Guards drafted

[chad72]

15 minutes ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

You don't draft a long snapper at #6 because you need one and he's the highest rated player in the draft.  My point was that you can get guards good enough to protect Andrew later in the draft, while adding a real difference maker at a more important position.  Ballard had a nice, lazy draft.  That's the real picture here.

 

Good enough vs very good was what Ballard chose to go with. Andrew is not on the level of Peyton, Brady, Rodgers or Brees yet to minimize OL deficiencies. Anyone watching Andrew so far can say that and that is why "good enough" was not good enough for Ballard and the team's OL. At least that is my take on it.

 

Besides, Wynn, Ragnow, Price, Hernandez were all gone (Nelson would have been too if available in the top 10 later after our #6). So the way the draft played out would have resulted in us getting a "maybe good enough" guard later, no difference than years past. Even right now, I feel that Braden Smith was a "good enough guard" pick, that is truly the pick I had a problem with where we could have bolstered the secondary with a play maker there, IMO. 

 

However, Nelson, I do not have a problem with, whatsoever.

[Stoney]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:47 AM, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Here’s why most GM’s don’t waste valuable top 10 picks on guards...

 

 

2017 Pro Bowl Guards

 

AFC

 

Kelechi Osemele (Oak.)

2nd round, pick 60, Iowa State

 

Marshal Yanda (Balt.)

3rd, 86, Iowa

 

David DeCastro (Pitts.)

1st, 24, Stanford

 

Richie Incognito (Buff.)

3rd, 81, Nebraska

 

NFC

 

Zach Martin (Dallas)

1st, 16, Notre Dame

 

Brandon Scherff (Wash.)

1st, 5, Iowa

 

T. J. Lang (Green Bay)

4th, 109, Eastern Michigan

 

Trai Turner (Carolina)

3rd, 92, LSU

 

Josh Sitton (Chicago)

4th, 135, Central Florida

 

—————————

 

Avg draft position: 67

 

Three first rounders out of nine pro bowl guards, only one of which was picked as high as Nelson.

 

Even if Nelson is better than Scherff, Ballard could’ve gotten two highly regarded guards after the first round.

 

As I’ve stated many times, Ballard should’ve stayed put at #3 where he could’ve taken Darnold (or Mayfield depending on the Browns preference), Ward, Chubb, perhaps even Barkley.  Then draft all the o-linemen he wanted.  Most likely he would’ve drafted Chubb at #3, so there’s your pick for the defense.

 

Ballard did okay but I believe he could’ve done much better.

1st round OLmen have worked out great for the Cowboys

[Peterk2011]

20 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

It's not about picking the highest rated player or avoiding busts at all costs.  If the highest rated player were a punter would you use the #6 pick on him if you needed one?  Certain positions like QB and edge rushers are way more important than guards that you can pick up later.  It's about maximizing the entire draft, not just taking one safe pick and grabbing a beer and easy chair.  As to busts, any GM too afraid to make a pick because it could backfire should quit.  They happen and you have to accept that and move on, otherwise you'll keep trading down to minimize your risk and assemble a nice bottom dweller.

 

Look, you came up with this list of pro bowl guards, averaged their draft positions and used that average as an argument. I merely said that it made no sense.

 

Of course there is positional value. We all know drafting A-B-C, we all know that a QB is more valuable than a guard. But positional value is only one aspect to consider, you need to consider your needs, the overall talent of the player, etc. as well.

 

Look at the Patriots draft for example. They had their biggest draft capital in probably 20 years, and who they spent the majority of it on? A guard and a running back. They did it despite their need at edge rusher, linebacker and corner, and they did it despite there were a number of first class LB and CB prospects available to pick. The Giants picked a RB at 1/2. The Browns picked a CB at 1/4 who, by most analyst was a lesser talent than the top edge rusher available. The Saints traded up giving away their next year's first round pick for a edge rusher, who has a high ceiling, but at the moment is a developmental prospect.

 

GM's make questionable decisions. Ballard's draft wasn't A+ by my grade neither. But usually no draft is. There's always something I liked less than the GM did. The important is, that all Ballard's picks made sense. There were no head scratchers or bad picks. Werner was a bad pick, we all knew at the time of drafting that he didn't worth his price, and was not even a fit. The Dorsett pick was plain stupid. This year, all 11 picks made sense. We'll see how this draft will pan out in 3 years, but right now, it looks fine imo.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

You don't draft a long snapper at #6 because you need one and he's the highest rated player in the draft.  My point was that you can get guards good enough to protect Andrew later in the draft, while adding a real difference maker at a more important position.  Ballard had a nice, lazy draft.  That's the real picture here.

Ballard drafted a long snapper? Dude, you not even in the picture. Nelson is a guard, Is that your "duh" second?

If you don't think protecting Luck is a difference maker then nothing can be explained to you.

[MFT5]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Ballard drafted a long snapper? Dude, you not even in the picture. Nelson is a guard, Is that your "duh" second?

If you don't think protecting Luck is a difference maker then nothing can be explained to you.

 

he just used long snapper as an over exaggerated stance on positional value

[Four2itus]

On 5/5/2018 at 10:58 AM, Peterk2011 said:

Of course there is positional value. We all know drafting A-B-C, we all know that a QB is more valuable than a guard. But positional value is only one accept to consider, you need to consider your needs, the overall talent of the player, etc. as well.

I would add current NFL trends. I remember when corners suddenly became THE commodity. Interior o-line is on the rise with relation to value at this time. 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, MFT5 said:

 

he just used long snapper as an over exaggerated stance on positional value

Maybe he is capable for speaking for himself?

[MFT5]

57 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Maybe he is capable for speaking for himself?

 

maybe you could be informed ??

[coltsfeva]

    If Nelson is going to become what Gene Upshaw  was, this was s no-brainer.

     I wanted Chubb but he wasn’t there at 6. Guys like Kelly and Nelson are building blocks for what might be a long- term success. Let’s see how this plays out.

   How long have we heard the adage “games are won or lost in the trenches” ?

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, MFT5 said:

 

maybe you could be informed ??

So you can speak for him once again.

[NewColtsFan]

12 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

You don't draft a long snapper at #6 because you need one and he's the highest rated player in the draft.  My point was that you can get guards good enough to protect Andrew later in the draft, while adding a real difference maker at a more important position.  Ballard had a nice, lazy draft.  That's the real picture here.

 

OH, Dear God!            

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

OH, Dear God!            

Yeah, I know.

[Yoshinator]

Personally, I think Braden Smith was a bit overdrafted, but if he was the last starter on your board in the draft, take him and finish the O-Line fix with Nelson. Sometimes there's a lot more to drafting than pure value. It can also be about how you view the remaining players at a position of need and if you need to pounce right then and there. Seeing how quickly O-Lineman went, Smith wasn't falling to 49, so it was now or never. Honestly, he'll probably turn out to be a hit, I don't see a lot of bust potential in Braden Smith, even if his ceiling isn't real high. Safe, but necessary pick. Nelson was also, by far, the right pick at 6 if anyone isn't sure. The fact that Braden Smith would of been the best Guard available if we took Roquan instead of Nelson shows Ballard made the right selection there.

[MFT5]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

So you can speak for him once again.

 

so you can disguise misguided anger once again.

[crazycolt1]

36 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

 

so you can disguise misguided anger once again.

Anger?  You are delusional.

[MFT5]

45 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Anger?  You are delusional.

delusional? you are loathsome 

[crazycolt1]

43 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

delusional? you are loathsome 

If that is all you can bring is argumentative nonsense find someone else to play your childish games.

[MFT5]

12 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If that is all you can bring is argumentative nonsense find someone else to play your childish games.

 

rhetoric ... yu just dnt like getting checked on your passive aggressive nonsense. lol

[Lucky Colts Fan]

22 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

  If the highest rated player were a punter would you use the #6 pick on him if you needed one?

 

21 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

You don't draft a long snapper at #6 because you need one and he's the highest rated player in the draft. 

 

Please don't use silly arguments like this.  Of course nobody is going to draft a punter or long snapper anywhere near #6 overall. 

 

When basically EVERYONE has been calling a Guard a top-5 player/top-10 draft-pick for the last year, how are you surprised that the Colts drafted him at #6?  Just because he's a guard, and not the player you wanted Ballard to pick?  It was a great pick by Ballard.  Especially since (and you'll like this argument) having an OLine to actually protect Luck has to be a top-2 priority for Ballard.

 

Priority 1 would be get a QB, we have Luck, so check.  Next priority would be getting after the opposing QB, Chubb got drafted, darn.  Next priority would be protecting our QB, oh look, the best OLineman in the draft.  Oh look!  Another top guard to pair with him!  Yay!

 

So yes, we still have to address our pass-rush, but once Ballard does that, this team should be in pretty good shape.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Barkley was gone, Chubb was gone, we need to protect Luck = Our Draft pick of Nelson is an A+. No brainer of a pick IMO. Nelson went 6th, not even in the Top 5 where some say picking a Guard in the Top 5 is insane LOL. 

[Dingus McGirt]

stop feeding the troll

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, MFT5 said:

 

rhetoric ... yu just dnt like getting checked on your passive aggressive nonsense. lol

You must be around 12 years old.  Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with such a juvenile.

[Ne-Ca-Higher]

20 hours ago, MFT5 said:

 

he just used long snapper as an over exaggerated stance on positional value

You are correct, sir.

[Ne-Ca-Higher]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Barkley was gone, Chubb was gone, we need to protect Luck = Our Draft pick of Nelson is an A+. No brainer of a pick IMO. Nelson went 6th, not even in the Top 5 where some say picking a Guard in the Top 5 is insane LOL.

Chubb was only "gone" because Ballard traded down from #3.  Before the draft, no one knew the Giants were taking Barkley for certain either -- So Ballard traded away a good shot at Barkley, too.  And don't discount Ward.  Browns GM Dorsey said they had Ward rated even with Chubb but they already had Garrett, Ogbah and others for edge rushing.

 

Picking a guard in the top ten isn't insane, it's dumb.  How great was Washington's offense (with Scherff) in protecting RGIII?  If Andrew takes off, he's fair game and no guard will save him.

 

 

[rock8591]

So many dumb fools in this thread.

[MFT5]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

You must be around 12 years old.  Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with such a juvenile.

 

nah yu just lack common sense 

[HectorRoberts]

4 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

 

nah yu just lack common sense 

Ugh! You’re a grammatical nightmare for the love of all things holy start spelling with your big boy words! Your lack of maturity and lazy typing is driving me insane. You need to just leave, you have no valuable input to contribute.

[MFT5]

14 minutes ago, HectorRoberts said:

Ugh! You’re a grammatical nightmare for the love of all things holy start spelling with your big boy words! Your lack of maturity and lazy typing is driving me insane. You need to just leave, you have no valuable input to contribute.

 

boy bye lol talking about grammar ... i dnt gotta explain anything to yu but what i will do ask yu to tend to the business that applies to yu. yu love me too much 

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Chubb was only "gone" because Ballard traded down from #3.  Before the draft, no one knew the Giants were taking Barkley for certain either -- So Ballard traded away a good shot at Barkley, too.  And don't discount Ward.  Browns GM Dorsey said they had Ward rated even with Chubb but they already had Garrett, Ogbah and others for edge rushing.

 

Picking a guard in the top ten isn't insane, it's dumb.  How great was Washington's offense (with Scherff) in protecting RGIII?  If Andrew takes off, he's fair game and no guard will save him.

 

 

When Andrew takes off?  Really? And why did he have to take off? Because he was chased out of the pocket. Watch tape, it does wonders.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, MFT5 said:

 

nah yu just lack common sense 

For someone who has a hard time spelling words like  'you' and 'don't', saying someone lacks common sense just makes you look childish and silly.

When you can bring something to the room that it least has a trace of an adult thought put into it, just leave me out of your Mickey D mentality.  

 

[HectorRoberts]

2 hours ago, MFT5 said:

 

boy bye lol talking about grammar ... i dnt gotta explain anything to yu but what i will do ask yu to tend to the business that applies to yu. yu love me too much 

Hahaha I’m starting to believe that there’s some shallow waters in your Gene pool

[MFT5]

@HectorRoberts @crazycolt1 y’all hide behind passive aggressiveness. Playing the victim is tiresome. i see y’all throwing rocks & hiding your hands. dnt get mad when yu get exposed for it. yu express yourself “nicely” w these entitled overtones like your presence & opinion is gospel. i’m gonna type how i like (grammar police) & you’re just gonna have to be mad bc that’s the game i’ll equipped ppl play. 

 

im clearly knowledge of all things colts and mostly likely some things you’ll never comprehend. Yu can’t bully me w those tactics & i will take up for whoever yu try to combat w that mess. @Ne-Ca-Higher 

 

Show your hypocrisy again, it’s ignorant and misguided. Worrying about yourself is a beautiful sacrifice 

[crazycolt1]

38 minutes ago, MFT5 said:

@HectorRoberts @crazycolt1 y’all hide behind passive aggressiveness. Playing the victim is tiresome. i see y’all throwing rocks & hiding your hands. dnt get mad when yu get exposed for it. yu express yourself “nicely” w these entitled overtones like your presence & opinion is gospel. i’m gonna type how i like (grammar police) & you’re just gonna have to be mad bc that’s the game i’ll equipped ppl play. 

 

im clearly knowledge of all things colts and mostly likely some things you’ll never comprehend. Yu can’t bully me w those tactics & i will take up for whoever yu try to combat w that mess. @Ne-Ca-Higher 

 

Show your hypocrisy again, it’s ignorant and misguided. Worrying about yourself is a beautiful sacrifice 

Your happy meal is ready.

[Coffeedrinker]

On 5/5/2018 at 7:20 AM, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Please pick a year other than 2017 — ANY year — and we’ll look up which rounds the Pro Bowl guards were taken.  I’m waiting...

1966

[K-148]

What's the point to compare guard's position value in 1980' and in 2010'? Since more&more college guards play spread from 2-point stance, it's harder to draft good guards. So interior OL's are moving up draft boards. 2 C's were drafted ahead of first WR off the board!

[Myles]

22 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Chubb was only "gone" because Ballard traded down from #3.  Before the draft, no one knew the Giants were taking Barkley for certain either -- So Ballard traded away a good shot at Barkley, too.  And don't discount Ward.  Browns GM Dorsey said they had Ward rated even with Chubb but they already had Garrett, Ogbah and others for edge rushing.

 

Picking a guard in the top ten isn't insane, it's dumb.  How great was Washington's offense (with Scherff) in protecting RGIII?  If Andrew takes off, he's fair game and no guard will save him.

 

 

I don't think you understand how football works.   Ballard did great in this draft.   Trading down 3 spots and still getting who he wanted along with 3 other high picks.  

[Coffeedrinker]

23 hours ago, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Picking a guard in the top ten isn't insane, it's dumb.  How great was Washington's offense (with Scherff) in protecting RGIII?  If Andrew takes off, he's fair game and no guard will save him.

 

 

Well, RGIII didn't play the year Scherff was drafted (injured ion the 2nd preseason game) but the Redskins offense was pretty good with Cousins throwing for over 4100 yards, 29 TD to 11 INTs had a 4.6% sack percentage (which would put them in the top 5 most years and top 10 all years.)  Were 10th in the league in scoring offense and had the 10th ranked offense in the Aikmann Efficiency Ratings.

 

So they were a very good offense.

[Valpo2004]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:47 AM, Ne-Ca-Higher said:

Here’s why most GM’s don’t waste valuable top 10 picks on guards...

 

 

2017 Pro Bowl Guards

 

AFC

 

Kelechi Osemele (Oak.)

2nd round, pick 60, Iowa State

 

Marshal Yanda (Balt.)

3rd, 86, Iowa

 

David DeCastro (Pitts.)

1st, 24, Stanford

 

Richie Incognito (Buff.)

3rd, 81, Nebraska

 

NFC

 

Zach Martin (Dallas)

1st, 16, Notre Dame

 

Brandon Scherff (Wash.)

1st, 5, Iowa

 

T. J. Lang (Green Bay)

4th, 109, Eastern Michigan

 

Trai Turner (Carolina)

3rd, 92, LSU

 

Josh Sitton (Chicago)

4th, 135, Central Florida

 

—————————

 

Avg draft position: 67

 

Three first rounders out of nine pro bowl guards, only one of which was picked as high as Nelson.

 

Even if Nelson is better than Scherff, Ballard could’ve gotten two highly regarded guards after the first round.

 

As I’ve stated many times, Ballard should’ve stayed put at #3 where he could’ve taken Darnold (or Mayfield depending on the Browns preference), Ward, Chubb, perhaps even Barkley.  Then draft all the o-linemen he wanted.  Most likely he would’ve drafted Chubb at #3, so there’s your pick for the defense.

 

Ballard did okay but I believe he could’ve done much better.

 

Given how much money guards just got handed in free agency, some of them close to top tackle money, I would argue that Ballard is actually leading a trend where high level guards are going to be selected much higher.

 

However RB's are not worth a first round pick.

 

Look at the pay of the top guards verses the top RB's and you can see who is considered more valuable.  There are 8 guards now earning over 10M.

https://overthecap.com/position/left-guard/

https://overthecap.com/position/right-guard

 

 

There is only 1 RB earning that and he's on a franchise tag that was increased a massive amount given the outlier contract that AP had.  

 

https://overthecap.com/position/running-back

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

Look at the pay of the top guards verses the top RB's and you can see who is considered more valuable.  There are 8 guards now earning over 10M.

https://overthecap.com/position/left-guard/

https://overthecap.com/position/right-guard

Slightly pedantic I know but there are only 5 guards earning over $10m. The other three earn exactly that amount.

 

When you compare that to any other premier position (wide receivers, tackles, interior linemen, edge rushers, corners and of course quarter backs) then it's still clear they're still in the lower half when it comes to value, even after the recent contracts given out.

[crazycolt1]

12 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Slightly pedantic I know but there are only 5 guards earning over $10m. The other three earn exactly that amount.

 

When you compare that to any other premier position (wide receivers, tackles, interior linemen, edge rushers, corners and of course quarter backs) then it's still clear they're still in the lower half when it comes to value, even after the recent contracts given out.

It makes no difference what other team do or what they have done in the past.

Ballard's #1 priority was to protect Luck. He did exactly what was wanted by most Colt fans.

This positional value means nothing when your QBs are hit, sacked and injured more that any QBs in the league.

It is shown we can win a lot of games with Luck on the field. Without him our winning percentages go way down.

Add the two guards and I suspect our running game will also improve. That in itself will help Luck and also control the ball game much better.

The old saying that games are won and lost in the trenches and it's always been that way and it's not going to change.