I owe Quentin Nelson an apology

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Rackeen305 said:

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?

 

My point of view doesn't need excuses; it's my point of view, and has been for a long time. I said the exact same thing before the draft, and I was very convinced that Nelson would be very good, right away. The fact that he's been very good right away doesn't change that.

 

And what a terrible analogy. If I have a plumbing issue, I call a plumber. I don't have to pay double the going rate for a plumber, though; there's a world of difference between that and calling an electrician. 

 

That's my point: We could have improved the guard position without spending an premier pick on a non premier position. I didn't say let's draft a strong safety and play him at guard.

 

And no, I didn't say that about Peyton Manning, because QB is the most important, valuable and hardest to fill position in team sports. The value calculus supports taking a QB at the top of the draft if you think he can be a franchise QB. There's no such thing as a franchise LG. and there never will be.

[Coffeedrinker]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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.

I'm not claiming that any of you stated that.  

 

But no, I don't think Hernandez or even McGlinchy would have changed the oline like Nelson has.  Can't really say about Wynn considering he never saw the field this year.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Quenton Nelson, as a rookie, just earned All-Pro honors.  He started all 16 games and played every offensive snap for the Colts this year.

 

He gave up one sack.  <--- 

 

Against some very good competition.  Geno Atkins, Fletcher Cox, JJ Watt, Jadaveon Clowney, Leonard Williams, Malik Jackson, Calais Campbell, Jurell Casey, etc.

 

He gave Andrew Luck the chance to be Andrew Luck and make guys like Ebron, Rogers, and Mack look better than they ever have.

 

If all 32 teams could go back and redo the last draft, how many teams would want Nelson?  Would teams be trying to trade up to draft him?  Where would he be drafted with hindsight?  Maybe guys like Mayfield, Barkley and Chubb are drafted ahead of him again due to "positional value", or maybe he goes #1 overall... 

[Superman]

1 minute 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? 

 

No. I could say that about any prospect I'm in love with, and people say stuff like that about their favorite prospects every year. Last April, Tremaine Edmunds was the next Brian Urlacher, remember?

 

Scout Honestly. Don't justify love affairs with platitudes like 'he's gonna be a HOFer,' or 'we need a good X.' 

 

That's my philosophy, I know everyone doesn't agree with it. Just stating why I feel the way I do.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

He gave up one sack

 

Average guards give up about 3-4 sacks. That's not what makes a guard great.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm not claiming that any of you stated that.  

 

But no, I don't think Hernandez or even McGlinchy would have changed the oline like Nelson has.  Can't really say about Wynn considering he never saw the field this year.

Maybe not you but many act is if those of us who would not have taken a G at 6 would not have upgraded the position at all from last year.

 

My opinion is that the incremental drop off from Nelson to Wynn or Hernandez et al, was less than the incremental positive impact of getting another first round player or two second round players at other positions. 

 

Considering the change in offensive schemes, I doubt the incremental drop off would have resulted in more sacks to Luck, so the superior talent at that position is sort of being wasted when it could have been applied to other areas of the team (in a perfect draft world).

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

Average guards give up about 3-4 sacks. That's not what makes a guard great.

 

I could say something similar about your pass-rusher point of view.  The average DE is going to get sacks, and double-digit sacks doesn't make a DE like Chubb great...

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I absolutely think drafting Nelson was a choice of value.   The way he could help the passing game and the running game is value that no other could have supplied.   

[braveheartcolt]

Nelson's pretty good. Right now, I scoff at positional value, and applaude what he brings to the team. After a raft of blown first rounders, I'll stick with Kelly and Nelson. And positional value is bunkum if you pick a dud. Werner anyone?

[Myles]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Average guards give up about 3-4 sacks. That's not what makes a guard great.

It certainly is part of it.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

18 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm not claiming that any of you stated that.  

 

But no, I don't think Hernandez or even McGlinchy would have changed the oline like Nelson has.  Can't really say about Wynn considering he never saw the field this year.

I agree, not even close.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Priority #1 for any team is obviously QB.  But before you jump to defense and make priority #2 a pass-rusher, you need to make priority #2 PROTECTING the franchise QB.  Then priority #3 can be pass-rush.

 

I think the proof is in the pudding.

 

Or in this case the proof is in the pancakes. 

[jameszeigler834]

2 hours 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.

I was surprised and very happy Nelson fell to us that couldn't have worked out better if it tried.

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

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? 

 

 

Not drafting Kelly and Nelson doesn't mean the Colts couldn't have improved their OL. It's not an either/or proposition like you're trying to make it.

 

Quote

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.

 

Now that's a discussion. If you want to talk about the respective value of interior OL and how it impacts the game, that's a different story than just 'Nelson is great, that means anyone who suggested we pick another player is wrong.' 

 

But again, best OL in football (which is arguable, but I'll stipulate) can be a thing without spending two first rounders on interior players. And top ten OL is more than good enough, especially if you're building up another more impactful position, like edge rusher.

 

Quote

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.

 

I don't really agree with the bolded. I think Nelson is getting more credit than he should, because he's not the only improvement we made on the OL. We got Kelly back, better play at RG and RT, a new OL coach, a new offense and play caller, and a decisive QB. 

 

And I think you're selling Chubb short on the basis of 'the Broncos didn't win, that means Chubb's impact wasn't a great.' Not how it works.

 

Also, the major reason edge rusher is a greater value in the draft than interior OL is because, historically, the only way to acquire a great edge rusher is in the draft (or giving up major draft capital, like the Bears did). The second reason is that edge rushers impact the outcome of the game more than interior OL.

 

Quote

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

 

Which is great, but there's a wide canyon between cancerous weakling and god-level mutant. We could have improved the OL play without drafting Nelson, and obviously there would/should have been a different approach to doing so if Nelson wasn't picked.

 

And again, I think you (and everyone else) are overselling Nelson's impact. He's great and deserves credit, but not all the credit.

 

Quote

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

 

I vehemently disagree with this. The draft is for adding talent, not addressing needs. And the best way to add talent is to maximize the value of your limited draft picks.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I absolutely think drafting Nelson was a choice of value.   The way he could help the passing game and the running game is value that no other could have supplied.   

But how can that be measured without involving some draft day bias?  

 

Are you going to give Nelson credit for Kelly's good play when he's healthy, or Glowinski getting claimed off waivers, or Smith being a surprise improvement to RT....or Luck's shoulder healing...or simply Reich being smarter than Chud? 

 

He's improved the LG position tremendously, but how much has Nelson really improved the overall offense?

 

 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I could say something similar about your pass-rusher point of view.  The average DE is going to get sacks, and double-digit sacks doesn't make a DE like Chubb great...

 

In theory, yes, that applies to pass rushers. But the point is that even bad guards don't give up a lot of sacks. 

 

Specific to Chubb -- and this is really not about Chubb -- he's more than just 12 sacks, just like Nelson is more than just 1 sack allowed.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Priority #1 for any team is obviously QB.  But before you jump to defense and make priority #2 a pass-rusher, you need to make priority #2 PROTECTING the franchise QB.  Then priority #3 can be pass-rush.

 

I think the proof is in the pudding.

 

Or in this case the proof is in the pancakes. 

With all of the changes made during the offseason, there is no "proof" that having Nelson instead of Hernandez kept Luck better protected.  Again, you're tossing out extreme words when the situation is more nuanced.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

But how can that be measured without involving some draft day bias?  

 

Are you going to give Nelson credit for Kelly's good play when he's healthy, or Glowinski getting claimed off waivers, or Smith being a surprise improvement to RT....or Luck's shoulder healing...or simply Reich being smarter than Chud? 

 

He's improved the LG position tremendously, but how much has Nelson really improved the overall offense?

 

Evidently, yes, people think Nelson is the single biggest reason the Colts OL has improved. And I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the single biggest reason for the improved OL play is the new offense. At best, I have Nelson at #2, but the OL struggles whenever Kelly is out, so there's a question there also.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Evidently, yes, people think Nelson is the single biggest reason the Colts OL has improved. And I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the single biggest reason for the improved OL play is the new offense. At best, I have Nelson at #2, but the OL struggles whenever Kelly is out, so there's a question there also.

Exactly.  And the offense was putrid at times when AC was out.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Priority #1 for any team is obviously QB.  But before you jump to defense and make priority #2 a pass-rusher, you need to make priority #2 PROTECTING the franchise QB.  Then priority #3 can be pass-rush.

 

I think the proof is in the pudding.

 

Or in this case the proof is in the pancakes. 

 

It's much easier to protect the QB than most Colts fans seem to think. And I get that, to an extent, because we had such bad protection for several years. Our OL started deteriorating in 2007, and seemed to get worse every year.

 

But you don't have to spend premium draft picks to get good OL play.

 

And the reason protecting the QB is so important is because defenses put a premium on affecting the QB. You have the cart before the horse.

 

Also, priorities in team building are not the same as determining draft value. There is some overlap, but you're conflating two issues. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

With all of the changes made during the offseason, there is no "proof" that having Nelson instead of Hernandez kept Luck better protected.  Again, you're tossing out extreme words when the situation is more nuanced.

 

Just like there's no "proof" Chubb made the Broncos defense any better, or would have improved our pass-rush more than Nelson improved our team... 

 

We're dealing in opinions on probabilities, here.  It can go back and forth and round and round all day and night.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

It certainly is part of it.  

 

Ehh...

 

And we should talk about penalties while we're at it. Nelson had 8 of them.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 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

 

Are you also going to apologize for spelling his name wrong?

 

It's Quenton, not Quentin. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Just like there's no "proof" Chubb made the Broncos defense any better, or would have improved our pass-rush more than Nelson improved our team... 

 

We're dealing in opinions on probabilities, here.  It can go back and forth and round and round all day and night.

Chubb did make the defense better to the extent he is a better player than the player who was there last year.  Nelson made the O better by being better than Vujnovich.   But that wasn't the crux of the statement. 

 

But to your broad point, yes, I agree.  We have opinions.  Which is why I try not to use "right", "wrong", or "proof".  

[Four2itus]

Ok, Ill jump in. I do not think that taking two different players in place of Kelly and Nelson would have had as big of an effect as they have. I don't care what value is perceived. 

 

Sometimes, the sum of the parts turns out greater than the parts themselves. What is created currently on this offensive line doesn't just happen. It takes many things. This one is special. I think on one of the main reasons is, rare....once in a blue moon drafting. 

 

[Breeze]

In hindsight, with the luxury of a season in the books, seems like we maximized value pretty damn good.  I’m wondering if the 24 teams no longer playing need to reassess what maximizing value really means.

[cdgacoltsfan]

4 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

I liked the Nelson pick but didn't like the overall draft. Looks like my arm chair GM days are over.:)

[dw49]

1 hour 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.

 

 

I think you should give up on this one.  Nelson appears to be a special "Larry Allen" type player. Theses kind of players are far more valuable than anything I see past 1.6 in last year's draft. We probably would have taken the LB at 6 if we moved off Nelson. Then you don't have Leonard ? Taking nelson at 6 set the stage for what looks to be a monumental draft.

 

Not looking for an argument , but seems a bit contradictory that you wanted to pay a guard that can't shine  Nelson's shoes 13+ million a year ? He BTW was a major disappointment before he was put on IR. 

 

It's kind of like saying you never take a RB top 6 . I'm sure the Cowboys would argue that one too ?

[DougDew]

OT here to the point we're talking about positional value.

 

Grigson wasted 3 first round picks, players who should probably be on the roster right now.  Then, our most recent first rounders went for a C, a FS (who probably hasn't had the impact we hoped), and a LG.  And you could say that those picks were the result of Luck not being 100%....they were top 18 picks. 

 

We've had six years where we have not added a marquis player at a premium position.  That catches up to a team, IMO.  We're probably now good enough to win a lot going forward to never be in the top 16 any time soon.  So how do we improve those premium positions?  Rely upon our GM to defy NFL history and find marquis players in the 20s? 

 

Neither the Kelly, Hooker, or Nelson picks were bad picks standing alone, in fact, they are good picks and good players and that matters, but each year you ignore premium positions it takes that much longer to make up for lost time.  It builds up, so I look at the Nelson pick in terms of what positions were picked before and not just stand alone. 

[Coffeedrinker]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Evidently, yes, people think Nelson is the single biggest reason the Colts OL has improved. And I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the single biggest reason for the improved OL play is the new offense. At best, I have Nelson at #2, but the OL struggles whenever Kelly is out, so there's a question there also.

Would that not indicate that interior line DO, in fact, influence the outcome of the game and that spending "premium" draft picks on those guys is a good value?

 

Like I stated, most of the time I agree that a pass rusher is a position to spend a premium draft pick more often than guard.  But I do think that may go out the window when you are talking about a generational type talent.  And IMO that is one of the things that separates the good GMs from the bad GMs.  Is their system good enough to determine, accurately, those generational talents.  I have little doubt that if the pick was between Nelson and a generational talent pass rusher, the Colts would have drafted the pass rusher.

 

Also you at @DougDew mention things like, would Hern led to more sacks that Nelson. Obviously there is no way to know (and neither of you have claimed to know) but, IMO that is a poor way to look at the impact of an olineman.  But there are other things to look at as well, how may times the RB is hit in the backfield, how much free space is around Luck when he throws, was the first guy to hit the RB someone not accounted for in the blocking scheme.  yes there are a bunch of things that lead to improvement in the oline... scheme, playcalling, Luck , oline coach and players.  And I think all of those things without Nelson would have lead to an improvement in the oline play.  I think Nelson has taken that and sent them past improvement to being an elite unit and that is because of the differences I have seen in players like Glow, AC and Kelly throughout the year

 

Lastly (and this may be the last thing I say on this subject in this thread, it's a great discussion but it's starting to get a bit circular), are you not the one that preaches BPO,  to scout honestly, stick to your board, don't reach for need and maximize value (which I think that last is a recent addition)?  So, if you are sitting there at #6 and there is one guy that is at the top of your board, if you are going to "stick to your board" don't you have to take that guy?  If you don't take the guy at the top of your board then you are not sticking to your board and it would indicate that you (obviously I'm using "you" as a generalization, not you in particular) don't know how to set up a draft board.  And I would also argue that if you do not stick to your board then you are not maximizing value.

 

[Colts_Fan12]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OT here to the point we're talking about positional value.

 

Grigson wasted 3 first round picks, players who should probably be on the roster right now.  Then, our most recent first rounders went for a C, a FS (who probably hasn't had the impact we hoped), and a LG.  And you could say that those picks were the result of Luck not being 100%....they were top 18 picks. 

 

We've had six years where we have not added a marquis player at a premium position.  That catches up to a team, IMO.  We're probably now good enough to win a lot going forward to never be in the top 16 any time soon.  So how do we improve those premium positions?  Rely upon our GM to defy NFL history and find marquis players in the 20s? 

 

Neither the Kelly, Hooker, or Nelson picks were bad picks standing alone, in fact, they are good picks and good players and that matters, but each year you ignore premium positions it takes that much longer to make up for lost time.  It builds up, so I look at the Nelson pick in terms of what positions were picked before and not just stand alone. 

You do realize you cant just snap your fingers and have players be available at premium positions right? There were other teams picking ahead of us you know this.

[Yoshinator]

A big factor that is overlooked in drafts, is that you need to pick players that will "be hits". You can take BPA, you can take high ceiling players, but if they have a low floor and/or fizzle out, it's pointless. With our team the way it was before this year's draft, Ballard had to hit on his picks. BPA is very important, but BPA can bust too. Ballard was picking safer players that would be the foundation of this team for years to come. 

 

If you miss on your picks, you fall further behind. Ballard had to hit on his pick and protect his QB, and Nelson was the safest pick in the draft that did just that. Despite Chubb's rookie season, it had little impact on the Broncos because of the poor offense.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, dw49 said:

I think you should give up on this one.  Nelson appears to be a special "Larry Allen" type player. Theses kind of players are far more valuable than anything I see past 1.6 in last year's draft. We probably would have taken the LB at 6 if we moved off Nelson. Then you don't have Leonard ? Taking nelson at 6 set the stage for what looks to be a monumental draft.

 

Not looking for an argument , but seems a bit contradictory that you wanted to pay a guard that can't shine  Nelson's shoes 13+ million a year ? He BTW was a major disappointment before he was put on IR. 

 

It's kind of like saying you never take a RB top 6 . I'm sure the Cowboys would argue that one too ?

 

I give up in the sense that I know I'm in the minority and I'm not going to change anyone's mind, as most seem to be unable to separate the results from the process. Not saying that's you, but the argument seems to be 'positional value doesn't matter if you get a great player,' and I'll never agree with that. Sebastian Janikowski had a great career, and was a dumb pick, to offer an extreme example of why I disagree.

 

More to game theory, dominant guards were more impactful in the 'run the ball, stop the run' era of football. Nelson can be Larry Allen -- and that was the popular comp before the draft, which I agreed with -- but he won't have his impact.

 

You're also setting up an either or -- Smith or Leonard -- that I don't agree with, but that's another story.

 

And I don't see how it's contradictory that I wanted Norwell. Again, results over process. Norwell may have been playing through injury all year; we'll see if he regains his All Pro form (isn't that what Nelson just got awarded with??) But we have plenty of cap space; we may never pick in the top six again. All resources are not equal.

 

The Cowboys would obviously argue against my no RB philosophy; they took Zeke at #3. And the major difference for the Cowboys this year has been a receiver. Impact. Also, let's talk about Zeke in Year 5, as my primary issue with backs is longevity.

[Myles]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But how can that be measured without involving some draft day bias?  

 

Are you going to give Nelson credit for Kelly's good play when he's healthy, or Glowinski getting claimed off waivers, or Smith being a surprise improvement to RT....or Luck's shoulder healing...or simply Reich being smarter than Chud? 

 

He's improved the LG position tremendously, but how much has Nelson really improved the overall offense?

 

 

That can be said about any player in any position.    That is not a valid argument.  

I think Leonard has been great.    I don't think the play of Autry diminishes it.   I would say that Nelsons play has elevated the rest of the line play more than the other way around.

[aaron11]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OT here to the point we're talking about positional value.

 

Grigson wasted 3 first round picks, players who should probably be on the roster right now.  Then, our most recent first rounders went for a C, a FS (who probably hasn't had the impact we hoped), and a LG.  And you could say that those picks were the result of Luck not being 100%....they were top 18 picks. 

 

We've had six years where we have not added a marquis player at a premium position.  That catches up to a team, IMO.  We're probably now good enough to win a lot going forward to never be in the top 16 any time soon.  So how do we improve those premium positions?  Rely upon our GM to defy NFL history and find marquis players in the 20s? 

 

Neither the Kelly, Hooker, or Nelson picks were bad picks standing alone, in fact, they are good picks and good players and that matters, but each year you ignore premium positions it takes that much longer to make up for lost time.  It builds up, so I look at the Nelson pick in terms of what positions were picked before and not just stand alone. 

who are the elite players at premium positions that we missed by taking hooker and kelly?  you realize that corner back is not a premium position in a cover two right?

 

nelson vs chubb is debate worthy, i will give you that.  nelson was somewhat better imo, so i think we did well

[Yoshinator]

If you want to debate Nelson Vs Chubb, then you have to put Chubb against the entire trade of what we received for the 3rd overall pick. That's Nelson, Smith, Turay and a high 2nd in this years draft. The trade also allowed us to get Leonard in the sense that if we took Chubb at 3, then we would of been forced to take Smith instead of Leonard with our 2nd rounder to get a G, and we would of missed on Leonard. The trade extends beyond just Nelson and Chubb and trading down for Nelson and taking him instead of Chubb was the right move. @Superman you are wrong here, even if Chubb turns out to be better than Nelson.

[gspdx]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If you want to debate Nelson Vs Chubb, then you have to put Chubb against the entire trade of what we received for the 3rd overall pick. That's Nelson, Smith, Turay and a high 2nd in this years draft. The trade also allowed us to get Leonard in the sense that if we took Chubb at 3, then we would of been forced to take Smith instead of Leonard with our 2nd rounder to get a G, and we would of missed on Leonard. The trade extends beyond just Nelson and Chubb and trading down for Nelson and taking him instead of Chubb was the right move. @Superman you are wrong here, even if Chubb turns out to be better than Nelson.

 

Great point - the total cost/benefit.

[IinD]

I don't think Ballard probably had much choice in terms of impact player versus safe pick. Luck had to be protected.

 

For all we know, Jim could have said the day of the draft, hey Chris, Luck needs protection, wink wink.

 

I think this was a rare instance where you were kind of forced to take a certain player. You were historically bad at something, let's not keep that trend going and let's draft whoever the best OL is and keep it moving value/impact be damned.

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

It's much easier to protect the QB than most Colts fans seem to think. And I get that, to an extent, because we had such bad protection for several years. Our OL started deteriorating in 2007, and seemed to get worse every year.

 

But you don't have to spend premium draft picks to get good OL play.

 

And the reason protecting the QB is so important is because defenses put a premium on affecting the QB. You have the cart before the horse.

 

Also, priorities in team building are not the same as determining draft value. There is some overlap, but you're conflating two issues. 

In theory. We have watched the Colts oline whiff for years. This is a circular argument. I don't really care about the relative merits of pick value, what I see is working irrespective of the actual personel. Nelson is just one part of the equation, albeit a significant one. 

 

Tally-ho chaps, off to Kansas we go........

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, IinD said:

I don't think Ballard probably had much choice in terms of impact player versus safe pick. Luck had to be protected.

 

 

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

Win/Win