 1966, Pick 2
• **Randy Beisler, 1966, Pick 4
• John Niland, 1966, Pick 5
• Fritz Barzilauskas, 1947, Pick 3
• Rudy Mucha, 1941, Pick 4

it just doesnt happen in the top 5....in fact even the first round the past several years is rare. I think Nelson is great but he is just as likely to bust as anyone....there are no guarantees in life...and if I’m investing top 5 pick I want a player that has a huge effect on the game...and a guard just isn’t that player. They don’t even block the opposing teams best players.

 

FYI....

 

Your first four...  Davis, Ogden, Fralic, and Hinton were all drafted as tackles..   Ogden is in the HoF as a tackle...   I think Fralic played mostly tackle in his career..   I think only Hinton and Davis wound up playing mostly guard..    and Davis ate his way to the position..

 

 

[dgambill]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

FYI....

 

Your first four...  Davis, Ogden, Fralic, and Hinton were all drafted as tackles..   Ogden is in the HoF as a tackle...   I think Fralic played mostly tackle in his career..   I think only Hinton and Davis wound up playing mostly guard..    and Davis ate his way to the position..

 

 

• 2010 – current:  9
• 2000 – 2009:  6
• 1990 – 1999:  13*
• 1980 – 1989:  19
• 1970 – 1979:  15
• 1960 – 1969:  11
• 1950 – 1959:  2
• 1940 – 1949:  2
• 1936 – 1939:  1
• This is the number of guards taken in the first round historically. Like I said none last year....and like you said it’s typical now to take a tackle and convert them to guard. Your right on your observations...obviously everyone knows Ogden played mostly tackle but he played guard his rookie year. Tackle is just a more difficult position to play. Finding someone that has the speed/athleticism, power, and technique is rare. I just feel you can find a guard in so many more ways whether it be later in the draft, convert a tackle, free agency, or within...but those left tackles are hard to find. I mean we all loved Forrest Lamp last year and he almost fell to us in the second round. I’d dare say we might be able to take one of the top 3 guards in the draft with our 3rd round pick. Whatever the case whether we take a LT or OLB early or whatever I just don’t think using this hopefully once in a decade selection on a guard is prudent. 
• If I had a dollar for every time I heard can’t miss prospect on this board or in an article I would have my own place down here in Florida instead of sleeping on a pull out couch at my in laws!! Lol

[Dingus McGirt]

Refresh my memory...how far into the season did Lamp get?

 

The draft is ALWAYS a crap shoot.

[Dingus McGirt]

22 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

I like Barkley, but you and I both know this forum would be in a uproar and people would be coming to Ballard's home with torches and pitchforks

I would participate, but only if he showed up wearing a midriff jersey.

 

[richard pallo]

23 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

I like Barkley, but you and I both know this forum would be in a uproar and people would be coming to Ballard's home with torches and pitchforks

This forum would be in an uproar but I doubt he really cares or even reads it.  He will do his own thing and in his mind do what's best for the franchise.  I am a firm believer he will trade back though.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

• 2010 – current:  9
• 2000 – 2009:  6
• 1990 – 1999:  13*
• 1980 – 1989:  19
• 1970 – 1979:  15
• 1960 – 1969:  11
• 1950 – 1959:  2
• 1940 – 1949:  2
• 1936 – 1939:  1
• This is the number of guards taken in the first round historically. Like I said none last year....and like you said it’s typical now to take a tackle and convert them to guard. Your right on your observations...obviously everyone knows Ogden played mostly tackle but he played guard his rookie year. Tackle is just a more difficult position to play. Finding someone that has the speed/athleticism, power, and technique is rare. I just feel you can find a guard in so many more ways whether it be later in the draft, convert a tackle, free agency, or within...but those left tackles are hard to find. I mean we all loved Forrest Lamp last year and he almost fell to us in the second round. I’d dare say we might be able to take one of the top 3 guards in the draft with our 3rd round pick. Whatever the case whether we take a LT or OLB early or whatever I just don’t think using this hopefully once in a decade selection on a guard is prudent. 
• If I had a dollar for every time I heard can’t miss prospect on this board or in an article I would have my own place down here in Florida instead of sleeping on a pull out couch at my in laws!! Lol

 

Agreed....    

 

That's why I believe that if we love Nelson and want him --- fine.    But trade back a little and collect draft pick(s) and select him a little later where it's more reasonable.

 

I'd also be fine trading back a little to take Williams or McGlinchey.

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Agreed....    

 

That's why I believe that if we love Nelson and want him --- fine.    But trade back a little and collect draft pick(s) and select him a little later where it's more reasonable.

 

I'd also be fine trading back a little to take Williams or McGlinchey.

Do you like McGlinchey better than Brown? 

[NewColtsFan]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

Do you like McGlinchey better than Brown? 

 

Not sure yet...   some think Brown can play the left side eventually..     others see only a right tackle..    too early in the process for me to have a good feel?

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Not sure yet...   some think Brown can play the left side eventually..     others see only a right tackle..    too early in the process for me to have a good feel?

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

I think both are right tackles in the league and I like Brown better. McGlinchey has been having serious troubles with speed rushers to the outside all year long and this worries me. I cannot imagine what he would do against the Macks or Von Millers of the world. I think Connor Williams can be a left tackle in the future. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Can we really go wrong with the 3rd pick (assuming Andrew Luck doesn't retire today ). We don't need a QB so if we took Chubb, Nelson, or Barkley - I would be fine with either 3. Ballard would still have 6 more high picks.

[aaron11]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

This forum would be in an uproar but I doubt he really cares or even reads it.  He will do his own thing and in his mind do what's best for the franchise.  I am a firm believer he will trade back though.

pretty doubtful that he personally reads it, at least with any regularity.  same with irsay

 

they might have somebody on the staff that checks in and gives feedback, if they even want it 

 

 

[dgambill]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Agreed....    

 

That's why I believe that if we love Nelson and want him --- fine.    But trade back a little and collect draft pick(s) and select him a little later where it's more reasonable.

 

I'd also be fine trading back a little to take Williams or McGlinchey.

I’m right there with you. Most of me just wants to use the pick...I only want to trade back if we get a future first plus assets in this draft. Only if we can have multiple firsts at some point because picking in the top 3 doesn’t happen often unless you are the Browns or Jaguars.

[Defjamz26]

11 hours ago, dgambill said:

• 2010 – current:  9
• 2000 – 2009:  6
• 1990 – 1999:  13*
• 1980 – 1989:  19
• 1970 – 1979:  15
• 1960 – 1969:  11
• 1950 – 1959:  2
• 1940 – 1949:  2
• 1936 – 1939:  1
• This is the number of guards taken in the first round historically. Like I said none last year....and like you said it’s typical now to take a tackle and convert them to guard. Your right on your observations...obviously everyone knows Ogden played mostly tackle but he played guard his rookie year. Tackle is just a more difficult position to play. Finding someone that has the speed/athleticism, power, and technique is rare. I just feel you can find a guard in so many more ways whether it be later in the draft, convert a tackle, free agency, or within...but those left tackles are hard to find. I mean we all loved Forrest Lamp last year and he almost fell to us in the second round. I’d dare say we might be able to take one of the top 3 guards in the draft with our 3rd round pick. Whatever the case whether we take a LT or OLB early or whatever I just don’t think using this hopefully once in a decade selection on a guard is prudent. 
• If I had a dollar for every time I heard can’t miss prospect on this board or in an article I would have my own place down here in Florida instead of sleeping on a pull out couch at my in laws!! Lol

Drafting by looking at historical data, metrics, and other methods is a fools game. Its easy to say stuff like No one drafts a center in the top 20, or you can get a RB in the later rounds and look at some exceptions to the rule as a way to verify such claims. But at the end of the day there are no 100%, black and white strict drafting rules. Each year is different, each player is different, each situation is different. Each evaluation should be different. Past data doesn't automatically set the precedent. If Quenton Nelson is as good as they say he is, there isn't anything wrong with him going top 10, or even as high as top 5. I've said it before. Positional value is overrated. It only applies to kickers, punters, fullbacks, and early round QBs when you already have a franchise QB.

[Track Guy]

If we can get a favorable trade back, taking it makes a ton of sense. 

[NewColtsFan]

On 12/28/2017 at 6:54 PM, Indy Fan said:

He played tackle in college but was listed as OG for the draft. I remember this vividly as I had a bet with a buddy and sadly lost.

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/brandon-scherff?id=2552353

 

But Scherff was drafted to play tackle...    that's where he was initially played in camp of his rookie season.

 

But it quickly became clear that his best position was guard and not tackle so the Skins made the switch.

 

But the hope was for tackle.    That's why they spent the 5th overall pick on him.

 

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Drafting by looking at historical data, metrics, and other methods is a fools game. Its easy to say stuff like No one drafts a center in the top 20, or you can get a RB in the later rounds and look at some exceptions to the rule as a way to verify such claims. But at the end of the day there are no 100%, black and white strict drafting rules. Each year is different, each player is different, each situation is different. Each evaluation should be different. Past data doesn't automatically set the precedent. If Quenton Nelson is as good as they say he is, there isn't anything wrong with him going top 10, or even as high as top 5. I've said it before. Positional value is overrated. It only applies to kickers, punters, fullbacks, and early round QBs when you already have a franchise QB.

Look I’m not going to sit here and make the same arguement over and over. We disagree on positional value. However, it’s pretty clear most GMs agree with me on that though. That is why it is one of the least compensated positions in the league. It is also why it is so rarely drafted high because if it was valued the same then we would see a more evenly spread distribution of positions picked at the top of the draft. I love Nelson and will be happy to have him on our team for the right price. Hopefully we are only up here once for a very long time. I’d like to take this opportunity to find a pass rusher for the future or lockdown corner or franchise left tackle. I feel confident Ballard can address our guard position in another way or later in the draft. I want the best team we can have and I want to protect Andrew. I have no problem spending assets on a guard....but we got one silver bullet...and I’d like to spend it on a monster....whichever tests out the best and would offer us the biggest bang for our buck. There is no perfect players and they all come with risk. That said there are some positions worth taking that risk on because the payoff is huge. I’m going to base the assumption we will be picking third and no trade because that is all we can basically assure ourselves with at this point. If we trade back and the best player far and away is Nelson so be it...but if we have the best pass rusher or defensive back or left tackle still there available when we do...I expect us to take one of those. I know Ballard will take a good look at him because he values building in the trenches...but I doubt this teams identity will be based on running the rock 30 times or more a game like say Tennessee...not when we have Andrew Luck at qb...and if that is the case great tackles and solid guards will be the focus not built from the inside out because if you can’t protect the edge where the best and most dangerous players on the defense will be coming to take Lucks head off it might be of little value to have those road grader run blockers up front. We will just wait and see what happens. It only takes one to fall in love to take Nelson that high...maybe that is Ballard...or maybe it is no one....I’m betting on he is taken closer to 10-12 then 3-5 but we will see. He is a great talent none the less.

[Defjamz26]

52 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Look I’m not going to sit here and make the same arguement over and over. We disagree on positional value. However, it’s pretty clear most GMs agree with me on that though. That is why it is one of the least compensated positions in the league. It is also why it is so rarely drafted high because if it was valued the same then we would see a more evenly spread distribution of positions picked at the top of the draft. I love Nelson and will be happy to have him on our team for the right price. Hopefully we are only up here once for a very long time. I’d like to take this opportunity to find a pass rusher for the future or lockdown corner or franchise left tackle. I feel confident Ballard can address our guard position in another way or later in the draft. I want the best team we can have and I want to protect Andrew. I have no problem spending assets on a guard....but we got one silver bullet...and I’d like to spend it on a monster....whichever tests out the best and would offer us the biggest bang for our buck. There is no perfect players and they all come with risk. That said there are some positions worth taking that risk on because the payoff is huge. I’m going to base the assumption we will be picking third and no trade because that is all we can basically assure ourselves with at this point. If we trade back and the best player far and away is Nelson so be it...but if we have the best pass rusher or defensive back or left tackle still there available when we do...I expect us to take one of those. I know Ballard will take a good look at him because he values building in the trenches...but I doubt this teams identity will be based on running the rock 30 times or more a game like say Tennessee...not when we have Andrew Luck at qb...and if that is the case great tackles and solid guards will be the focus not built from the inside out because if you can’t protect the edge where the best and most dangerous players on the defense will be coming to take Lucks head off it might be of little value to have those road grader run blockers up front. We will just wait and see what happens. It only takes one to fall in love to take Nelson that high...maybe that is Ballard...or maybe it is no one....I’m betting on he is taken closer to 10-12 then 3-5 but we will see. He is a great talent none the less.

Fair points. I feel that good GMs also don’t worry about reaching for players at premium positions and just go for blue chip players. The Panthers have had O-Line issues for awhile. They’ve passed on an offensive lineman in the 1st round in their last 7 drafts. You could argue that a LT might have saved them in the SB a few years back but they’ve mostly avoided the so called premium positions. I wouldn’t want to trade down for an inferior player who plays a more premium position. The best LT, CB, or Edge rusher might not be as good as the RB, OG, or ILB that’s there. I don’t see the logic.

[dgambill]

7 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Fair points. I feel that good GMs also don’t worry about reaching for players at premium positions and just go for blue chip players. The Panthers have had O-Line issues for awhile. They’ve passed on an offensive lineman in the 1st round in their last 7 drafts. You could argue that a LT might have saved them in the SB a few years back but they’ve mostly avoided the so called premium positions. I wouldn’t want to trade down for an inferior player who plays a more premium position. The best LT, CB, or Edge rusher might not be as good as the RB, OG, or ILB that’s there. I don’t see the logic.

If there is a distinguishable difference then yes a team would likely take the higher graded player. I do believe many teams however value positions differently and discount some. Carolina is interesting. Some teams scheme wise really really draft unusually. Perhaps it’s because they have the most dangerous and athletic qb in football and feel if a defense is going to come crashing in that would open up huge running lanes for Cam...thus teams rush him differently...trying to have more a power rush and collapse on him instead of around the end. That said Denver had a combination of players that just overwhelmed their beligered OL. Interesting enough they just re-signed one of their guards this year and the other that everyone wants (Norwell) in free agency might be available so it might benefit them to lock him up too....like I said some teams value postions different. Say if you run a read option you may rely on those guards a lot more than a tackle who isn’t even blocking the end but rather pulling out in space or down blocking however you have it designed to work. Nelson will be the first guard off the board...I don’t think he is the first lineman off the board and maybe he isn’t even the first lineman from ND off the board. There will be teams that would take him top 10...but I think a majority wouldn’t (even if he is rated that high). It was my one criticism of Grigson who drafted Kelly so high. Centers are even less valuable then guards...we’ve seen Kelly miss major time this year and Person step right in and not miss a beat. Perhaps a trade back wasnt there and Kelly was his guy so he took him...but I really got the feeling Grigson was so bound to the notion this team had to have lineman he was going to take them no matter what (thus he took 4) in the same draft. I hope we aren’t so locked in on one player or one position that we settle and ignore the fact we have needs at some dynamic impact positions across the board. OLB, LB, CB, T and yes RB, G, even WR. We will see what happens...we both want the best Colt team possible. Who knows maybe we trade back and are able to land Nelson and future first that ends up being at one of those key positions we still have need in. Im hopeful!

[dgambill]

20 hours ago, stitches said:

I think both are right tackles in the league and I like Brown better. McGlinchey has been having serious troubles with speed rushers to the outside all year long and this worries me. I cannot imagine what he would do against the Macks or Von Millers of the world. I think Connor Williams can be a left tackle in the future. 

I agree with your accessments of these guys. I’m very worried about Browns weight issues early on...and speed as well as Mcglincheys athleticism. Funny enough I worry about Williams medical and his knee. I agree with most Nelson is the only side fire lock there of the line guys. If Williams medical cleared I would be fine taking him say 6 or 7 thru 10. If we stay I think it has to be Chubb or Kirkpatrick or Barkley. It’s why I think Ballard will move back if possible as well. He might have an eye on Buffalo where he could land two firsts and a future first next year that might be a top 10. Get his lineman Nelson and say mcglinchey this year and try to get a pass rusher next year. It will definitely be an exciting offseason!

[Indy Fan]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

But Scherff was drafted to play tackle...    that's where he was initially played in camp of his rookie season.

 

But it quickly became clear that his best position was guard and not tackle so the Skins made the switch.

 

But the hope was for tackle.    That's why they spent the 5th overall pick on him.

 

Multiple scouting outlets said that Scherff projects better as guard for various reasons. I would put a disclaimer saying they could play tackle but not left tackle due to various traits and only in certain schemes. I hope is always to get the most bang for your buck and often times if the tackle doesn’t work out they can be transitioned to guard.

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

If there is a distinguishable difference then yes a team would likely take the higher graded player. I do believe many teams however value positions differently and discount some. Carolina is interesting. Some teams scheme wise really really draft unusually. Perhaps it’s because they have the most dangerous and athletic qb in football and feel if a defense is going to come crashing in that would open up huge running lanes for Cam...thus teams rush him differently...trying to have more a power rush and collapse on him instead of around the end. That said Denver had a combination of players that just overwhelmed their beligered OL. Interesting enough they just re-signed one of their guards this year and the other that everyone wants (Norwell) in free agency might be available so it might benefit them to lock him up too....like I said some teams value postions different. Say if you run a read option you may rely on those guards a lot more than a tackle who isn’t even blocking the end but rather pulling out in space or down blocking however you have it designed to work. Nelson will be the first guard off the board...I don’t think he is the first lineman off the board and maybe he isn’t even the first lineman from ND off the board. There will be teams that would take him top 10...but I think a majority wouldn’t (even if he is rated that high). It was my one criticism of Grigson who drafted Kelly so high. Centers are even less valuable then guards...we’ve seen Kelly miss major time this year and Person step right in and not miss a beat. Perhaps a trade back wasnt there and Kelly was his guy so he took him...but I really got the feeling Grigson was so bound to the notion this team had to have lineman he was going to take them no matter what (thus he took 4) in the same draft. I hope we aren’t so locked in on one player or one position that we settle and ignore the fact we have needs at some dynamic impact positions across the board. OLB, LB, CB, T and yes RB, G, even WR. We will see what happens...we both want the best Colt team possible. Who knows maybe we trade back and are able to land Nelson and future first that ends up being at one of those key positions we still have need in. Im hopeful!

Yeah I think we’re basically on the same page. I don’t really care what the position is. I want them to take the BPA. I don’t care if a bunch of posters feel RB is a devalued position. If Ballard has Barkley as the highest rated player on his board when we pick at 3, take him. If we trade down and both Nelson and Chubb are there, I want him to take Nelson if he’s rated higher. I don’t want him to take Chubb because he feels he plays a more premium position. I’m not ruling out any position besides P,K,QB, and FB at any of our picks. Heck if he has Roquan Smith rated higher than anyone on his board at our pick, then take him. I get that there are important positions like LT, QB, and Edge but you should never prioritize taking those players (except QB) over superior players at “devalued” positions or trade down to hope another team snatched up the prospect.

[ClaytonColt]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Yeah I think we’re basically on the same page. I don’t really care what the position is. I want them to take the BPA. I don’t care if a bunch of posters feel RB is a devalued position. If Ballard has Barkley as the highest rated player on his board when we pick at 3, take him. If we trade down and both Nelson and Chubb are there, I want him to take Nelson if he’s rated higher. I don’t want him to take Chubb because he feels he plays a more premium position. I’m not ruling out any position besides P,K,QB, and FB at any of our picks. Heck if he has Roquan Smith rated higher than anyone on his board at our pick, then take him. I get that there are important positions like LT, QB, and Edge but you should never prioritize taking those players (except QB) over superior players at “devalued” positions or trade down to hope another team snatched up the prospect.

While i agree that you shouldn't focus purely on certain positions surely it's about impact on games and results not just being a better player though.

 

In simple terms the scouts might say that a center is rated at 85% but a CB is rated at 84%.

 

You're saying they should take the center but my thoughts are that you should take the CB because having a premier player at that position has more impact on results and performance than having a pro bowl center. The difference in impact between average players and top players at those positions won't be the same either.

[jskinnz]

31 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

While i agree that you shouldn't focus purely on certain positions surely it's about impact on games and results not just being a better player though.

 

In simple terms the scouts might say that a center is rated at 85% but a CB is rated at 84%.

 

You're saying they should take the center but my thoughts are that you should take the CB because having a premier player at that position has more impact on results and performance than having a pro bowl center. The difference in impact between average players and top players at those positions won't be the same either.

 

Been listening a lot to Venturi this season.  In his words, the Colts need players that "can change the game" which means scoring points or creating turnovers.  A guard really can't help you do either of those. 

 

In your scenario, a team should take the corner every time.