DougDew

So would have any new GM by now. You're tossing away 8 years like it was just a bad dream?

I'd think both states would have to collaborate to approve a special tax district for the KC metro area. Then tax the metro area like Indy did with Marion and surrounding counties.

Really though, for any team with a supposedly playoff ready roster, is giving up a 5th, a 6th, and next years low 2nd rounder anything more than peanuts? Seems like there isn't much of a failure risk with the acquisition. Bills must be doing a mild reset and figure Diggs is either too expensive or whiny to bother with. Doesn't mean he'll be a problem for HOU.

I can't disagree too much. My main point is that we did not have to wait for Raimann to develop. He has achieved the play status of a 22 year old taken three years ago in the third round and has developed. I strongly believe that if any OT needing team would have known Raimann would have been as good as he has been this early, they would not have waited until round 3 based simply upon the age metric. Especially a OT that can last to age 35. With other positions maybe, but OTs can have longevity.

It seems like any given season, there will be two or three teams loading up in the offseason. If it doesn't work, good for us. The issue is that if it does work, there could always be a new team that leap frogs us and makes it harder to reach the AFCCG. Will TEN be the next team next season? Its like the NFL market has spoken. You need to be one of those teams that leaps 15 spots in the "power rankings", so to speak, to give the team a shot at fighting through the wash. If you take the slow approach, a different Ferrari will just up from behind and pass you every season. And it doesn't matter if that Ferrari ends up on the side of the road after a few seasons. A different one will pass you next season.

And that question illustrates the problem with our safeties. Blackmon fills an immediate need to play either spot reasonably well, but there are still multi-year issues.

Well, that's your GM opinion. Ballard said before that he didn't want to drop below an ability to get an elite player...by trading down to even 12 in 2018...so he has a view that there could be bright lines in the talent pool. (Even if he was talking about just one player, there is still a bright line between him and the others), Other pundits. maybe even last year, said there was a drop off at about pick 20 and the talent was basically the same until pick 40. Other years they say that there may not be 32 first round quality guys in the draft, and other years it runs into the mid thirties. I'm less of a junior GM than many here, and just going by what I read, there are many pundits over many years who seem to strike bight lines. This season, if the talent pool strikes a line at about pick 12 or 13, I'd hate to be at pick 15. I'd rather be at 25 or 8. I think its safe to say that the pundits think that Bowers, MHJ, Nabers, ...maybe Odunze....and Turner have separated themselves from the rest. And possibly a couple of Corners if we let them play man coverage more (if not, then that talent is not useful to us) And maybe LT Alt and another LT. That's 9 players plus 3 or 4 QBs. Pick 12 or 13. But that's just based upon what I'm reading from others. The success rate really has nothing to do with it. These players are all just prospects, and there is a methodology to how prospects are evaluated. You have to follow and trust your methodology and not discount it simply because of a broad statistic. Unless you really want to dissent why Puca and Purdy have done so well relative to how all 32 teams' methodology ranked them as prospects. Maybe just chalk it up to exceptions (good luck, IOW) that can't always be captured by reasonable and affordable analytical methods..

I didn't expect my throw away sentence in a larger comment about there possibly being a bright line between the talent at 8 and 15 to generate a couple of long comments about statistics of GMs picking actual players (and it being not much better than a coin flip). I already know them BTW, thanks. And if this turns into a Ballard Grievance thread, don't blame me simply because I mentioned the name Ballard. The convo was about a possible bright line in the talent bucket, so I could support Ballard making a trade up given that every body on this board thinks the Colts need more explosive players at at least a few positions. Since the convo was starting to drift towards me listing players who could possibly be in that bucket ...me drawing where the bright line might be....I turned the convo backed to where it belonged, IMO, and said I expect Ballard to know if there is a bright line and make that trade because he knows. That's what "expecting to get it right " means. That he thinks there is a bright line worth trading into for if he indeed trades up...and doesn't just throw a dart at it. I can't advocate a trade up because I don't know if there is a bright line (and I'm not going to spend the energy and someone else's millions to know). But I expect Ballard to know if he trades up. That stats you quoted aren't related to what I was saying.

Yeah, that's not much incentive to stay at 46, IMO. I think its reasonable for Ballard to try to get Nabers or Bowers, with the fall back position of seeing what AP and Woods would do with AR. I could see spending 46 on the oline or maybe Kinchens the true FS (assuming he's valued that highly). That would be better support for staying at 15 and taking BPA there, IMO.

That completes the cycle of returning with what we had, then adding AR to the mix. The table is set. And whatever value Davis and Flacco (over Minshew) provides.

Some members seemed to use the chucklehead or sadface emoji to troll instead of making a cogent counterpoint or contribution. I once called the practice "an aggressive use of emojis". I'm glad someone noticed.

I characterized a trade up from 15 to 8 as taking a swing at getting a true difference maker, and losing out on a player at 46 that would probably not push many of our guys better than what we'd get at pick 82. In that context, I'm sure that Ballard puts more effort into it than taking a swing. He isn't well paid for simply taking swings.

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.