Colts trade out of first round

[lollygagger8]

In Ballard We Trust

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

Ballard wanted to move down and it's likely the best offer he got. 

IDK.  He said some of the 8 guys he wanted were still available and that WASH called at the last minute.  He made it sound like the compensation of getting next year's second rounder enticed him to move off of one of his players.

[Fisticuffs111]

I hope we stay at #34 unless we get a really good offer. I think a lot of names that people are hoping for in this 2nd round will come off the board before #46. And I was totally pro-trade back.

Guys like Murphy, CGJ, AJ Brown, Greedy, Cody Ford, gotta come out of this round with one.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

IDK.  He said some of the 8 guys he wanted were still available and that WASH called at the last minute.  He made it sound like the compensation of getting next year's second rounder enticed him to move off of one of his players.

 

If it was last minute, we could have pressed for an extra 4th rounder, maybe it happened, maybe it did not. 

 

I have a feeling we are not done trading down yet. We could very well get a 2nd and 3rd from a team wanting to move to No.34, I would not discount that. 

 

By doing a fair trade, unlike last year's Jets trade where we heavily fleeced the Jets, he may have sent a signal that he is very amenable to another fair one.  But my gut tells me that after seeing Sweat, Abrams, Tillery go back-to-back-to-back, possibly 2 out of those 3 guys might be in his 8 guys he wanted, he probably stands pat now. 

[Valpo2004]

8 minutes ago, GwinnettColt said:

The only thing I'm really mad about is that I stayed up so late and didn't get to see the Colts pick a player.  I think it's a good move.  The three picks in the second round will be nice.

 

 

 

Yeah that's annoying but Ballard's trying to maximize value and put a team together that wins games.  So your decision (and mine) to stay up a little late to watch the draft as opposed to just go to bed and check the draft results the next morning is kind of meaningless.

 

I think this is a good move just because I don't think the talent level of the draft gave much greater advantage to picking at 26 over 46.  I think I saw someplace that they estimated that only 20 players in the draft had true first round grades and that a lot of the players would be 2nd rounders in other drafts.  

 

So to me Ballard just maximized the value here.  I think a lot of people are unhappy because they are impatient.  We don't get to see the returns on Ballard's trade for another year.  

 

Also as far as I'm concerned Ballard has a pretty good batting average when it comes to trades.  

[IndyD4U]

I'm okay with the trade back. We're primed for a big day 2!

[21isSuperman]

 

Could happen again.  I'm definitely not against trading down as long as we get good value

[BleedBlu8792]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

If it was last minute, we could have pressed for an extra 4th rounder, maybe it happened, maybe it did not. 

 

I have a feeling we are not done trading down yet. We could very well get a 2nd and 3rd from a team wanting to move to No.34, I would not discount that. 

 

By doing a fair trade, unlike last year's Jets trade where we heavily fleeced the Jets, he may have sent a signal that he is very amenable to another fair one.  But my gut tells me that after seeing Sweat, Abrams, Tillery go back-to-back-to-back, possibly 2 out of those 3 guys might be in his 8 guys he wanted, he probably stands pat now. 

 

Denver is the only team I see that could use a future QB because we all know Flacco is a really short term situation. I would gladly take their 2nd and at least their 3rd, but I would ultimately try to get them to come off both 2nd's if they want Lock, whom Elway is rumored to be highly interested in. 

[Dark_Indy]

Guys. 

 

Let's all take a breath, let the man work. 

 

Ballard is not playing for this year, for next year or any one single year in a vacuum. Consistency and longevity are key.

 

"But a 2nd rounder next year isnt as valuable as a pick this year!"

 

In 12 months, those same people are going to say "Wow! 2 2nd rounders! Thanks Ballard!" Or something less cheesy. 

 

 

[chad72]

6 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

Denver is the only team I see that could use a future QB because we all know Flacco is a really short term situation. I would gladly take their 2nd and at least their 3rd, but I would ultimately try to get them to come off both 2nd's if they want Lock, whom Elway is rumored to be highly interested in. 

 

I'd take Denver's 2nd and 3rd over Miami's 2nd and 3rd for sure.  

 

Every year, good players drop out of Round 1, happens all the time!!! So, having more 2nd and 3rd rounders on Day 2 is a consistent luxury, IMO, to cash in on those 1st and 2nd rounders that drop on Day 2.

[Valpo2004]

20 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

If it was last minute, we could have pressed for an extra 4th rounder, maybe it happened, maybe it did not. 

 

I have a feeling we are not done trading down yet. We could very well get a 2nd and 3rd from a team wanting to move to No.34, I would not discount that. 

 

By doing a fair trade, unlike last year's Jets trade where we heavily fleeced the Jets, he may have sent a signal that he is very amenable to another fair one. 

 

I don't know that we fleeced the Jets.  If you ask their front office or their fans they are extremely happy with that deal.  

 

Teams have surrendered multiple firsts to get their quarterback.  They got theirs for 3 2nds.  

[BleedBlu8792]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

I'd take Denver's 2nd and 3rd over Miami's 2nd and 3rd for sure.  

 

Every year, good players drop out of Round 1, happens all the time!!! So, having more 2nd and 3rd rounders on Day 2 is a consistent luxury, IMO.

5 picks today would be fantastic

[Valpo2004]

14 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

Could happen again.  I'm definitely not against trading down as long as we get good value

 

I think Ballard is usually open to trading down for the right price.  

 

The only time I think that wasn't true was last year he seemed adamant that he wasn't going to trade down from 6 after making the first trade with the Jets.  He was going to leave that draft with either Chubb or Nelson.  

[ColtJax]

30 minutes ago, GwinnettColt said:

That would be some Round 2 draft drama. 

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that trade didn't happen with the Cards and the Bronco's while the Dolphins trade their #2 and next years #2 for Rosen. The Cards hold all the....well, you know..

[ColtStrong]

10 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

He won’t trade back down. Second round is the sweet spot.

Well maybe if it's only a couple spots and can still get the guy he wanted at 34. That would be worth it.

 

[needanoline63]

It’s not “unacceptable” just stayed up all night for nothing really lol. I did want n’keal Harry or Jonathan abrams. 

[DougDew]

47 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

If it was last minute, we could have pressed for an extra 4th rounder, maybe it happened, maybe it did not. 

 

I have a feeling we are not done trading down yet. We could very well get a 2nd and 3rd from a team wanting to move to No.34, I would not discount that. 

 

By doing a fair trade, unlike last year's Jets trade where we heavily fleeced the Jets, he may have sent a signal that he is very amenable to another fair one.  But my gut tells me that after seeing Sweat, Abrams, Tillery go back-to-back-to-back, possibly 2 out of those 3 guys might be in his 8 guys he wanted, he probably stands pat now. 

But it wasn't a fair trade.  By all accounts and precedent, a pick next year is worth a pick that's one round lower this year.  If we traded with the Redskins, they would have had to given us their 3rd AND their 4th rounder this year to make up for our draft value points we lost moving from 26 to 46.

 

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

 

The problem is they don't have a 4th rounder (the extra 50 pts).  They would have had to given us their two 5th rounders....which are mid to late.

 

So I suspect that Ballard accepted the 2nd rounder next year (instead of the 3rd this year plus 2 5ths) because WASH didn't have the quality of ammo this year to give him a fair trade.  But we still could have gotten at least one extra 5th out of it, IMO.

[21isSuperman]

37 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

Denver is the only team I see that could use a future QB because we all know Flacco is a really short term situation. I would gladly take their 2nd and at least their 3rd, but I would ultimately try to get them to come off both 2nd's if they want Lock, whom Elway is rumored to be highly interested in. 

I don't think there's any chance Denver trades 41 and 52 for 34.  I'd be super stoked if it did happen though. I think that would be great value

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, masterlock said:

I was thinking the same thing. If there's one thing the Colts need, it's pass rush. And here you have a player whose pre-draft measurables were off the charts, who shined at the Senior Bowl, who put up good stats in the regular college football season, and who fits the mold to-a-tee of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defensive end, and yet you pass on him?

 

There's a point at which 'more' (picks) isn't always better. Quality matters too. I understand it's a crap shoot when it comes to drafting any player, even high first-rounders. But the same is true of second-rounders. So all things equal, why not take a chance on a defensive end who's arguably the very embodiment of what you're looking for in a 4-3 defense predicated on speed and athleticism?

 

Stand in front of a mirror and repeat the following, "Ballard did not value Sweat as much as I did"

 

rinse and repeat until it sets in.  Thanks

[ukcolt12]

Not a fan of the move tbh but as always happy to be proved wrong.

 

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Stand in front of a mirror and repeat the following, "Ballard did not value Sweat as much as I did"

 

rinse and repeat until it sets in.  Thanks

 

No sweat!!!  

[DougDew]

Just looking at the chart.  In order for the Colts to trade down from 34 and stay above pick 54, they need to get a third rounder.

[Wyldhorsefan]

8 hours ago, James said:

 

You being impressed is the last thing on Ballard’s mind. You’re irrelevant in that aspect.

Thanks for reminding me.

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Just looking at the chart.  In order for the Colts to trade down from 34 and stay above pick 54, they need to get a third rounder.

I know you keep referring to this, but there have been several big analysts on twitter that thoroughly disagree with you. They say it is Colts advantage regardless of where Redskins are picking next draft. 

[stitches]

 

[CR91]

Anyone here be mad if we took Metcalf? I get hes not skilled in any particular trait, but t.y speed at his size would be scary. 

[Tinklenberg]

I think they trade back again at 34. 

https://www.sportsmediapass.com/2019/04/26/2019-nfl-draft-what-to-expect-with-the-34th-overall-pick/

[stitches]

 

All teams that traded down won their trades, purely pick-value wise. Of course this means nothing if you don't draft good players with those picks so... lets do that now. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

Could happen again.  I'm definitely not against trading down as long as we get good value

 

What would be good compensation to slide back 4-5 spots?

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I know you keep referring to this, but there have been several big analysts on twitter that thoroughly disagree with you. They say it is Colts advantage regardless of where Redskins are picking next draft. 

Pick 34 has nothing to do with the 26 trade.  You may have meant to quote a different comment.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

What would be good compensation to slide back 4-5 spots?

About a an early-to-mid 4th rounder... 

[IinD]

We're doomed. Should just give away our picks.. Lol.

 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

What would be good compensation to slide back 4-5 spots?

here's an easy pick value calculator

 

http://www.footballguys.com/pickvalue.php

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Pick 34 has nothing to do with the 26 trade.  You may have meant to quote a different comment.

Where did I mention 34th pick. I meant to quote your post. There are analysts that disagree with your interpretation of the draft chart. 

[stitches]

 

[Superman]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

Yes, but 34 is already at the very top of a 2nd round picks. It makes sense to value it at least as a low-level 1st. Although... again.. if someone offers a future 1st for 34 I will always take that deal(unless of course someone really really high on my board is there at 34 and I don't think it's likely a future 1st will return better player. This is because 1-32 is better than 34 generally. 

 

In 2007, the Colts traded their 2008 first rounder to come back up to #42 in the second round. They drafted Tony Ugoh. Just one example off the top of my head. It's not just top of the second round that brings back that value. 

 

I'll get back to the future/present value later.

 

Quote

I know there is a precedent. This is the type of trades the Pats have been feasting on and robbing other teams off. Because they understand that there is nothing inherent about picking in the current draft that is more valuable than picking in next year's draft. Pick X in 2019 is about the same value as pick X in 2020 as it is for pick X in 2021, etc.

 

Not really. The Pats have been on both ends of this trade. They've given up future seconds for present thirds, etc. (See 2010, R2/P47.) 

 

Quote

And if you can get 30 places expected value improvement in for future pick over current pick you always do it. ALWAYS! 

 

Where's the 30 places expected value improvement in this deal? Aren't you arguing my point, that a future first gets you a present second?

 

Quote

This is another one of those old time inefficiencies in the draft that smart GMs abuse the old timers at. This is another one of the "jumpshooting teams can't win championships" mantras that I'm glad our GM actually seems to understand are nonsense. 

 

No it isn't. IMO, you're either overvaluing future picks or undervaluing present picks. An asset secured today is better than an asset promised tomorrow, with respect to the quality/value of that asset. The precedent is to offset the greater value of the present asset with a higher valued future asset (or by combining it with other assets, present or future).

 

Quote

 

The value of having a player this year is offset by the value of having the player you pick with the next year's draft pick you got for the last year of his contract. Also... worth pointing out... we didn't lose a player - we still got a pick in the top 50 with this trade. We lost 20 spots in the draft. 

 

 

Again, having a player on your team in 2019 has a value that cannot be replaced by having a nice pick in the 2020 draft. Draft picks don't win games, and that's what this is all about, which is why teams trade picks for veterans when the fit/value makes sense to them. It's also why the precedent is set that trading a present pick for a future pick (with no other considerations) will require a one round downgrade of the future pick. A 2020 first will only get you a 2019 second, straight up. 

 

And having a player under contract in 2019 has a value that cannot be replaced by having a player under contract in 2023. Play this out to the absurd: You wouldn't have done this trade for a 2022 second rounder. The further out the pick is, the lesser its value.

 

Quote

In essence the value proposition here is: 4+1 years of the player you would have picked at 26 vs 4 years of the player you will pick at 46 + 4 years of the player you will pick with next year's pick. Pure value wise... if you trust your process, this is a CLEARCUT win. 

 

This is crazy talk. By that logic, any two picks are more valuable than one pick, because you get eight cumulative years of contract control. But years of contract control isn't nearly as valuable a commodity as a first round draft pick, which is why no one would ever trade #26 for two fourths, and then say 'but we get two players, and eight years of contract control!' 

 

If your process is sound and your board is telling you 26 = 46 in this year's draft, then the 20 spots isn't a big deal. And based on what Ballard and others have said, it's very possible that they see 26 and 46 as equal (or close), so the added value of the future second makes it an automatic win for them. I'm fine with that. The logic of trading back, even to 46, isn't hard to comprehend, nor is it lost on me.

 

But we're talking about the value of a future pick vs the value of a present pick, not the value of 26 vs the value of 46.

 

Quote

Now ... the thing that makes things a bit more murky is that Ballard missed on taking players that I personally had ranked in the top 10(Tillery)... So the trade in my case istop 10 value for 46 and future 2nd, which is not great... but I cannot evaluate the trade like this because Ballard is not making this trade based on MY board, but rather on HIS board and I will allow for reasonable difference in evaluation of players. 

 

That's not murky to me, at all. If Ballard had a top ten grade on Tillery (or anyone else), he wouldn't have traded out to begin with. We can easily conclude that him going back 20 spots is a reflection of his draft board, and he signaled this all along.

 

I'm fine with this trade. I just resist the idea that it represents great value, especially on the basis of valuing a future second as if it's a high 30s pick. We don't know where that future second will check in, and there's a big value difference between 33 and 64, and that has to be acknowledged.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, CR91 said:

Anyone here be mad if we took Metcalf? I get hes not skilled in any particular trait, but t.y speed at his size would be scary. 

 

I'm out on Metcalf. 

[CR91]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'm out on Metcalf. 

 

So are a lot of teams it seems, but its an interesting option and would give us another weapon in the red zone to go with Ebron and Funchess

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Where did I mention 34th pick. I meant to quote your post. There are analysts that disagree with your interpretation of the draft chart. 

You didn't.  I mentioned the 34th pick and what it would take this draft to move down.  Then you started talking about the Redskins and next year. Why I don't know.

 

The chart is not my interpretation.  Its math.  How the values were set in the first place was based on judgment established long ago by professionals.   

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, CR91 said:

So are a lot of teams it seems

 

Remember when he cried at the combine after his 40 because he thought his amazing 40 time just made him a top pick and super rich?