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

[Coltsalr]

Originally Posted by JesusChrist

perhaps it's time for another LSU RB

I would like to see them get Guice, Josh Jackson, and Jefferson

Guice, Landry, and Hurst is what I was thinking

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by testcase448

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...

Manning is the best QB to ever play the game, do you expect Luck to be Manning? I think Luck as a prospect is much better than Eli, I think he is the best prospect to come out since Peyton. A more friendly scheme, and one that is more creative for today's NFL will help him a lot. But you look at his first two years before the injury and he is light years ahead of any other two year player I have seen. The problem is he elevated the team quite a bit above it's talent level. Like Peyton did.

The cowboys line was certainly great, but it was also a different era. griggs tried to emulate it and failed miserably. I think the entire league is desperate for oline talent, this past first round is evident of that.

[GoBigBlue88]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

I mean, they're kinda hand-in-hand, right? A guard shouldn't be the 6th overall pick because a playmaking position should be.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88

I mean, they're kinda hand-in-hand, right? A guard shouldn't be the 6th overall pick because a playmaking position should be.

So that's it, then? It comes down to the fact that you simply don't believe a guard - any guard, no matter how good they are - can make a meaningful difference? Then I'm guessing you were not in favor of the Colts signing a high-end free agent guard either, right?

[GoBigBlue88]

Originally Posted by Chaka

So that's it, then? It comes down to the fact that you simply don't believe a guard - any guard, no matter how good they are - can make a meaningful difference? Then I'm guessing you were not in favor of the Colts signing a high-end free agent guard either, right?

Draft capital does not = FA/cap capital. But that's being a little reductive. It's more: you only get so many chances to draft top 10 and find a Day 1 playmaker.

[smitty46953]

Originally Posted by Chaka

So that's it, then? It comes down to the fact that you simply don't believe a guard - any guard, no matter how good they are - can make a meaningful difference? Then I'm guessing you were not in favor of the Colts signing a high-end free agent guard either, right?

Opinions do very ... I loved the Pick of Nelson ... Guess that is what makes these boards fun to a point. Some like too beat a dead horse to oblivion.

[smitty46953]

Seems Ballard who gets paid decent money to do this has no clue. Guess we hired the wrong GM ?

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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

The best way to counteract an athletic three technique is effective technique and strength. There's no edge to bend on the interior, so a technically sound guard will do best to just give ground to counteract the first step ability and use sound technique to effectively counteract their moves. Also, another reason a quality LT is important is that it allows you to assign a double team on the interior OL, thus reducing the importance of guard play further.

Obviously failed tackles are not the only options for guards, I never said that. I said that failed tackles expand the pool of available players that can be effective guards, which increases supply and lowers demand. The difference between those two statements is not subtle or easily missed, so it seems like you're trying to misconstrue my point to make it easier to argue against.

Guard is not a value position. It's because guards can't have a huge impact on the game. It really is fairly simple.

[smitty46953]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

The best way to counteract an athletic three technique is effective technique and strength. There's no edge to bend on the interior, so a technically sound guard will do best to just give ground to counteract the first step ability and use sound technique to effectively counteract their moves. Also, another reason a quality LT is important is that it allows you to assign a double team on the interior OL, thus reducing the importance of guard play further.

Obviously failed tackles are not the only options for guards, I never said that. I said that failed tackles expand the pool of available players that can be effective guards, which increases supply and lowers demand. The difference between those two statements is not subtle or easily missed, so it seems like you're trying to misconstrue my point to make it easier to argue against.

Guard is not a value position. It's because guards can't have a huge impact on the game. It really is fairly simple.

Have you started your fire Ballard campaign yet? Did you forget to apply for that job?

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by smitty46953

Seems Ballard who gets paid decent money to do this has no clue. Guess we hired the wrong GM ?

I'm not ready to go that far yet, but this has been a bad offseason thus far.