stitches

Final compensatory pick projections released: Colts get a 4th round compensatory pick in the 2019 NFL draft for losing Donte Moncrief to the Jags

Recommended Posts

Draft Hunter Renfrow with that pick! Better hands, better routes than Mocrief. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, James said:

How many draft picks would that give us in total?

 

I believe 9 with the extra Jets pick as well. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 picks in the first four rounds.  Unfortunately, the price of winning means they will be low in each round, except for the Jets second rounder.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

6 picks in the first four rounds.  Unfortunately, the price of winning means they will be low in each round, except for the Jets second rounder.

According to Tankathon, right now we are sitting at the 26 slot in the 1st

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ColtV said:

According to Tankathon, right now we are sitting at the 26 slot in the 1st

The curse of Andrew Luck.  When he's healthy we win and the GM has less resources to build a roster.  Another year of high picks would have been better in the long run.  Not really complaining of course, but I want a robust roster to keep us contending each year. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ColtV said:

According to Tankathon, right now we are sitting at the 26 slot in the 1st

 

 

Post deleted by author....

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The curse of Andrew Luck.  When he's healthy we win and the GM has less resources to build a roster.  Another year of high picks would have been better in the long run.  Not really complaining of course, but I want a robust roster to keep us contending each year. 

 

I feel like Ballard can find great players picking low as well. Look where we got Leonard, Smith, Hines, etc. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may.... may ....consider trading 1 or 2 picks THIS year.... for better picks NEXT year

 

Are there 9 spots for new rookies this year?

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

We may.... may ....consider trading 1 or 2 picks THIS year.... for better picks NEXT year

 

Are there 9 spots for new rookies this year?

 

 

 

Good point. The stat came up the other day, something like 31% of team's snaps were taken by rookies. That wouldn't be replicated next season.

 

MC think about this scenario, let's say Colts end up at 26. Locke and Haskins are off the board. Someone(let's say Denver) needs a qb like Daniel Jones or Will Grier...could the Colts trade the 26 for a bevy of picks including multiple in 2020? Maybe kick start a process of going into a draft with 2 first rounders like the pats did for a while? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ColtV said:

Good point. The stat came up the other day, something like 31% of team's snaps were taken by rookies. That wouldn't be replicated next season.

 

MC32 think about this scenario, let's say Colts end up at 26. Locke and Haskins are off the board. Someone(let's say Denver) needs a qb like Daniel Jones or Will Grier...could the Colts trade the 26 for a bevy of picks including multiple in 2020? Maybe kick start a process of going into a draft with 2 first rounders like the pats did for a while? 

I dont think they would trade the 26th pick........ if anything, you may see the Colts package the 2nd, 2nd round pick, with their first to improve position

 

There may be a DE or DT that is on the Colts board, and slides a bit, and we trade up a few spots get him

 

I think Jachai Polite and  Simmons are difference makers that may be in the range of the Colts pick

 

In that same way, they may seek to improve that late second, to a mid second by giving some later picks (or picks next year)

 

They seem to have almost too many picks, and its clear that CB likes to deal

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BProland85 said:

 

I feel like Ballard can find great players picking low as well. Look where we got Leonard, Smith, Hines, etc. 

Its possible.  But Smith and Leonard were high seconds.  Without the Jets pick, we are stuck in Turay/Lewis territory.  Any player drafted after them is nothing special, IMO.

 

So Ballard really only has pick 26 and the Jets second rounder to really expand the number of pillar type of players.   Other picks are probably not ever going to be great players or pillars of the team, but more like rotational depth types.

 

If we lost this year like we should have, we'd have a top 15 pick and another high second to go with the Jets pick.  That would get us at least 3 pillar players or a trade down for possibly 4.  Darn Andrew!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DougDew said:

The curse of Andrew Luck.  When he's healthy we win and the GM has less resources to build a roster.  Another year of high picks would have been better in the long run.  Not really complaining of course, but I want a robust roster to keep us contending each year. 

The high picks only really matter in the first 2 rounds.     Ballard has shown he can find talent without having a top 10 pick

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Its possible.  But Smith and Leonard were high seconds.  Without the Jets pick, we are stuck in Turay/Lewis territory.  Any player drafted after them is nothing special, IMO.

 

So Ballard really only has pick 26 and the Jets second rounder to really expand the number of pillar type of players.   Other picks are probably not ever going to be great players or pillars of the team, but more like rotational depth types.

 

If we lost this year like we should have, we'd have a top 15 pick and another high second to go with the Jets pick.  That would get us at least 3 pillar players or a trade down for possibly 4.  Darn Andrew!!!

Complete nonsense

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DougDew said:

The curse of Andrew Luck.  When he's healthy we win and the GM has less resources to build a roster.  Another year of high picks would have been better in the long run.  Not really complaining of course, but I want a robust roster to keep us contending each year. 

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Its possible.  But Smith and Leonard were high seconds.  Without the Jets pick, we are stuck in Turay/Lewis territory.  Any player drafted after them is nothing special, IMO.

 

So Ballard really only has pick 26 and the Jets second rounder to really expand the number of pillar type of players.   Other picks are probably not ever going to be great players or pillars of the team, but more like rotational depth types.

 

If we lost this year like we should have, we'd have a top 15 pick and another high second to go with the Jets pick.  That would get us at least 3 pillar players or a trade down for possibly 4.  Darn Andrew!!!

Contrarian.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Complete nonsense

Care to explain?  Or are you just looking in the mirror again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Care to explain?  Or are you just looking in the mirror again?

Your advocating we should have lost to draft earlier.   That's complete nonsense.   Not much to explain

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

 

Contrarian.

Turay/Lewis is the type of player we should expect to get with the 26th pick in the second round.  Smart estimate, not contrarian.

 

The only pillars Ballard has drafted is with pick 6 and pick 36.  Possibly last years pick 15 and possibly this year's 37.  Other than the Jets pick, we have one pick in that range.  That's possibly two potential pillar players where we could have gotten more if we had higher picks.  That's a smart estimation of where we stand...draft wise...comparing winning and losing.  That's not contrarian.

 

A healthy Andrew is the reason we win, and he carries the roster as has been established in the past.  That's not contrarian to the facts.  It might be contrarian to bogus rose-colored glass thinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Your advocating we should have lost to draft earlier.   That's complete nonsense.   Not much to explain

I'm not advocating we should lose.  I'm showing the difference between building a roster with a winning record and with a losing record.  They are not equally achievable simply because people now like the GM.

 

I'm being slightly sarcastic by showing the impact of a healthy Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Turay/Lewis is the type of player we should expect to get with the 26th pick in the second round.  Smart estimate, not contrarian.

 

The only pillars Ballard has drafted is with pick 6 and pick 36.  Possibly last years pick 15 and possibly this year's 37.  Other than the Jets pick, we have one pick in that range.  That's possibly two potential pillar players where we could have gotten more if we had higher picks.  That's a smart estimation of where we stand...draft wise...comparing winning and losing.  That's not contrarian.

 

A healthy Andrew is the reason we win, and he carries the roster as has been established in the past.  That's not contrarian to the facts.  It might be contrarian to bogus rose-colored glass thinking.

Woo hoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Woo hoo.

In several posts I pointed out that we have 6 picks in the first 4 rounds, but that they are generally a lot lower in each of the rounds than what has been the case the past two drafts, which stands to reason we should get fewer pillar players out of this draft.  To the people who think Ballard is such a genius that it doesn't matter and he'll find just as many pillars anyway, I suppose what I said looks contrarian when compared to that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In several posts I pointed out that we have 6 picks in the first 4 rounds, but that they are generally a lot lower in each of the rounds than what has been the case the past two drafts, which stands to reason we should get fewer pillar players out of this draft.  To the people who think Ballard is such a genius that it doesn't matter and he'll find just as many pillars anyway, I suppose what I said looks contrarian when compared to that opinion.

:thmup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In several posts I pointed out that we have 6 picks in the first 4 rounds, but that they are generally a lot lower in each of the rounds than what has been the case the past two drafts, which stands to reason we should get fewer pillar players out of this draft.  To the people who think Ballard is such a genius that it doesn't matter and he'll find just as many pillars anyway, I suppose what I said looks contrarian when compared to that opinion.

He’d be a lot cooler if he found a few cold Pillar Lites in this draft...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In several posts I pointed out that we have 6 picks in the first 4 rounds, but that they are generally a lot lower in each of the rounds than what has been the case the past two drafts, which stands to reason we should get fewer pillar players out of this draft.  To the people who think Ballard is such a genius that it doesn't matter and he'll find just as many pillars anyway, I suppose what I said looks contrarian when compared to that opinion.

Why is this even a debate/issue?

 

It's pretty simple. Any GM, Chris Ballard included, would prefer to draft top 5 rather than bottom 5, regardless of how good they are at talent evaluation. There are more blue chip players to choose from, and you can select from the best remaining pool of players in each round if you have a top-5 draft position.

 

Chris Ballard selecting in the top 5 (like 2018) will have a better draft haul than selecting later (2017) in the draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen, we have the second pick in the second round from the Jets

 

So we will have two picks very close together 32 and 34

 

Go Horse

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Why is this even a debate/issue?

 

It's pretty simple. Any GM, Chris Ballard included, would prefer to draft top 5 rather than bottom 5, regardless of how good they are at talent evaluation. There are more blue chip players to choose from, and you can select from the best remaining pool of players in each round if you have a top-5 draft position.

 

Chris Ballard selecting in the top 5 (like 2018) will have a better draft haul than selecting later (2017) in the draft. 

Beats me.  I didn't think there was much debate to it and I was just bringing it up for discussion. 

 

I think many people, including myself, were expecting not winning so soon and a slower, higher quality, build up of the roster to the point where Luck didn't have to carry the team.  I think he's just so good that his talent shows he can win with just a few pillar players and good coaching.

 

I expect Ballard will double up on DLs this spring and cut some DL vets and the improvement in the dline will be the extent of the draft haul.   Maybe we'll find a WR in the late 2nd or late 3rd that will be better than Inman, but that's starting to get low on the talent board to expect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

What?  :facepalm:

 

How many games "should" we have lost?  :scratch:

 

:lol:

Yes.  If primarily Luck, Leonard,  Hunt, and the right side of the oline didn't play above expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes.

 

Yes What?

 

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

If we lost this year like we should have

 

I could just as easily say we "should" have lost less games...  :scratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Yes What?

 

 

I could just as easily say we "should" have lost less games...  :scratch:

Never mind.  Replace the words "should have" with the words "expected to".  If you tell me that we should not have expected the Colts to have a losing record this year, I call hindsight peeking nonsense on you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Never mind.  Replace the words "should have" with the words "expected to".  If you tell me that we should not have expected the Colts to have a losing record this year, I call hindsight peeking nonsense on you.

 

Do you remember the thread with a poll at the beginning of the season?

 

Most Colts fans expected a record around 7-9 to 9-7 with an optimistic lean.

 

Fans expecting a losing record were in the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Do you remember the thread with a poll at the beginning of the season?

 

Most Colts fans expected a record around 7-9 to 9-7 with an optimistic lean.

 

Fans expecting a losing record were in the minority.

No, its not my nature to pay attention to others opinions too much.  I also don't keep a log of what others say in order to put it in there face at a later date, so I don't have much motivation to pay attention to those opinions in the first place. 

 

I'll just assume that the 95% of Colts fans who didn't participate in the poll and don't even belong to this forum, including the paid analysts, would think that those records were the homer viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I'll just assume that the 95% of Colts fans who didn't participate in the poll and don't even belong to this forum, including the paid analysts, would think that those records were the homer viewpoint.

 

Ok... ???

 

You know that saying about what happens when you assume?

 

But back to your point, I was optimistic going into this year because we were getting Andrew Luck back and drafted Quenton Nelson.  No hindsight peeking nonsense, just common sense for those that remember what Luck did his first three years as a Colt.  :hat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how many rubbish picks...along with how many QBs...that always happen in the draft, our Jets pick is really valuable. Meaning, with all the talent coming out, we really have a shot at two top notch guys... The second 2nd round pick is going to be interesting if a couple QBs slide...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Curious myself. They reported on Ajayi right away but nothing on Lynch. 
    • So you are saying players that work on technique are wasting their time?? I’m not understanding where you are going with this I guess. A WR stands still and catches balls from a jugs machine. Why, well that’s because he is practicing to get better. It all makes since to me!
    • You see how that's a conflation of two separate issues? (With a sprinkling of a third issue, tbh.)   1) Team A picking at #15 might have a problem with Hockenson, maybe their evaluation of his talent or character or whatever. Maybe they have a second round grade on him. Team B picking at #26 might have Hockenson as a top ten player on their board. And maybe a handful of other teams between those two have higher grades on different players that align with their needs, or maybe they aren't disciplined in their approach or have different draft philosophies. Maybe some of those teams don't see positional value in TEs, so they pass on Hockenson, leaving him available at #26. Again, the point is that not every team has the same board, and there are many reasons why that might be the case.   2) You're adding in the quality of the evaluation. Team B might think more highly of the player than anyone else, and maybe they're right and he turns out to be a stud. Maybe they're wrong, and he's a dud. But that's a question of player evaluation, not draft strategy.   3) Gronk was a second rounder himself. And he's turning out to be one of the best TEs in NFL history. Anyone saying 'Hockenson is the next Gronk' isn't being an honest evaluator, and I don't want my GM drafting players because he's convinced they'll be the next HOF player at any position. The odds stacked heavily against that. (I said the same last year to everyone claiming Barkley was a guaranteed HOFer who would singlehandedly elevate any offense to the top of the league.) That's a way to rationalize drafting a player you're in love with. It's not a disciplined draft strategy.
    • Agreed. My over arching point to BPA vs needs discussion is that the terms themselves can have different meanings, so the various good points made can get lost in the wash.   But I do think the preponderance of thinking lists BPA agnostic of attributes for a given scheme, which is how the national websites tend to do it.  So when GMs pick the 45th ranked player with pick 33, many criticize the pick as "reaching" for a need because they they don't stop to think that 5 or 6 players ranked in between weren't even considered a good fit for the team to begin with.   
    • Him and Lewis will elevate that draft class even higher. 
  • Members

    • coltsva

      coltsva 889

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Old Colt

      Old Colt 283

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chad72

      chad72 9,138

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • shastamasta

      shastamasta 1,493

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ericdcoltsfan

      ericdcoltsfan 13

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • FastStarts

      FastStarts 69

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaColts85

      DaColts85 1,209

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • iuswingman

      iuswingman 45

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Lucky Colts Fan

      Lucky Colts Fan 4,078

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Orioles22

      Orioles22 5

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active: