The test for Smith is over: I’m sold

[DougDew]

49 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Not really.  The search and cut and paste took all of 5 minutes.

This is your quote,  "I was thinking he should be penciled in as RT"  At the time, no where did you say he should be penciled in at RT.  But I did say I may have missed something so please show us where you stated (before he played at RT) that he should be penciled in ar RT.

 

 

You are changing it already.  After reading the write ups about him and seeing his size you thought he should be penciled in at RT.  Now you thought he should be tried at RT.  Big difference between penciled in at RT and trying at RT.  And no where on this forum, after the draft did you discuss or mention that Smith should be tried or penciled in or anything at RT.  

 

Nope, I'm sure it wasn't on CB's radar, it wasn't on your radar either (like you are now trying to claim).  And it wouldn't be on Reich's radar if the Colts had not lost the previous 3 starting RTs to injury and the Colts were forced to play Smith at RT.  By the time Good was ready to play again, Smith had proven he is a capable RT.

 

Ballard definitely got lucky that Smith is proving to be able to play RT and an above average to good level.  But when you have a good system and a good process that focuses not just on measurables but focuses on certain character traits and work ethic traits and leadership traits, then one tends to get lucky more often than not.

What are you trying to do?  Claim that I'm lying about my opinion and are now resorting to word parsing to get you there?

 

I might say pencil in, try, consider, think about, likely could, possibility, strong possibility, etc. interchangeably in many different sentences in many different posts and it wouldn't change the point.

 

I'm telling you my opinion of the draft before it happened and how it happened that day, and what I thought of Smith the moment I read his write ups after knowing that we signed Slauson and drafted Nelson to play G, and we DIDN'T address RT.  That afternoon, I thought we should think of him (pencil, try) because there was no decent RT on the roster.  No, I don't think I said it on the forum, nor do I think I claimed to do that above.  Just like I don't think I ever mocked Leonard to us on the forum even though I did privately because he was obviously the next best LB for our defense after Roquan Smith, whom I thought we wouldn't get in round 1.

 

My thought didn't have anything to do with my opinion of Smith's prowess as a T.  It had to do with Ballard not improving the RT position during FA or the draft, resting with Clark, Good, and Haeg. And that Smith was listed as a lanky 6.6 and played some RT for Auburn, and I believe was a durable 4 year starter, and obviously had enough overall talent to be picked 37.  Yes.  Seeing him as the starting RT after draft day was a pencil in, possible, decent chance, etc considering we added NOTHING to the position at the time.

 

And after all of this, his best position still might be at G and we go RT in the draft this spring.  I'm fine with it.

 

 

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

8 hours ago, Jdubu said:

we still need to provide better runs against these top level defenses if we want to say our oline is a dominant oline,

 

We have made great strides. I knew it would be in/after Q2 of the season.  Issue is, you can't get much better (quickly) with only one (or no) padded practice a week.  And I would not doubt it if we are close to not being allowed to pad up for some practices anymore fairly soon.

 

Only 14 padded practices are allowed all year, the first 11 must be used in first 11 games.  Thus only 3 padded practices allowed in the last 6 games.

[chrisfarley]

11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I liked Braden Smith coming out of the draft. I was mocking him as a 3rd rounder for us and thought Ballard reached when he took him in the early 2nd. I was wrong. Braden Smith is a starting RT and he is performing like an elite one at that. He may turn out to be just as good of a pick as Nelson, and that's saying something.

it forced Ballard's hand when Hernandez was taken by the giants. (good post)

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, chrisfarley said:

it forced Ballard's hand when Hernandez was taken by the giants. (good post)

Yes.  I think that was the case too.  If you read draft websites they pretty much all put Smith at the back of that second tier of Gs behind Nelson.  And Ballard implied it was a bit of a reach when he said there was a run on Gs and Smith was the last available starting G.  He DIDN'T say the usual canned GM comment that Smith was BPA.

[Coffeedrinker]

13 hours ago, DougDew said:

What are you trying to do?  Claim that I'm lying about my opinion and are now resorting to word parsing to get you there?

I'm not trying to, I'm flat out saying that you are lying.  You are trying to claim that shortly after the Colts drafted Smith that you thought he would make a good RT and wondering why CB kept referring to him as a guard, your words not mine.

[NewEra]

Amazing pick. Thought he was going to be our future RG but he's came in and proved he's more than worthy of the RT. He has blown my expectations away. 

[Coffeedrinker]

51 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Amazing pick. Thought he was going to be our future RG but he's came in and proved he's more than worthy of the RT. He has blown my expectations away. 

Yeah, I would not have thought he could make a good transition from guard to tackle.  That is just a rare thing in the NFL.  You see a lot of college tackles move to guard and you see overweight TEs move to tackle but it's just so rare to see a college guard move to NFL tackle and do it well. 

 

Like I stated in another post, Ballard definitely got lucky that Smith is proving to be able to play RT and an above average to good level.  But when you have a good system and a good process that focuses not just on measurables but focuses on certain character traits and work ethic traits and leadership traits, then one tends to get lucky more often than not.

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Yeah, I would not have thought he could make a good transition from guard to tackle.  That is just a rare thing in the NFL.  You see a lot of college tackles move to guard and you see overweight TEs move to tackle but it's just so rare to see a college guard move to NFL tackle and do it well. 

 

Like I stated in another post, Ballard definitely got lucky that Smith is proving to be able to play RT and an above average to good level.  But when you have a good system and a good process that focuses not just on measurables but focuses on certain character traits and work ethic traits and leadership traits, then one tends to get lucky more often than not.

Yes sir! I couldn't agree more. Everyone  has the physical talent at this level. It's what's between the ears combined with character that separates the men from the boys.....see the chaos in Jax 

[jvan1973]

20 hours ago, DougDew said:

You seem to have done a lot of work to try to trip me up. 

 

A few minutes ago, I said I like the Smith pick because I mocked a GUARD to us at either 36 or 37.  A GUARD could have been any one of the Gs not named Nelson, and pick the best one available.  That turned out to be Smith, because as Ballard said, "there was a run on guards and we wanted to get a starting caliber guard"  (and he was the last one available when we picked)  Meaning without the run, Smith may have lasted until 49 which is where I thought he was more appropriately valued.

 

Where did I say in this thread that I mocked Smith to us at all, and as a RT?

 

 I mocked Leonard and a G to us at 36 and 37 (because I wanted to pick McGlinchey in the first somewhere or trade out to #11 and get James.  I wanted to solve the RT issue with the first round pick and address Gs later in the first or second.)

 

AFTER Smith was drafted, Ballard's presser said Smith was a G, (he didn't say "we picked the last starting quality OLINEMAN", as some teams list their picks as OL,  he specifically said G.)   I read Smiths' writeups and thought he should be tried at RT because we had just drafted Nelson after signing Slauson.  That thought came to me AFTER Smith was drafted, not before.

 

That is the basis of me saying that I agreed with Reich, that we should try Smith at RT.   He did and Smith is doing well.  I didn't say I predicted this or mocked this.  I said we should try it, and that it was Good's job to lose, which he did.

 

In this thread, I claimed (tongue in cheek in response to a humorous jab about me getting riled up) that me and Reich are smarter than Ballard because Ballard specifically called Smith a G.  Not  to mention he also signed Austin Howard to play RT.  It doesn't seem that Smith playing well at RT was on Ballard's radar at any point between last January and this October based upon what he said and the signings he made.

Well,   this article blows your entire argument out of the water.   This is from early August 

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/8/3/17649448/chris-ballard-talks-luck-braden-smith-and-colts-future-on-1070-the-fan

[Coffeedrinker]

20 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Well,   this article blows your entire argument out of the water.   This is from early August 

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2018/8/3/17649448/chris-ballard-talks-luck-braden-smith-and-colts-future-on-1070-the-fan

Great find, I can't believe I never saw that article before.

 

So on August 3rd Ballard was quoted as saying, “We’ve asked Braden to play right tackle.”

 

The author of the article did not think it was a good idea (don't blame him, a lot of people didn't think that would be a good idea).

[Jackie Daytona]

22 hours ago, waka waka said:

some people hated the pick draft day...i understand we need defensive needs but i'd like to continue to build in the trenches and add more depth along both lines. If someone gets hurt or is out of a bit it should have to be we need to throw for 40 times a game. the game plans should stay similar no matter the personnel. Depth is required for that it also will make the line play that much better as well with guys fighting for spots. 

Clark, Haeg, Good, and Webb are very solid depth.  They aren't solid, or even necessarily good starters, but as depth, and to fill in at a spot for a game?  They are just as good as, and in several cases better than, the backup OL on any other team in the league.

[smittywerb]

On 11/12/2018 at 12:26 PM, masterlock said:

If only Castonzo's contract weren't up at the end of 2019. We're going to be looking for another left tackle soon enough.

 

we have the money to keep him

[Defjamz26]

6 hours ago, Shafty138 said:

Clark, Haeg, Good, and Webb are very solid depth.  They aren't solid, or even necessarily good starters, but as depth, and to fill in at a spot for a game?  They are just as good as, and in several cases better than, the backup OL on any other team in the league.

No they are not. You could do way better. Haeg maybe if he gains some strength. Clark has no business on an NFL roster. Basically every tackle we had on the roster was ahead of him until injuries. Good can’t stay healthy. Jury is still out on Webb IMO.

[Jackie Daytona]

Not accurate, Clark was the only player to start at LT when Castonzo was out, if I am not mistaken, and his last few games there, he was showing decent for a backup.  and Webb had no issues when he played that stuck out..... OL are not easy to find in the league, and the guys I named are no worse than many backup OL on many teams.  what team has multiple OL capable of playing multiple games at a level of no, or minimal dropoff?  not many, if any..... because those players START.  

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Shafty138 said:

Not accurate, Clark was the only player to start at LT when Castonzo was out, if I am not mistaken, and his last few games there, he was showing decent for a backup.  and Webb had no issues when he played that stuck out..... OL are not easy to find in the league, and the guys I named are no worse than many backup OL on many teams.  what team has multiple OL capable of playing multiple games at a level of no, or minimal dropoff?  not many, if any..... because those players START.  

No it’s true. Haeg, Good, Webb, and Smith were all ahead of Clark. Remember that the first game with Castonzo out he didn’t dress. Haeg and Webb got the start. Webb went to IR after week 1 and then they finally pulled Clark out. But mind you Good was still nursing an injury. Haeg went down week 3 so they kept him in. Once Castonzo got back, he went back to the bench as the team liked Smith and Glow at RT and RG. If Haeg comes back he’s probably the backup LT to Castonzo and backup RT to Smith.

[Jackie Daytona]

I stand corrected, I thought Webb and Haeg were at RT primarily, but now that you mention it, I do remember him at LT.  In that case, if Clark was 4th string, he really overperformed.... lol  Silver lining and all.

[rock8591]

18 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

No they are not. You could do way better. Haeg maybe if he gains some strength. Clark has no business on an NFL roster. Basically every tackle we had on the roster was ahead of him until injuries. Good can’t stay healthy. Jury is still out on Webb IMO.

 

Clark I'd honestly put as best backup tackle in the league. If you watched any of the games he started at LT, he had maybe 1 sack, 2 holding penalties total.  Those who say he's PS material or 3rd-4th string is a VAST overexaggeration.

[Finball]

35 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

 

Clark I'd honestly put as best backup tackle in the league. If you watched any of the games he started at LT, he had maybe 1 sack, 2 holding penalties total.  Those who say he's PS material or 3rd-4th string is a VAST overexaggeration.

 

I'd say that title belongs to Halapoulivaati Vaitai, Eagles backup OT, and their starter at LT last year.

 

As for Smith.. usually I'm not sold on rookies early but he looks very good.

[Four2itus]

40 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

 

Clark I'd honestly put as best backup tackle in the league. If you watched any of the games he started at LT, he had maybe 1 sack, 2 holding penalties total.  Those who say he's PS material or 3rd-4th string is a VAST overexaggeration.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no middle ground for a lot of younger fans. It's either starter, or trash. 

[Rackeen305]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:55 AM, Defjamz26 said:

I am sold on the idea of Braden Smith at RT. The Jags were a test for the whole line, but specifically Smith since it meant he’d see a lot of Campbell and Ngouke. And he passed. I say leave him at RT. I like Leonard but Smith is the real steal of the 2018 draft. He’s playing like a 1st rounder. I’m sure If needed he could have the same impact at RG, but leave him at RT. Draft an OT/G to replace our weak backups but RT is no longer a pressing need.

Great point about Campbell (6'8" 300+ LBS) and Ngouke. You know what you're talking about there.

[Cynjin]

On 11/12/2018 at 9:09 AM, bigt said:

No arguments here.  If I remember correctly, after yesterday’s games, Glow is ranked 4th best guard, Kelly is ranked 6th best center, and Q is currently 16th.  Smith is 20th best tackle and Castonzo is 64th.  Outside Castonzo, that is one heck of an o line.

 

I don't know what rankings you are using, but Glowinski is not the 4th best G in the NFL and Castonzo is far better than the 64th best tackle.

[Stephen]

On 11/12/2018 at 6:34 PM, chrisfarley said:

it forced Ballard's hand when Hernandez was taken by the giants. (good post)

Yea I didnt know nothing about braden Smith,  but when we went nelson in the first I was thinking I wouldn't  mind adding another top lineman to help fix the line. Then when hernandez was drafted by the giants  I thought we might not get one

[chrisfarley]

1 hour ago, Stephen said:

Yea I didnt know nothing about braden Smith,  but when we went nelson in the first I was thinking I wouldn't  mind adding another top lineman to help fix the line. Then when hernandez was drafted by the giants  I thought we might not get one

exactly!!, i was afraid they (giants) might get both of the players i wanted, and they did.  But since we traded down, we stole nelson and then went with a need pick.  We checked two boxes off, that's for sure.