John Elway Announcement

[ColtsBlitz]

Interesting. If the Broncos move, our chances at getting Chubb only increase. 

[Boiler_Colt]

Slightly, the Browns at 4 are the primary concern. Also, if the Broncos trade out of 5, that probably eliminates us as a trade partner one of the QB needy teams.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Slightly, the Browns at 4 are the primary concern. Also, if the Broncos trade out of 5, that probably eliminates us as a trade partner one of the QB needy teams.

 

We can always leverage our second rounders to move down as well

[Fisticuffs111]

Yeah, I don’t think we’ll really have much of a bidding war for our pick (if that's what Ballard tries to do). There could still be a team or two trying to trade up with us, Miami/Cards/Buffalo, whichever team doesn’t get the Broncos pick, but who knows if they’ll be trying to trade up for whatever QB is left. And then there’s always the chance that the Giants or Browns trade back.

 

I still think the Browns take Chubb if they don’t trade back.

[stitches]

This is good if we want one of the premier non-QB players in the draft. It's not good if we want to trade back once more. 

[jskinnz]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

We can always leverage our second rounders to move down as well

 

Maybe I am missing something but how would we leverage our 2nd rounders to move down?

[chad72]

6 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Maybe I am missing something but how would we leverage our 2nd rounders to move down?

 

Should have elaborated. Let us say the Bills want someone badly enough at the top of round 2 and have traded with someone else in round 1.

 

In exchange for our 2nd rounder at pick No.36, they may be willing to give up pick No.56 and pick No.65 in return if they want the player bad enough. We don't HAVE TO move down in round 1, we could move down in other rounds as well and our 2nd rounders could fetch a pretty penny as well for moving down later.  That is what I meant.

 

I know the other poster was talking moving down only in round 1, I felt like we could move down in the 2nd round as well and gain valuable picks, that is all.

[richard pallo]

 For the Broncos and Colts to both being open to trading back tells me neither team team views the top rated players as absolute must haves. They would rather have more picks.  

[Defjamz26]

Which means the Broncos aren’t in the QB market. Which also means that the Colts/Buffalo trade that everyone is putting in mock’s May not even happen. I’ve pointed out for awhile the picks 4 and 5 are better spots for the Bills to trade up to.

[DaColts85]

26 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

 For the Broncos and Colts to both being open to trading back tells me neither team team views the top rated players as absolute must haves. They would rather have more picks.  

Not exactly.  It says that if you can leverage more picks and only drop back a few spots you will still have some key guys possibly available.  I would imagine we have a solid few names ready at #6 and if we trade back to #12 we still have names at the top of the list.  If a team is going into the draft with their mind set on a QB, they also might have enough thirst to give up a good amount as well.  We are trying to reshape a roster so having extra picks helps all-around.

[BProland85]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

We can always leverage our second rounders to move down as well

 

I'm to the point where I think Ballard will try and move one of those high 2nd rounders since they pick back to back. There could be a Mason Rudolph or another coveted player available that some other team wants. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

We can always leverage our second rounders to move down as well

 

I don't think we want to move back on picks 36 or 37.    Typically,  when you're picking that high,  you're drafting guys who are in the top-32 of your board.  

 

Now,  granted this year,  that might not mean as much,  so perhaps my opening argument is nonsense?

 

But for now,  the only 2nd round pick I'd consider trading back on is 49...    and I wouldn't want to move back too far.

 

Trade back 7-10 spots and pick up a 4.     If you want to pick up a 3,  you'd have to trade to the bottom of the 2nd round.    And you have to find a team willing to do that deal.     Easier said than done.

 

[BProland85]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

 For the Broncos and Colts to both being open to trading back tells me neither team team views the top rated players as absolute must haves. They would rather have more picks.  

 

Or Ballard simply knows this roster needs a lot of work. I think Quenton Nelson is a for sure can't miss prospect who should be available at 6 overall. 

[chad72]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't think we want to move back on picks 36 or 37.    Typically,  when you're picking that high,  you're drafting guys who are in the top-32 of your board.  

 

Now,  granted this year,  that might not mean as much,  so perhaps my opening argument is nonsense?

 

But for now,  the only 2nd round pick I'd consider trading back on is 49...    and I wouldn't want to move back too far.

 

Trade back 7-10 spots and pick up a 4.     If you want to pick up a 3,  you'd have to trade to the bottom of the 2nd round.    And you have to find a team willing to do that deal.     Easier said than done.

 

 

Because we have pick No.49 is why I feel you can move with pick No.36 or No.37.

 

In my example, if you get the picks No.56 and No.65 in return, it is as good as getting 2 more late second rounders for your early second rounder. Yes, you do need two hands to clap though, goes without saying.  

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

I'm to the point where I think Ballard will try and move one of those high 2nd rounders since they pick back to back. There could be a Mason Rudolph or another coveted player available that some other team wants. 

 

Yes, that is my thinking as well. Every year, we see a coveted QB or player fall to the top of the 2nd round. 

[Creekside]

I don't want the Colts moving down in round 2.....I want 4 good starters with the first 4 picks.  

[Clem-Dog]

13 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Because we have pick No.49 is why I feel you can move with pick No.36 or No.37.

 

In my example, if you get the picks No.56 and No.65 in return, it is as good as getting 2 more late second rounders for your early second rounder. Yes, you do need two hands to clap though, goes without saying.  

 The premise of your scenario is quite similar to the time Polian traded up for Ugoh except he gave up a late 2nd and 1st the following draft in order to obtain an early 2nd.  I'd do something similar with one of our early 2nds.

[CopenhagenColt]

Elway's shaking the tree. Not surprising. 

Probably not looking for a QB, or if they are, they're looking at Lamar Jackson and wouldn't mind getting extra picks while landing the player they wanted all along.

Lots of smoke and mirrors at this point. I have no doubt that there will be some big trades before the first 10 picks have been announced.

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

Not exactly.  It says that if you can leverage more picks and only drop back a few spots you will still have some key guys possibly available.  I would imagine we have a solid few names ready at #6 and if we trade back to #12 we still have names at the top of the list.  If a team is going into the draft with their mind set on a QB, they also might have enough thirst to give up a good amount as well.  We are trying to reshape a roster so having extra picks helps all-around.

That's what I'm saying.  If we trade back to 12 we will certainly have names ready to pick.  Same for pick 6.  But our willingness to trade back from 6 means we don't view the top rated players: Chubb, Barkley and Nelson as must haves.   We would rather have the extra picks to build the roster.  

[chad72]

1 hour ago, Clem-Dog said:

 The premise of your scenario is quite similar to the time Polian traded up for Ugoh except he gave up a late 2nd and 1st the following draft in order to obtain an early 2nd.  I'd do something similar with one of our early 2nds.

 

Great analogy!!! If a playoff team like the Falcons or Saints or even Steelers are willing to part with a future 1st rounder for your high 2nd rounder, you would take it in a heart beat!!

 

You might even be able to get an additional late 4th or 5th rounder from that.

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, egg said:

I don't want the Colts moving down in round 2.....I want 4 good starters with the first 4 picks.  

Not trying to single you out, but I wonder how often that has actually happened. Also, are you willing to wait three years to see if they are starter material....or are you saying 4 starters out of the first 4 picks in their first season?

[DougDew]

Bad news for us.  But we can still do the right thing and pass on the popular 3 and take Smith at 6

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Which means the Broncos aren’t in the QB market. Which also means that the Colts/Buffalo trade that everyone is putting in mock’s May not even happen. I’ve pointed out for awhile the picks 4 and 5 are better spots for the Bills to trade up to.

Yeah.  They never were in the QB market after they signed Keenum. 

 

And yes, no reason why Cleveland or Denver wouldn't trade out of 4 or 5.  The idea that any team is going to turn down multiple picks to select Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is laughable.

[crazycolt1]

I don't think the Colts are going to trade at all till they know who is picked before them. IMO they will wait and see who is available before pulling the trigger on anything. They may have a deal in place if one of the players they want is gone but till that time comes I just don't anticipate any trade downs announced till they are on the clock.

[NewColtsFan]

34 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah.  They never were in the QB market after they signed Keenum. 

 

And yes, no reason why Cleveland or Denver wouldn't trade out of 4 or 5.  The idea that any team is going to turn down multiple picks to select Chubb, Barkley, or Nelson is laughable.

 

Laughable?

 

Hardly.    It all depends on the quality of the offer  If the picks are too far back, or some are for next year, it's simply not enough,  it's easy to turn down a deal.  

 

Deals are turned down all the time.   No reason to think this possibility is any different.   If the offer isn't good enough it will be rejected.

 

[Creekside]

2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Not trying to single you out, but I wonder how often that has actually happened. Also, are you willing to wait three years to see if they are starter material....or are you saying 4 starters out of the first 4 picks in their first season?

 

Let's say with the first 4 picks the Colts go LB, guard, CB, RB.....I would expect the LB and guard to be starters early on in the season if not on day one. I would expect the CB and the RB to be in the rotation early on and be starters by season's end (Wilson started 5 games last year and Vic Ballard was drafted in the 5th round and started 12 games his rookie year).....And if they go WR in the 3rd round, I would expect him to play a lot and be a starter by season's end (Moncrief was drafted at 90 and Hilton at 92)..... I think Ballard can get it done.

[Hoose]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Laughable?

 

Hardly.    It all depends on the quality of the offer  If the picks are too far back, or some are for next year, it's simply not enough,  it's easy to turn down a deal.  

 

Deals are turned down all the time.   No reason to think this possibility is any different.   If the offer isn't good enough it will be rejected.

 

Agreed. I’d be thrilled if Chubb is available at 6 because the Broncos traded the 5 to a QB hungry team. The Colts don’t have to trade if that situation occurs. Let’s hope. 

[DaColts85]

14 hours ago, richard pallo said:

That's what I'm saying.  If we trade back to 12 we will certainly have names ready to pick.  Same for pick 6.  But our willingness to trade back from 6 means we don't view the top rated players: Chubb, Barkley and Nelson as must haves.   We would rather have the extra picks to build the roster.  

I see what you are saying but you keep adding on statement I do not agree with.  The bolded is not true.  On our list, Barkley might not be as high as some would hope but I can almost guarantee Chubb and Nelson are.  CB might be looking at the potential of Chubb being gone.  If a QB is there at #6 and you can move back just a few picks but grab a good value of picks, you do it.  That is not about going against the top guys that are there.  If Chubb is there then I think this is a moot point regardless.  You do not pass on a double digit sack guy with one of the worst drop offs at the position after him.

[richard pallo]

40 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

I see what you are saying but you keep adding on statement I do not agree with.  The bolded is not true.  On our list, Barkley might not be as high as some would hope but I can almost guarantee Chubb and Nelson are.  CB might be looking at the potential of Chubb being gone.  If a QB is there at #6 and you can move back just a few picks but grab a good value of picks, you do it.  That is not about going against the top guys that are there.  If Chubb is there then I think this is a moot point regardless.  You do not pass on a double digit sack guy with one of the worst drop offs at the position after him.

I think our open willingness to trade back from 6 says the pick is there for a price.  If you meet our price the pick is yours.  CB doesn't care who is there just meet our price.  Maybe the price will be to steep and we will be forced to pick who knows.  You keep saying move back just a few picks.  You're obviously referring to pick 8 where the price will not be as high.  That could happen but the more obvious candidates are picks 11, 12 and 15 which are more than just a few picks.  Being willing to trade back just to 8 for extra picks tells me those guys aren't must haves the extra picks are. 

[DaColts85]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think our open willingness to trade back from 6 says the pick is there for a price.  If you meet our price the pick is yours.  CB doesn't care who is there just meet our price.  Maybe the price will be to steep and we will be forced to pick who knows.  You keep saying move back just a few picks.  You're obviously referring to pick 8 where the price will not be as high.  That could happen but the more obvious candidates are picks 11, 12 and 15 which are more than just a few picks.  Being willing to trade back just to 8 for extra picks tells me those guys aren't must haves the extra picks are. 

Anything is available for the right price.  This is not what you were trying to say in the beginning though. So if some team like Buffalo wants to give us the kitchen sink to move up...then let's do it!  I keep saying a "few" just because I do not see CB dropping to far.  12 is probably the limit imo, mainly because he said he wants to stay in the top. 

 

[richard pallo]

52 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Anything is available for the right price.  This is not what you were trying to say in the beginning though. So if some team like Buffalo wants to give us the kitchen sink to move up...then let's do it!  I keep saying a "few" just because I do not see CB dropping to far.  12 is probably the limit imo, mainly because he said he wants to stay in the top. 

 

I said we are willing to trade back because we don't view the top three players as must haves.  We would rather have more picks.  Pretty simple.  I have no idea what the right price is.  CB will figure that out and if he gets his price he will trade back.  We are not against the top three we just don't consider them as must haves.  That's why we are willing to trade back. 

[DaColts85]

23 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I said we are willing to trade back because we don't view the top three players as must haves.  We would rather have more picks.  Pretty simple.  I have no idea what the right price is.  CB will figure that out and if he gets his price he will trade back.  We are not against the top three we just don't consider them as must haves.  That's why we are willing to trade back. 

Yes and No.  During this time before the draft pretty much every team within the top of the draft have said the same thing.  Giants, Browns, Broncos, and us.  It is because you are always going to try and drive the market up.  Would you take Chubb for sure, or would you entertain having the 12, 22, a second, and next year 1st or 2nd?  I mean you might have every hope to grab Chubb but if a team throws you everything you have to listen.  Still no guarantee CB takes any deal and just goes for Chubb.  But he is doing what everyone does at this time and drives up the value.  Pair teams against each other.  I will say this though...personally I believe we stay at #6 because teams moving up might look at Denver and Cle.

[dgambill]

20 hours ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Slightly, the Browns at 4 are the primary concern. Also, if the Broncos trade out of 5, that probably eliminates us as a trade partner one of the QB needy teams.

Agreed but I think that was the case already after moving out of top 5. HOWEVER....people trade for more than just QBs....if 4 QBs go in top 5 then that means there will be the top *itional players on the board when we pick...and teams that normally would have to trade into top 5 to get them will have a chance to trade much later in the draft to get them. Meaning if you want a guy like Ward, Fitzpatrick, Edmonds, Smith, Barkley maybe....you only have to trade up to 6 to get them perhaps. I don't expect us to trade back again....we did that...got great value...but I think we will highly value the 6th pick....but I don't just think that if qbs are all off the board nobody will be interested in our pick. It may not have same value as we had at the 3..but there will be interest I imagine either way.

 

As for Elway and Denver. I think they were in the QB market...but only a specific qb or possibly two....but they have a very very good feeling that neither will be there and are saying we are open for business....they might not be sold on as many of the qbs as say the Jets were in moving up. I think they are saying to the Bills....if the Giants asking price is too steep...come call us. Your qb may still be there. Or maybe someone trades up for Chubb or Barkley or something....I just think they don't see their qb there and are going to try to maximize this current window they have with the defense. It's quickly closing with Von and company and they went out and got a qb that can manage the game and even win it for them. Now they just need to plug in lineman or two...maybe a corner and rb.....all *itions this draft is pretty deep in...and they get right back in the playoff mix.

[Coltsfanforlife12]

20 hours ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Slightly, the Browns at 4 are the primary concern. Also, if the Broncos trade out of 5, that probably eliminates us as a trade partner one of the QB needy teams.

The abrowns would be really dumb to take Chubb.  Their secondary is terrible.  They also have Ogbah and Garrett already.

[dgambill]

18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I don't think we want to move back on picks 36 or 37.    Typically,  when you're picking that high,  you're drafting guys who are in the top-32 of your board.  

 

Now,  granted this year,  that might not mean as much,  so perhaps my opening argument is nonsense?

 

But for now,  the only 2nd round pick I'd consider trading back on is 49...    and I wouldn't want to move back too far.

 

Trade back 7-10 spots and pick up a 4.     If you want to pick up a 3,  you'd have to trade to the bottom of the 2nd round.    And you have to find a team willing to do that deal.     Easier said than done.

 

How often do you see a team take back to back picks that early in the draft. Typically they take the first one and move back on the second because they get the player they covet and usually they can pretty well figure out that a couple more will still be there for them if they move back say 7 or 8 *itions. I fully expect them to move back if an offer comes in to split the difference between 37 and 49. If they can pick up say an extra late 3rd or 4th that is another top 100*ish player they can add to the roster. We have multiple needs on both sides of the ball but we could literally draft ER, OG, CB, LB, RB, WR in the top 100* and address a huge core of the team. Like you said there is usually a first rd pick that falls and I think teams will be circling us with those two early picks in the second as trade partner to move up and get their guy. We get our guy...they get their guy...we add picks. WIN, WIN, WIN. I think 37 is much more likely to get traded then 6 at this point. Now on draft day...it all might change...but I think on Thursday night and Friday morning....Ballards phone will be blowing up with offers for that 37 pick.

[Boiler_Colt]

5 minutes ago, Coltsfanforlife12 said:

The abrowns would be really dumb to take Chubb.  Their secondary is terrible.  They also have Ogbah and Garrett already.

Ogbah isnt special. He'd be the best player on the board plus no team says "We have too many pass rushers". They'd have an issue re-signing both Garrett and Chubb 5 years from now if they both pan out, but for the Cleveland Browns that's a good problem to have for a team that's been so bad.

[Coltsfanforlife12]

2 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Ogbah isnt special. He'd be the best player on the board plus no team says "We have too many pass rushers". They'd have an issue re-signing both Garrett and Chubb 5 years from now if they both pan out, but for the Cleveland Browns that's a good problem to have for a team that's been so bad.

Ogbah may not be special but they have zero corners because they haven’t hit on on since Haden.  They’d benefit far more from picking up Fitzpatrick.  I think if they choose any other quarterback other than Darnold then QBs go 1,2 and 3.  Four would then likely be Barkley.  Five could be traded for another QB and then the colts are sitting pretty with drafting Chubb.

[dgambill]

7 minutes ago, Coltsfanforlife12 said:

The abrowns would be really dumb to take Chubb.  Their secondary is terrible.  They also have Ogbah and Garrett already.

I don't think anyone is dumb if they get Chubb but I agree ER is not a *ition of extreme need for them....and yes their secondary is atrocious. If Barkley isn't there I think they could trade back with Buffalo perhaps. Land 12 and 22 and then take best secondary player (Ward/Fitzpatrick then target say Guice/Michel or perhaps McGlintey/Miller for the OL). They have a ton of picks...also 3 in the second round as well. They are in the driver seat for this draft. They have the possibility of 4 first rd picks. Imagine if they get qb at 1, trade 4 and get 12 and 22. That's 3 picks. Then move up with late and early seconds to get back in to mid 20's for another first rounder. That is 4 picks in first. Plus they would still have 35 from Houston from the Ozweiler trade. They are loaded up for this draft and if they hit....this could be the year Cleveland remembers for the next decade as the turnaround.

[Boiler_Colt]

Just now, Coltsfanforlife12 said:

Ogbah may not be special but they have zero corners because they haven’t hit on on since Haden.  They’d benefit far more from picking up Fitzpatrick.  I think if they choose any other quarterback other than Darnold then QBs go 1,2 and 3.  Four would then likely be Barkley.  Five could be traded for another QB and then the colts are sitting pretty with drafting Chubb.

Possible, I just think that is wishful thinking personally. I see both Barkley and Chubb being gone. I don't see Fitzpatrick as worth the #4 pick, and he's better at safety. What Cleveland should do is take a haul from Buffalo for pick #4 and take McGlinchey to replace Thomas and a Corner, but I seriously doubt they pass on a talent like Chubb. We'll find out in 6 days.

[lollygagger8]

I just don't see Chubb falling to the Colts. I'm trying, but I just can't.