Quenton Nelson Poll

[Solid84]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

By this time next year, the Colts should have the highest-paid LG and RB in the NFL. 

 

They need a QB on a rookie deal more than anything. 

 

I agree 100%, but that’s not happening until Ryan retires. 

[BlackTiger]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

Why would having a great player under contract be counter productive?

I do think that is something to keep an eye on overall.  How much could we tie up in say the guard, kicker, punter, long snapper spots before it hurts our ability to pay potions that change the win total?

 

I'll just say it, i dont think an elite Lg really changes the win total much if at all when compared to say an average guard.  i dont want him gone either, would much rather LT which sounds like a pipe dream now

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Lets say he's our best player which I wouldn't argue.  We should pay him 25 million?  That is what the QB is making.  

 

That's your logic.  

 

I'm a big Q fan Supe, but there is a point where the money is counterproductive to the team's chances.

 

Duh.

 

That's certainly NOT my logic. And why is the condescension necessary?

 

QBs don't make $25m/year anymore. Ryan Tannehill makes $29.5m/year. Matt Ryan makes $30m/year. Goff and Wentz signed their deals 4 years ago, and they make $32-33.5m/year. The top 9 guys make $40m/year, or more. 

 

I don't even know where $25m/year came from, unless that's meant to be reduction to the absurd. People have been projecting $20m/year, and I think that's ambitious. Top of the market for guards is $16.5m. Nelson probably comes in around $18-19m/year (my projection). If he's one of our best players, he helps the team, and that's his market, I don't see how paying him is counter productive. 

 

What would be counter productive, hypothetically, would be paying Ryan Kelly $12-14m/year for the next two seasons, if he's not able to perform like one of our best players. Or, hypothetically, paying Kenny Moore like he's a top ten CB. Paying our best OL market rate doesn't fit this mold, IMO. 

[Solid84]

Just some thoughts:

 

We already have the most expensive OL in the game and paying Q is just going to skew that even more. 

With the money we spend on OL they should be at least top 10, but we’re seeing people on here who say they would be fine with an average group. Yeah no thanks. 

 

Putting more money into the OL takes away from other position groups and we have weaknesses in other places too. Ironically our OL is already at least questionable, but paying Q won’t make it better. So we’re going to spend more? Draft a couple of guys who need 2-3 seasons to get going?

 

I think Ryan Kelly is playing for his job this season, because he sticks out as a guy who’s too expensive for what he brings. 
 

Also, with the way this contract situation is dragging out with Q, could his agent be trying to reset the market for OL, like it happened with WRs?
 

 

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I do think that is something to keep an eye on overall.  How much could we tie up in say the guard, kicker, punter, long snapper spots before it hurts our ability to pay potions that change the win total?

 

I'll just say it, i dont think an elite Lg really changes the win total much if at all when compared to say an average guard.  i dont want him gone either, would much rather LT which sounds like a pipe dream now

 

I'm not lumping in LG with those other supplementary spots. I understand positional value, and I don't have LG that high on the list, but we're going too far in discounting good interior line play lately. There is a big difference between average guard play and elite line play, and while people seem to think you can snap your fingers and find a suitable replacement, it's really not that easy. It's especially strange to see Colts fans make this argument when we had subpar interior line play for the better part of a decade. 

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not lumping in LG with those other supplementary spots. I understand positional value, and I don't have LG that high on the list, but we're going too far in discounting good interior line play lately. There is a big difference between average guard play and elite line play, and while people seem to think you can snap your fingers and find a suitable replacement, it's really not that easy. It's especially strange to see Colts fans make this argument when we had subpar interior line play for the better part of a decade. 

There’s also a BIG leap from average to elite. It IS possible to find good or very good guards, that will take far less of the capspace than what Q will. It’s not easy of course, like you said, but a guy like Glowinski is looking like a steal right now, in my opinion. We let him go unfortunately. 
 

In retrospect I think it would’ve been better to trade Kelly, start Pinter at C and pay Glow. That’s easy to say now of course. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

23 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Yup….  My mind was elsewhere when I wrote that.     DOH!!           

 

I do it all the time anymore myself - , I was off Monday night so when I went on Tuesday Night I kept thinking it was Monday  

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

There’s also a BIG leap from average to elite. It IS possible to find good or very good guards, that will take far less of the capspace than what Q will. It’s not easy of course, like you said, but a guy like Glowinski is looking like a steal right now, in my opinion. We let him go unfortunately. 
 

In retrospect I think it would’ve been better to trade Kelly, start Pinter at C and pay Glow. That’s easy to say now of course. 

 

Nelson is so much better than Glowinski. This illustrates my point. Glowinksi is your average veteran starter, and he got a decent contract from the Giants because he's pretty good, and players like him aren't that plentiful. And Nelson is leaps and bounds better than him.

 

I would have been fine with trading Kelly and paying Glow. I think it's going to be easier to replace Kelly than it would be to replace Nelson. I'd consider this next season also, although I doubt it happens. 

 

More baseline though, when you draft a guard at #6, it means you're expecting him to be an exceptional player. Once he lives up to that expectation, you're going to have to pay him; and you sign up for that when he's drafted as well. These decisions were made in 2018. I stated my objection to drafting a guard at #6 back then. Once it happened, it was obvious that if Nelson was as good as advertised, we'd eventually be paying him a top of market contract. I made my peace with this a long time ago. Now that it's about to happen, I don't understand the continued resistance.

 

If you offer me two premium picks for Nelson, I'd consider trading him. But I don't see that happening either.

[jonjon]

On 9/7/2022 at 1:00 PM, Nickster said:

You do realize that was almost 30 years ago now right?  

 

 

And?

 

I couldn't finish this thread...reading silliness like OG (or C) doesn't really matter much or isn't a "skilled" position were already too much after just eating lunch.

 

Nelson is the cornerstone of our OL and if the Colts blow this signing, they are Id10ts. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, jonjon said:

And?

 

I couldn't finish this thread...reading silliness like OG (or C) doesn't really matter much or isn't a "skilled" position were already too much after just eating lunch.

 

Nelson is the cornerstone of our OL and if the Colts blow this signing, they are Id10ts. 

 

We agree, not re-signing him would be like not re-signing Larry Allen. IMO, Nelson is the closest thing I have seen since Big Larry.

[Nickster]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's certainly NOT my logic. And why is the condescension necessary?

 

QBs don't make $25m/year anymore. Ryan Tannehill makes $29.5m/year. Matt Ryan makes $30m/year. Goff and Wentz signed their deals 4 years ago, and they make $32-33.5m/year. The top 9 guys make $40m/year, or more. 

 

I don't even know where $25m/year came from, unless that's meant to be reduction to the absurd. People have been projecting $20m/year, and I think that's ambitious. Top of the market for guards is $16.5m. Nelson probably comes in around $18-19m/year (my projection). If he's one of our best players, he helps the team, and that's his market, I don't see how paying him is counter productive. 

 

What would be counter productive, hypothetically, would be paying Ryan Kelly $12-14m/year for the next two seasons, if he's not able to perform like one of our best players. Or, hypothetically, paying Kenny Moore like he's a top ten CB. Paying our best OL market rate doesn't fit this mold, IMO. 

 

 

Your argument is you pay what you have to pay from what I've seen and yes that is an absurd argument.

 

The Q question is about resetting the market.  So fine.  Lots of markets are being reset, most up some down.  So there is a cap on what you would pay Q regardless of how good he is at LG.

So your argument that he is one of our 3 best players, I think you could easily say best player, is moot.  That doesn't matter.   If your best player is an EDGE or a QB they are going to make a boatload more than a LG or ILB.  

 

The point is there is still a cap on his value no matter how good he is.  Especially at his position which is one of the easier to fill and an acceptable level. 

 

Condescension?  You mean the duh?  That just means duh.  There is no argument that there is a cap. Not personal.

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nelson is so much better than Glowinski. This illustrates my point. Glowinksi is your average veteran starter, and he got a decent contract from the Giants because he's pretty good, and players like him aren't that plentiful. And Nelson is leaps and bounds better than him.

 

I would have been fine with trading Kelly and paying Glow. I think it's going to be easier to replace Kelly than it would be to replace Nelson. I'd consider this next season also, although I doubt it happens. 

 

More baseline though, when you draft a guard at #6, it means you're expecting him to be an exceptional player. Once he lives up to that expectation, you're going to have to pay him; and you sign up for that when he's drafted as well. These decisions were made in 2018. I stated my objection to drafting a guard at #6 back then. Once it happened, it was obvious that if Nelson was as good as advertised, we'd eventually be paying him a top of market contract. I made my peace with this a long time ago. Now that it's about to happen, I don't understand the continued resistance.

 

If you offer me two premium picks for Nelson, I'd consider trading him. But I don't see that happening either.

I was all for drafting Nelson, but at #6 was too high and I think that was almost a unanimous opinion from draft experts. 
 

I’d say ‘resistance’ is maybe a little strong, for me at least. It’s not like we have a say in it. I’m just stating my opinion: I doubt we’ll get his contracts worth in winshare (if that makes sense) and I feel we’re spending too much on the OL as a whole, especially with the level of play we’re getting from them. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Solid84 said:

I was all for drafting Nelson, but at #6 was too high and I think that was almost a unanimous opinion from draft experts. 
 

I’d say ‘resistance’ is maybe a little strong, for me at least. It’s not like we have a say in it. I’m just stating my opinion: I doubt we’ll get his contracts worth in winshare (if that makes sense) and I feel we’re spending too much on the OL as a whole, especially with the level of play we’re getting from them. 

I agree with the bolded. We need to be getting second of of 2018 / 2019 level pass protection when we have the highest paid OL in the league. But we had issues at LT last season, and we had issues at QB. I'm hoping for a resurgence in protection, and I think we can maintain the same level of run blocking.

 

This thread is a testament to the "resistance." Don't know how else you'd categorize it. 

 

As for drafting Nelson at #6, I'm just glad we didn't do it at #3...

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nelson is so much better than Glowinski. This illustrates my point. Glowinksi is your average veteran starter, and he got a decent contract from the Giants because he's pretty good, and players like him aren't that plentiful. And Nelson is leaps and bounds better than him.

 

I would have been fine with trading Kelly and paying Glow. I think it's going to be easier to replace Kelly than it would be to replace Nelson. I'd consider this next season also, although I doubt it happens. 

 

More baseline though, when you draft a guard at #6, it means you're expecting him to be an exceptional player. Once he lives up to that expectation, you're going to have to pay him; and you sign up for that when he's drafted as well. These decisions were made in 2018. I stated my objection to drafting a guard at #6 back then. Once it happened, it was obvious that if Nelson was as good as advertised, we'd eventually be paying him a top of market contract. I made my peace with this a long time ago. Now that it's about to happen, I don't understand the continued resistance.

 

If you offer me two premium picks for Nelson, I'd consider trading him. But I don't see that happening either.

"Nelson is so much better than Glowinski", that's all I needed to read. Nelson is a Top 5 OG of all-time IMO. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

Lets say he's our best player which I wouldn't argue.  We should pay him 25 million?  That is what the QB is making.  

 

That's your logic.  

 

I'm a big Q fan Supe, but there is a point where the money is counterproductive to the team's chances.

 

Duh.

And the 25 mill is what I thought we were paying Ryan BTW.

 

I don't agree you always pay your best players at the top of the market.  It depends what position they play and how much.  The Pack couldn't pay ADAMS after paying ARODGE.

 

Adams is surely one of their best players.

i think that is a weak argument saying you pay your 3 or x number of best players.  Not always the case by a fur piece. 

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

I agree with the bolded. We need to be getting second of of 2018 / 2019 level pass protection when we have the highest paid OL in the league. But we had issues at LT last season, and we had issues at QB. I'm hoping for a resurgence in protection, and I think we can maintain the same level of run blocking.

 

This thread is a testament to the "resistance." Don't know how else you'd categorize it. 

 

As for drafting Nelson at #6, I'm just glad we didn't do it at #3...

Resistance to me is more like, you know, torches and pitchforks/riots. 
 

Probably just a language barrier-thing. 
 

Nvm. 

[BlackTiger]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

'm not lumping in LG with those other supplementary spots. I understand positional value, and I don't have LG that high on the list, but we're going too far in discounting good interior line play lately. There is a big difference between average guard play and elite line play, and while people seem to think you can snap your fingers and find a suitable replacement, it's really not that easy. It's especially strange to see Colts fans make this argument when we had subpar interior line play for the better part of a decade. 

 

I dont think its that hard to find a passable guard.  Grigson struggled with it but we dont need them to set the league on fire, they just have to be decent 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I was all for drafting Nelson, but at #6 was too high and I think that was almost a unanimous opinion from draft experts. 
 

I’d say ‘resistance’ is maybe a little strong, for me at least. It’s not like we have a say in it. I’m just stating my opinion: I doubt we’ll get his contracts worth in winshare (if that makes sense) and I feel we’re spending too much on the OL as a whole, especially with the level of play we’re getting from them. 

Many in here wanted Chubb, I wanted Nelson, when Chubb went at 5 I did this 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Your argument is you pay what you have to pay from what I've seen and yes that is an absurd argument.

 

That's not my argument. I think the market is clear. If Nelson is demanding $25m/year, we should not pay that. At worse, we should tag him through 2024 and then let him do whatever he wants to do. 

 

But if the market is $18m/year, and we can get him at that level, now what? Let him walk because you don't like guards? Try to get him down to $15m/year? (The cap is $208m this year; if you're willing to let Nelson walk over 1.4% of the cap -- and that's without averaging the projected caps over the life of the contract, which is what we should be talking about, in which case it's like 0.4% of the cap -- then that's just crazy.)

 

Quote

The point is there is still a cap on his value no matter how good he is.  Especially at his position which is one of the easier to fill and an acceptable level. 

 

Setting aside how easy it is to fill his position (again, ironic considering we had terrible guard play for a decade), what's his value? I don't know if you saw my projection earlier. Brandon Scherff is 3.5 years older than Nelson, and just signed for $16.5m/year. It's safe to say Nelson would get more on the open market. His market is pretty easy to see. So at what point are you saying 'I'm out, it's too much for a guard'? 

 

Quote

Condescension?  You mean the duh?  That just means duh.  There is no argument that there is a cap. Not personal.

 

It was condescending. And I'm not pointing it out because it hurt my feelings. I would just think you'd start recognizing how that tone contributes to unproductive conversations. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

 

I dont think its that hard to find a passable guard.  Grigson struggled with it but we dont need them to set the league on fire, they just have to be decent 

What people don't get is Nelson is an outlier, once in a generation OG. He is so dominant. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

 

I dont think its that hard to find a passable guard.  Grigson struggled with it but we dont need them to set the league on fire, they just have to be decent 

 

I disagree. "Passable" guard play is not what I think any team should be looking for. Especially not when our best offensive player is a RB.

[Solid84]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

"Nelson is so much better than Glowinski", that's all I needed to read. Nelson is a Top 5 OG of all-time IMO. 

Glowinski is in the ‘good’ tier in my opinion and that’s often enough. 
 

Like I said I like Nelson. He’s a great player and that’s undisputable. There’s nothing but good to say about a guy who goes toe-to-toe with Aaron Donald. BUT, like we saw in the Rams game last season, Donald just slides down the line to the other guard and now Nelson is stuck looking at their NT…

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Many in here wanted Chubb, I wanted Nelson, when Chubb went at 5 I did this 

 

I wanted Chubb. It sucks that he's been hurt. I still think he would have been amazing for us, assuming he would have stayed healthy. And right now we'd be talking about paying him $25m/year. 

[Nickster]

3 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

 

I dont think its that hard to find a passable guard.  Grigson struggled with it but we dont need them to set the league on fire, they just have to be decent 

 

Grigs had some bad luck but his inability to fill the G, C, G was crippling for the long term prospects of the team.  Spent a top half 1st round pick on a C, the 6 and 33 at Gs (33 became a really good RT which was a boon).  These are good players no doubt (thought the C is bang average now), and we needed to do something about these positions, but that is a lot of draft capital that is usually used for higher valued positions.  It's definitely limited our talent on the EDGES and WR, among other positions. 

 

It's not debatable.  It's a fact.  We've spent a lot of capital in positions that over all are believed by the paymasters and drafters of the league to have less value.  Maybe it will work. 

 

Grigs couldn't put an interior line together to save his life and the club is still reacting to that with this Nelson salary thing. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I wanted Chubb. It sucks that he's been hurt. I still think he would have been amazing for us, assuming he would have stayed healthy. And right now we'd be talking about paying him $25m/year. 

I wanted Nelson because Luck was getting beat up, then Andrew quit on me anyway-lmao. Nelson is an all-time great, If we signed him for 5 years for 18 or 19 Mill I would be ok with it. Other than Larry Allen, he is the greatest force I have ever seen by eye test. John Hannah may have been better but we are talking a small group to play Guard.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Grigs had some bad luck but his inability to fill the G, C, G was crippling for the long term prospects of the team.  Spent a top half 1st round pick on a C, the 6 and 33 at Gs (33 became a really good RT which was a boon).  These are good players no doubt (thought the C is bang average now), and we needed to do something about these positions, but that is a lot of draft capital that is usually used for higher valued positions.  It's definitely limited our talent on the EDGES and WR, among other positions. 

 

It's not debatable.  It's a fact.  We've spent a lot of capital in positions that over all are believed by the paymasters and drafters of the league to have less value.  Maybe it will work. 

 

Grigs couldn't put an interior line together to save his life and the club is still reacting to that with this Nelson salary thing. 

If Andrew Luck had the Line that we had from 2018-now when he came out in 2012, we would've probably won 2 or 3 SB's by now. Sad really that some don't realize how important the Line is. Then I see posts like Emmitt only did what he did because of his Line, only if Barry had that Line. Just baffles me.

[2006Coltsbestever]

If I was a QB or RB I would take 5 Homer Simpsons on my line over any skilled position player that is deemed great. Just give me average WRs at that point because I will have 4 seconds to throw, if I am a RB the holes would be huge  

[2006Coltsbestever]

QB's that have won SB's with great Lines =

 

Thiesman, Rypien, Dilfer, Johnson - then people will say that was 100 years ago. Nick Foles, drops mic, Philly had an awesome O.Line in 2017 = recent 

[BlackTiger]

36 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

What people don't get is Nelson is an outlier, once in a generation OG. He is so dominant. 

I wanted to at least see him try Lt for a bit.  

 

We have a top tier guard when healthy and maybe a passable LT now.  I dont think we are missing out on much if we try him there over Pryor 

[Nickster]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's not my argument. I think the market is clear. If Nelson is demanding $25m/year, we should not pay that. At worse, we should tag him through 2024 and then let him do whatever he wants to do. 

 

We know he going to reset the market Supe.  The question is how much and is it worth it for a LG.  I think we are in agreement there.  Sure I'm for signing him a 18, 19 for a few years.  But how many?  Not sure.  Guaranteed is a little sticky.  I am not against signing Q at all.  But I think signing him for what we paid Shaq guaranteed would be probably detrimental long term.

 

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But if the market is $18m/year, and we can get him at that level, now what? Let him walk because you don't like guards? Try to get him down to $15m/year? (The cap is $208m this year; if you're willing to let Nelson walk over 1.4% of the cap -- and that's without averaging the projected caps over the life of the contract, which is what we should be talking about, in which case it's like 0.4% of the cap -- then that's just crazy.)

 

See above.

 

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

Setting aside how easy it is to fill his position (again, ironic considering we had terrible guard play for a decade), what's his value? I don't know if you saw my projection earlier. Brandon Scherff is 3.5 years older than Nelson, and just signed for $16.5m/year. It's safe to say Nelson would get more on the open market. His market is pretty easy to see. So at what point are you saying 'I'm out, it's too much for a guard'? 

 

What point for me?  I guess see above.  But THERE IS A POINT.

 

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It was condescending. And I'm not pointing it out because it hurt my feelings. I would just think you'd start recognizing how that tone contributes to unproductive conversations. 

 

 

"I'm a big Q fan Supe, but there is a point where the money is counterproductive to the team's chances.

 

Duh."

 

Don't know what to tell you.  The Duh here means that it seems that the point is without argument.  Sorry, I'm not sorry.  I'll fire back at people, but I'm not going to start with the condescension usually.  I don't see any reason to discuss things with you that way.  But read what you will.  

 

EDIT:  the Duh was punctuated with period.  You know.  Like duh.  No feces.   I guess I would agree with the position that a Duh followed by one or more exclamation marks would be condescending lol. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I wanted to at least see him try Lt for a bit.  

 

We have a top tier guard when healthy and maybe a passable LT now.  I dont think we are missing out on much if we try him there over Pryor 

I am not sure he can play LT, Larry did but Larry was stronger. As far as Guard goes though, Nelson is top 3 to 5 of all-time, JMO.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am not sure he can play LT, Larry did but Larry was stronger. As far as Guard goes though, Nelson is top 3 to 5 of all-time, JMO.

 

Guards are usually the strongest guys on the team.  Of course LTs are strong but more emphasis is on length and lateral quickness for LTs compared to Gs. 

 

I have to believe that if Q were good enough to be a pro Bowl level LT, he would be playing there. 

 

If he wanted to build a legend, then being an AP Guard and then moving to LT and being AP would be unprecedented. 

[Superman]

59 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don't agree you always pay your best players at the top of the market.  It depends what position they play and how much.  The Pack couldn't pay ADAMS after paying ARODGE.

 

Adams is surely one of their best players.

i think that is a weak argument saying you pay your 3 or x number of best players. 

 

That wasn't my point. The point was that he's one of our best players, which means it's hard to see keeping him -- at a reasonable, market rate, of course -- being counter productive. 

 

The Packers traded Adams for a first and second round pick. I might agree to trade Nelson for the same, but that's a different conversation. (More in the weeds, they could have paid both, but it would have cost them at other positions.)

 

I'd also like to point out that Adams would not have been counter productive to the Packers. In fact, it doesn't seem like they have a great succession plan to make up for his absence, but we'll see how their WR corps performs in 2022. If it doesn't work out, it won't look good for their front office to have a first round QB sitting on the bench, a couple extra picks, and have their ceiling capped this season because they don't have good WR play. 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That wasn't my point. The point was that he's one of our best players, which means it's hard to see keeping him -- at a reasonable, market rate, of course -- being counter productive. 

 

The Packers traded Adams for a first and second round pick. I might agree to trade Nelson for the same, but that's a different conversation. (More in the weeds, they could have paid both, but it would have cost them at other positions.)

 

I'd also like to point out that Adams would not have been counter productive to the Packers. In fact, it doesn't seem like they have a great succession plan to make up for his absence, but we'll see how their WR corps performs in 2022. If it doesn't work out, it won't look good for their front office to have a first round QB sitting on the bench, a couple extra picks, and have their ceiling capped this season because they don't have good WR play. 

 

From what I glean we are roughly in agreement with what is fair for Q and not overpay.

 

I would STILL like the club to wait a while and see how his back holds up.  He's been getting nicked a lot for a younger player. 

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is obviously true. Not to speak for anyone else, but I think the point was that paying Nelson doesn't preclude the Colts from paying for a LT at the same time. And that point is being made in light of all the people suggesting that if you pay your LG big money it prevents you from having a good LT.

 

This is like saying you can't have a top five punter and kicker at the same time. Of course you can. Or, you can't have two top five paid safeties. Of course you can. And yes, that will have ramifications at other positions, but everyone knows that. 

 

On the OL, you can stagger pay and draft picks across the multiple positions, so it's not even that big of a deal. As long as you can draft good OL, you can mix and match, and make room for 2-3 highly paid OL at any given time. We don't have Darrisaw, but we do have Matt Pryor for one year, at about the cap cost of a high first rounder, and we have Raimann, who will probably get a shot at LT if Pryor doesn't stick there. Also can assume that Ryan Kelly would be considered a cap casualty if necessary.

 

Bigger picture, this story is five years old. We knew when they drafted Nelson that this was coming.

I realize that NCF's comment is somewhat semantical.  I think is was a rebuttal to another comment that was being semantical when it suggested that signing Nelson would prevent us from signing an LT.  

 

And yes, we knew this was the path when we drafted Nelson #6, that if he played up to expectations, the next contract would be huge.  We married the idea of perpetually using more capital on a LG than a typical NFL team does.  I wont say the word Albatross, but in the quest to find high talent long term at the LT, QB, and DE positions, having to work around the contract of your highly paid LG makes it more difficult.  Not impossible, but sort of a corner that Ballard has to work himself out of.  

 

I think roster management tries to have an even split of offensive and defensive personnel...25/25, something like that.  If the salary cap distribution works the same way, and you expect your high draft choices to play like high draft choices that should be resigned to high dollar contracts (or else its a bit of a draft whiff), what do folks think our team would look like when we use our high picks on a C, FS, LG, ILB, RT, RB, and X WR.  Solid, but not very dynamic with the big passing plays or with the pass rush.

 

Not any one pick can be criticized.  They all have been the best decision at the time, IMO.  But that individual analysis doesn't change the fact that when you add them all up, together they sort of move Ballard into a corner that he has to work out of.  Thank goodness Ryan was available. 

 

So, do I care very much about retaining Nelson long term?,, Not really.

 

I'm all for moving on from Kelly.  Which only works if Pinter plays as good as Kelly has and saves the cap space, allowing that premium LG, RT, and LT to co exist.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So, do I care very much about retaining Nelson long term?,, Not really.

 

I disagree. I'd be open to a trade, but letting him walk over a small percentage of the cap would be a mistake.

 

As for the conversation about roster composition and cap management, sure, that's a discussion that gets retread and reworked every few weeks around here. But we are what we are, and we have who we have right now. The goal is to maximize the current roster, and if we see that the ceiling isn't high enough, I'm all for drastically changing the composition. But I'm not letting Nelson walk without getting a major yield in return. 

[throwing BBZ]

 

 Why WORRY about it NOW? Salary Caps are considered years ahead and why DRAFT and develop is a fact of life.

  After 2022 

LT Raimann  < $1.5M each of the Next 3 years (Q's guar $ yrs)  C Pinter        < $1.1M in 23
RG Fries         about $1M in 23-24 

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Why WORRY about it NOW? Salary Caps are considered years ahead and why DRAFT and develop is a fact of life.

  After 2022 

LT Raimann  < $1.5M each of the Next 3 years (Q's guar $ yrs)  C Pinter        < $1.1M in 23
RG Fries         about $1M in 23-24 

 

I'm not worried now..... especially about Nelson....

 

but... 

Total #3 - $191.9M

OL #1 - $45.8M 

DL #3 - $50.9M (#1 KC 55.8M) - better see sacks lol

 

We need Pryor play good. And we need Raimann to develop. 

 

We're spending $$ on OL and DL, and we should expect #10+ protection (pass OL), and #10+ sacks (DL)... 

 

Next year... maybe.... 

LT Raimann

LG Nelson

C Pinter

RG Pryor

RT Smith

[jvan1973]

Q is gonna get paid.   He isn't going anywhere.   People that get paid millions to build rosters are going to pay him.   

[Jason_]

On 9/7/2022 at 10:59 AM, DougDew said:

Via double teams usually, enhanced by communication and technique; and via RBs stepping up to catch a blitzer.  The bigger DT usually isn't much of a threat before the QB gets rid of the ball.

 

Keep ignoring the fundamentals of football though....

 

The NT usually isn't but there are more athletic 3 techs coming into the league every year