Grigs will probably trade up

[ztboiler]

At some point in this draft we'll see Grigs make a move....probably up.  Here is a little trade up that makes a ton of sense:

 

Our 5th and one of our 6's to get back to the top of the 5th or bottom of the 4th.  It looks good on the value chart, and there is probably a player left on our board worth cashing in the 6th to go get.

 

Venturi had a great quote today on the radio...."you can't give them all spears and tell them to go win the war".  In other words, it takes specific players to win, not numbers, and he didn't see the Colts keeping all 9 picks.

 

The position I'd love to target in this trade is RB.  Let's address RT and D with the first 4 picks and then trade up to get the best RB left on our board since one of them is bound to fall a bit.

[bananabucket]

I've always been a proponent of going and getting the guy that you want.  sitting back and seeing what's left seems like a bad approach if there are certain guys you really like.

[3nk1du]

I think  he would trade up on the 3rd to get Henry Anderson, if we got a DT on the first, or trade up on the 3rd to get T. Coleman maybe.

[loudnproudcolt]

I agree with him trading up, the only thing is the value chart has lost a little of its luster since the new CBA and the new rookie scale. So I think your argument is valid, I just wonder now about what it will take.

[NewColtsFan]

At some point in this draft we'll see Grigs make a move....probably up.  Here is a little trade up that makes a ton of sense:

 

Our 5th and one of our 6's to get back to the top of the 5th or bottom of the 4th.  It looks good on the value chart, and there is probably a player left on our board worth cashing in the 6th to go get.

 

Venturi had a great quote today on the radio...."you can't give them all spears and tell them to go win the war".  In other words, it takes specific players to win, not numbers, and he didn't see the Colts keeping all 9 picks.

 

The position I'd love to target in this trade is RB.  Let's address RT and D with the first 4 picks and then trade up to get the best RB left on our board since one of them is bound to fall a bit.

 

That's my guy!    Way to be thinking, ZTB!!

 

So.....   let's talk about the value chart......

 

I just checked it out...

 

If we trade the five with one of our 6's,  we move from pick 165 up to pick 140, which fortunately is Oakland.   A team trying to build and I think would be very receptive to a two for one trade.

 

And....

 

If we were going to go really bold,  and we trade the 5 and BOTH of our 6's,  we would move to the bottom of the 4th, to pick 126...    which also fortunately is SF.    Another team that's rebuilding after the off-season from Heck!     So, a THREE for ONE trade moves us up 39 spots into the bottom of the 4th.  

 

That might make all the difference in the quality of running back we get. 

 

The question is, are the Colts willing to do a TWO for ONE?     I would think so.

 

But would the Colts be willing to do a THREE for ONE if it gets us into the 4th round?    My guess is we wouldn't.   

 

By the way,  if Grigson likes the 6th as a round for a trade,  we could simply package both of our 6's and it would move us to the near the top of the round....     might be an easier trade for everyone involved.     Two 6's for one.

 

Either way,  thanks for floating this, ZTB!   

[Deano1818]

I agree

 

9 picks

 

 

With our current team we dont have room for 6

 

 

I can see a move that gives us an extra 2nd

[Defjamz26]

Hopefully its a higher round trade. Last time he traded up for a lie round player it was for Montori Hughes who has contributed nothing to this team.

Least time he traded up for a higher round player, it got us T.Y. Hilton. Ideally though, I hope he trades up to get whatever safeties he wants.

[Archer]

He's done it before in the 3rd to 5th rounds.  Sounds like he came close to doing it last year to get Jonathan Newsome.  Targets?  Tyeler Davison, Jake Ryan, Buck Allen, or another RB might be my guesses...

[Valpo2004]

Don't mind trades up in the lower rounds.  Just hope he's not thinking about a big jump up in the first round cause that costs a lot.

[ztboiler]

That's my guy!    Way to be thinking, ZTB!!

 

So.....   let's talk about the value chart......

 

I just checked it out...

 

If we trade the five with one of our 6's,  we move from pick 165 up to pick 140, which fortunately is Oakland.   A team trying to build and I think would be very receptive to a two for one trade.

 

And....

 

If we were going to go really bold,  and we trade the 5 and BOTH of our 6's,  we would move to the bottom of the 4th, to pick 126...    which also fortunately is SF.    Another team that's rebuilding after the off-season from Heck!     So, a THREE for ONE trade moves us up 39 spots into the bottom of the 4th.  

 

That might make all the difference in the quality of running back we get. 

 

The question is, are the Colts willing to do a TWO for ONE?     I would think so.

 

But would the Colts be willing to do a THREE for ONE if it gets us into the 4th round?    My guess is we wouldn't.   

 

By the way,  if Grigson likes the 6th as a round for a trade,  we could simply package both of our 6's and it would move us to the near the top of the round....     might be an easier trade for everyone involved.     Two 6's for one.

 

Either way,  thanks for floating this, ZTB!   

I hadn't thought about the 3:1 trade but if the right player is there, trading up 40 spots makes sense.  It is kind of a scout's dillemma: Do I pool my picks for the guy the I have the most conviction about?  Or, do I get a couple more guys that I've poured over for months and like a whole lot as well but know I can't keep?

 

All depends on the player, I guess.  In the end, I think I'd like to keep the other 6th to get a developmental WR to compete with Carter and Brown for spots 4&5.

[DougDew]

I think Grigs will trade up a few spots in round 1 to get either Collins or Goldman, both of whom can start day 1 on the defense, IMO.

 

He can use the multiple later round picks to try to move back into the 3rd or 4th round.

 

And another has mentioned trading up to get one of the safties he likes.  He brought in a lot, so he may be targeting one of them in the late second and early 3rd.

 

 

If we only got Goldman, Anthony, and one of the safties at the top of the 3rd, then a #4CB and a RB...that's only 5 picks instead of 9.....it would be a successful draft, IMO.

[Archer]

I think Grigs will trade up a few spots in round 1 to get either Collins or Goldman, both of whom can start day 1 on the defense, IMO.

 

He can use the multiple later round picks to try to move back into the 3rd or 4th round.

 

And another has mentioned trading up to get one of the safties he likes.  He brought in a lot, so he may be targeting one of them in the late second and early 3rd.

 

 

If we only got Goldman, Anthony, and one of the safties at the top of the 3rd, then a #4CB and a RB...that's only 5 picks instead of 9.....it would be a successful draft, IMO.

 

Gosh, I hope not.  I don't think I'd want any of the three Collins you could be talking about (though I suspect you mean Landon) or Goldman with the 1st, even if they fell to #29.  I suspect we sit where we are in the first round, and then trade up 10 spots or more in a subsequent round for someone we can't believe fell...

[CR91]

the only player I see grigs trading up for is henry anderson if we dont take him at 61 and he gets out of the second round

[Superman]

I've been playing around on first-pick, which proposes entirely unrealistic trades most of the time, but now I'm thinking. If we could move down from #29 and pick up a couple of picks, then we could potentially move back into the 2nd or mid 3rd without giving up too much. We could wind up with four or five picks in the top 93. Depending on how #29 looks, that might be a winning strategy. It increases your odds of finding a serious playmaker.

[ztboiler]

I've been playing around on first-pick, which proposes entirely unrealistic trades most of the time, but now I'm thinking. If we could move down from #29 and pick up a couple of picks, then we could potentially move back into the 2nd or mid 3rd without giving up too much. We could wind up with four or five picks in the top 93. Depending on how #29 looks, that might be a winning strategy. It increases your odds of finding a serious playmaker.

Something like that Pats trade back from 29 to 52 with the Vikings in 2013.  That yielded 52, 83, 102 and a 7th.  Not a Coup, but it was at least full value for the Pats (and we all know that Belichek is gonna charge you retail prices).

 

In the wholesale category, I'd welcome a deal like the 49'ers got in 2013 to move up to 18 from 31 with the Cowboys and all they gave up was 74.  If we could get to 18 or 19 it might open up a world of possibilities including a lot more impact at DLine.

[Traines]

I do not see anyone in the first that would be worth the cost of trading up for, however, I am a big supporter of trading down if possible.  In a trade-down scenario, I think the decision you would likely have to make (assuming we have willing trading partners);

Option A: do you want to have an early second (~36-42) and early 4th (~104-110), giving you 4 total picks in the top ~110 with the 1st pick not coming until late 30's.

Option B: do you want to have a mid-2nd (~43-52) and mid-3rd (~75-84), giving you 4 total picks in the top 93, with your first pick coming later at mid-to-late 40's

 

In this case, I would prefer Option B.

 

However, I think you do something like in the example below, where you move up into the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th to grab a guy who you really like that may have slipped.  I am obviously giving up a nice pick next year (2nd rounder, ~pick 60-64), but you would be getting an extra top-75 talent this year.

 

1. Ronald Darby, CB
2. Henry Anderson, DL
3. Tyler Lockett, WR+KR/PR (Trade 2016 2nd Rounder to move into early 3rd)

3. James Sample, S

4. Rob Havenstein, OT
5. Josh Robinson, RB

[DougDew]

Gosh, I hope not.  I don't think I'd want any of the three Collins you could be talking about (though I suspect you mean Landon) or Goldman with the 1st, even if they fell to #29.  I suspect we sit where we are in the first round, and then trade up 10 spots or more in a subsequent round for someone we can't believe fell...

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do....but I think its plausible.  There is a hole in the roster on the DL...jettisoned RJF and Redding and replaced with only 1, Langford. 

 

At S, I think Lowery is simply insurance in case a starter is not found in the draft.  He was a late FA signing and probably not really a target.

 

I prefer to trade down, but it wouldn't surprise me if Grigs would take either of these at 29, possibly trading up a few slots to make sure no other team trades up ahead of him.  Just a feeling at this point.

[GoColtsGo5150]

Here's what I think will happen.

 

I think we will trade up in the first round with Cleveland at 19 to grab Landon Collins. I think it will be Cleveland because we will try to jump Philly (20) and they are more likely to trade with us than with Pittsburgh (they not going to trade within the division and they wouldn't want to face Landon Collins twice a year.) Also, even if Collins was to fall, There is the possibility that the Redskins or the Giants may try to jump us (I think this may be more likely to be the Redskins.)

 

As a result, I feel we would have to give up a 3rd or a 4th ( similar to trade ups like for Desmond Trufant, Eric Reid, Brandin Cooks etc). If this was to happen, I would be pretty pleased because we will get someone I see as a playmaker whilst at the same time filling a position of need.

[Defjamz26]

Here's what I think will happen.

 

I think we will trade up in the first round with Cleveland at 19 to grab Landon Collins. I think it will be Cleveland because we will try to jump Philly (20) and they are more likely to trade with us than with Pittsburgh (they not going to trade within the division and they wouldn't want to face Landon Collins twice a year.) Also, even if Collins was to fall, There is the possibility that the Redskins or the Giants may try to jump us (I think this may be more likely to be the Redskins.)

 

As a result, I feel we would have to give up a 3rd or a 4th ( similar to trade ups like for Desmond Trufant, Eric Reid, Brandin Cooks etc). If this was to happen, I would be pretty pleased because we will get someone I see as a playmaker whilst at the same time filling a position of need.

 

Came into this topic to say that I have a feeling Grigs will want to trade up for Collins. Just watched his press conference from last week where he talked about him. I'd give Cleveland our 3rd for Collins without looking back. And I know for the last couple of weeks Pagano has probably been screaming at Grigson to go get Collins. I like Goldman but I think the staff is probably in love with Collins.

[DougDew]

Here's what I think will happen.

 

I think we will trade up in the first round with Cleveland at 19 to grab Landon Collins. I think it will be Cleveland because we will try to jump Philly (20) and they are more likely to trade with us than with Pittsburgh (they not going to trade within the division and they wouldn't want to face Landon Collins twice a year.) Also, even if Collins was to fall, There is the possibility that the Redskins or the Giants may try to jump us (I think this may be more likely to be the Redskins.)

 

As a result, I feel we would have to give up a 3rd or a 4th ( similar to trade ups like for Desmond Trufant, Eric Reid, Brandin Cooks etc). If this was to happen, I would be pretty pleased because we will get someone I see as a playmaker whilst at the same time filling a position of need.

Polumalu has retired, so Collins seems like a good fit with Pittsburgh. 

 

The draft value chart shows #19 worth 875 points and #29 640.  That's a 235 point difference, which would take our 3rd and 4th, and possibly 5th to get to 235 points.  No way Grigs does that.   #19 is too high.

 

We could give up our 4th or our 5th and 6th to move up to #26...going strictly off of the chart.  I think if the trading partner thinks their guy will be there at 29, they may take less.

[ztboiler]

Polumalu has retired, so Collins seems like a good fit with Pittsburgh. 

 

The draft value chart shows #19 worth 875 points and #29 640.  That's a 235 point difference, which would take our 3rd and 4th, and possibly 5th to get to 235 points.  No way Grigs does that.   #19 is too high.

 

We could give up our 4th or our 5th and 6th to move up to #26...going strictly off of the chart.  I think if the trading partner thinks their guy will be there at 29, they may take less.

History says you can make that trade to 19 at a discount....

[DougDew]

History says you can make that trade to 19 at a discount....

Do you have the actual numbers involved?  I'm not questioning you at all, I would like to see what the numbers actually were and what the potential cost would be.

 

At first blush it seems like dropping 10 slots in the first round would require more than just acquiring an additional low 3rd.

[Traines]

I think some of you are obsessed with the safety position and the idea of needing to get one early (or pay one $10 mil a year via Free Agency).  Yeah, teams who have had really good safeties have won the super bowl (I have seen the stat on this forum), but there are really good safeties on poor teams as well.  I don't view the safety position as a make or break for us.  I think we should invest in one in the draft, but we certainly don't need to reach for one in the first round, and definitely not trade up for one in the first.  If Landon Collins is there when we pick at 29 taking him will probably not be my first choice, but I will be fine with it.  However, trading up for him and giving up later picks or future picks would not be justifiable in my opinion.  I think he is definitely solid, but he is in no way special enough, or complete enough for me to give up more than one pick for him.  I believe there will be someone there at 29 who will make this team better without trading up.  I mentioned earlier that my desire was to trade down.

 

Yeah, Grigson talked him up in the press conference, but that actually only makes me think we have less of a chance.  There are lots of positions where this team can be improved, why reach...

[Archer]

I'm not saying that's what I want him to do....but I think its plausible.  There is a hole in the roster on the DL...jettisoned RJF and Redding and replaced with only 1, Langford. 

 

At S, I think Lowery is simply insurance in case a starter is not found in the draft.  He was a late FA signing and probably not really a target.

 

I prefer to trade down, but it wouldn't surprise me if Grigs would take either of these at 29, possibly trading up a few slots to make sure no other team trades up ahead of him.  Just a feeling at this point.

 

Admittedly, I see a much smaller hole on the DL than most people.  I think that Redding and RJF are being "replaced" by Langford, Kerr, Hughes, and Quarles, with the last three being developmental-type guys that the Colts have already taken the time and effort to develop a bit.  The remaining need is a developing mid-sized model (something between Kerr's 330 lbs and Quarles' 295).  I also personally believe that the near future at the SS-type safety (Landry's replacement) could be Winston Guy or Dewey McDonald.  I see a young, developing FS type as a top draft priority (meaning I'd prefer Randall or Amos to Landon Collins).  At any rate, I could be wrong about any of these things.  After all, the fact that they signed Landry in the first place means that they see a role on the D for a run-stuffing SS.  If Landon falls, he's the epitome of that type of safety...   

[Defjamz26]

Do you have the actual numbers involved?  I'm not questioning you at all, I would like to see what the numbers actually were and what the potential cost would be.

 

At first blush it seems like dropping 10 slots in the first round would require more than just acquiring an additional low 3rd.

 

It also depends on the team. The Browns is a dumpster fire of a franchise that need as many young quality players as they can get. Especially considering they may have drafted 2 first round busts last year, they need talent.

 

But you also forget there is the option of trading future picks. I'm sure that would increase the value. Giving the Browns our 2015 2nd and 2016 3rd would probably be enough. And if a guy like Collins is a complete player who makes your team better day 1(which I think he does), then no one is going to miss those picks.

 

TBH what the Colts should really do is take the 9 picks they have and turn it into 6 quality guys that makes the team more competitive. Like Grigs said, those low round draft picks might not even make it through cuts.

[DougDew]

Admittedly, I see a much smaller hole on the DL than most people.  I think that Redding and RJF are being "replaced" by Langford, Kerr, Hughes, and Quarles, with the last three being developmental-type guys that the Colts have already taken the time and effort to develop a bit.  The remaining need is a developing mid-sized model (something between Kerr's 330 lbs and Quarles' 295).  I also personally believe that the near future at the SS-type safety (Landry's replacement) could be Winston Guy or Dewey McDonald.  I see a young, developing FS type as a top draft priority (meaning I'd prefer Randall or Amos to Landon Collins).  At any rate, I could be wrong about any of these things.  After all, the fact that they signed Landry in the first place means that they see a role on the D for a run-stuffing SS.  If Landon falls, he's the epitome of that type of safety...   

I generally agree.  My posts in this thread are based upon what I perceive Grigson as doing, not necessarily what I would want him to do.

 

I think Kerr and Quarels are the pass rushing interior DTs.  I think Chap is a one dimensional role player.  There is no need to draft anybody in round 1 who would take those roster spots. 

 

Art Jones and probably Langford are the DTs that would likley be on the field for any of the three downs.  Hughes is the DT who provides rotational relief.  I could see the Colts drafting somebody to replace Hughes, and since Goldman is Art Jones 2.0, IMO, I could see him in round 1.  If he is exceptionally talented, maybe you move up a few spots to secure him.

 

As far as S, I think Winston Guy is the "in the box" S for now.  Yes, the need is a roving covering FS, not really a Landon Collins type.  But if Collins is a superior talent, then Guy can be upgraded.  I can see moving up a few spots there too. 

 

Grigs brought in a lot of safeties.  I don't think its beyond the rhelm of possibility that he would draft Collins in round 1, if he's close to #29, and draft the FS type in round 3.

[throwing BBZ]

I think Grigs will trade up a few spots in round 1 to get either Collins or Goldman, both of whom can start day 1 on the defense, IMO.

 

He can use the multiple later round picks to try to move back into the 3rd or 4th round.

 

And another has mentioned trading up to get one of the safties he likes.  He brought in a lot, so he may be targeting one of them in the late second and early 3rd.

 

 

If we only got Goldman, Anthony, and one of the safties at the top of the 3rd, then a #4CB and a RB...that's only 5 picks instead of 9.....it would be a successful draft, IMO.

 

 The two guys i dread us taking. lol

[Traines]

It also depends on the team. The Browns is a dumpster fire of a franchise that need as many young quality players as they can get. Especially considering they may have drafted 2 first round busts last year, they need talent.

 

But you also forget there is the option of trading future picks. I'm sure that would increase the value. Giving the Browns our 2015 2nd and 2016 3rd would probably be enough. And if a guy like Collins is a complete player who makes your team better day 1(which I think he does), then no one is going to miss those picks.

 

TBH what the Colts should really do is take the 9 picks they have and turn it into 6 quality guys that makes the team more competitive. Like Grigs said, those low round draft picks might not even make it through cuts.

 

First off, I do not beleive that Collins is a complete player so we disagree there...but I do think that he would make this team better.  However, the real question is how much is he worth; is having a safety that still needs work, especially in coverage worth giving up extra picks and/or future picks for, even though there are likely to be multiple players that fit that same mold at 29 (solid, but still need work)...especially our second and a future 3rd (top 100 players).  I do not believe so, this is a safety without a copmlete game, he will likely make our team better but not for what it would cost us.  You are talking about giving up two of our picks in the top 100 (plus a first rounder) for this guy so I feel as if he should be a completely polished product, or something you wouldn't be able to find elsewhere.  A safety is likely not what is making or breaking this team next year so why reach...there are other safeties that we can get or give up much less for that can improve this team, IMO.

[Traines]

Also, I do not believe many teams are going to be willing to give up 3rd and 4th rounders for our late 5th, and 6ths, and 7th that we can offer... not impossible, but seems really unlikely.

[ztboiler]

History says you can make that trade to 19 at a discount....

 

Do you have the actual numbers involved?  I'm not questioning you at all, I would like to see what the numbers actually were and what the potential cost would be.

 

At first blush it seems like dropping 10 slots in the first round would require more than just acquiring an additional low 3rd.

The Niners move up to 18 from 31 in 2013 for pick 74 was a significant value chart discount.

[Superman]

Something like that Pats trade back from 29 to 52 with the Vikings in 2013.  That yielded 52, 83, 102 and a 7th.  Not a Coup, but it was at least full value for the Pats (and we all know that Belichek is gonna charge you retail prices).

 

In the wholesale category, I'd welcome a deal like the 49'ers got in 2013 to move up to 18 from 31 with the Cowboys and all they gave up was 74.  If we could get to 18 or 19 it might open up a world of possibilities including a lot more impact at DLine.

 

Ideally, I wouldn't want to go back any further than #40. But that's a solid haul the Pats got there. If KC would give up #49, #80 and #118, that would give us #49, #61, #80, #93, #118 and #128. We could get back into the 40-ish range if we wanted, or we could also get back up to like #57, along with #49 and #61 without using a 2016 pick. 

 

Just using Mayock's Top 100, that could land us a combination of any three of these players: Stephone Anthony, Cedric Ogbuehi, TJ Yeldon, Jay Ajayi, Tyler Lockett, Ronald Darby, Grady Jarrett, Jaquiski Tartt, Michael Bennett, Ty Sambrailo, Henry Anderson, Ali Marpet, Josh Shaw, Alex Carter... all of whom Mayock has ranked between #57 and #93. The three in bold are three of my favorite players in this draft, but any other combination would be acceptable to me.

 

Here's the problem: That #29-49 range has some good players that I wouldn't want to pass on: Goldman, Collins, Clemmings, Phillips, Kendricks... If we came away with any of those five at #29, I'd be okay. If we did the trade down, and one of them was lingering in the early 40s, we could move back up.

[ztboiler]

Ideally, I wouldn't want to go back any further than #40. But that's a solid haul the Pats got there. If KC would give up #49, #80 and #118, that would give us #49, #61, #80, #93, #118 and #128. We could get back into the 40-ish range if we wanted, or we could also get back up to like #57, along with #49 and #61 without using a 2016 pick. 

 

Just using Mayock's Top 100, that could land us a combination of any three of these players: Stephone Anthony, Cedric Ogbuehi, TJ Yeldon, Jay Ajayi, Tyler Lockett, Ronald Darby, Grady Jarrett, Jaquiski Tartt, Michael Bennett, Ty Sambrailo, Henry Anderson, Ali Marpet, Josh Shaw, Alex Carter... all of whom Mayock has ranked between #57 and #93. The three in bold are three of my favorite players in this draft, but any other combination would be acceptable to me.

 

Here's the problem: That #29-49 range has some good players that I wouldn't want to pass on: Goldman, Collins, Clemmings, Phillips, Kendricks... If we came away with any of those five at #29, I'd be okay. If we did the trade down, and one of them was lingering in the early 40s, we could move back up.

That's a really good back and forth scenario.  I've been intrigued by any path that could land Anthony and Anderson, realizing both were unlikely to make it to 93 and neither justify 29, and your scenario opens some doors. 

 

In the end, I'll believe that Grigs trades out of the first when I see it.  One of the guys he likes will be there.  Someday he'll do it, but he doesn't back pedal well, he likes to get his hands on the receiver.

[BProland85]

Here's what I think will happen.

 

I think we will trade up in the first round with Cleveland at 19 to grab Landon Collins. I think it will be Cleveland because we will try to jump Philly (20) and they are more likely to trade with us than with Pittsburgh (they not going to trade within the division and they wouldn't want to face Landon Collins twice a year.) Also, even if Collins was to fall, There is the possibility that the Redskins or the Giants may try to jump us (I think this may be more likely to be the Redskins.)

 

As a result, I feel we would have to give up a 3rd or a 4th ( similar to trade ups like for Desmond Trufant, Eric Reid, Brandin Cooks etc). If this was to happen, I would be pretty pleased because we will get someone I see as a playmaker whilst at the same time filling a position of need.

If we trade all the way up to 19, I would MUCH rather have DT Malcom Brown.

[Defjamz26]

First off, I do not beleive that Collins is a complete player so we disagree there...but I do think that he would make this team better. However, the real question is how much is he worth; is having a safety that still needs work, especially in coverage worth giving up extra picks and/or future picks for, even though there are likely to be multiple players that fit that same mold at 29 (solid, but still need work)...especially our second and a future 3rd (top 100 players). I do not believe so, this is a safety without a copmlete game, he will likely make our team better but not for what it would cost us. You are talking about giving up two of our picks in the top 100 (plus a first rounder) for this guy so I feel as if he should be a completely polished product, or something you wouldn't be able to find elsewhere. A safety is likely not what is making or breaking this team next year so why reach...there are other safeties that we can get or give up much less for that can improve this team, IMO.

You're not going to find a complete SS product coming out though. They're not supposed to be great in coverage. That's why you have the SS/FS distinction in the first place.

Although Pagano likes them interchangeable, you still have the two archetypes for a reason. But Chancellor wasn't complete coming out of college either and he's better now but he's still your traditional box safety.

I think his value would be tremendous. He could offer support in the run and pass game, and potentially take away the middle of the field. That's valuable

[Traines]

You're not going to find a complete SS product coming out though. They're not supposed to be great in coverage. That's why you have the SS/FS distinction in the first place.

Although Pagano likes them interchangeable, you still have the two archetypes for a reason. But Chancellor wasn't complete coming out of college either and he's better now but he's still your traditional box safety.

I think his value would be tremendous. He could offer support in the run and pass game, and potentially take away the middle of the field. That's valuable

 

I understand that most all college prospects are not a complete product, and I also understand that he could be valuable to us.  However, my argument is that there are likely to be at least a few other players that represent just as good, or better, value for us at 29...and would not require trading a 2nd and future 3rd, or whatever the case may be.  You would be giving up a lot when there is likely good value to be had at our current pick is what I am trying to say.  Especially when you factor in that you are giving up at least 2 top 75 picks.  I am not a Collins hater at all, I think he will be a good pro, but he's not worth more than our pick at 29, IMO.

[coltsfanatic24]

I think they stay put and draft Collins, Goldman, or Byron Jones in the 1st round.

 

1. Landon Collins, S

2. Markus Golden, OLB

3. Ladarious Gunter, CB

[Colts_Fan12]

Prolly for Werner 2.0

[BOTT]

I think Grigs will trade up a few spots in round 1 to get either Collins or Goldman, both of whom can start day 1 on the defense, IMO.

 

He can use the multiple later round picks to try to move back into the 3rd or 4th round.

 

And another has mentioned trading up to get one of the safties he likes.  He brought in a lot, so he may be targeting one of them in the late second and early 3rd.

 

 

If we only got Goldman, Anthony, and one of the safties at the top of the 3rd, then a #4CB and a RB...that's only 5 picks instead of 9.....it would be a successful draft, IMO.

Dan Dakich, and local radio host and very good friends with Urban Meyer, sat in on a film session with the Buckeye coaches before the OSU-Bama game. He said the OSU coaching staff had no respect for Collins. I didn't care for Collins before...after hearing that I like him even less.

[DougDew]

Dan Dakich, and local radio host and very good friends with Urban Meyer, sat in on a film session with the Buckeye coaches before the OSU-Bama game. He said the OSU coaching staff had no respect for Collins. I didn't care for Collins before...after hearing that I like him even less.

I would not like Collins.  He seems to Landry-ish to me.  Its a good sign that Grigs brought in a bunch of safties to look at....probably to draft after #29.

 

Actually, it seems like the Alabama players have not really performed up to their hype the past few years.  Cooper might be the real deal however.

[Superman]

I would not like Collins.  He seems to Landry-ish to me.  Its a good sign that Grigs brought in a bunch of safties to look at....probably to draft after #29.

 

Actually, it seems like the Alabama players have not really performed up to their hype the past few years.  Cooper might be the real deal however.

 

Collins is what Landry was supposed to be. I don't think that's bad. And at 21 years old, and working with a good DB coach in Pagano, his coverage can improve. I wouldn't mind Collins at #29. Half this board would melt down, but that's par for the course....