Should we leave Braden Smith at right tackle?

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The problem is, even if we draft a RT in the 2nd round of the 2019 draft that was a steal hypothetically, you would still have to hope Braden Smith can perform as well at RG as RT, or you just have two RT's fighting for one position, if Braden Smith did perform well at RG, then you have to hope that the RT can live up to his draft status and be as good as Braden Smith was at RT, Glowinski becomes a depth piece, and the combo of the new RT and Braden at RG may not even be as good as Braden at RT and Glowinski at RG. It's a deep thought process that isn't getting enough consideration, and people are just defaulting back to the draft process when Braden Smith was billed at a G and assume he's better there when he's proven he can 100% play at RT. Why change something that you hit on? You found your RT, that's a big accomplishment in itself. Why ruin it? That's his strength, build around it, don't tinker with it.

I think that after a year, the coaches will know if he could play guard adequately.  That leaves us the great option of taking the best available player whether they are a guard or a tackle.  

[Case]

If he continues playing like this you don’t move him. Shocking to me some colts fans want to move him and just go sign a FA and hope it works out. Been there, done that and it got Luck killed.  We potentially have a long term solution at RT. Don’t mess with it plllllleeeeaasssseee

[Jdubu]

1 hour ago, Mr.Debonair said:

 I love what the O-Line is doing but two weeks is a small sample size. We also haven’t played a killers lineup of DL’s. Jacksonville will be coming off their bye and usually give us hell. The next 5 games will say a lot about our guys. Especially Glow and Smith. 

I 100% agree here. I’m cautiously excited and pleased with what we’ve seen out of the right side as it is now but it’s only been 2 weeks with them all playing. The positive is Glowinski is still a young guy and maybe he just got his light turned on and will grow into a star here. Smith has done really really well as a rookie thrown into the fire against a top 10 defense being Buffalo and held up quite well. Give me 6 more games with continued improvement and pressure protections and I’ll feel we are fine with this line configuration and then look for that LT in the wings development guy. Too many variables this early to know just how good they are or not. Now Smith has 2 games on film at RT and DC can scheme to any weaknesses that they see. Can Smith handle those adjustments with his own adjustments or will we start seeing some of the rookie issues come out? I hope this oline configuration is the one and we finally get that RT of the next 10 years. Does Clark still have any hope to develope into a LT option in the future with more time? Those will start to be the questions we’ll be asking if this line works out imo because how many more seasons will AC be above avg at his position? 

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think that after a year, the coaches will know if he could play guard adequately.  That leaves us the great option of taking the best available player whether they are a guard or a tackle.  

We may not know if he can play guard well or not if we don't move him back. Theoretically, we could move him to RG just to see if he can handle it, but the odds are it'll damage the O-Line. Of course, it would limit us during the draft a bit as well. I think the best scenario is just to take a 2nd round guy that can play both Tackle and Guard spots that Ballard believes can be a starter. That'll give us flexibility in case of injury.

[braveheartcolt]

19 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The problem is, even if we draft a RT in the 2nd round of the 2019 draft that was a steal hypothetically, you would still have to hope Braden Smith can perform as well at RG as RT, or you just have two RT's fighting for one position, if Braden Smith did perform well at RG, then you have to hope that the RT can live up to his draft status and be as good as Braden Smith was at RT, Glowinski becomes a depth piece, and the combo of the new RT and Braden at RG may not even be as good as Braden at RT and Glowinski at RG. It's a deep thought process that isn't getting enough consideration, and people are just defaulting back to the draft process when Braden Smith was billed as a G and assume he's better there when he's proven he can 100% play at RT. Why change something that you hit on? You found your RT, that's a big accomplishment in itself. Why ruin it? That's his strength, build around it, don't tinker with it.

Not disagreeing with you. But what if the new RT was stellar, and Smith turns out to be a brilliant Guard?

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Not disagreeing with you. But what if the new RT was stellar, and Smith turns out to be a brilliant Guard?

There's always that possibility, but it's a huge risk. You're spending draft capital to take an RT that you could be using on the defense. You're moving Braden Smith from a position he's excelling in to a position he is more of an unknown at in the NFL, and you're tinkering with an O-Line that has been borderline flawless. I do agree we should probably draft another O-Lineman, but I just can't get behind moving a player to another position after he's excelling at another. Even if it's his natural position in college, things don't always stay the same, especially for O-Lineman. College scouting reports aren't the be all end all, and sometimes Guards end up playing RT very well. It's not that uncommon. We should be very happy how good he is at RT and leave it at that.

[Superman]

42 minutes ago, stitches said:

yah, I don't mind that. But that kind of goes without saying. I wouldn't stop searching for good players at any position on the team not just at RT, but I would also put a lower weight on the need to add great RT if Smith looks like the real deal simply because it's a league with limited resources and we need to do some prioritization for the positions that we are sorely lacking at right now. 

 

Agreed, but OL is still a priority, IMO, even if Smith finishes the year well at RT. For one, depth. I don't think we have any right now. Good has never been able to stay healthy, Haeg regressed last year and is hurt, Clark probably doesn't belong in the league... Those guys have all started for us this season, at tackle, of all spots. We're one snap away from one of them being back on the field.

 

And yes, resources are limited, but we have a very good cap standing to add a swing lineman / spot starter in free agency, like Cameron Fleming. I'm fine with re-signing Slauson as depth. And if the board leads us to a RT in the second round, I think that's a good use of resources, even if that player probably won't be starting in Year 1. Now we're 8 deep. And if Haeg, Clark and Good are 9 through 11 in camp, that's way better than them being 3/5ths of the starting line.

 

I said in another thread, I want the Colts to start losing good players in free agency. I want us to start drafting and developing in a way that creates logjams and a true next man up mentality. Just keep adding good players, let the roster mechanics work themselves out. I definitely don't want to reach past good OL in the draft just because we think Braden Smith had a few good games in October. 

[C0LT5]

I'm kind of surprised at some of the reactions. The answers to the question made it obvious to me that the OP was framing this as what to do next year not this year. I answered draft a tackle if he falls to us. To me it was a pretty easy question to answer. A tackle falling means he's probably rated higher than the guard. And by rating I mean what our scouting departing rates them, not websites/fans/or other teams rate them as. just my 2 cents.

[cbear]

IMO, the online showed promise from day 1.  Pass protection was always solid no matter what the lineup was.  Run blocking was poor, but that was also minus Mack.

 

Now that we are seeing the unit function with Mack back, I feel even better that this line will be very special as they continue to develop. 

 

I think Good, Clark, Haeg are good back ups.  As for the draft, it's a good feeling to know we can focus on other areas of the team in the first couple rounds.  Ballard hit on Q and Smith, so it does give us more flexibility in the draft. 

 

 

 

 

[Rally5]

4 hours ago, Savage56 said:

If someone actually thinks the Colts should move Smith to guard, bench Glowinski, and start some scrub at RT, they should be banned on from this forum.

Thanks man!

[throwing BBZ]

Smith looks to have just enough athleticism to play RT.
And i don't like his height and foot speed to be a versatile guard.
So Ballard will address FA appropriately to strengthen the line. He won't rely on the draft only.

And Glowinski is showing plenty so far.

[Peterk2011]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

Before last season, we thought Haeg, Good and Clark might be big factors on the OL. None of them have played in the last three weeks. 

 

I think they are still factors ... as depth. Thanks god, they don't have to start. But as depth, they are fine. Teams do not have better depth usually. I understand, that even the best oline can struggle if 1 or 2 of their starters go down, but that's the NFL. No team has starters sitting on their benches for "in case". I'm not saying that Ballard should keep all of these guys. If he finds better alternatives for cheap, let's get them. But it's luxury to spend valuable resources on oline depth, when there are multiple positions on the roster, which lack starting talent.

 

Regarding Smith, I think I am on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" bandwagon. I have my reasons why:

1. Smith played a game at LT before Castonzo came back, and he was surprisingly good. The Colts need a valid backup plan for replacing Castonzo if he goes down. If Smith keeps getting reps as RT, he migh be that person.
2. I trust Haeg more if they plays at guard than tackle. And I trust Clark more if he sits on the bench than if he plays.  (Good is injury prone, I think this is his last season with this team, so he is a non factor atm.)

4. Although Smith was drafted as guard, and Ballard/Reich keep saying they see him as guard, I honestly don't. Based on his training camp and preseason, I think he is not particularly good at pulling. Even Glowinsky looks better at pulling, than him. I know it's early, but right now, that is what I see.

5. Smith does not have the smoothness in his (lateral) movement neither, which is necessary to be a good tackle. This, seemingly contradicts my reasoning. But, I think the latter is teachable and comes with reps, while pulling power is more a given talent. You have it or you don't.

 

[Caffrey]

I'd say leave him a right tackle, he is doing an excellent job.  He has prototypical OT size at 6-6 315 lbs, seem to be natural to be an OT than an OG.  Right tackle has been a long time problem since Andrew Lucks first playoff game lost to Ravens, years ago.  B. Smith can be our solid ROT for the next decade, plus will continue to get better as the season goes on and next year.  Also, he and Q. Nelson solid play, along with Glowinski, takes our OL from a weakness to a strength of the team.  It sounds great to say our OL is a strength.

[Peterk2011]

delete please...

[IinD]

Funny thing is he looks like a tackle (body wise) to me. I had visions of Diem a few times the last couple of weeks.

Nelson looks like a guard to me, stocky/stout/barrel chested, Smith looks tall and lean like Costanzo to me.

 

Not saying that's why you keep him there, but he looks natural at it so far.

[John Dee]

I have a feeling Smith will be at RT a long time.    

[Moosejawcolt]

10 hours ago, Savage56 said:

If someone actually thinks the Colts should move Smith to guard, bench Glowinski, and start some scrub at RT, they should be banned on from this forum.

 

10 hours ago, Savage56 said:

If someone actually thinks the Colts should move Smith to guard, bench Glowinski, and start some scrub at RT, they should be banned on from this forum.

Agreed.  We finally got the O line fixed now people want to look at a RT in the draft.  God people r never satisfied. It looks like we got our starting RT in Smith for the cost of a guard.  Count your blessings and move onto another postion in the draft

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

I think they are still factors ... as depth. Thanks god, they don't have to start. But as depth, they are fine. Teams do not have better depth usually. I understand, that even the best oline can struggle if 1 or 2 of their starters go down, but that's the NFL. No team has starters sitting on their benches for "in case". I'm not saying that Ballard should keep all of these guys. If he finds better alternatives for cheap, let's get them. But it's luxury to spend valuable resources on oline depth, when there are multiple positions on the roster, which lack starting talent.

 

Regarding Smith, I think I am on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" bandwagon. I have my reasons why:

1. Smith played a game at LT before Castonzo came back, and he was surprisingly good. The Colts need a valid backup plan for replacing Castonzo if he goes down. If Smith keeps getting reps as RT, he migh be that person.
2. I trust Haeg more if they plays at guard than tackle. And I trust Clark more if he sits on the bench than if he plays.  (Good is injury prone, I think this is his last season with this team, so he is a non factor atm.)

4. Although Smith was drafted as guard, and Ballard/Reich keep saying they see him as guard, I honestly don't. Based on his training camp and preseason, I think he is not particularly good at pulling. Even Glowinsky looks better at pulling, than him. I know it's early, but right now, that is what I see.

5. Smith does not have the smoothness in his (lateral) movement neither, which is necessary to be a good tackle. This, seemingly contradicts my reasoning. But, I think the latter is teachable and comes with reps, while pulling power is more a given talent. You have it or you don't.

 

 

See, this is a question about team building philosophy, not just what we do at RG/RT.

 

I'm obviously not advocating using high picks or shelling out big contracts on the OL for projected depth, in the name of being two-deep. But we can use our team building resources on multiple positions at the same time.

 

My philosophy is pretty simple, and it relies on principles that I believe in, that I think the best team builders have used for a long time. Sign free agents to fill immediate needs, prioritize high value positions early in the draft, don't reach for need in the draft, keep adding good players at good value, and re-sign your best players before they hit free agency. 

 

I want the line to be two-deep across the board, but I'm not saying Ballard should go out and sign five starting quality linemen to sit on the bench. I'm saying I don't want him to get satisfied just because our current group of linemen had a few good games in a row. If Haeg, Clark and Good are 6-8 for our OL, we don't have any depth. 

 

As for your points on Smith, I think it's too early to really evaluate him at tackle. I like what he's doing, but he's also getting some help on big passing downs, and thankfully, we have an offensive approach that prioritizes taking pressure off of the pass blockers on most passing downs. If he finishes strong at RT, I'm fine penciling him in there, but I'm not passing up a chance to add a good player at RT in the offseason if it makes sense. 

[Scott Pennock]

He reminds me of a much more athletic Ryan Diem (also with far less False Start penalties so far).

 

Diem, as some of you may recall started as a guard for us....then kicked out to RT where he was pretty solid for about 8 years. 

 

If Smith plays well there then leave him be and use that draft capital on a different position of need next year.

 

As far as Glowinski is concerned, he's no slouch as his draft profile is similar to Smith's and Nelson's in that he's as strong as an ox and a mauler - he did throw up 31 reps compared to 35 for the other two. So their all strong, young and agile as is Kelly.

 

Castonzo is the one we may need to spend draft capital on in one of the next two drafts.

 

 

[Caffrey]

I think the other elephant in the room is Glowinski.  His solid play makes the move of B. Smith to ROG unnecessary , and is another big reason our OL is now a strength.  Pretty soon, Glowinski is gonna have another thread with his name as the subject title, if he keeps it up.   I was down on Glowinski when he messed up the shotgun snap in pre-season but thats apples and oranges.  It happened to Kelly in a regular season games which was a factor in our loss and I have looked pass that.  Anyway Glowinski is the lowest draft pick in our OL and is looking really solid.   I'm also confident Ed Boehm could similarly fill in and do well if needed at OC/OG, good depth. 

[Yoshinator]

14 minutes ago, Caffrey said:

I think the other elephant in the room is Glowinski.  His solid play makes the move of B. Smith to ROG unnecessary , and is another big reason our OL is now a strength.  Pretty soon, Glowinski is gonna have another thread with his name as the subject title, if he keeps it up.   I was down on Glowinski when he messed up the shotgun snap in pre-season but thats apples and oranges.  It happened to Kelly in a regular season games which was a factor in our loss and I have looked pass that.  Anyway Glowinski is the lowest draft pick in our OL and is looking really solid.   I'm also confident Ed Boehm could similarly fill in and do well if needed at OC/OG, good depth. 

Bingo to the bolded. 

[Defjamz26]

It’s two early to say. He’s done very well. It’s more about if Glowinski can hold up at RG, which is Braden’s natural position. I wouldn’t make any changes this season though. Continuity on the O-line is important. I’d still draft a tackle high. We need backup LT and RT options. Castonzo isn’t as young as the other guys on the line, so a successor should start being groomed. 

[throwing BBZ]

PFF has elevated Glowinski’s grade in every game he’s played this season, starting with a 54.8 in Week 5, 62.4 in Week 6, 79.8 in Week 7 and 81.2 in Week 8. On Sunday, he wasn’t marked for allowing any pressures/hurries, hits or sacks.

The Colts appear to really have something here in their new starting right guard, Glowinski. For the second consecutive week, he is PFF’s second-rated offensive guard, and he was selected to the "Team of the Week" last week.

     Well uh, i think he is best suited as a backup uh, that is what i see. Uh!

OR, NO, maybe he IS the MAN!!

[DougDew]

20 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

PFF has elevated Glowinski’s grade in every game he’s played this season, starting with a 54.8 in Week 5, 62.4 in Week 6, 79.8 in Week 7 and 81.2 in Week 8. On Sunday, he wasn’t marked for allowing any pressures/hurries, hits or sacks.

The Colts appear to really have something here in their new starting right guard, Glowinski. For the second consecutive week, he is PFF’s second-rated offensive guard, and he was selected to the "Team of the Week" last week.

     Well uh, i think he is best suited as a backup uh, that is what i see. Uh!

OR, NO, maybe he IS the MAN!!

At what point did we begin to get good play from RT?  I see a correlation.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

At what point did we begin to get good play from RT?  I see a correlation.

Luckily our gm was smart enough to sign glowinski.   

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Luckily our gm was smart enough to sign glowinski.   

I think he was claimed and awarded to us with our third priority order, but I agree.

 

I think it's slightly more accurate to say how stupid the NYG GM was to NOT claim him.

[Rackeen305]

On 10/29/2018 at 10:24 AM, Cynjin said:

 

I'm not advocating a change, but I don't believe starting a scrub at RT is the only option.  If they could get a RT that is as good or better than Smith and then move Smith to RG, then I would be fine with it. 

Maybe: (AC,Nelson,Kelly,Player X, B.Smith,) or (Player X,Nelson,Kelly,B.Smith,AC)

 

All I have to say is, If option 2 is the scenario, We will Then have a very very good/sexy Oline. And AL will be in heaven. Maybe even a 5000 yrd season.jmho.

[chad72]

On 10/29/2018 at 1:07 PM, Superman said:

 

Yup. Two years ago, the Cowboys had a great OL with no issues. Last year, Tyron Smith gets hurt and their line looks iffy. This year, Travis Frederick is sick and the line looks average. 

 

 

Funny that you should bring up the Cowboys, it has gotten to the point that they chose to fire their OL coach. Nothing lasts forever.

 

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2018/10/29/dallas-cowboys-fire-offensive-line-coach-paul-alexander-promote-marc-colombo

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I think he was claimed and awarded to us with our third priority order, but I agree.

 

I think it's slightly more accurate to say how stupid the NYG GM was to NOT claim him.

Or the Seahawks cutting him. Obviously they didn't think he was worth keeping.   If the Seahawks dumped him after knowing everything about him,   why would a bunch of teams be lined up to claim him  Either way Ballard and his scouts were smart .  A refreshing change.   Peolpe who can spot o line talent

[Hoose]

Bottom line: the Colts have a solid O-line for the first time since the golden Manning era. And perhaps a much better run blocking group than Peyton ever had. So stop trying to fix a non problem. That said: you always have to add talent to the O line. That should occur every year at draft time. But the good news is the Colts don’t appear to have to use  another top 50 pick for once on this group. Glory Hallejuhah. Enjoy this!!!

[braveheartcolt]

50 minutes ago, Hoose said:

Bottom line: the Colts have a solid O-line for the first time since the golden Manning era. And perhaps a much better run blocking group than Peyton ever had. So stop trying to fix a non problem. That said: you always have to add talent to the O line. That should occur every year at draft time. But the good news is the Colts don’t appear to have to use  another top 50 pick for once on this group. Glory Hallejuhah. Enjoy this!!!

No one is trying to 'fix' anything. 

[Hoose]

That statement was a generalization on those who have suggested moving Smith to Guard. It wasn’t directed at any one person. Geez. 

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Or the Seahawks cutting him. Obviously they didn't think he was worth keeping.   If the Seahawks dumped him after knowing everything about him,   why would a bunch of teams be lined up to claim him  Either way Ballard and his scouts were smart .  A refreshing change.   Peolpe who can spot o line talent

I thought we already had this discussion.  Glow was a 4th rounder who has been replaced by a 1st and 2nd rounder, and a 5th rounder who shows promise.  And Glow started 18 games before that.  Its not like he was not a good player when he was cut off of the 53.  

 

I'm sure a lot of teams showed interest.  We got him because we're high on the priority list.  Why NYG didn't get him is a mystery.

 

But to suggest that Ballard is the only GM in the NFL to see something in Glow and somehow outfoxed 30 other GMs to get him is a bit of a stretch.

 

Ballard kept Haeg, Good, Vuj, drafted Banner; until something better came along.  Like all GMs do.  I don't get how the Glow situation makes Ballard special.  He'd be special if he cut all of those guys and found 3 Glow's off the street that were tucked away in a hidden location only he knew about.

[Coffeedrinker]

On 10/29/2018 at 9:17 PM, Superman said:

 

See, this is a question about team building philosophy, not just what we do at RG/RT.

 

I'm obviously not advocating using high picks or shelling out big contracts on the OL for projected depth, in the name of being two-deep. But we can use our team building resources on multiple positions at the same time.

 

My philosophy is pretty simple, and it relies on principles that I believe in, that I think the best team builders have used for a long time. Sign free agents to fill immediate needs, prioritize high value positions early in the draft, don't reach for need in the draft, keep adding good players at good value, and re-sign your best players before they hit free agency. 

 

I want the line to be two-deep across the board, but I'm not saying Ballard should go out and sign five starting quality linemen to sit on the bench. I'm saying I don't want him to get satisfied just because our current group of linemen had a few good games in a row. If Haeg, Clark and Good are 6-8 for our OL, we don't have any depth. 

 

As for your points on Smith, I think it's too early to really evaluate him at tackle. I like what he's doing, but he's also getting some help on big passing downs, and thankfully, we have an offensive approach that prioritizes taking pressure off of the pass blockers on most passing downs. If he finishes strong at RT, I'm fine penciling him in there, but I'm not passing up a chance to add a good player at RT in the offseason if it makes sense. 

I agree, if there is someone that you think is better than another player you sign/draft him.  Good GMs are good at doing this, bad GMs are not.

 

Tying that into the RG/RT position.  Smith and Glowworm are making a strong case that it will tough to find someone that has a high probability of being better at their positions.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

I thought we already had this discussion.  Glow was a 4th rounder who has been replaced by a 1st and 2nd rounder, and a 5th rounder who shows promise.  And Glow started 18 games before that.  Its not like he was not a good player when he was cut off of the 53.  

 

I'm sure a lot of teams showed interest.  We got him because we're high on the priority list.  Why NYG didn't get him is a mystery.

 

But to suggest that Ballard is the only GM in the NFL to see something in Glow and somehow outfoxed 30 other GMs to get him is a bit of a stretch.

 

Ballard kept Haeg, Good, Vuj, drafted Banner; until something better came along.  Like all GMs do.  I don't get how the Glow situation makes Ballard special.  He'd be special if he cut all of those guys and found 3 Glow's off the street that were tucked away in a hidden location only he knew about.

I don't think the poster was suggesting that at all.  I think the poster is suggesting that Grigson was not good at that.  Ballard has definitely missed on some, no GM is going to bat a thousand.  But, so far in 2 years Ballard has hit on more draft picks and free agent signings than Grigson did his entire time with the Colts organization.  And that is refreshing.  Did he outfox 30 other GMs did get glow?  Nope, but he hasn't been duped by other GMs like Grigson was with the Richardson trade and the Hughes trade.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I don't think the poster was suggesting that at all.  I think the poster is suggesting that Grigson was not good at that.  Ballard has definitely missed on some, no GM is going to bat a thousand.  But, so far in 2 years Ballard has hit on more draft picks and free agent signings than Grigson did his entire time with the Colts organization.  And that is refreshing.  Did he outfox 30 other GMs did get glow?  Nope, but he hasn't been duped by other GMs like Grigson was with the Richardson trade and the Hughes trade.

Oh. So the post was about Grigson without wanting to make it obvious.  

 

I thought it was about thinking Ballard is genius to get a guy with an obviously better resume than any of the guys we have by being 3rd in claiming position instead of 25th.

[Coffeedrinker]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Oh. So the post was about Grigson without wanting to make it obvious.  

 

I thought it was about thinking Ballard is genius to get a guy with an obviously better resume than any of the guys we have by being 3rd in claiming position instead of 25th.

You are funny.  Like I said, this is what I think the post was about, you'd have to ask the poster.  But to me it seemed like the post was about Ballard being good at his job and that it's refreshing.  I assumed it's refreshing because before Ballard the Colts had Grigson and Grigson was not good at his job.

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

You are funny.  Like I said, this is what I think the post was about, you'd have to ask the poster.  But to me it seemed like the post was about Ballard being good at his job and that it's refreshing.  I assumed it's refreshing because before Ballard the Colts had Grigson and Grigson was not good at his job.

I think Ballard is good at his job.  It doesn't really matter if he's better or worse than anybody else. 

 

I'm just curious as to why folks repeatedly ignore that we got a good quality guy by being 3rd in order and don't get good quality guys when we were 25th in order, and why that has anything to do with a GMs ability to evaluate personnel.

 

Glow wasn't immediately deemed the starter and a superior guy the moment he was claimed.  He was claimed as an attempt to show what he had, and he eventually won the job over guys who could never hold one.  Not sure why that is evidence of superior talent judgment.  At the same time, releasing Austin Blythe is ignored.  Is that evidence of a poor judge of talent....or do we backpedal to look at the circumstances?

[B~Town]

You can nit pick all you want but when your QB hasn't been sacked in weeks while running 200 yards a game you don't change a thing on the O Line .  

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I think Ballard is good at his job.  It doesn't really matter if he's better or worse than anybody else. 

 

I'm just curious as to why folks repeatedly ignore that we got a good quality guy by being 3rd in order and don't get good quality guys when we were 25th in order, and why that has anything to do with a GMs ability to evaluate personnel.

 

Glow wasn't immediately deemed the starter and a superior guy the moment he was claimed.  He was claimed as an attempt to show what he had, and he eventually won the job over guys who could never hold one.  Not sure why that is evidence of superior talent judgment.  At the same time, releasing Austin Blythe is ignored.  Is that evidence of a poor judge of talent....or do we backpedal to look at the circumstances?

I will give you this Dougdew, you are the king of changing your argument when you don't get the answers you want.  I know you will claim you don't do that and perhaps you really don't think you do, IDK.  But it is pretty comical

 

To the bold.  You really have no idea if that is the case.  You don't know if anyone would have grabbed him if the Colts did not claim him off of waivers.  It's speculation on your part.  It very well could have happened the Colts would have signed him as a free agent the next day but they didn't wait for it.

 

To the underline.  Glow wasn't the immediate starter.  The Colts had a veteran 10 year starter ahead of him.  It's evidence of superior talent because a good GM finds out from his coaches what attributes are important and finds players with those attributes and if he does a good job finding those players and if the positional coach is good at knowing what attributes are important for the style he was to do then you get a guy like Glow who didn't fit with another organization but fits well with your organization.  It's also why you release a guy like Blythe and he is able to go to another team and do well.  People like you use the word talent as if all teams mean the same thing when they say talent and that is not the case.  Again Ballard is proving he can find talent for the Colts, a lot of GMs on other teams have proven they can find talents for their teams.  A lot of Gms over the years have proven they cannot find talent for their teams.  After Chros Polian and Ryan Grigson, it's nice having a GM again that can find talent.

 

I'm sure you come back and say, "well what about this .... how does that fit in, does that mean he a genius or not..."  So my answer will be the same... I don't expect the GM to be correct on every decision, nor does he have to be to be a genius GM.  But I do like have a GM that has an idea on where he wants the team to be and a roadmap on how to get them there... it's something the Colts have not had since Bill Polian.