Quenton Nelson

[GoHorse1992]

35 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Too much of a knee jerk reaction to the knee jerk sentiments following our 1-3 record, IMO.

 

OL is a position that takes time to mature, even for the highest draft picks in the NFL. For someone to come in right away and play at the highest level that Q has done for several years, is nothing short of amazing. You don't give up on it due to an out-of-character injury spell, it is downright illogical, at least not from the Colts' end unless some other end wows you with an offer of multiple 1st round picks, which typically only happens with trading QBs. 

 

A few more wins and we will be singing a different tune, that is just how it goes. Glad Polian did not give up on Bob Sanders coming back and making a difference for our SB run, now THAT was a player made of glass we could have given up on. Q's impact permeates through the rest of the OL, IMO. OL and DL are cornerstone positions that can last us a decade and provide stability, just like QB. On the other hand, DBs, WRs, after their second contract, typically fade away because their twitch declines over time faster. OL and DL, the elite ones, contribute at a high level longer, IMO. That is why you don't see highly touted OL and DL easily signable in the FA market and are expensive. You have one, keep him, period.

 

Like Polian said, "if you listen to the fans' sentiment, you will be sitting with them". I rest my case.

 

I don’t disagree here at all. This was just an idea. Probably a silly one. Remember, this isn’t the first year he has had back issues. It’s not a new thing. But I am perfectly fine with paying him and seeing how his career plays out.

[GoHorse1992]

7 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

 

Remember when Peyton.....got beat 41-0 in the first round of the playoffs.................a, a, a, and a thread was started just like this to trade him?

 

 

Fair but cant compare Q to Peyton. Even if he may be the best G in history. 

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

Just FYI, based on a quick google... 

 

Highest Gs taken the last 30-40 years...

 

2018 Nelson at #6

2013 Jonathan Cooper #7, bounced between LG and RG, kind of a bust, traded.

1986 Jim Dombrowski #6, but was a G/T, and taken to fill a hole at LT, but moved to LG the next year.

I just looked up John hannah (predates your 40 year limit)   he was drafted 4th overall in '73.  That's pretty good company for Q.

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

I just looked up John hannah (predates your 40 year limit)   he was drafted 4th overall in '73.  That's pretty good company for Q.

Tried not to go back too far, as it just a whole different time for football. Hannah was a straight up stud back then, but at 6-1ish and 260ish, probably wouldn't have started at Bama :-) today. He was even small for those days. And played T a bit at Bama. 

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

They are generally either drafted or signed as FA. 

 

Back in the day, I think the Colts acquired G Ron Solt and T Chris Hinton and QB Mark Pagel in the John Elway trade, but that's the only trade I can think of where a G was construed to be in a trade of a first round pick.

Hinton was a guard. He played some tackle here,  but was drafted as a guard and played primarily guard

 

Solt was drafted with the pick the Colts got from Denver in 84

[Colt.45]

2 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

The line was in shambles and Andrew was getting hurt. It was the only logical choice at the time. 

Nah it wasn't the only logical choice. @EastStreet mentioned trading down, that was a logical option.

He could have traded Luck for a bucket of picks and taken Josh Allen, that would have been a mega-galaxy brain GM move....and yes, there was a school of thought among a pocket of Colts fans who suggested doing this very thing, minority yes but it existed.

There were options. Lets not say they didnt exist.

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, Colt.45 said:

Nah it wasn't the only logical choice. @EastStreet mentioned trading down, that was a logical option.

He could have traded Luck for a bucket of picks and taken Josh Allen, that would have been a mega-galaxy brain GM move....and yes, there was a school of thought among a pocket of Colts fans who suggested doing this very thing, minority yes but it existed.

There were options. Lets not say they didnt exist.

No he couldnt, because Jim Irsay wouldve never allowed him to do that, even if he wanted to.

 

Everybody is an expert 4 years later.

 

 

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Hinton was a guard. He played some tackle here,  but was drafted as a guard and played primarily guard

 

Solt was drafted with the pick the Colts got from Denver in 84

This isnt true, he played tackle almost every year. He even said in an interview one time that he felt like a natural G but played the majority of his career out of position.

 

I think he only played G for 2 seasons. 

 

He was a hell of a player that couldve played any position. He made the PB as a rookie playing LG, he made the PB playing LT for us, he also made the PB as a RT and was first team AP as a RG in 93 with Atlanta.

 

But he played T most of his career for sure 

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

This isnt true, he played tackle almost every year. He even said in an interview one time that he felt like a natural G but played the majority of his career out of position.

 

I think he only played G for 2 seasons. 

 

He was a hell of a player that couldve played any position. He made the PB as a rookie playing LG, he made the PB playing LT for us, he also made the PB as a RT and was first team AP as a RG in 93 with Atlanta.

 

But he played T most of his career for sure 

Yeah,   I guess you're right.   My memory isn't what it used to be.   I know he was a guard in college and the beginning of his nfl career

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Hinton was a guard. He played some tackle here,  but was drafted as a guard and played primarily guard

 

Solt was drafted with the pick the Colts got from Denver in 84

 

Hinton played primarily T.

 

Hinton played every season (aside from his first) as LT (6 of 7) while here in Indy.

He played 3 of his 4 years in ATL at RT. He played T in his final 2 years at MN.

 

He was also a T in college at NW (he moved from TE to T his junior year).

[Mackrel829]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

If we would trade him because we are concerned about his back, why would another team not be as concerned about his back?

 

The ship has sailed.  We drafted him #6.  He's played great.  You sign your best players.  We will move forward with one of our best players being a LG.  

 

This.

 

Whether it's right or wrong, the Colts have to pay Nelson. There's no other option. Not paying him is not an option. Trading him is not an option. You have to pay him.

 

I'm personally absolutely fine with Ballard giving Nelson every penny that he wants. 

[Colt.45]

59 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

No he couldnt, because Jim Irsay wouldve never allowed him to do that, even if he wanted to.

 

Everybody is an expert 4 years later.

 

 

This is monday morning QB'ing. I'm telling you that there were folks who talked of this actively in 18. There's no judgement here post-event. I'm not saying it'd have been an easy call.

 

At any rate, the point is Chris Ballard had several options. 

[ruf]

5 hours ago, EastStreet said:

He's not going anywhere.

 

And highly doubt anyone would give up multiple 1sts for an OG regardless of stature. 

It's rare for an OG to be taken in the first, super rare top 10. How many in the past?

At least we were able to ride the cheap years. 

Any team that would be willing to trade, wouldn't get the cheap rook years.

Then throw in he has what the FO called chronic or lingering back issues.

 

Love Q, I'm an ND homer, and he's my favorite player. And I'm glad he's here. It was not however the most strategic use of draft capital. We could have probably traded back again with Buffalo and still got Q at 12 (while picking up more draft capital).

 

 

no way would Q have been there at 12 i was afraid he would be gone at 6 we were lucky to get him there. he was the player i wanted (maybe chubb) if Q was gone.

anyhow it was the right thing to do to draft him there.

now it was right because he was the best player on the board and we would have him for cheap. So this is why we should move him to LT because now he will not be cheap and we do and should keep him at all cost but the best cost for us would be to move him to LT we already know that Reed can fill the LG.

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, ruf said:

no way would Q have been there at 12 i was afraid he would be gone at 6 we were lucky to get him there. he was the player i wanted (maybe chubb) if Q was gone.

anyhow it was the right thing to do to draft him there.

now it was right because he was the best player on the board and we would have him for cheap. So this is why we should move him to LT because now he will not be cheap and we do and should keep him at all cost but the best cost for us would be to move him to LT we already know that Reed can fill the LG.

 

Only 5 teams picked after that spot (we would have had 12th).

7 - Buf traded up for a QB/Allen

8 - Bears were in love with Smith. Most mocks had him going there all along

9 - Biggest risk to take Q, but they extended their LG 3years and needed a RT more than LG (Took Big Mike).

10 - Cards moved up to get a QB/Rosen

11 - Miami - OL wasn't in their top 5 team needs, and certainly doubt they'd take an OG.

12 - Indy would have moved back to 12, taken Q, plus received 2 more second round picks... 

 

PS.. a lot of mocks had us trading out of our pick to Buffalo... The moment Denver didn't take Q at 5, it was more than likely he wouldn't go in the top 10 (unless we picked him). 

 

[GoColts8818]

Ballard has already told you what he’s going to do.  So if people want to debate it fine but understand it’s kinda a pointless debate.

[EastStreet]

10 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Ballard has already told you what he’s going to do.  So if people want to debate it fine but understand it’s kinda a pointless debate.

 

It's just another saying... lol.

He also said something like "pay your own", but he drafted JT early and likely wasn't going to pay Marlon Mack. 

Not saying we shouldn't pay Q, but folks who want to hold up Ballard nuggets as absolutes are kidding themselves. 

It's just a witty saying they like to follow, unit it's not... 

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, Colt.45 said:

This is monday morning QB'ing. I'm telling you that there were folks who talked of this actively in 18. There's no judgement here post-event. I'm not saying it'd have been an easy call.

 

At any rate, the point is Chris Ballard had several options. 

He did NOT have the option to trade his elite QB for a QB prospect.

 

For starters, he had just signed a contract extension. So no, you could not trade him. 

 

This is purely designed to make Chris Ballard look like he made a mistake in taking a 3 time first team all pro LG by creating a fictitious need at QB and suggesting he had the option to blow up the team and roll the dice on an unknown QB from a small school. Its ludicrous. The owner has a say in these decisions and he was never gonna let Chris Ballard do that. We all should know that. This isnt Madden. This is a billion dollar company where stupid decisions have big time consequences and you dont just wake up on the wrong side of the bed and trade your franchise player. 

 

Nobody suggested we trade Luck and take Josh Allen. I heard people suggest we trade Luck to the Browns and take Baker Mayfield + picks which would have been silly since Baker isnt even half the player Luck was. But i didnt hear 1 person suggest we should trade Luck and take Josh Allen. 

 

This is all just stupid. All the talk about positional value is also stupid. Positional value means nothing. Great players mean something. Getting a perennial first team all pro at any position is a win. And its too late to change it anyways. Having the best G in football is not a detriment to the team. People talk about Q like hes somehow holding the team back and its just ridiculous. 

 

It was between Q & Chubb at 3, or the package from the Jets and still getting Nelson.  That was who they were deciding between. Nobody else. 

 

 

[GoColts8818]

30 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

It's just another saying... lol.

He also said something like "pay your own", but he drafted JT early and likely wasn't going to pay Marlon Mack. 

Not saying we shouldn't pay Q, but folks who want to hold up Ballard nuggets as absolutes are kidding themselves. 

It's just a witty saying they like to follow, unit it's not... 

except other Mack he has signed his own.  

[EastStreet]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

except other Mack he has signed his own.  

They are just now coming due next year.

Walker was another that was let go. Which is looking more and more like a mistake.

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

They are just now coming due next year.

Walker was another that was let go. Which is looking more and more like a mistake.

You are smarter than this.  He’s paid Hines, Smith, and Leonard in the past year.  He’s also paid Hilton, AC, Kelly, Stewart, and Glow.  Clearly he didn’t mean nor did he say he was going to pay every single player he drafted.  You know in the modern NFL that’s impossible.  He was clearly talking about paying your key players.  He clearly didn’t think Mack or Walker were key players (although he did bring Mack back).  I have a feeling Nelson is going to be viewed as a key player and he just told you he doesn’t care what position they play if they are a good player you pay them.  IE he’s not going to have a problem paying Nelson because he’s a guard.

[GoHorse1992]

Forget I said anything  it was truly meant as a different perspective but lots of good points in this thread! I will be happy no matter what route Ballard chooses and I am 95% sure it will be to pay Q

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You are smarter than this.  He’s paid Hines, Smith, and Leonard in the past year.  He’s also paid Hilton, AC, Kelly, Stewart, and Glow.  Clearly he didn’t mean nor did he say he was going to pay every single player he drafted.  You know in the modern NFL that’s impossible.  He was clearly talking about paying your key players.  He clearly didn’t think Mack or Walker were key players (although he did bring Mack back).  I have a feeling Nelson is going to be viewed as a key player and he just told you he doesn’t care what position they play if they are a good player you pay them.  IE he’s not going to have a problem paying Nelson because he’s a guard.

 

Glow wasn't our own. 

 

Mack was a key player. He was our RB1 for two years prior to Ballard drafting JT, and was averaging about 1000/year and 4.5 ypc. 

They just made the decision most teams make these days, and treated the position as fungible while riding cheap rook years. 

 

Walker has either been 1st or 2nd in Ts the last 3 years, so I'd say that's probably key too. They chose here too to sacrifice depth and ride the cheap rook contract. And we're hurting because of it. 

 

Hines and Leonard, glad they're here, but probably over paid. HInes is not a top 10ish RB but paid as such. Leonard is not the #1 LB, but paid as such. Kelly not the #1 OC, but was paid as such. 

 

I hope Nelson is extended. That doesn't make drafting an OG top 10, or paying him near the top of LT pay, strategic, or smart.

[Colt.45]

16 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

He did NOT have the option to trade his elite QB for a QB prospect.

 

For starters, he had just signed a contract extension. So no, you could not trade him. 

 

This is purely designed to make Chris Ballard look like he made a mistake in taking a 3 time first team all pro LG by creating a fictitious need at QB and suggesting he had the option to blow up the team and roll the dice on an unknown QB from a small school. Its ludicrous. The owner has a say in these decisions and he was never gonna let Chris Ballard do that. We all should know that. This isnt Madden. This is a billion dollar company where stupid decisions have big time consequences and you dont just wake up on the wrong side of the bed and trade your franchise player. 

 

Nobody suggested we trade Luck and take Josh Allen. I heard people suggest we trade Luck to the Browns and take Baker Mayfield + picks which would have been silly since Baker isnt even half the player Luck was. But i didnt hear 1 person suggest we should trade Luck and take Josh Allen. 

 

This is all just stupid. All the talk about positional value is also stupid. Positional value means nothing. Great players mean something. Getting a perennial first team all pro at any position is a win. And its too late to change it anyways. Having the best G in football is not a detriment to the team. People talk about Q like hes somehow holding the team back and its just ridiculous. 

 

It was between Q & Chubb at 3, or the package from the Jets and still getting Nelson.  That was who they were deciding between. Nobody else. 

 

 

 

Quick note here - this train of comments is about the notion that Chris Ballard had no choice but to draft Q. I'm saying he did.

Back to regular programming...

 

This isn't revisionist history. It wasn't a no brainer that Luck was coming back the same QB. Those questions about his heart leaving the game were absolutely flying around, at least with the fans i interacted with. Luck eventually went to the Netherlands before finding some sort of solution to that nagging injury. It wasn't a no-brainer. Remember he wasn't throwing a regular football or even any for quite a while. And Luck's extension was in 2016 not '18 IIRC. However, letting a franchise QB go for a rookie isnt a straight forward decision so it's understandable that CB didnt do that, I was not supportive of that sentiment simply because i didnt think any of the QBs was very good (inc Allen and Baker, who as you rightly say was the main QB favored by those who wanted to trade). **

 

As far as the positional value, that's not even an argument to make. Positional value absolutely is a thing any front office worth their salt would/should factor in. 

QB > DE > G > K. Is this sequence debatable? 

There's a reason you shouldn't draft a kicker in the 2nd round. There's a reason getting a 1st round RB is generally perceived as a total waste of a pick. 

 

And yes, this is all woulda/couldas. The track has been laid, and now the correct decision is absolutely to pay the man. You follow through on the philosophy you've set if you're Chris Ballard.

[jvan1973]

9 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Quick note here - this train of comments is about the notion that Chris Ballard had no choice but to draft Q. I'm saying he did.

Back to regular programming...

 

This isn't revisionist history. It wasn't a no brainer that Luck was coming back the same QB. Those questions about his heart leaving the game were absolutely flying around, at least with the fans i interacted with. Luck eventually went to the Netherlands before finding some sort of solution to that nagging injury. It wasn't a no-brainer. Remember he wasn't throwing a regular football or even any for quite a while. And Luck's extension was in 2016 not '18 IIRC. However, letting a franchise QB go for a rookie isnt a straight forward decision so it's understandable that CB didnt do that, I was not supportive of that sentiment simply because i didnt think any of the QBs was very good (inc Allen and Baker, who as you rightly say was the main QB favored by those who wanted to trade). **

 

As far as the positional value, that's not even an argument to make. Positional value absolutely is a thing any front office worth their salt would/should factor in. 

QB > DE > G > K. Is this sequence debatable? 

There's a reason you shouldn't draft a kicker in the 2nd round. There's a reason getting a 1st round RB is generally perceived as a total waste of a pick. 

 

And yes, this is all woulda/couldas. The track has been laid, and now the correct decision is absolutely to pay the man. You follow through on the philosophy you've set if you're Chris Ballard.

No GM in the league past or present would have moved on from Andrew.   Zero

[Colt.45]

15 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

No GM in the league past or present would have moved on from Andrew.   Zero

 

That's what I said about #18

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

 

Only 5 teams picked after that spot (we would have had 12th).

7 - Buf traded up for a QB/Allen

8 - Bears were in love with Smith. Most mocks had him going there all along

9 - Biggest risk to take Q, but they extended their LG 3years and needed a RT more than LG (Took Big Mike).

10 - Cards moved up to get a QB/Rosen

11 - Miami - OL wasn't in their top 5 team needs, and certainly doubt they'd take an OG.

12 - Indy would have moved back to 12, taken Q, plus received 2 more second round picks... 

 

PS.. a lot of mocks had us trading out of our pick to Buffalo... The moment Denver didn't take Q at 5, it was more than likely he wouldn't go in the top 10 (unless we picked him). 

 

You're missing Tampa.  If we would've accepted the BUF trade to 12, Tampa picked 7, and I was reading that they would have definitely taken Nelson there.  Their Oline was bad, 2017 a LG named Kevin Pamphile.  They signed Ryan Jensen C to a big contract but the interior OL was still weak.  I think Winston was getting killed that year, 2017.

 

They traded down and took NT Vita Vea at 12, probably because Nelson was gone.

 

Its all speculation, but Ballard said that he thought the offers would take him out of elite player area. 

 

Nelson and Smith would have been gone, that's why he stood pat at 6.

[Goatface Killah]

31 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Quick note here - this train of comments is about the notion that Chris Ballard had no choice but to draft Q. I'm saying he did.

Back to regular programming...

 

This isn't revisionist history. It wasn't a no brainer that Luck was coming back the same QB. Those questions about his heart leaving the game were absolutely flying around, at least with the fans i interacted with. Luck eventually went to the Netherlands before finding some sort of solution to that nagging injury. It wasn't a no-brainer. Remember he wasn't throwing a regular football or even any for quite a while. And Luck's extension was in 2016 not '18 IIRC. However, letting a franchise QB go for a rookie isnt a straight forward decision so it's understandable that CB didnt do that, I was not supportive of that sentiment simply because i didnt think any of the QBs was very good (inc Allen and Baker, who as you rightly say was the main QB favored by those who wanted to trade). **

 

As far as the positional value, that's not even an argument to make. Positional value absolutely is a thing any front office worth their salt would/should factor in. 

QB > DE > G > K. Is this sequence debatable? 

There's a reason you shouldn't draft a kicker in the 2nd round. There's a reason getting a 1st round RB is generally perceived as a total waste of a pick. 

 

And yes, this is all woulda/couldas. The track has been laid, and now the correct decision is absolutely to pay the man. You follow through on the philosophy you've set if you're Chris Ballard.

There are cap implications to making a trade like that.

 

No it wasnt a possibility. 

 

Positional value is pointless to talk about unless you are evaluating two equal prospects and trying to decide between them. Thats not what we are doing here. 

 

Also, how does positional value translate to wins? Nobody can answer that question because its not a logical question. Go back and explain a single scenario in NFL history where positional value was instrumental in a team actually being successful?

 

The most successful team in history had a QB they took in the 6th round and rarely drafted well.

 

Beyond that, Im glad you brought up an example like kicker tho because it perfectly illustrates my point.

 

Would a team be better off taking Justin Tucker in the first round or Bjoern Werner?

 

The answer is obvious. A great kicker can win games for you. Justin Tucker just made a kick that nobody else couldve made and is solely responsoble for that win. He bailed them out. Did Bjoern Werner ever win a game for anybody? Do I recommend taking a kicker in the first, no of course not  But there are exceptions to every rule.

 

"Positional value" suggests hes borderline worthless and you should just scour a trash heap for a kicker because they arent important. But they are actually very important and are huge factors in important games all the time.

 

Positional value without the context of the players themselves means absolutely nothing. 

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

There are cap implications to making a trade like that.

 

No it wasnt a possibility. 

 

Positional value is pointless to talk about unless you are evaluating two equal prospects and trying to decide between them. Thats not what we are doing here. 

 

Also, how does positional value translate to wins? Nobody can answer that question because its not a logical question. Go back and explain a single scenario in NFL history where positional value was instrumental in a team actually being successful?

 

The most successful team in history had a QB they took in the 6th round and rarely drafted well.

 

Beyond that, Im glad you brought up an example like kicker tho because it perfectly illustrates my point.

 

Would a team be better off taking Justin Tucker in the first round or Bjoern Werner?

 

The answer is obvious. A great kicker can win games for you. Justin Tucker just made a kick that nobody else couldve made and is solely responsoble for that win. He bailed them out. Did Bjoern Werner ever win a game for anybody? Do I recommend taking a kicker in the first, no of course not  But there are exceptions to every rule.

 

"Positional value" suggests hes borderline worthless and you should just scour a trash heap for a kicker because they arent important. But they are actually very inportant and are huge factors in inportant games all the time.

 

Positional value without the context of the players themselves means absolutely nothing. 

Positional value tends to speak to the impact made on any given play, then added up over the course of a season, as well as how easy it is to find a suitable player at that position.

 

As an example of finding suitable Gs, we have been struggling to find corners and edges, and maybe even LT if Fisher doesn't get going.  Yet were able to get Chris Reed pretty easily and cheaply and even Glow was playing well for a while.  Pinter is supposed to be progressing nicely, and he was drafted in the 5th round small school.

 

The idea is that it frees up capital to go get a player in a position that is harder to find because they tend to fly off the shelves quicker, so to speak.

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Positional value tends to speak to the impact made on any given play, then added up over the course of a season, as well as how easy it is to find a suitable player at that position.

 

As an example of finding suitable Gs, we have been struggling to find corners and edges, and maybe even LT if Fisher doesn't get going.  Yet were able to get Chris Reed pretty easily and cheaply and even Glow was playing well for a while.  Pinter is supposed to be progressing nicely, and he was drafted in the 5th round small school.

 

The idea is that it frees up capital to go get a player in a position that is harder to find because they tend to fly off the shelves quicker, so to speak.

I get the idea behind it.

 

But name me a single situation where it was clearly a factor in winning games? 

 

Whats a "suitable" player at G? How many sacks can he give up before hes no longer suitable? How many crucial plays can get wrecked before it becomes unacceptable play from a G?

 

Thats my problem with it. People talk about it like its just common knowledge that the proper way to build a football team is to value specific positions over others, but thats not the way it actually works or there would be nothing but QBs, CBs, WRs and DEs drafted in the first round. 

 

Yeah Chris Reed might be alright in games against Tennessee and Miami who dont have elite interior defensive lineman, but if he had to play against Aaron Donald people wouldve likely been saying something different after that game. 

 

 

[jvan1973]

17 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

That's what I said about #18

I hated that decision as well,   but it wasn't close to the same.    We had the number one pick with one of v the greatest qb prospects in history coming out.   Peyton was coming off a surgery that no one knew how he would perform,  except 18 himself.   

 

No QB in the 19 class was close to the level of Andrew.   Andrew was 29.  Coming off a great 18 season.   No one in their right mind is looking to move on.  No one

[Colt.45]

21 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

There are cap implications to making a trade like that.

 

No it wasnt a possibility. 

 

Positional value is pointless to talk about unless you are evaluating two equal prospects and trying to decide between them. Thats not what we are doing here. 

 

Also, how does positional value translate to wins? Nobody can answer that question because its not a logical question. Go back and explain a single scenario in NFL history where positional value was instrumental in a team actually being successful?

 

The most successful team in history had a QB they took in the 6th round and rarely drafted well.

 

Beyond that, Im glad you brought up an example like kicker tho because it perfectly illustrates my point.

 

Would a team be better off taking Justin Tucker in the first round or Bjoern Werner?

 

The answer is obvious. A great kicker can win games for you. Justin Tucker just made a kick that nobody else couldve made and is solely responsoble for that win. He bailed them out. Did Bjoern Werner ever win a game for anybody? Do I recommend taking a kicker in the first, no of course not  But there are exceptions to every rule.

 

"Positional value" suggests hes borderline worthless and you should just scour a trash heap for a kicker because they arent important. But they are actually very important and are huge factors in important games all the time.

 

Positional value without the context of the players themselves means absolutely nothing. 

 

Even knowing what we know now, I dont think i'd take Justin Tucker over Bjorn Werner. I'd hope my staff would make something out of that DE   I'm half kidding. 

The point isnt about whether Tucker > Werner though. The point is kicker is a fungible position. You can pick up one from the street and have him be decent for years. Happens all the time. The odds of nailing a DE are much slimmer ditto QB. You spend the higher pick on the positions that are harder to find talent for. If you're picking 3rd and your choice is a guard, that's a statement you're making and it isnt just about the player's talent who you picked up. 

 

And certainly, your point on context is solid. That is always something to consider. Still, when you've got the 3rd pick in the draft, you essentially have the entire table in front of you. Q wasn't the only GREAT prospect going into that draft. There were prospects at other positions. (Minkah was the one i thought would be a blue chip and even then i was hesitant about picking him at 3 or 6). 

 

Solid discussion though. Again, we selected the dude and he is the best in the league so we must pay him IMHO

 

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I get the idea behind it.

 

But name me a single situation where it was clearly a factor in winning games? 

 

Whats a "suitable" player at G? How many sacks can he give up before hes no longer suitable? How many crucial plays can get wrecked before it becomes unacceptable play from a G?

 

Thats my problem with it. People talk about it like its just common knowledge that the proper way to build a football team is to value specific positions over others, but thats not the way it actually works or there would be nothing but QBs, CBs, WRs and DEs drafted in the first round. 

 

Yeah Chris Reed might be alright in games against Tennessee and Miami who dont have elite interior defensive lineman, but if he had to play against Aaron Donald people wouldve likely been saying something different after that game. 

 

 

I think the idea is that the Gs and Cs tend to help each other out and can double team good players and account for stunts.  They slide around a lot on each play.  The OTs tend to be left on an island or at least are engaging the EDGE every play.

 

Sure, if you want to pay for that lineman who is going to stuff Donald, I understand.  But then you have to ask how often is our LG going to line up against that one guy considering that Donald can line up over another player (like he did), and its a blue moon when we play LAR again.  (or any one player).

 

Nelson will win his battles most of the time.  Gee, do ya think that's why we run it up the gut a lot?  What would an analytics chart tell you?

[Colt.45]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I hated that decision as well,   but it wasn't close to the same.    We had the number one pick with one of v the greatest qb prospects in history coming out.   Peyton was coming off a surgery that no one knew how he would perform,  except 18 himself.   

 

No QB in the 19 class was close to the level of Andrew.   Andrew was 29.  Coming off a great 18 season.   No one in their right mind is looking to move on.  No one

 

Do you remember the questions about whether Luck would ever be back? Remember how he couldn't grip a football? Remember how he moved to a nerf ball and many of us had clenched butt cheeks hoping the guy would come back all the way? Remember the questions that started to creep up about his love of the game (they were there when he was drafted, as is usual for any QB who shows interests in anything outside just football). Remember how there were comments that he was in a deep depression? How he left the country, etc.

 

Also, we're talking 2018 not 19. This was BEFORE Andrew's comeback not after.

[jbaron04]

10 hours ago, GoHorse1992 said:

I mentioned this in another thread but thought it might deserve its own topic. This is purely a hypothetical scenario and I am not saying this should happen. I love me some Q. He came in and has been a dominant force that has completely changed our OL identity (at least before this year). His back concerns me though and I am not sure it would be prudent to pay him if the back will linger for the rest of his career. What are all your thoughts on this:

 

We trade Q for a first round pick and a player/or additional first round pick(might be a second with the back concerns). This would guarantee that we could re-coup the first that we may lose to the Eagles and potentially give us 2 first round picks. 

 

Again, not saying I am banging the table for this to happen as Q is such a big part of what we do and our identity. Just something to think about…

No , when we lost jake Scott all them years ago we never recovered, Q is a all world talent you want them on your team 

[EastStreet]

23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You're missing Tampa.  If we would've accepted the BUF trade to 12, Tampa picked 7, and I was reading that they would have definitely taken Nelson there.  Their Oline was bad, 2017 a LG named Kevin Pamphile.  They signed Ryan Jensen C to a big contract but the interior OL was still weak.  I think Winston was getting killed that year, 2017.

 

They traded down and took NT Vita Vea at 12, probably because Nelson was gone.

 

Its all speculation, but Ballard said that he thought the offers would take him out of elite player area. 

 

Nelson and Smith would have been gone, that's why he stood pat at 6.

Nah.

Before the draft, TB signed Jensen (big 4y contract) at C and moved Marpet back to G. Marpet is a consistent 70s and 80s graded guy. TB drafted him in 2015, and he wasn't going anywhere. Marpet was a G, but they had to move him to C in 2017  because of issues with Hawley their C. As soon as they signed Jensen in early 2018, it was a sure thing Marpet was moving back to G.

 

Also, TB wanted to move back badly. And their had bigger needs (RB, CB, and DL). If they would have taken OL, it would have been an OT.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Do you remember the questions about whether Luck would ever be back? Remember how he couldn't grip a football? Remember how he moved to a nerf ball and many of us had clenched butt cheeks hoping the guy would come back all the way? Remember the questions that started to creep up about his love of the game (they were there when he was drafted, as is usual for any QB who shows interests in anything outside just football). Remember how there were comments that he was in a deep depression? How he left the country, etc.

 

Also, we're talking 2018 not 19. This was BEFORE Andrew's comeback not after.

Yeah, I never thought about putting all of those things together to think he was a flight risk.  Hindsight makes it more clear.

 

Irsay used to say that Luck's comeback was stunted by getting his mind back together about the injury, something like that.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Nah.

Before the draft, TB signed Jensen (big 4y contract) at C and moved Marpet back to G. Marpet is a consistent 70s and 80s graded guy. TB drafted him in 2015, and he wasn't going anywhere. Marpet was a G, but they had to move him to C in 2017  because of issues with Hawley their C. As soon as they signed Jensen in early 2018, it was a sure thing Marpet was moving back to G.

 

Also, TB wanted to move back badly. And their had bigger needs (RB, CB, and DL). If they would have taken OL, it would have been an OT.

Maybe so.  Ballard thought the elite players would be gone by the trade down slot.

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Do you remember the questions about whether Luck would ever be back? Remember how he couldn't grip a football? Remember how he moved to a nerf ball and many of us had clenched butt cheeks hoping the guy would come back all the way? Remember the questions that started to creep up about his love of the game (they were there when he was drafted, as is usual for any QB who shows interests in anything outside just football). Remember how there were comments that he was in a deep depression? How he left the country, etc.

 

Also, we're talking 2018 not 19. This was BEFORE Andrew's comeback not after.

I remember a lot of different  reports.   The fact is no GM is trading Andrew Luck in his prime.   

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think the idea is that the Gs and Cs tend to help each other out and can double team good players and account for stunts.  They slide around a lot on each play.  The OTs tend to be left on an island or at least are engaging the EDGE every play.

 

Sure, if you want to pay for that lineman who is going to stuff Donald, I understand.  But then you have to ask how often is our LG going to line up against that one guy considering that Donald can line up over another player (like he did), and its a blue moon when we play LAR again.  (or any one player).

 

Nelson will win his battles most of the time.  Gee, do ya think that's why we run it up the gut a lot?  What would an analytics chart tell you?

No, Im paying for a lineman that will stuff ANYBODY in every game we play, INCLUDING Aaron Donald. He will win 99% of the time regardless of who he is facing. He can handle his matchup without help. 

 

THAT is valuable. For sure. I know that. 

 

My question is how does positional value translate to wins? Because I dont think it does. Its for draft talk only. Team needs and the players available influence the value. 

 

How does a good LT translate to more wins than a truly elite LG?

 

Sure, if you are choosing between Orlando Pace and Quenton Nelson, you choose Pace due to positional value. But thats not the choice. The choice is 20m for Nelson, who is already a cornerstone here, or 20m in cap space to sign a player who hasnt been franchise tagged despite being worthy of a 20m salary.

 

Odds are that player has some kind of flaw or he wouldnt even be available.

 

Every year, the list of free agents looks impressive and then teams start tagging people and suddenly there are about 5 teams driving up the price for the top 5 available elite free agents and next thing you know you are paying a good player a great salary in hopes hes good enough to turn a team weakness into a strength, and that seldom works out. 

 

Hypotheticals are never realistic because in the persons head it always works out perfectly. You let Nelson walk and somehow find a stud WR that takes your offense to the next level and you dont miss him at all.

 

If you let Nelson go what really happens is your OL isnt as good. Your offense isnt as good. And whoever you spend the money on doesnt make the impact you hope they will.

[Colt.45]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, I never thought about putting all of those things together to think he was a flight risk.  Hindsight makes it more clear.

 

Irsay used to say that Luck's comeback was stunted by getting his mind back together about the injury, something like that.

 

Yeah, I hoped he'd come back but there was a nagging fear in the back of my head that the guy would never be back to the level we expected. Heck, even during those first few games of the season, i still wondered what we had in him. Remember that? Remember Jacoby throwing deep v the Eagles cos Luck's arm strength was a question mark?

 

It wasn't so straight forward to me. I felt the Colts staff (admin and med) had botched the job and that he might be broken irreparably. He came back, he went on to be gold, and then what i feared could/ would happen in 2018 happened anyway the next year