I owe Quentin Nelson an apology

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

You don't think Nelson represented "maximum value at pick 1.6 ? Do you really believe that or do you just hate saying you were mistaken . Tell me what player Ballard should have taken instead of Nelson at 6. I think maybe I'm misunderstanding you ? 

I think, and I hope I'm corrected if I am wrong, that he feels that a guard was too high to take at 6.   He would have traded down and got more picks and signed a FA guard or drafted a guard with a later pick.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

37 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Pointing out the fact that Chuck was a poor coach to people still defending him is far different.

 

I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised by the same people posting the same sort of stuff over and over.  Some people won't stop being condescending, some won't stop tooting their own horn, and I'm not gonna stop posting reaction memes. 

 

38 minutes ago, BOTT said:

oprah sucks.

 

36 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Oprah does suck, I can't stand her  

 

But how do you REALLY feel about her?

 

[dw49]

Just now, Myles said:

I think, and I hope I'm corrected if I am wrong, that he feels that a guard was too high to take at 6.   He would have traded down and got more picks and signed a FA guard or drafted a guard with a later pick.  

 

He wanted to sign Norwell for 14 million but it's a mistake to take an All Pro guard at 6 ?  Why would you want to spend 14 million if the position can be filled with a mid round draft choice ? Ok... I for one am happy Ballard thinks more like us ?  

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised by the same people posting the same sort of stuff over and over.  Some people won't stop being condescending, some won't stop tooting their own horn, and I'm not gonna stop posting reaction memes. 

 

 

 

But how do you REALLY feel about her?

 

She sucks 

[Myles]

1 minute ago, dw49 said:

 

He wanted to sign Norwell for 14 million but it's a mistake to take an All Pro guard at 6 ?  Why would you want to spend 14 million if the position can be filled with a mid round draft choice ? Ok... I for one am happy Ballard thinks more like us ?  

I think his thought is that you can sign a competent guard in free agency easier than you can a pass rusher.

 

My argument against that is that Ballard had the opportunity to draft a better guard with the attitude and character that is much better than what is available in FA or the rest of the draft.  He could then sign Hunt and Autry to cheap contracts.

[dw49]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think his thought is that you can sign a competent guard in free agency easier than you can a pass rusher.

 

My argument against that is that Ballard had the opportunity to draft a better guard with the attitude and character that is much better than what is available in FA or the rest of the draft.  He could then sign Hunt and Autry to cheap contracts.

 

 

No doubt that other than QB ,  pass rusher is the next premium position. I'll give him or you that. But when you have a RB like Elliot or Barkley , you draft them in the top 5-6 and in the end you normally "win." Same goes for a guard like Nelson. Making All Pro as a rookie surely points to the feeling that he's a fabulous OL. Probably would go at 1.1 if somehow was put into the 2019 draft ? 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, LockeDown said:

I don’t think he thought 5 years.  Think Joe Thomas ( I know diff position)  kind of career . Plus  Ballard always talks about spending money on signing his own players. 

 

Well sure...that's why I said 5+ years. I just don't think GMs use HOF potential as a determining factor for drafting NFL players.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, BOTT said:

I mocked myself for it months ago. So no, that's not it. And I wasn't even posting around draft time so I doubt many remember my feelings on it.

 

its simply uncouth to continually pat yourself on the back for something that's been settled for months.

 

i don't write "yeah, but y'all defended Chuck for years" in every Reich thread.

 

Agree. The dragging up of posts gets old. Seems like a can of worms...considering everyone gets stuff wrong and right.

 

In addition to those Pagano posts, I am sure there are a good amount of posts defending Grigs out there (along with several loving picks like Werner, Dorsett, D'Joun Smith, Green, etc.). 

 

Fortunately, Ballard isn't Grigs.

[Surge89]

So I love talking draft and then I read this entire thread... Lol

 

So naturally I'd like to chime in. I too had a hard time swallowing the fact we took a guard that high but I see the draft a little differently than most.   Drafts are their own entity.  You can't value this position over the other statically as if all drafts are equal it doesn't work that way.  The reason why I initially had an issue with taking Nelson was that I knew that this draft was extremely deep at the guard position and the drop off from Nelson to the next 4 guards was not a very big drop.  

 

Insert the draft guru Ballard.

 

Ballard had a very good read on the meta of the other teams in the draft and wisely took Nelson at 6.  No way could anyone tell you that 8 olineman would be taken before we pick again and 6 of them would be interior guys.  That just doesn't happen.  And the great thing about that was Leonard being pushed out of the first and to the top of the second.  Very rarely do you see a Linebacker with so much ability to rush the passer and elite physical traits fall out of the first round no matter the school he came from. 

 

So in a nutshell while I initially questioned the Nelson pick as the first round came to an end it was apparent that the pick was a great one. 

 

My only quam from the draft was that we double dipped on the Dline with high picks when this upcoming draft is one of the deepest Dline and edge drafts in recent memory. I feel like we could have held a little foresight on that but it matters not the season has been awesome. 

[stitches]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

OK, lets make it interesting.... 

 

You can have either... 

 

1. Chubb(or whoever you would have chosen at 3)

2. whoever you would have chosen at 6, whoever you would have chosen at 37, whoever you would have chosen at 49 and 2019 second round pick

 

Also, who would you have chosen at 6 if you had that pick at the time? Roquan? Davenport? Minkah? 

[Colts_Fan12]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would've had Chubb 2nd on my board if I didn't think Barkley was Barry Sanders like with size. Barkley is going to tear it up for years IMO. I like Mack but he isn't Barkley. I would take Barkley over any RB in the league. 

I'm taking Gurley 10 times out of 10 he is amazing I'd also prolly take Zeke over Barkley too however he is good but the others are just better imo 

[AZColt11]

I wanted Chubb until we moved down in the draft.  At that point, I realized Chubb would be gone and I wanted Nelson.  I have ZERO regrets about that now.

[Myles]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

OK, lets make it interesting.... 

 

You can have either... 

 

1. Chubb(or whoever you would have chosen at 3)

2. whoever you would have chosen at 6, whoever you would have chosen at 37, whoever you would have chosen at 49 and 2019 second round pick

 

Also, who would you have chosen at 6 if you had that pick at the time? Roquan? Davenport? Minkah? 

There is a 2b option as well.   Move back from 6 and secure more picks.

I'm glad they didn't do that though.  

[Matthew Gilbert]

7 hours ago, Surge89 said:

My only quam from the draft was that we double dipped on the Dline with high picks when this upcoming draft is one of the deepest Dline and edge drafts in recent memory.

And they can double dip again. You can never have too many pass rushers.

[Surge89]

1 minute ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

And they can double dip again. You can never have too many pass rushers.

 

Eh I should have elaborated on this point my apologies. I meant that I think it would have been more efficient to take what the draft was plentiful in (which at that point in the second round was corners) than take 2 defensive lineman in a poor defensive lineman draft.  Of course in hindsight it's not to big of a deal since our existing corners decided to play excellent ball but at the time this was my viewpoint and well technically it still is.  I just don't think it's a valid criticism of Ballard, so it really doesn't matter lol.

[Breeze]

This thread is interesting.  Usually people debate alternatives to a failure.  This thread is debating alternatives to an extraordinary success.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, dw49 said:

You don't think Nelson represented "maximum value at pick 1.6 ? Do you really believe that or do you just hate saying you were mistaken . Tell me what player Ballard should have taken instead of Nelson at 6. I think maybe I'm misunderstanding you ? 

 

Taking positional value into consideration, no, I don't think Nelson at #6 represented max value. But that's my philosophy on the value of the position, and Nelson's value relative to other guards.

 

I don't see how I'm mistaken, unless you think there's definitive proof that Nelson's value is greater than I'm giving him credit for. And I'm giving him plenty of credit, I just don't think he's made the entire line better, singlehandedly; I think that's hyperbole.

 

I said before the draft that Nelson was an amazing prospect, the safest player in the draft, with the potential to be a multiple All Pro. I acknowledged the Larry Allen comp, and said I agreed with it. And I said the pick made sense for us at #6, and I was fine with it. It's not like I said Nelson would be a JAG; I thought he'd be good, just like everyone else did.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Myles said:

I think, and I hope I'm corrected if I am wrong, that he feels that a guard was too high to take at 6.   He would have traded down and got more picks and signed a FA guard or drafted a guard with a later pick.  

 

I might have taken Nelson, at #6. But max value probably would have been another trade down, wind up with Derwin James or Mike McGlinchey, and more draft capital.

 

But I'm not complaining about the Nelson pick. I know I'm debating about it's value, but that doesn't mean I think it was a mistake, or that I don't understand how good Nelson is and how important he's been for us.

[shasta519]

9 hours ago, Surge89 said:

So I love talking draft and then I read this entire thread... Lol

 

So naturally I'd like to chime in. I too had a hard time swallowing the fact we took a guard that high but I see the draft a little differently than most.   Drafts are their own entity.  You can't value this position over the other statically as if all drafts are equal it doesn't work that way.  The reason why I initially had an issue with taking Nelson was that I knew that this draft was extremely deep at the guard position and the drop off from Nelson to the next 4 guards was not a very big drop.  

 

Insert the draft guru Ballard.

 

Ballard had a very good read on the meta of the other teams in the draft and wisely took Nelson at 6.  No way could anyone tell you that 8 olineman would be taken before we pick again and 6 of them would be interior guys.  That just doesn't happen.  And the great thing about that was Leonard being pushed out of the first and to the top of the second.  Very rarely do you see a Linebacker with so much ability to rush the passer and elite physical traits fall out of the first round no matter the school he came from. 

 

So in a nutshell while I initially questioned the Nelson pick as the first round came to an end it was apparent that the pick was a great one. 

 

My only quam from the draft was that we double dipped on the Dline with high picks when this upcoming draft is one of the deepest Dline and edge drafts in recent memory. I feel like we could have held a little foresight on that but it matters not the season has been awesome. 

 

I like that theory regarding interior OL...and it definitely played out that way. Remember Ballard said that he took Smith because he felt he was the last starter available and didn't think he would fall to their next pick. He obviously had a list of OL names and and a good grasp of where they were going to be picked. And if I had to guess, Smith was not the 1st choice at that #37 spot if someone else fell.

 

Regarding Leonard, I think he was available because of the ILB depth more than anything. FCS players don't get drafted in the 1st round over similar guys from bigger schools. Maybe that will change in the future...but I think Leonard is the highest-drafted FCS player in a very long time. Ballard taking him where he did was even surprising to many (given that context).

 

I agree regarding the DL double-dip...still not a fan. But I also get that the DL needs a rotation of good players, so it's not like they won't have use for those players. I just don't think it accomplished much (they still need those same positions this upcoming draft) and I also think there were better players at other positions available.

[backshoulderfade]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Taking positional value into consideration, no, I don't think Nelson at #6 represented max value. But that's my philosophy on the value of the position, and Nelson's value relative to other guards.

 

I don't see how I'm mistaken, unless you think there's definitive proof that Nelson's value is greater than I'm giving him credit for. And I'm giving him plenty of credit, I just don't think he's made the entire line better, singlehandedly; I think that's hyperbole.

 

I said before the draft that Nelson was an amazing prospect, the safest player in the draft, with the potential to be a multiple All Pro. I acknowledged the Larry Allen comp, and said I agreed with it. And I said the pick made sense for us at #6, and I was fine with it. It's not like I said Nelson would be a JAG; I thought he'd be good, just like everyone else did.

I have no particular opinion here, as I am not smart enough in a football sense. Just have a question which I would be interested to know your opinion on. How would you compare Nelson's value to a Ronnie Stanley level tackle, especially with the amount of highly talented interior d-linemen?

[Superman]

13 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

He wanted to sign Norwell for 14 million but it's a mistake to take an All Pro guard at 6 ?  Why would you want to spend 14 million if the position can be filled with a mid round draft choice ? Ok... I for one am happy Ballard thinks more like us ?  

 

Never said it was a mistake. I hope we can leave that narrative in the past.

 

And Norwell was an All Pro that fit the culture Ballard talks about, from what I can see. And for the Colts, cap space is a more abundant resource than a very high draft pick; it's rare that the Colts pick in the top five, and it's even more rare that they do so without being in the market for a QB.

[dw49]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Never said it was a mistake. I hope we can leave that narrative in the past.

 

And Norwell was an All Pro that fit the culture Ballard talks about, from what I can see. And for the Colts, cap space is a more abundant resource than a very high draft pick; it's rare that the Colts pick in the top five, and it's even more rare that they do so without being in the market for a QB.

 

When you say Ballard didn't get maximum value , that IMO would qualify as  stating that he made a "mistake" in the draft. I know you never said Nelson was a "bad player."  

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Never said it was a mistake. I hope we can leave that narrative in the past.

 

And Norwell was an All Pro that fit the culture Ballard talks about, from what I can see. And for the Colts, cap space is a more abundant resource than a very high draft pick; it's rare that the Colts pick in the top five, and it's even more rare that they do so without being in the market for a QB.

 

I don't think anyone has ever said drafting Nelson was a mistake (at least not that I remember). Not sure how that narrative got started. 

[DougDew]

15 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

That Ballard guy is amazing.   Fixed the oline in one off season.  Nelson,  smith,  glow and the hiring of Dave DeGuglielmo has been the difference.   EOY cantidate for sure

Wow, what a stupid post. 

 

I suppose if you double up on positions early, you can fix one unit in a single draft.......unless you pick Hooker and Wilson 1 and 2.

 

Maybe he'll again be amazing  highly competent if he doubles up on DL early this year.

 

I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Grigon was "amazing" for fixing the franchise QB position for all ensuing GMs and HCs for the next ten years with one pick, right?

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, backshoulderfade said:

I have no particular opinion here, as I am not smart enough in a football sense. Just have a question which I would be interested to know your opinion on. How would you compare Nelson's value to a Ronnie Stanley level tackle, especially with the amount of highly talented interior d-linemen?

 

I think sometimes "value" and "impact" get conflated, so let me clarify my stance.

 

Guards can have a very great impact on the game, and I think Nelson has had tremendous impact on the Colts. But his value is influence by the fact that good guards hit free agency every year. Good tackles rarely hit free agency (almost as rare as good edge rushers). This is made obvious by the average salaries of the respective positions; supply vs demand has an impact on value.

 

So I believe a very good LT has more value than a very good OG. 

 

There's also the fact that, while interior pressure is super critical, and three tech DL are getting better, it's also easier to double team interior rushers than edge rushers. This influences the value of LTs who can handle good edge rushers without constant double teams.

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wow, what a stupid post. 

 

I suppose if you double up on positions early, you can fix one unit in a single draft.......unless you pick Hooker and Wilson 1 and 2.

 

Maybe he'll again be amazing  highly competent if he doubles up on DL early this year.

 

I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Grigon was "amazing" for fixing the franchise QB position for all ensuing GMs and HCs for the next ten years with one pick, right?

Luck was an Irsay pick.    Hilton is the best thing grigson brought in.   

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Luck was an Irsay pick.    Hilton is the best thing grigson brought in.   

And never forget, Pagano was an Irsay retention.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

When you say Ballard didn't get maximum value , that IMO would qualify as  stating that he made a "mistake" in the draft. I know you never said Nelson was a "bad player."  

 

I don't believe he made a mistake. I think maybe he could have gotten more value, but I'm fine with what he did; he got plenty of value as it is.

 

If I'm shopping for a car, and I get a really good deal on a really good car, but a week later I find out maybe I could have saved another $1,000, I didn't get maximum value. That doesn't mean I made a mistake.

[shasta519]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Taking positional value into consideration, no, I don't think Nelson at #6 represented max value. But that's my philosophy on the value of the position, and Nelson's value relative to other guards.

 

I don't see how I'm mistaken, unless you think there's definitive proof that Nelson's value is greater than I'm giving him credit for. And I'm giving him plenty of credit, I just don't think he's made the entire line better, singlehandedly; I think that's hyperbole.

 

I said before the draft that Nelson was an amazing prospect, the safest player in the draft, with the potential to be a multiple All Pro. I acknowledged the Larry Allen comp, and said I agreed with it. And I said the pick made sense for us at #6, and I was fine with it. It's not like I said Nelson would be a JAG; I thought he'd be good, just like everyone else did.

 

I think it's a bit of hyperbole as well...and as awesome as he has been...he might be getting just a bit too much credit. For example, his AV for this season was 15...which is as much as Kelly, AC and Glow combined. That's silly. (I guess they should just find another Nelson and run with 5 WR/2 TE sets.)

 

Kelly was very good this season...AC was back...and Glow had a breakout season. Not to mention the massively succesful coaching change. When literally everyone on the OL is performing from varying levels of good-great...that's coaching.

 

 

[dw49]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I might have taken Nelson, at #6. But max value probably would have been another trade down, wind up with Derwin James or Mike McGlinchey, and more draft capital.

 

But I'm not complaining about the Nelson pick. I know I'm debating about it's value, but that doesn't mean I think it was a mistake, or that I don't understand how good Nelson is and how important he's been for us.

 

Man that really is a perfect world. Trade down and in hind site  take one of the 2 most impactful players that were left in the draft ? Suppose Ballard was not high on either player and did the trade down with Buffalo ? 

[dw49]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't believe he made a mistake. I think maybe he could have gotten more value, but I'm fine with what he did; he got plenty of value as it is.

 

If I'm shopping for a car, and I get a really good deal on a really good car, but a week later I find out maybe I could have saved another $1,000, I didn't get maximum value. That doesn't mean I made a mistake.

 

 

For one thing it's really silly for posters to be  doing a "I told you so thread." Bottom line IMO is Ballard turned pick 1.3 into what I think is a generational draft. Doesn't really matter who like who and how much. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Man that really is a perfect world. Trade down and in hind site  take one of the 2 most impactful players that were left in the draft ? Suppose Ballard was not high on either player and did the trade down with Buffalo ? 

 

McGlinchey went at #9, so that would have been tough, but James went at #17 (and I thought he was a top ten guy). I think Buffalo said they weren't giving up both firsts in one deal, but they did give up #53 and #56 to come up to #7 for Josh Allen.

 

That would have been insane for the Colts -- #12 (James), #36, #37, #52, #53, #56, plus #36 (I think?) in 2019? Phew.

 

But probably no Nelson. Tampa most likely takes him at #7 if we trade back.

[dw49]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

McGlinchey went at #9, so that would have been tough, but James went at #17 (and I thought he was a top ten guy). I think Buffalo said they weren't giving up both firsts in one deal, but they did give up #53 and #56 to come up to #7 for Josh Allen.

 

That would have been insane for the Colts -- #12 (James), #36, #37, #52, #53, #56, plus #36 (I think?) in 2019? Phew.

 

But probably no Nelson. Tampa most likely takes him at #7 if we trade back.

 

The word we heard was that Ballard would not drop any further than 10 ? Not that a ridiculous offer could not have changed that. Must be his philosophy is "if you get a chance to draft an impact player , you don't give it up ? " 

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Man that really is a perfect world. Trade down and in hind site  take one of the 2 most impactful players that were left in the draft ? Suppose Ballard was not high on either player and did the trade down with Buffalo ? 

It's not hindsight.  Some of us are restating our thoughts as they occurred during the draft.  Drafting nelson was not a mistake, in part, because we don't really know the true alternative decisions.  Rumor was that BUFF offered pick 12 and their 2 seconds for pick 6 to get Allen.  Instead, they made the trade with TB the next pick.

 

If we took the trade, we could have gotten a G in the first round.  Taking Nelson at 6 only improved the Oline by the incremental difference in talent Nelson possesses over the next group of OGs in the draft.  There were about 4 or 5 others grouped behind Nelson, with Smith (perceived) to be the lowest quality of those 4 or 5.

 

So if we made the trade instead of picking Nelson, we would have a G that's better than Smith playing LG. 

 

And that would have also "improved the entire oline" by replacing Vuj with that player.

 

And we would have had 2 second round players.

 

Not taking that offer is not a mistake since Nelson is very good (as expected), but it does question value, which is important when building  roster on the heels of three straight whiffs by Grigson. 

[dw49]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It's not hindsight.  Some of us are restating our thoughts as they occurred during the draft.  Drafting nelson was not a mistake, in part, because we don't really know the true alternative decisions.  Rumor was that BUFF offered pick 12 and their 2 seconds for pick 6 to get Allen.  Instead, they made the trade with TB the next pick.

 

If we took the trade, we could have gotten a G in the first round.  Taking Nelson at 6 only improved the Oline by the incremental difference in talent Nelson possesses over the next group of OGs in the draft.  There were about 4 or 5 others grouped behind Nelson, with Smith (perceived) to be the lowest quality of those 4 or 5.

 

So if we made the trade instead of picking Nelson, we would have a G that's better than Smith playing LG. 

 

And that would have also "improved the entire oline" by replacing Vuj with that player.

 

And we would have had 2 second round players.

 

Not taking that offer is not a mistake since Nelson is very good (as expected), but it does question value, which is important when building  roster on the heels of three straight whiffs by Grigson. 

 

If the "thought " was to trade down twice and draft  Derwin James was stated at draft time , then it's not "hindsight." If one is looking at the draft now and saying trade down and take James at 12 , that is hindsight ... no ?

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

The word we heard was that Ballard would not drop any further than 10 ? Not that a ridiculous offer could not have changed that. Must be his philosophy is "if you get a chance to draft an impact player , you don't give it up ? " 

 

Which makes sense, all the way around.

 

Ballard said he thought there were eight premium players in the draft, not including QBs. I figure those eight were Barkley, Chubb, Nelson, James, Fitzpatrick, Ward, Smith and McGlinchey. And he said he expected two QBs in the top five, so he might not have felt comfortable moving out of the top ten. And I'm good with that.

 

4 minutes ago, dw49 said:

If one is looking at the draft now and saying trade down and take James at 12 , that is hindsight ... no ?

 

It is, on my part. I thought James would go top ten. 

[dw49]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Which makes sense, all the way around.

 

Ballard said he thought there were eight premium players in the draft, not including QBs. I figure those eight were Barkley, Chubb, Nelson, James, Fitzpatrick, Ward, Smith and McGlinchey. And he said he expected two QBs in the top five, so he might not have felt comfortable moving out of the top ten. And I'm good with that.

 

 

It is, on my part. I thought James would go top ten. 

 

So you had to figure there was a good chance James would be gone if we traded back with Buffalo ? BTW... many people wonder why he lasted until 17 , so certainly not a reach to feel he was top 10.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

48 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wow, what a stupid post. 

 

I suppose if you double up on positions early, you can fix one unit in a single draft.......unless you pick Hooker and Wilson 1 and 2.

 

Maybe he'll again be amazing  highly competent if he doubles up on DL early this year.

 

I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Grigon was "amazing" for fixing the franchise QB position for all ensuing GMs and HCs for the next ten years with one pick, right?

 

Grigsons' first draft was pretty awesome.  And he won EOY for it.  One could argue the Luck pick alone made it amazing.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Grigsons' first draft was pretty awesome.  And he won EOY for it.  One could argue the Luck pick alone made it amazing.

 

It's easy to see that Grigson didn't do a good job, but it's revisionist history to say that he didn't have a good first draft. Fleener and Allen were good for us, Hilton still is, Ballard was good and got hurt, and even 6th rounder LaVon Brazill caught a game winner for us.

 

That team wasn't perfect, and we had some magic for some reason, but Grigson put together a decent enough roster with one hand tied behind his back ($40m in cap penalties). And then he went downhill pretty quickly... But he deserved EOY in 2012, and not just because of Luck.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

So you had to figure there was a good chance James would be gone if we traded back with Buffalo ? BTW... many people wonder why he lasted until 17 , so certainly not a reach to feel he was top 10.

 

Yup, but I also thought there was a chance one of those top eight would last outside of the top ten, because I expected at least three of the QBs to go top ten. But, I didn't really want Fitzpatrick or Ward.