Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

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

TomDiggs

Colts extend RG Mark Glowinski [Merge]

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

No. Posters are just not reading past my first comment and not seeing the other 100 comments ive made

 

You mean the one where you realized you said something that was wrong and then reversed position in a bunch of other posts?

Share this post


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

Yeah, if his agent properly evaluated the market and was honest with Glow, he may have advised him that he could wait until FA and then see if any one or two teams will bid higher.

 

Also, given that CB didn't overpay for the Gs last year, Glow probably figured the Colts were not going to be one of the teams getting into a bidding war during the FA period.

 

It seems to have all worked out for the best.  Unless you're a fan who thinks the right side of the OL should be upgraded this offseason.

 

I for one am fine with the right side of our line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DougDew said:

1st round talent that was still available.  No he wasn't.  He was considered a reach more than he was considered a value pick.

 

He wasn't taken in the first round so I'm not sure why that standard is being used.

 

And I thought Leonard was a reach at #36, and so did many others. That all seems silly at this point.

 

I don't know what the Colts board looked like, and maybe they did reach for a perceived need when drafting Smith (which I'm not a fan of), but there are multiple variables that come into play. Just because Ballard said Smith was the last guard they had a high grade on doesn't mean he wasn't the highest graded player remaining on their board. 

Share this post


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

 

You mean the one where you realized you said something that was wrong and then reversed position in a bunch of other posts?

 

I didn't reverse what I said. I kept my same stance. If you're citing with "if a top line prospect falls" line, thats not reversing what I said in the beginning. Am I open to the idea, sure, but do I want a olinemen in for three rounds? No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I didn't reverse what I said. I kept my same stance. If you're citing with "if a top line prospect falls" line, thats not reversing what I said in the beginning. Am I open to the idea, sure, but do I want a olinemen in for three rounds? No

 

Who determines if said tackle that may fall is "top line?"  

 

Share this post


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

 

Who determines if said tackle that may fall is "top line?"  

 

 

The so called "draft analysts" that never get it right. A more serious answer, it depends on team boards. Every team values players differently. If Ballard wants a T in the first three rounds, who am I to say anything. Its just my opinion that we have other pressing needs. 

Share this post


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

 

Yeah if the circumstances push Glowinski to the bench, so be it. But they didn't sign him at $6m/year to be a backup.

 

Here's something I just found in a Mike Wells piece. I know O Line stats can be funky but here ya go....

 

Glowinski had the highest pass-block win rate (90 percent) among guards with at least 250 pass blocks this season, according to NFL Next Gen Stats. The NFL average for guards is 78 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Here's something I just found in a Mike Wells piece. I know O Line stats can be funky but here ya go....

 

Glowinski had the highest pass-block win rate (90 percent) among guards with at least 250 pass blocks this season, according to NFL Next Gen Stats. The NFL average for guards is 78 percent.

 

Wow, makes me feel even better about this deal. Great stat.

Share this post


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

His play has nothing to do with what the thinking was at the time.  

 

At the time, he was the "last available starting caliber G (not RT)".   CB didn't say that Smith was BPA, or one of the BPA's, on their board. 

 

And my use of the word reach in the first place (that I mitigated later in the post) was to context the statement that Smith was (considered by Ballard) a 1st round talent that was still available.  No he wasn't.  He was considered a reach more than he was considered a value pick.

You have zero way of proving that one way or the other. 

Share this post


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

 

He wasn't taken in the first round so I'm not sure why that standard is being used.

 

And I thought Leonard was a reach at #36, and so did many others. That all seems silly at this point.

 

I don't know what the Colts board looked like, and maybe they did reach for a perceived need when drafting Smith (which I'm not a fan of), but there are multiple variables that come into play. Just because Ballard said Smith was the last guard they had a high grade on doesn't mean he wasn't the highest graded player remaining on their board. 

Personally, I don't think Smith was a reach.  If you think he was a stating caliber G and you want a starting caliber G but you know he won't be there at 49 (because of the preceding run on Gs), then grabbing him when you can make sense.

 

There is some back and forth about my using of the term "reach".  Again, it was used to illustrate the comment that Smith was a 1st round talent that fell.  Although he could have been valued precisely at 37, it more likely Smith was valued at 40 to 49, which was much more likely than being valued above 32, or else Ballard's comments would have been different, IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvan1973 said:

You have zero way of proving that one way or the other. 

?  

 

I'm opining upon what the situation appears to be based upon Ballard's own comments.  Others could have different opinions.  Golly, I can't type IMO, and JMO after every sentence. 

Share this post


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

Although he could have been valued precisely at 37, it more likely Smith was valued at 40 to 49, which was much more likely than being valued above 32, or else Ballard's comments would have been different, IMO.  

 

I think there are a lot of assumptions here, based on your interpretation of Ballard's comments, and flavored by your philosophy on the draft. I'm saying I think that Ballard's comments suggest that a) the Colts had Smith rated highly, and b) they didn't think he'd last until their next pick. Whether he was rated in the 30s or 40s on their board, or whether Ballard saying he was their last starting caliber guard meant that he targeted that position or not, we can't really say. I think you're taking a little bit of a liberty with his comments.

 

Quote

If you think he was a stating caliber G and you want a starting caliber G but you know he won't be there at 49 (because of the preceding run on Gs), then grabbing him when you can make sense.

 

For me, too many variables to be able to say this. If there are players you have rated ahead of Smith still on the board, I don't agree with taking Smith just because he's the highest rated player at a position you really want to address. That's the epitome of 'reaching for need,' and it implies that you're passing on better players to take a player not as good at a position of need, which I think is bad drafting.

 

So my opinion is flavored by my philosophy, and my hope that Ballard isn't drafting in a way that I think leads to sacrificing the overall talent quality on the roster. End of the day, he got a good player at #37, whether he was rated in the 30s or the 40s on Ballard's board, so I'm not complaining.

Share this post


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

 

I think there are a lot of assumptions here, based on your interpretation of Ballard's comments, and flavored by your philosophy on the draft. I'm saying I think that Ballard's comments suggest that a) the Colts had Smith rated highly, and b) they didn't think he'd last until their next pick. Whether he was rated in the 30s or 40s on their board, or whether Ballard saying he was their last starting caliber guard meant that he targeted that position or not, we can't really say. I think you're taking a little bit of a liberty with his comments.

 

 

For me, too many variables to be able to say this. If there are players you have rated ahead of Smith still on the board, I don't agree with taking Smith just because he's the highest rated player at a position you really want to address. That's the epitome of 'reaching for need,' and it implies that you're passing on better players to take a player not as good at a position of need, which I think is bad drafting.

 

So my opinion is flavored by my philosophy, and my hope that Ballard isn't drafting in a way that I think leads to sacrificing the overall talent quality on the roster. End of the day, he got a good player at #37, whether he was rated in the 30s or the 40s on Ballard's board, so I'm not complaining.

Again, my entire use of the term "reach" was to context the preceding statement that Smith was a 1st round talent, as perceived by Ballard.  I think its pretty clear that when Ballard talked about Smith being the last available starting G, Smith's position and our need played a big part in him being drafted 37.  He made no indication Smith was BPA or in a bucket of BPAs.  Anything could be a reason, but just going by his words, I'm not going to speculate that BPA was the big reason for drafting Smith at 37.  

 

And I'm not complaining either.  I would describe it as reaching for need, and I'm glad he did because Smith would likely not have been there at 49. 

 

As I said in another thread, if we are measuring reach by how well Ballard followed his own board, any discussion of reach is impossible, and any use of the word inappropriate.  (or saying he was a first round talent for that matter) We can only discuss reach in terms of our feeble perspective, which is to typically rank players numerically from 1 to 500, generally regardless of position, then compare that ranking to what the GM did.  Maybe we should have never used the term reach when talking about any pick by any NFL GM.  

Share this post


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

I think its pretty clear that when Ballard talked about Smith being the last available starting G, Smith's position and our need played a big part in him being drafted 37.  He made no indication Smith was BPA or in a bucket of BPAs.  Anything could be a reason, but just going by his words, I'm not going to speculate that BPA was the big reason for drafting Smith at 37.  

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/Bolt/Indianapolis-Colts-GM-Chris-Ballard-clarifies-best-player-available-stance-52377130/

 

Quote

 

"As long as the talent is close -- we're not talking a guy we think on our board is a top 10 pick and then all of a sudden we're taking somebody that's 40th," Ballard said. "That's the spread. Five to 10 slots, I don't see enough spread there unless there's just a huge separation in the talent to say you don't take the need."

 

...

 

"If it's even, we'll go with the need," Ballard said."

 

 

If you piece all his comments together, it becomes kind of obvious how they approached the Smith selection. He's discussed his philosophy, which is if he thinks there's a separation in the talent, he'll take the more talented player.

 

My interpretation: he won't reach past a more talented player to take a player at a position of perceived need.

 

You hear him say that Smith was the last starting caliber guard on their board, and you interpret that as meaning that he "reached" for Smith because it was a position of need and there was a run on players selected at that position. Which, to me, means he passed on more talented players because he wanted to make sure he got a player at a position of need.

 

And maybe that's what happened, but I don't think that's what Ballard was saying when he explained the Smith pick.

 

I'm inferring from his comments that they viewed guard as a position of need (no surprise there), and that they viewed Smith as, at least one of the 5-10 best players left on the board. I also infer that if they did view other available players as more talented, they didn't think the separation in talent was significant.

 

Quote

As I said in another thread, if we are measuring reach by how well Ballard followed his own board, any discussion of reach is impossible, and any use of the word inappropriate.  (or saying he was a first round talent for that matter) We can only discuss reach in terms of our feeble perspective, which is to typically rank players numerically from 1 to 500, generally regardless of position, then compare that ranking to what the GM did.  Maybe we should have never used the term reach when talking about any pick by any NFL GM.  

 

I agree. I talk about "perceived" need because what everyone else thinks is a need might not be a need in the eyes of the staff. Same thing with a perceived reach; I thought Leonard was a reach, but the Colts obviously didn't. I hope people understand that when I talk about needs and reaches and BPA (which is a term I avoid because I think it's a misnomer and oversimplification), I'm talking about my perspective, which is entirely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Share this post


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

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/Bolt/Indianapolis-Colts-GM-Chris-Ballard-clarifies-best-player-available-stance-52377130/

 

 

If you piece all his comments together, it becomes kind of obvious how they approached the Smith selection. He's discussed his philosophy, which is if he thinks there's a separation in the talent, he'll take the more talented player.

 

My interpretation: he won't reach past a more talented player to take a player at a position of perceived need.

 

You hear him say that Smith was the last starting caliber guard on their board, and you interpret that as meaning that he "reached" for Smith because it was a position of need and there was a run on players selected at that position. Which, to me, means he passed on more talented players because he wanted to make sure he got a player at a position of need.

 

And maybe that's what happened, but I don't think that's what Ballard was saying when he explained the Smith pick.

 

I'm inferring from his comments that they viewed guard as a position of need (no surprise there), and that they viewed Smith as, at least one of the 5-10 best players left on the board. I also infer that if they did view other available players as more talented, they didn't think the separation in talent was significant.

 

 

I agree. I talk about "perceived" need because what everyone else thinks is a need might not be a need in the eyes of the staff. Same thing with a perceived reach; I thought Leonard was a reach, but the Colts obviously didn't. I hope people understand that when I talk about needs and reaches and BPA (which is a term I avoid because I think it's a misnomer and oversimplification), I'm talking about my perspective, which is entirely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I agree.  I don't think I would call selecting one player 10 slots above what he was listed from a purely player ranking list would be considered a reach.  I think it could be a sign of a well thought out approach.

 

Maybe me using the word reach was the hangup.  In response to the notion that Smith was a first round talent on Ballard's board, I would say this (Assuming we talk about listing players in a straight line from best to worse): Based upon CBs own comments, I think it was more likely he was thinking he was getting the 48th best overall player at pick 37 rather than the 32nd best player at pick 37. 

 

Yeah, I'll pat myself on the back because I had Leonard mocked to us at either 36 or 37.  But that's probably because I was on the Roquan Smith train.  At #6, I thought we were in no mans land for getting Smith, so I looked hard at the next best rangy ILB options and Leonard stuck out despite being from a small school.  Others who were looking at Nelson, Oline, Barkley, or an Edge player may never have taken the next step and would have gotten there too if they had.

Share this post


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

Based upon CBs own comments, I think it was more likely he was thinking he was getting the 48th best overall player at pick 37 rather than the 32nd best player at pick 37. 

 

That's the part that I think is a stretch and don't agree with, but you've explained your thinking on it.

Share this post


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

 

That's the part that I think is a stretch and don't agree with, but you've explained your thinking on it.

 

You ever hear of "ignorance is bliss ?" It's really can be true. I don't watch a ton of college football or try to break down film on players entering the draft. I do love the draft and read a lot of material but I'm smart enough to realize because Joe Drafteroo says Leonard should go middle of the 3rd and the Colts reached to know Joe might not know more than a dog turd on what teams draft boards look like. Phew... that's a long sentence. So knowing less than you and some others on the board makes me "digest " picks like Leonard and Smith better than you might ?

 

That said Ballard did an incredible job with the 2018 draft and to be honest I loved every pick. As I say ignorance is bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So happy when I saw Glowinski was coming back for three more years at $6 million a year. Definitely a great re-sign by Ballard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

You ever hear of "ignorance is bliss ?" It's really can be true. I don't watch a ton of college football or try to break down film on players entering the draft. I do love the draft and read a lot of material but I'm smart enough to realize because Joe Drafteroo says Leonard should go middle of the 3rd and the Colts reached to know Joe might not know more than a dog turd on what teams draft boards look like. Phew... that's a long sentence. So knowing less than you and some others on the board makes me "digest " picks like Leonard and Smith better than you might ?

 

That said Ballard did an incredible job with the 2018 draft and to be honest I loved every pick. As I say ignorance is bliss.

 

Well you're right, I didn't get very attached to anything related to the draft way back when I didn't pay as much attention to the pre-draft process. 

 

But I personally don't have a lot of trouble digesting picks even when I'm not the biggest fan of the pick or the strategy. Usually by the time the draft is over, I'm fully on board. Biggest reason is because my opinion doesn't change anything, and of course, I support the Colts and the players they add. 

 

So I called Leonard a reach, based on general consensus around the Internet from the "Joe Drafteroos" as you so lovingly call them. But I didn't have an issue with the player. End of the day, Leonard might be the best Colts draft pick since Robert Mathis. I also acknowledged at the time that Ballard had a much better idea about Leonard's standing around the league than I did, so me thinking it was a reach doesn't mean it actually was.

 

I love the draft also, and one of the things the pre-draft stuff provides is MORE FOOTBALL! And it's the new hope for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...