If we consider trading back with Buffalo, who are the Top-12?

[NewColtsFan]

 

So...    I believe Buffalo is as far back as we'd consider trading.    Not only do they have a ton of draft picks this year,  but I believe they project to be a sub-500 team this coming year so their 2019 picks would also be desirable.   That makes them a target depending on what they're offering.

 

I wondered what might our top-12 picks look like?     We have to consider the possible players that might be there when pick 12 comes around....

 

This would be my current top-12.     I'm sure you'll have plenty of disagreements,  especially from 8-12.    But for me,  on balance,  in what ever order you prefer,  these would be the top-12 names...      So.....

 

1.   Barkley

2.   Nelson

3.   Chubb

 

4.   Mayfield

5.   Darnold

6.   Rosen

7.   Allen

 

8.   Edmunds

9.   Smith

10. James

11. Ward

12.  Fitz

 

Try not to focus on how I have the QB's ranked.    For purposes of this exercise,  it really doesn't matter,  we aren't interested in them.   And any team trading up for them is paying to get a possible franchise QB no matter the rank.     It's players 8-12 that are important.   Because ONE of THEM would be our pick at 12.    You'll likely see players 8-12 different than I do,  and that's fine.    But one of them will likely be our pick at 12.

 

To me,  if you favor someone else not on my list,  that player is a tier lower on my board.   I think there is a line after 12.    So, I'm not willing to go lower than 12.

 

If you love someone that I don't have as a top-12,  I'd love to know who that is....   this is the time for that free wheeling discussion!

 

[danlhart87]

I'd trade with Cardinals if 2019 1st was in play

[stitches]

FIrst of all some thoughts from me on Barkley in light of recent statements from Irsay and Ballard - with the Colts brass laying down their plan as a 3 year rebuild I think taking Barkley that high(6) is unthinkable. In essence you would be taking a player at one of the most brittle positions in the league, a position that hardly ever gets high second contract with the original team and you are saying you will spend the first 3 years of that first contract not expecting to contend. I have no idea why one would want to take Barkley in this case? To me it makes no sense... and again for those who would jump on me - I still think Barkley is one of the best players in the draft. It still doesn't make the value right and it still doesn't make the longevity issues of the position disappear. I would absolutely hate it if we picked Barkley at 6.

 

With that said... here's my fluid top 12(QBs excluded)

----------------------------------------------------------------tier 1

1. Bradley Chubb

2. Minkah Fitzpatrick (if we think he can play fulltime outside CB)

3. Quenton Nelson

4. Tremaine Edmunds

----------------------------------------------------------------tier 2

5. Derwin James 

6. Denzel Ward

7. Minkah Fitzpatrick(if we think he cannot play fulltime outside CB)

8. Roquan Smith

----------------------------------------------------------------tier 3

9. Harold Landry

10. Maurice Hurst

11. Connor Williams (if we think he can play OT)

12. Saquon Barkley Jaire Alexander

 

 

So if we assume 4 QBs and Barkley go before pick 12, this means at 12 we would probably have exactly one player out of tier 1 or tier 2 left(IMO only Edmunds from my tier 1 can realistically drop to 12, but not likely), so in essence we wouldn't really have a choice if those are indeed the tiers. We will have to pick whoever is left.

 

I can see Ward not being super high on our board though(scheme), so we would probably have to drop a tier if he's the one left. My tier 3 is the players I kind of like but I'm not sure they have the value to be picked at 12. Ultimately if we trade down and pick one of them I will probably be OK with it, but would have wished we picked one of the higher tier players instead. IMO those tier 3 players are ideal if we trade back to 15 with the appropriate compensation of course. 

[Dr. T]

This is why we are not trading down to #12.

[Indy Fan]

1 hour ago, Dr. T said:

This is why we are not trading down to #12.

Bills could always blow us away with an offer. 

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, Indy Fan said:

Bills could always blow us away with an offer. 

 

Ballard wouldn't move unless the Bills blow him away with an offer. It would take their current two first round picks, a 2nd and a 3rd for him to consider the move from 6 to 12, IMO, if the precedent from the Jets trade is any indication.

 

If the Bills balk at it, they take their chances.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Ballard wouldn't move unless the Bills blow him away with an offer. It would take their current two first round picks, a 2nd and a 3rd for him to consider the move from 6 to 12, IMO, if the precedent from the Jets trade is any indication.

 

If the Bills balk at it, they take their chances.

 

If they dont move up before and theres a Top 4 QB left at #6, they wont balk. 

Then theres the Phinns who also want a QB. But the Bills are a more attractive trade partner.

[Indy Fan]

11 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Ballard wouldn't move unless the Bills blow him away with an offer. It would take their current two first round picks, a 2nd and a 3rd for him to consider the move from 6 to 12, IMO, if the precedent from the Jets trade is any indication.

 

If the Bills balk at it, they take their chances.

I’d personally want their 12, 2018 2nd, and 2019 1st. Gamble they are bad next year. Could always bundle a 2nd with the 12 to try and get Edmunds/Smith at 10.

[krunk]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

FIrst of all some thoughts from me on Barkley in light of recent statements from Irsay and Ballard - with the Colts brass laying down their plan as a 3 year rebuild I think taking Barkley that high(6) is unthinkable. In essence you would be taking a player at one of the most brittle positions in the league, a position that hardly ever gets high second contract with the original team and you are saying you will spend the first 3 years of that first contract not expecting to contend. I have no idea why one would want to take Barkley in this case? To me it makes no sense... and again for those who would jump on me - I still think Barkley is one of the best players in the draft. It still doesn't make the value right and it still doesn't make the longevity issues of the position disappear. I would absolutely hate it if we picked Barkley at 6.

 

With that said... here's my fluid top 12(QBs excluded)

----------------------------------------------------------------tier 1

1. Bradley Chubb

2. Minkah Fitzpatrick (if we think he can play fulltime outside CB)

3. Quenton Nelson

4. Tremaine Edmunds

----------------------------------------------------------------tier 2

5. Derwin James 

6. Denzel Ward

7. Minkah Fitzpatrick(if we think he cannot play fulltime outside CB)

8. Roquan Smith

----------------------------------------------------------------tier 3

9. Harold Landry

10. Maurice Hurst

11. Connor Williams (if we think he can play OT)

12. Saquon Barkley Jaire Alexander

 

 

So if we assume 4 QBs and Barkley go before pick 12, this means at 12 we would probably have exactly one player out of tier 1 or tier 2 left(IMO only Edmunds from my tier 1 can realistically drop to 12, but not likely), so in essence we wouldn't really have a choice if those are indeed the tiers. We will have to pick whoever is left.

 

I can see Ward not being super high on our board though(scheme), so we would probably have to drop a tier if he's the one left. My tier 3 is the players I kind of like but I'm not sure they have the value to be picked at 12. Ultimately if we trade down and pick one of them I will probably be OK with it, but would have wished we picked one of the higher tier players instead. IMO those tier 3 players are ideal if we trade back to 15 with the appropriate compensation of course. 

I guess you missed the part in Holders article where he said the Colts see Barkley as nearly Flawless.   And then you heard Irsays commentary saying at 6 we could go Franchise Running Back,  Offensive Lineman, or  Pass Rusher.   I think this is more of your personal feelings but it's sort of clear they don't have the same take on the issue. I think it's definitely possible they would select Barkley at 6.  I know this and everyone knows I like Chubb the most out of all of them. "Nearly Flawless" is being used for only one guy out of that list.

 

As for what the Colts think of the individual prospects, we know they see Barkley as nearly flawless. That’s in line with pretty much the rest of the NFL. Chubb is an interesting evaluation. He’s not a freakish player in the mold of Von Miller but, internally, the Colts have used Terrell Suggs as a comparison due to their similar physicality and power. And at Notre Dame’s pro day last week, Ballard said of Nelson, “You can see his natural power. He’s a big, strong man. He’s got quick feet, good agility and balance, so you saw about everything you wanted to see. You saw it on tape, too.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/03/27/insider-what-learned-who-colts-select-nfl-draft/462245002/

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, Indy Fan said:

I’d personally want their 12, 2018 2nd, and 2019 1st. Gamble they are bad next year. Could always bundle a 2nd with the 12 to try and get Edmunds/Smith at 10.

 

If that is their offer, I would take both their firsts this year and their first next year if I were Ballard.  

[stitches]

29 minutes ago, krunk said:

I guess you missed the part in Holders article where he said the Colts see Barkley as nearly Flawless.   And then you heard Irsays commentary saying at 6 we could go Franchise Running Back,  Offensive Lineman, or  Pass Rusher.   I think this is more of your personal feelings but it's sort of clear they don't have the same take on the issue. I think it's definitely possible they would select Barkley at 6.  I know this and everyone knows I like Chubb the most out of all of them. "Nearly Flawless" is being used for only one guy out of that list.

 

As for what the Colts think of the individual prospects, we know they see Barkley as nearly flawless. That’s in line with pretty much the rest of the NFL. Chubb is an interesting evaluation. He’s not a freakish player in the mold of Von Miller but, internally, the Colts have used Terrell Suggs as a comparison due to their similar physicality and power. And at Notre Dame’s pro day last week, Ballard said of Nelson, “You can see his natural power. He’s a big, strong man. He’s got quick feet, good agility and balance, so you saw about everything you wanted to see. You saw it on tape, too.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/03/27/insider-what-learned-who-colts-select-nfl-draft/462245002/

Oh, it's very possible they do pick him and they do like him this much. Hell even I like him a ton. He's the best RB I've watched coming out of college football in the last several years. And I still think it will be a horrible mistake to take him at 6. Just the value is not there, especially if you expect to spend the first 2-3 years of his rookie contract not even in contention but in a rebuild.  

[shasta519]

51 minutes ago, krunk said:

I guess you missed the part in Holders article where he said the Colts see Barkley as nearly Flawless.   And then you heard Irsays commentary saying at 6 we could go Franchise Running Back,  Offensive Lineman, or  Pass Rusher.   I think this is more of your personal feelings but it's sort of clear they don't have the same take on the issue. I think it's definitely possible they would select Barkley at 6.  I know this and everyone knows I like Chubb the most out of all of them. "Nearly Flawless" is being used for only one guy out of that list.

 

As for what the Colts think of the individual prospects, we know they see Barkley as nearly flawless. That’s in line with pretty much the rest of the NFL. Chubb is an interesting evaluation. He’s not a freakish player in the mold of Von Miller but, internally, the Colts have used Terrell Suggs as a comparison due to their similar physicality and power. And at Notre Dame’s pro day last week, Ballard said of Nelson, “You can see his natural power. He’s a big, strong man. He’s got quick feet, good agility and balance, so you saw about everything you wanted to see. You saw it on tape, too.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/03/27/insider-what-learned-who-colts-select-nfl-draft/462245002/

 

I think Irsay's quote is just more posturing. I think there is definitely some truth to it...but it also serves a purpose. I can't see the Colts being that transparent. Ballard runs a very tight ship...and Irsay knows this.

 

It's all about misinformation around this time of year...and I think this quote is meant to drive up the price for trading back from #6. Pair that with Ballard's comment about still getting a premium player at #6 and you have some leverage in a trade back.

 

With Irsay's quote from that same interview about acquiring top picks if possible, I think if a QB slips to #6 and BUF/MIA call...Ballard makes the deal if the price is good (which it would be).

[shasta519]

50 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

If that is their offer, I would take both their firsts this year and their first next year if I were Ballard.  

 

That would be an incredibe haul. It hurts to miss out on Edmunds, but you could get Jamesand LVE...and then next season grab a top DL player.

[krunk]

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I think Irsay's quote is just more posturing. I think there is definitely some truth to it...but it also serves a purpose. I can't see the Colts being that transparent. Ballard runs a very tight ship...and Irsay knows this.

 

It's all about misinformation around this time of year...and I think this quote is meant to drive up the price for trading back from #6. Pair that with Ballard's comment about still getting a premium player at #6 and you have some leverage in a trade back.

 

With Irsay's quote from that same interview about acquiring top picks if possible, I think if a QB slips to #6 and BUF/MIA call...Ballard makes the deal if the price is good (which it would be).

I think there is a whole lot of truth to it.    Personally I want Chubb, but I don't think too many will fault him if they take Barkely there.   If they do it wont be for too long.   We were in a very similar position years ago when Polian made the Edgerrin James pick.  I don't prefer personally to take Barkley there but I won't be mad for too long.  Ballard said he is looking for Difference Makers with that #6 pick and I can't say that Barkley isn't one of them.

[scooter4910]

 

9 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I'd trade with Cardinals if 2019 1st was in play

I seem to recall that you said "If Chubb Nelson or Barkley are there at 6 there's 0% chance we trade down"
 

[scooter4910]

I would be very happy trading back to a couple of low ranked 1st round pics and/or multiple 2nd rounders for the 6th. With a complete rebuild we have many holes to fill and I'd rather have multiple "good" players rather than one great player......it's a whole team effort.

 

"A study conducted by Worcester Polytechnic Institute says there's more value for second-round draft picks than first-rounders. The analysis of the past 13 seasons shows that second-rounders provide 70 percent of the production of first-round picks but at just 40 percent of the salary. "That's a significant value and it tells me that general managers should give more value to second- and third-round picks,"

 

PS....that was from an ESPN article from 2013.

[danlhart87]

36 minutes ago, scooter4910 said:

 

I seem to recall that you said "If Chubb Nelson or Barkley are there at 6 there's 0% chance we trade down"
 

Yes and if they are there 0% chance we trade down. If not then the options are endless.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

I think there is a whole lot of truth to it.    Personally I want Chubb, but I don't think too many will fault him if they take Barkely there.   If they do it wont be for too long.   We were in a very similar position years ago when Polian made the Edgerrin James pick.  I don't prefer personally to take Barkley there but I won't be mad for too long.  Ballard said he is looking for Difference Makers with that #6 pick and I can't say that Barkley isn't one of them.

 

I have like 6-7 players I will be fine drafting in the 1st round, depending on where they pick. It's going to be hard to disappoint me this year.

 

As for Barkley, while I am not in favor of drafting a RB that early, it could make sense as a way to take pressure off the passing game and especially Luck coming back from injury. And if Luck can't play, it could even be a shift in offensive identity. Those two sort of go hand-in-hand.

 

Ultimately, I think he ends up in CLE as an  integral part of RPO offense that is run-centric.

[krunk]

25 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I have like 6-7 players I will be fine drafting in the 1st round, depending on where they pick. It's going to be hard to disappoint me this year.

 

As for Barkley, while I am not in favor of drafting a RB that early, it could make sense as a way to take pressure off the passing game and especially Luck coming back from injury. And if Luck can't play, it could even be a shift in offensive identity. Those two sort of go hand-in-hand.

 

Ultimately, I think he ends up in CLE as an  integral part of RPO offense that is run-centric.

It's not my preference, but if they select Barkley I think it fits into what Reich wants to do which is be a top 10 rushing attack.   I think he also helps out the passing game because he's an excellent receiver and of course he increases the threat of the play action game.  This offense seems to have a lot of high percentage throws to RB out of the backfield just from the couple times I watched Philly.  Look at Leveon Bell he's darn near like a 2nd receiver. Barkley is in that same mold.  He is also an excellent blocker so that's another plus.  Biggest thing somebody can argue is value but that's in the eye of the beholder to be honest.  

[Rackeen305]

Stay put at 6 and draft Nelson/Chubb. Trying to anticipate a particular player being available as you move further and further down the draft for hypothetical picks/players in another year's draft doesn't always pan out.

 

If you got a guy in mind at 6, pick him. We've already flipped a pick in this year's draft.

 

P.S. I won't be surprised if Barkley is also available at 6.

[DougDew]

Despite this forum constantly focusing on the top 3 nonQBs, NCFs list shows that there are impactful players through #12.  I think his list is spot on.

 

Having said that, I think Vita Vea is also in that group from the DT position, and Gruden might take him instead of James.  At 12, we might have a choice between two of NCFs players rather than just the last one left.

 

I'd be happy with any of the non QBs if we trade back, except Ward and Vea.

 

[Defjamz26]

What I don’t get is why the Bills would trade up with the Colts in the first place. Who are they trying to jump for a QB? And what QB is going to be left that they need to trade up for? If anything, they’d try and trade with the Browns at 4 to jump the Broncos, or the Broncos themselves. If the Giants really do pass on a QB, then the Bills will need to get to #4 or #5

[esmort]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

What I don’t get is why the Bills would trade up with the Colts in the first place. Who are they trying to jump for a QB? And what QB is going to be left that they need to trade up for? If anything, they’d try and trade with the Browns at 4 to jump the Broncos, or the Broncos themselves. If the Giants really do pass on a QB, then the Bills will need to get to #4 or #5

 

If they want a QB they will definitely want to jump the Dolphins, and they have to think Arizona is also possibly in play and looking to move up. 

 

They very well could trade up in front of us, but depending on how the board falls they may unwilling or unable to get up there; and there is a realistic chance a QB is there at #6. 

 

If a QB does happen to be at 6 they want, I think they almost have to make a play. Any lower and it starts getting into the territory where it's affordable enough that they could mess around and let Miami or Arizona sneak in a deal before them. 

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

What I don’t get is why the Bills would trade up with the Colts in the first place. Who are they trying to jump for a QB? And what QB is going to be left that they need to trade up for? If anything, they’d try and trade with the Browns at 4 to jump the Broncos, or the Broncos themselves. If the Giants really do pass on a QB, then the Bills will need to get to #4 or #5

Agreed. Buffalo is most likely wanting to trade to 2 or 4, IMO. 

 

I think our most likely trade partner would be with Miami who would trade up to a non-top 5 pick to choose Baker Mayfield.  They would be competing with ARIZ.  Neither team has the power to trade up into the top 5 so they might fear the other will jump to #6, especially if Ballard indicates its for sale.

 

Also, I think its possible that ARIZ might trade up in the second round to get a QB like Mason Rudolph.  If they didn't have enough ammunition to trade up from 15 in the 1st, they may want to be sure to get a QB in this draft and trade up from 47 to our 37.  Value chart is a perfect match for them to give us pick #97 to make the jump.  We'd have 36, 47, 49, 67, 97 and 104.  I'd make that second round trade if offered.

[NorthernBlue]

Tier 1

1. Barkley

2. Chubb

3. Nelson

4. Darnold 

 

Tier 2

5. Rosen

6. Edmunds

7. Fitzpatrick

8. Ward

 

Tier 3

9. Smith

10. James 

11. Vea

12. Davenport 

 

If they were to trade back again, the key will be to grab as many day 1 starters as possible, including with that first pick. That’s why I’d value guys like Vea and Smith over a higher ceiling guy like Davenport. 

 

Meanwhile Denzel Ward’s ability to be a number 1 corner is starting to make him rise. If Fitzpatrick can only play safety, then I fully expect Ward to go higher.

[Defjamz26]

3 hours ago, esmort said:

 

If they want a QB they will definitely want to jump the Dolphins, and they have to think Arizona is also possibly in play and looking to move up. 

 

They very well could trade up in front of us, but depending on how the board falls they may unwilling or unable to get up there; and there is a realistic chance a QB is there at #6. 

 

If a QB does happen to be at 6 they want, I think they almost have to make a play. Any lower and it starts getting into the territory where it's affordable enough that they could mess around and let Miami or Arizona sneak in a deal before them. 

In that Scenario it only makes sense to trade in front of us. The Broncos could also take a QB. But whenever you trade up, you’re trying to get as far ahead as you can where you won’t be jumped by another team. Realistically, if you can’t get a deal with the Giants done, you have to get to 4 or 5.

 

But 6 isn’t the magical spot. Say Mayfield is there at 6. He will be there at 7,8,9, and 10. So then, the next best thing would be to trade to 7. If no trades are made from picks 1-6 and a QB is available, then 7 is the spot. No one could get in front of them. And Buffalo knows no one has the capital to outbid them. The Dolphins and Cards aren’t going to mortgage their future for Mayfield. Rosen maybe.

[esmort]

6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

In that Scenario it only makes sense to trade in front of us. The Broncos could also take a QB. But whenever you trade up, you’re trying to get as far ahead as you can where you won’t be jumped by another team. Realistically, if you can’t get a deal with the Giants done, you have to get to 4 or 5.

 

But 6 isn’t the magical spot. Say Mayfield is there at 6. He will be there at 7,8,9, and 10. So then, the next best thing would be to trade to 7. If no trades are made from picks 1-6 and a QB is available, then 7 is the spot. No one could get in front of them. And Buffalo knows no one has the capital to outbid them. The Dolphins and Cards aren’t going to mortgage their future for Mayfield. Rosen maybe.

 

As I said I agree #6 is not necessarily a "magical" number and that they could very well trade in front of us. But, I also believe there are likely scenarios that make #6 a target.

 

Just for example if the Giants and the Browns really like who is sitting there at #2 & #4 than those 2 picks may be priced too high ... rumor has it the Jets tried for #2 and the asking price was too high, so it's very possible that the Giants pick is off the market short of an RG3 type offer. And we know the Jets are taking a QB. So that leaves the Broncos at #5; Elway may want his QB here in which case he isn't trading out. There is also the chance in this scenario the the Broncos really want Nelson (or even someone else) and don't really want to trade out for a reasonable price.

 

If one of these scenarios(or something similar) was to play out than the #6 pick definitely comes into play.  I believe if Mayfield is there at #6 Buff, Miami, and Ariz. are all calling. I think most teams believe the Colts pick is definitely for sale and those 3 teams know if they don't make an offer the Colts may deal it to one of the others, and I think Ballard may be much more willing to deal the pick than many believe and won't require a "mortgage your future" type price.

 

I don't necessarily think it will play out like this, but it has been a crazy off season that may carry over to the draft so I I wouldn't bet against it either.

[Defjamz26]

4 hours ago, esmort said:

 

As I said I agree #6 is not necessarily a "magical" number and that they could very well trade in front of us. But, I also believe there are likely scenarios that make #6 a target.

 

Just for example if the Giants and the Browns really like who is sitting there at #2 & #4 than those 2 picks may be priced too high ... rumor has it the Jets tried for #2 and the asking price was too high, so it's very possible that the Giants pick is off the market short of an RG3 type offer. And we know the Jets are taking a QB. So that leaves the Broncos at #5; Elway may want his QB here in which case he isn't trading out. There is also the chance in this scenario the the Broncos really want Nelson (or even someone else) and don't really want to trade out for a reasonable price.

 

If one of these scenarios(or something similar) was to play out than the #6 pick definitely comes into play.  I believe if Mayfield is there at #6 Buff, Miami, and Ariz. are all calling. I think most teams believe the Colts pick is definitely for sale and those 3 teams know if they don't make an offer the Colts may deal it to one of the others, and I think Ballard may be much more willing to deal the pick than many believe and won't require a "mortgage your future" type price.

 

I don't necessarily think it will play out like this, but it has been a crazy off season that may carry over to the draft so I I wouldn't bet against it either.

That does make sense. But I think given our many needs, people just have trade down fever now. You trade down to 12 and you’re missing out on a premium player. And that’s what Ballard is looking for. I don’t think he’s trading out of a pick that could be Chubb, Edmunds, Barkley, Nelson, or Fitzpatrick for 2 firsts that’ll net guys like Landry, McGlinchey, etc...The Colts don’t have to fix everything in one draft, which is why people want us to keep trading down. The Colts rarely pick in the top 10. Would be a shame to not get a top level talent.

[Carlos Danger]

On 3/28/2018 at 12:26 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

So...    I believe Buffalo is as far back as we'd consider trading.    Not only do they have a ton of draft picks this year,  but I believe they project to be a sub-500 team this coming year so their 2019 picks would also be desirable.   That makes them a target depending on what they're offering.

 

I wondered what might our top-12 picks look like?     We have to consider the possible players that might be there when pick 12 comes around....

 

This would be my current top-12.     I'm sure you'll have plenty of disagreements,  especially from 8-12.    But for me,  on balance,  in what ever order you prefer,  these would be the top-12 names...      So.....

 

1.   Barkley

2.   Nelson

3.   Chubb

 

4.   Mayfield

5.   Darnold

6.   Rosen

7.   Allen

 

8.   Edmunds

9.   Smith

10. James

11. Ward

12.  Fitz

 

Try not to focus on how I have the QB's ranked.    For purposes of this exercise,  it really doesn't matter,  we aren't interested in them.   And any team trading up for them is paying to get a possible franchise QB no matter the rank.     It's players 8-12 that are important.   Because ONE of THEM would be our pick at 12.    You'll likely see players 8-12 different than I do,  and that's fine.    But one of them will likely be our pick at 12.

 

To me,  if you favor someone else not on my list,  that player is a tier lower on my board.   I think there is a line after 12.    So, I'm not willing to go lower than 12.

 

If you love someone that I don't have as a top-12,  I'd love to know who that is....   this is the time for that free wheeling discussion!

 

 

 I pretty much agree with your list, except I'd drop Edmunds off the list and add M. Hurst.... Maybe I'd change the order a little, but I think you have all of the players id have... except Hurst. 

[esmort]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

That does make sense. But I think given our many needs, people just have trade down fever now. You trade down to 12 and you’re missing out on a premium player. And that’s what Ballard is looking for. I don’t think he’s trading out of a pick that could be Chubb, Edmunds, Barkley, Nelson, or Fitzpatrick for 2 firsts that’ll net guys like Landry, McGlinchey, etc...The Colts don’t have to fix everything in one draft, which is why people want us to keep trading down. The Colts rarely pick in the top 10. Would be a shame to not get a top level talent.

 

EDIT (deleted part of reply): Oops sorry when I first read it I misread and thought you said it "doean't make sense"

 

 

As far as staying at #6 or trading down ... I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I would prefer to trade down if Chubb isn't there (and maybe even if he is). I don't like the idea of a Guard or RB at #6 (I don't care if they are "generational"); I would rather trade down and take whoever falls to the 12 range (I think there will likely be someone good there) and collect more picks for this year or next.  If the offer is good enough we could possibly even trade down and then back up a few spots and still see a nice profit.

[aaron11]

we have plenty of picks already, id rather get a top 5 player at #6 overall instead of trade back again

 

 

[Luck 4 president]

If we trade back I hope we take Vita Vea. He is a monster and could impact our defense as much as Chubb 

[Kyle]

On 3/28/2018 at 10:09 AM, Indy Fan said:

I’d personally want their 12, 2018 2nd, and 2019 1st. Gamble they are bad next year. Could always bundle a 2nd with the 12 to try and get Edmunds/Smith at 10.

not enough.  If the Bills want our 6th pick, they are going to need to offer their 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks, and next years 1st

[Kyle]

18 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

You trade down to 12 and you’re missing out on a premium player. And that’s what Ballard is looking for. 

I agree.  For the Colts to trade down to 12, Buffalo would have to offer us WAY more than moving up 6 spots usually would cost.

 

The Colts would be giving up a sure thing elite player and be taking more of a gamble at 12, and the Bills would be moving up to get their franchise QB.  For the Colts to even start considering moving down, Buf would have to offer something like both their 1st rounders, both their 2nd rounders, and next years 1st.  maybe even more 

 

I like the idea of a Nelson, Chubb, Barkley BUT  2 1st round, 5 2nd round, and 2 1st next year sounds intriguing 

[polk_high_allstar]

I doubt that we would ever get a 2019 1st from them. @scooter4910 has a good point about the 2nds though. Would rather have their two 2nds (53,56) and their high 3rd (65) instead of the 22nd overall to go with the 12th pick. We got a lot of holes that we didn't fill in FA and think a trade like this would be great for both teams. We get picks we need and the bills don't feel like we fleeced them. 

[rockywoj]

43 minutes ago, Kyle said:

not enough.  If the Bills want our 6th pick, they are going to need to offer their 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks, and next years 1st

I would speculate you are drastically over valuing it. I think the # 6 pick can be had for both of the Bill’s number 1s and their 3rd rounder this year, and a number 2 next year.  Maybe even just their two number 1s and one 2nd rounder this year.

[FalseStart]

Nice Post.  Based on the craziness that we all have seen over the past few drafts...the top 12 will be infiltrated by the asinine player evaluations and comical decisions of other... football organizations.  This will result in 1-5 (Including QBs) random players getting picked much earlier than they should have.

[HectorRoberts]

5 hours ago, rockywoj said:

I would speculate you are drastically over valuing it. I think the # 6 pick can be had for both of the Bill’s number 1s and their 3rd rounder this year, and a number 2 next year.  Maybe even just their two number 1s and one 2nd rounder this year.

Why would settle? Buffalo will be desperate if their “franchise quarterback” is still there at #6

[Indy Fan]

1 hour ago, HectorRoberts said:

Why would settle? Buffalo will be desperate if their “franchise quarterback” is still there at #6

If that’s what they were offering they would just jump up to the Giants and bypass us all together. Look at the Mahomes trade last year for somewhat a baseline.

[NewColtsFan]

12 hours ago, Kyle said:

not enough.  If the Bills want our 6th pick, they are going to need to offer their 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks, and next years 1st

 

I think it's a waste to even ask for that.

 

Because I think one or both of the Giants at 2 or the Browns at 4 would take that offer,  allowing Buffalo to leap way over the Colts to most any QB they'd want.

 

We have to ask enough to make it worth while for the Colts ---- but not so much that that the offer is too expensive and Buffalo shops that to a higher team in the draft order.

 

It gets a little tricky....