Wentz and Paye

[Nickster]

Just now, DougDew said:

Or looking at it this way, Paye is the pick that could have gone to help Wentz via Darrisaw.

 

I'll keep mentioning that whenever Wentz gets criticized for getting sacked, and I'll equate Ballard to Grigson not addressing the oline properly.

 

The blame game can always go in multiple directions.

Perosnally, I don't think we need a top 10 type LT.  Top 20 type shold do IMO.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Perosnally, I don't think we need a top 10 type LT.  Top 20 type shold do IMO.

It seems to me that in order to not drop off performance, the ranking of the next LT has to be at least equal to the ranking of AC, whatever that was.

 

IIRC, our entire oline looked bad when AC was out, or was playing poorly.  So whatever ranking we need would have to be similar to an AC playing often and well.  JMO.

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It seems to me that in order to not drop off performance, the ranking of the next LT has to be at least equal to the ranking of AC, whatever that was.

 

IIRC, our entire oline looked bad when AC was out, or was playing poorly.  So whatever ranking we need would have to be similar to an AC playing often and well.  JMO.

They played pretty well with Jared Veldheer at LT

[Nickster]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It seems to me that in order to not drop off performance, the ranking of the next LT has to be at least equal to the ranking of AC, whatever that was.

 

IIRC, our entire oline looked bad when AC was out, or was playing poorly.  So whatever ranking we need would have to be similar to an AC playing often and well.  JMO.

 

AC was a poor run blocker and good pass protector last year.  I'd say he would rank somewhere a little lower than 10 last year but don't really know.

 

Our line looked bad when we had incompetents in.  They looked fine with Voldheer off his couch. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

AC was a poor run blocker and good pass protector last year.  I'd say he would rank somewhere a little lower than 10 last year but don't really know.

 

Our line looked bad when we had incompetents in.  They looked fine with Voldheer off his couch. 

Yeah,  Veldheer may have been able to put it together for a few games, but I wonder what his game would have looked like over 17 weeks.  And maybe the protection was adjusted. 

 

I'd like to see our LT at least be a better player than our RT.  That should always be the ranking, IMO.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yeah,  Veldheer may have been able to put it together for a few games, but I wonder what his game would have looked like over 17 weeks.  And maybe the protection was adjusted. 

 

I'd like to see our LT at least be a better player than our RT.  That should always be the ranking, IMO.

 

I'm not sure about this, but I'm also not sure what you mean by it either.  I mean lets say you have an all PRO RT and a pretty good LT.  I don't think that is a problem.  I don't think you'd trade the RT because the LT wasn't "a better player" than him would you?  

 

With All Pro types at three positions, IMO it is OK to slide protections to help a lesser LT.  I do see what you are saying about 17 games for Voldheer, but we had a lot of games missed by AC, so you know.  Yeah.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I'm not sure about this, but I'm also not sure what you mean by it either.  I mean lets say you have an all PRO RT and a pretty good LT.  I don't think that is a problem.  I don't think you'd trade the RT because the LT wasn't "a better player" than him would you?  

 

With All Pro types at three positions, IMO it is OK to slide protections to help a lesser LT.  I do see what you are saying about 17 games for Voldheer, but we had a lot of games missed by AC, so you know.  Yeah.

Yeah.  It goes back to picking a LG at #6.  It screws up your ability to have positional value align like it should.  I know the overall quality of the oline is very good, but when you have Nelson, Smith, and Kelly, does that mean you want your LT to be your 4th best olineman?

 

I think that's screwy, and it makes things more difficult.   

 

It looks like that's where we're heading

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yeah.  It goes back to picking a LG at #6.  It screws up your ability to have positional value align like it should.  I know the overall quality of the oline is very good, but when you have Nelson, Smith, and Kelly, does that mean your LT is going to be your 4th best olineman?

 

I think that's screwy, and it makes things more difficult.   

Maybe man.  But look, I get what you are saying, but it's impossible to escape the NE model.  They had Matt Light who was really good for a few years, but other than that, their line didn't have a great even PB type of LT.  They had other linemen who were better.  Teams don't need a great outstanding LT or any other linemen for that matter.  They just need a competent to good unit.  Linemen are interdependent to a mind boggling degree in the League.  

 

I think people over react to the line because the one Grigson put together was so bad up the middle.  But look Saturday was a better player than Glenn.  Glenn was good but probably not great.  

[hoosierhawk]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah.  It goes back to picking a LG at #6.  It screws up your ability to have positional value align like it should.  I know the overall quality of the oline is very good, but when you have Nelson, Smith, and Kelly, does that mean you want your LT to be your 4th best olineman?

 

I think that's screwy, and it makes things more difficult.   

Are you saying Ballard made a big mistake in drafting Nelson? Most rediculous thing I've heard in a long time.

Are you suggesting we get rid of him and get a lesser LG so we can find a better LT. Also, in this day and age the LDE is as good and sometimes better than the RDE. Both tackles need to be decent.

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Maybe man.  But look, I get what you are saying, but it's impossible to escape the NE model.  They had Matt Light who was really good for a few years, but other than that, their line didn't have a great even PB type of LT.  They had other linemen who were better.  Teams don't need a great outstanding LT or any other linemen for that matter.  They just need a competent to good unit.  Linemen are interdependent to a mind boggling degree in the League.  

 

I think people over react to the line because the one Grigson put together was so bad up the middle.  But look Saturday was a better player than Glenn.  Glenn was good but probably not great.  

I think in the rotating dynamic of contract expirations and resignings, I think it would be impossible to pay 4 elite lineman.  I think Kelly and Smith have to be the odd men out in about 4 years.  I wish we could think about resigning our elite LT then.

 

Maybe we get lucky and we find him around pick 54.

[Colts1324]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

Wentz is much more make or break than Paye. But Paye now is tied to that...because he’s the pick they made that could have been Fields. 

They could not have gotten Fields??

 

They would have had to trade both Paye, next year's first, plus a 4th, and 5th. Probably more as we would have been in a bidding war with Chicago. 
 

I'm an OSU fan, so I wouldn't of been mad. But, it would of been a setback for a year or two with all of our talent on the roster. However, Fields is going to make a lot of teams regret they passed on him. 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Are you saying Ballard made a big mistake in drafting Nelson? Most rediculous thing I've heard in a long time.

Are you suggesting we get rid of him and get a lesser LG so we can find a better LT. Also, in this day and age the LDE is as good and sometimes better than the RDE. Both tackles need to be decent.

You're going off on tangents.  I'm saying I think having the LT be our 4th best lineman makes things more difficult.   

 

The LT pretty much operates on and island when he kicks to the outside on pass plays.  The LG has little to do with helping him in those situations and is usually teaming up with the center protecting the interior.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Or looking at it this way, Paye is the pick that could have gone to help Wentz via Darrisaw.

 

I'll keep mentioning that whenever Wentz gets criticized for getting sacked, and I'll equate Ballard to Grigson in not addressing the oline properly.

 

The blame game can always go in multiple directions.

We will see what they do today. Might still get a good OT. 

[hoosierhawk]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

You're going off on tangents.  I'm saying I think having the LT be our 4th best lineman makes things more difficult.   

 

The LT pretty much operates on and island when he kicks to the outside on pass plays.  The LG has little to do with helping him in those situations and is usually teaming up with the center protecting the interior.

Yeah.  It goes back to picking a LG at #6.  It screws up your ability to have positional value align like it should. 

 

Your words exactly. What tangents am I going on?

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You're going off on tangents.  I'm saying I think having the LT be our 4th best lineman makes things more difficult.   

 

The LT pretty much operates on and island when he kicks to the outside on pass plays.  The LG has little to do with helping him in those situations and is usually teaming up with the center protecting the interior.

 

There are lots of things you can do with the LG, TE, cracking Big Bully Slot, and RB to help the LT, you can use quick release.   Now each of these things  limit what that particular player can do, but the LT doesn't have to be on an island and most teams without all pro types at least chip on longer drops.  you can draw and screen underneath him too

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You're going off on tangents.  I'm saying I think having the LT be our 4th best lineman makes things more difficult.   

 

The LT pretty much operates on and island when he kicks to the outside on pass plays.  The LG has little to do with helping him in those situations and is usually teaming up with the center protecting the interior.

 

and that's not to say that ACs retirement doesn't suck cause it does.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, hoosierhawk said:

Yeah.  It goes back to picking a LG at #6.  It screws up your ability to have positional value align like it should. 

 

Your words exactly. What tangents am I going on?

You were wondering if I said we made a mistake by picking him, or if we should get rid of him.  What I said was that picking any LG at 6 screws up the ability to have positional value align properly.

 

The draft is like cards.  You make the best pick from the players available.  When the deck deals you a screwy hand, it makes winning that much harder.  I'm pointing out how our hand is screwy.  

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

There are lots of things you can do with the LG, TE, cracking Big Bully Slot, and RB to help the LT, you can use quick release.   Now each of these things  limit what that particular player can do, but the LT doesn't have to be on an island and most teams without all pro types at least chip on longer drops.  you can draw and screen underneath him too

Occasionally.  If you're constantly focusing on diverting resources around helping the LT one way or another, it sacrifices other things.

 

We can't get by with just a "decent" LT.  We need to have a very good one because the goal is to win the SB.

[shasta519]

5 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

They could not have gotten Fields??

 

They would have had to trade both Paye, next year's first, plus a 4th, and 5th. Probably more as we would have been in a bidding war with Chicago. 
 

I'm an OSU fan, so I wouldn't of been mad. But, it would of been a setback for a year or two with all of our talent on the roster. However, Fields is going to make a lot of teams regret they passed on him. 

Ballard could have gotten it done. 
 

Next year’s 1 is already gone. So really it would just be Paye they are trading to get QB taken care of...and some change...which probably wouldn’t be more than the 3 they gave for Wentz anyways.

 

So basically it’s Wentz (under contract) + Paye vs. Fields on a rookie deal. The difference in cap could have gone to a top tier FA...and I think Fields has more upside. 

 

 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Occasionally.  If you're constantly focusing on diverting resources around helping the LT one way or another, it sacrifices other things.

 

We can't get by with just a "decent" LT.  We need to have a very good one because the goal is to win the SB.

 

I'll just agree to disagree with the last statement if league average is not within your definition of very good.  But I do get your points and share the concern with lots of future salary obligations headed to players in non premium positions.

[CheezyColt]

4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Ballard could have gotten it done. 
 

Next year’s 1 is already gone. So really it would just be Paye they are trading to get QB taken care of...and some change...which probably wouldn’t be more than the 3 they gave for Wentz anyways.

 

So basically it’s Wentz (under contract) + Paye vs. Fields on a rookie deal. The difference in cap could have gone to a top tier FA...and I think Fields has more upside. 

 

 

That's also saying it would have been acceptable to have no plan in place for QB until late April while picking #21 other than "hope someone falls".  To me, that wouldn't have been acceptable.  Wentz has shown he can be an MVP level QB and a bottom dweller.  Colts are betting he gets closer to the MVP level.  Fields could blow up or could bust.  All we can do is wait, see, and cheer for our QB.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I'll just agree to disagree with the last statement if league average is not within your definition of very good.  But I do get your points and share the concern with lots of future salary obligations headed to players in non premium positions.

Ok.  I think SB winning teams typically have LTs that are better than average.  Probably LGs too but I don't think there is a need to have the number 1 LG in NFL history.  Its kind of a luxury that doesn't add that much to the goal than if he was only a top 12 LG for the season.  I want a top 12 LT.

[CoachLite]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Johnny Wadd

John "The Wadd" Holmes. Do try to keep up.

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

John "The Wadd" Holmes. Do try to keep up.

Actually Johnny Wadd was a character John Holmes played in a few movies.   The Wadd wasn't his nickname.    Keep up indeed

[Nickster]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok.  I think SB winning teams typically have LTs that are better than average.  Probably LGs too but I don't think there is a need to have the number 1 LG in NFL history.  Its kind of a luxury that doesn't add that much to the goal than if he was only a top 12 LG for the season.  I want a top 12 LT.

Do you consider Nate Solder as average or does he reach very good?  He had a couple of years above average and acouple below IMO.  Eric Fischer was almost certainly average or less during their superbowl win.  Trent brown is probably not average for 2018 Pats.  Halapoulivaati Vaitai is a bad guard who started LT when philly won.  Dude that started for last broncs team to win was not any good at all a back up. Clady the starter wasn't much better.

 

I just don't think what you are saying has been supported the last half decade or so.

 

 

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Actually Johnny Wadd was a character John Holmes played in a few movies.   The Wadd wasn't his nickname.    Keep up indeed

Show John C. some respect for the love of Pete.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Occasionally.  If you're constantly focusing on diverting resources around helping the LT one way or another, it sacrifices other things.

 

We can't get by with just a "decent" LT.  We need to have a very good one because the goal is to win the SB.

I don't think anyone thinks Donovan Smith is/has been anything other than better than average

 

Did you consider Charlie Johnson above average?   

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Do you consider Nate Solder as average or does he reach very good?  He had a couple of years above average and acouple below IMO.  Eric Fischer was almost certainly average or less during their superbowl win.  Trent brown is probably not average for 2018 Pats.  Halapoulivaati Vaitai is a bad guard who started LT when philly won.  Dude that started for last broncs team to win was not any good at all a back up. Clady the starter wasn't much better.

 

I just don't think what you are saying has been supported the last half decade or so.

 

 

They were probably better than average the one year their team went to the SB.  If you have an elite QB, it makes up for a lot. 

 

I don't know that if you have an average LT, a non elite QB, that an elite LG makes up for that.

 

Any team could catch lighting in a bottle.  You could draft the GOAT in the 6th round too.  But that's not a very smart way to plan it, IMO.

 

I want what I plan will be a top 12 LT annually.  Why would I want to settle for a top 13 to 20 at such an important position?

[luv_pony_express]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

Is that avatar you?  It looks just like long time Mater Dei (Evansville) football and wrestling coaching legend Mike Goebel when he coached at Castle HS in the mid-70s.

Incredible man and coach.  The whole Goebel family is remarkable.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

Of course the QB is more, but we can't keep failing to get production out of our EDGE picks.  I think Paye is critical.  We have lots of major, difficult to fill holes.

Agree we need this kid to be a stud. I might be in the minority here but I have near zero faith in Turay, Banogu and Lewis to become even solid contributors. Flashes are not acceptible at this point with them. Time is here for them to show or go. Cant remember who posted about Rumph II, but would be a great late get in the draft. Not a freak athlete, or huge upside guy, just a good smart football player.

[jvan1973]

55 minutes ago, DougDew said:

They were probably better than average the one year their team went to the SB.  If you have an elite QB, it makes up for a lot. 

 

I don't know that if you have an average LT, a non elite QB, that an elite LG makes up for that.

 

Any team could catch lighting in a bottle.  You could draft the GOAT in the 6th round too.  But that's not a very smart way to plan it, IMO.

 

I want what I plan will be a top 12 LT annually.  Why would I want to settle for a top 13 to 20 at such an important position?

Every team wants that.    It doesn't mean you need it.   Donovan Smith ring any bells?

[TheNextGM]

The pick that could have been Fields?

He was taken, at 11.

So you’d have Wentz AND Paye or just Fields, because it would have cost at least this years 1, next years 1, plus to move ahead of what Chicago offered.

 

They’ll draft or sign a LT.

I hope they don’t move Q.. he’s a gold jacket Guard, leave him be. 

[compuls1v3]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

Or looking at it this way, Paye is the pick that could have gone to help Wentz via Darrisaw.

 

I'll keep mentioning that whenever Wentz gets criticized for getting sacked, and I'll equate Ballard to Grigson in not addressing the oline properly.

 

The blame game can always go in multiple directions.

That's fair.  Let's see who we pick up tonight.  Hopefully it's a good enough LT.

[Valpo2004]

21 hours ago, Nickster said:

These two choices this off season will determine whether or not Chris Ballard's plan works.  Wentz will be relatively cheap, and Paye on a rookie contract will open up money for the non premium position studs we have.

 

Make or break off season IMO. 

 

I think we can hide a LT as long as he's reasonably competent.  If they don't pick one at 2, they must be planning on sliding Q.  To me that would be the best case scenario.  Since Q will demand LT money, it would be ideal for him to play LT instead of LG.  Q would be the undisputed greatest lineman of all time IMO if he were an All Pro LT for couple of years, not saying I really have an opinion if he could be or not, but like Wooderson said, "It'd be a lot cooler if he did."

 

If either of these guys bust, I think CB will be out the door in a couple of years.

 

He has built up too much capital as a GM to be sent packing for a single bust either via trade or 1st round pick.  Remember we didn't give up the farm for Wentz.

 

It is going to take that and at least a couple bad draft classes to make his seat hot.

[Stephen]

Don't  tell anyone  but Im playing  Lt this year lol

[Nickster]

BTW, I will triple down on what I said on the first post with Ballard's future all tied up in THIS offseason.

 

If Wentz isn't any good, the seat gets hot soon.  If he busts on these two DEs and Wentz isn't good, I don't see he will survive it with big money coming due for Guards and Wills and still no answers at QB, LT, DE.

 

That being said, I am caustiously optimistic about both the DEs and Wentz.  The DEs for next 2022 really.

[Nickster]

On 4/30/2021 at 11:49 AM, MPStack said:

@Nickster 

 

Just want to say I had no intentions of high jacking your thread, but you brought the avatar up. 

BTW, I swear I didn't know who the dude was, but everyone of my posts sounded like a prewritten comedy sketch in the light of the revelation.  Pelvis  Superstud  Manspreader