We're not Trading down this Draft

[superrep1967]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

It doesn't matter where you pick...   first or 32nd, scouts do the same job.

 

The Colts are a team in need of a lot of talent, and one way to get it is to trade back a little and collect high picks.   And maybe even trade back another time and collect a few more picks.

 

Is it possible that we stay at 3 and take Barkley or Chubb?   Yes.   I'd say the odds now are 50-50.    But that also means we could move back some to take Nelson, or Williams, or McGlinchey or a number of other players.    I think it's just as likely. 

 

Don't bet the house that we stay put.  There's a decent chance we trade back...   

 

What about we take Arden Key at number 3? I know Ballard has always said were always looking for pass rushers. 

[Valpo2004]

18 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

People are probably thinking about Mr. irsays comment when he mentioned the colts would get a special kind of player in the first round. However lets not forget that our GM after last years Draft fired pretty much all of the scouts that were under grigs. That being said, with this new staff we have i just don't see Ballard hiring them to just stand back and applaud without doing there part. No i believe that he hired them to find the right pieces and the best possible choices to pick at 3

 

I don't understand how that's any proof that we won't trade down.  Scouts have got to find players who can play from the top to the bottom of the draft.  

 

Right now I mainly would like to see the Colts trade down a few spots and grab Nelson and really invest in shoring up this offensive line.  I'm also hoping they invest some money in free agency in doing the same thing.  

[crazycolt1]

17 hours ago, Dark Superman said:

With a team with as many holes as the Colts, I kind of expect us to make a trade in order to claim more draft picks.

I tend to agree. Right now we don't know what other team will call the Colts and make an offer they may not be able to turn down. That won't be known till draft day either. IMO the Colts are sitting pretty good no matter who the Browns and the Giants take. I just have a gut feeling the Giants are taking Barkley. If that happens the Colts pick just gets worth a lot more.

If the Colts can get a top 10 pick this year and a #1 next year I feel they need to jump all over that deal especially if another 2nd or 3rd round pick is offered.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Agree might be no years?

 

Hope not....    I mean Geathers played a little this year,  so I'm expecting him to play more next year....    I just don't know how much we can plan on?

 

[NewColtsFan]

49 minutes ago, superrep1967 said:

What about we take Arden Key at number 3? I know Ballard has always said were always looking for pass rushers. 

 

I'm not seeing anything that has key going that high...    he was hurt for a fair amount if this year and when he did play, he didn't do that much.

 

Right now Key is living on his tape from 2016.   Sort of like Landry from BC.   Both had disappointing 2017 seasons.

 

[Blueblood23]

They may have to trade up depending on how Luck progresses. I know no one wants to talk about it, but it is possible. If the Giants are potentially taking a QB the Colts might trade into number one depending on Lucks shoulder.

[crazycolt1]

21 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

They may have to trade up depending on how Luck progresses. I know no one wants to talk about it, but it is possible. If the Giants are potentially taking a QB the Colts might trade into number one depending on Lucks shoulder.

The Browns would be real stupid to trade their franchise QB away. I know it's the Browns but I just don't see it.

[MB-ColtsFan]

54 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

I'd have to assume that Ballard doesn't know who he's drafting or whether or not we are going to trade until we see who the first two picks are... or at least after FA when he knows what the team needs are...

I'm sure he has run the various scenarios in his mind, but it would be crazy to (for an illustrative example) sign a RB like Le'Veon Bell, then draft Barkely at #3.... No way to know, yet.

Agree with this all day.  People's opinions today will likely change once we go through FA.  I think Ballard is plenty busy with his scouts right now getting their draft board in order.  I doubt it is set in stone yet.  

 

Those thinking it would be crazy to draft Barkely today may want him for sure if we sure up the OLine sufficiently in FA.  I know I would.

[lollygagger8]

 

19 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

People are probably thinking about Mr. irsays comment when he mentioned the colts would get a special kind of player in the first round. However lets not forget that our GM after last years Draft fired pretty much all of the scouts that were under grigs. That being said, with this new staff we have i just don't see Ballard hiring them to just stand back and applaud without doing there part. No i believe that he hired them to find the right pieces and the best possible choices to pick at 3

 

Were and we're are two different things <- apostrophes are important.  

 

The best possible choice at pick 3 might be (probably will be) to trade down.

 

 

[Four2itus]

I could see them role playing at least 100 different ways the top ten might play out. That is their job. I say top ten because it includes where the team might pick were they to trade out of the 3 spot. 

 

I am guessing that they do not have a consensus pick that...if they are there....the card is sent to the podium immediately. Each pick, #1.....and then #2, eliminates a great deal of those role played scenarios and the water becomes a bit clearer. However, either team in the top 2 trades down, and if it is a scenario that they have not foreseen or imagined, this is where they truly earn their money as they have very limited time to consider, plan for, and listen to trade offers....or even include roster player aquisition in a trade down. 

 

Also remember that there are players in this draft, in any round, who very well could be seen later as players that could have went 1,2, or 3. Some of those may very well be on the Colts board in the top 15. 

[Matabix]

Barkley would be nice but try this scenario. New coach goes with 4-3 scheme, Puts Sheard, Hankins, Woods, Bashem on DL. Simon prolly to Will or Sam back. You have a kid in Marlon Mack, who needs touches. So I think it's safe to say we trade back get multipke picks and draft highest OL at that point. Pick up a beast runner later. Along with a pure speed pass rusher. 

I see us trading back to solidify the line. Who knows we draft oyr big WR alsi.

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

 

Were and we're are two different things <- apostrophes are important.  

 

 

What?  Did he use one wrong?   Ugh.  I hate that I entered the grammar talk but you made me read his post twice now.  

[Virtuoso80]

21 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

What?  Did he use one wrong?   Ugh.  I hate that I entered the grammar talk but you made me read his post twice now.  

Thread title, I believe.

[Coltfreak]

3 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:

I'd have to assume that Ballard doesn't know who he's drafting or whether or not we are going to trade until we see who the first two picks are... or at least after FA when he knows what the team needs are...

I'm sure he has run the various scenarios in his mind, but it would be crazy to (for an illustrative example) sign a RB like Le'Veon Bell, then draft Barkely at #3.... No way to know, yet.

I'm fairly sure he wont know until after the combine who his top 5 would be

[Dingus McGirt]

Browns take Barkley #1 - then use the #4 pick for whichever QB is left after the Giants take one of the two projected top picks.  Just had this discussion with a long time friend and football fan (Steelers).  Wouldn't that be interesting...sure would end all discussion about the Colts taking Barkley at 3.

[TheMarine]

Do the Colts make their 'strength' (With Luck) stronger or do you attempt to make a weakness (pass rush) better with the 3rd overall?

 

Id rather see Chubb, but with a healthy Luck Id rather see Saquon Barkley. An amazing play-marker who's a threat every time they're on the field, vs someone who'll make an impact the most if the Colts have a lead

[NewColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Browns take Barkley #1 - then use the #4 pick for whichever QB is left after the Giants take one of the two projected top picks.  Just had this discussion with a long time friend and football fan (Steelers).  Wouldn't that be interesting...sure would end all discussion about the Colts taking Barkley at 3.

 

Thst scenario would be GREAT for the Colts.   Because if Luck is healthy, that scenario has a top QB falling to Indy.   We will get a substantial offer in that case.   The best possible offer.    We could ask for more than the point chart would suggest.

 

Cleve at 4 would offer.

Denver at 5 would offer.

New York Jets at 6 would offer.

 

Can you say bidding war?  

 

Ballard would be thrilled!

 

Come on,  Cleveland!    Draft Barkley first!

 

Go ahead, make my day!   Make my year!

 

 

[Defjamz26]

If Barkley is there, they aren’t trading down for certain unless someone offers an RGIII type ransom.

[esmort]

29 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If Barkley is there, they aren’t trading down for certain unless someone offers an RGIII type ransom.

 

No one is paying anything close to an "RGIII type ransom" for Barkley ... and IMO it wouldn't cost close to that much to get the Colts to trade out of the #3 spot ... I bet Ballard would jump at the chance of trading down with the Jets for their two 2nd rounders if it were offered. There have been several other trade scenarios (that weren't even close to the RGIII deal) in the pick 4-6 range that have been mentioned on here that would be worth moving down for.

 

I believe that the only way we are 100% locked into the #3 spot is if we find out for sure Luck is done and we really like a QB there.

[LockeDown]

I think Ballard is going to use free agency very similar to last year.  A new wave of the same types of players with similar contracts, where they have to prove themselves. Short contracts. Building depth.  Draft BPA playmakers as the core.  Our defense kept games close and I think we will continue down that line...Takes the pressure off Luck.  Like Polian said, the 1st round in the draft is easy.  It's the other rounds where you earn your keep.  We will get a good player in the 1st whether it's Barkley or A pass rusher or Oline man.  I'm not worried that Ballard will blow the pick.  I think his overall philosophy keeps us getting better every year.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

I'm no draft guru, but if Cleveland or New York pass on one of the top 2 QB's in this draft I think the Colts have to strongly consider moving back. I know there are several people here who would like to see us take Barkley with the 3rd pick, but if the Giants take him at 2 or the Browns pull a Browns and take him at 1 then that makes the value of our pick skyrocket in my opinion. There is so much that will probably happen before the draft that could change and the value of our pick. The ideal situation would be for New York to stick with Eli and for Denver and the Jets to still be in need of a QB on draft day. If that happens we could be in a position to bring in a nice haul of picks.

[lollygagger8]

15 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

What?  Did he use one wrong?   Ugh.  I hate that I entered the grammar talk but you made me read his post twice now.  

 

Didn't use one in the thread title. 

 

I don't mean to be a grammer nazi, but people need to slow down and fix stuff before posting. It's not difficult. 

[Valpo2004]

11 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Browns take Barkley #1 - then use the #4 pick for whichever QB is left after the Giants take one of the two projected top picks.  Just had this discussion with a long time friend and football fan (Steelers).  Wouldn't that be interesting...sure would end all discussion about the Colts taking Barkley at 3.

 

I think that would be a mistake for the Browns.  Other teams can always jump up and take a QB, so if they take Barkley, the Colt's phones might be ringing off the hook with trade offers for #3 to get a QB. 

 

If I was Cleveland and they desired both a QB and Barkley it would make more sense to grab the QB #1, the Giants grab a QB at #2 and then they call the Colts and offer the 2nd round pick they have from Philly to move up one spot and take Barkley.  They could of course not offer us anything and risk that we might take Barkley or trade the pick to someone who will.  But if they want to be sure they bring him in with a new QB that seems like the wisest course of action.  

 

They could try to trade up to #3 for the QB but then they are going to be in a much larger bidding war for the pick which could potentially make it more costly.  Also they wouldn't get to pick the QB they want but would have to pick whatever QB the Giants didn't take.  

 

But if the Browns want to take Barkley #1 as far as I'm concerned that's only good for the Colts.  Because it would trigger an automatic bidding war for #3.  

[Shadow_Creek]

3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I think that would be a mistake for the Browns.  Other teams can always jump up and take a QB, so if they take Barkley, the Colt's phones might be ringing off the hook with trade offers for #3 to get a QB. 

 

If I was Cleveland and they desired both a QB and Barkley it would make more sense to grab the QB #1, the Giants grab a QB at #2 and then they call the Colts and offer the 2nd round pick they have from Philly to move up one spot and take Barkley.  They could of course not offer us anything and risk that we might take Barkley or trade the pick to someone who will.  But if they want to be sure they bring him in with a new QB that seems like the wisest course of action.  

 

They could try to trade up to #3 for the QB but then they are going to be in a much larger bidding war for the pick which could potentially make it more costly.  Also they wouldn't get to pick the QB they want but would have to pick whatever QB the Giants didn't take.  

 

But if the Browns want to take Barkley #1 as far as I'm concerned that's only good for the Colts.  Because it would trigger an automatic bidding war for #3.  

Not sure if i remember correctly but did Jacksonville trade up to 3 to get fournette last year?

[Buck Showalter]

11 hours ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Browns take Barkley #1 - then use the #4 pick for whichever QB is left after the Giants take one of the two projected top picks.  Just had this discussion with a long time friend and football fan (Steelers).  Wouldn't that be interesting...sure would end all discussion about the Colts taking Barkley at 3.

 

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thst scenario would be GREAT for the Colts.   Because if Luck is healthy, that scenario has a top QB falling to Indy.   We will get a substantial offer in that case.   The best possible offer.    We could ask for more than the point chart would suggest.

 

Cleve at 4 would offer.

Denver at 5 would offer.

New York Jets at 6 would offer.

 

Can you say bidding war?  

 

Ballard would be thrilled!

 

Come on,  Cleveland!    Draft Barkley first!

 

Go ahead, make my day!   Make my year!

 

 

I've seen this scenario mentioned in some other threads & feel it is a real possibility. It would be a smart gamble on Cleveland's part, as they have the ammo to make it happen...

It'd also solve the Colts dilemma of choosing the sexy/luxury RB or getting an O-lineman or Pass Rusher, which may fill a more glaring need.

 

Obviously the drafts along way away so who knows what'll transpire by then...

[coltsfeva]

Free Agency could alter needs for the Colts.

  Pass rusher, Olineman, playmaker at ILB, RB and receiver/ TE are needs. 

   To me, Chubb is a priority but if Ballard can get a pass rusher in Free Agency, then Nelson or Barkley makes sense.

[DaveA1102]

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

Didn't use one in the thread title. 

 

I don't mean to be a grammer nazi, but people need to slow down and fix stuff before posting. It's not difficult. 

 

Well said.  I tend to get a bit anal about spelling and grammar, but I don't mind errors in posts as they can be written on phones and people rushing to get thoughts down, but if you are creating a thread, take that extra bit of time and re-read the post.....especially the title!

 

Mini rant over.

 

Ps, I re-read this post 5 times to ensure I didn't make any obvious errors!

[Myles]

55 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I think that would be a mistake for the Browns.  Other teams can always jump up and take a QB, so if they take Barkley, the Colt's phones might be ringing off the hook with trade offers for #3 to get a QB. 

 

If I was Cleveland and they desired both a QB and Barkley it would make more sense to grab the QB #1, the Giants grab a QB at #2 and then they call the Colts and offer the 2nd round pick they have from Philly to move up one spot and take Barkley.  They could of course not offer us anything and risk that we might take Barkley or trade the pick to someone who will.  But if they want to be sure they bring him in with a new QB that seems like the wisest course of action.  

 

They could try to trade up to #3 for the QB but then they are going to be in a much larger bidding war for the pick which could potentially make it more costly.  Also they wouldn't get to pick the QB they want but would have to pick whatever QB the Giants didn't take.  

 

But if the Browns want to take Barkley #1 as far as I'm concerned that's only good for the Colts.  Because it would trigger an automatic bidding war for #3.  

It depends on which QB the Browns want.   I think Rosen is not an option.   I don't think Darnold is worth a 1st pick.   I have to think he fell on some team boards as well.    If the Browns like Allen or Mayfield best and the current take is still that Darnold and Rosen are the 2 top QB's, they would do themselves a favor by taking Barkley 1st.  

Of course if it turns out that Rosen won't Elway or Eli the Browns, I think they grab him 1st.

 

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/Bolt/Report-Broncos-hire-Colts-Tom-McMahon-as-special-teams-coordinator-113480945/19

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, Shadow_Creek said:

Not sure if i remember correctly but did Jacksonville trade up to 3 to get fournette last year?

 

No they stayed at 4 and got him.  

 

Browns took Garrett #1

 

Bears traded 2 3rd round picks to go up one spot to #2 to take Trubinksi

 

49er's took Thomas at #3

 

Jags took Fournette at 4

 

Titans held the Rams pick at 5 and took Corey Davis.

[Shadow_Creek]

51 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

No they stayed at 4 and got him.  

 

Browns took Garrett #1

 

Bears traded 2 3rd round picks to go up one spot to #2 to take Trubinksi

 

49er's took Thomas at #3

 

Jags took Fournette at 4

 

Titans held the Rams pick at 5 and took Corey Davis.

ok thanks i knew some team trade up but i forgot which

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Hope not....    I mean Geathers played a little this year,  so I'm expecting him to play more next year....    I just don't know how much we can plan on?

 

Yup they will need a safety who can play besides Farley because you can't count on Geathers and Hooker will be out as he returns from a knee injury.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thst scenario would be GREAT for the Colts.   Because if Luck is healthy, that scenario has a top QB falling to Indy.   We will get a substantial offer in that case.   The best possible offer.    We could ask for more than the point chart would suggest.

 

Cleve at 4 would offer.

Denver at 5 would offer.

New York Jets at 6 would offer.

 

Can you say bidding war?  

 

Ballard would be thrilled!

 

Come on,  Cleveland!    Draft Barkley first!

 

Go ahead, make my day!   Make my year!

 

 

 

That scenario would work out very well for the Colts. If it doesn't shake out that way, I'd say take whoever Ballard likes at #3, then potentially trade back in rounds 2-4. Being top 5 in each round has it's perks, it doesn't only apply to the first round.