Sirius XM’s Moving The Chains, Mock V2.0

[rockywoj]

From their show this past Friday ...

 

 

 

[rockywoj]

Sorry, posted this from my phone.  The screen shot I took was very clear, but looking at the post here on my phone, it looks blurry. Is this readable to you guys?

 

(Usually I post from my computer or iPad)

 

[rockywoj]

Anyway, they had the Colts making two trades:

 

1. w/Bills ... Colts get #’s 12 & 22, give up #’s 6 & 67.

 

1. w/Seattle ... Colts get # 18, give up #’s 36, 37, & 104

 

In first round, Colts choose:

 

12.  CB Denzel Ward

18.  DE Harold Landry

22.  OT Mike McGlinchy

 

 

[Qcolts]

8 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Sorry, posted this from my phone.  The screen shot I took was very clear, but looking at the post here on my phone, it looks blurry. Is this readable to you guys?

 

(Usually I post from my computer or iPad)

Very blurry .  I would be very happy with that haul you mentioned in your third post but I have a hard time seeing Landry there at 18. 

[rockywoj]

Personally, in that first trade, I don’t like that they have the Colts giving up # 67 as well.  I wouldn’t do that trade.  The # 6 for 12 & 22, mayyyybe, but I think I’d want an additional 2nd or 3rd to make that trade. 

 

Second trade, again I don’t care for the trade.  I’d rather just roll with the three existing picks, instead of trading up. 

 

Now all that being said, the haul of getting Ward, Landry, & McGlinchy would be pretty awesome.

[rockywoj]

5 minutes ago, Qcolts said:

Very blurry .  I would be very happy with that haul you mentioned in your third post but I have a hard time seeing Landry there at 18. 

Yeah, I don’t understand why it uploads blurry when the picture itself is crystal clear.  Weird.  I will try to search out a text summary of their mock, to post in place of the screenshot picture (unless somebody wants to beat me to it).

[NewColtsFan]

I'm not interested in either deal....   and I don't think Ballard would be either....

 

First...   a 2 for 2 trade...   no thanks.

 

Second, we're giving up three picks to get one?    No.   Hell no!!   No chance.

 

Taken together....    thanks I'll happily pass... 

 

Uuuuugggh!       

 

 

[Hoose]

What a stupid trade proposal. Hit the ignore button. 

[MTC]

2 hours ago, rockywoj said:

Anyway, they had the Colts making two trades:

 

1. w/Bills ... Colts get #’s 12 & 22, give up #’s 6 & 67.

 

1. w/Seattle ... Colts get # 18, give up #’s 36, 37, & 104

 

In first round, Colts choose:

 

12.  CB Denzel Ward

18.  DE Harold Landry

22.  OT Mike McGlinchy

 

 

 

I like all three of those players, but to give up all those picks is troubling. 

[shasta519]

No way am I giving up that leverage and opportunity on day two. The best part about having those two early 2nd rounders is that the talent pool after pick 12 or so really starts to get murky. And some of the guys who could go at #18 could end up being available on day two. Having the opportunity to grab not one, but two "1st round talents" that slip is huge.

 

If anything, I think Ballard is looking to trade back. The only way I see him trading up again (at least early) is if he can get another trade down to the 10-12 range...and then use one of those picks he has gotten to move up back up a couple spots and end up with a net profit.

 

Now later on in the draft, I could see Ballard maneuvering up in a certain spot, but not early on.

[TomDiggs]

I still get baffled at how many mock trades these writers and experts propose that have us trading pick 6 and another pick just to get 12 and 22 with Buffalo.

 

I suppose that'd be normal if it were to move up in a vacuum.

 

But in this circumstance that every beat writer seems to highlight, it is to move up for one of two things (both QB scenarios):

 

1. A top 3 QB falls to 6 after only 2 QBs go in the top 5

2. A big run on QBs hits the top 5 with 3-4 going

 

Both these scenarios create huge desire for our pick.

 

Either a top-3 QB lingers (who could easily be the top or the 2nd rated QB on a team's board that is looking to move up), or the last legit prospect on a team's ranking board is remaining and they desperately need to move up to secure him.

 

In both scenarios the premium is going to be more than the norm.

 

I just cannot see the Colts moving back from 6 unless it is for some crazy offer.

 

Something like 12, 22 and a second rounder this year or a first next year.

 

I cannot see Buffalo making that offer to us unless they try with the Giants, Browns and Broncos and fail three times and we are the next ones up.

 

But crazier stuff has happened so who knows.

 

At this point I am actually hoping to just stay at 6 and pick unless only 2 QBs are gone. Then I say trade back and see what happens.

 

 

[rockywoj]

Forgetting the trade back up that they mocked ... and forgetting the extra # 67 they mocked in the trade-back with the Bills, would both Bill’s 1sts (12 & 22) be enough for the # 6?

 

To quantify it based on their mock, that would be the Colts getting both CB Denzel Ward and OT Mike McGlinchy in return for the opportunity to get one of, say, Quenton Nelson, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Tremaine Edwards, or Roquan Smith.  So, are the two players mocked to the Colts enough to get in return for one of those higher rated four?

 

I know that for me, if in addition to #’s 12 & 22, if the Bills were to also part with a 3rd rounder this year or a 2nd rounder next year, then I’d happily make the trade, but I’m just not sure I’d pull the trigger for the two firsts alone.  Like I said earlier, though, I’m certainly not also giving the # 67, as they mocked.

[MikeCurtis]

I am not sure why people like Ward to go to the Colts

 

He is listed at 5 10" , which makes him a bit shorter than needed in the new defense

 

A great player...... just doesnt seem to fit the mold

 

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I am not sure why people like Ward to go to the Colts

 

He is listed at 5 10" , which makes him a bit shorter than needed in the new defense

 

A great player...... just doesnt seem to fit the mold

 

If the player plays the position good his height makes no difference.

Exactly what is the mold? There hasn't been a past to say what the mold is.

[MikeCurtis]

45 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If the player plays the position good his height makes no difference.

Exactly what is the mold? There hasn't been a past to say what the mold is.

It appears from the CBs that play in the defense that the Colts will be playing are typically 6ft to 6ft2"

and are also known for thier tackling

 

For example, Dion Sanders was HOF on Man to man defense, but becasue of his lack of tackling, he WOULDNT do as well in a Tampa 2 style.

 

The other benefit that you get from this type of defense, is you can play it with guys that are a step slower, as the action is almost always in front of you.  

 

The Cover 2 defense also allows you to not use a first round pick on a CB (especially on a team with so many holes to fill.... like the Colts)

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, rockywoj said:

Forgetting the trade back up that they mocked ... and forgetting the extra # 67 they mocked in the trade-back with the Bills, would both Bill’s 1sts (12 & 22) be enough for the # 6?

 

To quantify it based on their mock, that would be the Colts getting both CB Denzel Ward and OT Mike McGlinchy in return for the opportunity to get one of, say, Quenton Nelson, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Tremaine Edwards, or Roquan Smith.  So, are the two players mocked to the Colts enough to get in return for one of those higher rated four?

 

I know that for me, if in addition to #’s 12 & 22, if the Bills were to also part with a 3rd rounder this year or a 2nd rounder next year, then I’d happily make the trade, but I’m just not sure I’d pull the trigger for the two firsts alone.  Like I said earlier, though, I’m certainly not also giving the # 67, as they mocked.

 

JMO,  a trade back from 6 would have to include next year's 1st in the trade package. 

[crazycolt1]

12 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

It appears from the CBs that play in the defense that the Colts will be playing are typically 6ft to 6ft2"

and are also known for thier tackling

 

For example, Dion Sanders was HOF on Man to man defense, but becasue of his lack of tackling, he WOULDNT do as well in a Tampa 2 style.

 

The other benefit that you get from this type of defense, is you can play it with guys that are a step slower, as the action is almost always in front of you.  

 

The Cover 2 defense also allows you to not use a first round pick on a CB (especially on a team with so many holes to fill.... like the Colts)

The thing is we don't want our CBs making too many tackles. If that happens then the linebackers are not doing their jobs. That is the one spot we have struggled with for quite a while now. We have seen entirely too many 5 yard passes going for 20 plus yards. We have also been victim of RBs breaking off huge chunks of yards when they get past the LOS.

It's shouldn't be up to the CBs to make tackles.

[MikeCurtis]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

It's shouldn't be up to the CBs to make tackles.

We can respectfully disagree

 

In a Cover 2, your CBs have to tackle. 

 

They should never have the tackle stats of a LB

 

But if the WR catches the ball in fron of them, they better bring them down

 

On sweeps, the WR will sometimes come in and blocks the LB from that side

 

In many cases, that leaves the CB, one on one with a RB - He better get the tackle 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, MikeCurtis said:

We can respectfully disagree

 

In a Cover 2, your CBs have to tackle. 

 

They should never have the tackle stats of a LB

 

But if the WR catches the ball in fron of them, they better bring them down

 

On sweeps, the WR will sometimes come in and blocks the LB from that side

 

In many cases, that leaves the CB, one on one with a RB - He better get the tackle 

A good tackler does not have to be 6 ft. or taller no matter what position he plays.

Some of the best CBs in the league have not been that tall.

Malcolm Jenkins 6 ft

Vontae Davis 5-11

Darious Butler 5-11

Alphoso Smith 5-9

This is a couple of examples of my point. It's not the size, it's the talent of the player.

[Finball]

30 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

A good tackler does not have to be 6 ft. or taller no matter what position he plays.

Some of the best CBs in the league have not been that tall.

Malcolm Jenkins 6 ft

Vontae Davis 5-11

Darious Butler 5-11

Alphoso Smith 5-9

This is a couple of examples of my point. It's not the size, it's the talent of the player.

 

I might be missing a joke but Alphonso Smith was a major, major bust.

 

FTR, I agree that size alone doesn't mean great tackler. I've bigger issue with taking Ward at #12 because of the scheme we are going to use. If one is going to play mostly zone, corner shouldn't be taken that high.

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

I might be missing a joke but Alphonso Smith was a major, major bust.

 

FTR, I agree that size alone doesn't mean great tackler. I've bigger issue with taking Ward at #12 because of the scheme we are going to use. If one is going to play mostly zone, corner shouldn't be taken that high.

Smith had 2 great years with the Lions. Yes he fizzled out but the point was his ability to make tackles.

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, shastamasta said:

No way am I giving up that leverage and opportunity on day two. The best part about having those two early 2nd rounders is that the talent pool after pick 12 or so really starts to get murky. And some of the guys who could go at #18 could end up being available on day two. Having the opportunity to grab not one, but two "1st round talents" that slip is huge.

 

If anything, I think Ballard is looking to trade back. The only way I see him trading up again (at least early) is if he can get another trade down to the 10-12 range...and then use one of those picks he has gotten to move up back up a couple spots and end up with a net profit.

 

Now later on in the draft, I could see Ballard maneuvering up in a certain spot, but not early on.

Well said.  The talent becomes murky after about #12, so having a few picks before pick 50 is ideal, IMO.    Giving up so many picks for an undersized DE in Landry would really limit our opportunities.  We could even trade #37 to a team like ARIZ for #47 and #97 and still stay in the top 50. 

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

I still get baffled at how many mock trades these writers and experts propose that have us trading pick 6 and another pick just to get 12 and 22 with Buffalo.

 

I suppose that'd be normal if it were to move up in a vacuum.

 

But in this circumstance that every beat writer seems to highlight, it is to move up for one of two things (both QB scenarios):

 

1. A top 3 QB falls to 6 after only 2 QBs go in the top 5

2. A big run on QBs hits the top 5 with 3-4 going

 

Both these scenarios create huge desire for our pick.

 

Either a top-3 QB lingers (who could easily be the top or the 2nd rated QB on a team's board that is looking to move up), or the last legit prospect on a team's ranking board is remaining and they desperately need to move up to secure him.

 

In both scenarios the premium is going to be more than the norm.

 

I just cannot see the Colts moving back from 6 unless it is for some crazy offer.

 

Something like 12, 22 and a second rounder this year or a first next year.

 

I cannot see Buffalo making that offer to us unless they try with the Giants, Browns and Broncos and fail three times and we are the next ones up.

 

But crazier stuff has happened so who knows.

 

At this point I am actually hoping to just stay at 6 and pick unless only 2 QBs are gone. Then I say trade back and see what happens.

 

 

I can see Buffalo trading with NYG, CLEV, or DEN for the third top 3 QB.  I think Barkley and Chubb will go in there somewhere to round out the top 5.  Then MIA might call for our #6 to take Mayfield, and #6 isn't out of range for ARIZ at 15.

 

I think BUFF views our pick as too low, with three teams available to trade with; so I see MIA and ARIZ as the likely trade partners.

 

Their 2nd and 3rd rounders with next years 2nd rounder.  Maybe more if its ARIZ.

 

 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

I am not sure why people like Ward to go to the Colts

 

He is listed at 5 10" , which makes him a bit shorter than needed in the new defense

 

A great player...... just doesnt seem to fit the mold

 

 

Yep. I think Ballard has a type. And I also think he will value the position differently in this new defense.

 

In this draft, you can probably get a Meeks or McFadden (my preference) 2-3 rounds later. You can get Oliver in the 2nd round. Those are the types I expect him to go after...or someone in the later rounds.

[OffensivelyPC]

20 hours ago, rockywoj said:

Sorry, posted this from my phone.  The screen shot I took was very clear, but looking at the post here on my phone, it looks blurry. Is this readable to you guys?

 

(Usually I post from my computer or iPad)

 

It is not legible at all.  I'd give my input, but without knowing who the Colts passed up on, it's hard to say.

[Finball]

9 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Smith had 2 great years with the Lions. Yes he fizzled out but the point was his ability to make tackles.

 

Strongly disagree with great years. He was a liability. I can't specifically recall his tackling skills but I do remember he was among the league leaders in YAC surrendered to receivers.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

Strongly disagree with great years. He was a liability. I can't specifically recall his tackling skills but I do remember he was among the league leaders in YAC surrendered to receivers.

You are so worried about being right you overlooked the whole just of my comment.

[Finball]

24 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You are so worried about being right you overlooked the whole just of my comment.

 

Worried about being right on what?