Would This Draft Day Trade Make Sense?

[Smonroe]

Colts trade their #1 for the Bills 21, 22, 53 and 56.   That would give us 5 picks in the first 2 rounds.  

 

If Buffalo is hungry enough for a QB, and they should be, they may bite.  

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Colts trade their #1 for the Bills 21, 22, 53 and 56.   That would give us 5 picks in the first 2 rounds.  

 

If Buffalo is hungry enough for a QB, and they should be, they may bite.  

 

Wow....

 

To my surprise,  the points almost match.

 

I'm not sure I'm willing to trade down that far....    not sure there are difference makers where we'd be picking...    hard to see us finding the top level help that we might find in the top-10 for either the O-line or pass rush or any other position.       But a 4-for-1?     Wow,  that sure would be tempting...

 

Good question.....

 

[The Peytonator]

I would do it in a heartbeat. I like the depth better than the top talent and I’d like to see a trade back and stockpile picks approach to drafting. 

[Smonroe]

Yeah, it’s a possibility that I kind of hope doesn’t happen.  We could potentially fill a few holes but the likelihood of getting a difference maker decreases.

 

The draft hype has to escalate for that third QB, which I doubt will happen.  Or is there a chance the Giants don’t take a QB?  If not, I don’t think our pick is going to be coveted.   

[NewColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Yeah, it’s a possibility that I kind of hope doesn’t happen.  We could potentially fill a few holes but the likelihood of getting a difference maker decreases.

 

The draft hype has to escalate for that third QB, which I doubt will happen.  Or is there a chance the Giants don’t take a QB?  If not, I don’t think our pick is going to be coveted.   

 

Whether our pick turns out to be a quarterback,  or Barkley or Chubb,  I think our pick at #3 will still be highly coveted.   That's why I favor trading back in small steps...     I think we can collect a number of good picks....

 

[Smonroe]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Whether our pick turns out to be a quarterback,  or Barkley or Chubb,  I think our pick at #3 will still be highly coveted.   That's why I favor trading back in small steps...     I think we can collect a number of good picks....

 

 

Yeah, I know the smart thing is to trade back.  But when Barkley blows up the combine, minds may change.  

 

Hopefully Ballard has more sense than me come April!

[jskinnz]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

Colts trade their #1 for the Bills 21, 22, 53 and 56.   That would give us 5 picks in the first 2 rounds.  

 

If Buffalo is hungry enough for a QB, and they should be, they may bite.  

 

Last year Venturi and others suggested there were only 7 real, true blue chip talents in the first round.  Turns out with the run on QB's, they ended up with one in Hooker.  Have no idea how many perceived blue chippers there will be this year but I would suspect less than 10.  As it relates to the question, I think they absolutely need to come away with a true impact player.  I don't think they can trade that far back and miss out on a difference maker.

 

I would say pass.

[CopenhagenColt]

I wouldn't be happy about it.

I would rather have fewer, but higher picks.

A trade with Jets/Broncos perhaps. Maybe even the Browns, if they're worried about someone trading with us and snapping up the guy they want.

But picking in the 20's... That would be a bummer for me.

[DaColts85]

I would take this all day.  Drop down and get 5 picks in the first 2 rounds.  You can add some very good talent for the O-line and D side.

[esmort]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Colts trade their #1 for the Bills 21, 22, 53 and 56.   That would give us 5 picks in the first 2 rounds.  

 

If Buffalo is hungry enough for a QB, and they should be, they may bite.  

 

We would be fishing with a net instead of a pole... I might be able to get behind something like this depending on how things shake out after combine, senior bowl, etc... 

[Buck Showalter]

9 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

We would be fishing with a net instead of a pole... I might be able to get behind something like this depending on how things shake out after combine, senior bowl, etc... 

Good analogy...

Definitely could address a lot in a scenario like this while also eliminating the impacrt if your top guy busts...

[NVColtsfan1]

You could you one of you first rounds to move back up in the draft for Nelson 

[BProland85]

I would consider doing it, if Ballard thinks a quality player(s) will be available at picks 21 and 22. If he thinks Roquan Smith could be there, then I'd be all for it. I feel like Indy needs to come out of this draft with at least 1 elite player. And the farther you trade down, the harder that is to do.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Wow....

 

To my surprise,  the points almost match.

 

I'm not sure I'm willing to trade down that far....    not sure there are difference makers where we'd be picking...    hard to see us finding the top level help that we might find in the top-10 for either the O-line or pass rush or any other position.       But a 4-for-1?     Wow,  that sure would be tempting...

 

Good question.....

 

 

Imagine if they pulled that trade, & then traded back in the 2nd as well. Surely they could find a suitor who has 2 2nd round picks & would want to move up to #4. 6 picks in the first 2 rounds? That’s tempting.

[DaveA1102]

Its a very interesting question.

 

From a personal point of view, I know that I would look at all the players that go between 2 and 21 and, if any O-linemen or pass rushers turn out to be phenomenal, I will be gutted!

 

I agree with NCF though, its a really interesting prospect but just seems to far to fall back.

[SevaColt]

This trade to me looks better if you ask for 21, 22, 56 and 2019 #1. High QB picks are premium choices. Rookie QBs rarely fare well. Would give Colts draft leverage for years to come.

[DaveA1102]

46 minutes ago, SevaColt said:

This trade to me looks better if you ask for 21, 22, 56 and 2019 #1. High QB picks are premium choices. Rookie QBs rarely fare well. Would give Colts draft leverage for years to come.

 

Looks good to me too, but would never happen.  Too high a price for the Bills to pay.

[BOTT]

9 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Yeah, I know the smart thing is to trade back.  But when Barkley blows up the combine, minds may change.  

 

Hopefully Ballard has more sense than me come April!

People expect Barkley to put up impressive numbers at the combine....I don't see that changing his draft status.

[jameszeigler834]

11 hours ago, The Peytonator said:

I would do it in a heartbeat. I like the depth better than the top talent and I’d like to see a trade back and stockpile picks approach to drafting. 

It would be awesome if we didn't have to trade down that far to do it also their would be more picks involved for the bills to come all the way to 3 from 21 there would be future picks too.

[stitches]

IMO it makes sense if you like the depth of the draft. I'm not too big on the depth of the draft and would probably prefer to trade down fewer spots(Jets, Broncos) even if it doesn't return as many good additional picks.

 

Here's another question - if you could choose would you choose the offer you presented or 21, 22 and next year's Buffalo first?  

 

 

[ty4atd]

In a heartbeat I'd do it, guys fall in the draft all the time we could get an OL like Orlando Brown, Connor Williams who know McGlinchey or Nelson could fall that far. DeCastro was getting talked up just like Nelson is and he went 24th. Then there are tons of pass rushers after Chubb and Key I would be happy with Marcus Davenport, Cleinin Ferrell, Harold Landry in Rd 1. Roquan Smith would be great at 21 or Rashaan Evans. That's 11 guys who would all hit needs and with how many QBs are going to go plus Barkley and Fitzpatrick we'll get 2 good prospects in Rd1 maybe even a stud if someone slides and have 3 picks in the second round.

[Valpo2004]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Wow....

 

To my surprise,  the points almost match.

 

I'm not sure I'm willing to trade down that far....    not sure there are difference makers where we'd be picking...    hard to see us finding the top level help that we might find in the top-10 for either the O-line or pass rush or any other position.       But a 4-for-1?     Wow,  that sure would be tempting...

 

Good question.....

 

 

Will take your word for it on the points matching instead of checking for myself.  Also didn't know the Bills had that many picks in the first and second rounds.

 

Personally would go for that trade.  Difference makers and elite prospects are nice and all.  But honestly we just need viable starters.  A trade that could potentially net us 5 viable starters in one draft is one I would take all day long.  

[Smonroe]

48 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Will take your word for it on the points matching instead of checking for myself.  Also didn't know the Bills had that many picks in the first and second rounds.

 

Personally would go for that trade.  Difference makers and elite prospects are nice and all.  But honestly we just need viable starters.  A trade that could potentially net us 5 viable starters in one draft is one I would take all day long.  

 

If we're thinking like that, then you know Ballard is weighing the options too.  The question is, would Buffalo value anyone that much who'd be available at #3. 

 

I have to assume the Browns take QB1.  I'm not 100% sure the Giants take QB2, unless Eli announces his retirement.  Do they really want to have a #1 draft pick sitting on the bench for maybe two years with all of the other holes they have?  In that scenario, our pick is really valuable.

[Brandon]

I wouldn't take this deal. Not that far down in the draft anyway. We need true blue chip plug and play players. You lose the ability to get them at 21 and below. 

While this move would make sense for quality depth we need starters. I would entertain the possibility of trading down maybe 6 spots. This provides the opportunity to still draft a great player while racking up more picks. Anybody within the top 10 needing a QB or a RB, if Barkely is still available, would have to give up something good.

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

If we're thinking like that, then you know Ballard is weighing the options too.  The question is, would Buffalo value anyone that much who'd be available at #3. 

 

I have to assume the Browns take QB1.  I'm not 100% sure the Giants take QB2, unless Eli announces his retirement.  Do they really want to have a #1 draft pick sitting on the bench for maybe two years with all of the other holes they have?  In that scenario, our pick is really valuable.

 

It's going to depend wildly on how the first two picks play out.

 

Would be interesting to be in the Colts war room when our pick comes around.  Would likely involve a flurry of activity of teams calling in with their trade offers and Ballard trying to evaluate them and decide to take an offer or make a pick.  And all of that has to be done in 10 min.

 

 

[BleedBlu8792]

16 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Yeah, I know the smart thing is to trade back.  But when Barkley blows up the combine, minds may change.  

 

Hopefully Ballard has more sense than me come April!

I like the idea of trading back and gaining those extra picks but I wouldnt want to move that far back. We got lucky last year with Hooker dropping as far he did to us. I wouldn't want to trade back any farther than the top 10. 

[Fluke_33]

13 hours ago, BOTT said:

People expect Barkley to put up impressive numbers at the combine....I don't see that changing his draft status.

right.  i don't expect him to put up any numbers at the combine.  he'll be there for the meetings only.

[Indy Fan]

17 hours ago, stitches said:

IMO it makes sense if you like the depth of the draft. I'm not too big on the depth of the draft and would probably prefer to trade down fewer spots(Jets, Broncos) even if it doesn't return as many good additional picks.

 

Here's another question - if you could choose would you choose the offer you presented or 21, 22 and next year's Buffalo first?  

 

 

I’d prefer 21, 22, and next years first. Could potentially end up walking away some decent quality and if someone falls could use that added capitol to move up a little.

[Hoose]

No way period. If there is a trade it has to be way up in the top 10. The special talent is there; sorry but two late first rounders and a couple of seconds don't compare. Please don't get me wrong; make a smart trade to stay in the top 8-10 and pick up at least another 2nd rounder and I'm all in. But no dropping into the late first. There is nothing extra special at that level, and the Colts are desperate for extra special players. 

[Smonroe]

16 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

right.  i don't expect him to put up any numbers at the combine.  he'll be there for the meetings only.

 

Why do you say that?  I have no way of knowing either way, but I would think he’d want to show off his speed, strength, and pass catching abilities.   

[Briggs32]

I'd do it in a heartbeat.  We could most likely get 3-5 starters with those first 5 picks plus our other picks. 

[IndyScribe]

I don't really like that trade. We trade down too far and miss out on a generational talent. Colts need quality players. There's no Chubb/Barkley/Fitzpatrick/Nelson at that pick.

[Smonroe]

5 minutes ago, IndyScribe said:

I don't really like that trade. We trade down too far and miss out on a generational talent. Colts need quality players. There's no Chubb/Barkley/Fitzpatrick/Nelson at that pick.

 

Yeah, there’s the rub. You potentially miss out on a real star, but you probably get at least three guys who can contribute day 1.   So much depends on free agency. 

 

Glad I don’t have to make that call.  

 

 

[Indy Fan]

1 hour ago, IndyScribe said:

I don't really like that trade. We trade down too far and miss out on a generational talent. Colts need quality players. There's no Chubb/Barkley/Fitzpatrick/Nelson at that pick.

A fair comparison would be to compare whom you’d select (e.g Chubb) to who may be there at 21 and 22 while also remembering there will be a first rounder in 2019 coming. At 21 and 22, let’s say you get two of the following (Tremaine Edmunds/Roquon Smith, Josh Jackson/Denzel Ward, or One of Big three tackles: Williams, Brown, McGlinchey). What combination of draft would you find it acceptable to bypass Chubb to whoever you think Ballard should select?

[Dark Superman]

I rather trade with the Jets for their 1st,2nd, 3rd and possibly a 1st or 2nd in the 2019 draft

[crazycolt1]

30 minutes ago, KING. said:

I rather trade with the Jets for their 1st,2nd, 3rd and possibly a 1st or 2nd in the 2019 draft

I don't think Ditka is running the Jets.

[dgambill]

If I move out of the top 10 it will involve a future first...even if I get two those two picks in the 20s. Prefer to stay in the top 10 with a trade but if that’s all that is there I take the two firsts and future 1st and then negotiate for one of those 2nds.

[Dark Superman]

On 1/11/2018 at 7:47 PM, Smonroe said:

Colts trade their #1 for the Bills 21, 22, 53 and 56.   That would give us 5 picks in the first 2 rounds.  

 

If Buffalo is hungry enough for a QB, and they should be, they may bite.  

I would take this in a heartbeat.

[Fluke_33]

9 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Why do you say that?  I have no way of knowing either way, but I would think he’d want to show off his speed, strength, and pass catching abilities.   

He can’t improve his status by doing anything.   He can only hurt himself.   No reason to run. 

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, Fluke_33 said:

He can’t improve his status by doing anything.   He can only hurt himself.   No reason to run. 

 

You don’t know where he’s ranked now.  Just because some so called draft experts has him up there means nothing.  Just look at the first round last year, none of those talking heads (or hairs) had it right.

 

And the other reason is, why not?  He’s a competitor.   Unless he’s injured, he’ll run, catch and lift.  Mark it.