DougDew

No mystery. I never applied for the job. Why do you always have something mean or snarcky to say?

This discussion is blending various things here. First, we are dealing with perceived talent difference between players ranked at pick 8 and pick 15. There is positional value variable in there. And there is a talent need with the Colts, which also has a positional value variable to it. With pick 46, I doubt that the Colts would a get a player any better than Paye, Dayo/Ebukam, Grover, Franklin, Speed, Moore, Juju, Flowers, Jones, Woods, Granson, Ogletree, Smith, or AP. Definitely not better than Raimann, AR, JT, Pittman, Downs or Buckner. Allowing for some rotation in 3 wide sets and nickel coverages, that's about 18 starters. Both Ss and French could be upgraded with pick 46. C could be on the table if you think Kelly doesn't get another contract. That's all 22. The last 4 positions mentioned can be found pretty easy on the open market, not to mention round 3 and beyond.. IMO, there is nothing special about saving pick 46 for them. So, if you can't upgrade 18 picks with 46, and there is no point saving pick 46 for the others, it seems that pick 46, IMO, has very little value in this draft. As opposed to some other drafts when the roaster is more bare in spots. So, Trade it to move up for a WR, EDGE, or TE that has at least that much more incremental talent at 8 than at 15? I would not be mad at Ballard for taking that swing. Of course, I expect him to get it right, because that's what he is paid to do.

Age matters, but only if the player turns out to be any good. Gotta get that part right first, I can't believe that teams would pass on a LT they thought was a top 15 player, because they are worried about whether or not the 4 year contract he signs at the end of his rookie contract would be his last contract. Passing on a player you think is a top 15 player because he might be out of the NFL 7 to 8 years from now seems like a weird priority to me. In fact, I'd be surprised that any successful GM would even consider it.

Agreed. I'm not getting into the weeds of one player over the other. Too many good options to improve the roster at pick 15. Whether the player is elite or not, he will likely be better than the starters we have at about 13 of 22 positions., so its a win from that perspective. One WR, TE, RG, RT, two EDGEs, 3 LBers, 4 players in the secondary. That's 13 positions where we could use elite talent but don't have it. But you don't go into the the draft simply settling for picking any of those positions with pick 15 and call it a day, it's a waste of capital. I normally don't care about the top of the draft, but this seems like the year to have that "$28M guy" replacing two "$14M guys with ceilings". The professional talents scouts like Ballard have a big board. Rank the top 100, and beyond. They expect those players to perform in the NFL exactly the way they are ranked. MHJ better than Puca. Jonathan Taylor better than Evan Hull, etc. The fact that players play higher than what they were ranked isn't relevant to the ranking process, unless the scouts learn as to the reasons why they outplay their ranking and adjust their next ranking to reflect it. Speed, size, hands, route running, strength, etc are all going to be big factors in how they are ranked. Nobody expects their 25th ranked player to be better than their 15th ranked player going into this draft, or else they wouldn't have them ranked that way going in. It seems like you're saying to never trade up unless its for a QB, because there have been players drafted in lower rounds that have played like top 15 picks. I don't get that

Exactly. I think OT is on the table, but not necessarily at 15. And a lot of folks would throw a fit. Its a very good class. First round talent throughout. This is where I could see a trade down to pick a OT. Feel the same about Corner.

For certain positions in those 6-7, I think it would be best to trade down to get that difference maker (corner in a zone based defense for example). Yes, we could get a difference making corner at 15, but why pick him there if he can be picked at 25. But for WR#1 or EDGE, or the next Travis Kelce, pick 15 is probably too low. It is most years, and this year is probably no different, unless there is another WR that has it all like MHJ and Nabers. Seems like all others have some flaws. Again, do you settle for Leggette or Odunze at 15 over Nabers at 8 because of the player you would draft at 46? The fact that its a deep WR class is not relevant, IMO. I don't care how many Pittman's or AP's there are. I just care about the talent at the very top, because that's what the Colts need. And this year, we are within striking distance. Same with EDGE and the next Kelce. We're talking prospects, in the way that they are evaluated, Sure, guys bust. And some do better. The fact that Puca becomes a star is not relevant...his success does not change how you approach the next draft. If another WR has the exact same metrics this year as Puca did coming out of college, that WR is still not going to get drafted before round 3. The next OT with Raimann's college draft profile probably would not get drafted in round 1. I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

Yes. The basis of my discussion was the idea that there is a bright line between elite prospects and very good prospects somewhere around 8 to 11.

I anticipated this response, so I edited my comment to reflect the point of me bringing it up. Edit: Not to argue about 2018. My point is that those words :we did not want to (miss out) on one of the elite players) certainly applies to 2024. The Colts don't really have a "need" other than S. But they do need an elite player at any one of about 6 or 7 positions. Trading up to be in a position to get one, any one of 6 positions, seems like an arguably good move, IMO.

I edited my comment above. Said a different way. On draft day, if Ballard gave up pick 46 to move to 8 to take Nabers, Turner, or Bowers, how many would hate that move?

That's fine. This is for discussion purposes, and I'm not advocating anything. Its just that if some are in love with the idea of getting one of those players...any player, I'd think its logical to argue giving up pick 46 to get that guy at 8 or 9. Adding another talent at pick 46 does this team little good. The roster is already bursting at the seems with those guys. JMO. Said a different way. If Ballard gave up pick 46 to move to 8 to take Nabers, Turner, or Bowers, how many would hate that move?

What I'm reading after 37 pages, is that folks think that Nabers, MHJ, Bowers, Latu, and Turner strike that bright line. That's 5 players after 3 QBs, with some question if there will be a 4th QB in there. To miss out on one of those players who might fall to 8 or 9, just to save a pick to take another Dayo or JuJu. (or even Pittman) with a later pick. would seem to have wasted the 15th position, IMO. Not saying those players are elite. But they seem to stand out from the rest in a lot of folks eyes.

He said, "we did not wan to trade back so far as to not get one of the elite players". There was also some question as to how far Nelson would drop if the Colts did not take him. If Ballard was focused on Nelson exclusively, he would have had no problems saying that after he picked him. Its management 101 to pump up the player after he's picked...like he said that AR was his target all along. If he can say it about AR, he would have said it about Nelson. Edit: Not to argue about 2018. My point is that his statement certainly applies to 2024. The Colts don't really have a "need" other than S. But they do need an elite player at any one of about 6 or 7 positions. Trading up to be in a position to get one, any one of 6 positions, seems like a good move, IMO.

It depends upon if there is break in the talent. A bright line between elite and very good. I think its a reasonable argument to make to give up the next Paye, Dayo, Woods, JuJu, etc. (the players you might get at 46) to get the guy that separates himself from the others. Not saying that there is that guy, but some of the comments seem to suggest that we stand pat a 15 to simply take the best there, or, to trade down and get more picks with which to take more Dayos later. I think the main point of being as high as 15 is to position oneself to get an elite player... and explosive player.....and the Colts desperately need one at any one of several positions that it wouldn't matter if it was a WR, a EDGE, or a TE, IMO. If there is not bright line break (as you suggest), like there apparently was in 2018 according to Ballard, then probably trading down is the best option in hopes that a dart throw gets you more chances at getting a stand out player with more 2nd and 3rd round picks, IMO.

This draft seems to be very deep at OT. Do you trade down, take a RT, and move Smith to RG, or draft a G with a low 1st round pick?. What about C, is French the future? See, with this draft, I think there are many possibilities if you are looking for "very good" positional players. How many elite players are there? Going back to 2018, this draft isn't a whole lot different. Looks like there will be 3 QBs taken probably 1-2-3, then the rest. In 2018, after taking Nelson at 6, Ballard was quoted as saying "we didn't want to trade back further and miss at getting one of the elite players in this draft" ( He probably meant Nelson, but there was Edwards, Smith ,and I think Derwin James. with Nelson to round out players that were simply viewed as being on a different tier than all of the other "very good" players.) Position aside, because this teams need an elite player somewhere, IMO, who are the players in this draft that are elite to separate from the rest, and would anybody be willing to trade up to get that player? Where does it break? Pick 7. Pick 11, 12, 13? Does the string of elite players go all the way down to 15? Probably not.

So, you are saying that there should be a difference-maker at 15, and that is QMitchell? The draft runs that deep in difference makers? (projection of course)

Also, my trade of 46 and 15 to 7 was just an example. We could give up less than pick 46 to move up fewer slots. So Turner possibly falling to 11 would be an even better value, if we're interested in Turner.

If teams/scouts/ the entire staff took the approach that high draft picks can bust and low draft picks can be studs, it becomes a sophisticated dart throw and there isn't much reason to do the extensive analysis they do. They do it for a reason, and project players accodordingly. JMO.

Is it a deep "difference-maker" draft? How much more young 2nd and 3rd round level talent does the team need?

Sure, end of the season is best but ANY of the outlets that grade the acquisitions at this time of the year, or later, are no more "reputable" than others. Its all just opinion, with some thinking their opinion should matter more because of their credentials...when their reasoning provided often seems incomplete.

Going to reset the convo a bit...as I see it of course. IMO, the top half of the first round is where you find the playmakers...a difference-maker. The guys that other teams need to plan for, so to speak. What position(s) on the Colts needs that kind of player?...which means the rookie is intended to displace an existing starter very soon. Trade value chart shows that our picks 46 and 15 could get us to pick 7 (assuming TEN would make that trade). Is there a player you would use pick 46 to trade up for? Remember, this is a genuine difference-maker. If its a hit, the pick 46 you give up is peanuts in terms of price.

Didn't the Jets sign LT Tyron Smith in FA? He's a top 10 LT, IIRC. Would they take a G over Bowers?

Bowers likely doesn't get past NYJ. And will probably flourish with Rodgers.

That's a lot of what I said. Woods is an in line TE, not a Move So is Ogletree So is Mo. If Woods comes back, why do we need three In line TEs? Granson is a Move, but contract time is near. Mallory is a Move, but probably not "the guy" When Mo leaves, we'll have two In lines, and Mallory. So its a choice of keeping Granson, or upgrading. I'd rather have Bowers (or probably another drafted TE) under a rookie contract than paying Granson. I think Move TE is actually a need. Bowers, Mallory, Woods, and Ogletree would be a nice set of TEs.

Bowers could very well be the best player in the draft. If Woods is to play the Move TE role opposite Mo, that's a horrible usage of personnel, IMO. And then there is Granson, who is probably up for a contract soon, and Mallory. It seems to me that there is no room for woods other than the traditional blocking and occasional receiving type of TE, taking Mos spot. That leave Ogletree as Woods' backup, since he is probably also not a Move TE type. There is really only Granson and Mallory as the Move TE. If you figure that Mallory is backup quality, then Ballard needs to decide if he wants to extend Granson at some point, or upgrade the position. You see, despite the high-floor type of talent at TE, the Colts have redundancy and no real threat. I think TE like Bowers is just as much of a need as WR, and maybe corner if we will be playing lots of zone.. I still think that a true pass rusher from the edge position is the biggest need. But a true threat at TE is a big need too.

For most of his college career, IIRC, Woods was a blocking TE. He became more of a pass catcher after he transferred to play his senior year, also IIRC. I would wager that Woods could block as well as Mo, who isn't as great a blocker as billed, IMO. Woods taking over for Mo, and adding Bowers as a truly elite Move TE, would give the Colts one of the best TE rooms in the NFL. A very dangerous two TE set, and two good options for AR, whereas now its a mediocre bunch missing that star threat player. Would save some cap too with a Mo release.