Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

2016 NFL Draft Thread


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

 

We're missing each other.     Our pick was worth 420 points.     The 2nd round pick we got was worth 330.

 

There's the 90 point difference.

 

We got back 48 points with the 4 and 7.       Leaving a gap of 42 points.      That's just over 50 percent.

 

Hope that clarifies.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

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? 

 

That's true.    Fair point.

 

But another way to look at it is that a trade value is only worth what you're willing to accept.    And I'm surprised at what we're willing to accept.     That's all I'm saying....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

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.

 

Appreciate the post....   and I'm a long view,  big picture fan....

 

But I started seeing posts talking about how good Green and Clark are and how much they might help us this year.      I just wanted to sober things up a bit.......

 

Sorry if it went too far.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

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....

 

In all fairness, they haven't even played a snap yet. What you're feeling always happens to folks right after the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

We're missing each other.     Our pick was worth 420 points.     The 2nd round pick we got was worth 330.

 

There's the 90 point difference.

 

We got back 48 points with the 4 and 7.       Leaving a gap of 42 points.      That's just over 50 percent.

 

Hope that clarifies.....

 

Again, that's not how you calculate the value differential.

 

- You could either say our pick position decreased in value by 10%. ie ((420-378)/420).

- Or you could say the difference in the two packages was 10.5% ((420-378)/399) final number being the avg between the two.

 

Either way, we lost at best 10-10.5% in pick value but based on other trades that occurred, it was probably a net positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

We're missing each other.     Our pick was worth 420 points.     The 2nd round pick we got was worth 330.

 

There's the 90 point difference.

 

We got back 48 points with the 4 and 7.       Leaving a gap of 42 points.      That's just over 50 percent.

 

Hope that clarifies.....

 

 

I understand how you're getting there. I don't understand why you're doing it that way. That percentage -- between #48 and #57 -- isn't relevant. The difference in the picks matters, but not as a percentage. The overall value matters.

 

The Colts got 90% of the value of their #48 pick (378 out of 420 = 90%).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

We're missing each other.     Our pick was worth 420 points.     The 2nd round pick we got was worth 330.

 

There's the 90 point difference.

 

We got back 48 points with the 4 and 7.       Leaving a gap of 42 points.      That's just over 50 percent.

 

Hope that clarifies.....

 

Typically an mid 4th is worth like 70-80 pts and a 7th around 10. GB picks were a little further back...I think the value chart isn't meant to be used precisely. It's very rough because you can't put a number value to every pick because every pick is different. Would you say Andrew luck was only worth 3000 pts? Technically if a team was to throw their whole draft at us we should trade the pick. Where we were at the time and what was left on the board and the value of moving up for GB probably wasn't worth an additional 6th because there were still players there that they maybe projected falling to them they were happy with. Just like we felt confident we get the guy we want even moving down. I imagine we initiated this trade and we weren't getting full dollar value on the chart. But let's not act like a 7th is only worth 5 pts. That's a real pick and a real kid associated with it and another opportunity to add someone to our team. I just don't think that chart is meant to be viewed literally. Maybe we viewed the GB pick to be worth like 350 because what was still left on the board and some of the wasted picks ahead of us we placed no value on...then the draft is a bit closer. Maybe we look at value as what we attach to a player and not the pick. Perhaps there is a couple guys in the 4th we covet so much this is our way to get them and we had to sacrifice to do it. I still think we got who we wanted and added a couple picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

That's true.    Fair point.

 

But another way to look at it is that a trade value is only worth what you're willing to accept.    And I'm surprised at what we're willing to accept.     That's all I'm saying....

 

Next year we might not except those same conditions. Everything is relative. The board was laid out this year so that this was fair. Next year it may take a 3rd to make that move back if we were offered the same trade. It depends on what is on the board and if we can get the guy we want still moving back. Heck we may not trade at all if we are that sold we can't get the guy we want. I think it's just way more fluid and not so much an exact science. I think we are trying to be to analytical when this is still about Actual Players and not just theoretical picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

That's true.    Fair point.

 

But another way to look at it is that a trade value is only worth what you're willing to accept.    And I'm surprised at what we're willing to accept.     That's all I'm saying....

 

Fair enough.  I dont think the value was that out of bounds. I thought we coulda got more value out of the #18. we still got some good players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Le'Raven Clark is really good value round 3. But once again not a sexy pick, which is fine.

He was a projected 2nd rd guy that has some work to do but has all the tools to be a legit star tackle. Very good value indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Typically an mid 4th is worth like 70-80 pts and a 7th around 10. GB picks were a little further back...I think the value chart isn't meant to be used precisely. It's very rough because you can't put a number value to every pick because every pick is different. Would you say Andrew luck was only worth 3000 pts? Technically if a team was to throw their whole draft at us we should trade the pick. Where we were at the time and what was left on the board and the value of moving up for GB probably wasn't worth an additional 6th because there were still players there that they maybe projected falling to them they were happy with. Just like we felt confident we get the guy we want even moving down. I imagine we initiated this trade and we weren't getting full dollar value on the chart. But let's not act like a 7th is only worth 5 pts. That's a real pick and a real kid associated with it and another opportunity to add someone to our team. I just don't think that chart is meant to be viewed literally. Maybe we viewed the GB pick to be worth like 350 because what was still left on the board and some of the wasted picks ahead of us we placed no value on...then the draft is a bit closer. Maybe we look at value as what we attach to a player and not the pick. Perhaps there is a couple guys in the 4th we covet so much this is our way to get them and we had to sacrifice to do it. I still think we got who we wanted and added a couple picks.

 

Look at the points value chart.     Those points aren't worth anything close to what you're talking about.

 

7th rounder 10 points?     No, typically 1 or 2 points.     4th rounder 70 points?     Not where we typically pick.

 

They don't change year to year.    They're the same every year.     I don't understand your comment about....   "typically they worth...."       That implies some years they're worth more than others.     That's not the case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BCoop said:

Again, that's not how you calculate the value differential.

 

- You could either say our pick position decreased in value by 10%. ie ((420-378)/420).

- Or you could say the difference in the two packages was 10.5% ((420-378)/399) final number being the avg between the two.

 

Either way, we lost at best 10-10.5% in pick value but based on other trades that occurred, it was probably a net positive.

 

Who says your way is right and my way is wrong?

 

Who says that's not how calculate the value difference?

 

I don't know where your formulas are coming from,  but they don't add up.    Not even a little.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I understand how you're getting there. I don't understand why you're doing it that way. That percentage -- between #48 and #57 -- isn't relevant. The difference in the picks matters, but not as a percentage. The overall value matters.

 

The Colts got 90% of the value of their #48 pick (378 out of 420 = 90%).

 

I think it's one way of looking at it.     And I think it's intelluctually dishonest.

 

If I give you 90 of something... (points, dollars,  whatever, you name it)   and you only give me back 48 of something,   then I don't see how you think that's nearly an even exchange.

 

I think you're doing intellectual back-flips to make it seem better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Who says your way is right and my way is wrong?

 

Who says that's not how calculate the value difference?

 

I don't know where your formulas are coming from,  but they don't add up.    Not even a little.

 

 

 Mathematics says which way is right and wrong.

 

If you don't trust the numbers, google % change formula and % difference formula. This should be straightforward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think it's one way of looking at it.     And I think it's intelluctually dishonest.

 

If I give you 90 of something... (points, dollars,  whatever, you name it)   and you only give me back 48 of something,   then I don't see how you think that's nearly an even exchange.

 

I think you're doing intellectual back-flips to make it seem better.

 

 

No. It's more like you give me 420 of something, and I give you back 378.

 

I don't understand how you're so fixated on the 90. The point of the trade is to equalize the 90. They came short, but that doesn't nullify the overall value of the trade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Look at the points value chart.     Those points aren't worth anything close to what you're talking about.

 

7th rounder 10 points?     No, typically 1 or 2 points.     4th rounder 70 points?     Not where we typically pick.

 

They don't change year to year.    They're the same every year.     I don't understand your comment about....   "typically they worth...."       That implies some years they're worth more than others.     That's not the case.

 

 

 

They don't change from year to year, but that extra 4th was more valuable to the Colts this year than it might be next year when they have their full allotment of picks (plus a probable 4th round comp pick). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that this is the 2016 draft thread, but I have a general question for the forum...

 

I've often heard Anderson referred to as "the steal of the 2015 draft" (mostly by forum people and local media). I don't doubt the value we got when we drafted him, but Isn't Denzelle Good the steal of that draft? Was Good the best value pick in the league last year? How often does a 7th round tackle start (at replacement level or above) games at Tackle in their rookie seasons? 

 

I'm not saying that Good is a better player than Anderson at all... Anderson will be a beast on our D-Line as soon as he is healthy. I just wonder if anybody got better value than a starting level Tackle anywhere near where we picked Good... and Collins doesn't count because he wasn't drafted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

No. It's more like you give me 420 of something, and I give you back 378.

 

I don't understand how you're so fixated on the 90. The point of the trade is to equalize the 90. They came short, but that doesn't nullify the overall value of the trade. 

 

I'd like to share another perspective, and hope that it doesn't come across as argumentative....

 

You see it as getting 90% of what could be expected.    OK.

 

But that 10%,  those 42 points,  that represents another 4th round pick, or certainly a 5th round pick.   That's another quality player.       So, instead of getting two solid players,  we're getting one.

 

I would think for a franchise that is moving away from using free agency and embracing the draft more to build the team,  only getting one solid player when it should be getting two is a big sacrifice.

 

My long-term concern is once you demonstrate that you're willing to make a discounted deal,  that we should expect more offers like that.     Discounted deals.      It'll be harder to do deals where the points are closer to matching.       And I don't view that as an insignificant thing.      Eventually it adds up.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't like being the bearer of bad news....    but Clark will not be doing much of anything for the Colts in 2016.

 

He'll be blocking for field goals and PAT's ---- maybe.

 

He's been in a spread system.    Never been in a 3-point stance.     Doesn't know how to run block very well.

 

Last year,  Arizona took an offensive tackle in the 1st round -- Humphries -- and they didn't play him a single down.    The kid didn't even dress for the entire season.    He has that much to learn.     I'm expecting roughly the same for Clark this year.

 

Maybe he helps us in 2017.     But I'm not expecting much in 2016.

 

As always in these cases,   I hope I'm wrong.....

 

I don't see how the 2016 Colts are going to get a lot better.     Our two second day picks won't give us much of anything until 2017.

 

Very, very strange and curious Day Two for the Colts.       Frankly, very disappointing.

Well PFF draft had a tweet saying that Clark had a 93.7 run block success rate. 5th best among OTs in the draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colts remaining picks: 116, 125, 155, 239, 248

 

Top remaining prospects per NFL.com:

Jordan Howard

Hassan Ridgeway

Andrew Billings

Wilie Henry

Connor Cook

Charone Peake

Christian Westerman

Devontae Booker

Kenneth Dixon

Miles Kilbrew

Pharoh Cooper

Tyler Higbee

Sheldon Day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is why the value chart is fluid. Grigs got they guy he wanted and got the best deal offered for him to do so. To argue about "points" after picking up extra picks and still getting the guy you wanted is meaningless.

 

“We had a good cluster of players there, we were still hopeful that [safety] T.J. [Green] would still be there at [No. 57] and he was,” general manager Ryan Grigson said. “It was nice only having six picks [entering the draft], now we have five [Saturday]. It was really exciting to be able to pull that off and still get our guy. That was something we had discussed and wanted to accomplish and we got our player.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...