2016 NFL Draft Thread

[Gavin]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You're really going to make an argument that a 7 has some meaning?

 

For every Denzelle Good you can point to,  I can point to Josh Anderson in 2012,  or Ulrick John in 2014.

 

We got schooled on that trade.     Badly.

 

I don't think John and Anderson are necessarily good examples, I thought both got injured before ever playing a regular season game. Maybe John played a game but Im pretty sure Anderson did not. I may be mistaken but I thought that was the year (With Anderson I mean) where I thought he looked out of shape and not healthy jogging up and down in the End Zone at TC in Anderson

[stitches]

The value of a late 7th is more in the form of not letting a long-shot prospect go UDFA and ensure him for your camp instead of giving him the option to go to another team.

[dgambill]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Day Two:

 

We may have gotten two great athletes and prospects and talents....

 

But neither is ready to contribute much in 2016.      I thought Grigson was talking about adding players who could contribute THIS YEAR?       Green and Clark will likely contribute on Special Teams.    I wouldn't expect much more.

 

They maybe good in 2017,  and very good in 2018....   and maybe even great by 2019.

 

But 2016?     I don't see much help coming for us....

 

Wish I didn't think that,  and would love to be wrong......

WHAT!! If they are that then we just stole the draft! Who cares if they don't develop for a year if they turn out to be great down the road. Guess what...the NFL will play football in 2017 and 2018 and so on. And guess what they will play for a SB in those years too. We went crazy going all out in 2015 and it left us with nothing to show for it and nothing but more holes. Thank God our staff realize this team is going to play football for many years and we can answer some future needs. I mean does anyone think we are one or two players from the SB this year? This team will fight for a playoff spot. We gotta rebuild and that isn't done overnight.

[OffensivelyPC]

32 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Of course we got a 2.     That isn't the point.      Nobody trades a 2 for a 4 and a 7.

 

But the 4 and 7 is the reason we traded down 9 spots.     And we didn't get enough value for doing so.

 

I disagree. You refer to the Cowboys trade a lot. Moved down 13 spots in the first for a 3rd only. 

 

Colts in the second moved down 9 spots and got a 4th and a 7th. The math to me says we got better value than the cowboys. We can argue trade value chart, but the chart is pretty overrated...its not that accurate IMO.

[IinD]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

The value of a late 7th is more in the form of not letting a long-shot prospect go UDFA and ensure him for your camp instead of giving him the option to go to another team.

Which could definitely get us a player. Folks act like you can't find talent anywhere other then the first few rounds.

[1918]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

We got a little more than 50 percent of the value.

 

The chart isn't that fluid.

 

• Do you ever listen to sports talk radio?
• Several GM's have said there are multiple charts.

They also say, sometimes you have to throw the charts out the window.

The team initiating has less leverage.

People like you would go ape$!!! if he stayed there and took Green.

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

???

 

How are you getting 50%? The pick was worth 420, they got 380.

 

The difference was 90 points.     420 to 330.  

 

We got 48 points.

 

That's just over 50 percent....

[bababooey]

So we taking little Gronk tomorrow?

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, dgambill said:

WHAT!! If they are that then we just stole the draft! Who cares if they don't develop for a year if they turn out to be great down the road. Guess what...the NFL will play football in 2017 and 2018 and so on. And guess what they will play for a SB in those years too. We went crazy going all out in 2015 and it left us with nothing to show for it and nothing but more holes. Thank God our staff realize this team is going to play football for many years and we can answer some future needs. I mean does anyone think we are one or two players from the SB this year? This team will fight for a playoff spot. We gotta rebuild and that isn't done overnight.

 

I'm not trashing the picks.      They're both talented kids.

 

All I'm saying is the guys are not likely to help THIS YEAR.       That's it.

 

They both have heigh ceilings.    They're going to help us someday down the road.

 

But i don't see that road in 2016.

 

And I thought Grigson wanted to get a number of players to help THIS YEAR.

 

Right now,  he's got one -- Kelly.

 

 

[jvan1973]

15 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

We got a little more than 50 percent of the value.

 

The chart isn't that fluid.

 

50%?

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, 1918 said:

• Do you ever listen to sports talk radio?
• Several GM's have said there are multiple charts.

They also say, sometimes you have to throw the charts out the window.

The team initiating has less leverage.

People like you would go ape$!!! if he stayed there and took Green.

 

You're a new member.     You have no idea who I am.

 

I don't think it's a winning move to join a community and start throwing out insults.

 

You might want to re-thnk your approach......

 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The difference was 90 points.     420 to 330.  

 

We got 48 points.

 

That's just over 50 percent....

 

I'm not sure why we're talking about the difference instead of the overall value...

[BCoop]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The difference was 90 points.     420 to 330.  

 

We got 48 points.

 

That's just over 50 percent....

 

That is not how math works.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

50%?

 

We gave up 90 points of value.

 

We got back 48 points.

 

That's just over 50 percent of what we traded away.

 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The difference was 90 points.     420 to 330.  

 

We got 48 points.

 

That's just over 50 percent....

You think this was a bad trade,   but think the titans-Rams,   browns-Eagles was pretty close?     Lol

[IinD]

Here's what the Texans and Falcons did right after us...I'd say we did better in general so I think the chart is overrated..

 

Traded their 2nd-round No. 50 overall pick to the Texans for their 2nd-round No. 52 overall pick and 6th rd 195.

 

That was literallyf or moving 2 spots. We seem to have done ok for only moving 10 spots I think.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not sure why we're talking about the difference instead of the overall value...

 

Because the difference impacts the overall value.

 

Instead of getting a 4 and a 5,   or a 4 and something decent next year,  all we got is a 4 and a 7.

 

I think it's very disappointing.      I'm sure it was the best offer.    I just don't understand how other offers from other teams seem to work out better than what the Colts got.....

 

[Seanmac90]

330/420 = 78% value. There.

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

We gave up 90 points of value.

 

We got back 48 points.

 

That's just over 50 percent of what we traded away.

 

Ithe trade was not that lopsided if they ended up with the guy they wanted at 48 anyway

[Superman]

1 minute ago, IinD said:

Here's what the Texans and Falcons did right after us...I'd say we did better in general so I think the chart is overrated..

 

Traded their 2nd-round No. 50 overall pick to the Texans for their 2nd-round No. 52 overall pick and 6th rd 195.

 

That was literallyf or moving 2 spots. We seem to have done ok for only moving 10 spots I think.

 

That holds up on the chart. It's a difference of 6 points, I think.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Seanmac90 said:

330/420 = 78% value. There.

 

It's not 330. Add back the 4th and the 7th and it's 378/420. It's 90%.

[1918]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You're a new member.     You have no idea who I am.

 

I don't think it's a winning move to join a community and start throwing out insults.

 

You might want to re-thnk your approach......

 

Sorry didn't think it was an insult, you're wigging out he got a 4 and a 7.

How would you react if he stayed there and took Green. Be honest, not thrilled.

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Ithe trade was not that lopsided if they ended up with the guy they wanted at 48 anyway

 

Gee.....   with that kind of logic....   why did we even ask for a 7. 

 

Heck....    with that kind of logic....   why did we even ask for the 4?

 

As long as we got the player we wanted....?      

 

I mean.....       seriously?       Goodness.     

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Because the difference impacts the overall value.

 

Instead of getting a 4 and a 5,   or a 4 and something decent next year,  all we got is a 4 and a 7.

 

I think it's very disappointing.      I'm sure it was the best offer.    I just don't understand how other offers from other teams seem to work out better than what the Colts got.....

 

Probably because the Colts intiatoated the trade.     Very few trades work out even on your chart 

[IinD]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That holds up on the chart. It's a difference of 6 points, I think.

Point was even if doesn't add up to an exact # it isn't a failure.

 

I'm glad we got some extrap picks, screw what a chart says.

 

If we get a player, screw the lost points.

[Seanmac90]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's not 330. Add back the 4th and the 7th and it's 378/420. It's 90%.

just going off info presented here. trying to end this stupid arguement

[jvan1973]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

Gee.....   with that kind of logic....   why did we even ask for a 7. 

 

Heck....    with that kind of logic....   why did we even ask for the 4?

 

As long as we got the player we wanted....      

 

I mean.....       seriously?       Goodness.     

They got the goy they wanted and an extra 4th.    See that's better than just getting the guy they wanted and nothing

[dgambill]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm not trashing the picks.      They're both talented kids.

 

All I'm saying is the guys are not likely to help THIS YEAR.       That's it.

 

They both have heigh ceilings.    They're going to help us someday down the road.

 

But i don't see that road in 2016.

 

And I thought Grigson wanted to get a number of players to help THIS YEAR.

 

Right now,  he's got one -- Kelly.

 

 

Who cares. Are you not going to be a fan next year and the next? We aren't even a playoff team. Even if they don't get on the field just drafting them and them competing could inspire some of our other guys to wake up and play harder to save their job. Its all a calculated risk but instead of getting some guys that can just contribute we got two guys that have all pro caliber potential. We need stars and these guys can be that. I can wait to find out. I'm a very patient man. We had to wait like 8 years to get a SB with Peyton. We had to wait like almost 20 years to get really good football here in Indy. I can wait a year on a few draft picks to develop. If you can't wait for picks to develop then your team is in bad shape...and thus you need these exact type players to rebuild your team. I love these two kids and taking kelly in the first takes pressure off the draft because he is a given to help right away...but there are only a couple of those in any given draft. I hope you have some patience with these kids....what's the rush anyways? 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Probably because the Colts intiatoated the trade.     Very few trades work out even on your chart 

 

I appreciate that the chart is not perfect.    That not every team subscribes to it.     That point differences don't always match up....

 

I get all of that.

 

But the point difference here is pretty lopsided.      We didn't get much back.

 

If we had gotten a 4 and a 5,   we still would've come up short.     And all we got was a 4 and a 7.

 

I think it's pretty shocking.....

 

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, dgambill said:

Who cares. Are you not going to be a fan next year and the next? We aren't even a playoff team. Even if they don't get on the field just drafting them and them competing could inspire some of our other guys to wake up and play harder to save their job. Its all a calculated risk but instead of getting some guys that can just contribute we got two guys that have all pro caliber potential. We need stars and these guys can be that. I can wait to find out. I'm a very patient man. We had to wait like 8 years to get a SB with Peyton. We had to wait like almost 20 years to get really good football here in Indy. I can wait a year on a few draft picks to develop. If you can't wait for picks to develop then your team is in bad shape...and thus you need these exact type players to rebuild your team. I love these two kids and taking kelly in the first takes pressure off the draft because he is a given to help right away...but there are only a couple of those in any given draft. I hope you have some patience with these kids....what's the rush anyways? 

 

Of course I'm going to be a fan next year.

 

My words are targeted for those here who think Green and Clark are going to help THIS YEAR.

 

I don't expect them to.

 

That's all.

 

If you're a patient fan that appreciates a long-term view of building a team,  then we may have done great tonight.

 

But if you were hoping for players who are going to help in 2016 --- which is what I thought Grigson was focused on --- then I think you're going to be disappointed.

 

That's all.     Don't read too much into my comments.

 

[IinD]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I appreciate that the chart is not perfect.    That not every team subscribes to it.     That point differences don't always match up....

 

I get all of that.

 

But the point difference here is pretty lopsided.      We didn't get much back.

 

If we had gotten a 4 and a 5,   we still would've come up short.     And all we got was a 4 and a 7.

 

I think it's pretty shocking.....

 

Don't forget those picks can also be used as ammo to move up tomorrow in another round if they have someone in mind.

[bababooey]

Lets all agree to disagree, because it looks like Luck may be upright for the foreseeable future. Can't fix the entire team in 2 days but helping the offense helps the defense.

[James Harden]

So far I like what Grigs have been doing. O-Line and Defense. Protecting the Franchise is the #1 priority. I really hope we reach for an EDGE in the 4th round. Need someone to learn from Mathis. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Because the difference impacts the overall value.

 

Instead of getting a 4 and a 5,   or a 4 and something decent next year,  all we got is a 4 and a 7.

 

I think it's very disappointing.      I'm sure it was the best offer.    I just don't understand how other offers from other teams seem to work out better than what the Colts got.....

 

 

The difference is 42 points, not 90. The Colts wouldn't have done the trade if not for the 4th and the 7th, so only focusing on the difference between #48 and #57 isn't an accurate representation of the trade. I don't get that.

 

The only team I think made out better is Chicago, because they got a future 4th. But they were moving back from #41, not #48. As a matter of fact, they moved back to #49, which shows how much more valuable their pick was. 

 

Two extra picks in this year's draft, when they only had 6 picks, is the reason they were okay with it. I just don't agree with holding every draft day trade up to the chart. 

[MB-ColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I appreciate that the chart is not perfect.    That not every team subscribes to it.     That point differences don't always match up....

 

I get all of that.

 

But the point difference here is pretty lopsided.      We didn't get much back.

 

If we had gotten a 4 and a 5,   we still would've come up short.     And all we got was a 4 and a 7.

 

I think it's pretty shocking.....

 

I don't think it's shocking if Grigs started the trade like jv is posing.  If Grigs initiated it then if he gets anything for it he's made out ahead since he got his player PLUS x additional draft choices.  I think if Grigs initiated the trade then that's how you really require looking at it for a sense of the return value on the pick.

[IinD]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

Lets all agree to disagree, because it looks like Luck may be upright for the foreseeable future. Can't fix the entire team in 2 days but helping the offense helps the defense.

Exactly, we were 3 and out machines the last few years and a 3rd and 1 was the equivalent of a 3rd and 10.

[OffensivelyPC]

44 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Of course we got a 2.     That isn't the point.      Nobody trades a 2 for a 4 and a 7.

 

But the 4 and 7 is the reason we traded down 9 spots.     And we didn't get enough value for doing so.

 

I think you are taking the numbers game to an unrealistic extreme. Just my opinion. You talk so much about how picks and trades are unrealistic on these forums, and here you have an actual trade and you are basically saying its a poor value.  Trade value is only wirth what someone is willing to pay, ya know? 

[MB-ColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Of course I'm going to be a fan next year.

 

My words are targeted for those here who think Green and Clark are going to help THIS YEAR.

 

I don't expect them to.

 

That's all.

 

If you're a patient fan that appreciates a long-term view of building a team,  then we may have done great tonight.

 

But if you were hoping for players who are going to help in 2016 --- which is what I thought Grigson was focused on --- then I think you're going to be disappointed.

 

That's all.     Don't read too much into my comments.

 

To be honest, I am also disappointed that we didn't get much help beyond Kelly for this year thus far, but at least two of the three kids that have been picked look to be pretty good.  Still not sure what to think about Green...?

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, IinD said:

Don't forget those picks can also be used as ammo to move up tomorrow in another round if they have someone in mind.

 

Well....   a 7 isn't going to help us move too much.

 

So, I hope we don't trade the 4 or our 5,  because I think we have so many needs.

 

I'd like to see us use our 4 and 4 and 5 on defense.       Just so many needs to fill....

 

I'm not as down on the draft as some here think I am....    I'm more surprised by what we did....   and a little disappointed by the trade.

 

I think the kids we took are good kids....   I just don't expect much from them in 2016.    They may be stars someday...    I'm just not expecting the day to come in 2016.

 

I thought Grigson was focusing on getting talent for this year.   We got two players tonight to build with.    I'm just caught off guard......    that's all....

 

[dgambill]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Of course I'm going to be a fan next year.

 

My words are targeted for those here who think Green and Clark are going to help THIS YEAR.

 

I don't expect them to.

 

That's all.

 

If you're a patient fan that appreciates a long-term view of building a team,  then we may have done great tonight.

 

But if you were hoping for players who are going to help in 2016 --- which is what I thought Grigson was focused on --- then I think you're going to be disappointed.

 

That's all.     Don't read too much into my comments.

 

Ok fair enough. The draft is about your future...very very very few players step in as a rookie and help your team in year 1....even fewer yet have multiple players do it. We likely got 1 to help us immediately so right off we are helping our 2016 Colts and likely with our biggest need running the ball and protecting luck. People that think we was going to have a bunch of starters this season from this draft would be very unrealistic. These two have a long way to go but have potential to be special special kids. Love it.