Drawback To Trade Down Philosophy

[esmort]

I am on the fence whether I would prefer to draft Luck with the #1 pick or trade it for multiple picks. Which way I lean depends on the day ... but here is my main concern with the trade down scenario:

The most prevalent argument from advocates for the trade down scenario suggest that we will get multiple picks that will allow us to put the needed pieces in place for Peyton to make a couple Super Bowl runs and then draft peytons replacement in a year or 2. The problem I see with this is that we when it comes time to draft the replacement there is a good chance we will not be drafting high enough to get the elite QB ... If this is the case then we will just have to turn around and give a "boatload of picks" to the team who does have that pick. In this scenario we are not really getting extra picks this year as much as we are borrowing those picks from our future draft that we will have to pay back to acquire that elite QB in a couple years.

So if we trade down are we really gaining as much as it appears or is it just a loan that we will have to pay back (maybe with "interest") in a couple years?

[JTcardscolts]

I am on the fence whether I would prefer to draft Luck with the #1 pick or trade it for multiple picks. Which way I lean depends on the day ... but here is my main concern with the trade down scenario:

The most prevalent argument from advocates for the trade down scenario suggest that we will get multiple picks that will allow us to put the needed pieces in place for Peyton to make a couple Super Bowl runs and then draft peytons replacement in a year or 2. The problem I see with this is that we when it comes time to draft the replacement there is a good chance we will not be drafting high enough to get the elite QB ... If this is the case then we will just have to turn around and give a "boatload of picks" to the team who does have that pick. In this scenario we are not really getting extra picks this year as much as we are borrowing those picks from our future draft that we will have to pay back to acquire that elite QB in a couple years.

So if we trade down are we really gaining as much as it appears or is it just a loan that we will have to pay back (maybe with "interest") in a couple years?

If u look at the QBs in the NFL now not all of them were taken in the 1st rd. It's up to the GM to be able to evaluate and scout future players. But as I said before about the trade down we would get a future 1st and a future 2nd rd. Pick so we could trade up and get that elite QB that may or may not be in the 1st rd. And if we choose not to spend a high pick kn a QB next year we could trade one of our 1st for a 1st the following year.

The real question, that everyone is dodging, is what if we do draft luck and trade(release to save 28mil) Peyton, and luck turns out to be a bust, where do we go from there?

Would hate to see us get caught with all our eggs in one basket...it wouldn't turn out good

[riftastic28]

listen manning are not u can forget multiple chips ..hes here to mentor luck ...we dont have a superbowl team we no running backs? i dont even know who are wide outs are going to be..defense cant stop the run or pass..only manning gives is hope and a playoffs but will be out after the first round ..u cant expect to draft some1 and that person plus manning to carry us in the playoff just not going to happen...

[JTcardscolts]

listen manning are not u can forget multiple chips ..hes here to mentor luck ...we dont have a superbowl team we no running backs? i dont even know who are wide outs are going to be..defense cant stop the run or pass..only manning gives is hope and a playoffs but will be out after the first round ..u cant expect to draft some1 and that person plus manning to carry us in the playoff just not going to happen...

Thats what everyone is saying draft luck and he'll lead us to SB, with multiple picks we can draft multiple good players, that could form a good team, that could compete for the SB. Plus the experts say he don't need mentoring he NFL ready right now.

[doogansquest]

A lot of good, or even great QB's were not taken anywhere near the top; nor were they considered the "elite" prospects. Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Dalton, and Romo were all taken late 1st or after. Romo was undrafted all together.

The elite (re: hyped) pick doesn't mean anything until that player proves it on Sundays.

We could load up our team all over the field, take another talented QB in one of the next two drafts, and still be set up for the next decade, with a team that would easily be more well-rounded.

(NOTE: The "we have other picks" argument is invalid. We wouldn't get nearly the value from those other picks as we would if we were to add 3-6 more in the first two rounds. Luck certainly won't be worth that value on the bench.)

[hawkeyes]

Well said doogan! IMO our best option is to trade the Luck pick away and stock up for the future!

[Jake47]

The fallacy in your argument is that you are thinking we should go for a QB or ANY offensive player this year.

Instead look at the DEFENSIVE prospects that are likely to be available.

Wouldn't an elite CORNER or LINEBACKER solidify our defense????

There are several early-mid round 1 prospects available this year.

[Dustin]

Notable QB's taken #1 overall - Elway, Testaverde, Aikman, Bledsoe, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton.

That's a combined 7 Super Bowls Wins, 12 Super Bowl Appearances, 38 Pro Bowls, 2 OROY's, 3 Top Ten all time passing yardage leaders, 3 of the top 15 all time passing TD leaders, 5 League MVP's, 3 Superbowl MVP's, and i'm going to bet over 300,000 passing yards.

Out of all QB's taken in the Super Bowl era I would classify only 3 as "busts". Russell, Couch and Carr.

I don't know about you but I'd take those odds.

[Jake47]

Notable QB's taken #1 overall - Elway, Testaverde, Aikman, Bledsoe, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton.

You left out Jeff George,....now why would you leave out Jeff George????????????

[Dustin]

You left out Jeff George,....now why would you leave out Jeff George????????????

I think we all know why I left out Jeff George.....

[hawkeyes]

Notable QB's taken #1 overall - Elway, Testaverde, Aikman, Bledsoe, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton.

That's a combined 7 Super Bowls Wins, 12 Super Bowl Appearances, 38 Pro Bowls, 2 OROY's, 3 Top Ten all time passing yardage leaders, 3 of the top 15 all time passing TD leaders, 5 League MVP's, 3 Superbowl MVP's, and i'm going to bet over 300,000 passing yards.

Out of all QB's taken in the Super Bowl era I would classify only 3 as "busts". Russell, Couch and Carr.

I don't know about you but I'd take those odds.

Notable?

Testaverde, Bledsoe, Vick, Palmer, Stafford, Bradford, Newton?

IF those are notable #1 picks - I don't wanna pick 1st.

[Dustin]

Notable?

Testaverde, Bledsoe, Vick, Palmer, Stafford, Bradford, Newton?

IF those are notable #1 picks - I don't wanna pick 1st.

Notable doesn't mean elite. Just using some as an example. And Palmer was great before his injury. Stafford is a 5,000 yard passer. And Newton and Bradford are/were OROY's.

[oldunclemark]

Notable QB's taken #1 overall - Elway, Testaverde, Aikman, Bledsoe, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton.

That's a combined 7 Super Bowls Wins, 12 Super Bowl Appearances, 38 Pro Bowls, 2 OROY's, 3 Top Ten all time passing yardage leaders, 3 of the top 15 all time passing TD leaders, 5 League MVP's, 3 Superbowl MVP's, and i'm going to bet over 300,000 passing yards.

Out of all QB's taken in the Super Bowl era I would classify only 3 as "busts". Russell, Couch and Carr.

I don't know about you but I'd take those odds.

Good research there...

Just being the No.1 pick doesn't link those players in any way.

Just being No.1 doesnt make you play better or worse than if you were No., 2

The No. 1 overall pick doenst have supernatural qualities..That's just hype..

[Dustin]

Good research there...

Just being the No.1 pick doesn't link those players in any way.

Just being No.1 doesnt make you play better or worse than if you were No., 2

The No. 1 overall pick doenst have supernatural qualities..That's just hype..

Just pointing out that being #1 overall doesn't necessarily set you up for failure.

[oldunclemark]

Just pointing out that being #1 overall doesn't necessarily set you up for failure.

..so we could sit the No.1 pick in the draft for 4 years, right?

Special situation..

[hoosiercoltsfan82]

A lot of good, or even great QB's were not taken anywhere near the top; nor were they considered the "elite" prospects. Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Dalton, and Romo were all taken late 1st or after. Romo was undrafted all together.

The elite (re: hyped) pick doesn't mean anything until that player proves it on Sundays.

We could load up our team all over the field, take another talented QB in one of the next two drafts, and still be set up for the next decade, with a team that would easily be more well-rounded.

(NOTE: The "we have other picks" argument is invalid. We wouldn't get nearly the value from those other picks as we would if we were to add 3-6 more in the first two rounds. Luck certainly won't be worth that value on the bench.)

True, quarterbacks can be found all over the draft, as you have pointed out. However, I think that when you have an opportunity to draft an elite college quarterback, you take it. IMHO

[Dustin]

..so we could sit the No.1 pick in the draft for 4 years, right?

Special situation..

Don't see what that has to do with my post.....

[Dan]

Notable?

Testaverde, Bledsoe, Vick, Palmer, Stafford, Bradford, Newton?

IF those are notable #1 picks - I don't wanna pick 1st.

Jumping the gun on the last three. Stafford is developing very well, has had a very good year and could develop into an elite QB. Bradford had a dodgy year but was very promising in rookie season. Newton has just had possibly the best rookie QB season of all time, certainly a lot of analysts think so.

[jskinnz]

If u look at the QBs in the NFL now not all of them were taken in the 1st rd. It's up to the GM to be able to evaluate and scout future players. But as I said before about the trade down we would get a future 1st and a future 2nd rd. Pick so we could trade up and get that elite QB that may or may not be in the 1st rd. And if we choose not to spend a high pick kn a QB next year we could trade one of our 1st for a 1st the following year.

The real question, that everyone is dodging, is what if we do draft luck and trade(release to save 28mil) Peyton, and luck turns out to be a bust, where do we go from there?

Would hate to see us get caught with all our eggs in one basket...it wouldn't turn out good

In the highlighted part, this line of thinking is lost on me. I don't think it needs to be pointed out to anyone that there is no such thing as a sure thing in the NFL draft. There are countless players who had greatness expected from them and failed miserably. Same with those low round picks or UDFA's who turned into All-Pros.

But NFL teams have a process. Between the scouts and personnel people, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of man-hours of research put into draft picks, particularly high picks. You have to trust the process and what your instincts tell you on a player. If after all the research is done, and that includes finding what the value of the # 1 pick may be, it leads to the conclusion that Luck is the best option for the team, you make the pick. If it turns out poorly, then do a post-mortem on the process and where you may have gone wrong. But at the time, you do not worry about him busting. You simply go where the research tells you to go.

[Dan]

In the highlighted part, this line of thinking is lost on me. I don't think it needs to be pointed out to anyone that there is no such thing as a sure thing in the NFL draft. There are countless players who had greatness expected from them and failed miserably. Same with those low round picks or UDFA's who turned into All-Pros.

But NFL teams have a process. Between the scouts and personnel people, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of man-hours of research put into draft picks, particularly high picks. You have to trust the process and what your instincts tell you on a player. If after all the research is done, and that includes finding what the value of the # 1 pick may be, it leads to the conclusion that Luck is the best option for the team, you make the pick. If it turns out poorly, then do a post-mortem on the process and where you may have gone wrong. But at the time, you do not worry about him busting. You simply go where the research tells you to go.

Very well reasoned. If the scouts and all their very in depth reports come up saying it is the best option then what choice do you have? Every player is a "oooooh what if he busts" risk, so go with what the scouts say is the safest bet. That could even be RG3 or Tannehill or even someone we haven't thought of. I mean, it obviously isn't, but let's trust the scouts.

[JWF]

The real question, that everyone is dodging, is what if we do draft luck and trade(release to save 28mil) Peyton, and luck turns out to be a bust, where do we go from there?

Would hate to see us get caught with all our eggs in one basket...it wouldn't turn out good

You do realize there is no garuntee with the alternative to drafting Luck right?

Lets play the what if game....

What if we trade down and take other positions and they are busts? Well atleast we got more picks right! I understand you reduce the risk some by having more but the potential payoff is also less by not addressing the most critical position in the game.

Lets add to that idea...Now what if Peyton isnt the same player on top of a bunch of trade down disasters. Now what is the team left with?

Jskinnz nailed it. The best you can do is scout like crazy and try to stay as objective as you can during the process and make the decision from there.

[JTcardscolts]

In the highlighted part, this line of thinking is lost on me. I don't think it needs to be pointed out to anyone that there is no such thing as a sure thing in the NFL draft. There are countless players who had greatness expected from them and failed miserably. Same with those low round picks or UDFA's who turned into All-Pros.

But NFL teams have a process. Between the scouts and personnel people, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of man-hours of research put into draft picks, particularly high picks. You have to trust the process and what your instincts tell you on a player. If after all the research is done, and that includes finding what the value of the # 1 pick may be, it leads to the conclusion that Luck is the best option for the team, you make the pick. If it turns out poorly, then do a post-mortem on the process and where you may have gone wrong. But at the time, you do not worry about him busting. You simply go where the research tells you to go.

Yea your right but in a normal situation, and let me point it out to you this is not a normal situation. You guys are talking about letting go one of the greatest QB ever, for this kid, so luck better be a sure thing cause if peyton is healthy we kno what were gonna get. So if we did get rid of Peyton and luck turns out to be a bust all were left with his a team in shambles. And I'd say I told you so and and you'd thick to yourself(cause u wouldn't say it) oh my god, what did we do....

So no u didn't answer my question, cause were still left with a horrid team with a bunch of holes. At least with my idea our TEAM(not only QB position) is set for years, and we would set ourselves up to trade up next year to get to get another high pick

[JTcardscolts]

You do realize there is no garuntee with the alternative to drafting Luck right?

Lets play the what if game....

What if we trade down and take other positions and they are busts? Well atleast we got more picks right! I understand you reduce the risk some by having more but the potential payoff is also less by not addressing the most critical position in the game.

Lets add to that idea...Now what if Peyton isnt the same player on top of a bunch of trade down disasters. Now what is the team left with?

Jskinnz nailed it. The best you can do is scout like crazy and try to stay as objective as you can during the process and make the decision from there.

u just answered the question for urself there's more picks so we gotta hit on a couple of them, let's face if we take 4 picks in the 1st 2 rounds and at least two of them arnt starters then the GM is a bust, u can forgive maybe 1 high pick being a bust, but to miss on four would be ridiculous. And I'd say if we got two different play makers like a Ed Reed, T. Polamalu, Urlacker, orHaynesworth before he was a *, that would be a pretty great start and would up grade our defense big time.

And as for Peyton, please....he's been the only consistent thing the colts has had since they drafted him, don't kid yourself. But to answer it for you we'd be left with a team that just got 4 picks in the first 2 roundsand plugged a lot of holes, not to mention an option to trade up next year for a shot at another high round draft pick.

[JWF]

u just answered the question for urself there's more picks so we gotta hit on a couple of them, let's face if we take 4 picks in the 1st 2 rounds and at least two of them arnt starters then the GM is a bust, u can forgive maybe 1 high pick being a bust, but to miss on four would be ridiculous. And I'd say if we got two different play makers like a Ed Reed, T. Polamalu, Urlacker, orHaynesworth before he was a *, that would be a pretty great start and would up grade our defense big time.

And as for Peyton, please....he's been the only consistent thing the colts has had since they drafted him, don't kid yourself. But to answer it for you we'd be left with a team that just got 4 picks in the first 2 roundsand plugged a lot of holes, not to mention an option to trade up next year for a shot at another high round draft pick.

Yes you give yourself more chances at landing a good player but again the potential longterm payout is less even if you hit on every pick. Look at teams without a viable QB and you see awful or inconsistent they are. This team is a long long way from becoming the 49ers where they can win with defense and a running game and even then theyve had solid QB play with Smith.

Look at it in the shorterm, will this team really be in shape to contend agian after one draft considering how awful they were this season? Youre asking a bunch of rookies or 2nd years players to come in and be the difference? That is alot to ask. Expecting them to be SB contenders the season after next is a bit optimistic IMO too. We are a team in transition.

As for Peyton please? Youre right he has been the most consistent part of this team but he's 36 for crying out loud and coming off injuries. Even if he was 100% healthy realistically expecting him to play at a high level into his 40's is insanely optmistic. Id say if he is healthy, 2 years is probably the most you should realistically plan for. Anything after that is gravy.

And why would you trade down now only to trade back up in the future and take a less regarded player? Just take the QB now and plan for Peyton to move on in 2 years.

Im all for trying to improve the team around Peyton but I dont think the team should do it at the expense of the longterm. Just MO.

[Quantum88]

The problem with all this speculation right now is, we don't know for sure who would really be willing to trade away the boat load of picks that we should be able to get for Luck. The only viable trade partner for what I believe would be necessary would be Cleveland and they have a good chance of landing RGIII without trading.

I believe with Cleveland, if they would give us both of their #1s this year, and a #1 and #3 next year, the trade could work to our benefit. I would take Devon Still, DT out of Penn State with the #4 pick and then the best available DB with the second #1. I would then use pick #34 for Nick Foles of Arizona for our QB of the future. He could sit behind Peyton and learn for 2-3 years.

This all depends on Peyton being healthy and Cleveland being willing to trade. Don't think Holmgren will do it though.

[JTcardscolts]

Yes you give yourself more chances at landing a good player but again the potential longterm payout is less even if you hit on every pick. Look at teams without a viable QB and you see awful or inconsistent they are. This team is a long long way from becoming the 49ers where they can win with defense and a running game and even then theyve had solid QB play with Smith.

Look at it in the shorterm, will this team really be in shape to contend agian after one draft considering how awful they were this season? Youre asking a bunch of rookies or 2nd years players to come in and be the difference? That is alot to ask. Expecting them to be SB contenders the season after next is a bit optimistic IMO too. We are a team in transition.

As for Peyton please? Youre right he has been the most consistent part of this team but he's 36 for crying out loud and coming off injuries. Even if he was 100% healthy realistically expecting him to play at a high level into his 40's is insanely optmistic. Id say if he is healthy, 2 years is probably the most you should realistically plan for. Anything after that is gravy.

And why would you trade down now only to trade back up in the future and take a less regarded player? Just take the QB now and plan for Peyton to move on in 2 years.

Im all for trying to improve the team around Peyton but I dont think the team should do it at the expense of the longterm. Just MO.

yes i understand your point has will, however im the one who is insanely optimistic about playing great into his 40's(yes call me crazy). but if you look at the NFL and the rules theyve been changing, the QB plays 2 hand touch, while everyone else is playing tackle. IM(crazy)Oi think he can be great till hes 45, its not like he depends on his legs to get out of the pocket and make plays, and its not like he gets scaked a lot, he goes down by himself. What makes Peyton so unique is his quick release, accuracy, and his ability to read the defense so will, these would probably be the last things to go, so thats why i believe he can play at a high level for many more years....i kno it sounds crazy but we we'll have to just wait and see, this is also consirdering hes healthy from is neck surgery and he continues to stay healthy on the field like hes done for so many years.

but about san fran they werent known for their defense in the past years, and that was a quick turnaround, its not like we have a bad defense right now, its just built around the pass rush, and if your offense cant score points, the opposing offense wont need to pass rendering our defense useless, like we saw this past year. and i for one dont care to spend a high pick on a QB as long as we have good scouts they should be able to find one in the later rounds to develop behind peyton this would give us all these top picks in 2 years to create a team that even a weak QB(Sanchez and the jets, maybe even the ravens, altho much better QB) that at the least will keep us in contention for an AFC champ.

i understand that luck was a good college and has the "potential" to be a good NFL QB. i really do believe this and would take him over a few NFL QBs now. but if we dont address our many other needs now hes goona be in the same position as Peyton was for so many years. So, does he have the potential to put this team on his back and carry it for many years?? this is the real question.

but this is mo and i know its crazy, but not far off if you look at the facts

[JWF]

yes i understand your point has will, however im the one who is insanely optimistic about playing great into his 40's(yes call me crazy). but if you look at the NFL and the rules theyve been changing, the QB plays 2 hand touch, while everyone else is playing tackle. IM(crazy)Oi think he can be great till hes 45, its not like he depends on his legs to get out of the pocket and make plays, and its not like he gets scaked a lot, he goes down by himself. What makes Peyton so unique is his quick release, accuracy, and his ability to read the defense so will, these would probably be the last things to go, so thats why i believe he can play at a high level for many more years....i kno it sounds crazy but we we'll have to just wait and see, this is also consirdering hes healthy from is neck surgery and he continues to stay healthy on the field like hes done for so many years.

but about san fran they werent known for their defense in the past years, and that was a quick turnaround, its not like we have a bad defense right now, its just built around the pass rush, and if your offense cant score points, the opposing offense wont need to pass rendering our defense useless, like we saw this past year. and i for one dont care to spend a high pick on a QB as long as we have good scouts they should be able to find one in the later rounds to develop behind peyton this would give us all these top picks in 2 years to create a team that even a weak QB(Sanchez and the jets, maybe even the ravens, altho much better QB) that at the least will keep us in contention for an AFC champ.

i understand that luck was a good college and has the "potential" to be a good NFL QB. i really do believe this and would take him over a few NFL QBs now. but if we dont address our many other needs now hes goona be in the same position as Peyton was for so many years. So, does he have the potential to put this team on his back and carry it for many years?? this is the real question.

but this is mo and i know its crazy, but not far off if you look at the facts

Ehh nothing crazy about it. Everyone has their idea how things should go.

Ill say this, while I think the team should take Luck, I wont be crying if they decide to trade down. Either way they should end up with some players with alot of potential.

You do bring up a good point about the two hand touch rules with QB these days.

[jskinnz]

Yea your right but in a normal situation, and let me point it out to you this is not a normal situation. You guys are talking about letting go one of the greatest QB ever, for this kid, so luck better be a sure thing cause if peyton is healthy we kno what were gonna get. So if we did get rid of Peyton and luck turns out to be a bust all were left with his a team in shambles. And I'd say I told you so and and you'd thick to yourself(cause u wouldn't say it) oh my god, what did we do....

So no u didn't answer my question, cause were still left with a horrid team with a bunch of holes. At least with my idea our TEAM(not only QB position) is set for years, and we would set ourselves up to trade up next year to get to get another high pick

Well, I was not trying to answer any question of yours. Was simply stating worrying about Luck being a bust is a waste of time and energy.

What's more, I would argue that you can make a very reasonable case that even with a 100% healthy Manning, taking Luck still would still be the way for the Colts to go.

[JTcardscolts]

Well, I was not trying to answer any question of yours. Was simply stating worrying about Luck being a bust is a waste of time and energy.

What's more, I would argue that you can make a very reasonable case that even with a 100% healthy Manning, taking Luck still would still be the way for the Colts to go.

And I respectfully disagree.

[JTcardscolts]

Ehh nothing crazy about it. Everyone has their idea how things should go.

Ill say this, while I think the team should take Luck, I wont be crying if they decide to trade down. Either way they should end up with some players with alot of potential.

You do bring up a good point about the two hand touch rules with QB these days.

but with that said Peyton must be 100% healthy and still wants to play football for many years, which I believe he would. And it would also be nice to lock him up with a career contract like the Pack was gonna do with Frave.

But if Peyton would come out and say I only want to play 2 more years, I wouldn't exactly be opposed to taking luck.

[Flash7]

The problem with all this speculation right now is, we don't know for sure who would really be willing to trade away the boat load of picks that we should be able to get for Luck. The only viable trade partner for what I believe would be necessary would be Cleveland and they have a good chance of landing RGIII without trading.

I believe with Cleveland, if they would give us both of their #1s this year, and a #1 and #3 next year, the trade could work to our benefit. I would take Devon Still, DT out of Penn State with the #4 pick and then the best available DB with the second #1. I would then use pick #34 for Nick Foles of Arizona for our QB of the future. He could sit behind Peyton and learn for 2-3 years.

This all depends on Peyton being healthy and Cleveland being willing to trade. Don't think Holmgren will do it though.

I feel that Washingtom may be a wild card in this year's draft. Shanahan coached Elway, and now Luck is the next most "pro ready" QB since Elway. He and Dan Snyder may feel it's worth it to leverage their future drafts for a QB like Luck. They would have to make a pretty great offer.