Why not draft OL in round 1 & 2?

[AwesomeAustin]

With all the debate over who to draft in the first round I would like to add another alternative.  If Nelson is available at 6 why not draft him and either pick up another guard or RT in the top of the 2nd or trade up and get the guy we want at the back of the first.  

 

I believe eve we are two starters away from an above average OL.  With the depth this year I say we take advantage and get that side of the trench fixed. 

[BProland85]

I’m all for drafting Nelson round 1, but then I’d want CB, LB, and DE round 2. 

[MikeCurtis]

The number of players that have a good chance to start at RT, are very few in this draft

 

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

We can take one of the two great LBs at 6, then take a good guard at 36 or 37. 

[richard pallo]

Your suggestion could easily happen IMO. 

[Track Guy]

I would be happy to see us fix the O-line once and for all. I'm a little nervous Ballard will think picking up some developmental prospect in the middle rounds will constitute fixing the O-line, but that could just be from some trauma of the Grigson years lol. 

[NewColtsFan]

 

Picking near the top of each round,  in the first,  there's only one OL worth taking....    and that's Nelson.

 

But then you have to get into positional value.    Do you want to use the 6th overall pick on a position that has many good starters at guard in R's 2,3 and maybe even 4?      Some here say yes,  taken Nelson.     Others prefer taking a guard later.

 

And then no one seems to know if we need to draft yet another tackle,  or do we give the new OL coach a chance to work with Good,  Haeg and Clark.     One of them (more?)  might be able to be saved and turned into a starter.   O-lineman often figure things out late...     that's not as uncommon as one might think...

 

This is a team with a LARGE NUMBER of needs....   using the top-2 rounds to try and fix the O-line might not be necessary.

 

 

[Shepman]

If oline falls and the right guys are there at 36 and 37 I might draft two in a row and shore up the line.

[Clem-Dog]

The second round should be ripe with a bunch very good OL prospects (Hernandez, Price, Wynn, C. Williams, B. Smith, Oneill +/-).  It wouldn't surprise me if Ballard selects two of them.  

 

[Jdubu]

What cracks me up with this bipolar mixture of fans is, a continual complaint that Polian, Griggs and now Ballard hasn’t addressed and fixed the oline and protected Luck, or best assets, yet some still don’t want to select what most everyone’s is saying is a cant miss prospect at guard. It’s the old I can pick better than xyz and a guard is too high at #6 but when Luck is hit over and over again because the lb’er prospect we took isn’t protecting Luck, now those will say we should have took Nelson. The old hind sight gm’s. Just take the Gaurd and give Luck a left side that will protect him and holes get opened up for the run game. I’d be fine taking 2 lineman with our top 3 picks with Nelson at #6. If one of those defense guys were a generational talent, I may blink at #6 but none are considered that guy. Just the best at their position in this draft. Nelson on the other hand is considered a generational talent at a position we haven’t had in years. 

[Hoose]

6 hours ago, Jdubu said:

What cracks me up with this bipolar mixture of fans is, a continual complaint that Polian, Griggs and now Ballard hasn’t addressed and fixed the oline and protected Luck, or best assets, yet some still don’t want to select what most everyone’s is saying is a cant miss prospect at guard. It’s the old I can pick better than xyz and a guard is too high at #6 but when Luck is hit over and over again because the lb’er prospect we took isn’t protecting Luck, now those will say we should have took Nelson. The old hind sight gm’s. Just take the Gaurd and give Luck a left side that will protect him and holes get opened up for the run game. I’d be fine taking 2 lineman with our top 3 picks with Nelson at #6. If one of those defense guys were a generational talent, I may blink at #6 but none are considered that guy. Just the best at their position in this draft. Nelson on the other hand is considered a generational talent at a position we haven’t had in years. 

All true. But then the scenario comes up of having both Nelson and Barkley available, or, though less likely, Nelson and Chubb. Do you still take Nelson in that situation? If it were me, the order goes like this: Chubb, Nelson, then Barkley. 

Just saying that as good as Nelson is, he’s not automatic as the 6th pick. 

[Valpo2004]

44 minutes ago, Hoose said:

All true. But then the scenario comes up of having both Nelson and Barkley available, or, though less likely, Nelson and Chubb. Do you still take Nelson in that situation? If it were me, the order goes like this: Chubb, Nelson, then Barkley. 

Just saying that as good as Nelson is, he’s not automatic as the 6th pick. 

If you really believe in Chubb then you have to take him because of value.  A high level pass rusher is more valuable than an elite guard.

 

 

However I also look at Nelson as being more of a sure thing than Chubb.

[21isSuperman]

It could happen.  Some people like to pigeonhole themselves and say we have to draft specific positions in specific rounds.  That's a terrible idea because it could mean you make big reaches for players.  If the top prospect on the board when we pick in the first round is an OL, and then the top prospect on the board when we pick in the 2nd round is an OL, then we should absolutely go OL in the first and second rounds.  It depends on the best prospect available, not always on what position is available.

[richard pallo]

10 hours ago, Track Guy said:

I would be happy to see us fix the O-line once and for all. I'm a little nervous Ballard will think picking up some developmental prospect in the middle rounds will constitute fixing the O-line, but that could just be from some trauma of the Grigson years lol. 

That's what Ballard did last year with Banner, a developmental prospect, and we know how that turned out.  I think he addresses the OL early this year and two picks in the 1st two rounds is not out of the question.  He could also acquire a starting OL in another trade back.  For example getting Juwan James in a trade back with the Dolphins.  Manny ways to skin a cat.  It's going to be interesting. 

[bananabucket]

Sure, if the value is there.  Well as long as it's not Brian O'Neill or Kolton Miller.

[AZColt11]

I think this is possible.  There are 3 2nd round picks right now and I think it's totally feasible that one is used on an OT.

[Jdubu]

5 hours ago, Hoose said:

All true. But then the scenario comes up of having both Nelson and Barkley available, or, though less likely, Nelson and Chubb. Do you still take Nelson in that situation? If it were me, the order goes like this: Chubb, Nelson, then Barkley. 

Just saying that as good as Nelson is, he’s not automatic as the 6th pick. 

I really am conflicted on taking Nelson over Chubb and to a smaller degree, Barkley. If I knew for certain that Wynn or Hernandez were going to be there at our 2nd pick and Chubb wasn’t available, I’d take Chubb at 6 and Wynn/Hernandez with one of the 2nd picks and both if they were available in the 2nd. 

 

Knowing this line has been allowing a poor run game for game for years and too much pressure in the qb’s face too often, having a near certainty of a blocker at guard with Nelson just solves that area that Luck can be more focused down field and less about leaks through the left side middle. 

 

Since we cant be certain who will be available in the second round, if Nelson, Chubb and Barkley are all there to pick from, I’ll just say I’m glad it’s not me who has to make that choice but none of them would be wrong imo 

[ColtsBlitz]

18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

This is a team with a LARGE NUMBER of needs....   using the top-2 rounds to try and fix the O-line might not be necessary.

This. I’ve seen some mocks with Ridley and even Sutton falling into the 2nd round. I think it’s very unlikely, but there is talent at other positions to be had in the 2nd round. Linebacker should be addressed round 1, Smith or Edmunds, whoever Ballard prefers. Edmunds is a monster athlete with size, something that can’t really be coached. 

 

In round 2, CB, WR, DL, RB, you name it. I think it should go like this in round 2:

 

1) WR, OG, CB

2) CB, OG, Edge

3) DL, OG, CB

 

 

[Defjamz26]

14 hours ago, Jdubu said:

What cracks me up with this bipolar mixture of fans is, a continual complaint that Polian, Griggs and now Ballard hasn’t addressed and fixed the oline and protected Luck, or best assets, yet some still don’t want to select what most everyone’s is saying is a cant miss prospect at guard. It’s the old I can pick better than xyz and a guard is too high at #6 but when Luck is hit over and over again because the lb’er prospect we took isn’t protecting Luck, now those will say we should have took Nelson. The old hind sight gm’s. Just take the Gaurd and give Luck a left side that will protect him and holes get opened up for the run game. I’d be fine taking 2 lineman with our top 3 picks with Nelson at #6. If one of those defense guys were a generational talent, I may blink at #6 but none are considered that guy. Just the best at their position in this draft. Nelson on the other hand is considered a generational talent at a position we haven’t had in years. 

There’s no such thing as a can’t miss guard prospect. I’ve said that overall as a football player, Nelson is one of the greatest if not the best ever draft prospect in the modern era. Basically no flaws. However, he plays guard. That’s not a premier position that having an elite level talent is going to win you games. The elite positions where you have can’t miss prospects are positions that make game changing plays. That’s QBs, RBs, Defensive lineman, defensive backs, and LBs. And LTs as well if they’re Joe Thomas or Tyron Smith. An elite Guard isn’t a necessity. All you need is a good one. You can’t pass on an elite QB, but you can pass on an elite guard.