I owe Quentin Nelson an apology

[Pacergeek]

Before the season, I said Quentin was the best Guard in the NFL. Not only is Quentin the best Guard, he is the NFL's best offensive lineman. I am sorry for selling Quentin Nelson short

[CaptainColt12]

QuenTON Nelson doesn't forgive you

[2006Coltsbestever]

Don't worry, there were about 20 people or so in here that said picking a Guard at #6 was basically stupid and was unsexy  . They really look silly . On my Draft board for us I had Barkley 1st but Nelson 2nd, Chubb was 3rd. So glad Denver took Chubb so we ended up with Nelson.  Nelson>Chubb. Also Barkley>Chubb. I knew Barkley would be gone by the time we picked so I got my guy.

[Myles]

16 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Don't worry, there were about 20 people or so in here that said picking a Guard at #6 was basically stupid and was unsexy  . They really look silly . On my Draft board for us I had Barkley 1st but Nelson 2nd, Chubb was 3rd. So glad Denver took Chubb so we ended up with Nelson.  Nelson>Chubb. Also Barkley>Chubb. I knew Barkley would be gone by the time we picked so I got my guy.

Yep.

I wanted us to draft him with the 3rd pick.  So getting him at 6 was fantastic. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Yep.

I wanted us to draft him with the 3rd pick.  So getting him at 6 was fantastic. 

Yeah I remember you were one that wanted Nelson as well. Ballard so far seems to know what he is doing 

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I remember you were one that wanted Nelson as well. Ballard so far seems to know what he is doing 

I was as well. But lets not brag too much.

[PeterBowman]

28 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Don't worry, there were about 20 people or so in here that said picking a Guard at #6 was basically stupid and was unsexy  . They really look silly . On my Draft board for us I had Barkley 1st but Nelson 2nd, Chubb was 3rd. So glad Denver took Chubb so we ended up with Nelson.  Nelson>Chubb. Also Barkley>Chubb. I knew Barkley would be gone by the time we picked so I got my guy.

normally picking a guard at 6 IS unsexy....BUT there are always an exception to that rule....and Nelson is that exception. 

[DaveA1102]

1 hour ago, Pacergeek said:

Before the season, I said Quentin was the best Guard in the NFL. Not only is Quentin the best Guard, he is the NFL's best offensive lineman. I am sorry for selling Quentin Nelson short

 

I think you are a bit early to call him the best lineman in the NFL.  He is having a great rookie year and I think he very well could go onto become the best lineman in the NFL but, as we stand, there is some really top talent in this league across those 5 positions and I think he is still getting there.

 

I certainly have no doubt about him being picked at #6 anyway.

[Coffeedrinker]

I give you a hard time on some of your ridiculous posts but I will also give you props when it's called for.

 

You didn't sell Nelson short.  

 

even back then you were saying he may be the top offensive lineman.

 

[Rackeen305]

19 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:

normally picking a guard at 6 IS unsexy....BUT there are always an exception to that rule....and Nelson is that exception. 

If you want your QB to have as much time as TB used to have (10 secs, pat the ball then throw) you draft QN. That’s a recipe for success for AL. And it’s working.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

there were about 20 people or so in here that said picking a Guard at #6 was basically stupid and was unsexy

 

I wish we didn't have to deal in extremes all the time.

 

How about us who felt that picking a guard that high in the draft wasn't maximizing value? I never doubted that Nelson would be good; his play and success are not surprising, as I called him the safest player in the draft.

 

But I still don't think that taking an interior lineman is max value, and him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong. I'd rather have a great pass rusher and a pretty good LG than a great LG and mediocre pass rushers.

 

Quote

Also Barkley>Chubb

 

Nonsense.

[Barry Sears]

May have been an unsexy pick, but the result has been ultrasexy in football terms.  There are going to be pee wee players practicing pancake blocks thanks to BigQ

[lollygagger8]

All I know is I look at pancakes differently because of Big Q. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I wish we didn't have to deal in extremes all the time.

 

How about us who felt that picking a guard that high in the draft wasn't maximizing value? I never doubted that Nelson would be good; his play and success are not surprising, as I called him the safest player in the draft.

 

But I still don't think that taking an interior lineman is max value, and him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong. I'd rather have a great pass rusher and a pretty good LG than a great LG and mediocre pass rushers.

 

 

Nonsense.

You usually make great Posts but you are wrong on both accounts. Sorry. Your Post here is nonsense. Barkley had a better Rookie Season than Chubb and Nelson is arguably the best O.Lineman in the league period. "him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong". Umm yes it does. 

 

-You know as well as I do at least 20 or so were bashing the Nelson pick. 

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Don't worry, there were about 20 people or so in here that said picking a Guard at #6 was basically stupid and was unsexy  . They really look silly . On my Draft board for us I had Barkley 1st but Nelson 2nd, Chubb was 3rd. So glad Denver took Chubb so we ended up with Nelson.  Nelson>Chubb. Also Barkley>Chubb. I knew Barkley would be gone by the time we picked so I got my guy.

To be fair, it was still an unsexy pick, especially considering we could have had Bradley Chubb who has balled out.  That being said, there were needs all over the roster and losing Chubb for a functional best in league offensive line which included a rookie all pro and another all pro in the form of a weak side linebacker...that's as sexy as it gets.  Just had to wait for it to play out and fortunately it played out insanely in our favor.  Although we should at least acknowledge it could have worked out terribly for us.  Glad it didn't.

[The Peytonator]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I wish we didn't have to deal in extremes all the time.

 

How about us who felt that picking a guard that high in the draft wasn't maximizing value? I never doubted that Nelson would be good; his play and success are not surprising, as I called him the safest player in the draft.

 

But I still don't think that taking an interior lineman is max value, and him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong. I'd rather have a great pass rusher and a pretty good LG than a great LG and mediocre pass rushers.

 

 

Nonsense.

 

 

FTR I was all on board for the Q Express, but back in 2016 a lot of people wanted and were happy that Grigson drafted Kelly in the first, but I was and still am lukewarm about him because I didn't like the value of drafting a center in the first round. At the time I wanted either Chris Jones or William Jackson III. I think most people would have disagreed had we went Jones and even now they'd still probably say 'But we have our franchise center! He handles the ball every snap!' Can't say I agree with you on Q, he's just a monster, but I'm with you 100% on maximizing your value on your first round picks.

 

Plus you know the nature of this board (and the internet), everything is always black and white. There's no room for nuance. 

[Jdubu]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Don't worry, there were about 20 people or so in here that said picking a Guard at #6 was basically stupid and was unsexy  . They really look silly . On my Draft board for us I had Barkley 1st but Nelson 2nd, Chubb was 3rd. So glad Denver took Chubb so we ended up with Nelson.  Nelson>Chubb. Also Barkley>Chubb. I knew Barkley would be gone by the time we picked so I got my guy.

It really appears that either of those theee would have been the right choice. I’m glad we have Nelson though, he has transformed the offense into what it could have been since 2012 with a real oline. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Jdubu said:

It really appears that either of those theee would have been the right choice. I’m glad we have Nelson though, he has transformed the offense into what it could have been since 2012 with a real oline. 

True, I do not dislike Chubb but glad we got Nelson and IMO I do think Barkley had a better Rookie Season but that is JMO. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You usually make great Posts but you are wrong on both accounts. Sorry. Your Post here is nonsense. Barkley had a better Rookie Season than Chubb and Nelson is arguably the best O.Lineman in the league period. 

 

-You know as well as I do at least 20 or so were bashing the Nelson pick. 

 

It's like you think the world stops after their rookie seasons. 

 

And it's arguable that Barkley had a better season than Chubb, seeing as how Chubb had the best rookie season for a pass rusher since Jevon Kearse. You act like Chubb was just a guy.

 

And just like there were people bashing the Nelson pick, there were trolls claiming Luck would never come back. They don't matter. In between the extremes, there are legitimate conversations to be had, without misrepresenting the viewpoint of those with whom we disagree. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's like you think the world stops after their rookie seasons. 

 

And it's arguable that Barkley had a better season than Chubb, seeing as how Chubb had the best rookie season for a pass rusher since Jevon Kearse. You act like Chubb was just a guy.

 

And just like there were people bashing the Nelson pick, there were trolls claiming Luck would never come back. They don't matter. In between the extremes, there are legitimate conversations to be had, without misrepresenting the viewpoint of those with whom we disagree. 

Fair enough. All I was saying with my initial Post was, how many people disliked the Nelson pick. When people are wrong isn't it worth pointing it. Like the NFLnetwork picking us 32nd, why should we sit here and say nothing. They were wrong by a mile. I think Chubb is good by the way. 

[Rackeen305]

46 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You usually make great Posts but you are wrong on both accounts. Sorry. Your Post here is nonsense. Barkley had a better Rookie Season than Chubb and Nelson is arguably the best O.Lineman in the league period. "him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong". Umm yes it does. 

 

-You know as well as I do at least 20 or so were bashing the Nelson pick. 

Take it easy on em' will ya. lol. I dont care what anyone says, I dont believe that there is a team in the NFL that would not take QN #6 overall after witnessing this season. Has anyone watched Colts games years past and how many times our QBs were sacked or hit? All of a sudden, thanks to newcomers like QN, Braden Smith and Glow (RG) we have a recognized offensive line? since when did this happen?? lol And thats just pass protection. Has anyone forgot about the Colts run game? Marlon Mack runs for 140 against the Texans, and has  multiple hundred yard games? Something that hasnt happened since like Joseph Addai. Oh I see we forgot about that part of the argument.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

back in 2016 a lot of people wanted and were happy that Grigson drafted Kelly in the first, but I was and still am lukewarm about him because I didn't like the value of drafting a center in the first round

 

I didn't like the value of a center in the first round, either, and still don't. I really like Kelly, and at the time I was okay with the pick because Grigson showed that he couldn't solve that position without taking a rock solid prospect, so yeah, let's just get it fixed. Still not the best value, and taking Kelly cost us a chance at a more premier position.

 

In practice, I doubt we would have drafted Jones; the previous regime didn't seem to value disruptive interior DL.

 

It's the same calculus for me with Nelson. Love the player, I just don't think the position warrants that high of a pick. I'm definitely not complaining about the pick, I made my peace with it long before the draft, but it doesn't represent maximum value. And we still don't have a great pass rusher, and probably don't have a direct path to one.

[The Fish]

37 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

 

-You know as well as I do at least 20 or so were bashing the Nelson pick. 

 

 

I didn't bash the pick, but I probably did say that when you're picking up that high, getting a guard isn't what I'd do 9 times out of 10. Q is that good though, so that's cool.

 

I'd also add, I have very few strong opinions on the draft and specific players. I can look at college football and take literally nothing away from most of it. So I don't pretend to know.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Rackeen305 said:

Take it easy on em' will ya. lol. I dont care what anyone says, I dont believe that there is a team in the NFL that would not take QN #6 overall after witnessing this season. Has anyone watched Colts games years past and how many times our QBs were sacked or hit? All of a sudden, thanks to newcomers like QN, Braden Smith and Glow (RG) we have a recognized offensive line? since when did this happen?? lol 

Yeah we definitely made the right pick. 

[DougDew]

My opinion hasn't changed.  I thought Nelson was going to be a supreme player, but we didn't need that level of a supreme player at that position, so I would have traded down to pick more players like Leonard and Smith at different positions.  I think we would have won just as many games if we got a G in the middle of the first who blocked well but didn't take it to the level of pancake drama.

 

Grigson wasted 3 first round picks, and the other recent first rounders were Hooker and a C, so we are behind the curve for getting marquis players at positions of impact.  We have a lot of ground to make up and need(ed) all of the top 50 picks we can (could) get.  My opinion hasn't changed.

[Coffeedrinker]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I wish we didn't have to deal in extremes all the time.

 

How about us who felt that picking a guard that high in the draft wasn't maximizing value? I never doubted that Nelson would be good; his play and success are not surprising, as I called him the safest player in the draft.

 

But I still don't think that taking an interior lineman is max value, and him being All Pro doesn't prove me wrong. I'd rather have a great pass rusher and a pretty good LG than a great LG and mediocre pass rushers.

 

 

Nonsense.

I agree with you on a position by position look, ie a pass rusher is more valuable than a guard.  But when you look at the affect on the entire group, I believe Nelson was more valuable than anyone else the Colts could have drafted at that position.  I think it would be hard to argue that the entire Colts oline plays with more of a mean streak (for lack of a better phrase) than previously and a big chunk of that is attributed to Nelson.

 

While I think Chubb would have been a near perfect DE for the Colts 4-3, his impact with the edge rushers of Denver does not seem to be the same as Nelson.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Has anyone watched Colts games years past and how many times our QBs were sacked or hit?

 

It's just not that black and white. We could have improved the interior OL without using a premier pick on a guard. 

 

I'm very happy that the line is fixed (for now; you're never done building a roster, and I know Ballard knows that), but we don't appear to be destined for a top ten pick again any time soon, so we probably missed our rare chance at a potentially game changing edge rusher.

 

Again, I've made my peace with the decision, and I'm happy with Nelson. But Nelson being All Pro doesn't change the value of the position or its typical impact on the game. I still believe that a good LG and a great pass rusher is better than a great LG and a mediocre pass rusher.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't like the value of a center in the first round, either, and still don't. I really like Kelly, and at the time I was okay with the pick because Grigson showed that he couldn't solve that position without taking a rock solid prospect, so yeah, let's just get it fixed. Still not the best value, and taking Kelly cost us a chance at a more premier position.

 

In practice, I doubt we would have drafted Jones; the previous regime didn't seem to value disruptive interior DL.

 

It's the same calculus for me with Nelson. Love the player, I just don't think the position warrants that high of a pick. I'm definitely not complaining about the pick, I made my peace with it long before the draft, but it doesn't represent maximum value. And we still don't have a great pass rusher, and probably don't have a direct path to one.

FWIW, you are technically right, a Pass Rusher does have higher value than a Guard. Nelson was such a can't miss though. At least to me he was.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I agree with you on a position by position look, ie a pass rusher is more valuable than a guard.  But when you look at the affect on the entire group, I believe Nelson was more valuable than anyone else the Colts could have drafted at that position.  I think it would be hard to argue that the entire Colts oline plays with more of a mean streak (for lack of a better phrase) than previously and a big chunk of that is attributed to Nelson.

 

While I think Chubb would have been a near perfect DE for the Colts 4-3, his impact with the edge rushers of Denver does not seem to be the same as Nelson.

 

Nelson's impact on the team and the OL speaks for itself, and I'm not interested in giving him back. There are plenty of guards with a mean streak; what makes Nelson unique is he has the talent and skill to support that attitude, which isn't common at guard. Big uglies have played guard a long time, but getting someone with Nelson's athletic traits to play like a big ugly is rare.

[The Peytonator]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't like the value of a center in the first round, either, and still don't. I really like Kelly, and at the time I was okay with the pick because Grigson showed that he couldn't solve that position without taking a rock solid prospect, so yeah, let's just get it fixed. Still not the best value, and taking Kelly cost us a chance at a more premier position.

 

In practice, I doubt we would have drafted Jones; the previous regime didn't seem to value disruptive interior DL.

 

It's the same calculus for me with Nelson. Love the player, I just don't think the position warrants that high of a pick. I'm definitely not complaining about the pick, I made my peace with it long before the draft, but it doesn't represent maximum value. And we still don't have a great pass rusher, and probably don't have a direct path to one.

 

 

The FA edge class is as good as I've seen it in years. This is the offseason to grab one. Obviously they won't all hit free agency, but if even it's like 25%, Ballard should be able to get one unless he wants to go super moneyball. I know, I know, we want to build our own, let's do that and also take someone else's while we can. 

 

Clowney, Ford, Graham, Flowers, Lawrence, Clark....one of those guys is going to be available and we can afford him. I also wouldn't be opposed to signing Suh for a one year mercenary deal next year. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

FWIW, you are technically right, a Pass Rusher does have higher value than a Guard. Nelson was such a can't miss though. At least to me he was.

 

Nelson was the closest thing to a can't miss prospect that I can remember.

 

And FWIW, I didn't think Chubb was can't miss. His three cone time was a major red flag, and his ceiling is probably not on the level of Khalil Mack or someone like that.

 

The logic of the Nelson pick checks out. My point of posting in this thread is just to remind people that not everyone who had a complaint about the Nelson pick was being as simple-minded as 'it's stupid to take a guard at #6, Ballard's a joke!' And that's the way the issue is being framed, which is annoying.

[Coffeedrinker]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nelson's impact on the team and the OL speaks for itself, and I'm not interested in giving him back. There are plenty of guards with a mean streak; what makes Nelson unique is he has the talent and skill to support that attitude, which isn't common at guard. Big uglies have played guard a long time, but getting someone with Nelson's athletic traits to play like a big ugly is rare.

And I think that is why Nelson was a great value at #6.  If he did not have the ability his toughness and tough talk would not be as contagious to the other lineman and it would not have changed the entire mindset of the offense.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Nelson was the closest thing to a can't miss prospect that I can remember.

 

And FWIW, I didn't think Chubb was can't miss. His three cone time was a major red flag, and his ceiling is probably not on the level of Khalil Mack or someone like that.

 

The logic of the Nelson pick checks out. My point of posting in this thread is just to remind people that not everyone who had a complaint about the Nelson pick was being as simple-minded as 'it's stupid to take a guard at #6, Ballard's a joke!' And that's the way the issue is being framed, which is annoying.

I get your point and my initial Post was actually directed toward people that was saying taking a Guard at #6 was ridiculous and many did. You and many others did not say that and just preferred a Pass Rusher but others were actually bashing the Nelson pick. I guess at this point, I am just in the mood to pointing out how wrong alot of people were about our team. From Luck being a noodle arm, us being ranked 32, us only winning 2-4 games, etc.. It's a great day to be a Colts fan.

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I agree with you on a position by position look, ie a pass rusher is more valuable than a guard.  But when you look at the affect on the entire group, I believe Nelson was more valuable than anyone else the Colts could have drafted at that position.  I think it would be hard to argue that the entire Colts oline plays with more of a mean streak (for lack of a better phrase) than previously and a big chunk of that is attributed to Nelson.

 

While I think Chubb would have been a near perfect DE for the Colts 4-3, his impact with the edge rushers of Denver does not seem to be the same as Nelson.

Would a tough guy like Will Hernandez influence the oline?  How about Isiah Wynn, or ay of the other G players who went before Smith at 37? 

 

Those of us who didn't like the value at #6 aren't saying we would have stuck with Vujnovich from last year.

[Rackeen305]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's just not that black and white. We could have improved the interior OL without using a premier pick on a guard. 

 

I'm very happy that the line is fixed (for now; you're never done building a roster, and I know Ballard knows that), but we don't appear to be destined for a top ten pick again any time soon, so we probably missed our rare chance at a potentially game changing edge rusher.

 

Again, I've made my peace with the decision, and I'm happy with Nelson. But Nelson being All Pro doesn't change the value of the position or its typical impact on the game. I still believe that a good LG and a great pass rusher is better than a great LG and a mediocre pass rusher.

To me, It sounds like you are making excuses for your point of view. If you want to fix a plumbing issue, you don't call an electrician. And if you have the man for the job, Why say, Oh we could have gotten a cheaper Made in XXX version smh. Did you say that about PM, Oh the Colts could have gotten better value with Ryan Leaf had we traded down? Who says stuff like this?

[Goatface Killah]

 

 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't like the value of a center in the first round, either, and still don't. I really like Kelly, and at the time I was okay with the pick because Grigson showed that he couldn't solve that position without taking a rock solid prospect, so yeah, let's just get it fixed. Still not the best value, and taking Kelly cost us a chance at a more premier position.

 

In practice, I doubt we would have drafted Jones; the previous regime didn't seem to value disruptive interior DL.

 

It's the same calculus for me with Nelson. Love the player, I just don't think the position warrants that high of a pick. I'm definitely not complaining about the pick, I made my peace with it long before the draft, but it doesn't represent maximum value. And we still don't have a great pass rusher, and probably don't have a direct path to one.

 

If the Colts dont draft Kelly and Nelson, is Luck still playing? Does he get a chance to work thru his early season rustiness? Or is he hurt again? 

 

I just struggle with how you perceive value. Those two picks gave us the best line in football, imo. And you win in the trenches. Thats quite a value.

 

Who is this pass rusher that comes in and provides more? Chubb didnt come in and impact his team at near the level Nelson has, and his team didnt produce results either. And he is no doubt great at what he does. But, his team didnt have a glaring hole at DE, they had Von Miller, and he didnt really solve a problem for them, he reinforced a prior strength. And they went into the season woth the same problems and had another disappointing season.

 

Nelson not only cured our cancer, he gave us biceps and quads and turned us into the Hulk. 

 

The point is to pick great players where you are weak, not get maximum value for your picks.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

The FA edge class is as good as I've seen it in years. This is the offseason to grab one. Obviously they won't all hit free agency, but if even it's like 25%, Ballard should be able to get one unless he wants to go super moneyball. I know, I know, we want to build our own, let's do that and also take someone else's while we can. 

 

Clowney, Ford, Graham, Flowers, Lawrence, Clark....one of those guys is going to be available and we can afford him. I also wouldn't be opposed to signing Suh for a one year mercenary deal next year. 

 

Suh's overrated, I'm not interested.

 

I want Lawrence, I'd settle for Flowers or Clark, and I'm not very interested in the others.

 

But realistically, none of these guys are hitting free agency. The last time an above average edge rusher hit free agency it was Olivier Vernon, with 7.5 sacks, and he got $17m/year. Besides Graham, all these guys are better than Vernon was, IMO; and Graham probably stays with Philly on a reasonable deal before FA starts.

 

I could see Flowers getting away from New England, but I'm not holding my breath. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I get your point and my initial Post was actually directed toward people that was saying taking a Guard at #6 was ridiculous and many did. You and many others did not say that and just preferred a Pass Rusher but others were actually bashing the Nelson pick. I guess at this point, I am just in the mood to pointing out how wrong alot of people were about our team. From Luck being a noodle arm, us being ranked 32, us only winning 2-4 games, etc.. It's a great day to be a Colts fan.

You're actually not getting it.  Superman is talking about value and alternative decisions, which would have included upgrading the oline significantly from last year without having to devote pick #6 to do that.

 

That's the nuance of the conversation.

 

But you're tossing out extreme words like "right" and "wrong" pretty liberally.

[Four2itus]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I remember you were one that wanted Nelson as well. Ballard so far seems to know what he is doing 

I said the same thing. I was star struck with his film.

[LockeDown]

I think Ballard chose Nelson because he thought he would be a Hall if Famer barring injuries.  That is a valid reason imo for taking a guard that high.  Shouldn’t that trump standard protocol?