6th overall pick Indianapolis Colts select Quenton Nelson G Notre Dame

[Myles]

5 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

I can comprehend but maybe I'm just not happy with starting again and completely forgetting the players already on the roster. There's no real reason to discount it completely. 

 

You are correct though that if the existing players had been developed then we wouldn't be in this position.

 

I'm willing to give them time. 2 years is probably still what we'll need. 

 

I hope they get it right though because if we give Ballard 2 more years and he gets it wrong then we'll be in a very weak spot indeed.

 

It doesn't change my outlook that we seem yo be going about the rebuild in a way that I don't recall ever seeing work before. It's hardly an unfair point of view.

You want to stick with the porous O line for 2 more years?

[IinD]

Will be great when we see our first...'Oooooohhhh' play..lol. 

Can't wait to see him play.

 

Very rarely do we see Oline blue chip players around these parts.

[ClaytonColt]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

You want to stick with the porous O line for 2 more years?

Nope. Where have i said anything close to that? 

 

The choices aren't as binary as you're making out. It doesnt come down to a simple decision of....

 

1) fill the line with top round talent

or

2) be terrible on the O-line 

 

There is a third option. An option that most successful teams seem to take.

 

3) Get a couple of top end players on the line (usually, but not always in the tackle position). Surround that talent with lower end guys who make a cohesive unit through scheme and coaching. This allows you to distribute the high end draft picks more evenly across the team, possibly even more weighted towards the defensive side.

 

We've gone down the route of option 1. Which is fine obviously but as I said before I don't recall seeing it ever work however if I've missed a team who has done it our way I'm willing to be educated on it.

 

It seems that a lot more of the successful teams go down the third route in terms of team building so I'm intrigued rather than excited to see whether our route works.

[Peterk2011]

6 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

There is a third option. An option that most successful teams seem to take.

3) Get a couple of top end players on the line (usually, but not always in the tackle position). Surround that talent with lower end guys who make a cohesive unit through scheme and coaching. This allows you to distribute the high end draft picks more evenly across the team, possibly even more weighted towards the defensive side.

We've gone down the route of option 1. Which is fine obviously but as I said before I don't recall seeing it ever work however if I've missed a team who has done it our way I'm willing to be educated on it.

 

Dallas did it. And it worked very well. Unfortunately for them, Romo's injuries and end of his carreer put a hold on it for 2 years, but if they could've built on that 2014 season, e.g. Romo was younger and healthy for the next 2-3 years, Dallas might've won a Lombardi by now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of our second OL pick. If I had the choiche, I'd have  selected Josh Jackson instead. But not because that would've "distributed our top picks across the roster better". No. I'd have selected Jackson because I think he was similar or even better talent than Smith was. So he was the best player available on my board. But that's me, Ballard had different opinion. And honestly, he is the one with knowledge, not me.

 

The point is, you cannot purposedly "distribute your high end draft picks evenly across the team". That is ignoring who is your best player and picking for need. That usually leads to disaster. Building an NFL roster is a betting game - or, if you will, an analytical / statistical process. You bet on future production based on current potential. Top talents have better odds to become good NFL players, lesser talents have lesser odds. So what you do is, you take the best players available with your top picks - because you want to maximalize your odds. Then you play the number game for the remaining spots, bringing in multiple lesser talents who have lesser odd to succeed, and you hope that one of them will become a pro bowler. That's how you play a betting game. Of course you can increase your odds by good scouting, evaluating, but ultimately, it will still be a betting game, and you have to follow protocol, picking the best player, otherwise you will hurt your odds.

 

So, you cannot "get a couple of top end players on the line and surround that talent with lower end guys", because everything depends on who is your next best bet. If it is an offensive lineman, then you pick him, even if you already have 4 good linemen, because that gives you the best odds. You do it even if you do not have a #2 CB on your roster. Of course, if you think there are 2 players who give you cca. same odds, you will select for position of need. But never to "distribute top picks evenly across the roster".

 

[ClaytonColt]

15 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Dallas did it. And it worked very well. Unfortunately for them, Romo's injuries and end of his carreer put a hold on it for 2 years, but if they could've built on that 2014 season, e.g. Romo was younger and healthy for the next 2-3 years, Dallas might've won a Lombardi by now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of our second OL pick. If I had the choiche, I'd have  selected Josh Jackson instead. But not because that would've "distributed our top picks across the roster better". No. I'd have selected Jackson because I think he was similar or even better talent than Smith was. So he was the best player available on my board. But that's me, Ballard had different opinion. And honestly, he is the one with knowledge, not me.

 

The point is, you cannot purposedly "distribute your high end draft picks evenly across the team". That is ignoring who is your best player and picking for need. That usually leads to disaster. Building an NFL roster is a betting game - or, if you will, an analytical / statistical process. You bet on future production based on current potential. Top talents have better odds to become good NFL players, lesser talents have lesser odds. So what you do is, you take the best players available with your top picks - because you want to maximalize your odds. Then you play the number game for the remaining spots, bringing in multiple lesser talents who have lesser odd to succeed, and you hope that one of them will become a pro bowler. That's how you play a betting game. Of course you can increase your odds by good scouting, evaluating, but ultimately, it will still be a betting game, and you have to follow protocol, picking the best player, otherwise you will hurt your odds.

 

So, you cannot "get a couple of top end players on the line and surround that talent with lower end guys", because everything depends on who is your next best bet. If it is an offensive lineman, then you pick him, even if you already have 4 good linemen, because that gives you the best odds. You do it even if you do not have a #2 CB on your roster. Of course, if you think there are 2 players who give you cca. same odds, you will select for position of need. But never to "distribute top picks evenly across the roster".

 

Firstly, Dallas didn't "Do it", they did pretty much exactly what I said as the third option. Drafted three first rounders and then filled that in with a couple of lower end talents (in terms of draft position) such as Doug Free and Ronald Leary. Thet didnt have 3 firsts, 2 seconds and a third like we have. 

 

As for the rest of it. I disagree. You can distribute your draft picks however you wish. 

 

If it was close in terms of evaluation between a defensive and offensive player (other than a tackle or QB) I'd go with the defense.

 

It can't be a coincidence that many of the better teams focus the majority of their 1st and 2nd round picks on defense. It has to be a conscious decision.

 

Up until this draft we've spent just 36% of our first and second rounder on defense in the process if building the current roster.

 

Now we've signed Nelson we've spent just 28% of our firsts on defense over the same period.

 

It's too lopsided and it goes against what the successful teams seem to be doing. It doesn't mean it can't work but in a copycat league it's interesting to me that we're going against it.

[Peterk2011]

4 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Firstly, Dallas didn't "Do it", they did pretty much exactly what I said as the third option. Drafted three first rounders and then filled that in with a couple of lower end talents (in terms of draft position) such as Doug Free and Ronald Leary. Thet didnt have 3 firsts, 2 seconds and a third like we have. 

 

They did. They also picked Rober Brewster and Connor Williams in the second, and Chaz Green and Green Marten in the third. Plus they had a "gift" in Lael Collins as an UDFA but otherwise a 1rst round prospect. So it's just the game of numbers that Free and Leary became their best of the rest and not their second or third rounders. The Colts might end up with Haeg a 5th rounder and Good a 7th rounder as well, if Mewhort can't get healthy and Smith won't pan out.

 

4 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

If it was close in terms of evaluation between a defensive and offensive player (other than a tackle or QB) I'd go with the defense. It can't be a coincidence that many of the better teams focus the majority of their 1st and 2nd round picks on defense. It has to be a conscious decision. Up until this draft we've spent just 36% of our first and second rounder on defense in the process if building the current roster.

 

Percentages don't tell the story. It you use your top picks on offense and use your lower picks on defense, then, in mere numbers, you will end up using the majority of your picks on defense, while the truth is, that you used the majority of your draft capital on offense.

 

I stick to my opinion, teams don't conciously "distribute" their picks. They try to maximalize their success rates whatever way they do it. The Patriots for example used their top 2 picks on offense this year, when it is their defense which lacks talent compared to their offense. And who they picked? They picked a running back despite they already have 4 formidable backs, and ignored for example tight end, which is a position of need for them considering how injury prone Gronk is, and their second option is Dwayne Allen.

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

They did. They also picked Rober Brewster and Connor Williams in the second, and Chaz Green and Green Marten in the third. Plus they had a "gift" in Lael Collins as an UDFA but otherwise a 1rst round prospect. So it's just the game of numbers that Free and Leary became their best of the rest and not their second or third rounders. The Colts might end up with Haeg a 5th rounder and Good a 7th rounder as well, if Mewhort can't get healthy and Smith won't pan out.

 

 

Percentages don't tell the story. It you use your top picks on offense and use your lower picks on defense, then, in mere numbers, you will end up using the majority of your picks on defense, while the truth is, that you used the majority of your draft capital on offense.

 

I stick to my opinion, teams don't conciously "distribute" their picks. They try to maximalize their success rates whatever way they do it. The Patriots for example used their top 2 picks on offense this year, when it is their defense which lacks talent compared to their offense. And who they picked? They picked a running back despite they already have 4 formidable backs, and ignored for example tight end, which is a position of need for them considering how injury prone Gronk is, and their second option is Dwayne Allen.

You can't use Robert Brewster from 2009 and Connor Williams to discuss how they've built their recent good line! One of them got released in 2011 and the other obviously hasn't played a down. That's a ridiculous thing to bring up.

 

Why wouldn't it tell a story. It's about where teams focus what should be their core high end talent.

 

Whether the consciously distribute picks or not is something neither of us can confidently say. It does seem that over time the better teams focus their premier picks on defense other than quarterbacks and tackles.

[Myles]

9 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

 

It can't be a coincidence that many of the better teams focus the majority of their 1st and 2nd round picks on defense. It has to be a conscious decision.

 

 

The Pats spent two 1st round picks on offense.  

You really don't need to copy other teams.   Just as many who followed those models failed.   It's all in getting the best player to fit your needs, especially when you are depleted as the Colts are. 

[Coffeedrinker]

4 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

You can't use Robert Brewster from 2009 and Connor Williams to discuss how they've built their recent good line! One of them got released in 2011 and the other obviously hasn't played a down. That's a ridiculous thing to bring up.

 

Why wouldn't it tell a story. It's about where teams focus what should be their core high end talent.

 

Whether the consciously distribute picks or not is something neither of us can confidently say. It does seem that over time the better teams focus their premier picks on defense other than quarterbacks and tackles.

I guess I don't understand your premise.  The Colts had 5 "premium picks"  (I'm assuming the first two rounds are premium picks and they drafted 3 defense and 2 offense.  How is that not balancing the picks?

 

Also you claimed earlier in the thread that we have seen the Colts do this before but when?  Glenn and Meadows were on the team when Polain took over and unti Ugoh he drafted one olineman in the 3rd (Burlsworth) and then didn't spend any earlier than a 4th.  So I'm not sure how we have seen this before.

[Peterk2011]

4 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

You can't use Robert Brewster from 2009 and Connor Williams to discuss how they've built their recent good line! One of them got released in 2011 and the other obviously hasn't played a down. That's a ridiculous thing to bring up.

 

It doesn't matter who played and who didn't. We are talking about draft capital spent on oline. Draft picks spent on busts are part of the total capital just as much as picks spent on successful players.

 

You clamed, that good teams follow a specific pattern. I think that's not true. What teams do are dependent on the way they build their offense (so called "smasmouth teams obviously spend more draft capital on their olines), and highly dependent on the success rate of their previous drafts on that particular position.

 

he Patriots for example are not big spenders on oline. Since 2000, they spent only 3 first round picks (Mankins, Solder, and this year on Wynn), only 3 second rounders (Klemm, Lite, Wollmer) and only 3 third rounders (Kaczur, Thuney, Garcia) on their offensive line. Only 9 picks in almost 20 years. Why? Because almost all of their high picks were successfull picks, and they could find fine players in later rounds (Koppen, Cannon, Fleming, etc.), so they did not need to draft more. But if you also check the tendency, you can notice, that while they almost never drafted an OL between 2000 and 2010 other than late rounders, they began to draft more and more players after 2011 in higher rounds, because they had less success of picking the right replacement in later rounds.

 

Or, check what they did between 2007 and 2012 regarding defensive backs. They spent a ton of draft capital on DB's in that period. Why? Because they picked a number of second, third and even first round busts, so they had to. There was no concious, pre-determined strategy in that. They just followed their needs. As they did regarding the oline. And as the Colts has done and do regarding theirs.

 

 

4 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Whether the consciously distribute picks or not is something neither of us can confidently say. It does seem that over time the better teams focus their premier picks on defense other than quarterbacks and tackles.

 

That is simply statistically incorrect. NFL offenses and defenses form the same typical 24 to 26 men rosters, and these players are coming from the same place: draft (and UDFA). So statistically the same number of offensive and defensive players haveto be drafted otherwise there would be lack of personnel in either defense or offense.

 

Here is an article which analyzes the drafts between 2005 and 2014. During this 10 years timespan 2,465 players were drafted, 1210 being offensive and 1255 being defensive players. The distribution is almost perfeclty 50-50 (less than 4% difference).

 

The article does not tell about how many offensive or defensive players were drafted by each round. But I am fairly sure that if we would do the researh, we would find that no matter which round the total numbers are closely correlate to 50-50% modified by the success rates of each positions in that particular round (e.g. TE's might be over/under represented in certain rounds because the success rate is lower/higher than the average success rate). 

[Myles]

27 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

 

 

Here is an article which analyzes the drafts between 2005 and 2014. During this 10 years timespan 2,465 players were drafted, 1210 being offensive and 1255 being defensive players. The distribution is almost perfeclty 50-50 (less than 4% difference).

 

The article does not tell about how many offensive or defensive players were drafted by each round. But I am fairly sure that if we would do the researh, we would find that no matter which round the total numbers are closely correlate to 50-50% modified by the success rates of each positions in that particular round (e.g. TE's might be over/under represented in certain rounds because the success rate is lower/higher than the average success rate). 

The first round the past 6 years has been 53% defense to 47% offense.   Pretty close. 

[ClaytonColt]

5 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I guess I don't understand your premise.  The Colts had 5 "premium picks"  (I'm assuming the first two rounds are premium picks and they drafted 3 defense and 2 offense.  How is that not balancing the picks?

 

Also you claimed earlier in the thread that we have seen the Colts do this before but when?  Glenn and Meadows were on the team when Polain took over and unti Ugoh he drafted one olineman in the 3rd (Burlsworth) and then didn't spend any earlier than a 4th.  So I'm not sure how we have seen this before.

I'm not sure I did say I've seen it before. I've simply been talking about how we built the current roster.  The previous roster (or the future one for that matter) doesn't have any influence. 

 

Picking 3 out of 5 premium picks is generally good. I like that. It doesn't change the past trends though. 

[ClaytonColt]

5 hours ago, Myles said:

The first round the past 6 years has been 53% defense to 47% offense.   Pretty close. 

In total yes.  I'm differentiating between the successful teams and the ones who do nothing though.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

I'm not sure I did say I've seen it before. I've simply been talking about how we built the current roster.  The previous roster (or the future one for that matter) doesn't have any influence. 

 

Picking 3 out of 5 premium picks is generally good. I like that. It doesn't change the past trends though. 

I'm sure you completely understand what you are trying to say but you are not doing a good job of explaining it.

 

What past trends are you referring to?

 

CB has had 7 "premium" draft picks in his two years.  He has drafted 5 defensive players and 2 offensive players and those two offensive players are about as top end line players as you can get in the draft and one them of could very well play tackle.  So you claim you have never seen a team be successful with the Colts doing "option 1" yet they have done exactly what you describe in "option 3", the option most successful teams employ.

 

Lastly, I would like to see some evidence that most successful teams use option 3.  Because quite frankly, I think that claim is bogus.  Most successful teams draft the BPA on their board and they don't pay attention to the perceived needs of fans.

 

[Dark Superman]

Never thought I would be so happy picking a Guard this high in the draft.

[Four2itus]

It's all about development, folks. If where or how high you pick players was everything, then the Pats and Steelers would have fell into oblivion. Of course drafting players higher or having a greater number of picks increases a teams odds, but it is the development of the players that makes a huge difference. That development can manifest itself through scheme fit, coaching, locker room environment, area of living, and so on. 

 

Fans just so want to quantify the draft in a linear fashion....player A should be a starter because he was drafted in the first round.....too many high picks spent on a particular position or on one side of the ball....position X should never be taken in the top 10....etc. 

 

Fans and writers talk like this. I doubt that GM's do. 

[ClaytonColt]

13 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm sure you completely understand what you are trying to say but you are not doing a good job of explaining it.

 

What past trends are you referring to?

 

CB has had 7 "premium" draft picks in his two years.  He has drafted 5 defensive players and 2 offensive players and those two offensive players are about as top end line players as you can get in the draft and one them of could very well play tackle.  So you claim you have never seen a team be successful with the Colts doing "option 1" yet they have done exactly what you describe in "option 3", the option most successful teams employ.

 

Lastly, I would like to see some evidence that most successful teams use option 3.  Because quite frankly, I think that claim is bogus.  Most successful teams draft the BPA on their board and they don't pay attention to the perceived needs of fans.

 

I actually like the premise behind Ballard drafting 5 out of 7 players on the defensive side. I think it's the right thing to do. We're starting from such a weak base on the defensive side though it would have been my preference to get the truly elite (hopefully) player on that side of the ball.

 

The 4 players Ballard has picked in the second round should help though so if I'm being realistic and a little self-critical of my position maybe I shouldn't focus on the first pick quite so much.

 

With regards to the evidence. There were 7 teams who won 11 games or more last year and I've tried to look into how they drafted their players to build their current roster.

 

I've tried to look back to the year when each started building their 2017/18 squad which is obviously different in each case. For example this would be 2011 for the Colts as that's when we picked Castanzo and he's the current player who has been with us longest. The only exception to this is the Panthers where I ignored Thomas Davis as taking it back to 2005 for one player would be ludicrous!

 

 

For comparison the Colts have used their picks as below. 

 

 

We've been going down a completely different path for years in terms of neglecting the Defense and focusing on the Offense (Especially the O-Line in percentage terms). That's what I meant by "trends" and I saw the drafting of Nelson as a continuation of this. In fairness though, since you've pointed out the 5 in 7 aspect I'm a little more on board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

On 5/1/2018 at 2:11 AM, ClaytonColt said:

Nope. Where have i said anything close to that? 

 

The choices aren't as binary as you're making out. It doesnt come down to a simple decision of....

 

1) fill the line with top round talent

or

2) be terrible on the O-line 

 

There is a third option. An option that most successful teams seem to take.

 

3) Get a couple of top end players on the line (usually, but not always in the tackle position). Surround that talent with lower end guys who make a cohesive unit through scheme and coaching. This allows you to distribute the high end draft picks more evenly across the team, possibly even more weighted towards the defensive side.

 

We've gone down the route of option 1. Which is fine obviously but as I said before I don't recall seeing it ever work however if I've missed a team who has done it our way I'm willing to be educated on it.

 

It seems that a lot more of the successful teams go down the third route in terms of team building so I'm intrigued rather than excited to see whether our route works.

 

All this argument capital over one of our 4 second round picks.
This was considered a very deep defensive draft, and one where there was little difference between picks 20-65.
 Add in we have a couple more draft and FA periods before we may catch up to all three of our divisional opponents in roster talent.
 Sorry, but your worry about how best Ballard should build his next SB contender is not working this early in the build.
I hope you don't stress over next years FA additions and draft picks. You probably won't because it will make more sense to you.  lol

 
 

 

[WoolMagnet]

On 5/1/2018 at 2:11 AM, ClaytonColt said:

Nope. Where have i said anything close to that? 

 

The choices aren't as binary as you're making out. It doesnt come down to a simple decision of....

 

1) fill the line with top round talent

or

2) be terrible on the O-line 

 

There is a third option. An option that most successful teams seem to take.

 

3) Get a couple of top end players on the line (usually, but not always in the tackle position). Surround that talent with lower end guys who make a cohesive unit through scheme and coaching. This allows you to distribute the high end draft picks more evenly across the team, possibly even more weighted towards the defensive side.

 

We've gone down the route of option 1. Which is fine obviously but as I said before I don't recall seeing it ever work however if I've missed a team who has done it our way I'm willing to be educated on it.

 

It seems that a lot more of the successful teams go down the third route in terms of team building so I'm intrigued rather than excited to see whether our route works.

Relax.

we took a 1st round center a few years ago because we had a revolving door there after Jeff saturday.  We took a guard at #1 for similar reasons.  We took an OL 2nd round but we had 3 picks.

castanzo has been here forever.

i dont call this "filling" the OL with talent.

and btw, your 3rd option is what every team manages at EVERY position.  Some positions you spend more, some less.

no big s cret here.  Just team-building 101.

[BProland85]

Perhaps every time Nelson makes a huge block or pancakes someone the crowd at Indy can do a loud "Q" chant. It would sound like the fans are booing, but people would catch on and it would be kinda neat to have a new player to chant for. 

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Perhaps every time Nelson makes a huge block or pancakes someone the crowd at Indy can do a loud "Q" chant. It would sound like the fans are booing, but people would catch on and it would be kinda neat to have a new player to chant for. 

Let's hope so.

[crazycolt1]

8 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

I actually like the premise behind Ballard drafting 5 out of 7 players on the defensive side. I think it's the right thing to do. We're starting from such a weak base on the defensive side though it would have been my preference to get the truly elite (hopefully) player on that side of the ball.

 

The 4 players Ballard has picked in the second round should help though so if I'm being realistic and a little self-critical of my position maybe I shouldn't focus on the first pick quite so much.

 

With regards to the evidence. There were 7 teams who won 11 games or more last year and I've tried to look into how they drafted their players to build their current roster.

 

I've tried to look back to the year when each started building their 2017/18 squad which is obviously different in each case. For example this would be 2011 for the Colts as that's when we picked Castanzo and he's the current player who has been with us longest. The only exception to this is the Panthers where I ignored Thomas Davis as taking it back to 2005 for one player would be ludicrous!

 

 

For comparison the Colts have used their picks as below. 

 

 

We've been going down a completely different path for years in terms of neglecting the Defense and focusing on the Offense (Especially the O-Line in percentage terms). That's what I meant by "trends" and I saw the drafting of Nelson as a continuation of this. In fairness though, since you've pointed out the 5 in 7 aspect I'm a little more on board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is you have to keep in mind that 2 of those 4 picks you said the Colts drafted were bust.

The Colts have been neglecting the trenches for a long time. And when they did try to address those issues they failed most of the time. Free agents were signed that didn't work out for various reasons so it wasn't from the lack of trying, it was failing to do so.