Mel Kiper: Colts & Dolphins in deep discussion of trade

[needanoline63]

18 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

"All"bright is apparently "Not So"bright.

Good one

[throwing BBZ]

On 4/5/2018 at 2:55 PM, TKnight24 said:

That was my concern too. Watching Arian Foster & MJD run circles around us got old very quick 

 

I think this time will be different though. We still have Al Woods and a couple other bigger guys. I don’t mind having speed, but there better be some size there with it. Playoffs come around, teams will run the ball more. Gotta have physical fronts 

 

But I’m trusting in Ballard and the coaches to do this the right way

 

Well, there is no way we have DE's that are as Bad as Freeney and Mathis were against the run.

[ColtStrong2013]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think why I'm advocating that is because I no longer see much of a difference between the 7 players mentioned for who we could get at 6.  I don't think Chubb is a once-in-a-lifetime DE, and while Barkley and Nelson are probably better players than the other 5, their positional value knocks them down a bit.  So I see pick 6 and pick 11 being about the same for us.  Any of them would also fill a need.  So moving back 5 spots means nothing, so getting something now is pure profit.

 

If we liked a player at 6 who we didn't think would be there at 11, then I would need more for the pick. 

I think you are the only person I have seen thus far in this forum that agrees with this... 

 

Positional value is huge in determining value in the draft. If it weren't, teams wouldn't be jockeying to get position for a qb. Running back and Offensive guard has to be weighted poorly compared to a defensive end, which is why some value Chubb so high. It's not necessarily the player, more than the position. I can't help but think Ballard doesn't have those guys valued much higher, if at all, than several others on top of his board. 

[ColtStrong2013]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

I think you are the only person I have seen thus far in this forum that agrees with this... 

 

Positional value is huge in determining value in the draft. If it weren't, teams wouldn't be jockeying to get position for a qb. Running back and Offensive guard has to be weighted poorly compared to a defensive end, which is why some value Chubb so high. It's not necessarily the player, more than the position. I can't help but think Ballard doesn't have those guys valued much higher, if at all, than several others on top of his board. 

With that said, I'm not sure I agree in getting something now versus draft day. 

 

Crazy stuff happens on draft day, so I think it more wise to sit back and hope some teams make stupid decisions that might make #6 more valuable. He's been patient and methodical. There will be no quick moves with Ballard.

[Rackeen305]

20 hours ago, MarquisJ said:

if ballard pulls this one off (11th pick dolphins 2nd round and future 2nd or/and their RT) sheesh we might be looking at a 1-2 year turn around

FYI the Dolphins Starting RT wasn't that good. The Oline was better with a backup RT according to local radio host in Miami. JMO

[TKnight24]

2 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

FYI the Dolphins Starting RT wasn't that good. The Oline was better with a backup RT according to local radio host in Miami. JMO

He’s shown flashes and sometimes a change of scenery helps players 

 

He’s 25, that’s not old at all so he has more than enough room for progression. Coming off an injury just like Mewhort I’d imagine him being traded would make the chip that much bigger

 

I'd make the trade if the first 5 picks don’t go how CB & J. Irsay want them to go. 

 

Spend 2 picks on G or G/T and this offensive line is vastly improved and might be the best one Luck ever played behind if the picks pan out

 

Man I can’t wait for April 26th. So many options, scenarios, and possibilities 

 

[richard pallo]

33 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

FYI the Dolphins Starting RT wasn't that good. The Oline was better with a backup RT according to local radio host in Miami. JMO

They didn't have to exercise the fifth yr. option but they did.  That's 9.3m.  They obviously felt he was worth the investment.  I think he would be better than any RT we currently have on our roster.  And he is only 25yr.s old.  I would gladly take him as part of a trade.  

[poilucelt]

18 hours ago, DougDew said:

To save readers the math, our #6 is worth MIA #11 and their 3rd and 4th.  That's it folks.  If they give us their 2nd instead of the 3 and 4 they would be giving us too much.

 

If you throw in the idea they are trading up for a QB, then price negotiations change things, but as far as the chart, what people think we can get for 6 is way too high.

 

Of course, I'd trade to 11 for just the extra 2nd since the top 7 position players are about the same, top 8 including Vita Vea who we probably don't want, so there's no advantage for staying at 6 over moving to 11. JMO of course.

Generally agree, and I would add that the same argument applies to a trade with Buffalo.If you go by the Chart, #12 and #22 alone are worth more than #6, let alone Buffalo adding more picks on top of those.

 

And IMO it's not entirely true to say "for QB's the Chart doesn't apply" because, while it may not apply for, say, a healthy Luck coming out of Stanford, I think for most GMs it still applies, at least somewhat, for guys like Mayfield.

 

If Ballard really likes Chubb, or thinks Edmunds can become a superstar while Luck's still in his prime, I imagine he'll hold onto the pick. But if Chubb goes in the first 5, or Ballard's not entirely sold on either of those guys and a QB is still there at #6, I could see him fielding trade offers.

 

But in that scenario the Colts might have to give something to get even more in return. One hypothetical I saw somewhere had the Colts sending #6, #67 and #104 to Miami for #11, #42 and #73. To me a trade like that might make sense for both teams: Miami gets "their QB" and additional 3rd and 4th round picks, Colts get a likely starter at #11 (probably a defensive guy like Smith, Ward, Fitzpatrick or James) and move up from #67 to #42 and from #104 to #73.

 

Ballard then has #36, #37, #42, #49 in Round Two. And I've read where some scouts feel this year's Round Two talent is better overall (compared to previous Round Two's) than this year's Round One (compared to previous Round One's).

[Stephen]

The idea of 4 seconds is appealing

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

On 4/5/2018 at 7:58 AM, richard pallo said:

This is a trade that I think has a high probability of happening as I have said in other posts.  I have suggested a trade that would see us acquiring their 11th pick and their starting RT Juwan James who is in his 5th yr. option and is costing them 9.5m against the cap this year.  They have cap problems we don't.  This helps them with cap space and we get a young starting RT.  We probably get another pick or two as well.  If we trade with them I would be surprised if it didn't include James. 

Ok 1 is James any good 2 If we move to 11 I believe we pick Smith the LBer!

[TheRustonRifle#7]

4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

Well, there is no way we have DE's that are as Bad as Freeney and Mathis were against the run.

You will get crap for this but under Tony Dungy's "Tampa Two",  you are correct.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, CelticColt said:

Generally agree, and I would add that the same argument applies to a trade with Buffalo.If you go by the Chart, #12 and #22 alone are worth more than #6, let alone Buffalo adding more picks on top of those.

 

And IMO it's not entirely true to say "for QB's the Chart doesn't apply" because, while it may not apply for, say, a healthy Luck coming out of Stanford, I think for most GMs it still applies, at least somewhat, for guys like Mayfield.

 

If Ballard really likes Chubb, or thinks Edmunds can become a superstar while Luck's still in his prime, I imagine he'll hold onto the pick. But if Chubb goes in the first 5, or Ballard's not entirely sold on either of those guys and a QB is still there at #6, I could see him fielding trade offers.

 

But in that scenario the Colts might have to give something to get even more in return. One hypothetical I saw somewhere had the Colts sending #6, #67 and #104 to Miami for #11, #42 and #73. To me a trade like that might make sense for both teams: Miami gets "their QB" and additional 3rd and 4th round picks, Colts get a likely starter at #11 (probably a defensive guy like Smith, Ward, Fitzpatrick or James) and move up from #67 to #42 and from #104 to #73.

 

Ballard then has #36, #37, #42, #49 in Round Two. And I've read where some scouts feel this year's Round Two talent is better overall (compared to previous Round Two's) than this year's Round One (compared to previous Round One's).

I agree with most of the forum that thinks #6 will be worth a lot more on draft day than now if a QB is sitting there.  However, if the NYG, CLEV, and DEN picks all take QBs, pick 6 becomes worth squat, and we'll take a player that...IMO...is no better than the player we could get at 11. Barkley or Chubb likely gone by #6.

 

As far as your draft pick trade scenario, I'd want to end up with more overall picks in the first four rounds.  

[Hoose]

2 hours ago, CelticColt said:

Generally agree, and I would add that the same argument applies to a trade with Buffalo.If you go by the Chart, #12 and #22 alone are worth more than #6, let alone Buffalo adding more picks on top of those.

 

And IMO it's not entirely true to say "for QB's the Chart doesn't apply" because, while it may not apply for, say, a healthy Luck coming out of Stanford, I think for most GMs it still applies, at least somewhat, for guys like Mayfield.

 

If Ballard really likes Chubb, or thinks Edmunds can become a superstar while Luck's still in his prime, I imagine he'll hold onto the pick. But if Chubb goes in the first 5, or Ballard's not entirely sold on either of those guys and a QB is still there at #6, I could see him fielding trade offers.

 

But in that scenario the Colts might have to give something to get even more in return. One hypothetical I saw somewhere had the Colts sending #6, #67 and #104 to Miami for #11, #42 and #73. To me a trade like that might make sense for both teams: Miami gets "their QB" and additional 3rd and 4th round picks, Colts get a likely starter at #11 (probably a defensive guy like Smith, Ward, Fitzpatrick or James) and move up from #67 to #42 and from #104 to #73.

 

Ballard then has #36, #37, #42, #49 in Round Two. And I've read where some scouts feel this year's Round Two talent is better overall (compared to previous Round Two's) than this year's Round One (compared to previous Round One's).

No way the Colts have to give up a single pick to trade back. Miami would be trying to get their franchise QB. They will be in the Xmas mode. It’s the giving season. Their one and two and next year’s 1 or 2. 

[1959Colts]

1 hour ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Ok 1 is James any good 2 If we move to 11 I believe we pick Smith the LBer!

 

Maybe, but I won't be surprised if Roquan Smith is gone before pick 11

Even if he slips, I doubt he gets past the Raiders at pick 10.

[crestmount]

All this talk about trading down to get extra pick sounds good in theory, but when do you get to the point when you say 'we have to pick'.  I would rather get the potential all-pro who is still available than trade out to get a few guys who may or may not be starters.  If Nelson or Chubb are still available at 6, we have to take 1 of them--the gap between Chubb and the next DE is probably greater than between Nelson and the next OG, so I would probably take Chubb in that scenario (although I am seriously a fan of Nelson).

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

21 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

 

Maybe, but I won't be surprised if Roquan Smith is gone before pick 11

Even if he slips, I doubt he gets past the Raiders at pick 10.

Then honestly I want to stay at 6!! That is my lucky number!!

[poilucelt]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I agree with most of the forum that thinks #6 will be worth a lot more on draft day than now if a QB is sitting there.  However, if the NYG, CLEV, and DEN picks all take QBs, pick 6 becomes worth squat, and we'll take a player that...IMO...is no better than the player we could get at 11. Barkley or Chubb likely gone by #6.

 

As far as your draft pick trade scenario, I'd want to end up with more overall picks in the first four rounds.  

don't think you can end up with more overall picks in the first 4 rounds unless Ballard engineers some extra-terrestrial trade that involves 3 or more teams, or skips additional 2018 picks for future draft picks. I make no apologies for the fact that I don't like or trust "future draft picks." I'd be more inclined to accumulate any additional 2018 2nd round picks that I could at this point.

 

I don't expect all 4 "franchise" QB's to be taken in picks 1-5 but if they are IMO the Colts' #6 pick is still valuable to either use or trade. Of course it's wise for Ballard to wait and see what the ACTUAL 1-5 picks are on the 26th and then react accordingly; if it's 3 QB's and Chubb and Barkley, I think a realistic trade with Miami or Buffalo would be well worth his consideration. And the trade I mentioned would probably result in as many picks in the 1st 2 rounds (which matter more to me than Rounds 3 and 4) as Ballard could realistically hope to get.

 

But as I mentioned before, none of this conjecture matters if Ballard thinks Chubb (or Edmunds) is the Real Deal.

[NewColtsFan]

On 4/6/2018 at 5:33 PM, DougDew said:

I agree with most of the forum that thinks #6 will be worth a lot more on draft day than now if a QB is sitting there.  However, if the NYG, CLEV, and DEN picks all take QBs, pick 6 becomes worth squat, and we'll take a player that...IMO...is no better than the player we could get at 11. Barkley or Chubb likely gone by #6.

 

As far as your draft pick trade scenario, I'd want to end up with more overall picks in the first four rounds.  

 

Worth squat?!?    Huh?

 

If 3 QBs are taken plus two of Chubb, Nelson and Barkley that still leaves one of them left over. 

 

That guy, whoever he is, has great value.   Maybe not the value of a QB, but value. Plus there will still be the 4th quarterback whoever he is.

 

If Ballard wants to move back when we're on the clock there will still be trade offers to consider.   And if he wants to stay and use the pick, then he loves the player and is happy to get him.   We won't be stuck taking some leftover.

 

The Colts are in a win-win situation.

[AZColt11]

I don't think they do this if Chubb or Nelson is still there.  I think this is a contingency plan.  Just my 2 sense.

[DougDew]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Worth squat?!?    Huh?

 

If 3 QBs are taken plus two of Chubb, Nelson and Barkley that still leaves one of them left over. 

 

That guy, whoever he is, has great value.   Maybe not the value of a QB, but value. Plus there will still be the 4th quarterback whoever he is.

 

If Ballard wants to move back when we're on the clock there will still be trade offers to consider.   And if he wants to stay and use the pick, then he lives the player and is happy to get him.   We won't be stuck taking some leftover.

 

The Colts are in a win-win situation.

In my string of posts with other members, the picks I'm talking about  are 2, 4, & 5 since I'm assuming CLE takes a QB #1 (and they'd probably rather have a bunch of picks rather than one position player at 4).  That's 4 QBs taken between 1 and 5.

 

 

[aaron11]

23 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think why I'm advocating that is because I no longer see much of a difference between the 7 players mentioned for who we could get at 6.  I don't think Chubb is a once-in-a-lifetime DE, and while Barkley and Nelson are probably better players than the other 5, their positional value knocks them down a bit.  So I see pick 6 and pick 11 being about the same for us.  Any of them would also fill a need.  So moving back 5 spots means nothing, so getting something now is pure profit.

 

If we liked a player at 6 who we didn't think would be there at 11, then I would need more for the pick. 

i dont have them rated them same though.

 

chubb, barkley and nelson are the top tier, with edmunds close behind.

 

the others are not that close.  i dont have corner back as one the more important positions in a tampa 2 either 

[MikeCurtis]

I am starting to think that unless we get an amazing Hershal Walker type ONE SIDED trade offer

 

we keep the pick

 

Edmunds is settling in as my favorite pick.   I fully believe that he goes to Chicago at 8, if we trade to 11 or 12

 

The second best LB, SMITH I think could go to the raiders at 10

 

I would hate to be at 11 (or 12) and get neither of these play makers. Both would help this defense

 

(I do like Smith at W side, more than MLB)

 

 

 

 

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I am starting to think that unless we get an amazing Hershal Walker type ONE SIDED trade offer

 

we keep the pick

 

Edmunds is settling in as my favorite pick.   I fully believe that he goes to Chicago at 8, if we trade to 11 or 12

 

The second best LB, SMITH I think could go to the raiders at 10

 

I would hate to be at 11 (or 12) and get neither of these play makers. Both would help this defense

 

(I do like Smith at W side, more than MLB)

 

 

 

 

Agree on who will likely not be there.  4 QBs, then Barkley, Chubb, Edmunds, Smith, James will be gone by 9.  Then you're left with Fitz, Ward, and Nelson.  We'd be choosing between Fitz and Ward most likely. 

 

Does somebody pick Ward, Fitz, Davenport, or Vita Vea before pick 11 because they want a cover corner, FS, DE or a DT ?  What about Ridley or Sutton being overdrafted?

 

Supposedly, SF needs a corner, and OAK is looking to upgrade DT (and we signed Autry)

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

  We'd be choosing between Fitz and Ward most likely. 

 

 

id take nelson over them.  ward is best suited for man coverage, and may not be super valuable in a tampa 2.  fitz would be interesting, but but nelson fills a bigger need and is the better prospect 

 

 

[MikeCurtis]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Agree on who will likely not be there.  4 QBs, then Barkley, Chubb, Edmunds, Smith, James will be gone by 9.  Then you're left with Fitz, Ward, and Nelson.  We'd be choosing between Fitz and Ward most likely. 

 

Does somebody pick Ward, Fitz, Davenport, or Vita Vea before pick 11 because they want a cover corner, FS, DE or a DT ?  What about Ridley or Sutton being overdrafted?

I have been watching tapes on Ward, and I have to say that I am impressed 

 

He doenst ring the bell for me like Edmunds or Smith, but if we were to get a first round this year (11or 12) and a second this year,AND next years second, I might consider him with that pick.

 

Sanders, when healthy, was a force, and earned the "eraser" name...... He was just a little small to play that way

 

I think Ward could very much fill that role for us.  

 

 

I cant believe how BAD this roster is, so many holes to fill

 

IMHO, I dont think any of those 4 go before pick 11 (Someone may want Fitz, but I think he slides a little)

[MikeCurtis]

Just now, aaron11 said:

id take nelson over them.  ward is best suited for man coverage, and may not be super valuable in a tampa 2.  fitz would be interesting, but but nelson fills a bigger need and is the better prospect 

 

 

Nelson is challenge for me.   Clearly he is the best all around lineman in this draft. He would help greatly.

 

If we are picking at 12 (I dont think it will happen) and Edmunds and Smith are gone, he WOULD be a fantasic pick. But........ for me, in the early part of drafts, with so many holes, in the first round, I want a game changer (If available)

 

He would be tempting at 11, or 12........  I personally would take my LT in this space if I needed one, and one was available, but there seem to be a few excellent Guard picks, in this draft later

 

I would still probably take Ward over Nelson, in this draft.   

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Deano

[MikeCurtis]

With the state of the roster, in the second round, you can go BPA, and probably HIT a Colts need

 

The reciever group needs to be addressed, but we need (In no order)

 

1 RB

1  Pass rush DE

2 LBs

1 Road grader/pass blockin Guard

1 Tackle to develop

1 WR

1 CB

 

We didnt help ourselves too much in FA, as I believe these guys we picked were mostly depth guys.

(Maybe our new guard can show something)

 

The very sad fact is, we will not be able to fix this team, into a contender, this year

 

Its sort of a tough admission for a die hard Colts fan, but if we draft well, the next 2-3 years, we could be a contender for SB for 5 years (in a row) after that.   Thats long term thinking and probably not what most of the Colts fans want to hear..... but its the right way

 

I think we can address HALF of these dire needs this draft. As someone said, if you can get 4 new rookie started that can significantly contribute, year one, you have had an amazing draft.

 

it will  be bumpy, but I like this new GMs style.... I hope it works

 

I have seen WAY to many fix it now approach FAIL miserably the past 50 years of being a Colts fans........

 

Fingers crossed  

 

Deano

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

In my string of posts with other members, the picks I'm talking about  are 2, 4, & 5 since I'm assuming CLE takes a QB #1 (and they'd probably rather have a bunch of picks rather than one position player at 4).  That's 4 QBs taken between 1 and 5.

 

 

 

Ok...   but if FOUR QBs are taken then that still leaves TWO of Barkley, Nelson and Chubb.

 

Which means pick 6 still has value.   The Colts are still in good shape even if your worst scenario happens.

 

[Myles]

2 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

Nelson is challenge for me.   Clearly he is the best all around lineman in this draft. He would help greatly.

 

If we are picking at 12 (I dont think it will happen) and Edmunds and Smith are gone, he WOULD be a fantasic pick. But........ for me, in the early part of drafts, with so many holes, in the first round, I want a game changer (If available)

 

He would be tempting at 11, or 12........  I personally would take my LT in this space if I needed one, and one was available, but there seem to be a few excellent Guard picks, in this draft later

 

I would still probably take Ward over Nelson, in this draft.   

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Deano

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree.   I think Nelson would help this team more than any other player.   He's ready now.   He's a great pass blocker.  He's a great run blocker.    I think for this Colts team, he is the game changer.

[Gigc]

18 hours ago, crestmount said:

All this talk about trading down to get extra pick sounds good in theory, but when do you get to the point when you say 'we have to pick'.  I would rather get the potential all-pro who is still available than trade out to get a few guys who may or may not be starters.  If Nelson or Chubb are still available at 6, we have to take 1 of them--the gap between Chubb and the next DE is probably greater than between Nelson and the next OG, so I would probably take Chubb in that scenario (although I am seriously a fan of Nelson).

i agree. the whole REASON why player A is ranked as the sixth best player in a draft and player B is ranked between 30 and 40 is because player A is supposed to be a LOT better prospect. 

Ballard needs, WE need, to hit on our first rounder. If one of those three guys --- barkley, chubb or nelson, is there at 6, i think you need to take him. the only one I waver on is Nelson, and that's because a lot of the video i've seen of him in pass protection has him getting double-team help from the tackle or center. And, because i think you can get a guard in the second round and swing for a pass rusher or playmaker on defense in round 1.

[MikeCurtis]

4 hours ago, Myles said:

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree.   I think Nelson would help this team more than any other player.   He's ready now.   He's a great pass blocker.  He's a great run blocker.    I think for this Colts team, he is the game changer.

 

I think we both very much agree that Nelson would have a very positive impact on this team.

 

We need a solid guard.

 

If the trio of Wynn, Hernandez and Price WERENT in this draft, and in our range for the 2nd pick .......  I would be singing the courus for Nelson at 6.

(I might even be the conductor   )

 

He is a less risky pick than Chubb or Edwards....... he will probably be a pro bowler

 

In the history of the league, with many all pro and HOF guards coming and going...........

in the absolute vast majority, the guards have been slected later than the 15th pick of the 1st round

 

In most cases..... much later

 

The NFL, leadership, for the most part.... doesnt value guards, nearly at the level of other positions

 

I look at it this way

 

There were games that Erlacher "took over", with plays all over the field

There were games that Ray Lewis "took over" with plays all over the field

There were games that Bob Sanders, "took over"  with plays all over the field

There were games that Tony Gonzalas, "took over" with plays all over the field

There are games that Gronkoswki has "taken over" with plays all over the field

 

You can add names like,  Eric Dickerson, Randy Moss, Tomlinson, etc, etc 

 

Obviously they arent playing all of the positions, but single amazing performances

from certain positions, have changed the outcomes of games

 

I go back to the Joe Thomas example..... clearly a HOF..... maybe a first ballot

 

He dominated the person accross from him.... always

 

Hoever, he didnt "take over" a game. His amazing ability to block out the person accross from him wasnt

enough to change the outcome of games.... AND he was at a position, LT that I think we would all agree

is more important than guard

 

Would Cleveland have been better with 2 (or 3) good players if they would have traded that pick for Thomas?

(and they didnt blow every other pick for 10 years)

 

Thats a tough question

 

I believe that we can get improved line play (in round 2) AND get a potential game changer at 6

 

But... like I said...... My 2 cents worth.... maybe not worth even that 

 

It will be an interesting draft...... and because I am a Colts fan since Johnny U, I will cheer even if they pick 

a huge guard from ND 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEY were the deciding factor in some of the games.

 

 

 

 

 

[1959Colts]

Looks like the Dolphins almost traded their aforementioned RT Ja'Wuan James to Denver.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/10/report-dolphins-nixed-c-j-anderson-jawuan-james-trade/

 

Report: Dolphins nixed C.J. Anderson-Ja’Wuan James trade

 

Quote

 

...Now there’s another report about what such a trade would have looked like had the two sides been able to agree to compensation. Troy Renck of ABC Denver 7 reports that the Broncos and Dolphins reached a verbal agreement to send running back C.J. Anderson to Miami for James, but that the Dolphins ultimately decided not to make the deal.

The prospect of revisiting that deal seems unlikely now that the Dolphins have signed Frank Gore to fill out their backfield...

...James is set to make $9.3 million in 2018 under the terms of the fifth-year option on his rookie contract.

 

 

[Fisticuffs111]

10 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Looks like the Dolphins almost traded their aforementioned RT Ja'Wuan James to Denver.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/10/report-dolphins-nixed-c-j-anderson-jawuan-james-trade/

 

Report: Dolphins nixed C.J. Anderson-Ja’Wuan James trade

 

 

I imagine our talks (which I think was more just both sides feeling each other out) with the Dolphins included James as well. I really hope, if we do end up trading with them, that we just focus on picks instead of James.

I think he's overrated and really just a decent starting tackle, one that's headed for an overpay.

[1959Colts]

2 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

I imagine our talks (which I think was more just both sides feeling each other out) with the Dolphins included James as well. I really hope, if we do end up trading with them, that we just focus on picks instead of James.

I think he's overrated and really just a decent starting tackle, one that's headed for an overpay.

Yeah. Maybe he's no better than the guy we are interested in from the Ravens?

[Fisticuffs111]

2 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Yeah. Maybe he's no better than the guy we are interested in from the Ravens?

Funny you mention that. I actually saw somebody compare James to a younger Austin Howard.

[krunk]

---

  Broncos | Recent C.J. Anderson trade nixed by Miami?    Tue Apr 10, 12:04 PM

The Denver Broncos and Miami Dolphins reportedly had a verbal agreement in place to trade RB C.J. Anderson for OT Ja'Wuan James before the Dolphins 'surprisingly nixed' the deal, according to Denver 7's Troy Renck.

Link to story
C.J. Anderson player page

[krunk]

Looks like James was about to get dealt to the Broncos.   Getting off the subject I actually wouldn't mind having CJ Anderson.

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, 1959Colts said:

Looks like the Dolphins almost traded their aforementioned RT Ja'Wuan James to Denver.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/10/report-dolphins-nixed-c-j-anderson-jawuan-james-trade/

 

Report: Dolphins nixed C.J. Anderson-Ja’Wuan James trade

 

 

To me this looks like they are keeping him for a draft day trade to move up.  I agree with Mel.  I see this going down on draft day and James is our new starting RT. 

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

I imagine our talks (which I think was more just both sides feeling each other out) with the Dolphins included James as well. I really hope, if we do end up trading with them, that we just focus on picks instead of James.

I think he's overrated and really just a decent starting tackle, one that's headed for an overpay.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a decent starting RT.  Kind of hard to get five all pros on the line.  

[Fisticuffs111]

13 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with a decent starting RT.  Kind of hard to get five all pros on the line.  

Nothing wrong with a decent starting RT.

But when he becomes possibly a big piece in the trade? And, if Kiper's to be believed, the trade talks possibly don't involve the Dolphins 1st round this year? Then it gets dicey for me. Actually, even swapping the 6th for the 11th + James doesn't sound appealing. If they threw in another decent pick, then possibly.