I owe Quentin Nelson an apology

[IinD]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I think Nelson was both an impact player and a safe pick.

Win/Win

I'm in agreement. I just think it so happened we were historically terrible on the oline and he took the best OL in the draft. I get he wasn't a T or DE, but it is what it is. 

 

It's essentially Ballard's job if Luck got sacked another 50 times this year and got him hurt again. 

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't think Leonard would have lasted another round.   It is possible, but if Ballard saw what he said he did, its possible that he would be taken. 

 

Personally, I think a guard on a questionable O-line is a "premium position".   

We also got a better guard at a much cheaper price.  

Agreed, Leonard would not have been available at even our pick 49, IMO.

 

So if we weren't going to get Roquan Smith in the first (and we were too high to pick him and still maintain value and any trade down would have been too low) Leonard was really the only choice at 36.  And if Ballard traded down to say, 12, then say, 20, and took Hernandez at 20, I would still take the last best G (Smith) at 37.  And I'd have about 3 or 4 more picks between 50 and 80 in what was a deep draft.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, LockeDown said:

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? 

 

I think a HOFer at any position (outside of K or P) would trump the protocol.  

 

But I don't think GMs think like that. So much has to go right for a player to become a HOFer AND stay with his team. And how many GMs stay with a team for that duration of time?

 

I think it's more likely that Ballard saw the best young G he has seen (another Zack Martin) and knew he would be an impact player (at a position of need) for at least the next 5+ years. That was a safe, easy pick and a much-needed short cut to checking off the OL box, which was imperative for him. 

 

I can't say I blame him for it...Nelson was fantastic this season. But drafting a G that early is not something I want to see the Colts do again for a long time.  

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree.  You don't pass on a great G to reach for a lesser player at a more premium position.  But you might accept the generous trade down offer that is presented in order to get one of many very good Gs that are available and two more good players.

I wouldn't trade Nelson now for 2 good players.      I think Ballard knew that as it was published all over the place that Nelson was a once in a generation player.  It's not just his play either.   He has the attitude and character that gels a locker room and team.  

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't think Leonard would have lasted another round.   It is possible, but if Ballard saw what he said he did, its possible that he would be taken. 

 

Personally, I think a guard on a questionable O-line is a "premium position".   

We also got a better guard at a much cheaper price.  

 

If you meant we wouldn't have had them both, I agree. It's possible, but unlikely. I thought you were saying we would have had neither, and maybe I misunderstood you at first.

 

To the bolded, make the questionable OL less questionable. We could have done that in other ways. To me, positional value is positional value; it doesn't change based on roster needs. 

 

If a team is going to sacrifice position value for roster need, they better get it right. We evidently did.

 

Cheaper contract. All things being equal, a top six pick is more valuable than Norwell's contract. 

[compuls1v3]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I've already commented on part of this, and I'm not gonna get back on that merry -go-round.

 

But I would like to point out that the value of the trade is completely separate from the value of the pick at #6. The trade was a slam dunk. 

 

And the pick was a winner, also. I'm not complaining about it. I'm very happy we have Nelson. But theoretically, we could have blown the sixth pick on a bad player; that wouldn't undermine the value of the trade and the extra picks.

 

Where my opinion differs from basically everyone else is when it comes to the resistance to using a premium pick on a guard.

 

 

Exactly.

How can the pick value be the problem?  That is where I'm confused.  We received 2 great players plus 1 extra unknown player for when we could have had 1 great player.  I guess if we ever play the Broncos we'll see how Chubb does against Nelson and Smith.  Those two alone are better value, IMHO.  Maybe I just don't understand value?  Getting extra picks seems like value to me.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

How can the pick value be the problem?  That is where I'm confused.  We received 2 great players plus 1 extra unknown player for when we could have had 1 great player.  I guess if we ever play the Broncos we'll see how Chubb does against Nelson and Smith.  Those two alone are better value, IMHO.  Maybe I just don't understand value?  Getting extra picks seems like value to me.

 

I'm saying that even if I hated the player we drafted, that wouldn't mean the trade was bad. I've never said the trade was bad. The trade was excellent.

 

(I've also never said the pick was bad, just to clarify.)

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

I can't say I blame him for it...Nelson was fantastic this season. But drafting a G that early is not something I want to see the Colts do again for a long time.  

 

Realistically, we won't be picking that early for a long time, which is the only reason I have even an ounce of regret about passing on Chubb.

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Myles said:

I wouldn't trade Nelson now for 2 good players.      I think Ballard knew that as it was published all over the place that Nelson was a once in a generation player.  It's not just his play either.   He has the attitude and character that gels a locker room and team.  

Keep in mind I haven't been studying the performances of the alternatives to use hindsight to validate my choices.

 

But I would trade Nelson for Will Hernandez, Christian Kirk, and one the tall CBs in the second round in a heart beat. 

 

Edit:  and Hernandez was valued no higher than 20, so there could have been 2 trade downs to get him and I'd have another second and 3rd rounder....or another 2nd this year.

 

It becomes, ifs and buts, so who knows what could have hapenened.  Again, I'm not criticizing nor hate the Nelson pick, I'm simply saying I can't get to where it was the best decision in the near term given the likely alternaitves and how we picked five years before last. 

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

To the bolded, make the questionable OL less questionable. We could have done that in other ways. To me, positional value is positional value; it doesn't change based on roster needs. 

 

 

 

Cheaper contract. All things being equal, a top six pick is more valuable than Norwell's contract. 

We disagree on positional value.   I think it does change based on the roster.   I think it can also change depending on the quality of player.   Nelson was assumed to be one of the best in the league at his position.

 

Don't we have Nelson for less over the next few years than if we signed Norwell to that huge contract?

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Agreed, Leonard would not have been available at even our pick 49, IMO.

 

So if we weren't going to get Roquan Smith in the first (and we were too high to pick him and any trade down would have been too low) Leonard was really the only choice at 36.  And if Ballard traded down to say, 12, then say, 20, and took Hernandez at 20, I would still take the last best G (Smith) at 37.  And I'd have about 3 or 4 more picks between 50 and 70 in what was a deep draft.

 

The trade down (IMO) would have been to net one of James/LVE and those two additional late 2nd round picks. This would have allowed Ballard the flexibility to still double dip on OL in this draft...and he could have maneuvered his way back to get another pick in the early 2nd round to get someone like Landry or Kirk. 

 

Fun to think about...Colts would have crushed it either way.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree.  You don't pass on a great G to reach for a lesser player at a more premium position.  But you might accept the generous trade down offer that is presented in order to get one of many very good Gs that are available and two more good players.

 

If said trade offer exists. I doubt it did in this case. Tampa was probably the only team we would have traded with, and they reportedly wanted Nelson, so we weren't going to trade back with them.

 

So after working the offers and evaluating, it might be as simple as taking the guard. Once we were on the clock at #6, I think it was that simple.

[compuls1v3]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm saying that even if I hated the player we drafted, that wouldn't mean the trade was bad. I've never said the trade was bad. The trade was excellent.

 

(I've also never said the pick was bad, just to clarify.)

I misread your post. Ok, so you agree the trade was good, you just don't think we should have picked a guard at 6.  Well, I'm glad we DID get a guard at 6, AND I'm glad he worked out (thus far).  Nelson rocks, along with his collateral in Smith, regardless of our 2nd round pick next year.  That's just gravy!  I'd take those two alone over Chubb if I had to go back and pick at 3.  But that's just me. 

[shasta519]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Keep in mind I haven't been studying the performances of the alternatives to use hindsight to validate my choices.

 

But I would trade Nelson for Will Hernandez, Christian Kirk, and one the tall CBs in the second round in a heart beat.  

 

Yeah...it wasn't Nelson for two players. It was Nelson for three players (one pick in the 12 range and two near the end of the 2nd round).

 

Time will tell...but that replacement 1st rounder for trading Nelson could have been a great player as well...on top of two 2nd round picks. Tha'ts a lot of value for a G...even one as good as Nelson. But I am just looking at from a football standpoint. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

We disagree on positional value.   I think it does change based on the roster.   I think it can also change depending on the quality of player.   Nelson was assumed to be one of the best in the league at his position.

 

That's a fundamental disagreement.

 

Quote

Don't we have Nelson for less over the next few years than if we signed Norwell to that huge contract?

 

Yes. 

 

My point was I think the #6 pick is more valuable than the cap space it took to sign Norwell. His contract is much bigger than Nelson's.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

you just don't think we should have picked a guard at 6

 

Glad we cleared up the other part, but even this is a misrepresentation of my position. 

 

I don't think picking a guard at #6 represented maximum value. I'm okay with the pick.

[cbear]

OK, this thread is just too long, so sorry if this has been answered, but to clarify...... is anyone saying that knowing what we know now, they would not have taken Nelson and gone for Chubb (or whomever) and tried to build the oline with another player in the draft or FA? 

 

Or is this just a theoretical argument based on positions played? 

 

[strt182]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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. 

Depends on the situation. There are a TON of IFs in football and lots of unknowns. This is why I prefer gut instinct over analytics in gametime decisions.  But the majority of humans have a "told you so" mentality. 

 

Now if you are talking about the medical field then YES I agree. 

[shasta519]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If said trade offer exists. I doubt it did in this case. Tampa was probably the only team we would have traded with, and they reportedly wanted Nelson, so we weren't going to trade back with them.

 

So after working the offers and evaluating, it might be as simple as taking the guard. Once we were on the clock at #6, I think it was that simple.

 

The trade would have been with BUF. They traded with TB after the Colts made their pick. Pretty sure that deal was on the table for IND...but maybe Ballard wanted more.

[compuls1v3]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Glad we cleared up the other part, but even this is a misrepresentation of my position. 

 

I don't think picking a guard at #6 represented maximum value. I'm okay with the pick.

If that is not correct, which guard at 6 would have represented maximum value?  I was confirming that you wouldn't pick a guard at 6, but now that is wrong?

[Myles]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

My point was I think the #6 pick is more valuable than the cap space it took to sign Norwell. His contract is much bigger than Nelson's.

Paying more for less doesn't seem like value to me. 

 

No but seriously.   I felt like Luck may be fragile and he certainly needed great protection because we did not have a very good WR core at draft time.  We had Hilton, Doyle and a few guys who needed extra time to get separation.   I also though our RB group was average at best.   We've all seen what Dallas did a few years ago when they had a great offensive line, Demarco Murray ran for almost 2000 yards.  Then he went to Philly and Ten and looked like an average RB.  

[Colts_Fan12]

28 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

with all 5 infinity stones you can

Well duh but Doug has no such power lol

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I felt like Luck may be fragile and he certainly needed great protection because we did not have a very good WR core at draft time.  We had Hilton, Doyle and a few guys who needed extra time to get separation.   I also though our RB group was average at best.   We've all seen what Dallas did a few years ago when they had a great offensive line, Demarco Murray ran for almost 2000 yards.  Then he went to Philly and Ten and looked like an average RB.  

 

Well I have no objection to building a great OL. It has obvious benefits. It's just about the resources used to build that OL.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, compuls1v3 said:

If that is not correct, which guard at 6 would have represented maximum value?  I was confirming that you wouldn't pick a guard at 6, but now that is wrong?

 

I think we're missing each other on this.

 

I don't think picking a guard at #6 represents max value.

 

Maybe when I said "pick value" you thought I was talking about the pick value chart that's used to value picks in a trade. That's not what I was talking about. 

[compuls1v3]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I think we're missing each other on this.

 

I don't think picking a guard at #6 represents max value.

 

Maybe when I said "pick value" you thought I was talking about the pick value chart that's used to value picks in a trade. That's not what I was talking about. 

Not trying to argue; just trying to understand.  So you WOULD pick a guard at 6, but it would not be max value?  Or you wouldn't pick a guard at 6 because it does not represent max value?  Please educate me, because the only value I see is what is laid out on the field.  I see a great left guard and great right tackle as max value (of course, after they have proved themselves).  As it stands right now, would you rather have Nelson and Smith and a future high 2nd round pick, or Chubb?  That will clear up my confusion.  You know my stance!  Also, thank you for your patience with me.  I'm just a football fan with opionions, but I see you as a very knowledgeable football guru.

[Yoshinator]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think we're missing each other on this.

 

I don't think picking a guard at #6 represents max value.

 

Maybe when I said "pick value" you thought I was talking about the pick value chart that's used to value picks in a trade. That's not what I was talking about. 

Even if you don't think a G represents Max Value at #6, the value of that trade and what pick #6 represents in the trade (Nelson, Smith, Turay and a high 2nd this year), holds more combined value than Chubb by himself. Would you agree to this?

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

Not trying to argue; just trying to understand.  So you WOULD pick a guard at 6, but it would not be max value?  Or you wouldn't pick a guard at 6 because it does not represent max value?  Please educate me, because the only value I see is what is laid out on the field.  I see a great left guard and great right tackle as max value (of course, after they have proved themselves).  As it stands right now, would you rather have Nelson and Smith and a future high 2nd round pick, or Chubb?  That will clear up my confusion.  You know my stance!  Also, thank you for your patience with me.  I'm just a football fan with opionions, but I see you as a very knowledgeable football guru.

 

All things being equal, I probably would NOT pick a guard at #6, because I think I could add a guard another way and get close to the same on field performance without using a premium pick.

 

And that's MY value, not something I'm trying to push off on others. JMO. 

 

I won't answer the first bolded because I think it's a false choice. It didn't have to be one or the other.

 

Second bolded, I'm definitely no guru, but thank you for the compliment. Being as honest as possible, if we signed Norwell, we probably wouldn't have gotten an All Pro performance out of him. Drafting Nelson was a winning move for us, and there's no mistaking that. If there's a guru, it's Ballard.

 

But I can believe that drafting Nelson was good while still believing that pick doesn't represent max value. And that's a holistic viewpoint, taking into consideration how the draft typically goes and how free agency typically goes. It's not a binary choice.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Even if you don't think a G represents Max Value at #6, the value of that trade and what pick #6 represents in the trade (Nelson, Smith, Turay and a high 2nd this year), holds more combined value than Chubb by himself. Would you agree to this?

 

Rather than me answering that, you answer this: How are we going to get a great pass rusher? Is there any direct path to one?

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Rather than me answering that, you answer this: How are we going to get a great pass rusher? Is there any direct path to one?

I believe we can get a very good DE or OLB this year. We have a first rounder and two 2nds, this is a defensive-line class, and we ammunition to trade up if need be. Plus, Turay and Lewis can possibly turn into something as well. We aren't short of picks this year, we are ahead of the curve. If Ballard wants one, he'll find the right one. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I believe we can get a very good DE or OLB this year. We have a first rounder and two 2nds, this is a defensive-line class, and we ammunition to trade up if need be. Plus, Turay and Lewis can possibly turn into something as well. We aren't short of picks this year, we are ahead of the curve. If Ballard wants one, he'll find the right one. 

 

Cool deal. I think our odds of getting a great pass rusher drop precipitously outside of the top 15 (and that's being generous, probably top 10 is more like it), and as such, I think the value of pass rusher gets a boost when determining draft strategy. How much of a boost is hard to quantify.

 

It's hard to argue against the return we got in the trade down from #3. It represents very strong value, especially with Nelson being great already. But the trade was always good.

 

And to avoid being sensational, we could move up if we wanted. I'm not sure what it would take, but we could probably get in range for an elite pass rush prospect if we had to. And all told, that might represent better value once you take into account the picks we got in the trade down. Ballard might be playing four dimensional chess, while I'm playing checkers on rookie mode.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yeah...it wasn't Nelson for two players. It was Nelson for three players (one pick in the 12 range and two near the end of the 2nd round).

 

Time will tell...but that replacement 1st rounder for trading Nelson could have been a great player as well...on top of two 2nd round picks. Tha'ts a lot of value for a G...even one as good as Nelson. But I am just looking at from a football standpoint. 

I think we had the Buffalo trade in the hand, which would have given pick 12 and two seconds.  In a perfect world, we'd trade down again and take Hernandez at pick 20 and get another second and a third.  There seemed to be enough movement during the draft that finding a trading partner who was willing to get value for value seems plausible.

 

In addition to two more draft picks, I think Hernandez, Christian Kirk, and Rashaan Penney would have helped the O as much as, or more, than a pancaking LG but I really can't say.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Rashaan Penney

 

I liked him coming out, but he was a mess all season. I get the feeling he would have wound up off of Ballard's board.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I liked him coming out, but he was a mess all season. I get the feeling he would have wound up off of Ballard's board.

Like I said before, I haven't followed the alternative players to make a good hindsight alternative draft.  There may not have been many other players worthy of the additional picks. I was just making an assumption.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Like I said before, I haven't followed the alternative players to make a good hindsight alternative draft.  There may not have been many other players worthy of the additional picks. I was just making an assumption.

 

I get it. Penny went end of the first so he probably wouldn't be in your alternative proposal anyway.

[Myles]

So who would have taken Chubb at 3?

[coltsfeva]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

  Football is changing: The value if interior linemen is on the rise. Pressure is coming from guys on the inside more (Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox,etc).

  It’s critical for a QB to step up in the pocket at times and for the team to be able to run the football. 

   I was disappointed in drafting Kelly and I wanted Chubb but in hindsight, I’m so glad we landed Q and Kelly.

   We ALL knew Andrew needed protection and now, he’s got it.

   We may have the pieces to dominate up front.

    We definitely could use some pass rush and are in a position to get that in the draft.

     IF we win Saturday, Q and Kelly will be a big part of that.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, Myles said:

So who would have taken Chubb at 3?

 

I might have. Would have been hard to turn down the trade down offer, though.

[Coffeedrinker]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Glad we cleared up the other part, but even this is a misrepresentation of my position. 

 

I don't think picking a guard at #6 represented maximum value. I'm okay with the pick.

So what you're saying is you would rather have Chubb than Nelson and you think CB is a horrible GM because he did not pick the guy you liked and you wish Irsay would fire the GM, all the scouts and the coaching staff and start all over.  Got it. (I know how much you like extremes )

[jet1968]

10 hours 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

You should be pancaked!!!!!!

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

  Football is changing: The value if interior linemen is on the rise. Pressure is coming from guys on the inside more (Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox,etc).

  It’s critical for a QB to step up in the pocket at times and for the team to be able to run the football. 

   I was disappointed in drafting Kelly and I wanted Chubb but in hindsight, I’m so glad we landed Q and Kelly.

   We ALL knew Andrew needed protection and now, he’s got it.

   We may have the pieces to dominate up front.

    We definitely could use some pass rush and are in a position to get that in the draft.

     IF we win Saturday, Q and Kelly will be a big part of that.

I'll rank my opinion as to why the offense/OL has improved and why Luck leads the NFL in non-sacked.  And I'll use spaces to indicate separation:

 

Reich is smarter than Chuck/Chud

 

Luck is healthy and can execute Reich's scheme

 

 

 

 

Nelson replaced Vuj.

 

Kelly is healthy

Smith replaced Good et al

Glow replaced Haeg et al

 

 

 

AC can be AC because he has improved LG play

Kelly can be Kelly because he has improved LG and RG play.