![]() |
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
S L O W to me to say Norwell wasn’t an option? Quoting a post I specifically said I wasn’t knocking Ballard for not getting him? So don’t talk to me about having to resort to BS to get my point across. I’ll stoop to whatever level you do when addressing me. You want to be an ass, I’ll be an ass. Simple as that. My point has simply been that Nelson was not the only option available to Ballard. Possibly not even the best. Even when taking into account his failure to address it previously. I’d say a good argument could be made that trading back and walking away with McGlinchey or Miller and then adding Smith would have improved the line tremendously as well. Many said predraft that tackle was the biggest issue for the line, so that’s not hindsight. And I could argue the long term outlook of the line would be brighter with a solid tackle in place to slide to the left side in a year or two. Or whenever Castonzo is hurt. Regardless, sitting at 6 Ballard had options. Especially considering that the way the QBs fell made the spot extra valuable. The #6 pick was the 2nd most valuable commodity the team had behind only Luck. The trade down from 3 to 6 was brilliant, but from there Ballard failed to maximize the value of his commodity IMO. As a side note, I chuckle watching people say the money Norwell got was way to much but having no problem with using the #6 pick on Nelson. If Nelson isn’t worthy of being the highest paid guard in the league after his rookie contract then the pick was a failure. You either believe in the value of the position or you don’t. I don’t rank it as high as other positions, hence why I don’t blame Ballard for Norwell. But if I had to choose, considering the current state of the roster, I’d rather overpay with cap space than draft position. Top 10 picks are scarce commodities - usually. Admittedly the Colts may very well be in position for another next year though. |
|
|