Grigs will probably trade up

[DougDew]

Collins is what Landry was supposed to be. I don't think that's bad. And at 21 years old, and working with a good DB coach in Pagano, his coverage can improve. I wouldn't mind Collins at #29. Half this board would melt down, but that's par for the course....

Yeah.  My feeling is if Grigs trades up to get him, or even picks him at #29, I would not have a problem with the pick since I would assume that Grigs/Pagano see something in him that can be coached and corrected.

 

As it stands now, I feel better about getting more of a FS type in round 3 than getting Collins in round 1, but if picked there, I would expect Collins' shortcomings to be corrected rather quickly and that he would be much better against the pass by the end of the season.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Collins is what Landry was supposed to be. I don't think that's bad. And at 21 years old, and working with a good DB coach in Pagano, his coverage can improve. I wouldn't mind Collins at #29. Half this board would melt down, but that's par for the course....

 

I'm a touch less enamored of Collins now than I was, but if he fell to us at 29, I wouldn't mind the pick.  But please lets not trade up for him!  And I like your idea of trading back if we can find a partner and fill the roster with a bunch of prospects at 40-120  ish range.

[CanuckColt]

Collins is what Landry was supposed to be. I don't think that's bad. And at 21 years old, and working with a good DB coach in Pagano, his coverage can improve. I wouldn't mind Collins at #29. Half this board would melt down, but that's par for the course....

I trust Grigs to know what is best, but it seems that Landon Collins is average in coverage in college.

How is he going to be able to cover NFL players?

[CanuckColt]

Apparently the Vikings really want to trade OUT of No.11 overall and get more picks.

Should we be interested in losing 3 picks to go get someone at 11?

[Superman]

I trust Grigs to know what is best, but it seems that Landon Collins is average in coverage in college.

How is he going to be able to cover NFL players?

 

I don't have a problem with his coverage in college. The problem is that they hardly ever asked him to cover.

[Defjamz26]

I don't have a problem with his coverage in college. The problem is that they hardly ever asked him to cover.

And you fix his problems in coverage by pairing him with a good FS. I know our safeties are supposed to be interchangeable but that point is often overstated. Landry was supposed to be a center fielder who covered TEs and occasionally played single high.

Collins would so the same thing, just successful. The Colts can leave the deep coverage stuff to a FS. I'm not sure why people make it seem like Collins would be doing all the covering.

[loudnproudcolt]

That's my guy!    Way to be thinking, ZTB!!

 

So.....   let's talk about the value chart......

 

I just checked it out...

 

If we trade the five with one of our 6's,  we move from pick 165 up to pick 140, which fortunately is Oakland.   A team trying to build and I think would be very receptive to a two for one trade.

 

And....

 

If we were going to go really bold,  and we trade the 5 and BOTH of our 6's,  we would move to the bottom of the 4th, to pick 126...    which also fortunately is SF.    Another team that's rebuilding after the off-season from Heck!     So, a THREE for ONE trade moves us up 39 spots into the bottom of the 4th.  

 

That might make all the difference in the quality of running back we get. 

 

The question is, are the Colts willing to do a TWO for ONE?     I would think so.

 

But would the Colts be willing to do a THREE for ONE if it gets us into the 4th round?    My guess is we wouldn't.   

 

By the way,  if Grigson likes the 6th as a round for a trade,  we could simply package both of our 6's and it would move us to the near the top of the round....     might be an easier trade for everyone involved.     Two 6's for one.

 

Either way,  thanks for floating this, ZTB!   

Remember, in your scenario, we can't trade both our 6ths or both our 7ths since you can't trade your comp. picks. Luckily the 7 and 6 we would trade are earlier, but not much. We would have to trade our 5th and 6th to move up, and I don't know how far it would get us.

[NewColtsFan]

Remember, in your scenario, we can't trade both our 6ths or both our 7ths since you can't trade your comp. picks. Luckily the 7 and 6 we would trade are earlier, but not much. We would have to trade our 5th and 6th to move up, and I don't know how far it would get us.

I'm sorry,  where did I mention our 7's?

 

I only mentioned trading our 6's and our one 5.

 

Please go back and double-check.    I don't believe I mentioned the 7's at all.

 

And, you're right.    You can't trade a compensatory pick.