Is there a lesson to be learned with the pick of Quenton Nelson at #6?

[Yoshinator]

After seeing Nelson in Training Camp so far, it made me think of an important lesson about BPA and just taking that special player, regardless of position. So my question is, if there's a situation next year where there's another special player like Nelson, but he doesn't fit the position we need, he's considered an early pick for his position, we have depth at that position, there's possible baggage with him, but he's an absolute game changer, and he affects the offense/defense in such a positive way that it changes the entire tone of the team in how we play, do we pull the trigger on a similar situation and take him even though it may not be the most valuable pick, position-wise? We need players like Quenton Nelson, and I think we should be willing to get them in any combination of positions we can that are available to us in the draft from now on. This how you set the tone for a winning football team IMO.

[IkeAramba]

Lose the suggestion about baggage with him (Nelson was viewed as one of the safest picks in the draft) and I'd have no problem with taking an elite player not at a position of need, with the possible exception of QB.

[TKnight24]

You had me at yes until you said “with baggage” then you flipped me to no 

 

Nelson didn’t have baggage and I believe Chris Ballard is on record saying he will take baggage guys but not with early picks 

 

Now if the player doesn’t have baggage like one of those Clemson DL or Gary from Michigan then yes, pull the trigger on him. 

 

But I'm personally not expecting Colts to be in the top 15 for picks next draft unless it’s via trade up 

[TheMarine]

What is this baggage with Nelson that you speak of?

[krunk]

If someone like Nelson is available for us next it is likely that we would have sucked in 2018 and I don't think that's going to happen.  But for conversation sakes yeah take the BPA.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, IkeAramba said:

Lose the suggestion about baggage with him (Nelson was viewed as one of the safest picks in the draft) and I'd have no problem with taking an elite player not at a position of need, with the possible exception of QB.

 

1 minute ago, TheMarine said:

What is this baggage with Nelson that you speak of?

1 minute ago, TKnight24 said:

You had me at yes until you said “with baggage” then you flipped me to no 

 

Nelson didn’t have baggage and I believe Chris Ballard is on record saying he will take baggage guys but not with early picks 

 

Now if the player doesn’t have baggage like one of those Clemson DL or Gary from Michigan then yes, pull the trigger on him. 

 

But I'm personally not expecting Colts to be in the top 15 for picks next draft unless it’s via trade up 

Nelson had no baggage lol. I said if a player did in particular. Don't take it as me saying it towards Nelson.

[Myles]

Nelson plays a position of need for the Colts.   Nelson was considered the best at his position to come out in a long time.   He was the BPA at a position of need.    It would have been crazy to draft anyone else.  

I don't believe in drafting BPA unless you have a need for him.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

 

Nelson had no baggage lol. I said if a player did in particular. Don't take it as me saying it towards Nelson.

I knew what you meant, it was just worded bad regarding the BAGGAGE part. So I gave you a LIKE as the Post was good.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

Nelson plays a position of need for the Colts.   Nelson was considered the best at his position to come out in a long time.   He was the BPA at a position of need.    It would have been crazy to draft anyone else.  

I don't believe in drafting BPA unless you have a need for him.  

Once Barkley and Chubb were gone, Drafting Nelson was a no brainer.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Nelson plays a position of need for the Colts.   Nelson was considered the best at his position to come out in a long time.   He was the BPA at a position of need.    It would have been crazy to draft anyone else.  

I don't believe in drafting BPA unless you have a need for him.  

Obviously I don't mean draft a QB or anything, but if there was the best WR in the class and he was a top 5 guy that fell because no one needed him, or an RB fell for the same reason, maybe. Same for a DT. Those are probably the positions that have the best chance of falling. There could also be a player who could be truly special on the field, but have certain baggage. That's my example of baggage. All these are BPA that could benefit the team. Doesn't have to fill a need immediately because he will eventually fill the need because he is that good. We also have needs everywhere, so any BPA will probably start regardless.

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Once Barkley and Chubb were gone, Drafting Nelson was a no brainer.

I'm so thrilled we got Nelson. I didn't look on twitter at all during the draft, so I was scared when Goodell stepped up to the podium that he was going to announce that we drafted Roquan Smith. Thank God we took Nelson. Roquan Smith hasn't even signed yet, lol!

[Myles]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Once Barkley and Chubb were gone, Drafting Nelson was a no brainer.

I agree.    Although I would have picked Nelson before either of those guys too.    But trading back 3 spots and still getting Nelson was genius.   They were able to add Braden Smith, Kemoko Turay and Jordan Wilkens.    I think the offensive line has gone from a negative to a positive and that will provide so much for this team.  

[aaron11]

whats a position that we dont need a great player at?  i cant think of any

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm so thrilled we got Nelson. I didn't look on twitter at all during the draft, so I was scared when Goodell stepped up to the podium that he was going to announce that we drafted Roquan Smith. Thank God we took Nelson. Roquan Smith hasn't even signed yet, lol!

I like Smith too, cant lie but we made the right choice IMO

[dgambill]

17 minutes ago, TheMarine said:

What is this baggage with Nelson that you speak of?

Tea.....ok...I'm walking away lol.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

whats a position that we dont need a great player at?  i cant think of any

QB 

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Obviously I don't mean draft a QB or anything, but if there was the best WR in the class and he was a top 5 guy that fell because no one needed him, or an RB fell for the same reason, maybe. Same for a DT. Those are probably the positions that have the best chance of falling. There could also be a player who could be truly special on the field, but have certain baggage. That's my example of baggage. All these are BPA that could benefit the team. Doesn't have to fill a need immediately because he will eventually fill the need because he is that good. We also have needs everywhere, so any BPA will probably start regardless.

It'll be nice if we get to a position in which we can draft a player that we don't need (at a high draft position).   I think a good GM has a list of players ranked and also a list of highest needs for the current team.   If you can match both of those, your odds are good that you chose well.   O-line help was high on the list of needs and Nelson was BPA.   Easy win.   Chubb would have fit the same mold, althoughI think the need to protect Luck trumped the need for a DE.  

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

whats a position that we dont need a great player at?  i cant think of any

QB, C, TE (it would be a bit of a waste to take one early with all our needs), and probably S (would be overkill for now with Hooker and Geathers).

[Coltsfan0112]

I'll say this for next year. Depending on what our draft position, it seems to be that Ballard may draft a player on one of the lines next year. There is a good amount of DL and OT prospects coming out. Who knows though.

[dgambill]

If the player is well higher than the next graded on your board I have no problem taking them.....that is why we have things like trades...or perhaps moving someone else to another position. Look at Denver...they have pass rushers but it didn't stop them from taking the clear best player on their board. I think the philosophy of taking the bpa usually leads you to having more talented players...and talented players usually helps you win games. Don't get me wrong....there can be a horrible scheme fit or just positions like QB or say a position we are just loaded at (TE) that you might look to trade or take another player but overall...players that have star ability should be taken no matter what...you can find a way to use them or the player they replace. If not you trade your other guy and fill a different position of need.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Coltsfan0112 said:

I'll say this for next year. Depending on what our draft position, it seems to be that Ballard may draft a player on one of the lines next year. There is a good amount of DL and OT prospects coming out. Who knows though.

I haven't looked at next year's class yet, but I'm glad that it fits our needs well. We'll definitely be interested in a lot of those players, especially with two 2nd round picks.

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

QB, C, TE (it would be a bit of a waste to take one early with all our needs), and probably S (would be overkill for now with Hooker and Geathers).

i would take the center or TE, i see no reason why kelly couldnt play guard

 

i like doyle but he doesnt scare anyone, defenses have even admitted that they let him get his yards while they focus on ty.  that was the Bengals ftr  

 

i would take the safety too, and start him with hooker.  geathers has not done nearly enough to lock down that spot 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, Coltsfan0112 said:

I'll say this for next year. Depending on what our draft position, it seems to be that Ballard may draft a player on one of the lines next year. There is a good amount of DL and OT prospects coming out. Who knows though.

I'm guessing that our draft pick will be somewhere in the 14-20 range.   O-line should not be a position of need.   Perhaps WR on offense.   Defense may be a whole lot of positions of need.  

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i would take the center or TE, i see no reason why kelly couldnt play guard

 

i like doyle but he doesnt scare anyone, defenses have even admitted that they let him get his yards while they focus on ty.  that was the Bengals ftr  

 

i would take the safety too, and start him with hooker.  geathers has not done nearly enough to lock down that spot 

It would have to be one heck of a BPA to choose either of those positions over DL, DE, LB or WR.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i would take the center or TE, i see no reason why kelly couldnt play guard

 

i like doyle but he doesnt scare anyone, defenses have even admitted that they let him get his yards while they focus on ty.  that was the Bengals ftr  

 

i would take the safety too, and start him with hooker.  geathers has not done nearly enough to lock down that spot 

I think Kelly would be worse at G, but that's my opinion. TE can be improved, but there's a lot of positions that can be improved more. It'd have to be a Gronk type to consider taking him for me. Safety, if Hooker and Geathers are healthy, I would probably stand pat on, unless the draft played itself out where the one safety that was special was by far BPA, or our other targets were all taken.

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

It would have to be one heck of a BPA to choose either of those positions over DL, DE, LB or WR.

yeah i agree but he did say a player of nelsons caliber

 

having nelson, kelly and another player of that caliber on the line would be nice

 

elite tight ends are pretty rare, i would take the next gronk if hes there

[Coltsfan0112]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm guessing that our draft pick will be somewhere in the 14-20 range.   O-line should not be a position of need.   Perhaps WR on offense.   Defense may be a whole lot of positions of need.  

Ill say this, i hope the pick is BPA and not off need. Always BPA. If that means an OT is the best player at that time you dont hesititate. OT is a top 3 must position to have. I agree though. The needs they need are WR and defense. 

[Myles]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

yeah i agree but he did say a player of nelsons caliber

 

having nelson, kelly and another player of that caliber on the line would be nice

 

elite tight ends are pretty rare, i would take the next gronk if hes there

Good point.   I forgot about the "Nelsons caliber" part.   I think that is where trades can allow the Colts to get a great player and pick up additional picks like they did with the Jets this year.  

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Coltsfan0112 said:

Ill say this, i hope the pick is BPA and not off need. Always BPA. If that means an OT is the best player at that time you dont hesititate. OT is a top 3 must position to have. I agree though. The needs they need are WR and defense. 

If we take a great RT at 14-20, I'd be fine with that. It'd improve our O-Line and we could move him to LT in a couple years. Any BPA player in the draft will always have use. Nelson proved that before the first preseason game.

[King Colt]

https://coltswire.usatoday.com/2018/07/28/indianapolis-colts-quenton-nelson-bringing-boom-training-camp/?

Indianapolis Colts left guard Quenton Nelson has the reputation of being a mauler when it comes to knocking people off the line of scrimmage.

It was one of the reasons why the Colts spent the No. 6 overall pick in the 2018 NFL Draft on the Notre Dame product and he finally got the chance to show them during the first padded practice on Saturday.

George Bremer@gmbremer

Quenton Nelson very nearly threw a pancake block. Then got to the next level and hammered an outmatched CB. Hugh five from Andrew Luck when he got back to the huddle. #Colts

1:31 PM - Jul 28, 2018

 

It even got to the point where the Colts had their first mini-skirmish of training camp after Nelson blew up defensive tackle Rakeem Nunez-Roches.

George Bremer@gmbremer

A couple snaps later, Nelson bends Rakeem Nunez-Roches backward. DL takes exception. Some pushing and shoving. Matt Slauson comes in to break it up. Rookie’s nasty streak showing. #Colts

1:34 PM - Jul 28, 2018

 

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Coltsfan0112 said:

Ill say this, i hope the pick is BPA and not off need. Always BPA. If that means an OT is the best player at that time you dont hesititate. OT is a top 3 must position to have. I agree though. The needs they need are WR and defense. 

If BPA is OT and 2nd BPA is DE, I think the Colts would have to go DE.  

We were able to harness the perfect storm this year.   BPA played the position of our biggest need.  I know that some would say DE was our biggest need.   Maybe so, but it was close between O-line and DE.  I think Denver was close to taking Nelson, so Chubb would have been our pick.

[Defjamz26]

Right now the strength of next year’s class seems to be on the D-line so it’s highly unlikely that a special player will be available at our pick and won’t be a position of need. Autry, Woods, and Stewart are solid on the interior but if Ed Oliver is there, you run the card in. I like our OT’s, but you also draft Greg Little if he’s there. Only position the Colts should conceivably pass on a special player at is TE or RB. 

[richard pallo]

In our current situation it's BPA in a position of need without the baggage.  It's pretty hard to get to the top without filling the weaknesses on your team.  Once we're a top tier team again you start taking BPA while also taking into account your ability to resign your own players and how that could lead to possible FA losses.  That along with the normal turnover due to retirements and a players declining performance will probably lead to more difficult draft decisions in the future.   

[Lucky Colts Fan]

54 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Tea.....ok...I'm walking away lol.

 

 

THANK YOU!!!

 

Nelson had more tea baggage coming out of college than any other player I've ever seen...

 

 

...I will also walk away now.

[csmopar]

Always BPA. Always room to upgrade/add depth.  Lets just say there is a super stud at LT, would you not want to take him, bump either him or AC to RT and upgrade your OL? Assuming that you were in position for him anyway?  I think you should always look at BPA in round one unless you have a rare, generational talent at that position (IE Luck, at least at this point in his career)

[dgambill]

10 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

THANK YOU!!!

 

Nelson had more tea baggage coming out of college than any other player I've ever seen...

 

 

...I will also walk away now.

You don't know how many times I stopped myself from typing that post until I couldn't stop myself any longer. I thought for sure someone else would beat me to it. lol On a day I woke up and just thought to myself I feel OLD....I get on here and then feel 15 years old again....for a moment at least lol.

[John Hammonds]

My draft philosophy has always been:

A top 15 pick is supposed to be somebody who is already better than your current best player on your roster at that position, and ought to start right away.  If there's nobody in the draft that fits that bill, trade down.

A top 5 pick is supposed to be somebody who will fundamentally change the face/nature of your team.  If there's nobody that fits that, trade down.

If you can get someone that fits the "top 5" description, outside of the top 5, then DRAFT HIM.  Even if he's at a position that the experts say is of less importance.  Say, oh, offensive guard.

Even if he's at a position where you don't have a current need.  Take him anyway.

Example:  Reggie Wayne, WR, Pick 30, 2001.  In 2001, we had fairly dire needs on the defensive side of the ball.  We already had wide receivers.  But Polian was sure.  This guy is special.  He's one of "those guys" that can change the face of your franchise.  Take him.  I know, you have more pressing needs.  I know, you already have receivers.  Take him.  Take him, and don't look back.

[Dingus McGirt]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

 

Nelson had no baggage lol. I said if a player did in particular. Don't take it as me saying it towards Nelson.

It was "tea-baggage."

Just now, Dingus McGirt said:

It was "tea-baggage."

Ooops.  Should have read the earlier post on this.

[Superman]

Setting aside QBs, this draft class had three players that were clearly better than the rest: Nelson, Barkley and Chubb. Great prospects, great college production, no off the field issues, no significant injury issues, highly respected character... all three were high ceiling, high floor, almost no-doubter prospects, according to general consensus.

 

While there were other really good and intriguing prospects in this draft, there was a clear line of separation after the top three. So with one of those three on the board when we picked, like Ballard said, it was an easy choice to take Nelson, so you turn in the card and never look back, IMO.

 

That said, I think Ballard played with fire a little bit. First, while he got a really nice haul for trading back -- clearly won the trade with the Jets, and their guy isn't in camp yet, so double whammy -- I think it cost him a potentially game wrecking edge rusher, the kind of player that it's hard to find later in the draft and that practically never becomes available in free agency.

 

Second, Ballard said before the draft that he only expected two QBs to go in the top five, so unless he knew that the Browns were in love with Denzel Ward at #4 -- and maybe he did; he worked for John Dorsey and presumably stays in touch with him -- he ran the risk of all three top guys being off the board at #6. It's pretty obvious by Tampa's trade back from #7 that Nelson wasn't going last much longer.

 

I still think he would have gotten more bang for his resources by signing Norwell or Pugh in free agency, and then taking Chubb at #3 or even coming back up to #4.

 

But, specific to the scenario presented in this thread, as always, I think a team is better off taking the best, most talented players that fit their team, not using the draft to try to fill needs. I think draft theory calls for maximizing value, and taking a guard at #6 isn't maximizing value. That's not because guards aren't important, but because it would be more efficient to use a rare draft pick on a player that you can't add in a different way, and good guards hit free agency every year. But that's theory; there's no guarantee you get your man in free agency.

 

Presented with the exact same scenario -- picking at #6 with Chubb off the board, and a trade back unlikely to yield a pick where you either still get Nelson or get great value for the pick -- the lesson is draft the best players you can, don't reach for need. I think that's how you build a good roster, but it takes several years of good drafting and development. 

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

Setting aside QBs, this draft class had three players that were clearly better than the rest: Nelson, Barkley and Chubb. Great prospects, great college production, no off the field issues, no significant injury issues, highly respected character... all three were high ceiling, high floor, almost no-doubter prospects, according to general consensus.

 

While there were other really good and intriguing prospects in this draft, there was a clear line of separation after the top three. So with one of those three on the board when we picked, like Ballard said, it was an easy choice to take Nelson, so you turn in the card and never look back, IMO.

 

That said, I think Ballard played with fire a little bit. First, while he got a really nice haul for trading back -- clearly won the trade with the Jets, and their guy isn't in camp yet, so double whammy -- I think it cost him a potentially game wrecking edge rusher, the kind of player that it's hard to find later in the draft and that practically never becomes available in free agency.

 

Second, Ballard said before the draft that he only expected two QBs to go in the top five, so unless he knew that the Browns were in love with Denzel Ward at #4 -- and maybe he did; he worked for John Dorsey and presumably stays in touch with him -- he ran the risk of all three top guys being off the board at #6. It's pretty obvious by Tampa's trade back from #7 that Nelson wasn't going last much longer.

 

I still think he would have gotten more bang for his resources by signing Norwell or Pugh in free agency, and then taking Chubb at #3 or even coming back up to #4.

 

But, specific to the scenario presented in this thread, as always, I think a team is better off taking the best, most talented players that fit their team, not using the draft to try to fill needs. I think draft theory calls for maximizing value, and taking a guard at #6 isn't maximizing value. That's not because guards aren't important, but because it would be more efficient to use a rare draft pick on a player that you can't add in a different way, and good guards hit free agency every year. But that's theory; there's no guarantee you get your man in free agency.

 

Presented with the exact same scenario -- picking at #6 with Chubb off the board, and a trade back unlikely to yield a pick where you either still get Nelson or get great value for the pick -- the lesson is draft the best players you can, don't reach for need. I think that's how you build a good roster, but it takes several years of good drafting and development. 

My personal dream scenario was to sign Norwell, draft Nelson, then in the 2nd round we could of taken Leonard and Josh Jackson early. That would of made us stronger at G, and gave us a #2 corner to work on the outside alongside Wilson to strengthen the secondary. I don't know how Ballard negotiates, but I would of basically given Norwell a blank check, and asked him "what will it take to get you to sign here?"