trade picks

[OLD FAN MAN]

should the colts trade their picks, since so many are busts, for proven talent as we did to get vontae davis

[danlhart87]

No 

[crazycolt1]

34 minutes ago, get an 0-line said:

should the colts trade their picks, since so many are busts, for proven talent as we did to get vontae davis

So what is the percentage of so many bust you are referring to? Is it more than other GMs? Less that other GMs? Average? Are you exaggerating?

[SaturdayAllDay]

6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So what is the percentage of so many bust you are referring to? Is it more than other GMs? Less that other GMs? Average? Are you exaggerating?

I don't have my stats with me (on the road this weekend), but we were a bit lower then the other top Teams since 2012. I looked at a bunch of other teams that are known to be successful drafters and looked at how many players were still on Teams final 53s since being drafted. NE,  SEA and GB were a bit higher (with us being something like 5% lower then the lowest of the three) it's tough though cuz of our gms small sample size vs those gms. I feel like it would even out over time but to be fair I only looked from 2012 on. 

[Clem-Dog]

3 hours ago, get an 0-line said:

should the colts trade their picks, since so many are busts, for proven talent as we did to get vontae davis

 

Nope.  The Colts should hope to hit on cheap rookie contracts as opposed to acquiring more salary.

 

 

2 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

I don't have my stats with me (on the road this weekend), but we were a bit lower then the other top Teams since 2012. I looked at a bunch of other teams that are known to be successful drafters and looked at how many players were still on Teams final 53s since being drafted. NE,  SEA and GB were a bit higher (with us being something like 5% lower then the lowest of the three) it's tough though cuz of our gms small sample size vs those gms. I feel like it would even out over time but to be fair I only looked from 2012 on. 

 

Since successful draft rates of teams in general are so closely dispersed it really goes to show why teams who have benefited from receiving comp picks, and to a lesser extent, trading back in the draft to acquire more picks, have had and still do have a distinct competitive advantage. 

 

Now I don't know the rate of success, or even the parameters used to define a successful draft, but let's say it's 50%.  That means Grigson should land 3 quality players out of 6 selections here in a few weeks.  However, due to the way he has handled himself this offseason, we should have at least 10 selections if our comp picks come through like reports on here have claimed.  That's five keepers locked in for four seasons.  Raw data supports Grigson's approach to building a successful team if it continues in this direction.  The benefit to this approach is not instantaneous, but over time its impact is huge, almost a requirement to contend.

[SaturdayAllDay]

56 minutes ago, Clem-Dog said:

 

Nope.  The Colts should hope to hit on cheap rookie contracts as opposed to acquiring more salary.

 

 

 

Since successful draft rates of teams in general are so closely dispersed it really goes to show why teams who have benefited from receiving comp picks, and to a lesser extent, trading back in the draft to acquire more picks, have had and still do have a distinct competitive advantage. 

 

Now I don't know the rate of success, or even the parameters used to define a successful draft, but let's say it's 50%.  That means Grigson should land 3 quality players out of 6 selections here in a few weeks.  However, due to the way he has handled himself this offseason, we should have at least 10 selections if our comp picks come through like reports on here have claimed.  That's five keepers locked in for four seasons.  Raw data supports Grigson's approach to building a successful team if it continues in this direction.  The benefit to this approach is not instantaneous, but over time its impact is huge, almost a requirement to contend.

I agree that the strategy is sound, as Teams like the Packers, Ravens and Seahawks use it and have had good results. And as long as our scouting is up to par, it SHOULD yield results. 

 

I was more just answering a question on whether his current success record was higher or lower then other GMs. It was more a question on whether he is getting that typical success that you mentioned.  If the percentage is bad,  we could have 10 picks and still come out without an effective advantage. If our success rate is 30% as opposed to 50%, we would need 10 picks just to break even ( 3/7 vs 3/10).  

 

like I said I don't have the numbers handy, and it's a small sample size with Grigson,  but his numbers have not been as high as other teams. 

 

I sincerely hope that this new direction comes with an elevation in scouting talent (or maybe just not having grigson have final say if that is the problem) so that we can get a serious advantage by having a league leading success rate (or top 5 even) paired with those extra picks. I am cautiously optimistic that we solved the issues that have plagued our Drafts as of late. 

[Hoose]

The only reason the Colts should trade a pick is to get more picks. And that scenario is likely only going to happen if a team wants to jump up and grab a QB. A team that fits that bill is the LA Rams. They have two very decent second round picks. Trade those to the Colts along with their 6th rounder for the Colts' first and seventh, and you've got something there. It would give the Rams two picks in the top 18; it would give the Colts three picks in the top 50. The Colts could get their Center, Guard and OLB with those picks. 

[BProland85]

No. They need youth on this team and that means draft picks. If anything they should try their best to trade down to acquire more draft picks.

 

If Grigson can't find starters on this team via the draft then he shouldn't be GM.

[richard pallo]

I am a little leery of trading the 1st. pick but I would be open to it if it was for a young legitimate starter in a position of need.  Any draft pick can miss no matter what round.  Grabbing a young solid starter in a position of need who could play for a long time appeals to me, one less pick to worry it being a bust and could fill a whole immediately.   Heck a team desperate for a QB could throw in a late rd. pick as well.  You never know.

[OffensivelyPC]

 

[UKColt13]

No.