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

[stitches]

https://overthecap.com/projecting-the-2019-compensatory-picks/

 

 

[MPStack]

 

 

[pgt_rob]

4th for Moncrief? I'll take it.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

I would be very pleased with that!

[stitches]

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

[James]

How many draft picks would that give us in total?

[BProland85]

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. 

[DougDew]

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.

[ColtV]

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

[DougDew]

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. 

[NewColtsFan]

39 minutes ago, ColtV said:

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

 

 

Post deleted by author....

 

[BProland85]

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. 

[MikeCurtis]

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?

 

 

 

[ColtV]

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? 

[MikeCurtis]

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

 

[FalseStart]

2019 has started off purdy nice...

[Maniac]

We got away with robbery... again.

[DougDew]

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!!!

[jvan1973]

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

[jvan1973]

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

[Coffeedrinker]

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.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Complete nonsense

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

[jvan1973]

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

[DougDew]

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.

[DougDew]

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

[Coffeedrinker]

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.

[DougDew]

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.

[Coffeedrinker]

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.

[FalseStart]

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...

[Flash7]

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. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

If we lost this year like we should have

 

What? 

 

How many games "should" we have lost? 

 

[indyagent17]

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

[DougDew]

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.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

What? 

 

How many games "should" we have lost? 

 

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

[Lucky Colts Fan]

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... 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Yes What?

 

 

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

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.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

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.

[DougDew]

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.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

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. 

[FalseStart]

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...