Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pacergeek

I owe Quentin Nelson an apology

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

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?

 

I never said interior OL don't influence the game. I said I think pass rushers have a greater influence on the game, and are harder to acquire. I also said I think Nelson gets too much credit; two elite interior linemen making an impact is a different discussion.

 

Quote

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.

 

You can justify any pick by saying 'he's a generational talent.' The hard part is actually getting a generational career out of that player. Nelson was the safest pick at OL in a long time, so I'm not arguing against that projection. My argument is about how to best manage draft resources.

 

Quote

 

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


 

 

This is where I think Nelson starts to get too much credit, as a way to further justify the pick. And it's not that the pick necessarily needs justification, but if we present this in a way that says Nelson is raising the play of everyone on the line, then the pick seems better.

 

Having a good LG makes AC's and Kelly's jobs easier. We could have added a good LG without using the sixth pick. It's not an either/or proposition.

 

Quote

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.

 

Maximize value has always been there, since the end of the 2015 season. 

 

To the bolded, no, I don't preach BPA. My signature is an acknowledgment that BPA is overly simplistic; as many say, if you have a QB, you're not drafting another one just because he's BPA. You might have a "generational" RB, but like me, you might not think RBs merit a premium pick. 

 

In a vacuum, if we assume that Nelson was at the top of the Colts board even at #3 -- and that's reasonable, IMO -- Ballard improved the value of his draft stock by moving down to #6 and still getting the best player on his board. Even if he had Nelson in a group with Chubb and Barkley, he moved down three spots, still got one of his top players, and added three more picks. 

 

If all three were gone at #6, and we had to choose between Ward, James, Smith and McGlinchey -- who in theory were all grouped together --  we could have moved down another few spots and still had one of those four guys, further maximizing value.

 

Stick to your board and don't reach for need means don't reach past a great prospect at a position of lesser need for a lesser prospect at a position of greater need. Put it all together, and my point is to evaluate prospects in good faith, set up your board according to your evaluations, don't get blinded by roster needs and stray from that board you spent months setting up, and look for opportunities to get greater value from your resources.

 

*** Just want to clarify that this is my philosophy. And me saying I don't think Nelson represented maximum value doesn't mean I think picking Nelson wasn't good for the Colts. It obviously was, and I'm fine with the way it played out. Ballard did a great job in the draft. My objection to the initial tone of the thread was about the 'all you fools who said a guard shouldn't be picked at #6, you're all proven wrong!' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Ehh...

 

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

5 for Chubb, so I guess that goes as a Chubb positive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

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........

 

Which seems to be the primary reason so many Colts fans think it was either pick Nelson or have a bad OL. But that's not a true choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

 

Another false choice. You just made up a scenario consisting of predetermined outcomes. This is the ultimate strawman. 

 

I will agree that the value of Nelson plus the extra picks make the trade very beneficial for the Colts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Which seems to be the primary reason so many Colts fans think it was either pick Nelson or have a bad OL. But that's not a true choice.

I don't think many think of it that way.

We thought, pick Nelson and not worry about that position for a decade.  Pick Nelson and improve the line more than another guard could.  Pick Nelson and protect Luck better than another could.   Pick Nelson and have better run blocking than another could provide.     They could have had adequate at all those with another signing, but it would not be as good or impactful.  

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Another false choice. You just made up a scenario consisting of predetermined outcomes. This is the ultimate strawman. 

 

I will agree that the value of Nelson plus the extra picks make the trade very beneficial for the Colts. 

I disagree.   The Colts could not have done that and picked Chubb.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Another false choice. You just made up a scenario consisting of predetermined outcomes. This is the ultimate strawman. 

 

I will agree that the value of Nelson plus the extra picks make the trade very beneficial for the Colts. 

The outcomes weren't predetermined unless you are a mind-reader. Ballard had no idea who would fall to him on his draft board. Not only that, he had no idea if the picks would hit. With a year of sample size, the statistics favor my argument, but don't act like Ballard knew that the picks would fall to him and they'd hit from the beginning. The only absolute was the trade. Ballard did great with what he received from the trade, and Chubb by himself won't come close to it unless he's a HOFer. The impact from all the players in the trade is too big, and we still have a player unknown this year. The outcomes are determined by the decisions of 32 different GMs, they are definitely not predetermined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Which seems to be the primary reason so many Colts fans think it was either pick Nelson or have a bad OL. But that's not a true choice.

Maybe. But 'form' tells me we had to do something different, something drastic, as previous efforts did not deliver. There is no correct viewpoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't think many think of it that way.

We thought, pick Nelson and not worry about that position for a decade.  Pick Nelson and improve the line more than another guard could.  Pick Nelson and protect Luck better than another could.   Pick Nelson and have better run blocking than another could provide.     They could have had adequate at all those with another signing, but it would not be as good or impactful. 

 

Well stated. Better than anyone else in this thread so far. 

 

That doesn't wash away the importance of positional value, but it's obviously a compelling argument, and it's why it wasn't hard for me to make my peace with the pick once we moved down to #6.

 

 

Quote

I disagree.   The Colts could not have done that and picked Chubb.  

 

Tell me what you mean here. Surely you don't mean that passing on Nelson would have somehow forced the Colts to take Braden Smith instead of Leonard at #36; and you can't mean that getting an extra second rounder was unattainable; and I don't think you're arguing that Lewis absolutely wouldn't have lasted four more picks to #67.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The outcomes weren't predetermined unless you are a mind-reader. Ballard had no idea who would fall to him on his draft board.

 

But somehow you know for a fact that Ballard would have picked Smith instead of Leonard at #36, and you know that Leonard wouldn't have lasted to our third round pick...

 

Quote

Not only that, he had no idea if the picks would hit. With a year of sample size, the statistics favor my argument, but don't act like Ballard knew that the picks would fall to him and they'd hit from the beginning.

 

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

Quote

The only absolute was the trade. Ballard did great with what he received from the trade, and Chubb by himself won't come close to it unless he's a HOFer. The impact from all the players in the trade is too big, and we still have a player unknown this year. The outcomes are determined by the decisions of 32 different GMs, they are definitely not predetermined.

 

I agree with the bolded. My point is you're acting like it's predetermined that if we stay at #3 and take Chubb, we don't take Leonard, and that's a stretch of epic proportions.

 

As for the trade being an absolute, you do know the Denzel Ward pick was a major wild card, right? The board could easily have gone Mayfield, Barkley, Darnold, Chubb, Nelson, and we would have been sitting at #6 with the top three gone. Not a disaster, but the point is that you're acting like you know exactly how the draft would have broken had we not traded down, and you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Well stated. Better than anyone else in this thread so far. 

 

That doesn't wash away the importance of positional value, but it's obviously a compelling argument, and it's why it wasn't hard for me to make my peace with the pick once we moved down to #6.

 

 

 

Tell me what you mean here. Surely you don't mean that passing on Nelson would have somehow forced the Colts to take Braden Smith instead of Leonard at #36; and you can't mean that getting an extra second rounder was unattainable; and I don't think you're arguing that Lewis absolutely wouldn't have lasted four more picks to #67.

What I mean is that IF Ballard valued Chubb more than Nelson (as you think he should have), he would not have been able to make the trade and still picked Chubb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

But somehow you know for a fact that Ballard would have picked Smith instead of Leonard at #36, and you know that Leonard wouldn't have lasted to our third round pick...

 

 

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

 

I agree with the bolded. My point is you're acting like it's predetermined that if we stay at #3 and take Chubb, we don't take Leonard, and that's a stretch of epic proportions.

 

As for the trade being an absolute, you do know the Denzel Ward pick was a major wild card, right? The board could easily have gone Mayfield, Barkley, Darnold, Chubb, Nelson, and we would have been sitting at #6 with the top three gone. Not a disaster, but the point is that you're acting like you know exactly how the draft would have broken had we not traded down, and you don't.

I do know for a fact that Ballard took Braden Smith AFTER he took Quenton Nelson at 6 overall. That's a fact. So to suggest he wouldn't of taken a G at all if he took Chubb at #3 overall is foolhardy. Ballard himself said in his presser that Leonard would of went relatively quickly after he took him, and I believe him considering he was the next best LBer on the board. He wasn't falling a whole round unless Ballard had him ranked a whole round higher than every other GM, and that would be unlikely. Also, Ballard said he had a good idea that the Browns were taking Ward at 4, that pretty much guaranteed that Chubb or Nelson would fall to 6. 

 

I'm going off of what the trade details were, and what Ballard admitted after the draft, you are simply guessing off of what aren't complete absolutes. The fact is Ballard's scenario was much more beneficial as you said, and Ballard would be on the hot seat right now if he didn't do the trade, drafted Chubb, Chubb had a bad rookie year, and Luck kept getting sacked like crazy last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Myles said:

What I mean is that IF Ballard valued Chubb more than Nelson (as you think he should have), he would not have been able to make the trade and still picked Chubb. 

 

No, clearly. I wasn't saying he could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Superman said:

 

No, clearly. I wasn't saying he could have.

So by valuing Nelson more, he was able to pick up crucial extra picks.   Still one left for this year.   35th pick in the draft I believe.  

 

I actually think Ballard would have taken Nelson at #3 had they stayed.   Getting the O-line up to snuff was most important to him.   He succeeded and was proven correct.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

So to suggest he wouldn't of taken a G at all if he took Chubb at #3 overall is foolhardy.

 

I never said that. On the contrary, you're saying if he didn't take Nelson, he absolutely would have passed on Leonard to take Smith, and there's no chance he could have drafted Leonard later on. And that's a stretch.

 

Quote

He wasn't falling a whole round unless Ballard had him ranked a whole round higher than every other GM, and that would be unlikely.

 

We can only judge on pre-draft projections and post-draft reaction, but Ballard did appear to have Leonard a full round higher than consensus. And I'm fine with that; it's his board, and he worked it well.

 

Quote

Also, Ballard said he had a good idea that the Browns were taking Ward at 4, that pretty much guaranteed that Chubb or Nelson would fall to 6. 

 

Link? It's not unreasonable; he knows Dorsey well, but I don't remember that. And even if he did say that, he couldn't have known for sure. For most of the world, Ward at #4 shook things up.

 

Quote

I'm going off of what the trade details were, and what Ballard admitted after the draft, you are simply guessing off of what aren't complete absolutes.

 

That's backward. You've created an alternate reality based on your own assumptions -- primarily, that Ballard would not have drafted Leonard if he hadn't drafted Nelson -- and you're presenting it as if it's established fact. It's not.

 

Quote

The fact is Ballard's scenario was much more beneficial as you said, and Ballard would be on the hot seat right now if he didn't do the trade, drafted Chubb, Chubb had a bad rookie year, and Luck kept getting sacked like crazy last year. 

 

What if Ballard had drafted Chubb, and Chubb had a good rookie season, just like what happened in real life? And what if -- and stick with me, because I know this is a radical concept -- what if Ballard had passed on Nelson and still improved the OL in other ways?! :: gasp :: 

 

It's not either/or. Let's stop pretending it is. The OL improvement isn't only about Nelson, and drafting Nelson wasn't the only way to improve the OL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

 

What if Ballard had drafted Chubb, and Chubb had a good rookie season, just like what happened in real life? And what if -- and stick with me, because I know this is a radical concept -- what if Ballard had passed on Nelson and still improved the OL in other ways?! :: gasp :: 

 

It's not either/or. Let's stop pretending it is. The OL improvement isn't only about Nelson, and drafting Nelson wasn't the only way to improve the OL.

 

First, we would have missed out on the 3 extra 2nd round picks we got. 

 

Second, without as good a guard as Nelson, it is safe to assume Luck would have taken more hit.   Also safe to assume the running game would not be as good. 

 

You can also supplement the pass rush in other ways too.   Ballard did pretty decent with Autry and his 9 sacks.   Hunt did well too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I never said that. On the contrary, you're saying if he didn't take Nelson, he absolutely would have passed on Leonard to take Smith, and there's no chance he could have drafted Leonard later on. And that's a stretch.

 

 

We can only judge on pre-draft projections and post-draft reaction, but Ballard did appear to have Leonard a full round higher than consensus. And I'm fine with that; it's his board, and he worked it well.

 

 

Link? It's not unreasonable; he knows Dorsey well, but I don't remember that. And even if he did say that, he couldn't have known for sure. For most of the world, Ward at #4 shook things up.

 

 

That's backward. You've created an alternate reality based on your own assumptions -- primarily, that Ballard would not have drafted Leonard if he hadn't drafted Nelson -- and you're presenting it as if it's established fact. It's not.

 

 

What if Ballard had drafted Chubb, and Chubb had a good rookie season, just like what happened in real life? And what if -- and stick with me, because I know this is a radical concept -- what if Ballard had passed on Nelson and still improved the OL in other ways?! :: gasp :: 

 

It's not either/or. Let's stop pretending it is. The OL improvement isn't only about Nelson, and drafting Nelson wasn't the only way to improve the OL.

 

I'll give you another reason for drafting Smith over Leonard. Ballard said that Braden Smith was the last starting G on his board. He already missed on Norwell. In the Chubb situation, he would of missed on Nelson as well. He would of drafted his last starting G in the draft in the alternate universe, just like he did in the real one. 

 

Lets say your scenario happens where we take Chubb at #3, then take Leonard over Smith with the 2nd rounder. Our defense would be incredible, but our offense wouldn't have Norwell, Nelson, or Smith. Mewhort would of still retired, Slauson would of retired, Constanzo would be hurt in the first month, and there would be no Nelson or Smith to fill in. Luck would be a sitting duck all year, and Ballard would of been forced to take a G he deems as non-starter worthy. Then Kelly would be hurt later, it would be a mess and Luck would probably be injured again.

 

I'm not sure how to find a link to a presser. It's what he thought though, and probably a big reason for the trade. Shouldn't be hard to find, someone here should be able to dig it up, I mentioned it because I was sure you were aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head hurts.  Usually we drive ourselves crazy speculating before the draft.  Now we’re driving ourselves crazy speculating post draft even after the results indicate a freakishly incredible haul.  I’ll say Ballard hit a 500 foot dinger and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building an oline isn't sexy, but once it is built....different story.  I'd take our oline right now along with our mediocre pass rushers over a team with a mediocre oline and great pass rushers.  

 

We may be seeing this play out Saturday actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Myles said:

First, we would have missed out on the 3 extra 2nd round picks we got. 

 

Second, without as good a guard as Nelson, it is safe to assume Luck would have taken more hit.   Also safe to assume the running game would not be as good. 

 

You can also supplement the pass rush in other ways too.   Ballard did pretty decent with Autry and his 9 sacks.   Hunt did well too.  

 

To the bolded, again, a great benefit in playing it the way Ballard did, which I'm fine with. You're working hard to sell me on a decision that I'm already fully bought in on.

 

Second, those are major assumptions that hinge on what I think is an overestimation of Nelson's impact. His impact has been dramatic, and yet I still think people are overstating it, especially relative to reasonable alternatives.

 

The pass rush is still middling, and sorely lacks a dynamic rusher. Let's not act like we don't need to improve the pass rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cbear said:

Building an oline isn't sexy, but once it is built....different story.  I'd take our oline right now along with our mediocre pass rushers over a team with a mediocre oline and great pass rushers.  

 

We may be seeing this play out Saturday actually. 

I find our O-line play very sexy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

:wall:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

Ok, this is where you are dead wrong.

 

Jadaveon Clowney didnt have as big of an impact on the game sunday as big Q, despite being a #1 pick and as talented of a defensive end as youll find. So how he is his position more important?

 

And the importance of pass rush to a teams overall success only elevates the importance of a player like Nelson.

 

I understand the argument that defensive end is a harder position to fill with a good player in free agency. But that doesnt make it more important than a dominant offensive lineman.

 

Q is a very rare talent. I havent seen a guy like this since Larry Allen. That means he is a generational talent. 

 

Guys like Clowney are all over the place. In the last few years alone we have seen Mack, Clowney, Garrett, Chubb, etc

 

You can spin it any way you want. But without THIS line, we arent where we are at or nearly as dangerous. They are a threat because they are great, not because they are sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

Second, those are major assumptions that hinge on what I think is an overestimation of Nelson's impact. His impact has been dramatic, and yet I still think people are overstating it, especially relative to reasonable alternatives.

 

The pass rush is still middling, and sorely lacks a dynamic rusher. Let's not act like we don't need to improve the pass rush.

You feel it is a major assumption that Luck took less sacks because of Nelson?   Have you watched the games?   Nelson also has been down field blocking on run plays like I've rarely ever seen a guard do.   I don't get your thinking.

 

Autry and Hunt combined for more sacks than Chubb.   I want to get a stud pass rusher, but I wanted to protect Luck and open hole for the RB's more.   Luck was and should have been #1 priority.   We could have improved the line with a lesser than Nelson talent, but it wouldn't be nearly where we are right now.    We wouldn't have either Smith or Leonard as well.   I do believe that to be true.   Also wouldn't have the extra pick (#35) this draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure how anyone could have a problem with where the Colts O-Linemen were drafted. Especially after the ELITE level they have performed at this year.

 

Everyone was absolutely screaming to fix the O-Line and somehow forgets watching Luck take brutal beatings, along with Brissett last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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

As did I , knew he would be an anchor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

He would of drafted his last starting G in the draft in the alternate universe, just like he did in the real one. 

 

It's your alternate universe, I guess only you can say exactly what would have happened.

 

Quote

Lets say your scenario happens where we take Chubb at #3, then take Leonard over Smith with the 2nd rounder. Our defense would be incredible, but our offense wouldn't have Norwell, Nelson, or Smith. Mewhort would of still retired, Slauson would of retired, Constanzo would be hurt in the first month, and there would be no Nelson or Smith to fill in. Luck would be a sitting duck all year, and Ballard would of been forced to take a G he deems as non-starter worthy. Then Kelly would be hurt later, it would be a mess and Luck would probably be injured again.

 

You get to dictate the terms of your imaginary scenario; I'll state the terms of mine.

 

I believe Ballard's decision to forgo a rock solid veteran guard in free agency was based on his projection that he'd be drafting Nelson. We were less than a week into free agency when he made the trade.

 

So a reasonable projection would be that we sign Norwell and another veteran OL, draft a different guard/tackle (Smith is not the world-beater that Nelson is, so let's not pump him up to be an irreplaceable piece of the new OL), and still improve the OL significantly. Combine that with the new offense, better play calling, and more decisive play from Luck, and no, Luck wouldn't be a sitting duck, the line wouldn't be a mess, and Luck wouldn't be injured again.

 

***

 

I would like to point out -- again -- I'm not arguing that Ballard did the wrong thing. I'm very happy with the way things played out, and there's no one who would argue that I'd make a better GM than Ballard. 

 

My whole reason for engaging in this thread is because my thinking on positional value was being misrepresented on the basis of 'Nelson is great, that means there's nothing wrong with taking a guard at #6,' and I couldn't take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

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.

Sure.  I'm not saying that each and every pick should have been something else.  I'm saying six straight years of not successfully choosing a premium position with first round picks, especially when they are top 18, adds up.  In the context of how that impacts the Nelson pick specifically, there is strong evidence that we could have traded down and gotten three picks in the top 60, instead of just the one pick we had by standing pat, so those 3 top 60 picks would help make up for the time lost (primarily) by Grigson. 

 

Its hard to say that we should have done something else when Kelly, Hooker, and Nelson are good players, but picking them should not be considered a slam dunk without question considering the hole we have to dig out of.

 

And I don't get the sense that others are saying we should have picked Kelly or Hooker based upon who was on the board at the time, so I shouldn't be held to that standard either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jay Kirk said:

As did I , knew he would be an anchor.

 

Jay Kirk in the house!!! What's up boss!? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's your alternate universe, I guess only you can say exactly what would have happened.

 

 

You get to dictate the terms of your imaginary scenario; I'll state the terms of mine.

 

I believe Ballard's decision to forgo a rock solid veteran guard in free agency was based on his projection that he'd be drafting Nelson. We were less than a week into free agency when he made the trade.

 

So a reasonable projection would be that we sign Norwell and another veteran OL, draft a different guard/tackle (Smith is not the world-beater that Nelson is, so let's not pump him up to be an irreplaceable piece of the new OL), and still improve the OL significantly. Combine that with the new offense, better play calling, and more decisive play from Luck, and no, Luck wouldn't be a sitting duck, the line wouldn't be a mess, and Luck wouldn't be injured again.

 

***

 

I would like to point out -- again -- I'm not arguing that Ballard did the wrong thing. I'm very happy with the way things played out, and there's no one who would argue that I'd make a better GM than Ballard. 

 

My whole reason for engaging in this thread is because my thinking on positional value was being misrepresented on the basis of 'Nelson is great, that means there's nothing wrong with taking a guard at #6,' and I couldn't take it.

But Norwell turned out to be a bad investment for Jacksonville, at least so far. So isnt it fair to doubt whether or not that would have been an improvement?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Myles said:

You feel it is a major assumption that Luck took less sacks because of Nelson?   Have you watched the games?   Nelson also has been down field blocking on run plays like I've rarely ever seen a guard do.   I don't get your thinking.

 

Goodness... 

 

Nelson allowed one sack, and he's a great guard. Last year, Vuj allowed five, and he's a terrible guard. Put an average guard there, and split the difference.

 

And I'm arguing that we could have added a good guard, not an average guard. Combine that with the better offense and play calling, maybe he gives two sacks? So no, it's not really a fact that a B level guard would have resulted in Luck getting hit more.

 

Same principle in the run game, although Nelson's major strength is in run blocking. I think he's had a far greater impact as a run blocker than a pass protector, but his pass pro is being stressed in this argument because 'we had to save Luck!' 

 

Quote

Autry and Hunt combined for more sacks than Chubb.  

 

So what? Who said get rid of Autry and Hunt? Why is everything either/or in this discussion?

 

In 2013, Mathis had 19 sacks. He was hurt in 2014, but the Colts had more sacks as a whole. Does that mean he wouldn't have improved the pass rush?

 

Quote

I want to get a stud pass rusher, but I wanted to protect Luck and open hole for the RB's more.   Luck was and should have been #1 priority.   We could have improved the line with a lesser than Nelson talent, but it wouldn't be nearly where we are right now.    We wouldn't have either Smith or Leonard as well.   I do believe that to be true.   Also wouldn't have the extra pick (#35) this draft.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, except the bolded, which I think is a stretch. There's nothing wrong with what Ballard did. I just don't think taking Nelson at #6 represented maximum value, and that's okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myles said:

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.

I'm not making any assertions.  You were the one implying that Nelson is responsible for the improved offense.  There are a lot of things that have improved the offense.  If you want to say that he improved the Oline, yes, he did that by being a better LG component than Vujnovich.  But you really can't single him out as the player who helped improve the play of other positions more than the players who actually play those positions.

 

It sounds like you were saying that our oline play, including RT, improved because we drafted Nelson to play LG, when I would say the reason RT play improved is because Smith has replace Clark et al.  And RG improved because Glow replaced whomever.  And C play improved because Kelly is healthy.  And AC is AC. 

 

So the improvement in the oline....and the offense....has been because of many more things than drafting Nelson.

 

And as Superman said, the #1 reason is because of coaching and scheme update and of course Luck's health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sure.  I'm not saying that each and every pick should have been something else.  I'm saying six straight years of not successfully choosing a premium position with first round picks, especially when they are top 18, adds up.  In the context of how that impacts the Nelson pick specifically, there is strong evidence that we could have traded down and gotten three picks in the top 60, instead of just the one pick we had by standing pat, so those 3 top 60 picks would help make up for the time lost (primarily) by Grigson. 

 

Its hard to say that we should have done something else when Kelly, Hooker, and Nelson are good players, but picking them should not be considered a slam dunk without question considering the hole we have to dig out of.

 

And I don't get the sense that others are saying we should have picked Kelly or Hooker based upon who was on the board at the time, so I shouldn't be held to that standard either.

The point is we didnt skip out on premium positions when we picked hooker or kelly or nelson. none were available unless you wanted to reach and people complain about that more than anything. Sure we did with grigson but that's cause he is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

But Norwell turned out to be a bad investment for Jacksonville, at least so far. So isnt it fair to doubt whether or not that would have been an improvement?

 

There's a discussion to be had there, but I don't know how we're determining that Norwell has been a bad investment. Maybe he will turn out to be a bad investment, but again, that's judging with the benefit of hindsight, totally results oriented.

 

In March, Norwell was an All Pro, just like Nelson is now.

 

There are also questions about why Norwell struggled with Jacksonville. Their entire team struggled, their coaching is questionable, they have a questionable RB and a bad QB, and then Norwell seemed to be nicked up since before the season started.

 

So maybe let's not write him off after one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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 apologize for misspelling his name, that's just blasphemous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm not making any assertions.  You were the one implying that Nelson is responsible for the improved offense.  There are a lot of things that have improved the offense.  If you want to say that he improved the Oline, yes, he did that by being a better LG component than Vujnovich.  But you really can't single him out as the player who helped improve the play of other positions more than the players who actually play those positions.

 

It sounds like you were saying that our oline play, including RT, improved because we drafted Nelson to play LG, when I would say the reason RT play improved is because Smith has replace Clark et al.  And RG improved because Glow replaced whomever.  And C play improved because Kelly is healthy.  And AC is AC. 

 

So the improvement in the oline....and the offense....has been because of many more things than drafting Nelson.

 

And as Superman said, the #1 reason is because of coaching and scheme update.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.    No one thinks Nelson is the only reason for the improved O-line play.   But most of us think he is a major part of it.   Both in his play and his infectious attitude on the line.  This is supported by being voted to the All Pro team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Superman said:

We wouldn't have either Smith or Leonard as well.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, except the bolded, which I think is a stretch. There's nothing wrong with what Ballard did. I just don't think taking Nelson at #6 represented maximum value, and that's okay.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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 disagree.  It wasn't a one for one trade, we also got our starting right tackle in Braden Smith AND a high 2nd round pick next year.  I'd rather have a great LG, great RT, and a high second round pick instead of just a great pash rusher.  Protecting our number ONE asset is high on the priority list in my back, then getting after the passer is next IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Which seems to be the primary reason so many Colts fans think it was either pick Nelson or have a bad OL. But that's not a true choice.

right.  if the colts traded down even further and took will hernandez, i think there may have been even greater value than just the one trade down and getting nelson.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I am very pleased with nelson now but the pick value is the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

I disagree.  It wasn't a one for one trade, we also got our starting right tackle in Braden Smith AND a high 2nd round pick next year.  I'd rather have a great LG, great RT, and a high second round pick instead of just a great pash rusher.  Protecting our number ONE asset is high on the priority list in my back, then getting after the passer is next IMHO.

 

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.

 

4 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

I am very pleased with nelson now but the pick value is the argument.

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

The point is we didnt skip out on premium positions when we picked hooker or kelly or nelson. none were available unless you wanted to reach and people complain about that more than anything. Sure we did with grigson but that's cause he is stupid.

I'm not criticizing the picks for what they were.  They may have been the only options at the time.  Nobody knows what was offered to Grigson or Ballard at the time. 

 

Many have said or are saying that they were good picks simply because Kelly, Hooker, and Nelson, are good/great players, when there is more to it than that.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

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.

with all 5 infinity stones you can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...