Quenton Nelson

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

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

But like I said, given the teams 7-11, Q would have more than likely have been there.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

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.

You have to choose where to put the elite compensation.  The cap says that if you put it one place, it tends to take away from another place.

[Colt.45]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

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

We didnt know whether he had a prime though. That was a doubt....just as it was for Peyton in 11/12.

[Goatface Killah]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You have to choose where to put the elite compensation.  The cap says that if you put it one place, it tends to take away from another place.

Ok.

 

But where does it say I cant win with an elite guard who is compensated appropriately? 

 

Does value take into account compensating a truly elite player accurately vs overcompensating a good player because he plays a high value position and the effect it has on winning? 

[Goatface Killah]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

But like I said, given the teams 7-11, Q would have more than likely have been there.

Who would know better? 

 

You or Chris Ballard? 

 

Hmmmm.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Who would know better? 

 

You or Chris Ballard? 

 

Hmmmm.

lol... Ok... another lazy coaches/GMs always no best reply...

 

So tell me, what team 7-11 was going to take Nelson.

 

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

lol... Ok... another lazy coaches/GMs always no best reply...

 

So tell me, what team 7-11 was going to take Nelson.

 

*know

 

Idk East, I dont pretend to KNOW things I couldnt possibly KNOW.

 

Lol, not speculating on things you cant prove = "lazy"

 

Sorry man. Im lazy i guess.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Ok.

 

But where does it say I cant win with an elite guard who is compensated appropriately? 

 

Does value take into account compensating a truly elite player accurately vs overcompensating a good player because he plays a higj value position and the effect it has on winning? 

It doesn't.

 

My feeling is that any team that makes it deep into the playoffs, gets there because they get elite-ish play from one or two players that are playing above their pay grade.

 

Not to do a bunch of research, but SEA got far for a long time on Russell Wilson's rookie deal as well as some of their D players.  Big Ben played pretty well as a 1 to 4 year young player.  Even Wentz got the Eagles there.  Usually its a QB but a defensive player, usually an edge or a LBer can come in and play all pro in their rookie deal (Leonard).

 

Sure, we can pay the G elite money.  But Ballard is going to have to find those impact players we lack at the moment from the draft or get really lucky by a FA that their old team didn't see the value in.

 

I don't think we'll get far by paying Nelson elite money until the EDGEs, corners, and receivers start making more plays.  If its not the current guys its going to have to be a lot of just-drafted players in the coming years.

 

But that's where we sit whether we pay Nelson or not. so pay him.

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, DougDew said:

It doesn't.

 

My feeling is that any team that makes it deep into the playoffs, gets there because they get elite-ish play from one or two players they are playing above their pay grade.

 

Not to do a bunch of research, but SEA got far for a long time on Russell Wilson's rookie deal as well as some of their D players.  Big Ben played pretty well as a 1 to 4 year young player.  Usually its a QB but a defensive player, usually an edge or a LBer can come in and play all pro in their rookie deal (Leonard).

 

Sure, we can pay the G elite money.  But Ballard is going to have to find those impact players we lack at the moment from the draft or get really lucky by a FA that their old team didn't see the value in.

 

I don't think we'll get far by paying Nelson elite money until the EDGEs, corners, and receivers start making more plays.  If its not the current guys its going to have to be a lot of just-drafted players in the coming years.

 

But that's where we sit whether we pay Nelson or not. so pay him.

Thats kinda my point Doug.

 

The team isnt better off letting thier best player walk, even if he plays G.

 

Thats all Im saying. 

 

Sure we need better play from our DEs and WRs. Thats obvious.

 

But getting rid of Nelson doesnt solve those issues.

 

Thats all Im saying here.

 

Good drafting CAN solve it. THAT is the answer here.

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Thats kinda my point Doug.

 

The team isnt better off letting thier best player walk, even if he plays G.

 

Thats all Im saying. 

 

Sure we need better play from our DEs and WRs. Thats obvious.

 

But getting rid of Nelson doesnt solve those issues.

 

Thats all Im saying here.

 

Good drafting CAN solve it. THAT is the answer here.

I've never said let him walk.  I think that our playoff future depends upon the performance of the impactful outside-the-hash players developing.  In that respect, I'm agnostic as to paying Nelson because I simply don't think it matters that much one way or the other, as far as wins/losses.

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

*know

 

Idk East, I dont pretend to KNOW things I couldnt possibly KNOW.

 

Lol, not speculating on things you cant prove = "lazy"

 

Sorry man. Im lazy i guess.

pretty easy to say "you're wrong" when you're unable to factually debate i guess lol....

 

pretty well document what team needs were in 2018.... not hard to form educated opinions.

[NannyMcafee]

7 hours 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.

 

Could have done that but we didn't. The biggest goal was protect a top 5 QB. Drafting the best olineman at pick 6 was the most logical choice. Could have traded the pick for a boat load of 2nd and 3rd round picks that may have turned Into nothing at all. But it was indeed the most logical of the two choices. 

[Goatface Killah]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

pretty easy to say "you're wrong" when you're unable to factually debate i guess lol....

 

pretty well document what team needs were in 2018.... not hard to form educated opinions.

Factually debate a hypothetical not rooted in reality? Impossible.

 

Nelson was mocked in the top 10 in every mock I ever seen. 

 

He was listed as high as the #1 overall prospect in some publications. Listed as #2 behind Barkley in most. 

 

I had an NFL GM say he didnt want to drop past #6 because he didnt want to miss out on him.

 

And then I have you, suggesting that no they are all wrong, we couldve got him at #12.

 

What thats based on? A hunch.

 

Cmon man. Its a silly conversation designed in a way where you cant be proven wrong, because the draft already happened and you can make wild proclamations that are impossible to disprove because well, we cant do it over.

 

 

[jvan1973]

32 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

We didnt know whether he had a prime though. That was a doubt....just as it was for Peyton in 11/12.

That's nonsense.   He was never getting traded.  That's using the facts now to determine the right path then.    

[EastStreet]

Just now, GoatBeard said:

Factually debate a hypothetical not rooted in reality? Impossible.

 

Nelson was mocked in the top 10 in every mock I ever seen. 

 

He was listed as high as the #1 overall prospect in some publications. Listed as #2 behind Barkley in most. 

 

I had an NFL GM say he didnt want to drop past #6 because he didnt want to miss out on him.

 

And then I have you, suggesting that no they are all wrong, we couldve got him at #12.

 

What thats based on? A hunch.

 

Cmon man. Its a silly conversation designed in a way where you cant be proven wrong, because the draft already happened and you can make wild proclamations that are impossible to disprove because well, we cant do it over.

So you make fun of hypothetical debates.... but use hypothetical mocks as your argument.. 

LMAO... 

 

And grades and draft position are not the same. All kinds of incidents where the highest graded players go after lesser graded players.....

 

But most important, most if not all mocks that had Q going in the top 10, had him going to Denver. Not sure I saw any Mocks with him going going in the top 10 to anyone but Denver. When they didn't take him, it was simply unlikely he was going top 10 (unless we grabbed him)... 

 

So if you don't like hypotheticals, what the xxx are you hanging around talking about it? Why comment... You don't need to answer, we know... lol

[jvan1973]

Just now, EastStreet said:

So you make fun of hypothetical debates.... but use hypothetical mocks as your argument.. 

LMAO... 

 

And grades and draft position are not the same. All kinds of incidents where the highest graded players go after lesser graded players.....

 

But most important, most if not all mocks that had Q going in the top 10, had him going to Denver. Not sure I saw any Mocks with him going going in the top 10 to anyone but Denver. When they didn't take him, it was simply unlikely he was going top 10 (unless we grabbed him)... 

 

So if you don't like hypotheticals, what the xxx are you hanging around talking about it? Why comment... You don't need to answer, we know... lol

Nelson was the right pick at 3, or 6 or 12.  We didn't need a qb,  we needed protection for our qb.   Ballard didn't want to gamble if he would still be there if he traded back again.   

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

That's nonsense.   He was never getting traded.  That's using the facts now to determine the right path then.    

Sure, and Peyton was never getting cut.....until it happened. You're talking of the facts now while ignoring the reality then was that we didnt know he'd come back fully.

Heck, you thought the conversation was about 2019 not 18. Cmon.

[csmopar]

I’m just gonna say this: I wanted either Bradley Chubb or Big Q at number 3. I’m thrilled we got Nelson at 6. 

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, Colt.45 said:

Sure, and Peyton was never getting cut.....until it happened. You're talking of the facts now while ignoring the reality then was that we didnt know he'd come back fully.

Heck, you thought the conversation was about 2019 not 18. Cmon.

I didn't think peyton was gonna get cut.  If Andrew wasn't in the draft,  I don't think he gets cut.    What Qb in 18 was the front office willing to bail on Andrew for.   Remembering Andrew was only 29

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I didn't think peyton was gonna get cut.  If Andrew wasn't in the draft,  I don't think he gets cut.    What Qb in 18 was the front office willing to bail on Andrew for.   Remembering Andrew was only 29

 

That's fair. 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

pretty easy to say "you're wrong" when you're unable to factually debate i guess lol....

 

pretty well document what team needs were in 2018.... not hard to form educated opinions.

He's not really debating since he's not the one planting his flag into an opinion about how history should have transpired. 

 

The issue is that Ballard said that he did not want to trade down beyond the point of the elite player level.  What do you think he did not know about other teams' needs that you are now pointing out? 

 

I wonder if TB was one of the teams that thought Nelson could play LT?    

 

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Nelson was the right pick at 3, or 6 or 12.  We didn't need a qb,  we needed protection for our qb.   Ballard didn't want to gamble if he would still be there if he traded back again.   

I've never said anything about taking a QB.

I'm a Q fan. I'm not a fan of taking a G in the top 10. 

My point has been we could have likely got him at 12, and earned an additional two 2nd rounders for a little gamble.

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

He's not really debating since he's not the one planting his flag into an opinion about how history should have transpired. 

 

The issue is that Ballard said that he did not want to trade down beyond the point of the elite player level.  What do you think he did not know about other teams' needs that you are now pointing out? 

 

I wonder if TB was one of the teams that thought Nelson could play LT?    

 

lol.. spin a little more...

 

He's replied to a post saying basically "you're wrong, Ballard's always right" lol.. 

 

Again, who was going to take Nelson 7-11?

 

I love how folks fall back on the coach/GM always know best when they can not form a logical or counter argument. At least you tried pointing at TB, you just didn't know TB already made a move pre draft and fixed their iOL issues. 

[jvan1973]

7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I've never said anything about taking a QB.

I'm a Q fan. I'm not a fan of taking a G in the top 10. 

My point has been we could have likely got him at 12, and earned an additional two 2nd rounders for a little gamble.

What do we do if he wasn't there at 12?

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

What do we do if he wasn't there at 12?

Well, we had a ton of needs that year... 

EDGE, CB, LB, OL, WR, and DT were all huge needs.

So you could have taken one those at 12, and then still had six 2nd round picks (instead of 4).... which could have been used to move up too if needed. 

[Goatface Killah]

32 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

So you make fun of hypothetical debates.... but use hypothetical mocks as your argument.. 

LMAO... 

 

And grades and draft position are not the same. All kinds of incidents where the highest graded players go after lesser graded players.....

 

But most important, most if not all mocks that had Q going in the top 10, had him going to Denver. Not sure I saw any Mocks with him going going in the top 10 to anyone but Denver. When they didn't take him, it was simply unlikely he was going top 10 (unless we grabbed him)... 

 

So if you don't like hypotheticals, what the xxx are you hanging around talking about it? Why comment... You don't need to answer, we know... lol

Sometimes, when youre spouting off a bunch of nonsense, I fail to ignore it. Im only human.

 

 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

lol... Ok... another lazy coaches/GMs always no best reply...

 

So tell me, what team 7-11 was going to take Nelson.

 

It’s only “lazy” because you’re the King of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks.   You like to post your opinion like it’s undisputed fact.  
 

You know, like Ballard could’ve traded down, collected two more two’s, and Nelson still would’ve been there.    Sound familiar?  

[Goatface Killah]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He's not really debating since he's not the one planting his flag into an opinion about how history should have transpired. 

 

The issue is that Ballard said that he did not want to trade down beyond the point of the elite player level.  What do you think he did not know about other teams' needs that you are now pointing out? 

 

I wonder if TB was one of the teams that thought Nelson could play LT?    

 

Thank you.

 

Im debating the claims being made, Im not stating an opinion about what should have happened.

 

I still feel Quenton was the best pick for us, at the time. 

 

Of course looking back i would probably take Josh Allen and trade Andrew Luck. Of course. He only played one more season and I would want to protect myself from that loss.

 

But nobody knew that. Our biggest need was OL help. Luck was coming off an injury and our OL was trash. 

 

And IT WORKED. The line was much better since his arrival. We made the playoffs. And if Andrew had stayed on, who knows how good we would be?

 

Its just silly to suggest he didnt make the right move. 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Sometimes, when youre spouting off a bunch of nonsense, I fail to ignore it. Im only human.

 

Still waiting on an answer to who was taking Q 7-11?.. it's not that hard... 

But, hey, fall back to the anything that goes against the GM's decision is nonsense... lol

I can list plenty of fallible Ballard moments. But you'd find excuses for all.. or just say nonsense... lol

[Goatface Killah]

29 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

lol.. spin a little more...

 

He's replied to a post saying basically "you're wrong, Ballard's always right" lol.. 

 

Again, who was going to take Nelson 7-11?

 

I love how folks fall back on the coach/GM always know best when they can not form a logical or counter argument. At least you tried pointing at TB, you just didn't know TB already made a move pre draft and fixed their iOL issues. 

"Basically saying" = NEVER SAID AT ALL

Just now, EastStreet said:

 

Still waiting on an answer to who was taking Q 7-11?.. it's not that hard... 

But, hey, fall back to the anything that goes against the GM's decision is nonsense... lol

I can list plenty of fallible Ballard moments. But you'd find excuses for all.. or just say nonsense... lol

Idk.

 

Why is that so hard for YOU to say?

 

I dont talk to other GMs and agents......and neither do you.

 

Guess who does?

 

Chris Ballard.

[Fisticuffs111]

Bears had interest in Q at 8. His college OL coach was with them. He was mocked to them quite a few times.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2018/04/12/chicago-bears-high-denzel-ward-quenton-nelson/amp/

[jvan1973]

13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Well, we had a ton of needs that year... 

EDGE, CB, LB, OL, WR, and DT were all huge needs.

So you could have taken one those at 12, and then still had six 2nd round picks (instead of 4).... which could have been used to move up too if needed. 

But likely not a hall of fame talent.  

[Fisticuffs111]

Funnily enough I wanted Roquan at 6 iirc. But it worked out since we got DL in the 2nd.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

It’s only “lazy” because you’re the King of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks.   You like to post your opinion like it’s undisputed fact.  
 

You know, like Ballard could’ve traded down, collected two more two’s, and Nelson still would’ve been there.    Sound familiar?  

 

NCF, you're still butthurt over many areas where you've openly attacked my opinions, and been dead wrong.

 

You criticized and passive aggressive emoji'd the heck out of the following (which I said early when drafted) opinion I shared. Where the below Monday morning QBing? I know you remember them well... 

• Okereke would struggle vs the run - well, he indeed has struggled vs the run..... co leading the team in missed Ts... 
• Blackmon would struggle in coverage - well, he indeed has struggled in coverage giving up a very high PR and co leading in missed Ts.
• Willis would struggle outside of the box - well, indeed had been torched outside of the box. allowed a 100% completion rate, and given up the most TDs for a DB... 

So go ahead an jump in to the mix... you're faux outrage over anything critical of Ballard or Reich will fit right in here...  

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

"Basically saying" = NEVER SAID AT ALL

you're being obtuse. nothing new.

 

12 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

Why is that so hard for YOU to say?

 

I dont talk to other GMs and agents......and neither do you.

 

Guess who does?

 

Chris Ballard.

So Ballard is always right again lol..  

[Goatface Killah]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

NCF, you're still butthurt over many areas where you've openly attacked my opinions, and been dead wrong.

 

You criticized and passive aggressive emoji'd the heck out of the following (which I said early when drafted) opinion I shared. Where the below Monday morning QBing? I know you remember them well... 

• Okereke would struggle vs the run - well, he indeed has struggled vs the run..... co leading the team in missed Ts... 
• Blackmon would struggle in coverage - well, he indeed has struggled in coverage giving up a very high PR and co leading in missed Ts.
• Willis would struggle outside of the box - well, indeed had been torched outside of the box. allowed a 100% completion rate, and given up the most TDs for a DB... 

So go ahead an jump in to the mix... you're faux outrage over anything critical of Ballard or Reich will fit right in here...  

I think you are so busy trying to avoid the "rose colored glasses" that you dont realize you suffer from a totally different type of bias. 

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

you're being obtuse. nothing new.

 

So Ballard is always right again lol..  

Again, never said that.

 

I said YOU ARE LIKELY WRONG.

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

But likely not a hall of fame talent.  

Maybe, maybe not. 

There was some nice talent in 2018. 

[EastStreet]

19 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I think you are so busy trying to avoid the "rose colored glasses" that you dont realize you suffer from a totally different type of bias. 

 

 

here's a sunshine hug for you though

 

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

Maybe, maybe not. 

There was some nice talent in 2018. 

We have a hall of fame talent.   The choice was the right one.