ColtStrong2013
-
Posts
4,140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ColtStrong2013
-
-
3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:
I agree, but is there a guy Ballard "has to have" in this draft? I think he has shown already he is willing to move out of position to get who ever he wants at #3 if the price is right... and 3 2nd round picks makes it damn worth it to move back 3 positions.
If the Bears decide they want to throw a few more 2nd rounders at us to swap 8 for 6, I think Ballard would pass on most guys and be thrilled to sucker a couple teams into moving up a few spots. This draft has immediate starters well into the 2nd round, possibly 3rd, and CB wants a new roster that he thought would take 3-5 years to put together... Moving back a few times in one draft could make the difference between 5 years and 2...
Regardless if he trades down in the first round again, I think Ballard trades down 2nd-7th at least once, maybe more. I think we draft at least 10 players this year, if not closer to 12 or 13.. early round picks in each round, especially after the first couple, could produce a lot of extra later round picks.
-
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Thing is, is there a 'guy' he has to have within the top 15? If yes, where is a good estimate where he will go based upon other teams needs? GM's will not trade down if there is 'a guy' they have to have but might trade into a position where another team takes him off the board before your new draft slot. It's not like "darn, he's gone. OK, next BPA up..."
Genius.
The later you interview prospects, the more info you may also get regarding other teams they visited and potential interest from them. Let's see who Ballard brings in later, and when he does it...
I agree, but is there a guy Ballard "has to have" in this draft? I think he has shown already he is willing to move out of position to get who ever he wants at #3 if the price is right... and 3 2nd round picks makes it damn worth it to move back 3 positions.
If the Bears decide they want to throw a few more 2nd rounders at us to swap 8 for 6, I think Ballard would pass on most guys and be thrilled to sucker a couple teams into moving up a few spots. This draft has immediate starters well into the 2nd round, possibly 3rd, and CB wants a new roster that he thought would take 3-5 years to put together... Moving back a few times in one draft could make the difference between 5 years and 2...
-
1 hour ago, Stephen said:
If he takes smith at 6 with edmunds still there i'll be angry
Edmund's has high potential.
I still think it's highly unlikely Ballard goes Linebacker round 1. He was at Nelson's pro day and very hot on him. I really think we will see who ever is left of the big 3 (Barkley chubb and Nelson) taken. If they all three are gone, he's entertaining trade offers. He's doing his homework on the remaining non-qb's that fits their 4-3 defense and what they are looking at offensively... just in case
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, DougDew said:
You've got a mental block bout this. This is a Roquan Smith thread...about possibly picking him 6 when all of the pundits so far have "valued" him between 8 and 12. Many here don't like the pick because it would be a considered a "reach"
..in the same way as Hooker was considered a "steal" last year. Neither is true. Both would be wrong. Smith might go 6 relative to Hooker's 15, because that's the value NFL GMs have placed on them. Because 7 other GMs decided to pass on him doesn't mean he was a steal at 15.
Sorry but its true. The scouting report said he was elite at one thing, nothing else, but could project to get there. Compare that to just about every positional player picked to go top 10 this year and you'll see that just about all of them are much more well rounded than Hooker was. So 15...not top ten... is about where he belonged. No steal, and Ballard isn't smarter than the other GMs who passed on him because of it.
Smith's profile distinctly outshines his, so I have no problem taking Smith at 6, and can't figure why the forum wouldn't like it when they were ready to take Hooker at 7 if they could. (shhhh...its about OSU)
There is a lot that goes into value. Ballard valued a Free Safety that can be a ballhawk because he had a vision for what his defense was going to be... It had high emphasis on a good centerfielder, and Hooker was at the top of his board...
No one cares if it was a steal or not. Malik Hooker was playing damn good football last season before his injury. He will play even better ball this year in a defense that is suited to his style.
Ballard was able to take Hooker in the top 10 if he really wanted him... he got him at 15, because that's what he was picking at, and to Ballard that is considered a steal.
Apples and oranges to this years draft. We have the 6th pick this year and if Ballard wants Smith, he will take him at 6. If he isn't the highest rated player on his board when the 6th pick comes, and he thinks he can move back a few notches and get Smith when he is at the top of his board, he might do it if the price is right... Who cares if we 'steal' anybody. Load up on picks (check) and draft good football players with great value to the franchise.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, dgambill said:
I could be wrong but I think Arizona sits this year out. I think they are going to see moving up as too expensive without the right ammo (combo of firsts and seconds that a team like Buffalo, Jets, and Denver had). If something fell in their laps sure but they spent a lot of money bringing in Bradford and Glennon. I think they can afford to wait a year until the drama at the top is less. I look for them to be a round 2 kinda team. I think at this point teams will have to target 2nd and 4th pick especially if they want to land a qb. Maybe Denver at 5 if their guy is off the board but even they are going to think long and hard about qb. If you want one of the top 4...you gotta think you trade into top 4 to get them. Since your likely targeting one...I don't see how you trade until you know they are there.
I posted a little bit ago touching on this point, but these teams don't just wait on something to happen. Perhaps they are trying to trade into the top 4, and struggling to get anywhere. Perhaps Ballard has already taken a phone call that goes something along the lines of "what if Chubb Barkley and Nelson go 2, 4 and 5, and there is a couple nice QBs sitting there at 6... what would it take to swing that pick."
I think it's naive to think these things don't happen heading into the draft. There is no way that there isn't serious negotiating in the weeks leading up to draft day. Round 2-7, probably not so much. But round 1, especially top 10 with franchise QBs on the line... absolutely.
-
Just now, buccolts said:
I think this may be the consensus, but the two bold words are the overwhelmingly important words in this thought.
I'm certain the Colts would think so, as well, and they'd have to weigh their interest in him against that risk.
That is the million dollar question...
I also think Arizona might be in the fold to throw in the kitchen sink to a top 6 team for one of the big 4 qb's... Would Ballard be willing to move back to 15 again this year, to stack up picks for this year and next? I would, without question, and hope AZ and the Jets picking top 5 next year.-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, rockywoj said:
Holy, the Colts do it once in how many years, and all of a sudden it is now easy? The fact that Ballard pulled that trade off was fantastic, but I don't think it is something so easily replicated. For years people here have been calling for trade backs and then all upset when such does not materialize. Right now I think the Giants, Cleveland, and Denver are in a far better position to work a trade back with Buffalo. I predict that nothing more will happen for the Colts until draft day and then things will be entirely dependent upon if Buffalo (or anybody else) can work a trade for #'s 2, 4, & 5, before anything with the Colts will be entertained.
If something can be worked out, then terrific! But I am pretty darn sure it is not nearly as easy as you make it sound.
I also would like to point out that it isn't uncommon for teams looking to move up to negotiate possibilities ahead of time so they aren't scrambling every pick. Make no mistake, CB has already taken phone calls from teams looking at quarterbacks. He knows what teams are valuing and knows exactly what he will be willing to trade for.
This isn't Madden and you can just wait to see what trade offers pull up on the screen when your pick comes. You negotiate for weeks leading up to the draft so you have a starting point to work from.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, krunk said:
Grigs kept trying to fix the OL through FA and it kept blowing up on him. I think maybe things swing a little differently if Donald Thomas didn't get hit with a big injury bug and then the knee issue with Gosder Cherilus. On top of that none of his drafted OL worked out other than Mewhort and then in his final year Ryan Kelly. Maybe you can add Denzel Good to the mix but he's far from a reliable option. Even the ones he drafted along with Kelly are struggling. Maybe Clark and Haeg will finally get it together enough to where we are certain, but for right now????
Right now it is unsettled. There is definitely going to be a pick or two in the first three rounds to bolster this offensive line. Book it. Deep interior offensive line in this draft.
Perhaps Ballard thinks that a fresh coaching staff and offensive scheme will go a long way with the current guys also. Getting rid of the ball faster will certainly help.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, rockywoj said:
Holy, the Colts do it once in how many years, and all of a sudden it is now easy? The fact that Ballard pulled that trade off was fantastic, but I don't think it is something so easily replicated. For years people here have been calling for trade backs and then all upset when such does not materialize. Right now I think the Giants, Cleveland, and Denver are in a far better position to work a trade back with Buffalo. I predict that nothing more will happen for the Colts until draft day and then things will be entirely dependent upon if Buffalo (or anybody else) can work a trade for #'s 2, 4, & 5, before anything with the Colts will be entertained.
If something can be worked out, then terrific! But I am pretty darn sure it is not nearly as easy as yo make it sound.
First off, we had this guy named Ryan Grigson here for several years... and he sucked at everything relating to drafting. We also weren't a top 10 drafting team with the QB position locked down, ever... so things are different this year than they have been in the past 2 decades.
I completely agree that nothing more will happen until draft day for us. I have repeatedly said that on this forum. Ballard will sit back and see what happens. If those teams that are now ahead of us do trade back to QB reaching teams then that is GREAT. Exactly what Ballard hoped by moving to 6. It opens up drafting Barkley or Chubb. If not, then there will be a few teams entertaining moving up for their QB. If it were easy, everyone would be successful at it. Many fear the unknown. Ballard trusts his hard work and scouting, and knows if the elite guys are no longer on the board or if a great opportunity comes his way, he is comfortable moving back. His vision has been laid out over and over. Focus on the draft, do your homework, acquire picks, draft well, develop your picks, stack drafts on top of another and retain your key players.
Acquiring picks is going to be his forte, and he's excelling already in year 2. No one knows what is going to happen, not even Ballard. But moving back is certainly on the table and will look better and better closer to draft day.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, krunk said:
Grigson was under pressure to make some kind of good move regarding the OL even if he had to reach for a need.
Should not have been the case. They both should have been fired that off season and moved on.
I sincerely hope we look back and thank the timing of Grigsons firing. I like Ballard's approach and I truly hope he is successful, especially with drafting, developing, and retaining his own players. That kind of locker room under Frank Reich could be priceless.
-
2 minutes ago, krunk said:
No brainer only because the line was in total shambles.
Agreed. Which is not a good position to be in going into the draft for any position group.
-
6 minutes ago, krunk said:
He was being projected for the early 2nd round.
By the time the draft day got closer they started projecting him to Indy
and a good couple of us on this forum didn't want him at the pick we
had because he was a center and we felt it was too early for a center.
18 was a touch high for him. I think Grigson felt he had to pick him him to prove he was serious about protecting Luck after the first several years.
I just dont remember him being a second round grade. Some even thought it was a nobrainer for us.
-
22 minutes ago, rockywoj said:
I think you are wrong to think they can so easily simply load up on picks in a move back. I suspect consummating move back trades is a LOT more difficult than most of you seem to think.
They literally just proved your comment wrong a few weeks ago... Ballard made it look that easy, so no I dont think it will be difficult.
I don't think we trade back unless 3 players are gone, which means 2 top QBs are still available... which yes, teams will trade picks for
-
59 minutes ago, krunk said:
Most people forget all this value talk if the player plays well. Kelly was drafted way ahead of his Second round projection. Most people don't make much of it today because he plays well. Every now and then you'll hear something but not much. If they take Roquan at 6 it might not match who I wanted there, but I'd probably be slightly dissapointed for like 5 minutes.
I dont remember Kelly being a second round projection at all... He was projected to Indy the entire time
-
1 minute ago, TKnight24 said:
I think Chubb is high on Ballard's board & Barkley is high on Irsay's board
Ballard mentions how you're not gonna get premium pass rushers in FA so you gotta draft one (Chubb)
Irsay mentions wanting to give Andrew a Edge James type RB (Barkley)
Only one of these guys can get what they want, me personally I'm hoping for Barkley and that we take the Seahawks approach when they won their SB with just a great rotation of guys who could get to the QB. It's easier to phase out ONE pass rusher than it is to phase out an entire group.
I always think of Khalil Mack in OAK. Yes he's a great talent, but he gets phased out and their defense still stinks. He gets his stats, but it doesn't mean anything if the rest of the defense isn't doing anything. Get me a group of guys who can get after the QB instead of just one
Pass rushing has to be by committee or you are risking being an injury away from a bad defense fielded. But a guy like Chubb only rolls around once every so often. And the talent disparity between him and the next guy is pretty large.
I think Barkley is a once in a generation player also, but there are a lot of starting caliber running backs this year.
-
Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:
Amen TKnight. I think too many people are jumping on those that are in favor of the possibility of trading back with the Bills. Most people aren't thinking in terms of singular players. They are trying to have the mentality that Ballard is looking at groups of players with high value and their likely drafting position. If you don't go into the draft with an understanding of where a player could and should be drafted, how have you done all the work/thinking needed to have an accurate board to base your scouting from?
I think in terms of positional value, which I will always argue goes into how a team puts their BPA board together, the linebacker position has a lot of value in the first couple rounds. Why would we invest so high at #6 in a linebacker that we could get a major upgrade at in the second round (especially with the prospect of moving down from 6 and adding another first or second round pick in the process.)This is also why I think Nelson is a bit high at #6, and not sure Ballard would value him at that position. Chubb is by far and away the top of our board, in my opinion. Positional value, BPA, draft positioning, all of it has to be accounted for every single player, at every single draft position. Teams that reach for position (Mostly QB), are teams that get poor value from their drafts.
-
3 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:
Denzel Ward
Derwin James
Harold Landry
All have been tied to Indy in reports, all could be there at 12 if a trade back happens. And that’ll be more 2nd round picks for Mr. Ballard who’s on record saying he likes the Guard talent in the 2nd & later rounds and who also wants at least 3 LB’s in this draft
Me personally I’m hoping for Malik Jefferson & Evans from Bama. I like Anthony Walker from last draft and I think if healthy he could be really good in this system. Give me those 3 as our opening day LB starters and I’m happy with with that
Amen TKnight. I think too many people are jumping on those that are in favor of the possibility of trading back with the Bills. Most people aren't thinking in terms of singular players. They are trying to have the mentality that Ballard is looking at groups of players with high value and their likely drafting position. If you don't go into the draft with an understanding of where a player could and should be drafted, how have you done all the work/thinking needed to have an accurate board to base your scouting from?
I think in terms of positional value, which I will always argue goes into how a team puts their BPA board together, the linebacker position has a lot of value in the first couple rounds. Why would we invest so high at #6 in a linebacker that we could get a major upgrade at in the second round (especially with the prospect of moving down from 6 and adding another first or second round pick in the process.) -
16 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:
To the bolded, I never said anything of the sorts so you are confusing your arguments I guess.
The other portion I will say that if you are at 6 and have a player in mind ok. GM's do this every single year. If your player is gone but another one is there and he will be gone if you make a trade back with a team then you might look at other players that might still be there and weigh the value. This is where some GM's say no and take a player, while another might say screw it trade back and grab whoever is there that is at the top of the list. I am not saying either is wrong. You are construing a completely different argument over nothing.
You are correct. My apologies. You responded to my comment to the individual that made that comment, and I was under the thinking you were the original commenter the entire time, so toss everything out that I rambled...
-
9 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:
If a trade happens then yes it is because the value of everything outweighs the players sitting in front of you. I at no point disagreed with that. A smart GM is going to look at players and take the one that has the highest grade and value at the spot he is at. If they look at someone and take them earlier than expected, than so be it...it happens every year.
I would not and will not be upset with what Ballard does regardless. Based on the initial conversation we were talking about Smith and going from 6 to 12. You are adding a lot here that I do not disagree with but at the same time never mentioned as well.
My point of view was again based on the original comment you made. I am not mentioning one specific player other than the guy you referred to. Now with the other stuff you mentioned I do not necessarily disagree.
All of those talking points were to reiterate my point that it isn't ridiculous to move back and select a player versus standing still and assuring you get him. It's exactly the same thought of moving back 3 positions to 6 and feeling good about getting one of your top 3 on the board because of the situation at hand. Which is what Ballard did, hence "setting the precedent."
This is the comment from you that I singled out and wrote a novel on. My apologies for rambling.
The thought that, “oh noooo, picked at six is toooo early!”, but it’s perfectly fine to take him six players later at twelve, is just so ridiculous
-
28 minutes ago, Dirty Mudflaps said:
I agree with you and rocky. The other thing I think was made obvious when they traded back to 6 is that they weren't all-in on any of the "experts" top 3 non-QBs, in Nelson, Chubb, and Barkley. What that trade did is remove any control they had to assure themselves of getting one of those three. At 3 at least one of them would have been there, with the QBs at the top. Now, there is a chance none of them will be there. I think that speaks volumes about where the Colts big board is and was, and it isn't where most experts or fans keep talking about. If they wanted Chubb, or Neslon, or Barkley, they had to stay at 3. It's no longer in their control being at 6. Who sits atop that board has probably always been a player we'd consider a top 10 pick, not a top 5, based on all the draft experts lists.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it also doesn't take in account that Ballard obviously saw the value in acquiring the picks he did in the trade worth more than the guarantee of one of those players. He values acquiring valueable picks in the draft and building. That doesn't mean he doesn't value those players extremely high, it just means it was a nobrainer to move back and likely still get one of them at 6
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, BProland85 said:
He should still be there at 11 or 12 if Miami or Buffalo wants to move up for a QB at 6.
Worth the gamble seeing as there are multiple (major roster upgrading) Linebackers going to be available in round 2 for us.
-
4 minutes ago, BProland85 said:
Would love Smith after another trade down from 6, but I think a better player could be had at 6 if Ballard stays put. At least one of Quenton Nelson, Bradley Chubb, and Saquon Barkley will be there at 6.
Absolutely. No way he takes him over those 3 guys at 6... and the idea that a trade won't be available if those 3 are off the board is laughable. Ballard won't have to reach out to teams, they will be banging down the damn door with 2 of the top QBs still left.
There is no guessing what he will do on draft day. He will sit back and watch what unfolds/ falls his way. There is a lot of good scenarios, all of which benefit the Colts greatly because they have their franchise QB and are sitting in a pretty position come draft day.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:
You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though. Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at. So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth. Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares. Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.
This mindset also paints Ballard as the type of GM that narrowly focuses on single player instead of the big picture, which is acquiring picks and getting players of value at valueable positions throughout the draft. If he has Smith as a top 5 player, and he is on top of his board, he'll obviously take him. If he is high on Smith but thinks 6 is a reach, then he will look to move back, and move on if Smith is taken.
-
20 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:
You have no guarantee that he will be there when or if you moved down though. Everything that is said is based on hypotheticals. Smith and Edmunds could be picked at 8 and 9 and then if we traded to 12 now we have others to look at. So many want to say this or that and play their own scenario as if it's truth. Kiper/McShay/this site, that site...who cares. Ballard's board is the overall importance and his value for a player is what matters.
I will say, that I am high on Smith also... and the inside linebacker position in general. I loved his play all year. We also have never had a top notch Inside Backer to lead the defense... so I won't be upset if Ballard has him that high and takes him.
I don't see it and only because of the precedent they have set and the players they have been hot on. I also understand there are a lot of smoke and mirrors. But there is a quite a few damn good linebackers if Smith somehow would go before where we trade (if that is what happens)
Post Your Mock Drafts
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
Two first round trade backs loading up on 2nd round picks and one trade back in the 3rd round.
With the exception of Lamar Jackson, which was simply a move for points (although I wouldn't complain to have 2 solid backup qbs like NE two seasons ago) I felt like there is a healthy balance of Offensive line, skilled positions and defensive need for us. I only drafted one corner, because if Ward was our pick, adding a few undrafted ones after would be all we need for decent depth and upgrade.