2 Colts among PFF's top graded rookie OL

[Lawrence Owen]

8 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. 

What people don't understand is you're graded vrs the people you've been facing. Nelson has faced the best of the best of the interior D-linemen in the NFL. He's done above average/good VRS pro-bowlers.  Guess how that rates VRS average D-linemen?

[Lawrence Owen]

1 hour 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.

Yeah...Sitting a #6. Ballard said Nelson was the BPA on his board.  Plus a Major position of need.  Even if he flops, (which so far he hasn't by any means)  it is the right move.  You go by your board or you second guess yourself on every pick and make more mistakes down the road.

[Flash7]

1 hour 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.

NO ONE is saying we wasted draft picks. The Nelson pick was a good pick, and he's playing well.  And moving from #3 to #6 enabled us to accumulate more draft capital.

 

The conversation is: Did we have an opportunity to accumulate even more draft picks while also being able to draft a player(s) (McGlinchey/Hernandez) with equal talent? It's a fair conversation, given that both players who were drafter later than Nelson are graded higher at the moment. Of course, these grades aren't conclusive, do not take into consideration match ups, and things can change. But it's a fair conversation.

[chad72]

1 minute ago, Flash7 said:

But it's a fair conversation.

 

 

Yep, it's a fair conversation, just not enough information on our hand to make a determination what was on Ballard's table as offers and what was on his mind at the time the pick was made. You can't make everyone happy, and as long as Nelson's curve is up which it seems like it is, it would be basically water under the bridge. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Yeah...Sitting a #6. Ballard said Nelson was the BPA on his board.  Plus a Major position of need.  Even if he flops, (which so far he hasn't by any means)  it is the right move.  You go by your board or you second guess yourself on every pick and make more mistakes down the road.

 

The biggest mistake people are making right now is equating the W-L record to whether or not these draft picks were "good value." I like wins just as much as the next guy, but improvement & progress in areas that have been weaknesses in years past are more important right now. Our OL, DL, & LBs have improved significantly.

 

These were units that were notoriously awful during Grigson's entire tenure, & Ballard has made huge strides in all 3 in just 2 offseasons. Yes, it'd be nice to have a WR corps on par with the Rams, Falcons, Vikings, or even the Broncos, but I wouldn't sacrifice any of the improvements Ballard's made so far just to have some nice shiny toys for Luck to throw to.

[Dingus McGirt]

13 hours ago, GusFring said:

You take tackles in the top 10, not guards. Looks bad for Ballard imo. 

Excellent 99th post.

[Dingus McGirt]

12 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.

He's a miss?

[Steamboat_Shaun]

6 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

NO ONE is saying we wasted draft picks. The Nelson pick was a good pick, and he's playing well.  And moving from #3 to #6 enabled us to accumulate more draft capital.

 

The conversation is: Did we have an opportunity to accumulate even more draft picks while also being able to draft a player(s) (McGlinchey/Hernandez) with equal talent? It's a fair conversation, given that both players who were drafter later than Nelson are graded higher at the moment. Of course, these grades aren't conclusive, do not take into consideration match ups, and things can change. But it's a fair conversation.

 

They're graded higher by PFF, after 6 games. That's hardly enough of a sample size for anyone to say "Will Hernandez is a better football player than Quenton Nelson."

[Flash7]

Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

They're graded higher by PFF, after 6 games. That's hardly enough of a sample size for anyone to say "Will Hernandez is a better football player than Quenton Nelson."

Agreed. It only means that Hernandez is ranked higher by PFF at the moment.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

13 hours ago, GusFring said:

You take tackles in the top 10, not guards. Looks bad for Ballard imo. 

 

Why? In what way, exactly, does it look bad for Ballard?

[DougDew]

Ballard himself said that he picked Smith at #37 because there was a run on Gs and Smith was the last starting caliber G in the draft.

 

He's not saying BPA.  He's saying he wanted (need) a starting OL, given our situation.

 

There isn't a problem in my mind that if you need starting caliber players at a position, you draft a player regardless of where he ranks BPA (within reason), as long as he is in fact STARTING caliber.  He did the same with Leonard.  We needed ILBs, and Leonrd was starting caliber, even if he was valued 15 or 20 picks later.

 

Nelson was also starter quality, as was all of the Gs picked before Smith.

 

From a ranking an PFF performance score, they are going to be grouped together, and who happens to be higher at the moment is going to depend upon who they face and what team they're on.  But as a group, I expect Gs drafted in the 1st and 2nd to sort of all be bunched together without a lot of separation between them.  OTs might be a different story.  

 

 

[gspdx]

OK - so let me get this right.  We have 2 of the top rated rookie lineman based on PFF grading and people are complaining.

 

I have this correct, right?

 

Man that Ballard guy is a loser!  

[Flash7]

2 minutes ago, gspdx said:

OK - so let me get this right.  We have 2 of the top rated rookie lineman based on PFF grading and people are complaining.

 

I have this correct, right?

 

Man that Ballard guy is a loser!  

Respectfully, no you do not have it correct. It's easy to call it complaining, when in fact, it's discussing other opportunities.

 

It's great that we have 2 of the top rated rookie linemen...YAY! BUT McGlinchey and Hernandez, who were drafter later are currently ranked higher...BOO!

 

So, the discussion is, could we have traded back, accumulated more draft picks and still drafted players of equal value? This is not complaining, rather, it's a fair point.

[Deadpool]

I think a lot of y'all are hard on Nelson a little to much....... So he isn't playing like a all pro his first year, big deal. You have to look at the big picture...... Big picture being where the Colts O-line ranks in the NFL right now....... They are ranked as the 10th best O-line in the NFL, have allowed the 3rd fewest Sacks in the NFL PFF has Smith, Kelly, Clark and Nelson all ranked above average to high quality. But given the fact that BOTH Smith and Nelson have helped produce a top 10 line is remarkable. When was the last time the colts could say they have had this good of a offensive line blocking for Luck? 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Deadpool said:

I think a lot of y'all are hard on Nelson a little to much....... So he isn't playing like a all pro his first year, big deal. You have to look at the big picture...... Big picture being where the Colts O-line ranks in the NFL right now....... They are ranked as the 10th best O-line in the NFL, have allowed the 3rd fewest Sacks in the NFL PFF has Smith, Kelly, Clark and Nelson all ranked above average to high quality. But given the fact that BOTH Smith and Nelson have helped produce a top 10 line is remarkable. When was the last time the colts could say they have had this good of a offensive line blocking for Luck? 

It isn't beating up on Nelson or Ballard to say that the PFF rankings suggest that we could have a top 10 Oline with either McGlinchey or Hernandez too. 

 

To me, it doesn't even matter who is ahead of who. It matters that they are all grouped together pretty closely.

 

There may be more separation as time moves on.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

NO ONE is saying we wasted draft picks. The Nelson pick was a good pick, and he's playing well.  And moving from #3 to #6 enabled us to accumulate more draft capital.

 

The conversation is: Did we have an opportunity to accumulate even more draft picks while also being able to draft a player(s) (McGlinchey/Hernandez) with equal talent? It's a fair conversation, given that both players who were drafter later than Nelson are graded higher at the moment. Of course, these grades aren't conclusive, do not take into consideration match ups, and things can change. But it's a fair conversation.

 

Equal talent? No. The strong consensus before the draft was Nelson was decidedly more talented than any other OL in the draft. Pretty much everyone projected Nelson to be better than those other players you mentioned. I know I did, and six games into the season isn't the point to evaluate whether that projection was right.

 

Could we have stacked more picks and gotten comparable talent, maybe even greater value? Probably. But there was a clear distinction between Nelson and everyone else. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

Respectfully, no you do not have it correct. It's easy to call it complaining, when in fact, it's discussing other opportunities.

 

It's great that we have 2 of the top rated rookie linemen...YAY! BUT McGlinchey and Hernandez, who were drafter later are currently ranked higher...BOO!

 

So, the discussion is, could we have traded back, accumulated more draft picks and still drafted players of equal value? This is not complaining, rather, it's a fair point.

 

It's a discussion, but it's based on pure speculation from a group of people who are all peeved about PFF grades 6 weeks into the season, & have gotten it in their heads that we could've somehow magically gotten better & more talented by dropping lower in the draft, because obviously more picks always translates to more talent. Again, all based on speculation & PFF grades, both of which are flimsy at best.

[Flash7]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Equal talent? No. The strong consensus before the draft was Nelson was decidedly more talented than any other OL in the draft. Pretty much everyone projected Nelson to be better than those other players you mentioned. I know I did, and six games into the season isn't the point to evaluate whether that projection was right.

 

Could we have stacked more picks and gotten comparable talent, maybe even greater value? Probably. But there was a clear distinction between Nelson and everyone else. 

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing,  the difference being where I said equal rather than comparable. There is a distinction there, but only a slight distinction.

 

I fully agree that 6 games into the season is not the point to evaluate whether the projection was right. It's way, way too early. The data per PFF is only a talking point as a matter for discussion, but not for overall evaluation. Even then, you really can't use the PFF data for much discussion other than speculation. But hey, what's a forum for?

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

It's a discussion, but it's based on pure speculation from a group of people who are all peeved about PFF grades 6 weeks into the season, & have gotten it in their heads that we could've somehow magically gotten better & more talented by dropping lower in the draft, because obviously more picks always translates to more talent. Again, all based on speculation & PFF grades, both of which are flimsy at best.

If our record was 3-3 or 4-2 this wouldn't have even been brought up. Losing brings out anything that can be negative and puts it under a microscope. 

In my opinion having over 20 players on IR and then add at least 5 players weekly injured is the single reason we have lost.

[Flash7]

16 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

It's a discussion, but it's based on pure speculation from a group of people who are all peeved about PFF grades 6 weeks into the season, & have gotten it in their heads that we could've somehow magically gotten better & more talented by dropping lower in the draft, because obviously more picks always translates to more talent. Again, all based on speculation & PFF grades, both of which are flimsy at best.

Overall, I see your point and agree with you, to an extent. 

 

We did drop from our original draft position of #3 to #6, which allowed us to still draft Nelson, but in addition, also draft other contributing players in Round 2. By using this strategy, you could argue that we added to the overall talent of the team.

 

So why is it so unreasonable to think we could have dropped from the #6 position a little further down and accumulate even more talent, using the same formula that go us to where we are today?

[Mr.Debonair]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

If our record was 3-3 or 4-2 this wouldn't have even been brought up. Losing brings out anything that can be negative and puts it under a microscope. 

In my opinion having over 20 players on IR and then add at least 5 players weekly injured is the single reason we have lost.

Wasn't the reason we lost to the Bengals and Eagles. Mistakes in the Bengals game and settling for FG's in the Eagles game. Patriots and Jets to a degree because we had to play crummy WRs.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Wasn't the reason we lost to the Bengals and Eagles. Mistakes in the Bengals game and settling for FG's in the Eagles game. Patriots and Jets to a degree because we had to play crummy WRs.

If you don't think having that many players injured don't effect the final score I don't know what to tell you.

Having rookies and players starting when they are not ready to be starting caliber players does bring losses. We also started the season with what 5 rookies? 

[Lawrence Owen]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

Respectfully, no you do not have it correct. It's easy to call it complaining, when in fact, it's discussing other opportunities.

 

It's great that we have 2 of the top rated rookie linemen...YAY! BUT McGlinchey and Hernandez, who were drafter later are currently ranked higher...BOO!

 

So, the discussion is, could we have traded back, accumulated more draft picks and still drafted players of equal value? This is not complaining, rather, it's a fair point.

And whom have the other 2 linemen faced so far? We KNOW ours has faced the best of the best for the majority of theirs..........And still top ranked. Grades are made by how they play vrs the other team, if they haven't played the caliber front 7's we have...then these grades are skewed.

[Mr.Debonair]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

If you don't think having that many players injured don't effect the final score I don't know what to tell you.

Having rookies and players starting when they are not ready to be starting caliber players does bring losses. We also started the season with what 5 rookies? 

Had we lost those games(Bengals and Colts) handily then I could agree with that being the REASON we lost. Patriots have beaten us healthy or not, so I am not just chalking that up to injuries. The Texans and Jets game I can agree

[Flash7]

9 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

And whom have the other 2 linemen faced so far? We KNOW ours has faced the best of the best for the majority of theirs..........And still top ranked. Grades are made by how they play vrs the other team, if they haven't played the caliber front 7's we have...then these grades are skewed.

Yup, I get it. I like Nelson, and I think he's doing great.

 

I'm not making an evaluation because it's way too early. I'm not saying that the other linemen are definitely better than Nelson, at all.

 

What I am saying is that it's reasonable to have a discussion on whether it would have been a good move, or not, to weigh out the option of moving down a little from the #6 spot in the draft and accumulating more draft picks. As it turns out, there were also other good O-lineman to choose from aside from just Nelson. This does not negate anything from Nelson.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Flash7 said:

Yup, I get it. I like Nelson, and I think he's doing great.

 

I'm not making an evaluation because it's way too early. I'm not saying that the other linemen are definitely better than Nelson, at all.

 

What I am saying is that it's reasonable to have a discussion on whether it would have been a good move, or not, to weigh out the option of moving down a little from the #6 spot in the draft and accumulating more draft picks. As it turns out, there were also other good O-lineman to choose from aside from just Nelson. This does not negate anything from Nelson.

 

Had my aunt been born with a set she would have been my uncle is the old saying.

No GM in the league drafts with hindsight.

[Flash7]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

 

Had my aunt been born with a set she would have been my uncle is the old saying.

No GM in the league drafts with hindsight.

This is a forum for discussing Colts related topics, correct?

 

What I have brought up was being talked about during the draft. There is no hindsight here.

 

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, PLEASE do not. Simply find another topic. Respectfully, I see no added value in your comment.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Flash7 said:

This is a forum for discussing Colts related topics, correct?

 

What I have brought up was being talked about during the draft. There is no hindsight here.

 

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, PLEASE do not. Simply find another topic. Respectfully, I see no added value in your comment.

Sorry, you are right. There is no point in having this discussion because it serves no purpose.

[hoosierhawk]

3 hours ago, Flash7 said:

NO ONE is saying we wasted draft picks. The Nelson pick was a good pick, and he's playing well.  And moving from #3 to #6 enabled us to accumulate more draft capital.

 

The conversation is: Did we have an opportunity to accumulate even more draft picks while also being able to draft a player(s) (McGlinchey/Hernandez) with equal talent? It's a fair conversation, given that both players who were drafter later than Nelson are graded higher at the moment. Of course, these grades aren't conclusive, do not take into consideration match ups, and things can change. But it's a fair conversation.

I will guarantee you that out of the 32 GMs in the NFL there is not one that would take either over Nelson. Not even close. Nelson has played exceptionally well against some of the best interior DL men in the league. Neither of the other two have played near the talent.

Two things in this thread I take exception to:

1. The Clowney sack cost us the game vs Texas? One play out of 70 minutes can't be attributed to   the play that cost us the game. We could have and should have won the game.

2. No way Nelson not the superior lineman in South Bend last fall.

[Flash7]

6 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

I will guarantee you that out of the 32 GMs in the NFL there is not one that would take either over Nelson. Not even close. Nelson has played exceptionally well against some of the best interior DL men in the league. Neither of the other two have played near the talent.

Two things in this thread I take exception to:

1. The Clowney sack cost us the game vs Texas. One play out of 70 minutes can't be attributed to   the play that cost us the game. We could have and should have won the game.

2. No way Way Nelson not the superior lineman in South Bend last fall.

Agreed, no GM would take either over Nelson straight up. But I think the question is: Would a GM possibly take McGlinchey or Hernandez and another player possibly either (Josh Jackson, or Christian Kirk, etc) over Nelson by trading out of the #6 spot? Would that have added more talent?

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Agreed, no GM would take either over Nelson straight up. But I think the question is: Would a GM possibly take McGlinchey or Hernandez and another player possibly either (Josh Jackson, or Christian Kirk, etc) over Nelson by trading out of the #6 spot? Would that have added more talent?

Hypothetically, if we traded down with the Bears, and they moved up for Nelson (they were very high on him), we could of probably received a 2nd rounder to move down from 6 to 8 and took McGlinchley, then took Josh Jackson with the 2nd round pick and filled a need at CB. Without hindsight, it's tough. With hindsight, I'm all over that.

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Agreed, no GM would take either over Nelson straight up. But I think the question is: Would a GM possibly take McGlinchey or Hernandez and another player possibly either (Josh Jackson, or Christian Kirk, etc) over Nelson by trading out of the #6 spot? Would that have added more talent?

[a06cc]

16 hours ago, zibby43 said:

I've been really impressed by Nelson.  Having a player of AC's caliber next to him now will further help his development.  Heck, just having some stability at that LT position alone is a positive for Big Q.

 

Really encouraged by Smith as well.  I can't believe I'm typing this, but if the Colts draft a talented LT and sign another RG/RT in the off-season, this line will start to look formidable. 

AC has played one game next to Nelson. Having him next to him is not going to help him develop. Nelson came in ready. Guess what? He also actually played his rookie season. 

[Rackeen305]

15 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.

I hear you. However, I think Nelson is a little better than how you view him. JMHO.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, a06cc said:

AC has played one game next to Nelson. Having him next to him is not going to help him develop. Nelson came in ready. Guess what? He also actually played his rookie season. 

He may be already developed with or without Costanzo, but Constanzo to the left of him will definitely improve his play from week to week. Having bad LT play week to week affects Nelson's play a ton. With Constanzo, the left side is very solid now, and Nelson looks that much better as he can focus on his man instead of having to cover for the LT all the time.

[Coffeedrinker]

13 minutes ago, a06cc said:

AC has played one game next to Nelson. Having him next to him is not going to help him develop. Nelson came in ready. Guess what? He also actually played his rookie season. 

I'm usually with you a066cc, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here.  Who is not going to help who develop and who actually played his rookie season?

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

They're graded higher by PFF, after 6 games. That's hardly enough of a sample size for anyone to say "Will Hernandez is a better football player than Quenton Nelson."

 

It is...but then it's also not big enough to say that Nelson was a great (or even good) pick...which many have been doing as well. All we can do is use the information we have at hand.

 

We just have to see how it shakes out. I don't see Nelson ever being a bad pick...I am just not of the opinion that it was the right way to go about it.

 

Also, I think a list of rookie OL players is sort of silly. How many of them are even starting regularly after 6 games?

 

[shasta519]

41 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Agreed, no GM would take either over Nelson straight up. But I think the question is: Would a GM possibly take McGlinchey or Hernandez and another player possibly either (Josh Jackson, or Christian Kirk, etc) over Nelson by trading out of the #6 spot? Would that have added more talent?

 

Yep. Just like the Colts took Nelson + 3 2nd round picks over Chubb.

 

And it would have actually been Hernandez + 2 players vs Nelson. But the Colts would have had 5 2nd round picks and one of the first few picks in the 3rd round...they could have easily maneuvered up to get Herndandez AND taken a stud defensive player in the 1st round. BUF's trade with TB netted them #53 and #56. Colts could have just thrown that $56 pick in and some team in the late 1st round would have taken that deal.

 

So then you are talking about...

 

(one of Derwin James/LVE/Tremaine Edmunds) + Herndandez + #53...or Nelson

 

I know which one I would choose.

[shasta519]

34 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Hypothetically, if we traded down with the Bears, and they moved up for Nelson (they were very high on him), we could of probably received a 2nd rounder to move down from 6 to 8 and took McGlinchley, then took Josh Jackson with the 2nd round pick and filled a need at CB. Without hindsight, it's tough. With hindsight, I'm all over that.

 

A trade back would have been an acceptable risk. There were still two QBs that were going to be picked in the next few picks...so the list of available players would have still been superb (minus Nelson of course).

[a06cc]

19 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm usually with you a066cc, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here.  Who is not going to help who develop and who actually played his rookie season?

Canstanzo isn’t going to help a guy who came in NFL ready. AC will never be a physical as Nelson period.