Only 2 Teams Worth Trading Draft Pick To

[Smonroe]

Denver at 5 and the Jets at 6.

 

I'm making some assumptions, but IMO the next QB hungry teams would be Arizona at 15 and Buffalo at 21/25.  Our pick is valued at 2200.  Trading with the Broncos or Jets and getting their 2nd pick would be pretty fair.  1700 + 530 or 1600 + 520.

 

The only way it would even out with the Cards or Bills is if they gave us their 2 and their 1 next year.  The Bills are kind of interesting because both of their 1s are still worth less than ours.  So they could give us two 1s and a couple of 2s if they really wanted to move up.

 

So, bottom line, IMHO it's not really worth us trading the pick unless its for a 5 or 6 and that teams 2nd rounder too.

 

Thoughts? 

[chad72]

If it is with Jets, it would be a 1, 2 and 3 or a 1 and both their second rounders or a 1, 2 and a future 2nd/3rd

 

If it is with Broncos, it would have to be a 1, 2, 3 or a 1, 2 and a future 2nd/3rd

 

I do agree it has to be with the Broncos or Jets because the talent pool gets much shallower closer to the Cardinals and Bills picks. Jets would be more enticing if it is future picks because the odds are greater with them picking in the Top 10 again, more than the Broncos who underachieved this year, IMO, and may go after Kirk Cousins thus placing their future picks later in the draft.

[#12.]

Hard to see QBs going 1-3.

 

A trade might happen if someone takes Barkley 1 or 2.  If not, the Broncos and Jets will probably stay where the are.

[Boiler_Colt]

Those two teams I believe are the lowest you could drop and still get Chubb or your #1 rated pass rusher. Tampa at 7 will take a pass rusher IMO. I believe you could drop back to 5 or 6 easily and still take Chubb but no further.

[chad72]

Just now, Boiler_Colt said:

Those two teams I believe are the lowest you could drop and still get Chubb or your #1 rated pass rusher. Tampa at 7 will take a pass rusher IMO. I believe you could drop back to 5 or 6 easily and still take Chubb but no further.

 

Chubb, not sure. Nelson should be there at #6 if Ballard truly loves him and Chubb is not there. I know the forum loves both.  

[Boiler_Colt]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

Chubb, not sure. Nelson should be there at #6 if Ballard truly loves him and Chubb is not there. I know the forum loves both.  

If Denver or NYJ trade up to 3 its for a QB, then I do not see the Browns taking Chubb after taking Garret last year. They will target Barkley or Fitzpatrick IMO. Same with Denver, I dont see them taking a pass rusher if we end up trading with the Jets. Possibly, but I consider it unlikely IMO. That's why I was happy when Tampa won and fell to #7.

[BProland85]

If Ballard thinks Roquan Smith would still be available at 15, I would completely support trading down with Arizona and getting a haul back, and then still getting Smith to lead the defense at ILB. 

 

Otherwise, I would be in favor of trading down with either the Jets or Broncos and selecting either Fitzpatrick, Barkley, Chubb, or Nelson. 

[Defjamz26]

If Barkley is there, Ballard ain’t trading down. If he does teams are going to have to break the bank to get him to move off Barkley. Someone is going to have to offer a first next year in addition to a 2nd and 3rd this year.

 

If Barkley is gone then the Jets with 2 2nd rounders are the best option and they’d have to give us both plus another pick.

[DraftMaster]

8 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If Barkley is there, Ballard ain’t trading down. If he does teams are going to have to break the bank to get him to move off Barkley. Someone is going to have to offer a first next year in addition to a 2nd and 3rd this year.

 

If Barkley is gone then the Jets with 2 2nd rounders are the best option and they’d have to give us both plus another pick.

Why is everyone want Barkley so much?

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

If it is with Jets, it would be a 1, 2 and 3 or a 1 and both their second rounders or a 1, 2 and a future 2nd/3rd

 

If it is with Broncos, it would have to be a 1, 2, 3 or a 1, 2 and a future 2nd/3rd

 

I do agree it has to be with the Broncos or Jets because the talent pool gets much shallower closer to the Cardinals and Bills picks. Jets would be more enticing if it is future picks because the odds are greater with them picking in the Top 10 again, more than the Broncos who underachieved this year, IMO, and may go after Kirk Cousins thus placing their future picks later in the draft.

 

????

 

How did you figure this?

 

SMonroe did the math and it works out almost perfectly for a 1 and a 2.

 

But you say it should be for a 1, 2, 3...

 

How do you figure?

[a06cc]

Only team I feel is worth trade a pick to is the Browns. You can move down to 4 and get a second from them. Great thread by the way!

[NewColtsFan]

11 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If Barkley is there, Ballard ain’t trading down. If he does teams are going to have to break the bank to get him to move off Barkley. Someone is going to have to offer a first next year in addition to a 2nd and 3rd this year.

 

If Barkley is gone then the Jets with 2 2nd rounders are the best option and they’d have to give us both plus another pick.

 

I wouldn't speak with any certainty on any player right now.

 

We are all guessing.    No one knows nothing right now and I'm including myself in this.

 

I don't know why you'd think Barkley is a slam dunk pick at this point?  Nothing is certain....  

 

[NewColtsFan]

 

I'd be happy trading with the Browns at 4...   the Broncos at 5...    or the Jets at 6...

 

All of them would give us the opportunity to take the player or trade the pick a second time...

 

Win-win...

 

[a06cc]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I wouldn't speak with any certainty on any player right now.

 

We are all guessing.    No one knows nothing right now and I'm including myself in this.

 

I don't know why you'd think Barkley is a slam dunk pick at this point?  Nothing is certain....  

 

Have to agree what you. NFL is a different animal than college. 

[a06cc]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'd be happy trading with the Browns at 4...   the Broncos at 5...    or the Jets at 6...

 

All of them would give us the opportunity to take the player or trade the pick a second time...

 

Win-win...

 

Agreed with Browns at 4

[Smonroe]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I wouldn't speak with any certainty on any player right now.

 

We are all guessing.    No one knows nothing right now and I'm including myself in this.

 

I don't know why you'd think Barkley is a slam dunk pick at this point?  Nothing is certain....  

 

 

Barkley is the cream of the crop and I suspect his interest will even be greater when they see his combine numbers.  But there are plenty of RBs in this draft who are pretty close.

 

You're right, nothing is certain at this point.  But it's fun to talk about it now.

[Clem-Dog]

11 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If Barkley is there, Ballard ain’t trading down. If he does teams are going to have to break the bank to get him to move off Barkley. Someone is going to have to offer a first next year in addition to a 2nd and 3rd this year.

 

If Barkley is gone then the Jets with 2 2nd rounders are the best option and they’d have to give us both plus another pick.

 

I agree.  The value chart doesn't always hold true when dealing a top 3 pick, or a perceived franchise cornerstone.

[ColtsBlitz]

42 minutes ago, #12. said:

Hard to see QBs going 1-3.

 

A trade might happen if someone takes Barkley 1 or 2.  If not, the Broncos and Jets will probably stay where the are.

Trubisky went at 2 last year and people love the kid from OU, so I can see it

[DougDew]

It depends upon the player being traded for.  If there is a big drop off from the 3rd best player in the draft than the 4th, and if the player is a franchise making player, then the value chart gets warped.

 

Mike Ditka was going to trade his whole draft to move up to take RB Ricky Williams.  Of course, that was Ditka

[dgambill]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

????

 

Hiw did you figure this?

 

SMonroe did the math and it works out almost perfectly for a 1 and a 2.

 

But you say it should be for a 1, 2, 3...

 

How do you figure?

I think because the value chart is just an estimate. I'm sorry not all years is the number 1, 2, 3 etc worth the same. Theoretically its worth x amount....but once you assign players to those numbers...it takes a life of its own. Its like an outline but a rough draft. Once there is real players being taken teams will be have to be incentivized much more to pass off a special talent there at the top of the draft. To me its going to take more than just a 1 and 2 to trade out of that spot if I have the best non-qb in the draft sitting there. If I'm passing up on a once in a decade rb or pass rusher etc then you better compensate me accordingly. Also once teams start bidding on a pick the value goes up. We all know its just an estimate...a team will evaluate it whatever they think...and teams have shown they are willing to pay a premium to get a pick...especially for a qb. If we get a bidding war or even if we pretend we have multiple suitors then we should be able to get more back. Personally if I trade back with the Broncos I want a 1, 2, and 4 but if I trade with the Jets I want a 1, 4 and future 1...because I think next year that 1 is worth well more than a 2 this year. If I trade with Washington or Arizona I'm getting a 1,2 and 1,2 next year. Just me...but I'm charging more than top dollar for my pick...otherwise I keep it and you can trade with someone else.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlitz said:

Trubisky went at 2 last year and people love the kid from OU, so I can see it

I think there is a chance to trade down twice.  Maybe some team wants Barkley, then some team will want QBs Mayfield or Allen.

 

If the 3rd best player is coveted more than the 4th, Cleveland might trade up one spot to take the player they didn't take at 1, fearing another team will trade with us. 

[Clem-Dog]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It depends upon the player being traded for.  If there is a big drop off from the 3rd best player in the draft than the 4th, and if the player is a franchise making player, then the value chart gets warped.

 

Mike Ditka was going to trade his whole draft to move up to take Ricky Williams.  Of course, that's Ditka

 

Mike did trade his entire draft that season to move up from 12th to 5th.

 

Here is a list of the picks given to the Redskins, granted Snyder used some of these picks to move from 12th to 8th for Champ Bailey.

 

Year	Round
1999	1st (12th Overall)
1999	3rd
1999	4th
1999	5th
1999	6th
1999	7th
2000	1st (2nd Overall)
2000	3rd

[ColtsBlitz]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think there is a chance to trade down twice.  Maybe some team wants Barkley, then some team will want QBs Mayfield or Allen.

 

If the 3rd best player is coveted more than the 4th, Cleveland might trade up one spot to take the player they didn't take at 1, fearing another team will trade with us. 

I agree here. I’m guessing the Browns want Mayfield, take him at 1. Then we can trade back to them at 4 for Barkley, and then maybe again to Denver for their 1 & 2 this year (not sure what else). We’d probably have 3 2nd rounders. 

[ColtsBlitz]

Honestly, the confusion we provide in this draft is great. Irsay talking about a stud running back, our oline problem and MLB problem. Take advantage and solve 2/3 this year by trading back. I like the result if any of the three is fixed, especially offensive line

[Indeee]

1) Browns take Barkley at 1 if.... Denver acquires Cousins in FA, knowing they could grab Allen at 4

2) Browns take Josh Allen at 1 if.... Denver cannot acquire Cousins, believing Broncos may trade up ahead of 4 to take Allen

 

If Browns take Barkley at 1 then the Giants will trade the #2 pick to either the Jets or Broncos(most likely the Jets)

 

3) Jets take Rosen at #2 overall, Giants move back to #6. *My thinking in this scenario is that the Giants, although QB "future needy" is content with Eli for another year or 2, so trading back gets them a chance to grab Fitpatrick to replace Apple or a lineman such as Williams, Mcglinchey or Nelson

 

3a) Broncos take Rosen at #2 overall, Giants move back to #5. *My thinking in this scenario is that the Giants, although QB "future needy" is content with Eli for another year or 2, so trading back gets them a chance to grab Fitpatrick to replace Apple or a lineman such as Williams, Mcglinchey or Nelson

 

If Browns take Allen at 1 then the Giants will trade the #2 overall pick to either the Jets, Broncos or Niners. *My thinking here is same as above regarding the QB, however most would expect Giants, who need an RB too would take Barkley. I don't have Giants taking barkley only because I believe they will sign Hyde or Ingram in FA. The niners come into play here as they would definitely want Barkley so could make a move up to second overall if they believe the Colts could want Barkley at 3, Giants would drop to 9, miss out on Fitzpatrick but still be able to grab BPA lineman left at 9

 

The Colts trade pick at 3 only if Barkley and Rosen is off the board and Allen is still there or they really do not want Barkley, in which case they could swap with Browns if Browns want Barkley or Allen(Browns fearing Jets or broncos would move up in trade with Colts) or with niners if the price is right. Not sure I believe they would drop to 9 unless they believe Williams, mcGlinchey or Nelson would still be there

 

4) If Colts stay put and Barkley is there, Colts may take Barkley as BPA, not necessarily a huge need

 

5) If Colts stay put and Barkley is gone, Colts take Nelson which by their board may be BPA and is a HUGE need.

 

In any circumstance I do not see the Colts taking Chubb at 3 or 4 if they swapped with Browns based on Browns wanting Barkley

 

**Wildcard... Colts may swap with niners if barkley is still there only if the trade involved picks and potentially Armstead in the deal at which point Colts get pass rusher who niners have been soured on and BPA O-line left at 9 (this scenario I highly doubt though)

 

In any event should be interesting night

[BProland85]

32 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If Barkley is there, Ballard ain’t trading down. If he does teams are going to have to break the bank to get him to move off Barkley. Someone is going to have to offer a first next year in addition to a 2nd and 3rd this year.

 

If Barkley is gone then the Jets with 2 2nd rounders are the best option and they’d have to give us both plus another pick.

 

I would hope and think that Barkley will be a hot trade commodity as well as the top QBs. So Ballard, if he plays his cards right, can get a good amount of draft picks back and still get the guy he wants. 

[Indeee]

**Actually Buccaneers could be in play to move up as well if Barkley is still on the board as Martin is washed up and barber/Rodgers/Sims all stink

[Indeee]

Also after thinking about this, I could see the Browns trading from 4 up to 2 with giants after taking Allen at 1 to get Barkley.

 

My thinking is IF Giants want Rosen and knowing Colts not looking for a QB, Giants trade back to 4 and could still get Rosen.

 

This is where it gets interesting for the Colts because if Giants think Jets or Broncos would trade with Colts to get Rosen and/or Donald then Giants may try to trade with Colts to swap 3 for 4.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if 1 of these 2 next scenarios happened in that event.

 

1) Giants trade with Colts by swapping 3 for 4, giving Colts additional draft picks and potentially Eli Apple in the deal. Apple has worn out his welcome in NY and is still on manageable contract and Indy needs CB

 

Or.. And I know this is super far fetched and probably would never happen, but what if...

 

2) Giants trade with Colts by swapping 3 for 4, giving Colts additional picks, Colts send TY to NY and Giants send Beckham to Indy. My thinking id TY still has 3 years on current deal which giants could manage, all guaranteed money has been paid and Beckham wants a NEW contract currently which the Giants may not be able to afford but the Colts surely could.

 

That, even though highly improbable, would be AWESOME!!

 

Ha!!... It's gonna be fun

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I agree here. I’m guessing the Browns want Mayfield, take him at 1. Then we can trade back to them at 4 for Barkley, and then maybe again to Denver for their 1 & 2 this year (not sure what else). We’d probably have 3 2nd rounders. 

Cleveland getting a Franchise QB and RB while giving up only a 2nd round pick to move up that one slot is a possibility IMO.

[DraftMaster]

7 minutes ago, ColtsBlitz said:

I agree here. I’m guessing the Browns want Mayfield

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Also after thinking about this, I could see the Browns trading from 4 up to 2 with giants after taking Allen at 1 to get Barkley.

 

Not likely.  I think the Browns would feel us out for our appetite for trading down before they trade up with the Gmen.  If we say we're interested then they can figure we're not dead set on taking Barkley.  I think there is gamesmanship, but I don't think teams flat out lie to one another during possible trade talks.  They might want to talk again next round.

[NewColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I think because the value chart is just an estimate. I'm sorry not all years is the number 1, 2, 3 etc worth the same. Theoretically its worth x amount....but once you assign players to those numbers...it takes a life of its own. Its like an outline but a rough draft. Once there is real players being taken teams will be have to be incentivized much more to pass off a special talent there at the top of the draft. To me its going to take more than just a 1 and 2 to trade out of that spot if I have the best non-qb in the draft sitting there. If I'm passing up on a once in a decade rb or pass rusher etc then you better compensate me accordingly. Also once teams start bidding on a pick the value goes up. We all know its just an estimate...a team will evaluate it whatever they think...and teams have shown they are willing to pay a premium to get a pick...especially for a qb. If we get a bidding war or even if we pretend we have multiple suitors then we should be able to get more back. Personally if I trade back with the Broncos I want a 1, 2, and 4 but if I trade with the Jets I want a 1, 4 and future 1...because I think next year that 1 is worth well more than a 2 this year. If I trade with Washington or Arizona I'm getting a 1,2 and 1,2 next year. Just me...but I'm charging more than top dollar for my pick...otherwise I keep it and you can trade with someone else.

 

Fair enough...    I personally wouldn't take that approach, but at least you explained your thinking and it's not unreasonable...

 

Appreciate that...

 

[IinD]

Almost impossible to say right now, but all it takes is a team thinking some player is 'that guy' for their team.

 

If I was a GM I'd listen to an offer outside the top rated players if I can take a haul that will last a couple or several drafts of compensation.

 

 

[IinD]

50 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I think because the value chart is just an estimate. I'm sorry not all years is the number 1, 2, 3 etc worth the same. Theoretically its worth x amount....but once you assign players to those numbers...it takes a life of its own. Its like an outline but a rough draft. Once there is real players being taken teams will be have to be incentivized much more to pass off a special talent there at the top of the draft. To me its going to take more than just a 1 and 2 to trade out of that spot if I have the best non-qb in the draft sitting there. If I'm passing up on a once in a decade rb or pass rusher etc then you better compensate me accordingly. Also once teams start bidding on a pick the value goes up. We all know its just an estimate...a team will evaluate it whatever they think...and teams have shown they are willing to pay a premium to get a pick...especially for a qb. If we get a bidding war or even if we pretend we have multiple suitors then we should be able to get more back. Personally if I trade back with the Broncos I want a 1, 2, and 4 but if I trade with the Jets I want a 1, 4 and future 1...because I think next year that 1 is worth well more than a 2 this year. If I trade with Washington or Arizona I'm getting a 1,2 and 1,2 next year. Just me...but I'm charging more than top dollar for my pick...otherwise I keep it and you can trade with someone else.

Just to touch on what you're saying I agree with the compensation part.

 

If a team wants someone bad enough, there isn't a chart to follow. The RG and Julio Jones trades come to mind.

 

I wouldn't trade out for a 'fair' trade. I'd trade out for a robbery deal or close to it.

 

We've seen deals where teams have gotten ripped off even though they did get a good player.

[chad72]

3 hours ago, dgambill said:

I think because the value chart is just an estimate. I'm sorry not all years is the number 1, 2, 3 etc worth the same. Theoretically its worth x amount....but once you assign players to those numbers...it takes a life of its own. Its like an outline but a rough draft. Once there is real players being taken teams will be have to be incentivized much more to pass off a special talent there at the top of the draft. To me its going to take more than just a 1 and 2 to trade out of that spot if I have the best non-qb in the draft sitting there. If I'm passing up on a once in a decade rb or pass rusher etc then you better compensate me accordingly. Also once teams start bidding on a pick the value goes up. We all know its just an estimate...a team will evaluate it whatever they think...and teams have shown they are willing to pay a premium to get a pick...especially for a qb. If we get a bidding war or even if we pretend we have multiple suitors then we should be able to get more back. Personally if I trade back with the Broncos I want a 1, 2, and 4 but if I trade with the Jets I want a 1, 4 and future 1...because I think next year that 1 is worth well more than a 2 this year. If I trade with Washington or Arizona I'm getting a 1,2 and 1,2 next year. Just me...but I'm charging more than top dollar for my pick...otherwise I keep it and you can trade with someone else.

 

I couldn’t have said it better. 

 

Here is the math:

 

Though it is hypothetical, our trade value chart for pick No.3 is 2200

Jets' pick No.6 is 1600, No.37 is 530, No.72 is 230, totaling 2360, extremely reasonable compensation for moving up from No.6 to No.3, IMO, for a franchise QB netting us two second and third rounders in the draft.

 

Trade values are just that, an approximate reference. One forum poster wants less, another wants more, just how it is.  Another poster here thought a 1,2,3 would be little compensation. Oh well!!!

 

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, Indeee said:

My thinking in this scenario is that the Giants, although QB "future needy" is content with Eli for another year or 2, so trading back gets them a chance to grab Fitpatrick to replace Apple or a lineman such as Williams, Mcglinchey or Nelson

 

I can't see them not grabbing a QB, unless they are very low on all potential top prospect. Which is, frankly, unlikely. They can choose from the entire class minus one. When will be their next chance to pick their Eli successor? Thats a good roster, decimated by injuries this year. They won't pick in the top10 any time soon.

I think they'll pick a QB, and let him sit a year or two. They can afford it.

 

[Shadow_Creek]

1 hour ago, DraftMaster said:

Why is everyone want Barkley so much?

just look at the last two years and you see why. Cowboys took zeke and he had a stellar year..then last year jax takes fourtnette and again stellar year. what does that equal you ask? Its Our Turn!!

[Smonroe]

2 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

just look at the last two years and you see why. Cowboys took zeke and he had a stellar year..then last year jax takes fourtnette and again stellar year. what does that equal you ask? Its Our Turn!!

 

Not to be argumentative, but I don’t think Fournette was instrumental for Jax.  Very true about Zeke, that offense was built around him.   

 

But to your point, everyone seems to think that Barkley is as good, if not better than Zeke.  IF ( and I meant that to be a big IF) we can upgrade the Oline through free agency, and Andrew is healthy, can you imagine that offense with a Zekelike RB?

[DraftMaster]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

just look at the last two years and you see why. Cowboys took zeke and he had a stellar year..then last year jax takes fourtnette and again stellar year. what does that equal you ask? Its Our Turn!!

I'll let this article from Chris Shepherd explain. These RB's have not contributed in ways that you think they have:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/12/28/16801912/psa-like-it-or-not-the-draft-is-about-value-and-other-reasons-not-to-draft-a-rb-early

 

Also PFF ranks Fournette 24th among NFL HB's:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/leonard-fournette/11759

 

Leonard Fournette averaged 3.9 YPC in 2017.

Dion Lewis averages 5.0 YPC and he could be a free agent this year. The Colts should get him if they can at a thrifty price. I get it that Barkley is good but even Todd Gurley had a sophomore slump. Frank Gore's longevity is exception, not rule.

 

Some Dion Lewis highlights to chew on:

 

[IinD]

4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Not to be argumentative, but I don’t think Fournette was instrumental for Jax.  Very true about Zeke, that offense was built around him.   

 

But to your point, everyone seems to think that Barkley is as good, if not better than Zeke.  IF ( and I meant that to be a big IF) we can upgrade the Oline through free agency, and Andrew is healthy, can you imagine that offense with a Zekelike RB?

It's because we're the Colts...we're all about the offense sadly.

 

It's engrained in our fan base.