-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
Interesting theory. However, knowing what we know about Ballard, I don't see this as the approach he will take. One big reason is that the UDFA pool will be thinner this year...for many of the reasons you mentioned. COVID has really created a lot of unknowns and hampered players from rising up draft boards. And since the NCAA allowed an additional year of eligibility...many players are returning for a "super senior" to increase their draft stock for next year. This will create more competition for UDFAs...so if you want to ensure that you get a certain player...it's best to have and use a late pick on him. So what I think you will actually see is an opposite approach where Ballard will look to acquire a few more late Day 3 picks, that he can use in lieu of competing for priority UDFAs from a list that isn't as strong as year's past. So you will probably see late Day 3 picks attached to any trade backs. And then for significant draft capital via trade, I think he will be eyeing picks from next year's draft. I know people love to mock the Colts getting back all of these additional Day 2 picks this year in a trade back. And that makes sense...since they don't have a 3rd round pick. But they are down a (likely) 1st next year (at least a 2nd). And that's in a class where the player pool will be larger. Some might argue that it makes losing that pick sting a little less, but I don't think Ballard sees it that way. He wants to be able to pick from as large of a pool as possible. So I think Ballard will look to recoup as much draft value, if not increase it, to take advantage of next year's class. That inactivity in FA is likely in part because of next year's draft. In a larger draft class, even late comp picks will have some value. If he can get a couple of extra picks back for next year...plus a late comp pick or two...I think they will prefer that method. -
One of two things: Take Brady in round 5 of the 2000 draft and let him hold a clipboard for a decade or hire Ballard in 2012. Grigson was younger and no more established than Ballard at the time. -
I don't know what to think. Purely scheme-wise and experience with simialar offense-wise IMO Lance makes the most sense... but I can see Shannahan liking Fields in that same role too. That's the weirdest of smokescreen/smoke signals I've seen recently in the draft. -
Ballard isn’t going to trade back every year. It’s just become an obsession with a lot fans that he will. -
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now