Quenton Nelson (G-ND) Rd #1 Pick #6

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

Coming into the draft, I thought there might be great value at RB in round 2 (and you could definitely make a case for Guice or Jones), but I didn't expect some of these defenders to fall. They could get 3-4 1st round talents on defense today.

I really would be surprised if we took a RB. this thing with Guice is weird and now all the immaturity comments. ROJO would be a nice pick. But I really think RB takes a backseat this year and maybe a Dion Jones scat back in a later round or a big back like Ballage.

But who knows, Irsay said they would look for a back, I was wrong about Nelson.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

No one is knocking Nelson for his talent. His position is just not high enough value to warrant spending that high of a pick on him.

Can somebody explain in detail, rather than just stating it as a conclusion, why they think picking an exceptional guard prospect like Nelson at #6 is too high? Virtually every projection had him going in the 5-8 range. This isn't a situation where the Colts picked someone way before they were expected to be picked. Yet it seems to be a working assumption here that taking any guard, even one of Nelson's apparent caliber, at #6 was some sort of reach. I don't get it.

I read GoBigBlue's criticism at the outset of this thread, and Chromeburn's explanation of why an OT is usually considered more valuable than a guard, but neither have really answered my question about why it is impossible for an exceptional guard prospect like Nelson to merit being picked at #6, or why GBB's belief that an opposing team can simply avoid a guard would not also apply to an OT picked at the top of the draft.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by JesusChrist

What impact defender other than Freeney did Polian draft in the top 15?

Polian's lack of addressing the line as his tenure went on had a negative effect on the offense, especially in the playoffs. Polian should have addressed the line with better quality talent, but failed to do so after some of those guys from his earlier years were gone.

Pittsburgh beating the shit out of Manning in 05 comes to mind. Colts had the defense to win it all that year, it was the o-line that let them down.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Can somebody explain in detail, rather than just stating it as a conclusion, why they think picking an exceptional guard prospect like Nelson at #6 is too high? Virtually every projection had him going in the 5-8 range. This isn't a situation where the Colts picked someone way before they were expected to be picked. Yet it seems to be a working assumption here that taking any guard, even one of Nelson's apparent caliber, at #6 was some sort of reach. I don't get it.

I read GoBigBlue's criticism at the outset of this thread, and Chromeburn's explanation of why an OT is usually considered more valuable than a guard, but neither have really answered my question about why it is impossible for an exceptional guard prospect like Nelson to merit being picked at #6, or why GBB's belief that an opposing team can simply avoid a guard would not also apply to an OT picked at the top of the draft.

A LT's value is in being able to neutralize the opposing team's best pass rush threat. They have to have athleticism to be able to force adept pass rushers to run the arc, and the strength to prevent them from bending the edge and creating a direct path to the QB. A guard can't and is not expected to do any of those things. They don't have the value of OTs because the athleticism and footwork requirements are nowhere near as high. Thus, many players who can't play tackle professionally can play guard. The greater supply is what makes it possible to find starters at the position with relative ease on Day 3. Greater supply always means lower value.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Luck is fine. It was a bad scheme and bad line that hurt us. Can't have a long ball scheme with a power run line. You need pass blockers not road graders. Then they telegraphed all their runs. Fuck, why did we not fire grigs and pags years ago? I was ok with the defensive system, but you need good LB's for a 3-4 and we never invested in LB's. Fucking whole thing was stupid.

Luck is fine... but he will never be Manning. Well he might be ELI Manning
Can't have a long ball scheme with the shit we have now for damn sure. AND we can't run the ball with the shit we had. We could barely keep our QBs off IR. Oh wait...
Oddly enough the 90s Cowboys could do long ball just as easy as they shoved E. Smith up your ass down after down.
One doesn't preclude the other...

[GoBigBlue88]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Can somebody explain in detail, rather than just stating it as a conclusion, why they think picking an exceptional guard prospect like Nelson at #6 is too high? Virtually every projection had him going in the 5-8 range. This isn't a situation where the Colts picked someone way before they were expected to be picked. Yet it seems to be a working assumption here that taking any guard, even one of Nelson's apparent caliber, at #6 was some sort of reach. I don't get it.

I read GoBigBlue's criticism at the outset of this thread, and Chromeburn's explanation of why an OT is usually considered more valuable than a guard, but neither have really answered my question about why it is impossible for an exceptional guard prospect like Nelson to merit being picked at #6, or why GBB's belief that an opposing team can simply avoid a guard would not also apply to an OT picked at the top of the draft.

If I had to oversimplify your first question? Because you can have an All-Pro guard who busts his ass and does a great job, but is offset by bad OL play around him, and your QB still gets hurt or run game still shut down because the right side of your line is still incompetent.

Whereas you can have an occasional Pro Bowl MLB who is a threat to make a play any down, regardless of the talent around him, because he's off-ball and in a position to affect the play beyond a single matchup.

[jasperhobbs]

I wonder who the colts would have chosen if both Nelson and Chubb were available. I am guessing Chubb

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88

If I had to oversimplify your first question? Because you can have an All-Pro guard who busts his ass and does a great job, but is offset by bad OL play around him, and your QB still gets hurt or run game still shut down because the right side of your line is still incompetent.

Whereas you can have an occasional Pro Bowl MLB who is a threat to make a play any down, regardless of the talent around him, because he's off-ball and in a position to affect the play beyond a single matchup.

I get what you are saying, but it sounds like rooted more in your view that the team would have been better served to take a defensive player instead of an offensive lineman, rather that a criticism of the particular position that Nelson plays. What I was trying to get at was why a guard, in particular, can't ever be worthy of a high first round pick, since that seems to be a working assumption here.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

A LT's value is in being able to neutralize the opposing team's best pass rush threat. They have to have athleticism to be able to force adept pass rushers to run the arc, and the strength to prevent them from bending the edge and creating a direct path to the QB. A guard can't and is not expected to do any of those things. They don't have the value of OTs because the athleticism and footwork requirements are nowhere near as high. Thus, many players who can't play tackle professionally can play guard. The greater supply is what makes it possible to find starters at the position with relative ease on Day 3. Greater supply always means lower value.

Thank you, I appreciate the effort and I do understand the reason why OTs are generally valued higher that guards, but my question was a little more specific: why was Nelson, in particular, a bad pick given the seeming consensus that he's a uniquely effective guard? And incidentally, what about the emergence of the three tech DTs like Aaron Donald that Chromeburn mentioned in a prior post – wouldn’t that merit reconsidering your lowly view of guards?

Lastly, I’ll add that your conclusions aren’t really borne out in the real world. If guards are merely unathletic, slow-footed OTs, then why does the guard profession exist independently in the first place? Wouldn’t all the bad OTs just move to guard? And why are the top guards now getting $10M+ while there are lots of out-of-work, slow-footed OTs who could be paid a lot less? Why doesn't Zach Banner just move to guard?

I’m really not trying to be overly critical, it’s just that I don’t think it’s as simple or cut-and-dried as you’re saying. The old chestnut that you can't take a guard high in the first round is often stated, but rarely explained other than to say that OTs are generally more important than Guards

[sherck]

We play in a division with DTs named Malik Jackson, J.J. Watt, Dareus Marcell, Casey Jurrell, and Bennie Logan and folks are unhappy we drafted Quinton Nelson?

Really?

Are your heads going to explode when we add 1 or 2 more O-Linemen tonight?

I am hoping for Hernandez and Williams at 36 and 37 tonight....if nothing else to watch the melt down.



Walk Worthy,

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk