2 Colts among PFF's top graded rookie OL

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

And was I wrong to say we should expect a guard taken at 6 to play at a high level right away? 

 

Yes. Can't give the guy more than 6 games? Goodness...

 

And Nelson hasn't played poorly. He's been good, with some rough spots. His play has been reasonable for a rookie OL. 

[KB]

The line went from worst to top ten but yall worried about the grade of one guard. Obviously his presence on the line has caused great improvement.

 

Will Hernandez might be graded a little higher at the moment but I know I dont want Luck behind the Giant's o line. A better grade dosnt mean much when the rest of the line is garbage.

 

Wasnt Mewhort a top graded guard for a couple years? How did that work out?

[DougDew]

McGlinchy was underrated last spring by about every pundit.  Went #9 to the 49ers.

 

Maybe he was the better golden domer?

[PeterBowman]

5 minutes ago, KB said:

The line went from worst to top ten but yall worried about the grade of one guard. Obviously his presence on the line has caused great improvement.

 

Will Hernandez might be graded a little higher at the moment but I know I dont want Luck behind the Giant's o line. A better grade dosnt mean much when the rest of the line is garbage.

 

Wasnt Mewhort a top graded guard for a couple years? How did that work out?

also hard to compare unless you gauge his level of competition.....who has Hernandez gone up against compared to Nelson's murderers row....the best in the league outside of Aaron Donald. And he's more than held his own...had a couple welcome to the NFL moments but he's also dominated those same people at times too.......plus I remember Clowney clowning Tyron Smith a few times a couple weeks ago.

[Cynjin]

2 hours ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Like it or not those are the fan expectations.

 

May be silly to you but doesn’t make it wrong

 

1) Thankfully, no one in the Colts front office is listening to the fans.

 

2) Yes it does.

[Cynjin]

8 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

That’s exactly what I wanted. I wanted to trade with the Bills for their 12, both their 2nds and next years 1st. Next years 1st could easily be a top 3 pick. They 100% would have taken that because they would have been able to keep their 2nd 1st round pick this year. And idk why Ballard didn’t trade up for Hernandez. Him and Nelson could have been special together. 

 

Do you have inside information that the trade you suggest was on the table?  From what I have read it was not.

 

Like another poster wrote, it is amazing that you are not a GM for a NFL team with your ability to make trades that no one else could.

[dodsworth]

I absolutely love our 2 O Linemen

picks and so does Luck.....

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Do you have inside information that the trade you suggest was on the table?  From what I have read it was not.

 

Like another poster wrote, it is amazing that you are not a GM for a NFL team with your ability to make trades that no one else could.

Ballard said that good trade offer was on the table but said he rejected it because the first round pick would have dropped them below getting one of the elite players, not because the overall compensation wasn't good enough.

 

We assume that means below about pick 8 or 9 considering the consensus of how many elite players there were.

 

Technically, it doesn't have to be BUFF he rejected.  Could have been a team higher than 12 or slightly lower.

 

But we do know BUFF traded up to pick 7 to take Josh Allen right after we took Nelson.

 

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Do you have inside information that the trade you suggest was on the table?  From what I have read it was not.

 

Like another poster wrote, it is amazing that you are not a GM for a NFL team with your ability to make trades that no one else could.

 

That trade most likely was not an option. As it stands, the Bills came up to 7 to take Allen, and only gave up #12 and two seconds. The Colts could have tried to bluff them into thinking that another team was coming up for Allen, but there's no indication that would have worked. 

 

The Bills then moved from 22 to 16 to get Edmunds. They milked their draft capital very nicely, and got the two players they really wanted. The idea that they were going to give up significantly more to move up to 6 or even 3 is unrealistic, just revisionist history. 

[Jason_]

8 hours ago, threeflight said:

This goes along with what I have been saying for weeks.

 

If you are going to take a safety and a guard early in the first round, they had damn well better be ALL PRO almost immediately because the importance of those positions is way way down there.

 

As far as Nelson, he has been....ok. Certainly not anywhere close to the #6 pick in the draft when you take his position into consideration.  He should be dominating with being picked that early.

 

Remember he was an All World can't miss best ever right?

 

Uh.....yeah.

 

8 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

He’s played above average, but not good or great. He gave up some costly sacks one of which (by Clowney) cost us the game. But when you use such a high pick on a guard, he is expected to play at a high level right away. 

 

Only by fans that don't know any better.

 

5 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

I’m just stating facts. I’m not hating on Nelson but a 68 grade is in fact above average and just below Good. And was I wrong to say we should expect a guard taken at 6 to play at a high level right away? Teams never spend picks that high on guards but since we did Nelson better become the best guard ever, and I hope he does. The only positions I wouldn’t expect to play at a high level right away would be QB and DE. 

 

Yes, you were absolutely wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Like it or not those are the fan expectations. Especially when a team who lacks major playmakers and impact players. Ppl are going to want that OL that you took that high deliver immediately. Just is what it is for the most part. May be silly to you but doesn’t make it wrong

 

Yeah, it does.  

[Cynjin]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard said that good trade offer was on the table but said he rejected it because the first round pick would have dropped them below getting one of the elite players, not because of the overall compensation.

 

We assume that means below about pick 8 or 9 considering the consensus of how many elite players there were.

 

Technically, it doesn't have to be BUFF he rejected.  Could have been a team higher than 12 or slightly lower.

 

But we do know BUFF traded up to pick 7 to take Josh Allen right after we took Nelson.

 

 

 

True, but Buffalo also said they were not willing to trade their second 1st round pick or next years 1st.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard said that good trade offer was on the table but said he rejected it because the first round pick would have dropped them below getting one of the elite players, not because of the overall compensation.

 

We assume that means below about pick 8 or 9 considering the consensus of how many elite players there were.

 

Technically, it doesn't have to be BUFF he rejected.  Could have been a team higher than 12 or slightly lower.

 

But we do know BUFF traded up to pick 7 to take Josh Allen right after we took Nelson.

 

If Buffalo were offering what L4P says, it would be a different story. What apparently happened is they had a deal in place with Tampa, assuming Nelson was gone by 7. They weren't giving up a future first, and they pretty much said that directly. 

[Cynjin]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That trade most likely was not an option. As it stands, the Bills came up to 7 to take Allen, and only gave up #12 and two seconds. The Colts could have tried to bluff them into thinking that another team was coming up for Allen, but there's no indication that would have worked. 

 

The Bills then moved from 22 to 16 to get Edmunds. They milked their draft capital very nicely, and got the two players they really wanted. The idea that they were going to give up significantly more to move up to 6 or even 3 is unrealistic, just revisionist history. 

 

Completely agree.

[K-148]

Geno Atkins, Carlos Dunlop, Brandon Graham, Fletcher Cox, J.J. Watt are All-Pro already. Pretty obvious rookie future All-Pro can lose rep here and there to present All-Pro. Blocking for Saquon Barkley, not Jordan Wilkins, helps also.

[chad72]

1 hour ago, PeterBowman said:

also keep in mind who Nelson has gone up against in his first 6 starts too....other than Aaron Donald, he's pretty much gone up against the best D lineman the NFL has to offer.

 

True. People just want something to complain about. They would want Nelson to be able to throw a Hail Mary and catch occasional TD passes too, if I am not mistaken. :) 

 

Braden Smith, the statistical sample is still small but keep him at RT for now.

 

I like looking at footballoutsiders.com and our OL is middle of the pack in run blocking, and top 6 in pass protection. It is like the Peyton Manning era. A step in "absolutely" the right direction. 

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

 

[chad72]

24 minutes ago, K-148 said:

Geno Atkins, Carlos Dunlop, Brandon Graham, Fletcher Cox, J.J. Watt are All-Pro already. Pretty obvious rookie future All-Pro can lose rep here and there to present All-Pro. Blocking for Saquon Barkley, not Jordan Wilkins, helps also.

 

True. When you have an RB like Barkley, who when stuffed, has the vision and the athleticism to take it outside and not lose stride at a high level, most OL will get credit for that.

 

To be fair, the Giants have played the Jaguars, Texans and Eagles too, so Will Hernandez does deserve some credit, just does not need so at Nelson's expense. 

 

We are definitely not 1-5 because of the OL, that is for sure. The offense's untimely turnovers, WR drops and soft defensive coverage are all bigger reasons for our record than the OL, IMO.

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If Buffalo were offering what L4P says, it would be a different story. What apparently happened is they had a deal in place with Tampa, assuming Nelson was gone by 7. They weren't giving up a future first, and they pretty much said that directly. 

Ballard did say he rejected a trade because it would drop us down to below the elite player grouping, so it wasn't too far of a drop. 

 

I was on record as taking any trade of proper value, or slightly above, to get out of #6 since I didn't think any of those players were really worth it.  (I didn't even like Chubb that much, and probably would have been wrong about that.)

 

So if it was #12 and 2 seconds, that's fine too. 

 

Yeah, if Ballard rejected some undervalue trade, that's different, but it sounded like he was concerned about missing out on some specific players, not that the trade wasn't fair.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard did say he rejected a trade because it would drop us down to below the elite player grouping, so it wasn't too far of a drop. 

 

I was on record as taking any trade of proper value, or slightly above, to get out of #6 since I didn't think any of those players were really worth it.  (I didn't even like Chubb that much, and probably would have been wrong about that.)

 

So if it was #12 and 2 seconds, that's fine too. 

 

Yeah, if Ballard rejected some undervalue trade, that's different, but it sounded like he was concerned about missing out on some specific players, not that the trade wasn't fair.

 

Those are different considerations, though. And 12 and two seconds would depend on whether one of those was a future second, and what projected value it would have. 

 

For me, there were six non QBs that were on my list. Chubb, Nelson, James, Smith, McGlinchey, and Barkley (begrudgingly). With indications that only 2 or 3 QBs would go in the top 10, it was very possible that all six would be gone by 12, which is why I didn't want to go down to 12. If the Bills had offered 12 and 22, I might have thought about it, but I probably would have been itching to move back up pretty quickly. James wound up dropping to 17, so it might have worked out even without moving back up, but there's no telling once you dramatically change the board. 

 

So I get why going down to 12 was a nonstarter for Ballard. It wasn't attractive to me either, and I don't think Tampa wanted to move down unless the top three were gone. 

[#12.]

What people keep forgetting to factor in about Nelson - we got four picks for one.  Would you have taken him at #3?  Probably not, but you also got Smith, Turay and another 2nd in 2019.  In a few years, I'm guessing that haul will look pretty good for one #3 pick.  If we're looking for a dynamic WR or RB, the 2019 Jets pick might be a prime spot for it.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Those are different considerations, though. And 12 and two seconds would depend on whether one of those was a future second, and what projected value it would have. 

 

For me, there were six non QBs that were on my list. Chubb, Nelson, James, Smith, McGlinchey, and Barkley (begrudgingly). With indications that only 2 or 3 QBs would go in the top 10, it was very possible that all six would be gone by 12, which is why I didn't want to go down to 12. If the Bills had offered 12 and 22, I might have thought about it, but I probably would have been itching to move back up pretty quickly. James wound up dropping to 17, so it might have worked out even without moving back up, but there's no telling once you dramatically change the board. 

 

So I get why going down to 12 was a nonstarter for Ballard. It wasn't attractive to me either, and I don't think Tampa wanted to move down unless the top three were gone. 

If there was a trade offer down to 12, I would have taken it because I thought McG would be there based upon every report I was reading.  And I would have gotten screwed since he was picked #9.  I probably would have reached and taken a sure thing OL, Isiah Wynn, who is now out with a torn achillies.  But perhaps he doesn't tear it under different circumstances.  I felt that reaching there is okay, because I got 1 or 2 more picks out of it.  

 

I thought the value of the draft was in the second round, and I didn't think any of the positional players were worth their lofty 1st round status, except Roquan and maybe the safeties, but we already spent capital on a S last year.

 

So if we're going to build through the draft, it made sense to me to get as many picks from 15 to 60 as we could.  So I was hot on trading down the second time from #6 and picking BPA from there.  Picking any player at #6 with the exception of Roquan Smith would have been a disappointment for me. 

 

I'm always going to think that Nelson wasn't worth the pick, even if he becomes all pro, since I think we still could have helped the team more with the pick(s) we could have gotten.  There were good players in that 15 to 60 stretch, Leonard and Smith being evidence of that.

[#12.]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I'm always going to think that Nelson wasn't worth the pick, even if he becomes all pro,

 

But we already got four picks for one.  It's not just Nelson, it's Nelson and three other players.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

9 hours ago, Flash7 said:

Not sure, but many on this forum wanted Ballard to trade back one more time, forego drafting Nelson, accumulate more picks and draft Hernandez instead. They were saying the drop off betweeen Nelson and Hernandez was minimal.

 

I advocated for that, or for us to stay at 6 & hopefully Denzel Ward would drop to us. But I'm perfectly happy with Nelson, not sure what there really is to gripe about. He's looked fantastic as far as I can tell. He still has the occasional rookie hiccup in pass protection, but his run blocking is outstanding.

[Devildog]

I don't think one year is going to define Nelson's career.  He could be a Pro-Bowler next year or the year after.  Perhaps McGlinchey or Hernandez could suck next year so who knows.  Just because Nelson has been outperformed by others who were drafted after him doesn't mean he's a bust.

 

Sometimes, I just don't understand people's thinking.  Why compare him when so far he's done an excellent job protecting Luck?  Perhaps people think we could've traded back and gotten more picks but seriously, how many of those do you think will actually pan out? 

 

We got a quality player that filled a position need and that is all that matters.   

[Steamboat_Shaun]

9 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

He’s played above average, but not good or great. He gave up some costly sacks one of which (by Clowney) cost us the game. But when you use such a high pick on a guard, he is expected to play at a high level right away. 

 

Are you 100% sure that the botched snap in our own endzone didn't cost us the game? Or kicking a FG to start OT instead of going for it on 4th & 2 in the red zone? Are you really that eager to pin a loss on a rookie draft pick, that you obviously don't like, that you completely overlook all the other reasons that the Colts lost that game vs the Texans?

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

But we already got four picks for one.  It's not just Nelson, it's Nelson and three other players.

I know.  That's great.  I loved the trade from 3 to 6.  My point is that I'm pretty sure we could have gotten more with another trade down.  And we would still be in the top half of round 1, in all likelihood.

 

We were told that our roster was one of the worst in the NFL, and that we're going to build through the draft.  Picking a G at 6 and foregoing the opportunity to accumulate more good players seemed the opposite of that.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Yes. Can't give the guy more than 6 games? Goodness...

 

And Nelson hasn't played poorly. He's been good, with some rough spots. His play has been reasonable for a rookie OL. 

 

Nope, 6 games is all we need to evaluate. Bust. fIrE bAlLaRd.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If there was a trade offer down to 12, I would have taken it because I thought McG would be there based upon every report I was reading.  And I would have gotten screwed since he was picked #9.  I probably would have reached and taken a sure thing OL, Isiah Wynn, who is now out with a torn achillies.  But perhaps he doesn't tear it under different circumstances.  I felt that reaching there is okay, because I got 1 or 2 more picks out of it.  

 

I thought the value of the draft was in the second round, and I didn't think any of the positional players were worth their lofty 1st round status, except Roquan and maybe the safeties, but we already spent capital on a S last year.

 

So if we're going to build through the draft, it made sense to me to get as many picks from 15 to 60 as we could.  So I was hot on trading down the second time from #6 and picking BPA from there.  Picking any player at #6 with the exception of Roquan Smith would have been a disappointment for me. 

 

I'm always going to think that Nelson wasn't worth the pick, even if he becomes all pro, since I think we still could have helped the team more with the pick(s) we could have gotten.  There were good players in that 15 to 60 stretch, Leonard and Smith being evidence of that.

 

You're saying things that contradict. You say you felt there was later value and liked a BPA approach, but you admit losing McGlinchey would have prompted you to reach. So really you projected that McGlinchey would be BPA at 12. Think about how shaky your strategy would have become after the Dolphins pick.

 

When I think through draft strategy, it always impresses upon me just how much work teams go through to set their board. They think through the options and likely outcomes, and grade their options based on how they view players and their value to the team. 

 

Ballard said they had 8 players they liked at the top of the first round, but it was pretty obvious leading up to the draft that it was the top 3, then the other five. He said as much after the draft. So I don't think he was interested in going down to 12 unless he could get what he thought was legitimate value in return for missing on the top 3. He played out the scenarios with his staff, and thought Nelson at 6 was the right move. We all know I'm not crazy about a guard at 6, but I did think there was a dropoff after Nelson. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

17 minutes ago, #12. said:

What people keep forgetting to factor in about Nelson - we got four picks for one.  Would you have taken him at #3?  Probably not, but you also got Smith, Turay and another 2nd in 2019.  In a few years, I'm guessing that haul will look pretty good for one #3 pick.  If we're looking for a dynamic WR or RB, the 2019 Jets pick might be a prime spot for it.

 

And Tyquan Lewis, who everyone keeps forgetting about.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're saying things that contradict. You say you felt there was later value and liked a BPA approach, but you admit losing McGlinchey would have prompted you to reach. So really you projected that McGlinchey would be BPA at 12. Think about how shaky your strategy would have become after the Dolphins pick.

 

When I think through draft strategy, it always impresses upon me just how much work teams go through to set their board. They think through the options and likely outcomes, and grade their options based on how they view players and their value to the team. 

 

Ballard said they had 8 players they liked at the top of the first round, but it was pretty obvious leading up to the draft that it was the top 3, then the other five. He said as much after the draft. So I don't think he was interested in going down to 12 unless he could get what he thought was legitimate value in return for missing on the top 3. He played out the scenarios with his staff, and thought Nelson at 6 was the right move. We all know I'm not crazy about a guard at 6, but I did think there was a dropoff after Nelson. 

 

Everyone wanted to protect Luck, now we have a top 10 OL, better than Dallas's OL, & everyone is saying that we wasted draft picks. Unbelievable.

[TheMarine]

1 minute ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

And Tyquan Lewis, who everyone keeps forgetting about.

 

Cant wait to see him play, tbh.

Jets got Darnold - Starter

Colts got
Nelson - Starter
Smith - Starter

Lewis - Incomplete
2019 2nd round - Incomplete

 

In terms of pure draft capital, I believe the Colts got better value over even what Washington gave up to select RG3. Its paid dividends  even at this point though the record may not reflect that we have two apparently very solid starters on the line.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Everyone wanted to protect Luck, now we have a top 10 OL, better than Dallas's OL, & everyone is saying that we wasted draft picks. Unbelievable.

 

Problem is everyone has a bias that affects their opinion. There are those who are in the camp that did not want a guard that high. Then there are those in the camp that want to knock Ballard. That is bearing itself out on this forum, IMO.

 

I have several gripes on Ballard, with his FA approach, and the fact that he did not get more help on the skill position front, but drafting a guard at 6 is definitely not one of them. I understand his FA approach and how the Ryan Grant gamble back fired on him, but I still felt he could have done better there.

 

Next off season will test a lot of us fans' patience, me included.  

[DougDew]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're saying things that contradict. You say you felt there was later value and liked a BPA approach, but you admit losing McGlinchey would have prompted you to reach. So really you projected that McGlinchey would be BPA at 12. Think about how shaky your strategy would have become after the Dolphins pick.

 

When I think through draft strategy, it always impresses upon me just how much work teams go through to set their board. They think through the options and likely outcomes, and grade their options based on how they view players and their value to the team. 

 

Ballard said they had 8 players they liked at the top of the first round, but it was pretty obvious leading up to the draft that it was the top 3, then the other five. He said as much after the draft. So I don't think he was interested in going down to 12 unless he could get what he thought was legitimate value in return for missing on the top 3. He played out the scenarios with his staff, and thought Nelson at 6 was the right move. We all know I'm not crazy about a guard at 6, but I did think there was a dropoff after Nelson. 

I don't see it as contradictory.  I guess because I ultimately feel that its not possible for any 1st round quality G to have that much more impact than another 1st round quality G, so as long as I get my 1st round G, it can be at any slot if I'm also getting another 1st round pick or 2 seconds.    I valued Wynn at about 20, and NE took him at 22 or 23, (they know OLs, IMO).  Technically its a reach going from 20 to 12, but I have to consider the compensation.

 

As I said, if I drafted the way I would have, my OT is instead playing for the 49ers and my plan B starting G is on IR with an achillies, so I'd be sitting here with Calvin Ridley or Rashaan Evans for that #6 (or 2 second round players)  until my G is ready.

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Everyone wanted to protect Luck, now we have a top 10 OL, better than Dallas's OL, & everyone is saying that we wasted draft picks. Unbelievable.

But Dallas Oline has dropped in quality.  Don't think of it is the same line as it was a few years ago.

[Finball]

9 minutes ago, TheMarine said:

 

Cant wait to see him play, tbh.

Jets got Darnold - Starter

Colts got
Nelson - Starter
Smith - Starter

Lewis - Incomplete
2019 2nd round - Incomplete

 

In terms of pure draft capital, I believe the Colts got better value over even what Washington gave up to select RG3. Its paid dividends  even at this point though the record may not reflect that we have two apparently very solid starters on the line.

 

Not quite, Redskins gave up 2012, 2013, 2014 first rounder and 2012 2nd rounder. They moved up one more spot but got two 1st rounders (of which one ended up being 2nd overall) instead of 2nd rounders.

 

Rams blew those picks pretty badly so I think/hope we can come out ahead there.

[Case]

9 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

Why you are not employed by an NFL organisation is beyond me. Goodness, are those owners stupid or what.

I say this all the time. NFL teams will soon be looking at forums for their next GM/HC because all the knowledge and experience most of these people have. I feel honored to be on the same forum. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But Dallas Oline has dropped in quality.  Don't think of it is the same line as it was a few years ago.

 

Ok... our OL is better than 22 other teams in the league, including Dallas, who used 5 first rounders to build out their unit, which is more than what we used.

 

Is that better?

[TheMarine]

Just now, Finball said:

 

Not quite, Redskins gave up 2012, 2013, 2014 first rounder and 2012 2nd rounder. They moved up one more spot but got two 1st rounders (of which one ended up being 2nd overall) instead of 2nd rounders.

 

Rams blew those picks pretty badly so I think/hope we can come out ahead there.

 

Not sure what the exact value was the Rams got in return, but it didnt exactly work out for them. They then traded so many of those choices it gets a bit confusing: IE they had the #14 overall pick, then traded that back for a 2nd rounder and 3rd. Then traded that 2nd round pick to go down 5 spots and passed up on Alshon Jeffery.

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Ok... our OL is better than 22 other teams in the league, including Dallas, who used 5 first rounders to build out their unit, which is more than what we used.

 

Is that better?

IDK.  Its a broader topic.

 

I think Dallas' oline was always used as the poster boy for using first round picks along the entire front, including taking a chance on Lael Collins.  Things happen.  Those picks have been spent, but their oline isn't what it used to be. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

IDK.  Its a broader topic.

 

I think Dallas' oline was always used as the poster boy for using first round picks along the entire front, including taking a chance on Lael Collins.  Things happen.  Those picks have been spent, but their oline isn't what it used to be. 

 

Well nothing lasts forever, especially in the NFL. Age & injuries have definitely caught up with them, but that doesn't mean that their model for building their o-line was bad. They've had 2 different RBs lead the league in rushing in the past 4 years as a result of that unit, & that's something that I'd love for the Colts to be able to provide Andrew Luck with. He's never had that, & as he ages, it's going to become more & more important.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Well nothing lasts forever, especially in the NFL. Age & injuries have definitely caught up with them, but that doesn't mean that their model for building their o-line was bad. They've had 2 different RBs lead the league in rushing in the past 4 years as a result of that unit, & that's something that I'd love for the Colts to be able to provide Andrew Luck with. He's never had that, & as he ages, it's going to become more & more important.

Yeah, but I think their O ultimately worked because Dak outplayed his draft position.  He's come down to earth a bit and so has their entire O.  Not to mention they have not replaced Dez's former production, afaik.