Trade down from #59?

[Superman]

The Colts have a second rounder (#59), a third rounder (#90), a fifth, a sixth (or maybe not) and a seventh. Only 4 or maybe 5 picks, and this team still needs to add young playmakers at several positions.

 

Last year, the Seahawks had the 56th overall pick. They traded it to Baltimore for their second rounder (#62), their fifth (#165) and their sixth (#199). Seattle selected RB Christine Michael at #62 (still available were guys like Warford, Allen, Mathieu, etc.) Then they traded the other two picks to Detroit for #137, and selected DT Jesse Williams (still available, Kenny Stills, AJ Klein, etc.) 

 

Miami had #82 in the third round. They traded it to the Saints for two fourth rounders, #106 and #109. They drafted TE Dion Sims at #106, but traded #109 in a package deal to get back up to #93, and drafted CB Will Davis. 

 

For a team light on picks, I like both of those trades. I also think something in between those two would help our draft day be a little more lucrative. According to the pick value chart, we could get a mid to late third, fourth and seventh for our second round pick. In a draft with lots of promising players, I like the idea. 

 

So here's my question. If we could trade #59 for #75, #107 and #203, would you pull the trigger?

[Gavin]

The Colts have a second rounder (#59), a third rounder (#90), a fifth, a sixth (or maybe not) and a seventh. Only 4 or maybe 5 picks, and this team still needs to add young playmakers at several positions.

 

Last year, the Seahawks had the 56th overall pick. They traded it to Baltimore for their second rounder (#62), their fifth (#165) and their sixth (#199). Seattle selected RB Christine Michael at #62 (still available were guys like Warford, Allen, Mathieu, etc.) Then they traded the other two picks to Detroit for #137, and selected DT Jesse Williams (still available, Kenny Stills, AJ Klein, etc.) 

 

Miami had #82 in the third round. They traded it to the Saints for two fourth rounders, #106 and #109. They drafted TE Dion Sims at #106, but traded #109 in a package deal to get back up to #93, and drafted CB Will Davis. 

 

For a team light on picks, I like both of those trades. I also think something in between those two would help our draft day be a little more lucrative. According to the pick value chart, we could get a mid to late third, fourth and seventh for our second round pick. In a draft with lots of promising players, I like the idea. 

 

So here's my question. If we could trade #59 for #75, #107 and #203, would you pull the trigger?

Can you post or pin the value chart so those that want to keep track of it dont have to go hunting

[esmort]

I voted yes .. but, of course that assumes that something crazy doesn't happen, and someone who should have been gone in the 1st falls into our laps.

[James Harden]

Yes I would pull the trigger. Seattle builded  a team with mid-to late round picks. Why just draft a superstar that only superb at one position when you can get more players with decent talent at multiple positions. Who knows.. you might get a steal late into the draft. I like to take that gamble. 

[Gavin]

59 to 75 seems awfully far to me but I'd consider it if DaQuan Jones is gone and Gabe Jackson, I'd pull the trigger on Dailey Bailey at 75 in a heart beat though if he was there, He has playmaker wrote all over him, I'd consider it

[Superman]

Can you post or pin the value chart so those that want to keep track of it dont have to go hunting

 

So you want me to promote laziness?

 

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

I believe those are all the same at this point, but at times they've been slightly different. Also, this chart doesn't necessarily add up when you analyze the trades that are made in real life. I think for mid-round trades, it usually favors the team giving up the greater amount of picks. 

[NewColtsFan]

I voted yes....   but I'd note that I don't want to trade down too far.

 

In fact, I'd like to trade down TWICE if at all possible?

 

But I wouldn't trade any lower than probably the top 8 of the 3rd round.     That's 13 spots.   It would still give us a top-72 player, and I think we can find one of our liking there.

 

But we need an infusion of talent at so many places....  

 

As long as we don't trade too far back,  I'm all for it!

[Gavin]

So you want me to promote laziness?

 

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

I believe those are all the same at this point, but at times they've been slightly different. Also, this chart doesn't necessarily add up when you analyze the trades that are made in real life. I think for mid-round trades, it usually favors the team giving up the greater amount of picks. 

you call it laziness.....I call it informing the less knowledgable . As to the charts, None will be 100 percent accurate anyway, Some strange choices always seem to happen come draft day........Jax fans can attest to that

[Superman]

I voted yes .. but, of course that assumes that something crazy doesn't happen, and someone who should have been gone in the 1st falls into our laps.

 

Yeah, if you're in love with someone who is still there at #59, you take your guy, blast the extra picks. For me, if Jordan Matthews or Aaron Donald is still there, then scrap the entire idea. Might still find a way to pick up some extra late round picks, might look at giving up our third rounder or something. I'm assuming there are no draft day blunders that push a highly rated guy down to our spot.

[NewColtsFan]

So you want me to promote laziness?

 

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

I believe those are all the same at this point, but at times they've been slightly different. Also, this chart doesn't necessarily add up when you analyze the trades that are made in real life. I think for mid-round trades, it usually favors the team giving up the greater amount of picks. 

 

Thanks, Superman...

 

Some thoughts.....

 

First, if you could, you should post those links in a separate thread and pin that thread to the top for all to find and use.

 

Second,  that chart,  while the only one that we can find,  is a bit outdated,  because it does not reflect the supplemental picks that are now in existence that weren't around when this chart was first created.

 

So,  the chart reflects a 7-round draft.   But there are 32 supplemental picks making it -- in essence -- an 8-round draft...  in all, 256 picks in a typical draft.

 

Roughly there are 4 added picks in each of R's 3, 4, 5, and 6 for about 16.   And another 16 at the end of R7 for a total of 32 additional picks.

 

That screws up the points a little bit as you're trying to compute appropriate trades.    One thing to remember,  teams can NOT trade supplemental picks.   The team with those picks has to use them.   They can only trade their own original picks.

[BProland85]

In my opinion, this shouldn't even be a debate. We still have plenty of needs, and not enough draft picks to fill them.

[Gavin]

Thanks, Superman...

 

Some thoughts.....

 

First, if you could, you should post those links in a separate thread and pin that thread to the top for all to find and use.

 

Second,  that chart,  while the only one that we can find,  is a bit outdated,  because it does not reflect the supplemental picks that are now in existence that weren't around when this chart was first created.

 

So,  the chart reflects a 7-round draft.   But there are 32 supplemental picks making it -- in essence -- an 8-round draft...  in all, 256 picks in a typical draft.

 

Roughly there are 4 added picks in each of R's 3, 4, 5, and 6 for about 16.   And another 16 at the end of R7 for a total of 32 additional picks.

 

That screws up the points a little bit as you're trying to compute appropriate trades.    One thing to remember,  teams can NOT trade supplemental picks.   The team with those picks has to use them.   They can only trade their own original picks.

Supplemental picks haven't been given yet as far as I know, I look for those around March again

[NewColtsFan]

Supplemental picks haven't been given yet as far as I know, I look for those around March again

 

Yup....

 

Good add,  thanks!     

[Patagonia Chris]

The Colts will not get any supplement picks this year because you have to have lost more UFA's than you signed by a certain date and the Colts signed like 2 more than they lost. The amount of draft picks for the field is set to be 254 so supplement picks are handed out until they reach that number. It goes teams who lost more UFA's than they signed (each team gets 1 for the net amount of losses) then if there are picks left to be given out it goes to teams who had the same number of UFA's signed and lost in order of the previous seasons waiver order I think. It's kind of a complicated system, but I'm pretty sure it's one of the reasons Polian was never big on signing UFA's. He would have rather had the draft picks.

[The Fish]

My take is no. Not that it couldn't be done, but Grigson hasn't shown that he drafts well in the later parts of the draft. He hit home runs with Luck and T.Y., to some degree and Allen and Ballard. FLEENOR is good, but he was a reach at 34. This past draft was a bit of a whiff, so I'd say the best shot at landing a quality player is to let the guy who drafted well up top do that again. That said, Grigson has to stop peddling picks. 

[HtownColt]

Not picking until #75 and trading completely out of the 2nd round is just something I can't get on board with.

[Superman]

Thanks, Superman...

 

Some thoughts.....

 

First, if you could, you should post those links in a separate thread and pin that thread to the top for all to find and use.

 

Second,  that chart,  while the only one that we can find,  is a bit outdated,  because it does not reflect the supplemental picks that are now in existence that weren't around when this chart was first created.

 

So,  the chart reflects a 7-round draft.   But there are 32 supplemental picks making it -- in essence -- an 8-round draft...  in all, 256 picks in a typical draft.

 

Roughly there are 4 added picks in each of R's 3, 4, 5, and 6 for about 16.   And another 16 at the end of R7 for a total of 32 additional picks.

 

That screws up the points a little bit as you're trying to compute appropriate trades.    One thing to remember,  teams can NOT trade supplemental picks.   The team with those picks has to use them.   They can only trade their own original picks.

 

The bolded is the reason these charts don't include supplemental picks. They have no trade value. So while the overall number might be off, the trade value still holds true. My calculations in the OP don't account for this, but the 105th pick, for instance, would essentially be the 105th tradeable pick, not the 105th overall pick. Or you can just do it by round. The 105th pick on that chart is Round 4, Pick 9, and that nullifies the need to account for compensatory picks.

 

Also, no problem, I can pin the charts to the top of this forum section. But it's probably easier to find them on your own when using a modern browser. I guess that's more for reference though. If it's pinned, it will benefit some who aren't even familiar with the charts in the first place. So consider it done, good sir.

[Superman]

The Colts will not get any supplement picks this year because you have to have lost more UFA's than you signed by a certain date and the Colts signed like 2 more than they lost. The amount of draft picks for the field is set to be 254 so supplement picks are handed out until they reach that number. It goes teams who lost more UFA's than they signed (each team gets 1 for the net amount of losses) then if there are picks left to be given out it goes to teams who had the same number of UFA's signed and lost in order of the previous seasons waiver order I think. It's kind of a complicated system, but I'm pretty sure it's one of the reasons Polian was never big on signing UFA's. He would have rather had the draft picks.

 

I agree with you about the compensatory picks this year, but to the bolded, I'm almost sure that's not part of it.

[NewColtsFan]

Yeah, if you're in love with someone who is still there at #59, you take your guy, blast the extra picks. For me, if Jordan Matthews or Aaron Donald is still there, then scrap the entire idea.

 

Wait!   What?!?

 

Didn't a member here with your internet handle just make a post last week to someone else who expressed a fondness for Aaron Donald that while he's a very talented player,  at 6'0" and 285 he's not a fit for our 3-4 defense.   That's he's a fit for a 4-3 defense.

 

Wasn't that you?

 

So,  what happened?     Develop a man crush?

[Bluefire4]

Depends on how much money we spend in FA.

[Superman]

Wait!   What?!?

 

Didn't a member here with your internet handle just make a post last week to someone else who expressed a fondness for Aaron Donald that while he's a very talented player,  at 6'0" and 285 he's not a fit for our 3-4 defense.   That's he's a fit for a 4-3 defense.

 

Wasn't that you?

 

So,  what happened?     Develop a man crush?

 

Brain fart. Thanks for catching that. I guess I was just trying to list players that I really like, and had forgotten that Donald isn't really a good fit. 

[GoColtsGo5150]

 

if Allen Robinson is taken. and even if he isn't maybe 2 or 3 picks down so we can get more draft picks and still draft him. 

[BOTT]

I don't know. Depends on who is a available. If someone like Dee Ford or Kyle Van Knoy is there, then no way.

[Gibbons180]

I would trade down unless someone really good is there. for WR I love Matthews and Jarvis Landry IMO.

[Superman]

I don't know. Depends on who is a available. If someone like Dee Ford or Kyle Van Knoy is there, then no way.

 

I like Dee Ford, but I don't know where he'd fit in our front. Van Noy, absolutely, I'd take him rather than trade down. I can't imagine that he'd be available still.

[MSColtsFan]

The Colts have a second rounder (#59), a third rounder (#90), a fifth, a sixth (or maybe not) and a seventh. Only 4 or maybe 5 picks, and this team still needs to add young playmakers at several positions.

 

Last year, the Seahawks had the 56th overall pick. They traded it to Baltimore for their second rounder (#62), their fifth (#165) and their sixth (#199). Seattle selected RB Christine Michael at #62 (still available were guys like Warford, Allen, Mathieu, etc.) Then they traded the other two picks to Detroit for #137, and selected DT Jesse Williams (still available, Kenny Stills, AJ Klein, etc.) 

 

Miami had #82 in the third round. They traded it to the Saints for two fourth rounders, #106 and #109. They drafted TE Dion Sims at #106, but traded #109 in a package deal to get back up to #93, and drafted CB Will Davis. 

 

For a team light on picks, I like both of those trades. I also think something in between those two would help our draft day be a little more lucrative. According to the pick value chart, we could get a mid to late third, fourth and seventh for our second round pick. In a draft with lots of promising players, I like the idea. 

 

So here's my question. If we could trade #59 for #75, #107 and #203, would you pull the trigger?

 

What happened to the Shipley trade?  He was sent for a conditional 7th rounder from the Ravens, the condition being AQ makes the Ravens roster.  The Ravens website shows Shipley on the roster, 16 games, 9 starts.  So wouldn't the Colts get the 209th pick, 17th in the 7th round?

[Superman]

What happened to the Shipley trade?  He was sent for a conditional 7th rounder from the Ravens, the condition being AQ makes the Ravens roster.  The Ravens website shows Shipley on the roster, 16 games, 9 starts.  So wouldn't the Colts get the 209th pick, 17th in the 7th round?

 

Yup. We have the Ravens 7th rounder, but we traded our 7th for someone else, can't remember who at the moment. I guess we'll find out for sure within the next couple weeks.

[IndyScribe]

Yup. We have the Ravens 7th rounder, but we traded our 7th for someone else, can't remember who at the moment. I guess we'll find out for sure within the next couple weeks.

We're supposed to have an extra 7th round pick. The trade for Cam Johnson was supposed to give SF our 2015 7th round pick.(At least that's what I've been hearing. It hasn't been confirmed whether or not we have our sixth or an extra 7th.)

[MSColtsFan]

Yup. We have the Ravens 7th rounder, but we traded our 7th for someone else, can't remember who at the moment. I guess we'll find out for sure within the next couple weeks.

 

San Francisco has the Colts 7th rounder, according to this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1946043-nfl-draft-order-2014-full-list-of-draft-selections-following-super-bowl-xlviii

 

I'm not sure I trust this list though.  There is also the Ceasar Rayford trade to the Cowboys which was for an "undisclosed pick" in this draft.  And this shows the Colts having that sixth rounder still.... 

[Superman]

San Francisco has the Colts 7th rounder, according to this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1946043-nfl-draft-order-2014-full-list-of-draft-selections-following-super-bowl-xlviii

 

I'm not sure I trust this list though.  There is also the Ceasar Rayford trade to the Cowboys which was for an "undisclosed pick" in this draft.  And this shows the Colts having that sixth rounder still.... 

 

Yeah, I've heard it a hundred different ways. That's why I'm content to wait until the draft order is officially released.

[HtownColt]

San Francisco has the Colts 7th rounder, according to this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1946043-nfl-draft-order-2014-full-list-of-draft-selections-following-super-bowl-xlviii

I'm not sure I trust this list though. There is also the Ceasar Rayford trade to the Cowboys which was for an "undisclosed pick" in this draft. And this shows the Colts having that sixth rounder still....

Rayford was for a 2015 draft pick not 2014

[Gibbons180]

I voted no because if someone really good happens to fall to our pick, I think we should pick them. Example, Jordan Matthews, Jarvis Landry, Chris Borland, Dee Ford, Van Noy etc. I don't know, honestly. (Those are obviously my favorites from this draft) lol. This answer isn't very good, but to my defense it is a hard question because free agency completely can alter a teams draft, trades may happen, cuts may happen, it is a tad early. just my two cents.

[Jason_]

Wait!   What?!?

 

Didn't a member here with your internet handle just make a post last week to someone else who expressed a fondness for Aaron Donald that while he's a very talented player,  at 6'0" and 285 he's not a fit for our 3-4 defense.   That's he's a fit for a 4-3 defense.

 

Wasn't that you?

 

So,  what happened?     Develop a man crush?

 

Superman and I were discussing that in another thread.  Based on what I've read about Donald, I don't think it's as much that he wouldn't fit our front as it is that he would be fit for the DT role that RJF plays and not so much at DE where Redding plays, and Redding is the one that we need to find the upgrade/future replacement, though this could very possibly be Hughes.  I do think Donald could play the DT role and sub in/out with RJF and he could play on the interior in any of our 4 man fronts.  

 

I still think we could take Donald if he's still on the board, and if he winds up being a better player than RJF then the team would have options.  Keep him at his current price since Donald would be cheap being on his rookie contract.  They could try to restructure RJF's contract if they could get him to take a pay cut.  Or just release him and look for a cheaper backup to Donald.  

 

That's the whole thing though, drafting Donald wouldn't be filling a major need since RJF played well and could still improve.  But if Donald could be a better overall player than RJF then it could still be worthwhile to take him, keep RJF for the 2014 season and then weigh options next offseason.  

[Bulldog Colt]

Maybe go back to the Browns and get their 

3rd pick 71

Get our 4th back pick 122

6th pick 164

[Danfish98]

My take is no. Not that it couldn't be done, but Grigson hasn't shown that he drafts well in the later parts of the draft. He hit home runs with Luck and T.Y., to some degree and Allen and Ballard. FLEENOR is good, but he was a reach at 34. This past draft was a bit of a whiff, so I'd say the best shot at landing a quality player is to let the guy who drafted well up top do that again. That said, Grigson has to stop peddling picks. 

Fleener was picked round 2, that's not a later part of the draft.  Here's a list of excellent Grigson picks from round 3 on.  

Dwayne Allen

TY Hilton

Josh Chapman

Vick Ballard

Honorable mentions go to Brazil, Hugh Thornton (he wasn't great being thrust into a starting position early due to injury but I like his potential), Hughes (also for potential.  I think he's going to end up being a solid player.)

 

That's 4 great players, a solid guy for a 6th round pick in Brazil, and 2 with good potential in 2 years.  Combine that with guys like Freeman that Grigson found in the CFL and I'm more than happy to trust Grigson with late round picks.

[throwing BBZ]

Yes trade the pick. Even if you have 1,2,3,4, players you have evaluated as worthy of that pick.

If we can keep having C- off seasons like last season we can eventually have a B+ team.

[The Fish]

Fleener was picked round 2, that's not a later part of the draft.  Here's a list of excellent Grigson picks from round 3 on.  

Dwayne Allen

TY Hilton

Josh Chapman

Vick Ballard

Honorable mentions go to Brazil, Hugh Thornton (he wasn't great being thrust into a starting position early due to injury but I like his potential), Hughes (also for potential.  I think he's going to end up being a solid player.)

 

That's 4 great players, a solid guy for a 6th round pick in Brazil, and 2 with good potential in 2 years.  Combine that with guys like Freeman that Grigson found in the CFL and I'm more than happy to trust Grigson with late round picks.

Luck , T.Y and Allen weren't either. I noted that FLEENOR was taken at the top of round 2. 

 

Chapman, Ballard and Brazil are solid, but none are secure in their long term prospects with the Colts currently. 

I'll give props on finding Freeman, but that's his lone find at this point. 

His success in the draft has happened at the top, but he's traded out of picks and recently got us two question marks in Trent and Bjorn. He's also going to have to pay Davis- that was a 2nd rounder all ready getting paid.

2 years into a rebuild, this thing is all ready looks like it will need to be re-glued together. With just 4 or 5 picks, let's hope you're right and Grigson finds some guys who can get on the field and play well.

[Superman]

Luck , T.Y and Allen weren't either. I noted that FLEENOR was taken at the top of round 2. 

 

Chapman, Ballard and Brazil are solid, but none are secure in their long term prospects with the Colts currently. 

I'll give props on finding Freeman, but that's his lone find at this point. 

His success in the draft has happened at the top, but he's traded out of picks and recently got us two question marks in Trent and Bjorn. He's also going to have to pay Davis- that was a 2nd rounder all ready getting paid.

2 years into a rebuild, this thing is all ready looks like it will need to be re-glued together. With just 4 or 5 picks, let's hope you're right and Grigson finds some guys who can get on the field and play well.

 

Just a question, have you looked at the players who are currently considered 70-120 in this year's draft? Especially in comparison with those who are rated 50-70? I think there will be plenty of great options for us if we were to trade down, and picking up an extra pick in that range would be great. JMO.

 

I'd like Kyle Van Noy, Jordan Matthews, (recently discovered) Stephon Tuitt, maybe a couple other guys that I really like at #59 when we pick. Outside of them, I don't think the value or talent level is that much greater than the guys who will be picked in the third and fourth rounds, especially if you can get an extra third and a fourth. 

 

I keep thinking back to what Bill Polian said at the end of the 2011 season. I have big problems with the way he handled the team toward the end, but this thought was particularly pointed. He said, in so many words, the Colts needed to add young playmakers at numerous positions. Grigson has done that, even though a lot of them missed time with injuries in 2013 (and with the success teams like the Seahawks, Niners, Panthers, etc. have had recently, mostly on the backs of young, well-drafted players). The foundation is coming along, but the more quality players we can get, guys who can make a big impact on the field right away, the better off we'll be next year, even though there's still a lot of work to do.

 

So if those standout guys at crucial positions (LB, S, WR, CB) aren't available at #59, it makes a ton of sense to me to trade down. Yawin Smallwood, Carl Bradford, Craig Loston, Pierre Desir, Jeremiah Attaochu, Stanley Jean-Baptiste, etc., will all be there in that 70-120 range. And we could add players at less premium positions like DT, where Ego Ferguson, Anthony Johnson, Caraun Reid, etc. will be, and even some interior OL guys like Bryan Stork, Brandon Thomas, etc.

[Gavin]

Just a question, have you looked at the players who are currently considered 70-120 in this year's draft? Especially in comparison with those who are rated 50-70? I think there will be plenty of great options for us if we were to trade down, and picking up an extra pick in that range would be great. JMO.

 

I'd like Kyle Van Noy, Jordan Matthews, (recently discovered) Stephon Tuitt, maybe a couple other guys that I really like at #59 when we pick. Outside of them, I don't think the value or talent level is that much greater than the guys who will be picked in the third and fourth rounds, especially if you can get an extra third and a fourth. 

 

I keep thinking back to what Bill Polian said at the end of the 2011 season. I have big problems with the way he handled the team toward the end, but this thought was particularly pointed. He said, in so many words, the Colts needed to add young playmakers at numerous positions. Grigson has done that, even though a lot of them missed time with injuries in 2013 (and with the success teams like the Seahawks, Niners, Panthers, etc. have had recently, mostly on the backs of young, well-drafted players). The foundation is coming along, but the more quality players we can get, guys who can make a big impact on the field right away, the better off we'll be next year, even though there's still a lot of work to do.

 

So if those standout guys at crucial positions (LB, S, WR, CB) aren't available at #59, it makes a ton of sense to me to trade down. Yawin Smallwood, Carl Bradford, Craig Loston, Pierre Desir, Jeremiah Attaochu, Stanley Jean-Baptiste, etc., will all be there in that 70-120 range. And we could add players at less premium positions like DT, where Ego Ferguson, Anthony Johnson, Caraun Reid, etc. will be, and even some interior OL guys like Bryan Stork, Brandon Thomas, etc.

I cant seem to find anything on Brandon Thomas

[chad72]

We can get pick #77 (3rd), #109 (4th), and #173 (6th) from the St. Louis Rams in exchange for the #59 if we want to go that route.

 

Those guys might not mind moving up from their round 3 spot to round 2 with the boatload of picks that they have.

 

That would give us 2 thirds, 2 4th rounders, and 2 6th rounders and 1 7th rounder.